Just To Confirm....

[PoliticalChic]

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

How many lies can you pack into a single sentence? Only two? You're slipping.

Obama gave Iran no guarantees and Iran is not world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, that honor goes to our friends the Saudis.

I never lie.

You're gonna prove it:

NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:

"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.


There was never....NEVER....any reason to allow the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons.

So Obama got a guarantee from Iran that they wouldn't get nukes for 10 years. What guarantee did he give them? He may have expressed the reality that they might get them after the deal expired by you lied about him providing them a guarantee.

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[DustyInfinity]

Sooo......you're fine with guaranteeing these savages nuclear weapons?

A good plan?

So you're fine with the governments official story and have to decided to "just go with that," instead of questioning the same government that lied to us about Pearl Harbor, Korea, Vietnam, 9/11, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Israel.

Sure, let's just believe the government about how bad Iran is. Even though they've never failed an IAEA inspection and they've never attacked us.
Iran has a right to protect itself, doesn't it? Or do you believe we should just wipe them off the face of the earth.

Protect itself from who? All the people they vow to eradicate?

 

[berg80]

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Whoops.........you just told another lie.

CLAIM 1: IRAN WILL BE ALLOWED TO INSPECT ITSELF.
The Facts:
In August 2015 the Associated Press incorrectly reported that a leaked draft of an agreement between the IAEA and Iran indicated that “Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear weapons.” Within hours, experts and the IAEA corrected the record.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano refuted this claim: “I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work.”

According to Cheryl Rofer, former program director at Los Alamos National Laboratory, “It doesn’t matter whose hands do the sampling. What matters is the verifiability of the sampling, laid out by the sampling and analysis plans as well as the chain of custody. The IAEA’s practice is to prepare sampling kits containing the necessary equipment, oversee the sampling, and be responsible for the chain of custody.”

The authenticity of the document the AP article is based off of has also been called into question; however, according to Jim Walsh, MIT security expert and Council for a Livable World board member, whether the document is real or fake is irrelevant to the primary issue: Iran will not be conducting its own verification or inspections.

CLAIM 2: THIS AGREEMENT PREVENTS THE UNITED STATES FROM PUNISHING IRAN FOR FUTURE VIOLATIONS.
The Facts:
No aspect of the agreement prevents the United States from maintaining or implementing new sanctions on Iran for its behavior. The U.S. has made it clear that it will continue to punish Iran for its human rights abuses and support for terrorism. The U.S. has continued to target actors associated with Iran’s terrorism activities for sanctions throughout the negotiations. As Adam Szubin, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes at the Department of Treasury stated in a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing, “Under the Interim deal, while negotiations were ongoing, we took action against more than a hundred Iranian-linked targets, and we will be accelerating that work in the days and months ahead, alongside Israel and our regional allies to combat Iran’s proxies, to interdict funds moving through its illicit networks.” These efforts have continued since the deal was reached. For instance, in late July 2015, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on three Hezbollah officials, an Iranian proxy group in Lebanon that is designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Paragraph 26 of the JCPOA states that Iran will treat the re-imposition of nuclear-related sanctions as grounds to terminate implementation of its obligations to the agreement. But this does not limit the international community’s ability to impose sanctions on Iran for other non-nuclear nefarious activities. As Colin Kahl, Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, recently stated, “If Iran diverts some of the resources they get from sanctions relief to ratchet up their support for terrorism and other nefarious activities, none of our tools—our sanctions tools to go after terrorism or human rights abuses or other things—fall away as a consequence of this agreement.”



CLAIM 3: BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CAN UNILATERALLY WAIVE ALL SANCTIONS, THE AGREEMENT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED WHETHER CONGRESS APPROVES IT OR NOT.
The Facts:
Congress imposed most U.S. sanctions by statute; but it is usually up to the executive branch to interpret and ultimately implement them. However, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 limits the President’s authority to waive sanctions. Section 135(c)(2)(A) of the deal states: “actions involving any measure of statutory sanctions relief … may not be taken if there is enacted a joint resolution stating in substance that the Congress does not favor the agreement.”

Furthermore, the onus will be on Congress to approve and appropriate adequate funding for the IAEA in order for the deal to be properly implemented and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.



CLAIM 4: THE UNITED STATES CAN CONVINCE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO CONTINUE ITS SUPPORT FOR SANCTIONS AFTER KILLING THE AGREEMENT.
The Facts:
If Congress were to reject the deal, the United States would need to coerce the international community to continue sanctions against their own economic interests. Some opponents of the deal advocate for threatening the international community: You can either do business with Iran or business with the United States. But this threat lacks credibility. As Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew explained in a New York Times Op-ed, 40% of American exports go to the European Union, China, Japan, India, and Korea. By threatening to exclude these countries from our banking system, the U.S. would be placing a significant portion of its own economy at risk. Moreover, the major importers of Iranian oil (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey) also account for one-fifth of U.S. exported goods and own 47% of foreign-held American treasuries. Even threatening to terminate this economic connectivity could have negative ramifications for both the US economy and the economies of our allies.

Our negotiating partners will not maintain sanctions that hurt their economies simply because the U.S. Congress insists they do so. Threatening our allies with economic warfare is a ludicrous approach, especially when compared to the practical and widely supported alternative of implementing the agreement.

CLAIM 5: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T WANT THE DEAL.
The Facts:
A consensus of polls suggests that the majority of the American public, and an even stronger majority of Jewish Americans, support the deal. Furthermore, a considerable number of foreign affairs experts and top officials support the deal: more than 100 former US ambassadors, 60 American national security leaders across the political spectrum including former US ambassadors to Israel, 70+ nuclear nonproliferation experts, 73 prominent international relations scholars, 67 Israeli former military and intelligence officials, 34 retired American Generals and Admirals, 32 top American scientists, 340 rabbis, 75 former Senators and Representatives, and the Gulf Cooperation Council, all publicly support the deal.

Many opponents of the deal were on the wrong side of history leading up to the war in Iraq. As James Fallows, national security correspondent for The Atlantic, put it in a recent piece, “You can be persuaded by Netanyahu, Huckabee, Cruz, Kristol, Adelson, et al., all of whom were wrong on the last high-stakes judgment call about US interests in the Middle East. Or by an overwhelming majority of the people from both parties with operating experience in America’s war-fighting and peacemaking enterprises in this part of the world.”

CLAIM 6: CONGRESS CAN REJECT THIS AGREEMENT AND NEGOTIATE A BETTER DEAL.
The Facts:
If the US Congress abandons this multi-lateral agreement endorsed by the UN Security Council, the next round of negotiations will be the US sitting at a table for one.

If Congress rejects this deal, the international sanctions regime that incentivized Iran to negotiate would unravel. Our negotiating partners don’t answer to the US Congress. Russia and China, for instance, won’t continue sanctions on Iran because the GOP says they should.

If this were to happen, Iran would receive sanctions relief without having any constraints on its nuclear program.



CLAIM 7: MILITARY ACTION IS BETTER THAN THIS DEAL.
The Facts:
Some critics, like John Bolton and Dick Cheney, have argued that the only way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is through the use of military action. This shortsighted and reckless approach would be counter-productive. As former director of the CIA Michael Hayden has explained, bombing Iran “will guarantee that which we are trying to prevent: an Iran that will stop at nothing to, in secret, develop a nuclear weapon.”

Taking military action, instead of implementing the current diplomatic solution, would shatter the international coalition that is applying economic pressure and force the United States to confront Iran without international support.

Even if a US bombing campaign were effective, it would need to be repeated every few years to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, resulting in a never-ending game of “nuclear program whack-a-mole.” Furthermore, we would not have the access or monitoring afforded to us under the agreement in order to detect covert facilities.

