America Reaches Deal with Iran

[True2tRA]

The nuclear proliferation agreement with Iran was reached in July. The sale of these S300 missiles was known about in April, well before the deal was signed. If this was a deal-breaker, likely the deal wouldn't have been signed.

 

People need to understand that Iran is going to make the best defense deals for Iran. It's not like they're going to lay down weapons because they signed this agreement with the U.S. Every time they buy or make missiles, planes, bombs or boats doesn't need to be news - unless you're Israel, and you want to use this as some kind of scare tactic to drum up more support from Moneybags 'Merica.

 

Wait? You mean America doesn't just decide the deal and then force the other country to sign it? But isn't that what WAR is for? It sounds really simple.....every time a Republican speaks about this Iran deal it sounds so easy.

 

I have Facebook, its a really great thing for a lot of reasons pertaining to my life right now, but its also an absolute breeding ground for insanity sometimes. The "I have a very strong opinion about this!.......but I offer no alternative solution......" crowd....Holy Lord, they're a loud bunch.

[Mavric]

The nuclear proliferation agreement with Iran was reached in July. The sale of these S300 missiles was known about in April, well before the deal was signed. If this was a deal-breaker, likely the deal wouldn't have been signed.

 

People need to understand that Iran is going to make the best defense deals for Iran. It's not like they're going to lay down weapons because they signed this agreement with the U.S. Every time they buy or make missiles, planes, bombs or boats doesn't need to be news - unless you're Israel, and you want to use this as some kind of scare tactic to drum up more support from Moneybags 'Merica.

 

Between Israel and Iran, which has advocated the destruction of the other?

[knapplc]

Let's not pretend that Israel intends to live in harmony with Iran. Israel receives billions of dollars in military aid from America and has every intention of keeping that money flowing in. They get more if they're in active conflict with someone - which is why the Gaza Strip is an ongoing open wound. A war with Iran would ensure even more money flowing in.

Along those lines, Israeli hardliners advocate war with Iran - some insisting on a first-strike policy:

Strike Sooner or Never
47 percent of Israelis back Iran strike following nuke deal
Report: Israel Preparing For Military Strike On Iran

The Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service states in its June 15th report:

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $124.3 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits not available to any other countries; for example, Israel can use some U.S. military assistance both for research and development in the United States and for military purchases from Israeli manufacturers. In addition, U.S. assistance earmarked for Israel is generally delivered in the first 30 days of the fiscal year, while most other recipients normally receive aid in installments, and Israel (as is also the case with Egypt) is permitted to use cash flow financing for its U.S. arms purchases. In addition to receiving U.S. State Department-administered foreign assistance, Israel also receives funds from annual defense appropriations bills for rocket and missile defense programs. Israel pursues some of those programs jointly with the United States.

 

 

What has Israel done to receive such a sweetheart deal, deals that no other nation in the world gets? Follow the money trail, as American politician after American politician travels to Israel, or meets in America with Israeli-Americans like Sheldon Adelsen, and receive campaign contributions after their visits. While I'm certain no American politician has allowed their vote on Capitol Hill to be influenced by campaign cash from Israel... that deal in the paragraph above is pretty unique.

[knapplc]

Between Israel and Iran, which has a huge financial influence over American politicians? Let's look at AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee...

AIPAC is prideful about its influence. Its promotional literature points out that a reception during its annual policy conference, in Washington, “will be attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.” A former AIPAC executive, Steven Rosen, was fond of telling people that he could take out a napkin at any Senate hangout and get signatures of support for one issue or another from scores of senators.

 

The Senate, preparing for its August recess, hastened to vote on the Iron Dome funding. At first, the appropriation was bundled into an emergency bill that also included money to address the underage refugees flooding across the Mexican border. But, with only a few days left before the break began, that bill got mired in a partisan fight. Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid tried to package Iron Dome with money for fighting wildfires, and then offered it by itself; both efforts failed, stopped largely by budget hawks. “If you can’t get it done the night before recess, you bemoan the fact that you couldn’t get it done, and everybody goes home,” a congressional staffer said. Instead, Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, the Republican leader, decided to stay over, even if it meant missing an event at home. The next morning, with the halls of the Senate all but empty, an unusual session was convened so that McConnell and Reid could try again to pass the bill; Tim Kaine was also there, along with the Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham. “There were five senators present and literally no one else!” the staffer said. “They reintroduced it and passed it. This was one of the more amazing feats, for AIPAC.”

