Iran nuclear deal: historic agreement in Vienna – live updates

The post-agreement press conference of foreign ministers is about to get underway in Vienna.

Meanwhile the former head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei has also hailed the agreement as a triumph of diplomacy.

Mohamed ElBaradei
✔
@ElBaradei

Dialogue focused on trust building & based on fairness ,respect & mutual security proven yet again only way to resolve conflicts. #IranDeal

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jul/14/iran-nuclear-talks-deal-historic-vienna-live-updates

Absolutely historiic, now Obama has to get it passed at home.

Netanyahu foaming at the mouth, even though he stockpiles nukes and won't sign the NPT.

Well within 10 years we will see in our life time a nucleur war played out between Saudi and Iran. The Saudi's will now go all out to arm themselves via Pakistan with Nukes.
A historic day indeed, one that will go down in history as the biggest mistake ever made by a US Governement.

Cuchulain wrote:Well within 10 years we will see in our life time a nucleur war played out between Saudi and Iran. The Saudi's will now go all out to arm themselves via Pakistan with Nukes.
A historic day indeed, one that will go down in history as the biggest mistake ever made by a US Governement.

My money is on war between Israel and Iran.  SA doesn't have the muscle to take on Iran.  However, Israel under Netanyahu is just belligerent enough to start something. They may resort to a limited attack, such as with Syria.

Anyway, the agreement means little.  Congress will use it for debating points in the upcoming election in 2016, but the agreement will never reach the floor for a vote.  It's an Obama deal...duh!  Anything Obama does is objectionable to the Republican Congress.  Paralysis in Washington, as usual.

What Obama is doing is setting another trap for Republicans.  Dr. Obama is a US Constitutional Law scholar.  Look at his moves.  Just like with ISIL, Obama put a war bill on Congress' desk, and they have done nothing.  Paralysis in Washington.  Now, Obama has put a nuclear nonproliferation bill on Congress' desk, and they will do nothing.  Paralysis in Washington.

Read the fookin' Constitution, ya idiot RWers.  Everything starts with Congress under the US Constitution.  If Congress fails to act, so will the US.  Obama is making all the right moves.  If the US fails to move, it is the Congress' failure.  Here's a hint: Wars, hostilities or any kind of national biceps flexing are a Republican/Tory thing.  If nothing happens on that front, that's fine with Democrats.  Conservatives the world over are shooting themselves in the foot.

Obama vows to veto any Republican attempt to derail Iran nuclear deal

President says ‘this is not the time for politics or posturing’
Obama: ‘This deal meets every single one of the bottom lines we established’

Barack Obama promised to veto any attempt by Republican opponents to undermine the nuclear deal with Iran on Tuesday, arguing that the landmark agreement was the best available option to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear bomb and limit the risks of another war in the Middle East.

In an early-morning televised address from the White House, the US president said the deal, which is expected to face stiff opposition from hawks in Congress, would provide the international community with unprecedented powers to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon.

The president said the agreement, which provides Iran with extensive sanctions relief in return for curbing nuclear activities and accepting rigorous inspections, was not based on trust with Tehran, which he acknowledge is a longtime enemy of the United States, bur rather “built on verification”.

“I am confident that this deal will meet the national security needs of the United States and our allies, so I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal,” he said.

“We do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict, and we certainly shouldn’t seek it.”

It is highly unusual for the White House to schedule a formal presidential announcement as early as 7am and the remarks, which were broadcast live in Iran, and choreographed to follow swiftly after diplomats unveiled the contours of the agreement in Vienna.

But Obama’s address signalled a determination on the part of his administration to contain the growing chorus of opponents on Capitol Hill, where Republicans, who control both chambers of the legislature, are determined to find a way to scupper the agreement.

Under the terms of an oversight process agreed between congressional leaders and the White House in April, Obama has five days to present the deal to lawmakers. The Senate and House of Representatives then have 60 days to scrutinise the deal and hold hearings, during which time the president cannot begin lifting sanctions on Iran.

Toward the end of that period, congressional leaders are expected to table some kind of resolution to mark the legislature’s disapproval of the agreement, which would be politically embarrassing for the president but not prevent sanctions from being waived.

In order to kill the final deal, which follows on from a framework agreement forged three months ago, Obama’s Republican critics would need to overcome a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers – an extremely high hurdle, even with support from those Democratic hawks known to be strongly opposed to the agreement.

“I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement,” Obama said, adding “this is not the time for politics or posturing”.

“Tough talk from Washington does not solve problems,” he said. “Hard-nosed diplomacy, leadership that has united the world’s major powers, offers a more effective way to verify that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon.”

He added: “This deal meets every single one of the bottom lines we established when we achieved a framework earlier this spring. Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off. And the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that objective will be put in place.”

Obama’s remarks lacked the triumphalism that might be expected from a legacy-defining agreement that stems from his contentious policy, announced as a first-time presidential candidate in 2008, to begin talks with Tehran without preconditions.

In an effort to mollify opponents on Capitol Hill, the Obama administration is keen to acknowledge that while the deal may not be perfect, it contains the necessary safety mechanisms, including a provision to snap back to sanctions if Iran is not compliant, and remains the best option on the table.

