Framework for a Nuclear Deal with Iran: apparently agreement

Steve Hayes - Demand the Documents
This is a bit troubling.

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, tells The Weekly Standard. “What Congress should demand is to see all the UBL [Osama bin Laden] documents related to Iran and all the documents related to intentions of AQ into the future—they are very telling.”

Click to expand...

What a weirdo, suggesting that Congress look at related documents before they adopt the treaty. What a strange concept.

Tidewater said:

Steve Hayes - Demand the Documents
This is a bit troubling.

Click to expand...

I'd call this part...

The bin Laden documents have long been the subject of a behind-the-scenes battle between the White House and elements of the intelligence community. After an initial scrub of the documents in the months after the May 2011 raid in Abbottabad, the Obama administration let them sit untouched for as long as a year. When officials at the DIA and Central Command requested access to the collection to extract intelligence and provide it to war fighters, they were initially denied. And soon after the team from DIA and CENTCOM was given limited access to the documents, they were ordered to stop their exploitation. What they did see was illuminating.

Click to expand...

... more than a bit troubling.

This is where a Congress that wasn't inept would come in handy.

TideEngineer08 said:

This is where a Congress that wasn't inept would come in handy.

Click to expand...

Like.

formersoldier71 said:

I'd call this part...

... more than a bit troubling.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed.
No one in the public will pay attention.
Any criticism will be silenced as "racism."
When New York or Washington or Tel Aviv disappears beneath a mushroom cloud, the useful idiots in the media (as long as it doesn't happen during the One's Administration, will quickly hold forth, "Well, cities did not get nuked while The One was in office. This is the fault of the Sander's Administration" (or Bush III or whoever), when anyone with an IQ above single digits (which admittedly excludes most of the media), will know why it happened.

Obama: Iran deal builds on diplomacy that won Cold War
Apparently, The One is in need of a history lesson (again).
The Iran deal is not analogous to winning the Cold War, unless the Cold War had ended with the US telling the Soviets, "We just want an agreement at any cost. You may occupy Western Europe at your leisure. We won't do anything to stop you."

I swear he is detached from reality. He lives in his own little world, where, when he says something, it is so, because he said it.

Tidewater said:

Obama: Iran deal builds on diplomacy that won Cold War
Apparently, The One is in need of a history lesson (again).
The Iran deal is not analogous to winning the Cold War, unless the Cold War had ended with the US telling the Soviets, "We just want an agreement at any cost. You may occupy Western Europe at your leisure. We won't do anything to stop you."

I swear he is detached from reality. He lives in his own little world, where, when he says something, it is so, because he said it.

Click to expand...

Dad-gum-it. I really miss that like button.

Sometimes I think it is arrogance, sometimes naiveté, other times I just think they are over their head.

Where does he get that the "rest of the world" supports this? He is sending Kerry everywhere trying to calm the regional states down and making promises that appear to be no more than their famous erasable lines. The only statement I have read that fully supported the deal without making any qualifying phrases came from Oman.

mittman said:

Dad-gum-it. I really miss that like button.

Sometimes I think it is arrogance, sometimes naiveté, other times I just think they are over their head.

Where does he get that the "rest of the world" supports this? He is sending Kerry everywhere trying to calm the regional states down and making promises that appear to be no more than their famous erasable lines. The only statement I have read that fully supported the deal without making any qualifying phrases came from Oman.

Click to expand...

I don't believe it is naiveté. I believe it's purposed, misguided, but purposed and deeply believed in by him and those in his administration.

Edited: I guess that describes naiveté in a way. But what I'm trying to say is, I don't believe they believe this will come to a peaceful end. I don't think they care. I believe they have their ideology that drives them. It's incredibly misguided, but they don't really care about results.

TideEngineer08 said:

I don't believe it is naiveté. I believe it's purposed, misguided, but purposed and deeply believed in by him and those in his administration.

Edited: I guess that describes naiveté in a way. But what I'm trying to say is, I don't believe they believe this will come to a peaceful end. I don't think they care. I believe they have their ideology that drives them. It's incredibly misguided, but they don't really care about results.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as to think that they don't care how it ends up.