In a press conference, Graham, who has been a major recipient of campaign contributions connected to AIPAC, pointed out that the funding for Iron Dome was intended as a gesture of solidarity with Israel. “Not only are we going to give you more missiles—we’re going to be a better friend,” Graham said. “We’re going to fight for you in the international court of public opinion. We’re going to fight for you in the United Nations.”

 

In 1996, Brian Baird, a psychologist from Seattle, decided to run for Congress. Local Democrats asked if he had thought about what he was going to say to AIPAC. “I had admired Israel since I was a kid,” Baird told me. “But I also was fairly sympathetic to peaceful resolution and the Palestinian side. These people said, ‘We respect that, but let’s talk about the issues and what you might say.’ The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money. And you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that. They come to you and say, ‘We’d be happy to host ten-thousand-dollar fund-raisers for you, and let us help write your annual letter, and please come to this multi-thousand-person dinner.’ ” Baird continued, “Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them, and significant amounts against you if you’re not with them.” For Baird, AIPAC-connected money amounted to about two hundred thousand dollars in each of his races—“and that’s two hundred thousand going your way, versus the other way: a four-hundred-thousand-dollar swing.”

Read this entire article. It's shocking.

 

Iran, coincidentally, does not have a similar lobby in Washington. Unsurprisingly, they are the "bad guy," and Israel is the "good guy."

 

I'm just certain money plays no role in those labels.

[Mavric]

I'm not saying Israel has no culpability in the situation. And I think we are too involved in any number of situations around the world.

 

But simply saying there are some in Israel who want to strike first is meaningless investigating answering why.

 

You had said in an earlier post that this deal would make it harder for warmongers in Iran (and other places) to find people willing to keep arming. Then the fist thing Iran does is go out and start buying more weapons. It's possible that it slows the progress of the biggest weapon but that's a far cry from changing the attitude. And it seems at best all it's doing is kicking the can down the road.

[Mavric]

A Wednesday press report that Iran will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site believed to be the center of its nuclear weapons program is raising new concerns about whether Tehran can be trusted to keep its word.

The Associated Press said a document seen by its reporters would allow Iranian experts, rather than the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, to verify concerns about the Parchin military facility, believed to have been the center of Iran's past nuclear weapons research.

The process for dealing with Parchin is laid out in a side agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is separate from the broader nuclear deal reached in Vienna on July 14.

 

Link

[BigRedBuster]

Between Israel and Iran, which has a huge financial influence over American politicians? Let's look at AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee...

 

AIPAC is prideful about its influence. Its promotional literature points out that a reception during its annual policy conference, in Washington, “will be attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.” A former AIPAC executive, Steven Rosen, was fond of telling people that he could take out a napkin at any Senate hangout and get signatures of support for one issue or another from scores of senators.

 

The Senate, preparing for its August recess, hastened to vote on the Iron Dome funding. At first, the appropriation was bundled into an emergency bill that also included money to address the underage refugees flooding across the Mexican border. But, with only a few days left before the break began, that bill got mired in a partisan fight. Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid tried to package Iron Dome with money for fighting wildfires, and then offered it by itself; both efforts failed, stopped largely by budget hawks. “If you can’t get it done the night before recess, you bemoan the fact that you couldn’t get it done, and everybody goes home,” a congressional staffer said. Instead, Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, the Republican leader, decided to stay over, even if it meant missing an event at home. The next morning, with the halls of the Senate all but empty, an unusual session was convened so that McConnell and Reid could try again to pass the bill; Tim Kaine was also there, along with the Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham. “There were five senators present and literally no one else!” the staffer said. “They reintroduced it and passed it. This was one of the more amazing feats, for AIPAC.”

 

In a press conference, Graham, who has been a major recipient of campaign contributions connected to AIPAC, pointed out that the funding for Iron Dome was intended as a gesture of solidarity with Israel. “Not only are we going to give you more missiles—we’re going to be a better friend,” Graham said. “We’re going to fight for you in the international court of public opinion. We’re going to fight for you in the United Nations.”

 

In 1996, Brian Baird, a psychologist from Seattle, decided to run for Congress. Local Democrats asked if he had thought about what he was going to say to AIPAC. “I had admired Israel since I was a kid,” Baird told me. “But I also was fairly sympathetic to peaceful resolution and the Palestinian side. These people said, ‘We respect that, but let’s talk about the issues and what you might say.’ The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money. And you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that. They come to you and say, ‘We’d be happy to host ten-thousand-dollar fund-raisers for you, and let us help write your annual letter, and please come to this multi-thousand-person dinner.’ ” Baird continued, “Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them, and significant amounts against you if you’re not with them.” For Baird, AIPAC-connected money amounted to about two hundred thousand dollars in each of his races—“and that’s two hundred thousand going your way, versus the other way: a four-hundred-thousand-dollar swing.”

