The Nuclear Iran Situation

[1911ly]

Obama seals Iran deal win as Senate Democrats find 34 votes

Lindsey Graham via Twitter:

It pretty much insures that Israel will attack them when they have sufficient proof that they have the bomb. This deal pretty much leaves Israel with not many choices. Strike before your stricken. And Israel will be the bad guy in the end. If they do nothing, I have no doubt Iran will have the bomb. And it's to unstable a country to handle that kind of power. To many forces within Iran want Israel wiped off the map.

I just don't see how Obama can turn a blind eye to the chants of death to Israel and death to America and still deal with them. This deal is a sugar coated treat for Iran. I doubt they will be a threat to us. Unless we weaken our military more. But that seems to be the trend lately. Make American look weaker to the rest of the world. Bad trend.

 

[bwframe]

...I just don't see how Obama can turn a blind eye to the chants of death to Israel and death to America and still deal with them...

Forget about Obama, he's the devil we know. What about "our man" Donnelly who is supposed to be looking out for the interest of Hoosiers?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Good. Glad we made a deal with them.

Iran Promises to ?Set Fire? to U.S. Interests - Washington Free Beacon

 

[printcraft]

Good. Glad we made a deal with them.

Iran Promises to ?Set Fire? to U.S. Interests - Washington Free Beacon

Brigadier General Hossein Salami,

A man of great taste.

 

[Thor]

A man of great taste.

A rye statement...

 

[printcraft]

A rye statement...

Admiral Pastrami was out on maneuvers in the Persian Gulf and could not be reached for comment on the timeline to set the American fleet on fire.

 

[jamil]

A rye statement...

I have to say I'm not a big fan of rye. Although, I can tolerate it when it's mixed with enough other grains.

 

[EvilElmo]

Forget about Obama, he's the devil we know. What about "our man" Donnelly who is supposed to be looking out for the interest of Hoosiers?

Donnelly isn't our only Senator who isn't looking out for us:
8 REPUBLICANS Who Voted With Dems On Iran Terror Amendment: Make Them Famous

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;hfOSn6tjN94]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfOSn6tjN94[/video]

 

[bwframe]

E-mail newsletter sent from Senator Dan Coats today:


A message from Senator Dan Coats



Dear Friend,


Thank you for signing up to receive my email newsletter. These newsletters will cover a variety of topics, including events happening in Indiana, legislation being considered in Congress, and my perspective on current issues. My hope is to keep you updated and informed on how issues in Washington may impact Hoosiers. I welcome your feedback.


Thanks for reading,
Dan Coats
________________________________________
Obama's Bad Deal: Worse than No Deal

In the run-up to next week’s Congressional vote on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated with Iran, political pressure and public debate is intense. The latter, at least, is healthy, indeed essential. It is vital that the American people and their elected representatives see this Iran deal with a clear, unprejudiced, nonpartisan eye.


In recent days, several respected political figures have announced their support of the Iran deal – including some from Indiana. I respect the deliberate approach taken by many who are supporting the Iran deal. At the same time, the importance of this public debate requires that I point out where their analysis may be faulty.


There are two main arguments used by these supporters of the agreement that deserve scrutiny and rebuttal.


The first is that the deal blocks Iran’s path to a bomb. Some claim that it does so permanently. This is not the case. Even if Iran follows all the requirements of the deal, nearly all constraints placed on Iran will disappear in 15 years, with many ending sooner. In 15 years, Iran will have the technology, wealth, nuclear infrastructure and clear international permission to pursue uranium enrichment at any level it chooses. There will be no obstacles in its path to the bomb other than an unenforceable promise that it would not do so because of the Nonproliferation Treaty.


Nearly every objective analyst concedes that this “sunset clause” is the agreement’s key weakness. Even President Obama has said that Iran’s “breakout time” – the time required to acquire a nuclear weapon – would be “essentially zero” near the end of this 15-year period stipulated by the agreement. This is not blocking Iran’s pathway to the bomb. It is, at best, delaying Iran’s progress, but even then the interval will provide all Iran needs to reach its goal in a very short time.
The agreement’s supporters argue that arms control agreements of the past were never perfect achievements, but rather represented progress toward goals and that the JCPOA should be seen in such a light. Left out of that analysis is the fact that those Soviet-era arms control agreements did not have sunset clauses. There was no date certain when the Soviet Union would be released from all treaty constraints. If a treaty with such a future release date had been negotiated, the Senate surely would have rejected it.


