Experts Knock Down Attacks On Obama’s Approach To Iran

[Lakhota]

8 Reasons Why The Iran Deal Is A Done Deal

In the end, presidents usually get their way.

WASHINGTON -- Despite the controversy in Congress and on cable TV about the nuclear arms agreement with Iran, the view in the diplomatic community here is calm, clear and simple: “It’s a done deal,” said one key ambassador.

President Barack Obama argues that the seven-nation deal merits support for its own sake. Anyone who reads the whole document, he says, will come away convinced that it does what the U.S. and its allies set out to do: to deny Iran, at least for a decade or more, the ability to build a bomb.

But whether Obama is correct on the internal details or not, there are external reasons to think that the G-7 envoy I spoke with was right that Obama would get his way.

Here’s a list:

Much More: 8 Reasons Why The Iran Deal Is A Done Deal

I agree! I expect that President Obama and his European partners will prevail.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

8 Reasons Why The Iran Deal Is A Done Deal

In the end, presidents usually get their way.

WASHINGTON -- Despite the controversy in Congress and on cable TV about the nuclear arms agreement with Iran, the view in the diplomatic community here is calm, clear and simple: “It’s a done deal,” said one key ambassador.

President Barack Obama argues that the seven-nation deal merits support for its own sake. Anyone who reads the whole document, he says, will come away convinced that it does what the U.S. and its allies set out to do: to deny Iran, at least for a decade or more, the ability to build a bomb.

But whether Obama is correct on the internal details or not, there are external reasons to think that the G-7 envoy I spoke with was right that Obama would get his way.

Here’s a list:

Much More: 8 Reasons Why The Iran Deal Is A Done Deal

I agree! I expect that President Obama and his European partners will prevail.

#ObamaSwitchedSides

 

[Lakhota]

I applaud having a president who doesn't blindly send our soldiers to their death for no reason. Shouldn't we all?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I applaud having a president who doesn't blindly send our soldiers to their death for no reason. Shouldn't we all?

You applaud a President who arms violent Mexican drug gangs and Jihadists

 

[mudwhistle]

WASHINGTON – Critics of the nuclear deal that major world powers struck with Iran this week have largely based their case on a counterfactual. Had President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Iran that were more aggressive -- “crippling,” even -- then, the theory goes, he would have extracted more favorable concessions.

This argument is meant, in part, to reinforce the idea that a third option existed between the two Obama outlined -- that is, between military confrontation and the agreement that was ultimately struck. But would it actually have been practical?

According to experts in the subject, including those who worked on Iran sanctions, the answer is basically no.

Much More: Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional Crippling Sanctions?

I applaud President Obama's approach to Iran. He put diplomacy ahead of war - and apparently his European partners agreed. War is always an option of last resort.

It's gonna take a lot of buffing to polish this turd.

I like actions that don't need a lot of armtwisting and a full blown media campaign to gain acceptance.

 

[mudwhistle]

Ve haff 100 former diplomats in their lab coats that say the Iranian deal vill not only stop Iran from getting ze nukes....but it vill cure cancer as well.

Yup yup.

 

[Lakhota]

WASHINGTON – Critics of the nuclear deal that major world powers struck with Iran this week have largely based their case on a counterfactual. Had President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Iran that were more aggressive -- “crippling,” even -- then, the theory goes, he would have extracted more favorable concessions.

This argument is meant, in part, to reinforce the idea that a third option existed between the two Obama outlined -- that is, between military confrontation and the agreement that was ultimately struck. But would it actually have been practical?

According to experts in the subject, including those who worked on Iran sanctions, the answer is basically no.

Much More: Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional Crippling Sanctions?

I applaud President Obama's approach to Iran. He put diplomacy ahead of war - and apparently his European partners agreed. War is always an option of last resort.

It's gonna take a lot of buffing to polish this turd.

I like actions that don't need a lot of armtwisting and a full blown media campaign to gain acceptance.

Most great American political advances required "armtwisting"...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I applaud having a president who doesn't blindly send our soldiers to their death for no reason. Shouldn't we all?

more will die in the end....giving nasty dictators everything they want is selling out America.....but that's the demonrat way...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

 

[MACAULAY]

Sometimes only evil choices are available to the wisdom of man.

Dealing with religious lunatics who are running a whole country is a serious problem.

Obama chose the Coward's Way.

He passed on dealing with Iran while it still doesn't have a nuclear bomb...and in doing so, left the next President to deal with them when they do have one.

Neville Chamberlain is happy. He at last, will no longer be History's worst Cowardly Fool.

 

[blackhawk]

Obama can get a nuke deal with Iran by basically giving them everything they want yet he can't get the Washington Redskins to change their name. What a wuss,

 

[MaryL]

WASHINGTON – Critics of the nuclear deal that major world powers struck with Iran this week have largely based their case on a counterfactual. Had President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Iran that were more aggressive -- “crippling,” even -- then, the theory goes, he would have extracted more favorable concessions.

This argument is meant, in part, to reinforce the idea that a third option existed between the two Obama outlined -- that is, between military confrontation and the agreement that was ultimately struck. But would it actually have been practical?

According to experts in the subject, including those who worked on Iran sanctions, the answer is basically no.

Much More: Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional Crippling Sanctions?

I applaud President Obama's approach to Iran. He put diplomacy ahead of war - and apparently his European partners agreed. War is always an option of last resort.