Read this entire article. It's shocking.

 

Iran, coincidentally, does not have a similar lobby in Washington. Unsurprisingly, they are the "bad guy," and Israel is the "good guy."

 

I'm just certain money plays no role in those labels.

A prime example of getting money out of politics should be a major point for all politicians.

 

Since Bernie Sanders is the one flying this flag the highest, I would be interested to know if he is just as adamant about getting this kind of money out of elections as he is big companies or rich individuals.

[BigRedBuster]

 

A Wednesday press report that Iran will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site believed to be the center of its nuclear weapons program is raising new concerns about whether Tehran can be trusted to keep its word.

The Associated Press said a document seen by its reporters would allow Iranian experts, rather than the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, to verify concerns about the Parchin military facility, believed to have been the center of Iran's past nuclear weapons research.

The process for dealing with Parchin is laid out in a side agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is separate from the broader nuclear deal reached in Vienna on July 14.

 

Link

 

I would have to read this somewhere other than the Washington Examiner to give much credibility to the story. This sounds way too much like a made up fact about the deal.

[Mavric]

 

 

A Wednesday press report that Iran will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site believed to be the center of its nuclear weapons program is raising new concerns about whether Tehran can be trusted to keep its word.

The Associated Press said a document seen by its reporters would allow Iranian experts, rather than the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, to verify concerns about the Parchin military facility, believed to have been the center of Iran's past nuclear weapons research.

The process for dealing with Parchin is laid out in a side agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is separate from the broader nuclear deal reached in Vienna on July 14.

 

Link

 

I would have to read this somewhere other than the Washington Examiner to give much credibility to the story. This sounds way too much like a made up fact about the deal.

 

 

It's an AP report.

[BigRedBuster]

Some interesting articles on the Iran deal and our potential relationship with them.

 

LINK

 

The debate over the Iran nuclear deal may now have its own version of "death panels," a provision that is both a point of overwhelming criticism and largely fictitious.

"Particularly troublesome, you have to wait 24 days before you can inspect," Sen. Chuck Schumer told reporters last week, explaining why he is opposing the deal.

Conservative media have hammered at this idea: that nuclear inspectors must wait 24 days before visiting any place in Iran that is not a declared nuclear site. Sometimes they imply or outright state, as in the case of this staggeringly misleading but representative Fox News story, that the 24-day wait applies even to known nuclear sites.

This certainly sounds scary. It sounds, as the critics often say, like those bumbling appeasers in the Obama administration have handed Iran the ability to cheat on the deal and then prevent inspectors from catching them.

 

Fortunately, this is all largely false. It's a lot like "death panels," in which Obamacare critics took a benign fact about the health-care bill — it would include end-of-life counseling — and then spun it up into a massive lie about how President Obama was going to cancel Granny's life-sustaining medications and send her to an early grave. This is an issue on which nuclear deal critics have taken a small truth and then exaggerated, distorted, and outright lied about it to make it into something very different.

 

LINK

 

The US-led nuclear deal is just about Iran's nuclear program and will not resolve any of the larger issues with Iran and its relationship to the rest of the world. Still, debate about the deal has, with merit, repeatedly turned to the question of Iran's place in the Middle East. After all, the country is increasingly assertive and influential in the region — it's also by far the country whose foreign policy is most hostile toward the US and its allies.

Iran hawks say that for this reason, any nuclear deal can only embolden and enhance Iran's menacing stature. Proponents of a deal sometimes argue that this could be an important first step toward removing the hostility between Iran and the rest of the world, thus encouraging a more conciliatory and productive Iranian foreign policy.

Both arguments almost certainly overstate the effects of this nuclear deal, but they're circling around an important question: Will Iran's hard-line anti-Western foreign policy change? Can it? And if so, how?

The journalist Steve Coll made an insightful point about this, speaking on a podcast this week hosted by the New Yorker. He compared Iran to the Sunni Arab countries of the Middle East, which make up most of the region:

The United States faces, in the Middle East, many Sunni Arab countries with elites that are pro-American and populations that are deeply hostile, whereas in Iran it faces elites that are mostly hostile — or require hostility to maintain their power — and a population that is really ready for change.