It is important to remember that implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action does not take the United States military option off the table. If anything, it strengthens it by improving our understanding of the status and location of Iran’s nuclear program.



CLAIM 8: THE DEAL WON’T WORK BECAUSE IRAN IS GOING TO CHEAT.
The Facts:
The deal is not based on trust; it’s based on verification. The IAEA will have 24/7 access to Iran’s known nuclear facilities and will be closely monitoring Iran’s supply chain of nuclear materials, centrifuge production lines, and any purchases that might be used for a nuclear program. The deal also provides timely inspections to any undeclared facilities where suspected nuclear activity may be occurring. If Iran does cheat, they will be caught and sanctions will be re-imposed.

There are also aspects of the deal that Iran can’t easily undo. Iran must dismantle two-thirds of its installed centrifuges, remove 98% of its uranium stockpile, and permanently alter the Arak Plutonium reactor before it receives any relief from economic sanctions. These actions will be verified by the IAEA and will greatly increase the time it would take Iran to obtain weapons-grade nuclear material.

The deal goes to great lengths to buttress major points of the agreement. For example, the deal does not just put limitations on centrifuge production, it also puts limitations on rotor production, and on the machines that make the rotors. The subsidiary commitments that Iran has made for the agreement are truly impressive.

Rejecting this deal means no restrictions, no verification, and no inspections of Iran’s nuclear program. Even if Iran cheats, we’ll know far more about Iran’s nuclear activities than we do now. And that will mean that all of the alternatives—including the least desirable, military action—will be more effective.



CLAIM 9: WE CANNOT, AND SHOULD NOT, NEGOTIATE WITH OUR ADVERSARIES.
The Facts:
Some critics suggest that because Iran is our adversary, we should not negotiate a deal with them. This line of thinking completely ignores history. President G.W. Bush negotiated a successful nuclear agreement with Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi—a sworn enemy of Israel and a state sponsor of terrorism. The Soviet Union had 10,000 nuclear weapons when we started negotiating SALT I. Both of these efforts, like the Iran deal, significantly improved the security of the United States and its allies.

This agreement does not rely on Iran changing its behavior. Instead, it includes verification mechanisms to ensure that Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon. In addition, sanctions for Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and human rights abuses will stay in place.

This deal may provide a unique pathway for international cooperation to improve regional and global security by addressing Iran’s other unacceptable policies. If Congress kills the deal, that pathway will be closed.



CLAIM 10: 24 DAYS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME FOR IRAN TO COVER UP ITS ILLICIT NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES.
The Facts:
First, some context: All of Iran’s nuclear facilities will be under 24/7 surveillance. The deal also provides an unprecedented process for inspecting facilities where the IAEA suspects illicit nuclear activity may be occurring. This means the IAEA can inspect businesses, military facilities, and even the President of Iran’s garage if necessary. The ability to carry out these investigations is permanent, but only if the deal is approved.

Under the comprehensive agreement, Iran will implement the Additional Protocol, which sets requirements and provides the legal authority for IAEA inspectors to access all nuclear and suspected nuclear facilities in perpetuity.

The IAEA can request access with 24-hour notice to any site inspectors suspect might be conducting illicit nuclear activities. If Iran denies the IAEA access, the JCPOA offers an extra enforcement process to ensure access: a Joint Commission, comprised of one representative from each P5+1 country plus Iran and a European Union representative. When the IAEA or any member of the Joint Commission warns that Iran is blocking access to a suspected site, a majority of members can force the Iranians to allow access. Unlike the UN Security Council, no one party gets a veto on this commissions. That means Russia, China and Iran can’t prevent inspections.

This process takes, at most, 24 days to complete. The Joint Commission has a maximum of seven days to review and adjudicate a claim that Iran is carrying out illicit nuclear activities; but if the evidence clearly indicates Iran should open a site for inspections, it could make that decision on day one of seven, bringing the timeframe down to 18 days. The clock starts ticking the moment the IAEA demands Iran give it access to a particular site, including the 24-hour advance notice required under the Additional Protocol.

Even the worst-case scenario of 24 days is not enough time for Iran to hide any substantial violations. The half-life of nuclear material is thousands of years. If Iran had material that could be used to make a nuclear bomb at a given location, inspectors would be able to find traces of it. Also, the physical structures to enrich weapons-grade uranium or plutonium cannot be moved in 24 days.

During the 24-day period, international intelligence apparatuses will watch the suspected facility to monitor any attempts to hide or move evidence. If, for example, trucks are backed up to a suspected facility, it could be considered a breach of the agreement and sanctions can legally be re-imposed.

While Iran may be able to get away with, say, computer-modeling activities during the 24-day period, they will still be a long way away from developing a nuclear weapon (much further than if there was no agreement in place.) To put it another way, if Iran’s goal is to secretly build a car, they may be able to develop a headlight or a windshield wiper without detection. But they will not be able to build an engine or fuel it. And they will still be several long, complicated steps away from building a car that functions.

Reminder: no deal means no inspections and no restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enterprise.



CLAIM 11: SANCTIONS ARE INADEQUATE FOR PUNISHING IRANIAN VIOLATIONS.
The Facts:
The Iran deal includes a “snapback” mechanism for re-imposing UN sanctions on Iran if they fail to comply with their obligations. Some critics have argued that the UN sanctions will never be re-imposed due to a lack of political will by members of the UN Security Council. This concern was considered by the negotiators, who implemented a process that works around this potential pitfall.

If Iran is found to be in breach of the agreement, a resolution is brought before the UN Security Council to continue the lifting of sanctions. If the resolution is not adopted within 30 days or if a veto is issued, the sanctions are re-imposed. This effectively eliminates the ability of Russia or China to veto the reapplication of sanctions.

Another concern is that the sanction system is “capital punishment for a misdemeanor” and fails to provide incremental responses for smaller violations. This is false, as the United States and its partners have several options for responding to an Iranian breach of the agreement without fully implementing sanctions.

First, the parties to the agreement can try diplomacy to resolve a dispute. There is a mechanism built into the agreement that permits members of the Joint Commission to meet at the ministerial level to discuss the alleged violation and establish a resolution. If the commission and ministerial-level consultations do not solve the dispute, parties to the agreement may 1) re-implement some sanctions in response to a breach, as is established by customary international law (Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) or 2) implement extraterritorial sanctions outside what is bound by the agreement.

In addition, the United States could use their ability to automatically re-impose the full list of UN sanctions as a bargaining tool, incentivizing the UN Security Council to negotiate and adopt a lesser resolution to avoid using the full sanctions to respond to a lesser violation.

Iran, like all parties to the agreement, can walk away at any time. But if Iran were to leave the agreement after being punished for violating the deal, the international community would be justified in applying the full weight of sanctions to bring Iran back into compliance. We would then be back where we started before the deal, except that Iran would have considerably fewer centrifuges and nuclear material, while the IAEA will have more insight into the history and current status of Iran’s nuclear program.

Critics have also called for a declared matrix of punitive responses to prospective Iranian violations. This would unnecessarily bind the P5+1 to respond to a violation in a specific way regardless of context, taking away the ability to increase or decrease the intensity of the response. Swearing off any tools in our toolkit would not improve this agreement’s ability to deter an Iranian violation.



CLAIM 12: THE IRAN DEAL WILL FAIL JUST LIKE THE AGREED FRAMEWORK WITH NORTH KOREA FAILED.
The Facts:
Comparing the agreements with Iran and North Korea is like comparing apples to dragon fruit. They’re both fruit, but that’s about it. For starters, the Agreed Framework with North Korea was four pages long. The Iran deal is 159 pages.

The framework with North Korea only addressed the plutonium pathway to a bomb, whereas the Iran deal blocks all three paths to a bomb: plutonium, uranium, and covert action.

