Yet another way to think about the Iran nuke deal

[CO. Hoosier]

It's more worthless than we thought.

The IAEA will allow Iran to investigate whether evidence exists of whether Iran is doing something it denies doing.

The AP reports that Iran will do its own compliance inspections at Parchin. Hm. As I said previously, Iran will destroy 98% of an illusion.

Any IAEA member country must give the agency some insight into its nuclear program. Some countries are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations- like Iran - suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

But the agreement diverges from normal inspection procedures between the IAEA and a member country by essentially ceding the agency's investigative authority to Iran. It allows Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence for activities that it has consistently denied - trying to develop nuclear weapons.​

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Our side must consist of some of the worst negotiators in history.

 

[NPT]

It's more worthless than we thought.

The IAEA will allow Iran to investigate whether evidence exists of whether Iran is doing something it denies doing.

The AP reports that Iran will do its own compliance inspections at Parchin. Hm. As I said previously, Iran will destroy 98% of an illusion.

Any IAEA member country must give the agency some insight into its nuclear program. Some countries are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations- like Iran - suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

But the agreement diverges from normal inspection procedures between the IAEA and a member country by essentially ceding the agency's investigative authority to Iran. It allows Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence for activities that it has consistently denied - trying to develop nuclear weapons.​

That gives me a lot of confidence but if Obama says it's a good deal then it must be a good deal...period.

 

[IU1]

It's more worthless than we thought.

The IAEA will allow Iran to investigate whether evidence exists of whether Iran is doing something it denies doing.

The AP reports that Iran will do its own compliance inspections at Parchin. Hm. As I said previously, Iran will destroy 98% of an illusion.

Any IAEA member country must give the agency some insight into its nuclear program. Some countries are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations- like Iran - suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

But the agreement diverges from normal inspection procedures between the IAEA and a member country by essentially ceding the agency's investigative authority to Iran. It allows Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence for activities that it has consistently denied - trying to develop nuclear weapons.​

This is easily the worst "treaty" attempt of my lifetime. At least Jimmy Carter tried to negotiate for hostages. Obama's faux terms, accept this deal or war, is the epitome of a false choice and was done on false pretenses. It is simply an awful deal for us, for the region, and for our only (former) ally in that region, Israel. It needs to be rejected and the sanctions need to be tightened so that America can use our economic weight to our advantage. Obama is in desperation mode to leave some kind of international legacy. Hopefully Congress will save him from himself.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Did anyone (including OP) read OP's link? This deal wasn't part of the negotiation. The US wasn't a party to these talks. They had nothing to do with Obama's team. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Did anyone (including OP) read OP's link? This deal wasn't part of the negotiation. The US wasn't a party to these talks. They had nothing to do with Obama's team. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Of course I read it. We and our negotiating partners were fully aware of the agreement according to the article, yet went ahead with the primary agreement anyway. We obviously have horrible negotiators on our side.

 

[Noodle]

Did anyone (including OP) read OP's link? This deal wasn't part of the negotiation. The US wasn't a party to these talks. They had nothing to do with Obama's team. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Did Obama's team negotiate a deal that allowed this to hapen?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Of course I read it. We and our negotiating partners were fully aware of the agreement according to the article, yet went ahead with the primary agreement anyway. We obviously have horrible negotiators on our side.

Did Obama's team negotiate a deal that allowed this to hapen?

The way I read it, Obama's team couldn't do anything about it. The IAEA did what it did, and the U.S. had to accept it.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Our side must consist of some of the worst negotiators in history.

Yet better than anything offered up so far so...

Republicans think they ought to be our foreign policy dictators and they can't even put forth a viable jobs bill.

They made taking American down STATED POLICY when Obama was elected and then proceded to shutdown the government due to pettiness and stupidity.

screw them, it is what they attempted to do to America.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Did anyone (including OP) read OP's link? This deal wasn't part of the negotiation. The US wasn't a party to these talks. They had nothing to do with Obama's team. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Ok, but other than all that, it's Obama's fault.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The way I read it, Obama's team couldn't do anything about it. The IAEA did what it did, and the U.S. had to accept it.

Why would you think that? Who provides the most monetary support to the UN? Who is a member of that committee and a permanent member of the UN Security Council? No one among all the negotiators had as much leverage as the U.S. and we seem to have acted acted as we had the least.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Why would you think that? Who provides the most monetary support to the UN? Who is a member of that committee and a permanent member of the UN Security Council? No one among all the negotiators had as much leverage as the U.S. and we seem to have acted acted as we had the least.

I just don't buy it. We got them to accept limitations on nukes and all we had to give up was some of their own money. You're just refusing to give Obama credit, because Obama!

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Yet better than anything offered up so far so...

Republicans think they ought to be our foreign policy dictators and they can't even put forth a viable jobs bill.