It is a case that is based on the realpolitik of international relations as much as the merits of the agreement.

Nodding to that approach, Obama emphasised what he said would be the consequences if there was no agreement and the international consensus, which has brought the US together with five other world powers including Russia and China, falls apart.

“Consider what happens in a world without this deal,” he said. “Without this deal there is no scenario in which the world joins us in sanctioning Iran until it completely dismantles its nuclear program. Nothing we know about the Iranian government suggests it would simply capitulate under that kind of pressure.”

Obama added: “No deal means no lasting constraints on Iran’s nuclear program. Such a scenario would make it more likely that other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear weapons, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/obama-veto-republican-iran-nuclear-deal

Netanyahu has set up a new Twitter account to go on about it lol PM of Israel ‏@IsraeliPM, he's getting a bit of stick I'm very glad to say.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Well within 10 years we will see in our life time a nucleur war played out between Saudi and Iran. The Saudi's will now go all out to arm themselves via Pakistan with Nukes.
A historic day indeed, one that will go down in history as the biggest mistake ever made by a US Governement.

My money is on war between Israel and Iran.  SA doesn't have the muscle to take on Iran.  However, Israel under Netanyahu is just belligerent enough to start something.  They may resort to a limited attack, such as with Syria.

Anyway, the agreement means little.  Congress will use it for debating points in the upcoming election in 2016, but the agreement will never reach the floor for a vote.  It's an Obama deal...duh!  Anything Obama does is objectionable to the Republican Congress.  Paralysis in Washington, as usual.

What Obama is doing is setting another trap for Republicans.  Dr. Obama is a US Constitutional Law scholar.  Look at his moves.  Just like with ISIL, Obama put a war bill on Congress' desk, and they have done nothing.  Paralysis in Washington.  Now, Obama has put a nuclear nonproliferation bill on Congress' desk, and they will do nothing.  Paralysis in Washington.

Read the fookin' Constitution, ya idiot RWers.  Everything starts with Congress under the US Constitution.  If Congress fails to act, so will the US.  Obama is making all the right moves.  If the US fails to move, it is the Congress' failure.  Here's a hint: Wars, hostilities or any kind of national biceps flexing are a Republican/Tory thing.  If nothing happens on that front, that's fine with Democrats.  Conservatives the world over are shooting themselves in the foot.

I do not think it will come to war with Israel first Quill.
Saudi is already very pissed at the US over this deal and thinks they are bonkers to trust Iran.
They have close ties with Pakistan and this willnow lead to a new nucleur arms race in the Middle East.
Not interested in the polictical aspects between Republicans or Obama, as the deal is done now.
As I sat mark my words, this will turn into an arms race as Saudi is not going to sit back and do nothing.
Israel should just let them fight it out, though you could be right and it lead later to war.
Only time will tell.

sassy wrote:Obama vows to veto any Republican attempt to derail Iran nuclear deal

President says ‘this is not the time for politics or posturing’
Obama: ‘This deal meets every single one of the bottom lines we established’

Are you aware of what “veto” means?  A veto is a negation or rejection of an Act of Congress, which a president has as a prerogative unless overridden by a 2/3’s majority of both houses.  However, if Congress doesn’t act, a veto never takes place.

What I am saying is that Congress will never act.  Here's how it will happen:  Congress will never act to lift the sanctions on Iran.  If the US does not lift the sanctions, then Iran does not get the bargained-for exchange. If there is no bargained-for exchange, the agreement fails for lack of consideration.

Obama’s address is PR.  It is typical of the kind of speech you would expect in a chess game.  He is talking up the agreement as if Congress should accept it—however, knowing full well it will never pass.  His words are an all-or-nothing stance, whereas were he in the mood to placate and perhaps negotiate he would be using the language of conciliation.

Any other tact would leave Obama powerless to say, I told you so.  That is what he can say about the war against ISIL.  That is what he can say about Immigration.  That is what he can say about infrastructure rebuilding.  And it is what he will say when Congress fails to act on this agreement with Iran.  It's a gambit, and we should be well used to it by now.

It’s the only thing that one can do with Congress, locked as it is in paralysis.

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:Obama vows to veto any Republican attempt to derail Iran nuclear deal

President says ‘this is not the time for politics or posturing’
Obama: ‘This deal meets every single one of the bottom lines we established’

Are you aware of what “veto” means?  A veto is a negation or rejection of an Act of Congress, which a president has as a prerogative unless overridden by a 2/3’s majority of both houses.  However, if Congress doesn’t act, a veto never takes place.

What I am saying is that Congress will never act.  Here's how it will happen:  Congress will never act to lift the sanctions on Iran.  If the US does not lift the sanctions, then Iran does not get the bargained-for exchange and the agreement fails for lack of consideration.

Obama’s address is PR.  It is typical of the kind of speech you would expect in a chess game.  He is talking up the agreement as if Congress should accept it—however, knowing full well it will never pass.  His words are an all-or-nothing stance, whereas were he in the mood to placate and perhaps negotiate he would be using the language of conciliation.

Any other tact would leave Obama powerless to say, I told you so.  That is what he can say about the war against ISIL.  That is what he can say about Immigration.  That is what he can say about infrastructure rebuilding.  And it is what he will say when Congress fails to act on this agreement with Iran.  It's a gambit, and we should be well used to it by now.

