Iran

5 Things to Know About the Iran Deal

Could be less than two days away

|

euronews

These talks have been going on since 2013—the issue is decades old.

Western concern over Iran's nuclear programs goes back decades. Since the late 1990s, various intelligence agencies have been warning Iran was just a couple of years away from a nuclear bomb. In 2003, weapons inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran's nuclear activities were not in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a party. Later that year, talks started between Iran and France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. They broke down in 2005 over Iran's nuclear enrichment activities.

The talks being held in Vienna started nearly two years ago between Iran, the United States, and France, Germany, the U..K., Russia, and China, after Iran agreed to halt its enrichment program in exchange for limited sanctions relief. In April, negotiators struck a framework for a deal, and then started arguing over what the deal entailed. That framework set a late June deadline to finalize a deal—negotiators missed that deadline, and another one this week, giving themselves three more days to make a deal. Pushing the deadline back means extending sanctions relief provided for in the framework, and earlier.

It's supposed to be a multilateral deal, but it's really about Iran and the U.S.

In late 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry claimed there was a missed opportunity for a deal in 2003, when an unsigned memo sent via fax through the Swiss ambassador in Iran claimed Iranian leaders were willing to talk about Iran's nuclear program, its refusal to recognize the state of Israel, and its support for regional militant groups in wider negotiations. Relatively high level officials from Iran and the U.S. were talking at the time about al-Qaeda, not Iran's nuclear program, but didn't mention it. Hassan Rouhani, now the president of Iran and in 2003 Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, mentioned in 2012 that he had heard President Bush was interested in all-encompassing talks in 2003, but that no one from Iran went for it.

France, Germany, and the U.K. tried, but eventually the talks broke down. Russia, China, and the U.S. first joined in 2006, and talks were on-and-off since then. In 2010, Turkey and Brazil tried to broker an agreement on Iran's nuclear supply, but it was shot down by the U.S. It was the U.S.'s concession of "permitting" Iran to continue enrichment during talks that kickstarted negotiations in 2013. Despite the participation of other countries over the years, the U.S.'s role has been critical, because of the part the U.S. plays in the sanctions regime imposed on Iran and its security commitments in Europe and the Middle East. The U.S. doesn't have to be at the center of the issue, but that's where it placed itself.

Once negotiators agree to something, it has to be approved by the different countries' domestic processes.

The U.S. Congress is the first place most people will look if a deal is struck in Vienna. In April, Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, a measure that would create a 60-day window for Congress to approve a deal after one is struck, but the deal with have to go through the wringer of other countries' domestic processes as well. And it's not just Republicans and a few Democrats in Congress expressing concern over the deal. The head of the foreign affairs committee of the French National Assembly said the French parliament was a "guardian" against a deal she said it appeared the U.S. and Iran were too eager to make. The domestic politics around the Iran deal illustrate much of its futility. Is President Obama seeking a deal good for the region, or a deal good for his legacy? Residents in the U.S., France, and elsewhere all might have opinions about Iran, but the threat of a potential Iranian nuclear bomb is more limited. The U.S. is out of range of any missiles Iranians have developed—where the French might be more worried, they should have more of a role in the deal, and the U.S. less.

Critics say Obama weakened the U.S. position in negotiations. No, the Iraq war did that.

Domestic critics of President Obama's stance on Iranian negotiations claim the president has weakened America's position. The argument boils down to: President Obama expressed too much willingness to talk, thus weakening America's position in talks, an odd, tautological argument against the prospect of diplomacy. Which isn't to say the American position isn't weaker compared to where it was. Whether or not the Swiss fax was a serious thing—Richard Armitage, a U.S. diplomatic official, said the U.S. would have taken it more seriously had officials known it had the backing of Mohammad Zarif, now the Iranian foreign minister—a better deal was likely possible ten years ago.

After the U.S. invaded Iraq over its alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 2003, Col. Qaddafi, then the leader of Libya, unilaterally announced he would give up his own country's WMD program. He was ousted during a Western-backed civil war in Libya in 2011. The war in Iraq signaled to countries the U.S. was willing, at least then, to expend a lot of resources and take a lot of risks to prevent the possibility of certain nemeses possessing certain kinds of weapons. Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, said after his capture by U.S. forces that he was bluffing about holding weapons of mass destruction because he believed the U.S. was bluffing and had known that he was too.