According to Paul Pillar, a CIA veteran and a senior fellow at Georgetown University and the Brookings Institute, “The Agreed Framework was a sketchy four-page document that provided for little in the way of monitoring and enforcement. In contrast, the leading feature of the agreement being negotiated with Iran is its unprecedented degree of monitoring and inspections. The final agreement will have an enforcement and dispute resolution mechanism consistent with the Additional Protocol pertaining to work of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

In addition, the North Korea framework was a bilateral arrangement between the US and North Korea. The Iran deal is inherently stronger because more parties were involved in the negotiations process, and will be involved in its enforcement.



CLAIM 13: IRAN’S NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE WILL CAUSE A NUCLEAR CASCADE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST.
The Facts:
Iran has had a nuclear program since the 1950’s and an enrichment program since the 1980s. Before the interim agreement in November 2013, Iran was enriching uranium up to 20%. If there was no nuclear cascade when Iran’s program was unconstrained and only a few months from obtaining the enriched material necessary for a nuclear weapon, why would it occur when Iran’s program is both constrained and verifiably monitored?

Also, the United States provides security assistance to many of Iran’s neighbors and can use this leverage to prevent nuclear proliferation. Saudi Arabia, for example, would likely not risk its alliance with the United States in order to pursue a nuclear weapon to counter Iran’s constrained civilian nuclear program.

If Congress rejects the deal, Iran is more likely to pursue nuclear weapons and set off a cascade in other countries. The bottom line is that a safeguarded civil nuclear program does not pose a proliferation risk—it never has in the past 70 years of the nuclear age.



CLAIM 14: LIFTING THE UN EMBARGOES ON CONVENTIONAL ARMS AND BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS TO IRAN WILL EMBOLDEN IRAN AND LEAD TO FURTHER INSTABILITY IN THE REGION.
The Facts:
The conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes were adopted as a part of a UN Security Council resolution in 2010. Under the resolution, the embargoes were to be lifted if Iran agrees to negotiate on its nuclear program. This means the embargoes should have been lifted two years ago when Iran signed the interim agreement. Regardless of this and the fact that Iran, Russia, and China all wanted the embargoes to be lifted immediately, the deal maintains the arms embargo for another 5 years and the ballistic missile embargo for another 8 years. This is a major concession on the part of Iran and is meant to incentivize Iran to comply with the terms of the JCPOA.

Critics claim that the eventual lifting of these sanctions will facilitate Iran’s “imperial surge.” However, many of Iran’s staunchest foes, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, have much more advanced weaponry than Iran. The United States will continue to offer military assistance to these countries to counter Iran.

To counter any expansion of Iran’s military capabilities, the US has committed to continue its security assistance to Israel through arms trades, joint military exercises, and cooperative intelligence and training initiatives. To date, the US has provided Israel $124.3 billion in military assistance. Bolstered by US-developed technology, Israel’s military capabilities far exceed those of Iran.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia spends more than four times what Iran spends on its military. And Saudi Arabia plus the United Arab Emirates, two of the United States’ allies in the region, spend a combined 60% of the Middle East’s overall military spending.

In regards to Iran’s ballistic missile program, Iran is still excluded from the Missile Technology Control Regime, meaning it will still not be eligible to receive missile technology assistance. While North Korea may provide ballistic missile assistance to Iran, it was doing so regardless of the embargo, which has no effect on a pariah states like North Korea.


CLAIM 15: IRAN WILL USE SANCTIONS RELIEF TO PURSUE REGIONAL HEGEMONY AND FURTHER SUPPORT TERRORISM.
The Facts:
Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism negatively impacts the stability of the region. But if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, the nuclear deterrent that Iran would extend to its terrorist allies would pose an even greater threat. This deal eliminates that threat, preventing a dramatically worse security situation.
Furthermore, according to a report recently released by the CIA, Iran will use most of the released funds it receives from sanctions relief to bolster its economy, not to aid militant groups it supports.

Iran needs to invest in domestic development and reinvigorate its economy. Iranian President Rouhani has promised to revive the economy by completing formerly halted development projects and bringing down the rate of inflation—progress the Iranian people have been demanding.

Critics of the Iran deal like to exaggerate the amount of blocked funds Iran will receive, claiming that Iran will receive up to $300 billion in sanctions relief. According to US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, that figure is more like $50 billion. Iran owes at least $20 billion to China in addition to tens of billions in non-performing (unpaid) loans and has around $500 billion worth of pressing domestic investment requirements and government obligations.

Richard Nephew, Program Director of Economic Statecraft, Sanctions and Energy Markets at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, suggested “the issue of Iranian support for terrorism is not whether they have the financial resources to do it but rather whether they have the political will, opportunity, and foreign policy incentive… to do so. A nuclear deal will not change this.”

Lastly, the Intelligence Authorization bill currently working through Congress requires the Director of National Intelligence to produce a report on how Iran uses their sanctions relief funding. Congress should continue to implement accountability efforts like this, which help to improve U.S. intelligence assessments of Iran and monitor the effects of the deal.



CLAIM 16: THERE IS A SECRET SIDE DEAL BETWEEN THE IAEA AND IRAN.
The Facts:
Under the deal, Iran must submit a full report to the IAEA regarding its nuclear history before it can receive any sanctions relief. The IAEA will review the report and follow-up with Iran in order to conclude its investigation. The IAEA has said that it expects to complete this report by the end of 2015.

Some critics are calling this a secret side deal between the IAEA and Iran; however, this is standard operating procedure, and every such agreement the IAEA has with other countries is also confidential. This was even true during the IAEA’s inspections into Libya. While the general public is not privy to the details of the arrangement, it is safe to assume that the United States government has been fully briefed on the procedures.

The arrangement specifies procedural information regarding how the IAEA will conduct its investigation into Iran’s past nuclear history, including mentioning the names of informants who will be interviewed. Releasing this information would place those informants, and the information they hold, at risk.

Others have argued that the IAEA should not be trusted, as no Americans are permitted to inspect Iran. This is because the United States and Iran do not have normalized diplomatic relations, a requirement for an inspector to receive a visa and enter Iran. While no Americans will be inspecting Iran’s facilities, every inspector for the IAEA has gone through extensive training in the United States.



CLAIM 17: THE DEAL, IF IMPLEMENTED, WILL EXPIRE AFTER 10 OR 15 YEARS AND ALLOW IRAN TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON AT THAT TIME.
The Facts:
According to the comprehensive agreement, for at least 15 years, Iran will only enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent (uranium enriched at 20% or lower is considered low enriched uranium (LEU); uranium enriched above 90% is weapons grade.)

This does not, however, mean that on day one of year 16, Iran will have enough weapons-grade uranium to build a bomb. Yes, after 15 years Iran could begin enriching uranium beyond 3.67 percent. But without this deal, Iran could head for a bomb tomorrow.

Some aspects of the agreement will last 25 years, including the monitoring of Iran’s uranium mines and supply chain. Other aspects, such as the implementation of robust IAEA safeguards and access to investigate suspicious sites for illicit nuclear activity, are permanent. Regardless of what specific restrictions are lifted, Iran is still prohibited from pursuing nuclear weapons. Any activity that is clearly not intended for “peaceful use” (i.e. highly enriching uranium) will raise red flags and trigger a response from the international community.

Ultimately, the deal rolls back Iran’s nuclear program for more than a decade, pushing Iran’s “breakout time” (time it would take to enrich enough nuclear material for 1 nuclear weapon) from a few months to at least one year. It also gives IAEA inspectors greater insight for monitoring Iran’s nuclear program well into the future.

 

[alang1216]

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

How many lies can you pack into a single sentence? Only two? You're slipping.

Obama gave Iran no guarantees and Iran is not world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, that honor goes to our friends the Saudis.