It’s the only thing that one can do with Congress, locked as it is in paralysis.

I am not concerned about the congress Quill, sorry mate. I made that point in my last post. I see this deal going through congress one way or another and so am looing ahead of this now.
I am more interested in what pans out if a nucleur arms race starts from this which the Saudi's have threatened to do.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you aware of what “veto” means?  A veto is a negation or rejection of an Act of Congress, which a president has as a prerogative unless overridden by a 2/3’s majority of both houses.  However, if Congress doesn’t act, a veto never takes place.

What I am saying is that Congress will never act.  Here's how it will happen:  Congress will never act to lift the sanctions on Iran.  If the US does not lift the sanctions, then Iran does not get the bargained-for exchange and the agreement fails for lack of consideration.

Obama’s address is PR.  It is typical of the kind of speech you would expect in a chess game.  He is talking up the agreement as if Congress should accept it—however, knowing full well it will never pass.  His words are an all-or-nothing stance, whereas were he in the mood to placate and perhaps negotiate he would be using the language of conciliation.

Any other tact would leave Obama powerless to say, I told you so.  That is what he can say about the war against ISIL.  That is what he can say about Immigration.  That is what he can say about infrastructure rebuilding.  And it is what he will say when Congress fails to act on this agreement with Iran.  It's a gambit, and we should be well used to it by now.

It’s the only thing that one can do with Congress, locked as it is in paralysis.

I am not concerned about the congress Quill, sorry mate. I made that point in my last post. I see this deal going through congress one way or another and so am looing ahead of this now.
I am more interested in what pans out if a nucleur arms race starts from this which the Saudi's have threatened to do.

I hope you will be happy with disappointment. Congress ain't gonna move, and rather will make a political football out of this issue. Watch and see.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


I am not concerned about the congress Quill, sorry mate. I made that point in my last post. I see this deal going through congress one way or another and so am looing ahead of this now.
I am more interested in what pans out if a nucleur arms race starts from this which the Saudi's have threatened to do.

I hope you will be happy with disappointment.  Congress ain't gonna move, and rather will make a political football out of this issue.  Watch and see.

I will have to bow to your experince and knowledge here mate on the congess and I guess you will no doubt be right here, but lets see what happens.

Didge wrote:I do not think it will come to war with Israel first Quill.
Saudi is already very pissed at the US over this deal and thinks they are bonkers to trust Iran.
They have close ties with Pakistan and this willnow lead to a new nucleur arms race in the Middle East.
Not interested in the polictical aspects between Republicans or Obama, as the deal is done now.
As I sat mark my words, this will turn into an arms race as Saudi is not going to sit back and do nothing.
Israel should just let them fight it out, though you could be right and it lead later to war.
Only time will tell.

The Saudis can’t wage war. They barely have a police force, let alone a military of that magnitude. They have been depending on the US to protect them for so long that they haven’t even thought of shelling out for a military.

But what you are suggesting is an offensive war. That takes years of building and loads of money. SA has the money (if they are willing), but they have no time in grade. They are completely out of their element when it comes to offensive war.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I do not think it will come to war with Israel first Quill.
Saudi is already very pissed at the US over this deal and thinks they are bonkers to trust Iran.
They have close ties with Pakistan and this willnow lead to a new nucleur arms race in the Middle East.
Not interested in the polictical aspects between Republicans or Obama, as the deal is done now.
As I sat mark my words, this will turn into an arms race as Saudi is not going to sit back and do nothing.
Israel should just let them fight it out, though you could be right and it lead later to war.
Only time will tell.

The Saudis can’t wage war.  They barely have a police force, let alone a military of that magnitude.  They have been depending on the US to protect them for so long that they haven’t even thought of  shelling out for a military.

But what you are suggesting is an offensive war.  That takes years of building and loads of money.  SA has the money (if they are willing), but they have no time in grade.  They are completely out of their element when it comes to offensive war.

They have been waging a propaganda war with money, spreading wahhabism Quill. There armed forces does have state of the art western weaponary and fighters, so it is no push over. That is not even the point being made. The point is there has been some very loud barks coming from the Saudi's about this deal and some very clear statements in regards to obtaining nucleur technology from Pakistan. Saudi is very concerned over Iran obtaining nucleur which is no surprise considering they are both using others to fight this proxy war.

Yeah, it's anybody's guess, didge.  I just am not used to the idea of the Saudis being that aggressive.  Israel, yes...

Are you saying the government of SA is spreading wahhabism?

I really don't think SA could stand up to Iran, even if you are right and  SA were to make a move.  Iran has built up a relatively strong military since it's war with Iraq.  I think the only nation in the region that could stand up to Iran is Israel.

Now, let's contemplate what happens if Iran defeats SA. Does Iran take over the Ghawar oil field, the biggest field in the world? That'll change the politics in the region.

Original Quill wrote:Yeah, it's anybody's guess, didge.  I just am not used to the idea of the Saudis being that aggressive.  Israel, yes...

Are you saying the government of SA is spreading wahhabism?