 

[Mavric]

ABC News

Politico

US News & World Report

 

Just the first few that Google came up with.

[BigRedBuster]

ABC News

Politico

US News & World Report

 

Just the first few that Google came up with.

OK...just looking at the ABC story, all it is is a very small paragraph talking about "this is the reaction to the report" and then a bunch of quotes from Republican politicians all up in arms and alarmed about the report.

Shocking.....

 

I would like to see where the "report" came from and the facts behind it.

[knapplc]

I'm not saying Israel has no culpability in the situation. And I think we are too involved in any number of situations around the world.

 

But simply saying there are some in Israel who want to strike first is meaningless investigating answering why.

 

You had said in an earlier post that this deal would make it harder for warmongers in Iran (and other places) to find people willing to keep arming. Then the fist thing Iran does is go out and start buying more weapons. It's possible that it slows the progress of the biggest weapon but that's a far cry from changing the attitude. And it seems at best all it's doing is kicking the can down the road.

 

 

The "too much Israeli money in American politics" is a bit of an aside, but it is relevant in this discussion. I think everyone is in agreement that we want less foreign $$$ (Israeli, Chinese, etc) in our politics, so that's probably something we can table.

 

 

Regarding the underlined: It will make it harder. It won't make it impossible, and this deal isn't designed to make it impossible. It's unrealistic to expect Iran to not continue to arm itself. Nothing in this deal says it shouldn't - just that it should not have nukes. Iran, Israel, the U.S., Russia... everyone is going to continue to arm themselves.

 

Regarding the bold: I think it's only a matter of time before tons more nations have nukes. It's amazing to me that only (what?) nine nations currently have them. Almost as amazing - PAKISTAN is among them. Iran is no less technically proficient than Pakistan, yet they don't have them yet. Iran will definitely have them some day. This does "kick the can down the road," but that can is going to be kicked no matter what. The technology is out there and we cannot put that genii back in the bottle.

 

My stance - it is far better to be friends with Iran than not, and to start that friendly relationship ASAP, because one day they will have nukes no matter what we do, and if we continue to back them into a corner and treat them as enemies, they won't have any choice but to react as enemies react. We have the ability to make peace, so let's do it. This treaty is not perfect, but it's a step toward peace and away from war.

 

My stance is also that the people most against this treaty have a monetary interest in not having America & Iran become friendly. And that bears much scrutiny.

[BigRedBuster]

This seems to be the AP story:

 

LINK

 

However, there still doesn't seem to be any verification that there really is a deal like this.

[BigRedBuster]

 

I'm not saying Israel has no culpability in the situation. And I think we are too involved in any number of situations around the world.

 

But simply saying there are some in Israel who want to strike first is meaningless investigating answering why.

 

You had said in an earlier post that this deal would make it harder for warmongers in Iran (and other places) to find people willing to keep arming. Then the fist thing Iran does is go out and start buying more weapons. It's possible that it slows the progress of the biggest weapon but that's a far cry from changing the attitude. And it seems at best all it's doing is kicking the can down the road.

 

 

The "too much Israeli money in American politics" is a bit of an aside, but it is relevant in this discussion. I think everyone is in agreement that we want less foreign $$$ (Israeli, Chinese, etc) in our politics, so that's probably something we can table.

 

 

Regarding the underlined: It will make it harder. It won't make it impossible, and this deal isn't designed to make it impossible. It's unrealistic to expect Iran to not continue to arm itself. Nothing in this deal says it shouldn't - just that it should not have nukes. Iran, Israel, the U.S., Russia... everyone is going to continue to arm themselves.

 

Regarding the bold: I think it's only a matter of time before tons more nations have nukes. It's amazing to me that only (what?) nine nations currently have them. Almost as amazing - PAKISTAN is among them. Iran is no less technically proficient than Pakistan, yet they don't have them yet. Iran will definitely have them some day. This does "kick the can down the road," but that can is going to be kicked no matter what. The technology is out there and we cannot put that genii back in the bottle.

 

My stance - it is far better to be friends with Iran than not, and to start that friendly relationship ASAP, because one day they will have nukes no matter what we do, and if we continue to back them into a corner and treat them as enemies, they won't have any choice but to react as enemies react. We have the ability to make peace, so let's do it. This treaty is not perfect, but it's a step toward peace and away from war.

 

My stance is also that the people most against this treaty have a monetary interest in not having America & Iran become friendly. And that bears much scrutiny.

 

Keep you friends close and your enemies closer.