They made taking American down STATED POLICY when Obama was elected and then proceded to shutdown the government due to pettiness and stupidity.

screw them

Dude, I get that you hate Republicans. Why don't you stick to the merits of this deal? It's a deal that Republicans had no part in negotiating. Do you honestly think it's a good deal? I'm on board with the idea that we're stuck with it now and it's better than not doing it. I'm just totally unconvinced that it's a good deal or close to the best we could have done.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I just don't buy it. We got them to accept limitations on nukes and all we had to give up was some of their own money. You're just refusing to give Obama credit, because Obama!

We gave up "some of their own money" and they've been directly and indirectly responsible for killing Americans. Screw that "their money" crap. We should have and could have done better than this lousy deal. Yet we're stuck with it. Thanks Obama.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

I am a former republican, I want the party of old not this shit for brains party it has become can't accomplish jack except to whine and complain. Conservatives have become wimps due to them allowing religion and now the tea party to push them around.

Showing no backbone or leadership during all of these years.

They've accomplished nothing but to run a scam to go to war, which they are running again right as we are having this discussion on the arms treaty with the country they want to go to war with.

They don't have our best interest in mind but all those people paying for this upcoming billion dollar plus election.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

We gave up "some of their own money" and they've been directly and indirectly responsible for killing Americans. Screw that "their money" crap. We should have and could have done better than this lousy deal. Yet we're stuck with it. Thanks Obama.

Can you offer a realistic example of a deal that would have satisfied you that you honestly think we could have gotten?

 

[Noodle]

The way I read it, Obama's team couldn't do anything about it. The IAEA did what it did, and the U.S. had to accept it.

In other words, yes, they did negotiate a deal that allowed the IAEA and Iran to work out their own arrangement with regard to inspections. At what point do people stop proclaiming this was the best deal the US could negotiate and start facing reality. This deal was negotiated by buffoons.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I am a former republican, I want the party of old not this shit for brains party it has become can't accomplish jack except to whine and complain. Conservatives have become wimps due to them allowing religion and now the tea party to push them around.

Showing no backbone or leadership during all of these years.

They've accomplished nothing but to run a scam to go to war, which they are running again right as we are having this discussion on the arms treaty with the country they want to go to war with.

They don't have our best interest in mind but all those people paying for this upcoming billion dollar plus election that

Again, I get that you hate Republicans. I honestly don't care. That screed has nothing to do with the merits of the deal.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

I do believe the IAEA would be made up of various representatives from various countries isn't it. One could almost call it a coalition of foreign powers...

 

[Noodle]

Can you offer a realistic example of a deal that would have satisfied you that you honestly think we could have gotten?

Can you offer an example of something we asked for that Iran said no way will that happen? That's the same silly question.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Better question is what is it you think they haven't brought to the table?

They have precedents and history for doing this sort of thing. I bet they even made concessions and demands with other nations and have some other treaties to compare this against. What in their history can you say helps show they will screw this up?

It took Bush removing the inspectors in Korea for it to finish it's nuke program...

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Can you offer an example of something we asked for that Iran said no way will that happen? That's the same silly question.

No, it's not. If you're going to criticize this as a bad deal, I want to know what a good deal would have looked like.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Can you offer a realistic example of a deal that would have satisfied you that you honestly think we could have gotten?

Do you really think this is a good deal? one side thinks this is a great deal. That isn't this side.

 

[toastedbread]

No, it's not. If you're going to criticize this as a bad deal, I want to know what a good deal would have looked like.

More stringent inspections with no facilities "off-limits".

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Yes, I think this is as good a deal as we can get.

It is the best deal we've had to this date, so we take it or we go to war.

Why do you want to go to war? That is the stated alternative of the republican party and the all those billionaires lost money on the last presidential election investments.

So those billionaires are doubling down on this election and making it the most expensive election in our history.

That is their accomplishment here...

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Yes, I think this is as good a deal as we can get.

It is the best deal we've had to this date, so we take it or we go to war.

Why do you want to go to war? That is the stated alternative of the republican party and the all those billionaires lost money on the last presidential election investments.

That's a false choice. It's not this or war. That's stupid. Two months ago the President said no deal was better than a bad deal. Did he think no deal meant war? Of course he didn't. Neither do those that oppose this deal. Not one single Republican candidate for President has said any such thing either.

 

[Noodle]

No, it's not. If you're going to criticize this as a bad deal, I want to know what a good deal would have looked like.

How about a deal that at least requires actual inspections of sites by a third party? Not the sham side deal between Iran and the IAEA that's being reported. That, quite logically, should have been one of the first requirements of any deal.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

A sham is thinking war is a better alternative.

Don't forget they've (Israel, US, our allies) have been saber rattling for decades on this very thing and they've yet to get it right.

So why should we have any faith in what they complain about? Not one of those detractors involved can tout how honest they are here.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

A sham is thinking war is a better alternative.

