Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nope, since the deal stated that Iran can never produce a weapon,
Being a fucking liar is no way to win an argument, Blindfool
From the Amazon.Com Post
{
Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would reenter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview in December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years — probably around 10 — of good behavior and Iran would be home free.
The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.
Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations.}
The fatal flaw in the Iran deal
by withdrawing from it, President "DumbasDirt" has opened the door for them to develop one. However, the other permanent members of the UNSC have pledged to continue to uphold the plan.
Donnie Dangerously's plan is to drive a wedge between the USA and our allies all over the world.
Or should we call it Putin's plan.
Speaking of "dumbasdirt" did you grasp the sunset clause little gay Barry built into his treason?
You've always been such a cupcake. Charles is big on words to rile the base with but, very little facts appear in his opinion piece
Page 3.
Full text of the Iran nuclear deal
Are you blatantly lying there is no sunset clause?
Even for you, that's some SHAMELESS lying...
Nope, since the deal stated that Iran can never produce a weapon,
Being a fucking liar is no way to win an argument, Blindfool
From the Amazon.Com Post
{
Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would reenter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview in December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years — probably around 10 — of good behavior and Iran would be home free.
The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.
Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations.}
The fatal flaw in the Iran deal
by withdrawing from it, President "DumbasDirt" has opened the door for them to develop one. However, the other permanent members of the UNSC have pledged to continue to uphold the plan.
Donnie Dangerously's plan is to drive a wedge between the USA and our allies all over the world.
Or should we call it Putin's plan.
Speaking of "dumbasdirt" did you grasp the sunset clause little gay Barry built into his treason?
You've always been such a cupcake. Charles is big on words to rile the base with but, very little facts appear in his opinion piece
Page 3.
Full text of the Iran nuclear deal
Are you blatantly lying there is no sunset clause?
Even for you, that's some SHAMELESS lying...
No one is lying. Except those that say the sunset clauses on their enrichment programs allow them to build an atomic weapon.
hi.
my role has always been that of a diplomat who is willing to speak up strongly and convincingly not only against muslim terrorists and fundamentalists,
but also to my own NATO governments when i believe they are out of line.
i'll keep this brief : the US is severely out of line in my view. i've detailed this in emails sent to you over the past 2 weeks.
however,
the US government and especially the foreign ministry of the US, is now populated by hardliners.
Trump has a habit of ousting government officials who don't dance to his exact tune,
so the link between reasonable men and women in the US and the upper echelon of the US government has been broken thoroughly.
that means that standing up to hardliners on a forum like usmessageboard, has also become pointless.
i'm also not the one to dictate EU policies towards the US, nor NATO policies.
all i can do is hope the EU stands up to the US.
i fear that the US is on a course to bomb the Iranian nuclear programme, or even (and i consider this a likely secret desire in the current US and Israeli leaderships) to regime-change Iran by first driving Iran into a corner.
i've notified the Iranian foreign ministry (also emailed to you all) that they must reign in their own hawks, who now talk about re-starting nuclear enrichment and the like,
but i have little hope that there are enough wise cool-headed men in Iran who can get that arranged.
the best advise i have for EU governments is to stand up to the US in any way public and covert-economically, over this unreasonable and deceitful aggression against Iran.
doing so would be the best way to prevent ethnic tensions between Muslims and whites in EU countries from rising or festering.
the best advise i have for the hardliners in the US is to
- make sure that your sanctions do not cause famine or other heavy suffering among civilians in Iran.
