It doesn't seem to matter what Iran says or does, we simply have to have a "deal" with them.



Hezbollah, Assad, and Yemen all have one thing in common: Iran. So, we've pretty much made it like none of them are a big deal--even as we have to evacuate our embassy and then our Spec. Ops. forces from Yemen.

It wasn't so long ago the President cited Yemen as the example of how to handle terrorism.

On the other hand, Israel? Meh, we can live without them. After all, Netanyahu is the "real" problem.

Agreed. And I hate to sound too much like a Republican, but it's funny how both sides forget their own reactions to a certain Speaker of the House when she decided she would meet with the Syrians despite the objections of the President, State Dept., etc.

I suppose we're going to give Iran foreign aid next...just watch.

When considering whether to make a deal, a lot depends on what is in that deal. I don't know what the "deal" with Iran actually entails, as much as sone claim various attributes to it, so far it hasn't been reached yet.

But this newly elected Israeli government, like the previous Israeli government, is set to renege on deals it made - speeding up settlement building, blocking moves to making deals with the PA, ruling out the two-state solution that has been the US-supported policy for over 20 years, regardless of which party was in power.

But anyone reading the above would think that the talks with Iran had not just been suspended. Or not have a clue that the two reasons Iran came to the table were the oil sanctions and that the West has been sabotaging Iranin imports of nuclear tech. Basically, America and her allies have been using covert tactics to hit Iran's nuclear programme, and would be able to again if Iran violated a deal.

danivon

Basically, America and her allies have been using covert tactics to hit Iran's nuclear programme, and would be able to again if Iran violated a deal.

There has been some success in the past. But relying upon the ability of the West to interdict isn't a solution. Most experts say the last interventions really only set them back a matter of months
Iran is now in a position to produce a bomb. They haven't. Mostly because their leaders calculate that what they might gain in having a bomb would cost them in continued isolation and economic sanctions. And those things make their domestic situation more difficult. Its from within that their greatest challenge to continued power exists.

Strangely, although Iran have the means to produce nuclear weapons, they don't have the means to launch an independent nuclear energy program. That takes far more centrifuges than a bomb. Interesting article on this conundrum.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -not-powe/

The reason a deal is vital, is because without it, the only recourse to stopping Iran should they give up on trying to end their isolation and decide on the nuclear option ... is exactly what you suggest, sabotage. And the chance of a repeated success has to be less likely than the first attempts....
The reason a deal is vital is that a nuclear power industry would rely on imported enriched uranium (from Russia) and that is easy to monitor.

hacker

Agreed. And I hate to sound too much like a Republican, but it's funny how both sides forget their own reactions to a certain Speaker of the House when she decided she would meet with the Syrians despite the objections of the President, State Dept., etc.
I suppose we're going to give Iran foreign aid next...just watch

.

Selective memory is a funny thing. I wonder who remembers that it was only 2 years ago that the CIA finally admitted their involvement in planning and executing the coup in 1953 that ended a democratically elected government in Iran because it wanted to continue to have western oil companies exploit Iranian oil reserves.
Or how many remember that the US armed Iraq and assisted them with intelligence in their war with Iraq? Or that the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner killing 290 (66 children)in 1988?
How many remember that Israel attacked the USS LIberty and killed 34 servicemen.. Or that Israel has been the nation charged with espionage in the US most often? Or that Israel has left the US out to dry on political accommodation with Palestine any number of times?

These would all seem to be memories that illustrate the complex history and the grievances between the US and Israel and the US and Iran. But memories not often referenced or widely known in the US. Nancy Pelossi's conversation with Assad is key though?

Trying to reduce the complexities of the region and its history into a simple caricature or to consider the inner workings of Congressional politics as an important consideration in reaching a deal, strikes me as pretty silly.
Six nations are negotiating with Iran in a sane responsible manner in order to ensure that a measure of security is provided to the world when Iran inevitably develops a nuclear energy industry. Economic sanctions have largely forced Iran to face the consequence of needing to participate in a verifiable treaty in order to grow its economy. For mostly internal reasons their government seems prepared to ignore the incongruity of their signing a treaty whilst Israel retains its weapons. And all of that is a good thing.
Reducing the complex nature of the regions history and US involvement to some caricature of us versus them good or good guys versus bad guys is typically unproductive.
The result that Israel and conservatives in the US want is Iran on its knees, or even better - another Iranian regime change, manufactured by western pressure. This is not even remotely possible.
The result most of the world wants is an engaged Iran, trading and working with it neighbors and increasingly interested in a productive relationship with the world. If, in order to achieve this, they then need to allow their nuclear industry to be inspected and controlled to negotiated standards we all win. And this does seem achievable..
The result that most of the world wants

Are you saying that Pelosi's actions are ok?