I think they believe that the U.S. as a lone superpower is wrong for the world. I don't agree with this assessment.

I think they believe the U.S. is the primary cause of problems. I tend to agree with this in some cases, but not for the same reasons they do. IMO when we have made the biggest mistakes (and caused the most harm) it is usually not following through on a commitment. A lot of people disagree with me, but I believe our getting involved is usually not the mistake.

Playing nice with other countries does not automatically make them our friends. I think he really believes his attempted "resets" work. This is what I mean when I think he is naïve.

mittman said:

Dad-gum-it. I really miss that like button.

Sometimes I think it is arrogance, sometimes naiveté, other times I just think they are over their head.

Where does he get that the "rest of the world" supports this? He is sending Kerry everywhere trying to calm the regional states down and making promises that appear to be no more than their famous erasable lines. The only statement I have read that fully supported the deal without making any qualifying phrases came from Oman.

Click to expand...

Check this out.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate-moves-on/399713/

Quite a few support the deal. Including people from Israeli Intelligence. The P5+1 who helped negotiate the deal with us support it. The UN Security Council has voted in favor.

Your alternative is?

“What’s your better idea?” is a challenge any honest opponent must accept. If this deal fails—which means, if the U.S. Congress rejects an agreement that the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran have accepted—then something else will happen, and all known “somethings” involve faster Iranian progress toward a bomb.

seebell said:

Check this out.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate-moves-on/399713/

Quite a few support the deal. Including people from Israeli Intelligence. The P5+1 who helped negotiate the deal with us support it. The UN Security Council has voted in favor.

Your alternative is?

“What’s your better idea?” is a challenge any honest opponent must accept. If this deal fails—which means, if the U.S. Congress rejects an agreement that the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran have accepted—then something else will happen, and all known “somethings” involve faster Iranian progress toward a bomb.

Click to expand...

Chamberlain was convinced that giving the Sudetenland to hitler would stop war, and look how that turned out. Iran is and has been an enemy of the USA since the hostage crisis so why not stand firm?

81usaf92 said:

Chamberlain was convinced that giving the Sudetenland to hitler would stop war, and look how that turned out. Iran is and has been an enemy of the USA since the hostage crisis so why not stand firm?

Click to expand...

If we stand firm, maintaining the status quo, Iran could have an atomic bomb in three months. Is that a desirable outcome?

Unless there are more secret side agreements, here are some thoughts on how we might make a silk purse out of a sow's ear:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/05/how_congress_could_make_the_iran_deal_work_127656.html

Congress could make its approval contingent upon being fully informed about the substance of any side deals that Iran has made with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the agency that functions as U.N. weapons inspectors.

Click to expand...

Second, Congress could extend its review until Tehran complies with its commitment to resolve questions from the IAEA about 12 areas of Iranian activities that could be explained only as nuclear weapons development, the so-called “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program.

Click to expand...

Third, Congress should approve a resolution authorizing the use force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state in the event of significant cheating or breakout

Click to expand...

Fourth, Congress should establish a “Team B” of independent, nonpartisan experts with access to the highest levels of intelligence to assess Iran’s compliance with the deal. As Robert Joseph, a former under secretary of state for arms control under President George W. Bush, argued in Senate testimony, such efforts helped the intelligence community in the past evaluate the Soviet nuclear threat and Soviet arms control compliance.

Click to expand...

Fifth, Congress should authorize the Pentagon to sell Israel the means to protect itself in the event Iran breaks its promises. The weapon in question is the massive ordnance penetrator— the “bunker buster.” Allowing Israel access to it would reinforce the White House’s promise that significant Iranian cheating will not only be detected, but also punished.

Click to expand...

The fifth idea is very interesting in my opinion.

Good post 1986.

#3 is a good idea. Unfortunately Congress seems unable to perform its duty. They haven't even authorized the use of force against ISIS even though Obama asked for their authorization. Congress has shirked its duty it that respect for years.

#5. Let's not give Israel the bunker buster until we want them to use it. Only a short C-5 flight away.

seebell said:

Good post 1986.