I really don't think SA could stand up to Iran, even if you are right and  SA were to make a move.  Iran has built up a relatively strong military since it's war with Iraq.  I think the only nation in the region that could stand up to Iran is Israel.

Now, let's contemplate what happens if Iran defeats SA.

It has been exporting Wahhabbism for years, which is why we have seen problems arise.
Look at all the main extremist groups all follow Wahhabism, AL-Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram and ISIS.
The main objective of both sides is control of Mecca and whoever holds the birth of Islam holds the key to influence Muslims the most. This is not to say that the Shia version by Iran is any less violent or dangereous. Again you only have to look back tothe Iran v Iraq war to see what lenghs Iran went to in the use of child soldiers. We arre talking about groups of people who would have little hesitation in using a nuke. This can be easily seen by how there is little care for the sanctity of life in order to achieve their aims.
As to Saudi exporting see below.


http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-saudi-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html

I know wahhabbism was born in SA. I just had never known the Saudi government to be responsible for spreading it.

I still don't think SA would fare very well against Iran. I think that Iran would end up owning the Persian Gulf.

In any event, Washington paralysis means that the US won't be available to stop it. No matter which way you slice it, it remains for Israel to step in.

Didge wrote:We arre talking about groups of people who would have little hesitation in using a nuke.

Any nation that has a nuke will use it if the conditions are right. The only thing that held back the US and the Soviets, back in the day, was mutually assured destruction (MAD). See, Schelling, Thomas, The Strategy of Conflict.

I don't think that Iran is any more anxious to be annihilated. I think it's a chess game. Take a look at North Korea. They have a bargaining chip in the game merely because they have the prerogative.

Original Quill wrote:I know wahhabbism was born in SA.  I just had never known the Saudi government to be responsible for spreading it.

I still don't think SA would fare very well against Iran.  I think that Iran would end up owning the Persian Gulf.

In any event, Washington paralysis means that the US won't be available to stop it.  No matter which way you slice it, it remains for Israel to step in.

Didge wrote:We arre talking about groups of people who would have little hesitation in using a nuke.

Any nation that has a nuke will use it if the conditions are right.  The only thing that held back the US and the Soviets, back in the day, was mutually assured destruction (MAD).  See, Schelling, Thomas, The Strategy of Conflict.

I don't think that Iran is any more anxious to be annihilated.  I think it's a chess game.  Take a look at North Korea.  They have a bargaining chip in the game merely because they have the prerogative.

North Korea is different, they may follow an extreme leftist ideology who's survival is its main goal, but this an extreme religious ideology we are talking about. You could argue that Pakisitan has not used its Nukes, but then they are the only Islamic country that has Nukes as a defence against a neighbour who is not Islamic. When two warring sides are Islamic that have Nukes, this dynamic will change, as we see constantly happen with the violence committed between extremist Muslims. If Iran or Saudi gains Nukes, the stakes are too high for supremacy of their sect of Islam for control of the religion. You have to look at the resolve of each side and it is one that wants to dominate Islam. Where again there is little care for the sacntity of life through martydom, there is little to constrain them from using such weapons against each other. In fact a nuke is the perfect tool to wipe out many from the opposite ideological religious side. One of the major tennants of Wahhabism is that all other forms of Islam are seen as apostates and this reasoning allows then and justfied then to butcher other Muslims. You see this through the history of Wahabbism. Hence why either side having a nuke will eventually spill over into a Nuke war.

Catch you later Quill, I am off to work.

Any one who thinks the Iranians will stop working towards having an atomic bomb is sadly deluded.

This is excellent news as it opens up Iran's nuclear programme for inspection and scrutinty by the IAEA to a level that we never had before. There are certain limitations in place on what they can do and what they can't do together with checks and balances which rule out development beyond a civil nature Thats much better than sitting on the outside wondering and trying to find out what Iran may be up to.

There is no question of the US or any other country assisting Iran to develop their civil nuclear programme beyond anything that would extend it to a military capability.

If Iran wanted to do that they would do it covertly anyway.

Irn Bru wrote:This is excellent news as it opens up Iran's nuclear programme for inspection and scrutinty by the IAEA to a level that we never had before. There are certain limitations in place on what they can do and what they can't do together with checks and balances which rule out development beyond a civil nature Thats much better than sitting on the outside wondering and trying to find out what Iran may be up to.

There is no question of the US or any other country assisting Iran to develop their civil nuclear programme beyond anything  that would extend it to a military capability.

If Iran wanted to do that they would do it covertly anyway.

You miss the implications here.
Whether Iran devolops a nuke or not Saudi, believes they will and will thus also try to do the same of which they can easily obtain through Pakistan. People are hailing this a way forward for peace, it is anything but peace and has opened up the door to a new arms race.
Again the West fails to understand the ongoing proxy war between Iran and Saudi.

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:This is excellent news as it opens up Iran's nuclear programme for inspection and scrutinty by the IAEA to a level that we never had before. There are certain limitations in place on what they can do and what they can't do together with checks and balances which rule out development beyond a civil nature Thats much better than sitting on the outside wondering and trying to find out what Iran may be up to.

There is no question of the US or any other country assisting Iran to develop their civil nuclear programme beyond anything  that would extend it to a military capability.

If Iran wanted to do that they would do it covertly anyway.