Hussein's WMD bluff was aimed at Iran, whom he feared more than the U.S. as a potential aggressor. In the intervening years, the U.S. managed, through the war in Iraq, to display that it could not back its WMD demands with competent military force while also, through the Libyan civil war, illustrate why perhaps relinquishing WMDs was not the wisest move for a regime that might have a tenuous grasp on power.

Iran doesn't recognize the state of Israel, but Israel isn't the only country in the region worried about a deal.

The Islamic Republic of Iran does not recognize Israel as a state. While the current president eschews the kind of anti-Semitic rhetoric popular with his predecessor, Iran's refusal to recognize the Jewish state and its support for Palestinian militant groups has made Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu one of the fiercest critics of a nuclear deal with Iran. But he's not the only one.

For similar reasons, Saudi Arabia is worried about a deal. The Arab kingdom is waging a proxy war against Iran, leading a military campaign against Iranian-backed militants that overthrew the government in Yemen. Iran recognizes Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia isn't at the negotiating table either. Saudi Arabia and Israel, not allies themselves, are both aligned with the U.S., and would prefer to see American negotiators take a harder-line stance because that reflects their own.

But U.S. participation in nuclear talks is part of the reason Saudi Arabia, at least, isn't participating. Insofar as Iran's nuclear program is a security issue, it's a regional one. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons—and no talks preceded the program that led to them. Iran points to countries like Pakistan and Brazil, both with nuclear programs (and the former a nuclear weapons program) to which other world powers acquiesced only after the programs were fruitful. India, too, was condemned for its nuclear weapons program. Now it strikes nuclear trade deals with the U.S.

For different reasons, Iran and the rest of the world look to the U.S. to approve Iran's nuclear program—believing it will monitor any program it "permits." It's an inappropriate role for the U.S., one that has the perverse effect of encouraging nuclear proliferation while discouraging engagement over non-proliferation.

Advertisement

NEXT: That elusive distinction between rights courts are competent at articulating and protecting, and rights they are not

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. activity disguised as action. Barry makes Trump looks like a statesman. If you’re not going to do anything, then just don’t do anything. But spare us the dog and pony show.

    1. You’re just worried that Obama may finally do something to deserve that Nobel Peace Prize and that Team Red won’t have an issue to scare the rubes with for 2016.

      1. I’m pretty sure that six years Obama has nothing left. Not that he had much to begin with.

      2. Palin’s Buttplug|7.7.15 @ 9:40PM|#
        “You’re just worried that Obama may finally do something to deserve that Nobel Peace Prize…”

        Turd, giving away the farm to get agreement is only ‘deserving’ to slimy bastards like you. Fuck off

      3. Obama may finally do something to deserve that Nobel Peace Prize

        I laffed.

  2. Critics say Obama weakened the U.S. position in negotiations. No, the Iraq war did that

    Oh shit. The Team Red Peanuts won’t like this deviation from their conservative talking points.

    1. Well what Ed didn’t mention (and you are incapable of mentioning) is that while it may be true the Iraq war damaged the U.S. position in negotiations, it is equally true Obama has done the same.

      It is not binary. Both can be true.

      1. The sanctions are working. You cannot deny that fact.

        1. Sure they are. That is why Obama is doing everything he can to end them.

        2. then why is Obama not supportive of them?

          1. Turd lies. That’s what turd does.

  3. the U.S. managed, through the war in Iraq, to display that it could not back its WMD demands with competent military force

    Saddam ended up on the end of a rope. Maybe your idea of assurance is “don’t worry, if the US invades you and everyone in the government will end up dead but eventually the US will leave and the new government will have a very hard time fighting off an insurgency from Syria” but I doubt that would make the Iranians feel to good. And what reason other than fantasy is there to believe that the US would be in a better position confronting Iran if it was still trying to contain Saddam? Moreover, since there are no circumstances short of outright Iranian invasion, and even then with some dissent among the staff, that Reason would ever support the use of force against Iran. Given that fact, it is difficult to see how Reason’s opinion on the strength of the US bargaining position really matters.

  4. Iran points to countries like Pakistan and Brazil, both with nuclear programs (and the former a nuclear weapons program) to which other world powers acquiesced only after the programs were fruitful. India, too, was condemned for its nuclear weapons program.

    You just admitted in the previous sentence that Iran’s own neighbors, even ones who are enemies consider Iran a threat. last I looked Chile and Bolivia were not on the phone demanding something be done about the Brazilian nuclear program. Why is it Ed you are smart enough to figure out that it is not guns that are dangerous but the people who use them yet you seem incapable of understanding that same lesson with respect to nations?