I never lie....and you're gonna prove you do:

"... Iran is not world's worst state sponsor of terrorism,..."


"U.S. State Department: Iran Remains 'World’s Worst State Sponsor Of Terrorism'"
U.S. State Department: Iran Remains 'World’s Worst State Sponsor Of Terrorism'

If you really do live in NYC, Saudi terrorists have had a much greater impact on you than anything Iran has ever done. Can you say '9/11'? Of course that was awhile ago. More recently the NY Times lost a reporter from Saudi terrorism.

 

[DustyInfinity]

You mistake Fear for anger at sending our people home in body bags..........the Obama deal didn't deal with the QUDs forces who are causing problems all over the middle east........not to mention ties to Hezballah....

This is s game of thrones Middle Eastern style.........and basically a War between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Either way...........Iran has no intentions of not stopping to get Nukes........the people there are tired of Religious rule.............and the Sanctions have caused major pressure on Iran.........

You do understand that they believe the 12th Imam is here with them now to bring on the end of the world also........and it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not......it only matters that they believe it........Which is why they want Yemen so bad..........They believe the army of the Faithful will be there to await the 2nd coming and then take over the whole region and force the end of times.

Again, Iran is no threat to our national security. There's no reason for us to get involved. No reason for us the stop them from getting a nuke. We can talk to them both. Trade with them both. And be friends with them both. But should NOT get between them and their feuds.
We should not be the police of the world If we're attacked, or their is a legitimate threat to OUR national security, then we deal with it. If we're attacked, then we attack back. With a formal declaration of war, we wage war against our actual enemies, win the war and then come home.
Not spend 10+ years over there over throwing their government, training their military and rebuilding what we blew up.

They have killed American's all over the globe. They are the number one sponsor of terrorism. If we didn't get involved in their feuds, the would lead a bloody tyrannical swath across many countries.

 

[DustyInfinity]

The world is witnessing the glaring example of the difference between Islam and the Judeo-Christian faith that produced America, writ large.

Once again you reveal your ignorance and stupidity. Trump is locking up and deporting brown people. 40,000 non criminals are in concentration camps. Children being separated from their parents as a deterrent, and children dying in custody.

Mass killers run amok and no one stops them.

And fools like you claim some sort of moral superiority.

Would you deport the illegal waves if they were in Canada?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Whoops.........you just told another lie.

CLAIM 1: IRAN WILL BE ALLOWED TO INSPECT ITSELF.
The Facts:
In August 2015 the Associated Press incorrectly reported that a leaked draft of an agreement between the IAEA and Iran indicated that “Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear weapons.” Within hours, experts and the IAEA corrected the record.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano refuted this claim: “I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work.”

According to Cheryl Rofer, former program director at Los Alamos National Laboratory, “It doesn’t matter whose hands do the sampling. What matters is the verifiability of the sampling, laid out by the sampling and analysis plans as well as the chain of custody. The IAEA’s practice is to prepare sampling kits containing the necessary equipment, oversee the sampling, and be responsible for the chain of custody.”

The authenticity of the document the AP article is based off of has also been called into question; however, according to Jim Walsh, MIT security expert and Council for a Livable World board member, whether the document is real or fake is irrelevant to the primary issue: Iran will not be conducting its own verification or inspections.

CLAIM 2: THIS AGREEMENT PREVENTS THE UNITED STATES FROM PUNISHING IRAN FOR FUTURE VIOLATIONS.
The Facts:
No aspect of the agreement prevents the United States from maintaining or implementing new sanctions on Iran for its behavior. The U.S. has made it clear that it will continue to punish Iran for its human rights abuses and support for terrorism. The U.S. has continued to target actors associated with Iran’s terrorism activities for sanctions throughout the negotiations. As Adam Szubin, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes at the Department of Treasury stated in a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing, “Under the Interim deal, while negotiations were ongoing, we took action against more than a hundred Iranian-linked targets, and we will be accelerating that work in the days and months ahead, alongside Israel and our regional allies to combat Iran’s proxies, to interdict funds moving through its illicit networks.” These efforts have continued since the deal was reached. For instance, in late July 2015, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on three Hezbollah officials, an Iranian proxy group in Lebanon that is designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Paragraph 26 of the JCPOA states that Iran will treat the re-imposition of nuclear-related sanctions as grounds to terminate implementation of its obligations to the agreement. But this does not limit the international community’s ability to impose sanctions on Iran for other non-nuclear nefarious activities. As Colin Kahl, Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, recently stated, “If Iran diverts some of the resources they get from sanctions relief to ratchet up their support for terrorism and other nefarious activities, none of our tools—our sanctions tools to go after terrorism or human rights abuses or other things—fall away as a consequence of this agreement.”



CLAIM 3: BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CAN UNILATERALLY WAIVE ALL SANCTIONS, THE AGREEMENT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED WHETHER CONGRESS APPROVES IT OR NOT.
The Facts:
Congress imposed most U.S. sanctions by statute; but it is usually up to the executive branch to interpret and ultimately implement them. However, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 limits the President’s authority to waive sanctions. Section 135(c)(2)(A) of the deal states: “actions involving any measure of statutory sanctions relief … may not be taken if there is enacted a joint resolution stating in substance that the Congress does not favor the agreement.”

Furthermore, the onus will be on Congress to approve and appropriate adequate funding for the IAEA in order for the deal to be properly implemented and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.



CLAIM 4: THE UNITED STATES CAN CONVINCE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO CONTINUE ITS SUPPORT FOR SANCTIONS AFTER KILLING THE AGREEMENT.
The Facts:
If Congress were to reject the deal, the United States would need to coerce the international community to continue sanctions against their own economic interests. Some opponents of the deal advocate for threatening the international community: You can either do business with Iran or business with the United States. But this threat lacks credibility. As Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew explained in a New York Times Op-ed, 40% of American exports go to the European Union, China, Japan, India, and Korea. By threatening to exclude these countries from our banking system, the U.S. would be placing a significant portion of its own economy at risk. Moreover, the major importers of Iranian oil (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey) also account for one-fifth of U.S. exported goods and own 47% of foreign-held American treasuries. Even threatening to terminate this economic connectivity could have negative ramifications for both the US economy and the economies of our allies.

Our negotiating partners will not maintain sanctions that hurt their economies simply because the U.S. Congress insists they do so. Threatening our allies with economic warfare is a ludicrous approach, especially when compared to the practical and widely supported alternative of implementing the agreement.

CLAIM 5: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T WANT THE DEAL.
The Facts:
A consensus of polls suggests that the majority of the American public, and an even stronger majority of Jewish Americans, support the deal. Furthermore, a considerable number of foreign affairs experts and top officials support the deal: more than 100 former US ambassadors, 60 American national security leaders across the political spectrum including former US ambassadors to Israel, 70+ nuclear nonproliferation experts, 73 prominent international relations scholars, 67 Israeli former military and intelligence officials, 34 retired American Generals and Admirals, 32 top American scientists, 340 rabbis, 75 former Senators and Representatives, and the Gulf Cooperation Council, all publicly support the deal.

Many opponents of the deal were on the wrong side of history leading up to the war in Iraq. As James Fallows, national security correspondent for The Atlantic, put it in a recent piece, “You can be persuaded by Netanyahu, Huckabee, Cruz, Kristol, Adelson, et al., all of whom were wrong on the last high-stakes judgment call about US interests in the Middle East. Or by an overwhelming majority of the people from both parties with operating experience in America’s war-fighting and peacemaking enterprises in this part of the world.”

CLAIM 6: CONGRESS CAN REJECT THIS AGREEMENT AND NEGOTIATE A BETTER DEAL.
The Facts:
If the US Congress abandons this multi-lateral agreement endorsed by the UN Security Council, the next round of negotiations will be the US sitting at a table for one.