- make sure that if you drop bombs on targets in Iran, you destroy only military assets and personnel, not civilians. in other words : use exactly the right kind of ammunition on each target, because the Iranians are bound to have placed their military assets right next to their civilians.
if you do not heed this advice of mine, you are fueling terror group recruitment efforts *and* ethnic tensions all over Europe, much more than you already are by embarking on this course.
this could all, every demand Trump and Macron have made on Iran, it could have all been solved diplomatically. i know that for a fact.
all deaths resulting from this political "show", go straight onto the karmatic and Heavenly records of Trump and all those who support Trump's current hardline stance. and i won't be the only soul saying that.
in my book, starting a war to distract from domestic scandals that might shorten your stay in power, or supporting it for a fat paycheck and/or some airtime and/or an ego-rush, should really put you in Hell in the afterlife. if God ever asks me, that is what my response will be.
that all said, if you're going to do a regime-change, do it right, and make sure you don't screw up the aftermath handling. aim for zero collateral damage. then maybe i won't vote to have you put in Hell.
so do your planning thoroughly, and install leaders who are not just in it for the money that can be shuttled in diplomatic pouches to Swiss bank-accounts, like the new Afghan leaders did. make sure the Iranians get leaders they can be proud of.
or better yet, call off this bullshit show entirely.
but that's something mr Trump is probably completely unable to do; to say to the world that he was wrong and has changed his mind. nor does he have any integrity let alone the integrity to be held to the laws of the land, for instance the ones that can get him impeached (Stormy daniels hushmoney was a campaign finance violation for instance).
i have zero respect for the guy. he reminds me of a Hitler around 1937. and i don't say that lightly.
you're lucky that i know there are also good people in the US (and elsewhere), people who try to stand up to Trump and his cronies, but fail because Trump's cronies don't hold discussions in anything resembling an honorable honest way.
i could probably silence Trump's supporters on usmessageboard.com, but i truly think that won't help to change US policy. only a hardline economic and public stance against this US adventure by the EU can do that. the EU would be wise not to support US actions against Iran in any way, and pursue the goals that Macron outlined in a diplomatic way instead.
so if you're going to bomb Iran, Americans, please don't kill too many Iranians, it makes my task of keeping muslim terror recruiters contained just about impossible.
and by the way, American leaderships and people, you are placing yourselves at risk of a Muslim offensive that could equal the Tet offensive in Vietnam that if i'm not mistaken ultimately cost you the war, together with the media coverage of how you fought that war, ofcourse.
except, and note my words : there is no retreat possible for you this time.
you are pissing off not a few easily defeated Iranian muslims, you are pissing off the entire muslim world (over 1 billion people).
and i'm making no guarantees other than my part-time efforts, to prevent the potentially very severe backlash that you are now inviting upon yourselves, Americans.
So you say you think the US is seriously out of line, but other than your fantasies about war, you don't tell why you think so.
There is no media buildup towards war with Iran from the US or Israel, the pressure is to open negotiations about Iran's nuclear weapons program and its imperialist ambitions. The only people who seem interested in war are people like you.So you say you think the US is seriously out of line, but other than your fantasies about war, you don't tell why you think so.
they're not fantasies. it's exactly the kind of media buildup that led to the famine-causing sanctions on Iraq, the removal of Saddam, and the subsequent violent chaos that persisted for years in Iraq,
that the US and Israeli government have seem to embarked upon again, this time against Iran.
There is no media buildup towards war with Iran from the US or Israel, the pressure is to open negotiations about Iran's nuclear weapons program and its imperialist ambitions. The only people who seem interested in war are people like you.
EU fights back to neutralize US sanctions against Iran
by Alanna Petroff @AlannaPetroffMay 18, 2018: 1:42 PM ET
Bolton: European countries could be sanctioned
to salvage the 2015 deal that promised Iran economic benefits in return for a promise that it would limit its nuclear program. If the EU can't guarantee continued trade and investment, Iran has little incentive to play ball.
The EU is also encouraging its member states to explore the possibility of making one-off payments to Iran's central bank to underpin the OPEC country's oil trade, which is vital to its economic prospects.
The most significant measure announced Friday is a "blocking statute." It would protect European companies from US sanctions, but could expose them to European penalties if they choose to cut ties with Iran.
"It's a significant escalation of tensions between the US and the EU," said Judith Lee, an international trade lawyer at Gibson Dunn in Washington, DC. "They're moving really fast... to stake out a position on this."
Iran's deputy foreign minister Abbas Araqchi on Sunday gave France, Germany and the UK 60 days to guarantee that business ties between the countries will continue, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.