    The bottom line is that there is no deal and there won’t be one. There will be just magic words that allow Obama to pretend he did something and the Democrats to blame Iran getting the bomb on the next President or the Republican Congress. That is it.

  5. I know I’ve been trembling in fear at the thought of the Iranian gov getting nukes. I hope the deal goes through so I can get a good night’s sleep again!

    1. Its always good to bet your life on the survival instincts of obvious lunatics or failing that the statesmanship and trustworthiness of the Chocolate Nixon.

      1. I’m sure, that as a ruling elite, their priorities are maintaining: 1. the looting, 2. the high of being the top of the social pyramid, 3. the ego-stroking that comes from others in the world by how they treat high-level people. 4. etc

        Somewhat farther down the list would be anything related to their fundamentalism. Therefore they’re not interested in killing the golden goose.

        1. NO, their priority is staying alive and ensuring their own people don’t murder them for their crimes. They are more afraid of their own people than they are of us. That means you can’t depend on them doing what is in the best interests of the country or not chancing a war. They will absolutely chance a war or do something that to the outside seems crazy if the alternative is losing control of the country. To the outside world Saddam’s refusal to allow UN inspectors seems insane. He had shut down his WMD program. So why did he go to war and end up dead trying to hide a program that wasn’t running? Because if it ever got out he didn’t have WMDs, his own people were certain to kill him. That is another error in this piece. Saddam had WMDs to bluff his own people not just the Iranians.

    2. It’s time for the GOP to whip out their color-coded Terror Threat O-Meter and start convincing the electorate to shit their pants over Iran’s future WMD. Any treaty will limit the effectiveness of such a campaign tactic.

      They have an election to win!

      1. But I thought the Mexicans and the gays were going to give the Democrats total control of the government for like forever!!

        Suck it dipshit.

      2. You’re right, we don’t have anything to worry about with Iran having nukes. It’s not like Iran has a decades long track record of murdering Americans, either directly or by proxy. Oh, wait…

  6. We will always be on the verge of an Iranian deal to take Alqeda’s second in command for a Greek default within ten years of a cost effective solar powered sustained fusion in a Southeast Asian ground war.

    1. That’s cold-blooded, dude.

      1. I see what you did there…

        1. Cool, I like when you’re around. Any good/fun news out of the nuke power industry lately?

          1. Not too much. Japan is loading fuel into its first reactor to restart since they were forced to shut down after Fukushima. That’s good for Japanese energy prices.

            Otherwise, pretty boring.

            1. Ok, no rad news today.

                1. If I knew you were such a bad reactor to them I would not have had atom.

                2. I think we’re going to need a moderator here.

                  1. I though Rod was in control.

  7. “he Islamic Republic of Iran does not recognize Israel as a state. “

    No kidding?

    Guess who else doesn’t recognize Israel as a state?

    At present, a total of 32 United Nations member states do not recognise the State of Israel: 18 of the 22 members of the Arab League: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen; a further 11 members of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Chad, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, and Pakistan. Other countries which do not recognise Israel include Bhutan, Cuba, and North Korea”

    see, the issue isn’t ‘recognition’.

    The issue is, “which one of these countries has for decades funded terrorist groups to kill Israelis, and has vowed to eliminate its people”.

    Small detail, I know, but slightly relevant to why we’re not sweating Cuba’s lack of support for the jewish homeland.

    1. Come on Gilmore, get with the program. Iran having nukes is no different than Brazil or France having nukes. The only reason anyone would think differently because they are a war monger tea bagger or on the Jewish payroll.

    2. If you take oil out of the calculation I wonder if all those countries combined have a GDP that equals Israel’s.

      1. Indonesia by itself has 250m people, and an almost-trillion$ economy (~2.5-3x that of Israel)

        Malaysia is about half that in USD terms, but still dwarfs Israels’ economy.

        Neither rely on oil.

        1. Well shame on me for assuming that Islam-dominated countries sucked at business. Or was I assuming that the Jews were just that good?

          1. No, your comment was generally correct – just that you overlooked the 300m SE Asian Muslims and their very-large industrial export economies. People do have a habit of doing that, BTW. People often pretend “muslim” means “arab”. I’ve seen newspapers call Afghanistan an “arab” country. Its not your fault so much.

            1. Whooo! I’m not totally made of suck!

  8. 1- Treaty
    2- Sanctions end
    3- $35 oil on election day
    4- mass GOP pants shit

    1. Wow you are a retard. And I am not so sure you don’t rule the night. I don’t care what the other people say.

      1. Without the bogus Iran “threat”, with 4.8% UE, and $35 oil – what the fuck are you idiot conservatives going to run on?