You miss the implications here.
Whether Iran devolops a nuke or not Saudi, believes they will and will thus also try to do the same of which they can easily obtain through Pakistan. People are hailing this a way forward for peace, it is anything but peace and has opened up the door to a new arms race.
Again the West fails to understand the ongoing proxy war between Iran and Saudi.

If the Iranians were developing a nuclear bomb then the Saudi's would get a sniff of it anyway and do the same so there is no change there. Pakistan have no interest in assisting Iran with it's nuclear programme beyond suppling technology on it's civil programme.
It's better to have the IAEA locked in on the Iranian programme than being blind-sided and locked out. Do nothing and nothing will change
Obanma is right. This is an historic event and the way forward - common sense really.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

You miss the implications here.
Whether Iran devolops a nuke or not Saudi, believes they will and will thus also try to do the same of which they can easily obtain through Pakistan. People are hailing this a way forward for peace, it is anything but peace and has opened up the door to a new arms race.
Again the West fails to understand the ongoing proxy war between Iran and Saudi.

If the Iranians were developing a nuclear bomb then the Saudi's would get a sniff of it anyway and do the same so there is no change there. Pakistan have no interest in assisting Iran with it's nuclear programme beyond suppling technology on it's civil programme.
It's better to have the IAEA locked in on the Iranian programme than being blind-sided and locked out. Do nothing and nothing will change
Obanma is right. This is an historic event and the way forward - common sense really.

Eh?????

Pakistan will asssit Saudi's by giving them some of their own nukes. There has been much talk of this through the relations the Saudi's have with Pakistan. So again this was a daft day in history one the Americans will look back on will gloom, one that will have placed a very dark episode on what was otherwise a great Presidency of Obama. The fact is you know very little of the ongoing conflict going on by the use of others between Saudi and Iran and the Saudi's greatly fear Iran obatining Nukes. This is why now you will see with a few short years a new arms race.

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

You miss the implications here.
Whether Iran devolops a nuke or not Saudi, believes they will and will thus also try to do the same of which they can easily obtain through Pakistan. People are hailing this a way forward for peace, it is anything but peace and has opened up the door to a new arms race.
Again the West fails to understand the ongoing proxy war between Iran and Saudi.

If the Iranians were developing a nuclear bomb then the Saudi's would get a sniff of it anyway and do the same so there is no change there. Pakistan have no interest in assisting Iran with it's nuclear programme beyond suppling technology on it's civil programme.
It's better to have the IAEA locked in on the Iranian programme than being blind-sided and locked out. Do nothing and nothing will change
Obanma is right. This is an historic event and the way forward - common sense really.

Eh?????

Pakistan will asssit Saudi's by giving them some of their own nukes. There has been much talk of this through the relations the Saudi's have with Pakistan. So again this was a daft day in history one the Americans will look back on will gloom, one that will have placed a very dark episode on what was otherwise a great Presidency of Obama. The fact is you know very little of the ongoing conflict going on by the use of others between Saudi and Iran and the Saudi's greatly fear Iran obatining Nukes. This is why now you will see with a few short years a new arms race.

And if we did nothing then the Iranian's would develop a nuclear bomb anyway if they wanted to so nothing would change would it?

It's just sheer common sense to have eyes and ears in Iran overseeing the nuclear programme with regular inspections.

The merchants of doom are out in force suggesting this is a green light for the Iranian's to build a nuclear bomb when it isn't.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Eh?????

Pakistan will asssit Saudi's by giving them some of their own nukes. There has been much talk of this through the relations the Saudi's have with Pakistan. So again this was a daft day in history one the Americans will look back on will gloom, one that will have placed a very dark episode on what was otherwise a great Presidency of Obama. The fact is you know very little of the ongoing conflict going on by the use of others between Saudi and Iran and the Saudi's greatly fear Iran obatining Nukes. This is why now you will see with a few short years a new arms race.

And if we did nothing then the Iranian's would develop a nuclear bomb anyway if they wanted to so nothing would change would it?

It's just sheer common sense to have eyes and ears in Iran overseeing the nuclear programme with regular inspections.

The merchants of doom are out in force suggesting this is a green light for the Iranian's to build a nuclear bomb when it isn't.

Who said to do nothing?

We were doing something.

Now we have raised the white flag.

This your problem Irn your ability to think outside the box is limited to say the least, this is more about an ongoing conflict between two islamic sects.

This deal was an utter disaster, one of appeasement.

The deal is watertight, and that John Kerry has had to be convinced of and has held out for, he's done a fantastic job.  It's 154 pages long, so I very much doubt anyone who was not party to the talks has any degree of understanding of it.

Nobody is denying it is watertight.
We all reognise the white flag when we see it raised.

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Eh?????

Pakistan will asssit Saudi's by giving them some of their own nukes. There has been much talk of this through the relations the Saudi's have with Pakistan. So again this was a daft day in history one the Americans will look back on will gloom, one that will have placed a very dark episode on what was otherwise a great Presidency of Obama. The fact is you know very little of the ongoing conflict going on by the use of others between Saudi and Iran and the Saudi's greatly fear Iran obatining Nukes. This is why now you will see with a few short years a new arms race.