"I think [today's move is] definitely a signal to the Iranians that the EU will not give up without a fight with the US," said Thomas Gratowski, an Iran expert at the advisory firm Global Counsel.
The European Union exported nearly €11 billion ($13 billion) in goods to Iran in 2017, roughly 100 times larger than US exports to the country.
Related: What is the perfect price for oil?
'Unresolvable conflict'
Friday's announcement puts companies in a difficult spot, creating an "unresolvable conflict of law," said Lee.
They would have a choice: Stop doing business with Iran to comply with US law, but break EU rules. Or continue business with Iran to comply with EU rules, but face harsh US sanctions.
"There's no way you can get around it," Lee added
Large European companies with big US operations will likely feel compelled to break EU rules by winding down their Iranian business. Companies with more limited ties to the US may try to continue trading with Iran, she said.
"I don't think we're going to see uniformity" in corporate reactions, said Lee.
Related: Total halts $2 billion gas project in Iran
'Limited' practical value
Experts are skeptical about how far Europe will ultimately go to enforce such a rule, and therefore how much comfort it will provide to Iran.
France, for example, wouldn't want to issue penalties against a firm such as Renault (RNSDF), since it owns a stake in the company, Gratowski said.
"You might end up shooting yourself in the foot," said Gratowski. "The practical value ... [of this rule] is very limited."
Additionally, the "blocking statute" states that companies that endure financial losses due to US sanctions can later recover damages "from the person causing them."
Gratowski believes it would be next to impossible recover damages from the US.
Big companies react cautiously
France's Total (TOT) said on Wednesday it was unable to proceed with a $2 billion project to develop Iran's giant South Pars gas field due to the reimposition of US sanctions. It did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday about the EU measures.
Siemens (SI), whose CEO told CNN this week that the company could not accept new Iranian business, told CNN its position had not changed.
"We will ... very carefully analyze the sanction-related steps announced by the US and the EU. We have strictly complied with all relevant export control restrictions in the past and will continue to do so in the future," it said in a statement.
PSA (PUGOY), which sells Peugeot cars, said it would "follow the evolution of this subject, including the official and singular position expressed by the European Union on this issue."
Airbus (EADSY) reiterated on Friday that it would act "in full compliance with sanctions and export control regulations." But the aircraft manufacturer said it would not be able to export commercial planes to Iran without a license from the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
CNNMoney (London)First published May 18, 2018: 1:42 PM ET
Pompeo set to unveil US "Plan B" to confront Iran
By Nicole Gaouette and Laura Koran, CNN
Updated 1846 GMT (0246 HKT) May 20, 2018
[VIDEO NOT INCLUDED]
Pompeo: We need to be in every corner of globe 00:50
Washington (CNN)Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will unveil the administration's "Plan B" for countering Iran on Monday, an idea that some critics call a "pipe dream," while others question whether the administration is coming clean on its goals for the country.
The plan, administration officials say, is to assemble a global coalition to pressure Iran into negotiations on "a new security architecture" that goes beyond its nuclear program. Pompeo's address, his first major foreign policy speech as secretary, will take place at 9 a.m., ET, at the conservative Heritage Foundation policy group.
"We need a new framework that's going to address the totality of Iran's threats," Brian Hook, the State Department's director of policy planning told reporters Friday. "This involves a range of things around its nuclear program - missiles, proliferating missiles and missile technology, its support for terrorists, and its aggressive and violent activities that fuel civil wars in Syria and Yemen."
But many former officials, foreign diplomats and analysts are skeptical, both of the chances a broader pact can come together, and of the administration's interest in diplomacy with Iran.
"A pipe dream"
"A bigger, better deal is a pipe dream," said Robert Einhorn, a former State Department official and non-proliferation expert who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Speaking at a Brookings event on Iran, Einhorn argued that, "the real objective is not really a bigger, better, deal, the real objective is to put immense pressure on Iran" to weaken the regime.
Einhorn added that, "the not so hidden objective of certain members of the administration is regime change."
US officials say the White House will aim to roll back Iran's influence in the region through this new maximum pressure campaign. But people close to the administration say the end goal of the new plan seems to vary depending on who is doing the talking.