        GAWD and GUNS? You GOPers have nothing else.

        1. Iran and oil prices are all that matters. You’re right.

          So good thing we aren’t all GOPers. Did you forget what website your’e at again Shriek?

          1. I’ve been addressing Red Tony, wareagle, and Suthenboy – all Team Red.

            1. Palin’s Buttplug|7.7.15 @ 10:06PM|#”
              “I’ve been addressing Red Tony,…”
              You’ve been spouting lefty lies, turd.

        2. You can stomp your feet and scream your lies all you want shreek. Your marxist buddies aren’t going to win in 2016.

          Also, how are those free market reforms known as Obamacare working out? Premiums and costs are down, are they?

          1. A curve has been bent!

          2. Your marxist buddies aren’t going to win in 2016.

            Sadly, given that we have a uniparty that pretends to be two parties for TV, it’s almost a sure bet that the statists will be in control at the end of the election day.

    2. I can’t figure out which is the stupidest argument, yours or John’s. I award each of you the Richman Medal with Chapman clusters.

  9. I’m guessing the kfc pizza chicken has already made the rounds but just in case.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanha……kcvLK4BV2

    1. Intriguing. Too bad it will likely never show up here. In any event the KFC in my town is so poorly run that they would fuck it up anyway.

      1. Yeah, KFC has sucked for a long time. Can’t get decent fried chicken around here without making it yourself.

        1. When I was a kid (in a different town) it was fantastic. It was solely a take-out place. But I don’t know if I thought it was good because kids have no idea about these things or if they *have* spiraled down.

          For awhile they had BBQ fried chicken which was so awesome. Then the bastards took it away.

        2. Where is ‘around here’?

          I find that the best chicken depends on the cook, not the establishment. For a long time the best fried chicken in the world was at a local grocery store deli. An old black woman cooked the chicken and it was like the food of the gods. When she quit the chicken went to shit.

          I found out later she just moved to another location so I went over there and sure as hell the divine chicken was available.

          You have to seek out the good cooks and not pay attention to the sign over the door.

          1. Columbus Ohio. There was a decent BBQ joint with good fried chicken but it closed down because people here think applebees is good food. I can make good fried chicken myself but would be nice to be able to get it out.

            1. Ohio. Ouch.

              1. Right:)

          2. I can’t think of a single restaurant here that might be a good chicken place. Damn.

            Maybe there’s a old black lady hiding somewhere doing it. Maybe I should stop in at the local AME church and demand to know where the good fried chicken is at.

            1. I am not sure that would be a good idea.

              You might ask around for cajuns though. They are a pretty safe bet.

  10. What the fuck is all this Buzzfeed listicle bullshit lately? I could be wrong, but I get the sense that the Reason audience mostly consists of people who despise that. Is it an outreach strategy?

    “Hmm… how to convince the great mass of foolish, greedy people that getting nominally free shit might work out badly for them in the long run? I know, put it into a list! Morons love internet lists, right after money and watching people get hit in the balls! After that, maybe put together a Facebook quiz so they can figure out which classical liberal thinker they are.”

    1. Five things you need to know about how gay marriage will shape the Greek default and what it means to millennials

      What, that doesn’t meet your high intellectual standards? You big meanie.

    2. Well there are 3 things you need to understand about Reason….

  11. There is only one thing you need to know about the deal. Whatever the Iranians say, they are lying. Also, Obumbles fucks up everything he touches. That’s two things. Only two things you need to know.

    1. I am pretty sure Obama fits that description too. What happens when both sides are lying?

      1. I was trying to follow the pm links earlier from my iPhone. I recommend that anyone who plans on doing that stab a fork in their eye instead. I was unable to comment so I will toss this in.

        You are correct, John, that allowing assisted suicide is a slippery slope, and a damn steep one. Not because it is wrong in principle, but because we have socialized medicine. The incentives to off expensive sick and dying people is very strong. If we allow it it is a certainty that death panels will operate at full steam.

        If we had a no-shit free market system I would be all for it, but we don’t.

        Not trying to crank that up again, and someone may have made that point already and I just missed it.

        1. What about allowing assisted suicide because liberty is important? Do you ever think of that?

          1. shreek, can you even read?

            I said that commiecare will result not in assisted suicide but in straight up murder in order to save money. You won’t be given a choice or asked politely. If you get too expensive they will just off you.