And if we did nothing then the Iranian's would develop a nuclear bomb anyway if they wanted to so nothing would change would it?

It's just sheer common sense to have eyes and ears in Iran overseeing the nuclear programme with regular inspections.

The merchants of doom are out in force suggesting this is a green light for the Iranian's to build a nuclear bomb when it isn't.

Who said to do nothing?

We were doing something.

Now we have raised the white flag.

This your problem Irn your ability to think outside the box is limited to say the least, this is more about an ongoing conflict between two islamic sects.

This deal was an utter disaster, one of appeasement.

So what should we have done?

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Who said to do nothing?

We were doing something.

Now we have raised the white flag.

This your problem Irn your ability to think outside the box is limited to say the least, this is more about an ongoing conflict between two islamic sects.

This deal was an utter disaster, one of appeasement.

So what should we have done?

Coninued sanctions, until the point of the people bringing down the Theocracy from within.
There is many within Iran that want real democracy.

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Who said to do nothing?

We were doing something.

Now we have raised the white flag.

This your problem Irn your ability to think outside the box is limited to say the least, this is more about an ongoing conflict between two islamic sects.

This deal was an utter disaster, one of appeasement.

So what should we have done?

Coninued sanctions, until the point of the people bringing down the Theocracy from within.
There is many within Iran that want real democracy.

Sanctions have been in place for years and have made no difference.

Yes, the people of Iran want more freedoms and bringing Iran in from the cold in this way is a progressive move towards that.

Common sense really but you would rather we ramained outside of the their nuclear programme rather than being in there overseeing it all.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Coninued sanctions, until the point of the people bringing down the Theocracy from within.
There is many within Iran that want real democracy.

Sanctions have been in place for years and have made no difference.

Yes, the people of Iran want more freedoms and bringing Iran in from the cold in this way is a progressive move towards that.

Common sense really but you would rather we ramained outside of the their nuclear programme rather than being in there overseeing it all.

If they made no difference Iran would have never have come to the point of a deal, so that is utter nonsense.

Iran is under a Throecray and will continue under one.

Only the people can bring about that change whcih the west could have helped bring about with continued and harsher sanctions.

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Coninued sanctions, until the point of the people bringing down the Theocracy from within.
There is many within Iran that want real democracy.

Sanctions have been in place for years and have made no difference.

Yes, the people of Iran want more freedoms and bringing Iran in from the cold in this way is a progressive move towards that.

Common sense really but you would rather we ramained outside of the their nuclear programme rather than being in there overseeing it all.

If they made no difference Iran would have never have come to the point of a deal, so that is utter nonsense.

Iran is under a Throecray and will continue under one.

Only the people can bring about that change whcih the west could have helped bring about with continued and harsher sanctions.

So bringing Iran to the ppint of a deal is a win win for Kerry then? Yes, it is - thank you.

Harsher sanctions would just make the Iranians more bitter and if they wanted to develop a nuclear bomb then they would anyway.

Better to be inside their programme oversseing it than outside.

Anyway, I've got work to do so don't let me keep you back from doing yours.

Catch you later

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

If they made no difference Iran would have never have come to the point of a deal, so that is utter nonsense.

Iran is under a Throecray and will continue under one.

Only the people can bring about that change whcih the west could have helped bring about with continued and harsher sanctions.

So bringing Iran to the ppint of a deal is a win win for Kerry then? Yes, it is - thank you.

Harsher sanctions would just make the Iranians more bitter and if they wanted to develop a nuclear bomb then they would anyway.

Better to be inside their programme oversseing it than outside.

Anyway, I've got work to do so don't let me keep you back from doing yours.

Catch you later  

Odd as never claimed any such thing.

This is why I find your claims to logic absurd.
Harsher sanctions would be the tipping point needed to hellp spark the people to rise up.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I know wahhabbism was born in SA.  I just had never known the Saudi government to be responsible for spreading it.

I still don't think SA would fare very well against Iran.  I think that Iran would end up owning the Persian Gulf.

In any event, Washington paralysis means that the US won't be available to stop it.  No matter which way you slice it, it remains for Israel to step in.



Any nation that has a nuke will use it if the conditions are right.  The only thing that held back the US and the Soviets, back in the day, was mutually assured destruction (MAD).  See, Schelling, Thomas, The Strategy of Conflict.

I don't think that Iran is any more anxious to be annihilated.  I think it's a chess game.  Take a look at North Korea.  They have a bargaining chip in the game merely because they have the prerogative.

North Korea is different, they may follow an extreme leftist ideology who's survival is its main goal, but this an extreme religious ideology we are talking about. You could argue that Pakisitan has not used its Nukes, but then they are the only Islamic country that has Nukes as a defence against a neighbour who is not Islamic. When two warring sides are Islamic that have Nukes, this dynamic will change, as we see constantly happen with the violence committed between extremist Muslims. If Iran or Saudi gains Nukes, the stakes are too high for supremacy of their sect of Islam for control of the religion. You have to look at the resolve of each side and it is one that wants to dominate Islam. Where again there is little care for the sacntity of life through martydom, there is little to constrain them from using such weapons against each other. In fact a nuke is the perfect tool to wipe out many from the opposite ideological religious side. One of the major tennants of Wahhabism is that all other forms of Islam are seen as apostates and this reasoning allows then and justfied then to butcher other Muslims. You see this through the history of Wahabbism. Hence why either side having a nuke will eventually spill over into a Nuke war.