Yes, just like the "experts" all supported Lord Neville Chamberlain for coddling Nazi Germany, too. History repeating itself. Time will tell, after New York or Israel gets nuked, we won't be looking back at this agreement with such ardor.

 

[mudwhistle]

WASHINGTON – Critics of the nuclear deal that major world powers struck with Iran this week have largely based their case on a counterfactual. Had President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Iran that were more aggressive -- “crippling,” even -- then, the theory goes, he would have extracted more favorable concessions.

This argument is meant, in part, to reinforce the idea that a third option existed between the two Obama outlined -- that is, between military confrontation and the agreement that was ultimately struck. But would it actually have been practical?

According to experts in the subject, including those who worked on Iran sanctions, the answer is basically no.

Much More: Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional Crippling Sanctions?

I applaud President Obama's approach to Iran. He put diplomacy ahead of war - and apparently his European partners agreed. War is always an option of last resort.

It's gonna take a lot of buffing to polish this turd.

I like actions that don't need a lot of armtwisting and a full blown media campaign to gain acceptance.

Most great American political advances required "armtwisting"...

Not after the fact..Dumbass....but before you get an agreement. All of his shitty executive actions always result in some stupid media dog and pony show.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

WASHINGTON – Critics of the nuclear deal that major world powers struck with Iran this week have largely based their case on a counterfactual. Had President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Iran that were more aggressive -- “crippling,” even -- then, the theory goes, he would have extracted more favorable concessions.

This argument is meant, in part, to reinforce the idea that a third option existed between the two Obama outlined -- that is, between military confrontation and the agreement that was ultimately struck. But would it actually have been practical?

According to experts in the subject, including those who worked on Iran sanctions, the answer is basically no.

Much More: Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional Crippling Sanctions?

I applaud President Obama's approach to Iran. He put diplomacy ahead of war - and apparently his European partners agreed. War is always an option of last resort.

Lol. Experts were also knocking down attacks when clinton made a deal with n korea to stop their program......and we all know that they went ahead anyway and developed nukes. Iran will do the same.

 

[francoHFW]

Every expert in the UK, Russia, France etc is wrong too. Only bought off, misinformed Fox etc pundits and Pubs are right lol. Hater dupes...

 

[francoHFW]

WASHINGTON – Critics of the nuclear deal that major world powers struck with Iran this week have largely based their case on a counterfactual. Had President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Iran that were more aggressive -- “crippling,” even -- then, the theory goes, he would have extracted more favorable concessions.

This argument is meant, in part, to reinforce the idea that a third option existed between the two Obama outlined -- that is, between military confrontation and the agreement that was ultimately struck. But would it actually have been practical?

According to experts in the subject, including those who worked on Iran sanctions, the answer is basically no.

Much More: Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional Crippling Sanctions?

I applaud President Obama's approach to Iran. He put diplomacy ahead of war - and apparently his European partners agreed. War is always an option of last resort.

Lol. Experts were also knocking down attacks when clinton made a deal with n korea to stop their program......and we all know that they went ahead anyway and developed nukes. Iran will do the same.

BS. N. Korea stopped under Clinton, went ahead again when the idiot W called them the Axis of evil. Mission accomplished, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

WASHINGTON – Critics of the nuclear deal that major world powers struck with Iran this week have largely based their case on a counterfactual. Had President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Iran that were more aggressive -- “crippling,” even -- then, the theory goes, he would have extracted more favorable concessions.

This argument is meant, in part, to reinforce the idea that a third option existed between the two Obama outlined -- that is, between military confrontation and the agreement that was ultimately struck. But would it actually have been practical?

According to experts in the subject, including those who worked on Iran sanctions, the answer is basically no.

Much More: Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional Crippling Sanctions?

I applaud President Obama's approach to Iran. He put diplomacy ahead of war - and apparently his European partners agreed. War is always an option of last resort.

Yes, just like the "experts" all supported Lord Neville Chamberlain for coddling Nazi Germany, too. History repeating itself. Time will tell, after New York or Israel gets nuked, we won't be looking back at this agreement with such ardor.

As if Iran is just dying to get vaporized. More "mushroom clouds" from the Foxbots....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Barack Obama is one of the most consequential presidents in American history —

 

[MaryL]

WASHINGTON – Critics of the nuclear deal that major world powers struck with Iran this week have largely based their case on a counterfactual. Had President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Iran that were more aggressive -- “crippling,” even -- then, the theory goes, he would have extracted more favorable concessions.

This argument is meant, in part, to reinforce the idea that a third option existed between the two Obama outlined -- that is, between military confrontation and the agreement that was ultimately struck. But would it actually have been practical?

According to experts in the subject, including those who worked on Iran sanctions, the answer is basically no.

Much More: Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional Crippling Sanctions?

I applaud President Obama's approach to Iran. He put diplomacy ahead of war - and apparently his European partners agreed. War is always an option of last resort.

Yes, just like the "experts" all supported Lord Neville Chamberlain for coddling Nazi Germany, too. History repeating itself. Time will tell, after New York or Israel gets nuked, we won't be looking back at this agreement with such ardor.

As if Iran is just dying to get vaporized. More "mushroom clouds" from the Foxbots....

Robot Foxes aren't a threat , Iran is. Take the aluminum foil out of your hat.

 

[kwc57]

Every expert in the UK, Russia, France etc is wrong too. Only bought off, misinformed Fox etc pundits and Pubs are right lol. Hater dupes...

I'm betting you rub your little happy spot every time you say Fox don't you? Wanker.