#3 is a good idea. Unfortunately Congress seems unable to perform its duty. They haven't even authorized the use of force against ISIS even though Obama asked for their authorization. Congress has shirked its duty it that respect for years.

#5. Let's not give Israel the bunker buster until we want them to use it. Only a short C-5 flight away.

Click to expand...

I agree that #3 is a good idea too.

Can Israel deliver the latest US bunker buster? 15 tons.

seebell said:

Good post 1986.

#3 is a good idea. Unfortunately Congress seems unable to perform its duty. They haven't even authorized the use of force against ISIS even though Obama asked for their authorization. Congress has shirked its duty it that respect for years.

Click to expand...

You seem confused on our system of government. Not saying yes is, itself, a decision. Congress is under no obligation to rubber stamp a bad policy signed by the president. For this reason it is important that the president not be an arrogant jerk, because the other branches of the general government get a say on his policies.
In the pseudo-war against the French, Congress authorized US Navy ship captains to interdict French ships sailing to, but not sailing from French ports.

#5. Let's not give Israel the bunker buster until we want them to use it. Only a short C-5 flight away.

Click to expand...

"Bunker busters" have limits. If one is willing to dig enough and pour enough concrete, their effectiveness reaches its limitations.

jthomas666 said:

If we stand firm, maintaining the status quo, Iran could have an atomic bomb in three months. Is that a desirable outcome?

Click to expand...

False dichotomy.
Two points.
One, this is not an "all one thing or all another" proposition. The UN takes UN action, the US takes US actions. The EU takes EU actions. There may be some synergy if there is some really extraordinary act of contrition, repentance and serious indications of future good behavior on the part of the Iranians, and the international community can cooperate to achieve that synergy. There are, however, no real signs of any of those changes in Iranian behavior in this case. So the US ought to pursue US interests and keep the dang US sanctions in place at a minimum. Just because the UN decides to let the murdering savages of Tehran off the hook does not mean the US should. The a-holes in Tehran are not chanting "Death to the UN!" They are chanting death to America!"

Second, the US, despite His Arrogance's predilections, carries a lot of weight around the world. If the US adopts a policy, everybody listens. They might not all follow, bu everybody listens. You cannot say, "Well, everyone else is agreeing this policy, so we might as well." The UN & others adopted this "let Iran off the hook" policy because they saw the US pushing it so hard, and fell into line. If the US had stood firm, the others likely would have as well. Assuming a leadership role is so far from this intensely ideological man's agenda and preferences, he simply refuses to lead. And "things" happen when leaders don't lead.

As I have said before, I neither live in New York, Washington, Tel Aviv or the downwind fallout zones of any of these, but if the worst happens, Obama is going to own this one lock, stock and barrel.

Tidewater said:

You seem confused on our system of government. Not saying yes is, itself, a decision. Congress is under no obligation to rubber stamp a bad policy signed by the president. For this reason it is important that the president not be an arrogant jerk, because the other branches of the general government get a say on his policies.
In the pseudo-war against the French, Congress authorized US Navy ship captains to interdict French ships sailing to, but not sailing from French ports.


"Bunker busters" have limits. If one is willing to dig enough and pour enough concrete, their effectiveness reaches its limitations.

Click to expand...

One of us is confused. I think it's you. If Congress does not approve the air campaign against ISIS within 60 days -that time has already lapsed- then that particular use of force is illegal. Congress bewails and wrings their hands about the threat but takes no action in either direction.

Of course bunker busters have limits. Why is everyone so eager to use them?

jthomas666 said:

If we stand firm, maintaining the status quo, Iran could have an atomic bomb in three months. Is that a desirable outcome?

Click to expand...

If you put a boot up their butt and blow them them to kingdom come it would push that date to another hundred years. Obama is scared Russia will step in because Iran and Russia are quasi allies. But it is highly unlikely because Russia is involved in the Crimea.

Also why not give this same deal with Syria while we are at it because they have caused us so much trouble lately so why don't we appease them as well? Let's not forget Iran took advantage of another dummy president in 1980 only to cower away on the day a firm president took power. Also Iran sent insurgents over into Iraq to kill Americans and have taken hostages lately as well. So this deal is the deal of deals with the greatest people on earth*** blue font last sentence***