There are a lot of speculations there.  Simply put, I don't buy it.  

In many ways I think North Korea is more unstable than Iran.  I don't believe that SA is promoting state-sponsored wahhabism.   Why are only Muslims capable of committing violence against their own ("this dynamic will change, as we see constantly happen with the violence committed between extremist Muslims")?  If Muslims are so irrational, why is Pakistan so calculated as to save their nukes solely for a non-Islamic neighbor (presumably you mean India)?  And what happened to committing violence only against fellow Muslims?

You say the nuclear holocaust will be greater in Muslim states because "there is little care for the sanctity of life through martydom..."  I think here you have to distinguish between suicide of a person, and suicide of a nation.  MAD was a doctrine applicable to nations.  Only Japan, to my knowledge, was prepared to accept suicide of a whole culture.

Again...I don't buy it.  It's pure speculation.  I feel like I'm reading Revelations in the Holy Bible,  Lol.

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

So what should we have done?

Coninued sanctions, until the point of the people bringing down the Theocracy from within.
There is many within Iran that want real democracy.

Sanctions have been tough, no doubt. But they have not worked. The sanctions have been a penalty, but the pain has not worked to curtail Iran’s nuclear development. Iran has progressed on its nuclear program despite the sanctions.

I think the misunderstanding has been in the expectation that sanctions target the nuclear development; they do not. They impose pain, but do not deter the nuclear program specifically.

What the agreement does is slow down Iran’s nuclear development program. The fact of the matter is, this agreement will reduce Iran’s capabilities by some two-thirds, reducing weapons grade uranium and the number of centrifuges. In return, Iran gets some relief on the economic front. It is a reasonable trade, in which both sides know what they are getting.

Even Dr. Obama says that we cannot expect to deter Iran indefinitely. It’s an impossible dream. Slowing things down is the best we can hope for: it gives us time. Time brings some leave in which to operate for ”the people bringing down the Theocracy from within.” (Which may also be a dream.)

personally I think its a step forward ,you cant keep sanctions going and expect a change it didn`t work with cuba it was not going to work with iran

the more you punish people the more resentment it breads ,the greater the resentment the more willing people are prepared to get to a point a point where people go f*** it
and the shit hits the fan

The fact that they is seemingly a great degree of oversight is a good thing "trust but verify"
and if that falls trough sanctions can be quickly reinstated and they would presumably pale in comparison to the current ones
the stick approach has been tried time to use a carrot IMO

People being critical of the agreement should read it first before parroting what comes out of Netanyahu's gob and the trigger happy Republicans in DC.

Some people are just stuck in the past offering nothing new other than carry on as before.

Not got through it all yet, but one paragraph struck me right at the beginning:

Iran will allow the IAEA to monitor the implementation of the voluntary measures for their respective durations, as well as to implement transparency measures, as set out in this JCPOA and its Annexes. These measures include: a long-term IAEA presence in Iran; IAEA monitoring of uranium ore concentrate produced by Iran from all uranium ore concentrate plants for 25 years; containment and surveillance of centrifuge rotors and bellows for 20 years; use of IAEA approved and certified modern technologies including on-line enrichment measurement and electronic seals; and a reliable mechanism to ensure speedy resolution of IAEA access concerns for 15 years, as defined in Annex I.

Well it's 157 pages long so it does take a bit of time to get through it all right enough lol.

And I don't want to speed read it as there are so many facts to take in.

Probably very telling that only one nation is more concerned about Iran than ISIS.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Coninued sanctions, until the point of the people bringing down the Theocracy from within.
There is many within Iran that want real democracy.

Sanctions have been tough, no doubt.  But they have not worked.  The sanctions have been a penalty, but the pain has not worked to curtail Iran’s nuclear development.   Iran has progressed on its nuclear program despite the sanctions.  

I think the misunderstanding has been in the expectation that sanctions target the nuclear development; they do not.  They impose pain, but do not deter the nuclear program specifically.

What the agreement does is slow down Iran’s nuclear development program.  The fact of the matter is, this agreement will reduce Iran’s capabilities by some two-thirds, reducing weapons grade uranium and the number of centrifuges.  In return, Iran gets some relief on the economic front.  It is a reasonable trade, in which both sides know what they are getting.

Even Dr. Obama says that we cannot expect to deter Iran indefinitely.  It’s an impossible dream.  Slowing things down is the best we can hope for: it gives us time.  Time brings some leave in which to operate for ”the people bringing down the Theocracy from within.”  (Which may also be a dream.)

All I am going to say is watch this space and why is it Iran never offered up any information on any nuke war program it had in the negotiations?
Again people are being reliant on a nation who has global ambitions which at this present are limited first to the Middle East in domination of Islam itself and they will stop at nothing to obtain this goal Quill.
Sadly people are easily fooled and when I am right and they have built a nuke I shall remind many here of this, which will certainly happen when the Saudi's posses them also.
The US has certainly turned into Neville Chamberlain in appeasement and it has done to the cost of future peace.