I see that your world is seen through a lens that filters out all liberal mis-doings, but can you just give a straight answer on Pelosi?

bbauska wrote:Are you saying that Pelosi's actions are ok?

I see that your world is seen through a lens that filters out all liberal mis-doings, but can you just give a straight answer on Pelosi?

What did she do that was so wrong? She visited Syria, back in 2007 and met with Assad. And?

Did she, for example, attempt to negotiate a treaty with him? Or tell him not to negotiate a treaty with the current Executive branch of the US? Did she bring him to Congress to get him to speak and welcome him more warmly than her own President? Three Republican congressmen visited Assad at about the same time: Aderholt, Wolf and Pitts. Hobson and Issa were in Syria but did not see Assad.

The Syrians were pleased to get so many politicians visit but expressed disappointment that Pelosi's positions were similar to those of Bush.

The only real issue was over a message from Olmert to Assad that she relayed. Olmert had said something along the lines that Israel would not deal with Syria while it supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which Pelosi gave as being open to talking on the condition that they stopped (wording differences may have been subtle or it may only have been a matter of emphasis).

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Are you saying that Pelosi's actions are ok?

I see that your world is seen through a lens that filters out all liberal mis-doings, but can you just give a straight answer on Pelosi?

What did she do that was so wrong? She visited Syria, back in 2007 and met with Assad. And?

Did she, for example, attempt to negotiate a treaty with him? Or tell him not to negotiate a treaty with the current Executive branch of the US? Did she bring him to Congress to get him to speak and welcome him more warmly than her own President? Three Republican congressmen visited Assad at about the same time: Aderholt, Wolf and Pitts. Hobson and Issa were in Syria but did not see Assad.

The Syrians were pleased to get so many politicians visit but expressed disappointment that Pelosi's positions were similar to those of Bush.

The only real issue was over a message from Olmert to Assad that she relayed. Olmert had said something along the lines that Israel would not deal with Syria while it supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which Pelosi gave as being open to talking on the condition that they stopped (wording differences may have been subtle or it may only have been a matter of emphasis).

To me this is not different than Republicans saying to a foreign nation that the policies put into effect via Executive Order can be rescinded by the Executive Order of a Republican President.

Treaties need to be ratified by the Senate in the US. I have enclosed the Whitehouse.gov link for your assistance in how the Constitution says the US government should be run..

https://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/legislative-branch

danivon wrote:When considering whether to make a deal, a lot depends on what is in that deal. I don't know what the "deal" with Iran actually entails, as much as sone claim various attributes to it, so far it hasn't been reached yet.

I disagree on two counts: 1) the "with whom" aspect is completely missing; 2) this begs the question: why are "we" so friendly toward the Iranians and so antagonistic toward the Israelis? Is Netanyahu so much less trustworthy than the "death to America" chanting ayatollahs?

But this newly elected Israeli government, like the previous Israeli government, is set to renege on deals it made - speeding up settlement building, blocking moves to making deals with the PA, ruling out the two-state solution that has been the US-supported policy for over 20 years, regardless of which party was in power.

Okay, so how are the Palestinians doing? The Israelis are not acting in a vacuum.

But anyone reading the above would think that the talks with Iran had not just been suspended. Or not have a clue that the two reasons Iran came to the table were the oil sanctions and that the West has been sabotaging Iranin imports of nuclear tech. Basically, America and her allies have been using covert tactics to hit Iran's nuclear programme, and would be able to again if Iran violated a deal.

No, what they ought to be thinking is how much contortion the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team has gone through begging the Iranians not to do what they clearly aim to do. It doesn't matter how many times Iran says "no," the "team" clings bitterly to the notion that something will cause the nihilistic sponsors of terror to suddenly become responsible actors. The word "delusional" only begins to describe the Obama foreign policy.

bbauska

Are you saying that Pelosi's actions are ok?

No. I think she was wrong to go, at least in the fashion and saying the things she did. Danivon, the Israelis government at the time disagreed with her "message" to Assad.

I'm saying they aren't of significant consequence.

It may be that the Republicans weighing in from the Senate end up being as inconsequential. They seem to have over simplified the nature of the agreement and the Congressional role...