If Congress rejects this deal, the international sanctions regime that incentivized Iran to negotiate would unravel. Our negotiating partners don’t answer to the US Congress. Russia and China, for instance, won’t continue sanctions on Iran because the GOP says they should.

If this were to happen, Iran would receive sanctions relief without having any constraints on its nuclear program.



CLAIM 7: MILITARY ACTION IS BETTER THAN THIS DEAL.
The Facts:
Some critics, like John Bolton and Dick Cheney, have argued that the only way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is through the use of military action. This shortsighted and reckless approach would be counter-productive. As former director of the CIA Michael Hayden has explained, bombing Iran “will guarantee that which we are trying to prevent: an Iran that will stop at nothing to, in secret, develop a nuclear weapon.”

Taking military action, instead of implementing the current diplomatic solution, would shatter the international coalition that is applying economic pressure and force the United States to confront Iran without international support.

Even if a US bombing campaign were effective, it would need to be repeated every few years to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, resulting in a never-ending game of “nuclear program whack-a-mole.” Furthermore, we would not have the access or monitoring afforded to us under the agreement in order to detect covert facilities.

It is important to remember that implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action does not take the United States military option off the table. If anything, it strengthens it by improving our understanding of the status and location of Iran’s nuclear program.



CLAIM 8: THE DEAL WON’T WORK BECAUSE IRAN IS GOING TO CHEAT.
The Facts:
The deal is not based on trust; it’s based on verification. The IAEA will have 24/7 access to Iran’s known nuclear facilities and will be closely monitoring Iran’s supply chain of nuclear materials, centrifuge production lines, and any purchases that might be used for a nuclear program. The deal also provides timely inspections to any undeclared facilities where suspected nuclear activity may be occurring. If Iran does cheat, they will be caught and sanctions will be re-imposed.

There are also aspects of the deal that Iran can’t easily undo. Iran must dismantle two-thirds of its installed centrifuges, remove 98% of its uranium stockpile, and permanently alter the Arak Plutonium reactor before it receives any relief from economic sanctions. These actions will be verified by the IAEA and will greatly increase the time it would take Iran to obtain weapons-grade nuclear material.

The deal goes to great lengths to buttress major points of the agreement. For example, the deal does not just put limitations on centrifuge production, it also puts limitations on rotor production, and on the machines that make the rotors. The subsidiary commitments that Iran has made for the agreement are truly impressive.

Rejecting this deal means no restrictions, no verification, and no inspections of Iran’s nuclear program. Even if Iran cheats, we’ll know far more about Iran’s nuclear activities than we do now. And that will mean that all of the alternatives—including the least desirable, military action—will be more effective.



CLAIM 9: WE CANNOT, AND SHOULD NOT, NEGOTIATE WITH OUR ADVERSARIES.
The Facts:
Some critics suggest that because Iran is our adversary, we should not negotiate a deal with them. This line of thinking completely ignores history. President G.W. Bush negotiated a successful nuclear agreement with Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi—a sworn enemy of Israel and a state sponsor of terrorism. The Soviet Union had 10,000 nuclear weapons when we started negotiating SALT I. Both of these efforts, like the Iran deal, significantly improved the security of the United States and its allies.

This agreement does not rely on Iran changing its behavior. Instead, it includes verification mechanisms to ensure that Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon. In addition, sanctions for Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and human rights abuses will stay in place.

This deal may provide a unique pathway for international cooperation to improve regional and global security by addressing Iran’s other unacceptable policies. If Congress kills the deal, that pathway will be closed.



CLAIM 10: 24 DAYS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME FOR IRAN TO COVER UP ITS ILLICIT NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES.
The Facts:
First, some context: All of Iran’s nuclear facilities will be under 24/7 surveillance. The deal also provides an unprecedented process for inspecting facilities where the IAEA suspects illicit nuclear activity may be occurring. This means the IAEA can inspect businesses, military facilities, and even the President of Iran’s garage if necessary. The ability to carry out these investigations is permanent, but only if the deal is approved.

Under the comprehensive agreement, Iran will implement the Additional Protocol, which sets requirements and provides the legal authority for IAEA inspectors to access all nuclear and suspected nuclear facilities in perpetuity.

The IAEA can request access with 24-hour notice to any site inspectors suspect might be conducting illicit nuclear activities. If Iran denies the IAEA access, the JCPOA offers an extra enforcement process to ensure access: a Joint Commission, comprised of one representative from each P5+1 country plus Iran and a European Union representative. When the IAEA or any member of the Joint Commission warns that Iran is blocking access to a suspected site, a majority of members can force the Iranians to allow access. Unlike the UN Security Council, no one party gets a veto on this commissions. That means Russia, China and Iran can’t prevent inspections.

This process takes, at most, 24 days to complete. The Joint Commission has a maximum of seven days to review and adjudicate a claim that Iran is carrying out illicit nuclear activities; but if the evidence clearly indicates Iran should open a site for inspections, it could make that decision on day one of seven, bringing the timeframe down to 18 days. The clock starts ticking the moment the IAEA demands Iran give it access to a particular site, including the 24-hour advance notice required under the Additional Protocol.

Even the worst-case scenario of 24 days is not enough time for Iran to hide any substantial violations. The half-life of nuclear material is thousands of years. If Iran had material that could be used to make a nuclear bomb at a given location, inspectors would be able to find traces of it. Also, the physical structures to enrich weapons-grade uranium or plutonium cannot be moved in 24 days.

During the 24-day period, international intelligence apparatuses will watch the suspected facility to monitor any attempts to hide or move evidence. If, for example, trucks are backed up to a suspected facility, it could be considered a breach of the agreement and sanctions can legally be re-imposed.

While Iran may be able to get away with, say, computer-modeling activities during the 24-day period, they will still be a long way away from developing a nuclear weapon (much further than if there was no agreement in place.) To put it another way, if Iran’s goal is to secretly build a car, they may be able to develop a headlight or a windshield wiper without detection. But they will not be able to build an engine or fuel it. And they will still be several long, complicated steps away from building a car that functions.

Reminder: no deal means no inspections and no restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enterprise.



CLAIM 11: SANCTIONS ARE INADEQUATE FOR PUNISHING IRANIAN VIOLATIONS.
The Facts:
The Iran deal includes a “snapback” mechanism for re-imposing UN sanctions on Iran if they fail to comply with their obligations. Some critics have argued that the UN sanctions will never be re-imposed due to a lack of political will by members of the UN Security Council. This concern was considered by the negotiators, who implemented a process that works around this potential pitfall.

If Iran is found to be in breach of the agreement, a resolution is brought before the UN Security Council to continue the lifting of sanctions. If the resolution is not adopted within 30 days or if a veto is issued, the sanctions are re-imposed. This effectively eliminates the ability of Russia or China to veto the reapplication of sanctions.

Another concern is that the sanction system is “capital punishment for a misdemeanor” and fails to provide incremental responses for smaller violations. This is false, as the United States and its partners have several options for responding to an Iranian breach of the agreement without fully implementing sanctions.

First, the parties to the agreement can try diplomacy to resolve a dispute. There is a mechanism built into the agreement that permits members of the Joint Commission to meet at the ministerial level to discuss the alleged violation and establish a resolution. If the commission and ministerial-level consultations do not solve the dispute, parties to the agreement may 1) re-implement some sanctions in response to a breach, as is established by customary international law (Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) or 2) implement extraterritorial sanctions outside what is bound by the agreement.

In addition, the United States could use their ability to automatically re-impose the full list of UN sanctions as a bargaining tool, incentivizing the UN Security Council to negotiate and adopt a lesser resolution to avoid using the full sanctions to respond to a lesser violation.