            Missed this bit, did you?

            “If we had a no-shit free market system I would be all for it, but we don’t.”

        2. And it won’t be a right. It is not like anyone could do it. Only the sick and the disabled will. And that doesn’t increase liberty. It dehumizes the sick and disabled

  12. I can spin some conspiracy theories too. Maybe Obama and Kerry know, from experience, how much of a hawk Clinton & Co really are and they want to secure a team-Democrat-lead treaty with Iran before the primaries are done. Otherwise Clinton would campaign with “tough on Iran” rhetoric in a lead-up to war. Who would the neocons rather see win the election? Clinton? Or Bush? Or maybe it doesn’t matter? Either way war with Iran is likely unless a solid treaty is in effect.

    1. That is logical CT though. Which makes it plausible.

      1. I hate to say this, but on the H&R comments it would persuade more commentators that I’m right if you disagreed with me! 😉

    2. Like Ron Paul said, it’s only neo-cons who fear negotiating with Iran. Guessing about what would be in any agreement now is just that…guessing. Regardless, Hawks on either side will have the chance to scuttle any agreement. And then as you aptly said, more than likely it would mean military engagement. Even true libertarians like Ron Paul understand that.

  13. FYI:
    Saddam: What We Now Know (link) by Jim Lacey* draws from the Iraq Survey Group (re WMD) and Iraqi Perspectives Project (re terrorism).
    * Dr. Lacey was a researcher and author for the Iraqi Perspectives Project (link).

  14. FYI:
    Explanation (link) of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
    UN Recognizes ‘Major Changes’ In Iraq (link) by VP Joe Biden on behalf of the UN Security Council.

  15. FYI:
    Withdrawal Symptoms: The Bungling of the Iraq Exit (link) by OIF senior advisor Rick Brennan.
    How Obama Abandoned Democracy in Iraq (link) by OIF official and senior advisor Emma Sky.

    1. Chippy, didn’t you hear? Someone is flying a confederate flag.

      1. Wha…?

      2. And some comedian I never heard of offended some people.

  16. Not much covered here today, and getting to the point that it will become irrelevant:
    1) An EU ‘summit’ was called today to deal with the Greek issue. Merkel made it clear that the EU had no new offers to make and it Greece wanted a new ‘deal’, they had better show up with a scheme which could be presented to the multitude.
    2) Tsipras lefties have now been in power since January, and it is (or should have been) obvious that the EU was not going to sweeten the pot. Or at *least* there was a very good chance of that, and a competent leadership would have made plans with some alternative offers.
    3) SOMEBODY in that group has to understand that they are dealing with finance ministers, and a “plan” will include expected revenue and expenses, budget allocations, detailing cuts to various spending sectors, the expected savings and (since they are lefties) details of the harm resulting, “see table 2A”. That’s what finance ministers consider a plan. And those plan(s) should have been prepared, A, B, C and Oh My God.
    4) Tsipras and his new lefty FiMi side-kick showed up with some notes scribbled on hotel stationary and (it seems) a power-point presentation. No wonder Lagarde asked the Greeks to please send adults.

    1. (cont’d)
      4) Tsipras and his new lefty FiMi side-kick showed up with some notes scribbled on hotel stationary and (it seems) a power-point presentation. No wonder Lagarde asked the Greeks to please send adults.
      He still seems to imagine that Greece leaving the EU represents enough cost to the EU that hey will yield to his demands. That “ace up his sleeve” and that hope was gone as of today.
      5) What had been ignored, brushed aside, not discussed, denied and whispered-about today was presented to Tsipras as an alternative:
      Either Tsipras comes up with an acceptable plan at the (full) meeting on Sunday, or the EU begins arranging for the legal and orderly removal of Greece from the EU.
      6) Gridiots on various boards are claiming the EU is ‘denying the Greek democracy (of voting yourself others’ money?), that Obo is going to pressure Merkel to make a deal because of the military bases, that Putin is gonna ride his white horse to the rescue.
      7) And the absolute WORST of it is Tsipras making those slimy, miserable Eurocrats sympathetic by comparison. I didn’t think it was possible.

      1. Oh, and the absolute BEST of it is the continued sniveling of Krugman, Stiglitz, Piketty, Sachs, JKG and other lefty ‘economists’ being totally ignored except by the Gridiots quoting them.
        Straw? Please see grasping hand…

  17. The real problem with the Iraq war was not the war itself – that went fairly well. The problem was that when we had reduced tye government to rubble, we didn’t LEAVE.

