Thursday, July 16, 2015

How times change

In 2007, when he was beginning his run for president, Senator Obama told a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that “the world must work to stop Iran’s uranium-enrichment program.”
 
On October 22, 2012, during a presidential debate with Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama said: “Our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place. . . . But the deal we’ll accept is — they end their nuclear program. It’s very straightforward.”

In December 2013 at a Brookings Institution forum, President Obama said: “They don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. They certainly don’t need a heavy-water reactor at Arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. They don’t need some of the advanced centrifuges that they currently possess.”
 
The agreement does not come close to meeting these statements and promise.

Under the deal, Iran will keep its entire nuclear infrastructure. After the IAEA certifies compliance with easy-to-meet requirements.
 
Iran is currently enriching uranium with about 9,000 centrifuges. About 6,000 will be kept operational; about 5,000 will continue to enrich. Another 10,000 — many non-operational — will be put in storage or unplugged. However, no centrifuges will be destroyed or removed from the country. 
 
Iran also will continue to develop advanced uranium centrifuges while the agreement is in effect. However, unlike the interim agreement, which set the stage for the nuclear talks and barred Iran from testing advanced centrifuges with uranium (a provision Iran violated in mid 2014), the new agreement requires only that R&D of advanced centrifuges be tested “in a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium.”  
 
Iran will be allowed to do more-intensive testing of advanced centrifuges than was permitted during the nuclear talks.
 
Iran is supposed to dilute its enriched-uranium stockpile, convert some of it to fuel plates for a small research reactor, or sell it on the open market. Diluting its enriched uranium could be reversed in a few months — possibly much faster if Iran uses advanced centrifuges.
 
Iran has agreed to replace the core of its Arak heavy-water reactor, which is under construction, so it will produce less plutonium and to send the spent fuel rods of this reactor out of the country. However, it will be permitted to operate the Arak reactor, a significant reversal of pre-2013 U.S. policy that work on this reactor be halted permanently because it is a serious nuclear-proliferation threat. Because of this new provision, Iran will develop its expertise on operating and building heavy-water reactors during the period the agreement is in effect.
 
Verifying this agreement will be impossible, since the “24/7” inspections promised by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in their speeches today apply only to Iran’s declared nuclear program and supply chain. The IAEA can “press” for inspections of military sites and other suspect nuclear sites, but the agreement does not provide for any penalty if Iran refuses to grant IAEA inspectors access.
 
A major U.S. concession concerns Iran’s eleventh-hour demand to lift embargoes on conventional arms and ballistic missiles. The conventional-arms embargo will stay in place for five years, and the ballistic-missile embargo will be in place for eight years but will be lifted sooner if the IAEA definitively clears Iran of any current work on nuclear weapons. The IAEA is very unlikely to find evidence of current nuclear-weapons work, as it won’t be allowed to inspect non-declared nuclear sites where this activity is taking place. This means these embargoes could be lifted much sooner.

Would Obama have won the 2008 or 2012 presidential elections if he gave even a hint of a deal like this? 
Would Congress have supported this abrupt change in American foreign policy if the president had kept it informed about his nuclear diplomacy with Iran and consulted with the Hill during the talks?

Where's the media and their reporting of a flip flopper or does that only apply to the GOP.    Where is the call of liar liar pants on fire?  Where is the American public with their 30 second attention span on foreign policy issues and their short term memory good until the end of the day?  








 

28 comments:

  1. yes or no, are you okay with starting a war with Iran to end this once and for all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who said anything about war other than Obama it's the agreement or war?

      Delete
    2. You didn't answer the question

      Delete
    3. Let me help you, why were no countries that will be directly affected allowed in the negotiations?

      Why is war on the table? Maybe some of our famous drone strikes would do the trick.

      How would a war end it once and for all?
      The US had the chance of assisting the dissidents in Iran and we walked away. Why did President Obama refuse to support the demonstrators in Iran in 2009, but supported the "Arab Spring" in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere more recently?

      In 2009, demonstrators filled the streets of Iran, denouncing the regime and crying out for freedom. It was an opportunity for the leader of the free world to demonstrate his support for free people everywhere and strike a decisive blow against the bloody regime that had considered itself at war with the United States for three decades.


      Delete
    4. Could it have been Louman so he could negotiate for a nuke free Iran? How far would he/we have gotten if we/he began his administration by backing the opposition in Iran. It was no secret that he was going to begin talks with the Iranians as soon as Imadinnerjacket was no longer in power. He said it in 2008 every time he made a speech.

      Delete
    5. Could it be Rick that he was willing to do anything for an agreement?

      There was always a very different path available.
      He could have increased the sanctions instead of pleading with Congress not to impose them.

      He could have attacked Syria when it crossed his “red line,” rather than folding and thereby conveying his fecklessness to Tehran.