Iran, like all parties to the agreement, can walk away at any time. But if Iran were to leave the agreement after being punished for violating the deal, the international community would be justified in applying the full weight of sanctions to bring Iran back into compliance. We would then be back where we started before the deal, except that Iran would have considerably fewer centrifuges and nuclear material, while the IAEA will have more insight into the history and current status of Iran’s nuclear program.

Critics have also called for a declared matrix of punitive responses to prospective Iranian violations. This would unnecessarily bind the P5+1 to respond to a violation in a specific way regardless of context, taking away the ability to increase or decrease the intensity of the response. Swearing off any tools in our toolkit would not improve this agreement’s ability to deter an Iranian violation.



CLAIM 12: THE IRAN DEAL WILL FAIL JUST LIKE THE AGREED FRAMEWORK WITH NORTH KOREA FAILED.
The Facts:
Comparing the agreements with Iran and North Korea is like comparing apples to dragon fruit. They’re both fruit, but that’s about it. For starters, the Agreed Framework with North Korea was four pages long. The Iran deal is 159 pages.

The framework with North Korea only addressed the plutonium pathway to a bomb, whereas the Iran deal blocks all three paths to a bomb: plutonium, uranium, and covert action.

According to Paul Pillar, a CIA veteran and a senior fellow at Georgetown University and the Brookings Institute, “The Agreed Framework was a sketchy four-page document that provided for little in the way of monitoring and enforcement. In contrast, the leading feature of the agreement being negotiated with Iran is its unprecedented degree of monitoring and inspections. The final agreement will have an enforcement and dispute resolution mechanism consistent with the Additional Protocol pertaining to work of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

In addition, the North Korea framework was a bilateral arrangement between the US and North Korea. The Iran deal is inherently stronger because more parties were involved in the negotiations process, and will be involved in its enforcement.



CLAIM 13: IRAN’S NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE WILL CAUSE A NUCLEAR CASCADE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST.
The Facts:
Iran has had a nuclear program since the 1950’s and an enrichment program since the 1980s. Before the interim agreement in November 2013, Iran was enriching uranium up to 20%. If there was no nuclear cascade when Iran’s program was unconstrained and only a few months from obtaining the enriched material necessary for a nuclear weapon, why would it occur when Iran’s program is both constrained and verifiably monitored?

Also, the United States provides security assistance to many of Iran’s neighbors and can use this leverage to prevent nuclear proliferation. Saudi Arabia, for example, would likely not risk its alliance with the United States in order to pursue a nuclear weapon to counter Iran’s constrained civilian nuclear program.

If Congress rejects the deal, Iran is more likely to pursue nuclear weapons and set off a cascade in other countries. The bottom line is that a safeguarded civil nuclear program does not pose a proliferation risk—it never has in the past 70 years of the nuclear age.



CLAIM 14: LIFTING THE UN EMBARGOES ON CONVENTIONAL ARMS AND BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS TO IRAN WILL EMBOLDEN IRAN AND LEAD TO FURTHER INSTABILITY IN THE REGION.
The Facts:
The conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes were adopted as a part of a UN Security Council resolution in 2010. Under the resolution, the embargoes were to be lifted if Iran agrees to negotiate on its nuclear program. This means the embargoes should have been lifted two years ago when Iran signed the interim agreement. Regardless of this and the fact that Iran, Russia, and China all wanted the embargoes to be lifted immediately, the deal maintains the arms embargo for another 5 years and the ballistic missile embargo for another 8 years. This is a major concession on the part of Iran and is meant to incentivize Iran to comply with the terms of the JCPOA.

Critics claim that the eventual lifting of these sanctions will facilitate Iran’s “imperial surge.” However, many of Iran’s staunchest foes, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, have much more advanced weaponry than Iran. The United States will continue to offer military assistance to these countries to counter Iran.

To counter any expansion of Iran’s military capabilities, the US has committed to continue its security assistance to Israel through arms trades, joint military exercises, and cooperative intelligence and training initiatives. To date, the US has provided Israel $124.3 billion in military assistance. Bolstered by US-developed technology, Israel’s military capabilities far exceed those of Iran.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia spends more than four times what Iran spends on its military. And Saudi Arabia plus the United Arab Emirates, two of the United States’ allies in the region, spend a combined 60% of the Middle East’s overall military spending.

In regards to Iran’s ballistic missile program, Iran is still excluded from the Missile Technology Control Regime, meaning it will still not be eligible to receive missile technology assistance. While North Korea may provide ballistic missile assistance to Iran, it was doing so regardless of the embargo, which has no effect on a pariah states like North Korea.


CLAIM 15: IRAN WILL USE SANCTIONS RELIEF TO PURSUE REGIONAL HEGEMONY AND FURTHER SUPPORT TERRORISM.
The Facts:
Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism negatively impacts the stability of the region. But if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, the nuclear deterrent that Iran would extend to its terrorist allies would pose an even greater threat. This deal eliminates that threat, preventing a dramatically worse security situation.
Furthermore, according to a report recently released by the CIA, Iran will use most of the released funds it receives from sanctions relief to bolster its economy, not to aid militant groups it supports.

Iran needs to invest in domestic development and reinvigorate its economy. Iranian President Rouhani has promised to revive the economy by completing formerly halted development projects and bringing down the rate of inflation—progress the Iranian people have been demanding.

Critics of the Iran deal like to exaggerate the amount of blocked funds Iran will receive, claiming that Iran will receive up to $300 billion in sanctions relief. According to US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, that figure is more like $50 billion. Iran owes at least $20 billion to China in addition to tens of billions in non-performing (unpaid) loans and has around $500 billion worth of pressing domestic investment requirements and government obligations.

Richard Nephew, Program Director of Economic Statecraft, Sanctions and Energy Markets at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, suggested “the issue of Iranian support for terrorism is not whether they have the financial resources to do it but rather whether they have the political will, opportunity, and foreign policy incentive… to do so. A nuclear deal will not change this.”

Lastly, the Intelligence Authorization bill currently working through Congress requires the Director of National Intelligence to produce a report on how Iran uses their sanctions relief funding. Congress should continue to implement accountability efforts like this, which help to improve U.S. intelligence assessments of Iran and monitor the effects of the deal.



CLAIM 16: THERE IS A SECRET SIDE DEAL BETWEEN THE IAEA AND IRAN.
The Facts:
Under the deal, Iran must submit a full report to the IAEA regarding its nuclear history before it can receive any sanctions relief. The IAEA will review the report and follow-up with Iran in order to conclude its investigation. The IAEA has said that it expects to complete this report by the end of 2015.

Some critics are calling this a secret side deal between the IAEA and Iran; however, this is standard operating procedure, and every such agreement the IAEA has with other countries is also confidential. This was even true during the IAEA’s inspections into Libya. While the general public is not privy to the details of the arrangement, it is safe to assume that the United States government has been fully briefed on the procedures.

The arrangement specifies procedural information regarding how the IAEA will conduct its investigation into Iran’s past nuclear history, including mentioning the names of informants who will be interviewed. Releasing this information would place those informants, and the information they hold, at risk.

Others have argued that the IAEA should not be trusted, as no Americans are permitted to inspect Iran. This is because the United States and Iran do not have normalized diplomatic relations, a requirement for an inspector to receive a visa and enter Iran. While no Americans will be inspecting Iran’s facilities, every inspector for the IAEA has gone through extensive training in the United States.



CLAIM 17: THE DEAL, IF IMPLEMENTED, WILL EXPIRE AFTER 10 OR 15 YEARS AND ALLOW IRAN TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON AT THAT TIME.
The Facts:
According to the comprehensive agreement, for at least 15 years, Iran will only enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent (uranium enriched at 20% or lower is considered low enriched uranium (LEU); uranium enriched above 90% is weapons grade.)