Don't forget they've (Israel, US, our allies) have been saber rattling for decades on this very thing and they've yet to get it right.

So why should we have any faith in what they complain about?

What?

 

[Noodle]

A sham is thinking war is a better alternative.

Don't forget they've (Israel, US, our allies) have been saber rattling for decades on this very thing and they've yet to get it right.

So why should we have any faith in what they complain about?

I don't think war is a better idea. But avoiding war does not mean we should just capitulate at every turn. That's as asinine as thinking war with Iran is a good idea.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

If you go on their own history it tells you, you can't take them at their word.

That is what the religious influence and the tea party have done to the right.

Look around, you want us to believe how strong the party is when they can't even manage to contain minority political groups within the party?

Where is this "good" advice the country has so benefited from that they've accomplished?

What, who's been a better leader? Thanks Obama...

 

[toastedbread]

If you go on their own history it tells you, you can't take them at their word.

That is what the religious influence and the tea party have done to the right.

Look around, you want us to believe how strong the party is when they can't even manage to contain minority political groups within the party?

Where is this "good" advice the country has so benefited from that they've accomplished?

What, who's been a better leader? Thanks Obama...

What are you talking about?

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

I don't think this has jack shit to do with the treaty.

This has to do with an election being held next year and them not wanting to let Obama shine on what is a good treaty. After all that'd help Obama's rep/poll numbers and the dems going into an election year.

This is just more of the same, the treaty is strictly an aside to the very same agenda they stated before Obama even took office.

To do what they could to see that he failed, and they are still doing it. That is why they don't offer up their own plan. It isn't about the treaty.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

How about a deal that at least requires actual inspections of sites by a third party? Not the sham side deal between Iran and the IAEA that's being reported. That, quite logically, should have been one of the first requirements of any deal.

It just seems to me we were bent over a barrel. I suspect we had to choose between:
1. Accepting this deal.
2. Continuing sanctions unilaterally.

#2 would have been untenable if our participation in the deal was required for Iran to give up anything at all, which I suspect it was.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

If you go on their own history it tells you, you can't take them at their word.

That is what the religious influence and the tea party have done to the right.

Look around, you want us to believe how strong the party is when they can't even manage to contain minority political groups within the party?

Where is this "good" advice the country has so benefited from that they've accomplished?

What, who's been a better leader? Thanks Obama...

Again, what? I can't understand what you're talking about.

 

[toastedbread]

It just seems to me we were bent over a barrel. I suspect we had to choose between:
1. Accepting this deal.
2. Continuing sanctions unilaterally.

#2 would have been untenable if our participation in the deal was required for Iran to give up anything at all, which I suspect it was.

Well these negotiations were dragged out for years... I suspect we could have applied more pressure at various points. The delays simply helped the Iranian side. Zariff is no dummy. He played Kerry liked a fiddle.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I don't think this has jack shit to do with the treaty.

This has to do with an election being held next year and them not wanting to let Obama shine on what is a good treaty. After all that'd help Obama's rep/poll numbers and the dems going into an election year.

This is just more of the same, the treaty is strictly an aside to the very same agenda they stated before Obama even took office.

To do what they could to see that he failed, and they are still doing it. That is why they don't offer up their own plan. It isn't about the treaty.

I think we all now understand you hate Republicans. Got it. Thanks IU-C.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

1) Republicans have stated a policy of making Obama look bad and if that means the US goes down in flames so be it. This is STATED policy by them.

2) They object here and say it's a bad deal.
Yet we've never had a "better" deal and it certainly beats "no deal". So why weren't they involved in the process? Maybe because this division they've brought to our politics (see 1) and the tea party stated policy (again) of you're either with us or against us. Lemmings

3) Election right now the republicans are looking like fools and not doing real well in the polls. So why would they want to help Obama look good and with that the democrats. They won't, they can't if they want a chance to win next year, IMHO. Thus their opposition to this treaty for no other reason than self-interest.

 

[toastedbread]

1) Republicans have stated a policy of making Obama look bad and if that means the US goes down in flames so be it. This is STATED policy by them.

2) They object here and say it's a bad deal.
Yet we've never had a "better" deal and it certainly beats "no deal". So why weren't they involved in the process? Maybe because this division they've brought to our politics (see 1) and the tea party stated policy (again) of you're either with us or against us. Lemmings

3) Election right now the republicans are looking like fools and not doing real well in the polls. So why would they want to help Obama look good and with that the democrats. They won't, they can't if they want a chance to win next year, IMHO. Thus their opposition to this treaty for no other reason than self-interest.

Sorry, but you think most politicians are different? They are all scumbags. 99%.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Sorry, but you think most politicians are different? They are all scumbags. 99%.

He's right about one thing. There are GOP leaders in Congress on the record as saying their primary goal is to simply oppose anything Obama does, regardless of policy. That's above and beyond even normal scumbag levels for most politicians.