      He could have refrained from calling everyone in the United States who favored a hard line against Iran a “warmonger” – again conveying that Iran had nothing to fear from him.

      He could have supported the protesters in the streets in 2009 rather than signaling his support for the regime.

      He could have left the negotiating table many times, but especially after the IAEA reported earlier this month that Iran was in violation of earlier nuclear treaties and had increased its stockpiles of enriched uranium by 20 percent.

      He could have deployed strategic bombing to destroy Iran’s nuclear program

      But instead,
      The bombproof facility in the mountain at Fordow – which, until recently, the United States had demanded be shuttered and locked — will now have an “international presence” so that attempts to thwart its progress even by sabotage will be effectively blocked.

      The inspections regime is a joke: Iran gets 24 days’ notice and sits on the committee that decides if inspections are necessary.

      The sanctions are lifted immediately, handing the world’s chief sponsor of terror a $100 billion windfall.

      “War is peace. Ignorance is strength.”
      George Orwell

      Obama Signs Iran Deal as Rouhani Attends a 'Death to America' Event

      Our new friends the Iranian leadership, death to America.

      To bad about the 4 Americans incarcerated in Iran, maybe we can give the Iranians a trillion for their release.

      Keep up the excuses Rick, it fits you perfectly.

      Delete
  2. From what I have read, this is an amazingly good deal for us. I have some experience in nuclear physics and, if the Iranians keep their word, this will effectively cripple their program for at least a decade, maybe longer. We do have to maintain our vigilance, of course. To go to war with Iran would be extremely foolhardy, destabilizing the entire middle east and increasing the danger for Israel and our other allies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if the Iranians keep their word

      ROTFLMAO.

      You have got to be kidding.

      Did you read the summary above? They need to do essentially nothing. They got what they wanted, we have nothing that cannot be quickly reversed. Destabilize the middle east? It's destabilized today, where have you been? Why no outrage over the all the innocent people ISIS have killed? This is stability?

      As a final comment there is no vigilance to maintain.

      Delete
    2. Obama's presser and subsequent "It's this deal or war" is not entirely fair. He is doing it to pull a Saul Alynski and back the Republicans into a corner like I did to Lou above. These aren't the only two options, but I see a clear difference in opinion, Obama is offering a deal that allows Iran to save some face and more or less be accepted as human beings. The alternative is an approach that absolutely and forever demonizes Iran and leaves no real option for them but to utterly submit to rules made by the United States. IMO, whether war is started now or not is immaterial because the rhetoric I hear from Rebpulicans is that there is no solution except total submission by Iran to the US.

      Delete
    3. Ever ask yourself the question what a country that hold in excess of 10% of the known oil reserves of the world needs peaceful nuclear power? Is an alternative energy thing? No wind mill farms thee or solar that I can find.

      With the worlds reaction to nuclear energy after the disasters in Japan, Russia, why would they push this for of energy? Ever ask the rest of the question regarding intent?

      Iran has considered itself at war for the last 30 years, much of that is our own doing yet nothing is being done to resolve our differences as they continue to be the worlds leader in exporting terrorism. The chant even today death to America and burn our flag. Think this capitulation will make things better?

      Delete
    4. As to your comment about war, Obama gave the ultimatum it's either this or war, not I yet you try and lay his claim at my feet.

      Do you honestly believe that this is the only 2 solutions possible?

      A bit Neville Chamberlain like isn't it?

      Delete
    5. It's time to let Chamberlain rest in peace. I'm not sure you read my response to Mick here before posting this. But to answer your response up top and some of this here, you kind of make the point I used when I responded to Mick. Obamas plan and most left plans do include the absolute demonizing of Iran, and all plans right of center do. I don't believe the entirety of Iranian's, particularly the younger people, support the ruthlessly conservative Mullahs. However, if the only plan offered by the US is a coalition type deal wherein Israel and the US dictate terms to Iran, the people of Iran, despite not backing the Mullahs, will likely be very against that. The Mullahs have considered themselves at war for 30 years with American, but what about the people who are less than 40 years old in either country? You portray Iran as a country who will deceive us. Fair enough. How does that make them different from any other country?

      You mention the protestors up top, and that is kind of my point. The Mullahs still hold the power, but are rapidly losing the soul of the country. What good what have come of Obama denouncing the bloody regime? Again, I see it as a tough line to walk. If he goes to far in denouncing the bloody regime, he may lose the support of younger people who don't like the Mullahs but retain national pride and in light of our foray into Iraq, I think only an American could say this is of no consequence.

      As fo ISIS, I believe we are currently on exactly the same side as Iran and if the stories are true, we are working directly with Iran against ISIS.

      Delete
    6. That should read left of center plans do NOT include demonization

      Delete
    7. Put Chamberlain to rest?