This does not, however, mean that on day one of year 16, Iran will have enough weapons-grade uranium to build a bomb. Yes, after 15 years Iran could begin enriching uranium beyond 3.67 percent. But without this deal, Iran could head for a bomb tomorrow.

Some aspects of the agreement will last 25 years, including the monitoring of Iran’s uranium mines and supply chain. Other aspects, such as the implementation of robust IAEA safeguards and access to investigate suspicious sites for illicit nuclear activity, are permanent. Regardless of what specific restrictions are lifted, Iran is still prohibited from pursuing nuclear weapons. Any activity that is clearly not intended for “peaceful use” (i.e. highly enriching uranium) will raise red flags and trigger a response from the international community.

Ultimately, the deal rolls back Iran’s nuclear program for more than a decade, pushing Iran’s “breakout time” (time it would take to enrich enough nuclear material for 1 nuclear weapon) from a few months to at least one year. It also gives IAEA inspectors greater insight for monitoring Iran’s nuclear program well into the future.

As I showed, none of what you posted is true....

You began with this.....then dodged it.
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?


Nor have you answered this query:
Let's see if you actually know anything...
What is the 12th Imam, and how does the view weigh against allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons?



I have your avi here:

 

[berg80]

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

How many lies can you pack into a single sentence? Only two? You're slipping.

Obama gave Iran no guarantees and Iran is not world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, that honor goes to our friends the Saudis.

I never lie.

You're gonna prove it:

NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:

"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.


There was never....NEVER....any reason to allow the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons.

So Obama got a guarantee from Iran that they wouldn't get nukes for 10 years. What guarantee did he give them? He may have expressed the reality that they might get them after the deal expired by you lied about him providing them a guarantee.

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

I can't help noticing the absurdity of that remark given it is the Groper-in-Chief who has put Iran on a path of accelerating their development of a nuclear weapon.

 

[berg80]

As I showed, none of what you posted is true....

You did nothing of the kind.

 

[berg80]

You really should take the time to educate yourself so I don't have the opportunity to humiliate you again.

Trump’s Failing Iran Policy
Trump’s Failing Iran Policy | Arms Control Association

 

[PoliticalChic]

As I showed, none of what you posted is true....

You did nothing of the kind.

Let's check.


1. Anyone who maintains that Iran is living up to the agreement is a bald-faced liar!!!


No one knows, no one can tell…..because the deal prevents actual inspections.



2. "The deal's provisions for inspections of military facilities, or "undeclared sites," involve a complex process with plenty of opportunities for Iran to stall. Tehran can propose alternatives to on-site inspections, or reject the request, which would trigger a 24-day process for the Joint Commission countries to override the rejection.

That could drag on for months. And under ambiguities built into the deal, it's unclear whether Iran must allow IAEA inspectors into military sites, or whether the Iranians can take their own environmental samples and send them to the IAEA for testing, as was allowed under a 2015 side agreement that let Iran use its own experts to inspect the Parchin military site."
U.S. seeks to test Iran deal with more inspections



3. Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal Allows the Regime to Develop a Weapon ...
"Krauthammer’s Take: Obama ‘Caved’ on Inspections, Now Iran Is Developing a Nuclear Weapon"
Read more at: Krauthammer’s Take: Obama ‘Caved’ on Inspections, Now Iran Is Developing a Nuclear Weapon



4. § The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was not allowed to inspect or monitor Iran's military sites where nuclear activities were most likely being carried out. Among the many concessions that the Obama administration gave the Iranian government, one was accepting the Iranian leaders' demand that these military sites would be out of the IAEA's reach.

§ Due to this surrender, various high-profile Iranian sites such as the Parchin military complex, located southeast of Tehran, were free to engage in nuclear activities without the risk of inspection.

§ Once the authoritarian, anti-Semitic and anti-American government of Iran possess a nuclear bomb, no amount of actions will be able reverse the catastrophe.

§ Stop Iran From Going Nuclear




5. In 2015, President Obama promised when he tried to sell the deal to a skeptical American public that the Iranians agreed to the "most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime, ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history," based on "unprecedented verification." Moreover, Obama adviser Ben Rhodes reassured the public repeatedly that the deal included "anywhere, anytime" inspections and 24-7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities.

But in reality, the administration repeatedly lied to the American public by misrepresenting the deal and the nature of the inspections Iran agreed to. The robust inspections referred only to Iran's declared nuclear sites. Other sites that the IAEA has suspicions about, including all military sites and undeclared nuclear sites, fell under a separate cheating-friendly procedure.

One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.

Instead, the deal stated that in order to allay IAEA concerns, Iran would give access within a 24-day time frame, after the IAEA made a request to visit a suspected site. Furthermore, the deal stated that if Iran refused the access, the Islamist state and the IAEA would have additional 14 days to resolve the agreement among themselves. If they failed to agree, a joint commission comprising the six member-nations who are parties to the agreement would consider the matter for an additional week.

In conclusion, according to the agreement, Iran can continue its uranium enrichment program and continue developing its weapon program at its many military sites, and every time the IAEA suspects anything, the Iranians can have 24 days at a minimum and 45 days maximum to delay the access, sanitize the sites, or transfer the unauthorized nuclear work to another unauthorized military site.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/obama_and_irans_nuclear_lies.html#ixzz5nH0Ua9im




Bet you feel pretty stooooooopid right now, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You really should take the time to educate yourself so I don't have the opportunity to humiliate you again.

Trump’s Failing Iran Policy
Trump’s Failing Iran Policy | Arms Control Association

1. Hussein Obama:
March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.



2. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-ProliferationTreaty or NPT, is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of ...
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia


3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during timesof war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civillaw
war criminal

========================================





4. Is there precedent for the one who gave the weapons used to kill innocents, to be prosecuted????

You betcha'!!!!!


a. "Human rights lawyers say they hope the case signals a trend. In Europe's growing practice of domestic courts' taking on human rights abuses that happened far away, the accused havecommonly been foreign military or political officials, rather than local businessmen. But in December, a Dutch court sentenced a Dutch businessman, Frans van Anraat, to 15 years in prison for selling chemicals to Saddam Hussein. The chemicals were used in poison gas weapons that killed Kurdish villagers."
Holding arms dealers accountable at home


b. "....the provision of arms, ammunition, and other forms of military support to known human rights abusers has enabled them to carry out atrocities against civilians. The perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are on notice that they may be hauled before a national or international criminal tribunal to face charges."
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k4/download/13.pdf



c. Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities.

".... an appeals court in the Netherlands sentenced Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch businessman and citizen, to 19 years in prison for serving as an accessory to war crimes in Liberia. For years, Kouwenhoven smuggled weapons into the African nation using his timber business as cover. His operation supplied Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor with weapons for use in a conflict that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives."
Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities. What Does It Say About Justice for Economic Crime?

 

[alang1216]

The Right is never wrong...

I'm sure we'll find Saddam's WMD real soon.

So it was the Right that tried to stop the Dems from invading Iraq? My memory must be failing me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

How many lies can you pack into a single sentence? Only two? You're slipping.

Obama gave Iran no guarantees and Iran is not world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, that honor goes to our friends the Saudis.

I never lie.

You're gonna prove it:

NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:

"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.


There was never....NEVER....any reason to allow the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons.

So Obama got a guarantee from Iran that they wouldn't get nukes for 10 years. What guarantee did he give them? He may have expressed the reality that they might get them after the deal expired by you lied about him providing them a guarantee.

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

I can't help noticing the absurdity of that remark given it is the Groper-in-Chief who has put Iran on a path of accelerating their development of a nuclear weapon.

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?



Waiting.

 

[alang1216]

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

How many lies can you pack into a single sentence? Only two? You're slipping.