    All talk about WMDs aside, the core of the Iraq war was that Saddam had not even come close to meeting the terms of the surrender from the Gulf War. That undermined our credit in all diplomatic initiatives in the area, and maybe in the world. All diplomacy is credit. War is cash. By invading Iraq, we showed that we could come up the cash if anyone wanted to insist, and that insisting was a really bad idea.

    By sticking around and “nation building”, especially when we weren’t going to stay for a century or so, so the Iraqis would have some experience of decent governance before getting thrown in the deep end, we lost the punch of the basic object lesson. Which was “It’s much nicer to deal with the U.S. over a negotiating table than over a gunsight.”

    1. “By sticking around and “nation building”, especially when we weren’t going to stay for a century or so, so the Iraqis would have some experience of decent governance before getting thrown in the deep end, we lost the punch of the basic object lesson. Which was “It’s much nicer to deal with the U.S. over a negotiating table than over a gunsight.””

      I’ve recommended this book several times:
      “Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security”
      http://www.amazon.com/Thieves-…..s+of+state
      She is a lefty, so her proposed solutions are worthless (new top men!), but she identifies the problem very well indeed.
      If the US backs a tyrant whose agents extract more wealth from the peasants than do the supposed ‘extremists’, well, who do you think get support?

    2. I dunno. I think it’s how we went about with “nation building”.

      We really didn’t do any.

      In Japan and Germany, we did our best to break the ideology that made those countries dickheads. We didn’t do that with Iraq. Instead, we turned the asylum over to the lunatics.

      1. Japan and Germany both had some experience with representative government. Also, I’m for from convinced that either “recovered” primarily because of anything we did.

        “Nation Building” has worked, in a place or two. India comes to mind. But the British “rule” in India really ran from 1757 (Company rule) to 1947 (the end of the Raj). Almost 200 years. We weren’t going to stay in Iraq for two centuries.

        For me, what it comes to is that if we are sure we know how a country should be run, then we should conquer it. It’s almost a moral duty. If we don’t know for sure, then we should involve ourselves only out of self-interest.

        As I’ve pointed out, we had a strong interest in deposing Saddam. His constant defiance of the terms of surrender undermined any diplomacy we might attempt in the region. But if we weren’t going to stay and run things, then staying and playing Wise Big Brother was a losing proposition.

        I also suspect that if we started openly acting in our own interests, and dropped all the Happy Talk about helping people, the world might breathe a big sigh of relief. It sure would make figuring out what we were going to do easier on them. The “We’re just bug cuddly philanthropists” pose isn’t particularly believable, even when it’s true.

  18. Sure, Ed. Negotiations, and then monitoring are inappropriate roles for the U.S. And the alternative to that is US military engagement with Iran. You’ll be screaming about that, and yet that is where we would be headed…even if Rand Paul was President. The only people worried about Obama’s legacy are libertarians.

    For a more even handed discussion, here is a bi-partisan review from the Center for Near East Policy, published in Brookings, of what to look for in any deal.

    http://www.brookings.edu/blogs…..us-einhorn

  19. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  20. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  21. the US is NOT “out of range” of Iran’s missiles. Iran has TESTED missile launches from container cargo ships. That way,they can sail their cargo ships close to the US,launch a missile,and then scuttle the ship,leaving no evidence of where the missile originated.

    1. Further….
      Feb 01-2015
      http://www.newsmax.com/Headlin…..id/621982/
      Iran has a demonstrated capability to orbit satellites weighing over a ton, which means it could also deliver a nuclear warhead against the U.S. or any nation on Earth. Indeed, Iran has orbited several satellites on south polar trajectories passing over the western hemisphere from south to north, as if practicing to elude U.S. Ballistic Missile Early Warning Radars and National Missile Defenses, which are oriented to detect and intercept threats coming from the north.

      Moreover, the altitude of these satellites, if they were carrying a nuclear weapon detonated over the center of the U.S., was in all three cases near optimum for generating an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) field across all 48 contiguous United States. EMP could cause a protracted blackout of the national electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures.

      Iranian military writings describe eliminating the United States with an EMP attack. Rep. Trent Franks in congressional testimony given in December 2014 noted that an official Iranian military document, recently translated by the intelligence community, endorses making a nuclear EMP attack against the United States. The document describes the decisive effects of an EMP attack no fewer than 20 times.

  22. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.Wage-Report.com

  23. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.