On October 18, 1994, at 5:09 PM in the White House Briefing Room, President Bill Clinton announced an agreement with North Korea which he said “agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.” He declared the deal would help put “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.”
Experts believe North Korea now has at least ten nuclear weapons.
Most of the mainstream media has ignored the striking similarity to the Iran situation or only briefly referenced it.
Below are President Clinton’s remarks at the time. As you read, mentally swap out “North Korea” for “Iran” and “South Korea” for Israel.

Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea's nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.
This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It's a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.
I want to begin by thanking Secretary Christopher and our chief negotiator, Ambassador at Large Bob Gallucci, for seeing these negotiations through. I asked Bob if he'd had any sleep, since he's going to answer all your technical questions about this agreement, and he said that he had had some sleep. So be somewhat gentle with him. After meeting with my chief national security advisers, and at their unanimous recommendation, I am instructing Ambassador Gallucci to return to Geneva on Friday for the purpose of signing an agreement.
The United States has been concerned about the possibility that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons since the 1980's. Three administrations have tried to bring this nuclear program under international control. There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. And the United States has an unshakeable commitment to protect our ally and our fellow democracy South Korea. Thirty-eight thousand American troops stationed on the Peninsula are the guarantors of that commitment.
Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.
This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other's capitals. These offices will ease North Korea's isolation.
From the start of the negotiations, we have consulted closely with South Korea, with Japan, and with other interested parties. We will continue to work closely with our allies and with the Congress as our relationship with North Korea develops.
Throughout this administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we've made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and from Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our Nation will be safer and the future of our people more secure.

The current Iran accord will have permanent repercussions and could end exactly as the North Korean deal did – with an American enemy in possession of the most dangerous weapons on earth. Yet… Where’s the coverage?


http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/07/wheres_the_coverage_the_90s_ca_1.html

Didge wrote:The current Iran accord will have permanent repercussions and could end exactly as the North Korean deal did – with an American enemy in possession of the most dangerous weapons on earth. Yet… Where’s the coverage?

Soooo...the answer is:

1.  To give up.

2.  To keeping going with what doesn't work (sanctions); or

3.  Go to war.

Or...try talking.  Right now, Iran is being the more reasonable nation.  It is Israel that is throwing a temper tantrum.  Quite frankly, I don't trust a Natanyahu-led Israel. And, I think he has destroyed a lot of Israel's credibility in the US; he has aligned Israel with a party in the US--Republicans--that is a blink away from disappearing. How many candidates do they have for president? Eighteen? Twenty? Is Donald Trump for real? Republicans can't reason; they go to war. Looks like they have taught Israel well. Netanyahu needs to consider a saying we heard back in the 60's: Suppose they held a war and nobody came?

But that aside, I think the agreement is the best under the circumstances.  Trying to stop a nation from obtaining nuclear power is like trying to stop the US in 1910 from developing the internal combustion engine.  It's in all the textbooks, universities and laboratories...and its going to happen everywhere.  Slowing things down is the best we can hope for.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:The current Iran accord will have permanent repercussions and could end exactly as the North Korean deal did – with an American enemy in possession of the most dangerous weapons on earth. Yet… Where’s the coverage?

Soooo...the answer is:

1.  To give up.

2.  To keeping going with what doesn't work (sanctions); or

3.  Go to war.

Or...try talking.  Right now, Iran is being the more reasonable nation.  It is Israel that is throwing a temper tantrum.  Quite frankly, I don't trust a Natanyahu-led Israel.

But that aside, I think the agreement is the best under the circumstances.  Trying to stop a nation from obtaining nuclear power is like trying to stop the US in 1910 from developing the internal combustion engine.  It's in all the textbooks, universities and laboratories...and its going to happen everywhere.  Slowing things down is the best we can hope for.

Well what has been achieved with Iran?
Has it given uip its intentions on Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, Weest Bank ect?
The agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.
Iran will do as North Korea did, as it has no real intention of keeping its word. It never had any though of doing so, to them the US is the enemy, as is Israel and the West.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Soooo...the answer is:

1.  To give up.

2.  To keeping going with what doesn't work (sanctions); or

3.  Go to war.

Or...try talking.  Right now, Iran is being the more reasonable nation.  It is Israel that is throwing a temper tantrum.  Quite frankly, I don't trust a Natanyahu-led Israel.

But that aside, I think the agreement is the best under the circumstances.  Trying to stop a nation from obtaining nuclear power is like trying to stop the US in 1910 from developing the internal combustion engine.  It's in all the textbooks, universities and laboratories...and its going to happen everywhere.  Slowing things down is the best we can hope for.

Well what has been achieved with Iran?
Has it given uip its intentions on Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, Weest Bank ect?

Those things were never on the agenda. It is not an agreement for all seasons. We never negotiated: you be nice, now! It is an agreement of very specific scope...nuclear weapons. You are losing your focus, didge. You are moving the goal posts after the fact.

Cuchulain wrote:The agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.
Iran will do as North Korea did, as it has no real intention of keeping its word. It never had any though of doing so, to them the US is the enemy, as is Israel and the West.

If Iran does not keep its word, we snap back to square one and nothing is lost. Sanctions are reimposed and Iran goes back to building a nuclear weapon. Easy-peasy.