Obama gave Iran no guarantees and Iran is not world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, that honor goes to our friends the Saudis.

I never lie.

You're gonna prove it:

NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:

"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.


There was never....NEVER....any reason to allow the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons.

So Obama got a guarantee from Iran that they wouldn't get nukes for 10 years. What guarantee did he give them? He may have expressed the reality that they might get them after the deal expired by you lied about him providing them a guarantee.

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

You can repeat your lies as much as you want, they will not miraculously become truths.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Right is never wrong...

I'm sure we'll find Saddam's WMD real soon.

So it was the Right that tried to stop the Dems from invading Iraq? My memory must be failing me.

The Right is never wrong...

I'm sure we'll find Saddam's WMD real soon.

So it was the Right that tried to stop the Dems from invading Iraq? My memory must be failing me.

"Democrats Voted for Iraq War
Former Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Hillary Clinton both voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq."
Opinion | Democrats Voted for Iraq War

 

[PoliticalChic]

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

How many lies can you pack into a single sentence? Only two? You're slipping.

Obama gave Iran no guarantees and Iran is not world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, that honor goes to our friends the Saudis.

I never lie.

You're gonna prove it:

NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:

"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.


There was never....NEVER....any reason to allow the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons.

So Obama got a guarantee from Iran that they wouldn't get nukes for 10 years. What guarantee did he give them? He may have expressed the reality that they might get them after the deal expired by you lied about him providing them a guarantee.

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

You can repeat your lies as much as you want, they will not miraculously become truths.

I never lie, and as you proved, I am never wrong.


Dismissed.

 

[alang1216]

The Right is never wrong...

I'm sure we'll find Saddam's WMD real soon.

So it was the Right that tried to stop the Dems from invading Iraq? My memory must be failing me.

The Right is never wrong...

I'm sure we'll find Saddam's WMD real soon.

So it was the Right that tried to stop the Dems from invading Iraq? My memory must be failing me.

"Democrats Voted for Iraq War
Former Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Hillary Clinton both voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq."
Opinion | Democrats Voted for Iraq War

Showing that Dems can be wrong doesn't prove that "The Right is never wrong...". Logic 101.

 

[alang1216]

I never lie, and as you proved, I am never wrong.

Never admitting a lie is not the same thing as never lying and a galaxy away from never being wrong. Logical fallacy 101.

 

[White 6]

Hmm, protesters killed by Iran, that's terrible, protesters killed by the Zion, that's great.

Actually, both are terrible.

Sooo......you're fine with guaranteeing these savages nuclear weapons?


A good plan?

I think we pretty guaranteed it when Trump unilaterally pulled out of the treaty limiting their progress. I understand there are now more centrifuges at more locations, on line than ever before. Not sure what Trumps plan is. Must be the greatest. I understand he is a stable genius?

Gads, you're an imbecile.


. The United States State Department, even with it’s long antipathy toward Israel, the State Department says Iran is the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Yet, this was Hussein’s behavior toward that 7th century barbaric regime:


Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.


Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism


He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.

Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.

The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.


The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.

Could be, but I have read that he is either Unitarian, Baptist, or Episcopal, although the last picture I saw of him gracing a church was called St Michael's. I would drop some links, but you seem to have done away with using them to support argument. None of the links in your original post here mentioned Obama or his Religion. I agree that Iran is totally off the hook, supporting terrorism abroad, as well a brutally putting down people in their own country, adopting a warlike stance in their entire region and generally being assholes. Trump should have waited to drop out of the agreement and sold Israel air refueling capabilities and quietly green lighted whatever play they wanted to make, after he first came into office. Trump has not
clue, when it comes to strategy of international asymmetric warfare.

Can you explain the following with any reasonable explanation other than he is and has always been, Muslim?


1. The United States State Department, even with it’s long antipathy toward Israel, the State Department says Iran is the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Yet, this was Hussein’s behavior toward that 7th century barbaric regime:
Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.

Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.

Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.

The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.

The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.





Can you explain this.......



2. “…Obama’s ties to a radical Muslim activist who reportedly was raising money for Obama’s Harvard studies during the years 1988 to 1991.
The allegations first surfaced in late March, when former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was “raising money” for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.

In the interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.

Sutton described al-Mansour as advisor to “one of the world’s richest men,” Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal.” Daily Thought Pad: Obama's Harvard Years: Questions Swirl

“But when you’re watching this in the campaign, and you’re onto this story, you’re saying, “Why isn’t anyone in the major media asking how it is that this radical anti-Semite, Khalid al Mansour, was pushing Obama into Harvard twenty years before the election?” Isn’t this worth investigating, this connection? No it wasn’t—it was worth burying…But they just buried that whole story, and when I saw that—I mean, you know this, and you and Accuracy Media have been confronting this for years, how they bury stories that they simply don’t want to share with the rest of the world.”
Obama Deconstructed: An Interview with Jack Cashill

Why would a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist, and the Saudis….want to see Obama as President?

Did he win an essay contest of some sort??? His grades????

They liked the crease in his pants?

Or something about him that would appeal to radical, anti-Semitic Muslims?????




3. What a generous fellow, Obama, when it comes to rewarding his co-religionists.
When it comes to Iran, the 7th century homicidal maniacs…

a. He sends them pallets loaded with cash

b. He guarantees them nuclear weapons

c. He removes the sanctions that were restricting the funds they had for terrorism.

d. He obstructs justice, the DoJ case against Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, for selling $1 billion of cocaine in the US

e. And….he provides them with the fruits of America’s technological achievements, to make them more formidable as enemies to America….our drone technology.
Obama as President turned over, directly to the 7th century savages, our latest and most technologically advanced, surveillance drone, the RQ-170 Sentinel.....
...of course, by extension, turned it over to Russia and China, as well.
When the drone crash landed in Iran...that's 'Death To America Iran'.....Obama let them keep it.

"President Obama said on Monday that the United States had asked Iran to return an American surveillance drone that the Iranians say they captured on Dec. 4. It was Mr. Obama’s first public comment about the drone, a remote-controlled spying aircraft,...
...Obama was answering this question: “And speaking of Iran, are you concerned that it will be able to weaken America’s national security by discovering intelligence from the fallen drone that it captured?”
Obama Says America Asked Iran to Return Its Drone



But...but......what could he have done?????

This:
"... otherwise I would not explain why the RQ-170 was not remotely destroyed with a kill-switch reportedly used on such systems to prevent them from going in the wrong hands. Such self-destruction systems are designed to bring down the drone should its pilot lose satellite link from the mobile ground control station.

The stealthy UAS (Unmanned Aerial System) is one of the most precious of the U.S. arsenal..."
Iran seizes a U.S. Stealth Drone by taking over controls. Maybe… And what about that Predator virus?


"....It was “standard procedure” for US forces to recover or destroy any drones that are lost, ..."
Iran shows off captured US drone

Unless you were a deep cover mole with the ability to reward your....'allies’ in the ummah (Ummah is an Arabic word meaning "community").





What is even more threatening to America and Western Civilization than Iran….?

Obama and the Democrat Party.

Time to give Obama what he deserves….the truth….and prison time.





I can provide another dozen proofs of his faith.

No, I can't and frankly, it is not worth the time. Quit living in the past. He is out of here. Your posted links are of modern times Iran, and were interesting, though not surprising. Obama was not a hero of mine. Neither was the Son-Of-A-Bush before him. My main response to your post was about why Trump didn't cut a deal to sell the air refuel capabilities that would have allowed Israel to deal with the growing capabilities of Iran in that region. My belief, is that he would rather go it alone if he can't take full credit for what coalitions working together might achieve. He says he supports Israel, but it is just talk. Now they have their own leadership crisis and it may be too late. Have you got a strategy not based on "what about Obama?"