Fifteen years is far too short a time frame. If in 2001 President George Bush had reached an agreement that delayed Iran’s nuclear activities until 2015, removing any prospect of economic sanctions in the interim, after which the entire international community would completely accept Iran’s uninhibited nuclear industry, would that today be seen as a great victory for diplomacy? Has Iran’s behavior changed in the last 15 years, and do we really expect it to in the next 15 years?
In 2030, when Iran is spinning the 100,000 enrichment centrifuges that the Supreme Leader has repeatedly called for, creating and stockpiling unlimited supplies of fissile material, pursuing weaponization programs uninhibited by any of us and possessing long-range ballistic missiles unobstructed by anyone, will we then refer to this JCPOA as a great victory of diplomacy?


Surely not. Our obligation is to see that grim vision of the future now, and act accordingly.


The second error committed by this deal’s supporters is to fall for the Obama Administration’s deeply cynical and simply false premise that our only options are this deal or war.


I agreed with President Obama and Secretary Kerry when they said repeatedly over the past year that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” They never argued that any deal is better than no deal, yet that is what they ended up conceding. We were the desperate party at the table, willing to abandon any standard, including some of our most urgent requirements going in.


Now we are presented with a deeply flawed deal – the sunset clause is enough by itself to make it unacceptable – and told that rejecting it will result in war. This fear-mongering should never be accepted.


Yes, to improve this deal would be very difficult, requiring complicated management of our allies as well as adversaries. The administration may be distressed to contemplate the challenges this would pose on President Obama’s watch. But we should never shirk from America’s leadership responsibilities and rejecting this fatally-flawed JCPOA will remind the international community of our country’s historic role.


President Obama went from demanding that Iran end its nuclear program to accepting a deal that expands Iran’s program over time. No deal truly is better than this bad deal.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

These people are shameless.

"choking back tears..."

Wasserman Schultz backs Iran deal | TheHill

 

[pudly]

Parchin inspection plan won't work, IAEA's credibility on the line, says ex-deputy

The nuclear deal’s mechanism for inspecting Iran’s Parchin military complex appears to be unreasonably lax

 

[mrjarrell]

Colin Powell backs the Iran deal. Calls it a pretty good deal and states the obvious.

Colin Powell: Iran Deal Is a 'Pretty Good Deal' - NBC News

And Fox News lets Cheney have it with both barrels. Bush let Iran get as many centrifuges as they did, not Obama. Must hurt when your own news channel turns on you. The Cheney narrative falls right to pieces in the light of day.

Fox News Embarrasses Dick Cheney On Iraq And Iran

 

[Thor]

Colin Powell was a political general and is a political tool.

 

[Thor]

So I hear today that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirati are all looking at buying amphibious assault ships...the ME arms race is on. Kudos to our State Department as they fail to get it right yet again.

 

[bwframe]

Colin Powell backs the Iran deal. Calls it a pretty good deal and states the obvious.

Colin Powell: Iran Deal Is a 'Pretty Good Deal' - NBC News

And Fox News lets Cheney have it with both barrels. Bush let Iran get as many centrifuges as they did, not Obama. Must hurt when your own news channel turns on you. The Cheney narrative falls right to pieces in the light of day.

Fox News Embarrasses Dick Cheney On Iraq And Iran

That's a pretty cool nana booboo when we are about to graciously hand the terrorists the keys to the Middle East (and possibly the world.)

Better have your kids and grandkids brush up on their Arabic...

 

[Kutnupe14]

So I hear today that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirati are all looking at buying amphibious assault ships...the ME arms race is on. Kudos to our State Department as they fail to get it right yet again.

Did they fail? It has always been in the best interests f the west to keep the ME in turmoil.

 

[pudly]

Did they fail? It has always been in the best interests f the west to keep the ME in turmoil.

They seem to be able to generate plenty of turmoil without anyone else's help.

 

[Kutnupe14]

They seem to be able to generate plenty of turmoil without anyone else's help.

Actually, from a post-Ottoman perspective, not really.

 

[pudly]

Actually, yes really. There have been plenty of ME civil wars, tribal conflicts, international invasions, wars between Arabs and non-Arab nations in the last 100 years. Although some have certainly involved western involvement, such as the overthrow of Khadafy in Libya, most have had nothing to do with western powers.