      How do you learn from history if you ignore the mistakes from the past?

      Delete
    8. The name Chamberlain has become a dog whistle code for "appeaser". Reading and quoting historical people and events without context is not what I would call learning from the past. The invocation of Hitler by the left for anything they don't like is another classic example of drawing false conclusions. Without context, discussing WW II is sort of like discussing whether the rebel flag is a symbol of slavery or symbol of southern pride.

      Historically, I think Chamberlain had a view that a productive and cooperative Germany was in the best interest of Europe. Ultimately, this view was also taken post WW II when Hitler was gone and it ultimately proved to be correct. Hitler wanted full conquest of Europe and IMO (and this is crucial) he was able to play off of national pride to get the country behind him to go to war and start the extermination of the Jews. What if, after WW I, Europe had found some other agreement that didn't seek to vengefully punish Germany? I think that question has some bearing today in what we are discussing.

      IMO, Hitler is not able to whip the German people into nationalistic frenzy after WW I without being able to draw some justification that Germany was indeed being unfairly punished. I'm not saying here that Iran hasn't earned their sanctions and subsequent economic pain they have endured. Still, I'm not sure I believe the Mullahs, who preach the same domination and destruction of the Jews that Hitler did, have the full support of the youth of the country. Further, considering what we have done in the middle east in Iraq, literally on Iran's doorstep, it's not like we haven't given the Mullahs plenty of propaganda to whip their people into a frenzy.

      Are we really paralleling history here in a way that matches Chamberlain and Hitler? I don't think so.

      Delete
    9. Hitler did not represent all Germans as is the case in Iran today.

      Was Hitler a radical extremist, absolutely. Did he reveal all his plans prior to taking the leadership, no he did not.

      How are they so dissimilar?

      I can only say, the Iranian leadership has not turned it's rhetoric down since negotiations started. Curious as to why you would trust them to adhere to any agreement unless it benefited them so they could continue down the chosen path?

      Ever ask yourself the question what a country that hold in excess of 10% of the known oil reserves of the world needs peaceful nuclear power?

      Delete
    10. I do ask myself that question, and one answer I never come to is that they want a nuclear reactor so that they can build a bomb, destroy Israel and subsequently be completely annihilated themselves.

      I see dissimilarity in that the Middle East is not post WW I Europe. If anyone is crushing the Iranian's today, it is the United States, not the rest of the middle east. Hitler was not driven by religion, and subsequently, when he got enough of the country to get on board with his superior race bullshit, it was not because of religion. In comparison, the Iranians see themselves as Persian, not Arab, so that is a bit a superiority thing. Still, I don't believe the Mullahs can rally the people into a real war with Israel on religious grounds.
      And there certainly isn't going to be full blown support of the Arab world around them to lay down before Iran. I believe Iran is much more isolated than Hitler was.

      The top Iranian leaders, just like Christian conservatives in this country are never going to tone their rhetoric. The revolution took hold quickly there, and it is going to take some time to unwind it. Objectively Lou, what I hear in your comments and comments that are just off the deep end in comparison to you is that the United States has an embedded right to tell Iran and the rest of the Middle East what to do. I don't trust them to do everything that is the best interest of the United States or Israel. I do trust that they will stop short of initiating a sequence of events that will guarantee their destruction because that is in THEIR best interests. Hitler, I believe, felt he could not fail. The Iranians, on the other, are in a spot where I believe they fully understand how they can be destroyed.

      Delete
  3. I read the agreement, Iran is giving up quite a lot. The other countries who signed it agree. It is a much better agreement than we had expected going in. The Republicans will try to kill it because Obama is President, and for no other reason. If they pass a bill, Obama will veto it and they will claim a moral victory, as they have over the multiple attempts to kill Obamacare. We had better hope that's all that comes of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The senate, I think, is still a little more rational than the congress. Controlling 54 seats is not a guarantee that they pass an Obama rebuking bill that is almost sure to come from congress. IE, it will not be enough just to vote no, there will have to be additional HELL NO language attached that may or may not get through the senate. If the Democrats decide to play by the rules of the day which dictate the EXTRA constitutional decree that all senate bills of substance must pass with 60 votes, there won't even be a bill for Obama to veto. That ultimately might suit everyone just fine as well.

      Delete
    2. It is a much better agreement than we had expected going in

      Where do you get that tripe?

      Did you read the above information?

      They give up nothing and get everything they wanted and this is more than you expected?

      You had very low to no expectations.

      Still under the delusion this agreement or war like your leader?

      Delete
    3. In fairness Lou, tell me what IS the right approach to take. The Iranians are being decried as dishonest scumbags and seemingly, their taking of the hostages negates any and all medling we have done against them.