It is an exaggeration to say that future Congresses could "modify" an agreement "at any time." The possible agreement with Iran is being negotiated between the five permanent United Nations Security Council members plus one: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China, plus Germany. So for the agreement to be truly modified, the other signatories would have to sign off, Peake said -- something that is hardly a sure thing.

Instead, Congress could pass legislation that conflicts with the agreement, effectively "modifying" it. But Congress' ability to carry this out is more difficult than the senators' blithe language suggests. "It would take presidential acquiescence or a supermajority -- two-thirds to override a veto -- for Congress to act independently to stiffen sanctions," Peake said. "It is very complex."

Cotton's letter was signed by 47 senators, significantly less than the 67 senators needed to override a presidential veto. The 2016 elections are months away, but given the electoral map, it seems unlikely Republicans would be able to pick up that many more seats. Of course, the GOP could win the White House, in which case they may not need to override, but given the typical Senate threshold for taking up legislation, they would still need 60 votes, a challenging task.

• Going back on an executive agreement may violate international law. While Congress has the power to violate international law -- and the ability of the international community to punish a violation is debatable -- "the real question, which I think both sides are missing, is whether overriding would violate international law," which requires compliance with binding agreements, said Michael D. Ramsey, a law professor at the University of San Diego.

• Going back on an executive agreement could have significant, if intangible, consequences for the nation’s diplomatic credibility. Retreating from one executive agreement would be a pretty radical step historically and could endanger the nation's ability to both ensure that old agreements stand and to strike new agreements.

"For the president to vacate an executive agreement would be quite problematic," Peake said. It "would be largely unprecedented and cause the U.S. a great deal of grief in diplomacy, especially since 95 percent of international agreements are done via executive agreement rather than the constitutional treaty process." Indeed, Peake said, "It could call into question America’s commitment to the vast majority of her international agreements."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... t-about-c/

fate

; 2) this begs the question: why are "we" so friendly toward the Iranians and so antagonistic toward the Israelis? Is Netanyahu so much less trustworthy than the "death to America" chanting ayatollahs?

For 25 years Iran (through the Shah) and the US had a very special relationship. It was very close. Then came a very popular revolution against the installed Shah...
Iran at least had very good reasons to mistrust and dislike the US. And the continuing animosity by the US after the Iranian revolution, in aiding Saddam's Iraq against them fueled that animosity. It wasn't an "irrational" hatred. The animus was earned.

Is Netanyahu trustworthy?
Sarkozy famously declared him a liar.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a cabinet meeting “every word that leaves Netanyahu’s mouth is a lie”.
Following a botched assassination attempt on a Palestinian leader in Jordan, Netanyahu lied about the Israeli role in the plot, leading President Clinton to tell his staff: “I cannot deal with this man. He is impossible.”
Former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates wrote in his memoir: “I was offended by his glibness and his criticism of US policy, his arrogance and outlandish ambition – and I told National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft that Bibi (Netanyahu) ought not be allowed back on White House grounds.”

His recent back tacking on his outrageous campaign statements confirm a pattern.

At least the Iranians are honest about their animosity.

Ricky:

Or that Israel has been the nation charged with espionage in the US most often?

Source?

rickyp

Or that Israel has been the nation charged with espionage in the US most often?

ray
Source?

Charged is wrong.
Most active is what newsweek claims
http://www.newsweek.com/israel-wont-sto ... -us-249757

http://www.newsweek.com/israels-aggress ... hed-250278

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/05/israel-spies-other

Famously convicted of spying for Israel was Pollard.n the 80s and Herzog in the 50s...

rickyp wrote:rickyp

Or that Israel has been the nation charged with espionage in the US most often?

ray
Source?

Charged is wrong.
Most active is what newsweek claims
http://www.newsweek.com/israel-wont-sto ... -us-249757

http://www.newsweek.com/israels-aggress ... hed-250278

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/05/israel-spies-other

Famously convicted of spying for Israel was Pollard.n the 80s and Herzog in the 50s...

Would you agree that's all hearsay, and not proven?

P.S. I'm going to guess that 2 of the countries in the P5 negotiating with Iran have both more charges and are more active than Israel in espionage against the US..

http://www.timesofisrael.com/new-nsa-do ... age-in-us/

P.S. I'm going to guess that 2 of the countries in the P5 negotiating with Iran have both more charges and are more active than Israel in espionage against the US

Yeah. But they aren't supposed to be trusted friends.