      Here is a problem with my liberal thinking; I feel like we will be perpetually stuck in an unwinable situation if our view is that Iran must publicly bow to us and kiss the ring of Israel while clearly doing every single thing we want and openly showing they got nothing they wanted. The hostage crisis was a humiliation, there is no denying that. But it's not like we had absolutely nothing to do with creating the environment that lead to the revolution. Of course the Mullahs continue to chant death to America. Hell, McCain joked about bombing Iran and clearly Israel's lobby and our war hawks feel just as bloodthirsty toward Iran. I guess, if what the United States really want is to tip that country into being a stable partner if never an ally, I don't believe we are going to accomplish that goal by giving Iran no way to save any face. This is not to say I trust them. They can and will skirt some of the rules. I think they will stop short of building a bomb because Israel has made it clear they will strike first and there isn't going to be any retaliation from the US for doing so.

      Delete
    4. The question remains:

      Why does Iran need to develop nuclear energy when they have 10% of the worlds proven reserves?

      They will build the bomb, what other purpose would they have with an abundant cheap energy supply of oil available today.

      Delete
    5. The real issue at hand.

      Your president has lied time and time again.

      He uses fear to push his personal agenda as with the "it's either this agreement or war" comments. Is this the honest debate we wanted so much from the WH?

      Delete
    6. Fair enough, you don't want to answer the question of what we should do. You point out it is Obama who making this a false choice between this deal or war. You also point out there is no reason for Iran to build a reactor except to build a bomb. These statements together are a bit incongruous and it's the perfect stance to take, which is exactly what the Republicans are doing. By never suggesting what the right approach, Obama can forever be the bad guy and the Republicans can say they aren't advocating for war while saying that Iran totally is advocating it and backing the US and Israel into a corner. Sigh, this is how wars get started.

      Delete
    7. Is the president correct, using fear to push his agenda with the American people? Is this the best we get and call it honest debate?

      Personally I believe we have made numerous mistakes with the entire middle east. No secret there.

      Why can you support the over throw of Egypt, Libya's legal government neither as bad as Iran's government yet do nothing to assist the people of Iran who want a new government?

      What should we do?
      1. Negotiations should have included the people most affected i.e. Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. The US has no skin in the game unless of course they develop a intercontinental missile. But they would never do that would they.

      2. As a country the current administration wants to lead the charge yet when it comes to ISIS it's their problem. A bit inconsistent wouldn't you say as we screwed up Iraq to begin with and compounded it by leaving en mass.

      3. Today either fish or cut bait. Either get with the program or wash your hands of the entire middle east.

      There were a number of options available.

      There was always a very different path available.
      He could have increased the sanctions instead of pleading with Congress not to impose them.

      He could have attacked Syria when it crossed his “red line,” rather than folding and thereby conveying his fecklessness to Tehran.

      He could have refrained from calling everyone in the United States who favored a hard line against Iran a “warmonger” – again conveying that Iran had nothing to fear from him.

      He could have supported the protesters in the streets in 2009 rather than signaling his support for the regime.

      He could have left the negotiating table many times, but especially after the IAEA reported earlier this month that Iran was in violation of earlier nuclear treaties and had increased its stockpiles of enriched uranium by 20 percent.

      He could have deployed strategic bombing to destroy Iran’s nuclear program

      Instead we give the mullahs a green light to further develop energy with few safe guards to prevent them from going nuclear.

      Would it be such a bad thing for Iran to have a nuclear devise?





      Delete
    8. As a side note, it doesn't matter a rats ass what the GOP wants in regards to Iran or anything else in this country as Obama will do what he wants and takes no advise from the other party.

      IMHO.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. That answer was too long, as are most of my posts. This was a better answer, so fair enough. A point I won't gloss over is that I think it's silly to rail against Obama for calling the hard liners of our country war mongers, while those same people say that Iran wants to build a reactor just create a bomb. Basically Iran= bad guys who want war, US+ Israel = honest brokers who want to keep the world safe.

      My take, wrong or not, is that for the hard liners in this country, the only answer is that Iran submit. Period. They are really just American Mullahs. We've manipulated and abused the entire middle east since the end of WWII, and what bothers me about the hard line stance in this country is that they basically say, "Yeah, we've fucked over a lot of people there, but at the end of the day, TFB." The right of center solution in this country is that Iran can agree with us 100%, or continue being crushed. I get that no country but the United States is allowed to have national pride, but I just don't see us getting anything done as long as that is our attitude. I think the hard liners hear basically understand this, which is why they don't want any plan that allows Iran to start to gain equal footing. If there is no plan, Obama is right, Iran will continue to be pissed off at being pissed on by the US and Israel, they will try to build a bomb, and we, and Israel, will go to war with them. Sanctions have hurt, there is no doubt about that, but when sanctions were suggested before, that wasn't good enough either. No matter what Obama does, it will be wrong.

      Delete