Officials such as national security adviser John Bolton would be happy to see a pressure campaign end in regime change, while Pompeo belongs to a camp that has felt it might be too soon for that, said a source familiar with the secretary's thinking. What they hope for, this person and others said, is that a pressure campaign could force Iran to pull back from regional activities in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, to focus on domestic stability.
[paste:font size="5"]
Bolton: US will impose all pre-deal Iran sanctions 03:05
Pompeo will flesh out the administration's vision for Iran almost two weeks after President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Agreement, as the deal is formally known, re-imposed sanctions that had been lifted under the pact, and announced new ones against Iran's Central Bank.
Hook, in previewing Pompeo's speech, emphasized the role those sanctions will play in pushing Iran back to the table.
"By reimposing the sanctions that were lifted under the JCPOA, that will bring economic pressure to bear on Iran," said Hook. "It was economic pressure that brought the Iranians to the table a few years ago."
But the decision to pull out of the deal, along with the Trump administration's approach to Europe, means sanctions might not be as effective this time, making it all the harder to realize the goal of a broader deal, many analysts said.
Trump's nuclear decision is bleak news for Americans held in Iran
A maximum pressure campaign requires a unified coalition, they argue. Russia and China aren't particularly inclined to help out with a second Iran nuclear deal, having voiced their displeasure at the US decision to leave the original agreement.
And Trump's rejection of the JCPOA has left close allies in Europe angry and alienated, particularly as he has told them that the US will sanction their companies should they continue to honor contracts with Iranian businesses.
European unease[/paste:font]
That declaration has deepened European uneasiness about the administration's commitment to the trans-Atlantic relationship, particularly as Trump is already threatening tariffs against key European industries, a decision due June 1.
And it has created resentment due to a perception of US bullying, as Trump administration officials explain that when faced with the prospect of US sanctions, Europe will buckle under and choose the US over small agreements with Iran.
Einhorn predicted that, "new sanctions won't be as crippling as those put in place in 2012," when the Obama administration was working on the Iran deal, in part because other countries "strongly oppose" Trump's decision to abrogate the deal.
"Other countries will defy or ignore sanctions, and look for work arounds," Einhorn said.
Indeed, European leaders have already said they are working on enacting a statute that protects European companies that continue to do business with Iran. They are also looking at having the European Investment Bank provide a funding stream for Iran's Central Bank.
Rezaian: Americans remain imprisoned in Iran 03:13
"It's hard to overstate how angry and resentful the Europeans are," said Suzanne Maloney, deputy director of the Brookings' program on Foreign Policy.
Hook told reporters that, "people are overstating the disagreements between the US and Europe," and that these reports are overblown. "We agree with the Europeans on much, much more than we disagree on," he insisted.
Many analysts have asked why Iran, Europe, or countries such as North Korea should trust the US in general or this administration in particular to be a reliable interlocutor if it is willing to walk away from established agreements.
Others, such as Maloney, and former Obama administration officials and foreign diplomats involved in the Iran talks, say it would have been impossibly unwieldy to negotiate a deal that encompassed all the issues the US and Europe had with Iran.
Hook was asked why the administration thought it could convince Tehran to engage again, particularly at a time when its officials - Pompeo, Trump, Bolton and US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley - have been excoriating the country's leaders.
Hook spoke generally about Iranian dissatisfaction with their regime and "with a lot of the policies of the regime which have not helped the Iranian people."
Maloney, an Iran expert, says that internal unrest in Iran, partly due to the struggling economy, means that it is "an incredibly explosive time" in the country right now. But she adds that Trump's decision to leave the deal means Iranian people now "have an address for their problems" and that people will likely "rally around the flag."
Some observers, such as Trita Parsi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, don't believe the administration is negotiating in good faith, particularly as Bolton is on the record, speaking a year ago to an Iranian dissident group, advocating an overthrow of Iran's government.
"What I'm seeing is a strategy to drive this toward a major confrontation," Parsi said. "What I think the Trump administration is doing is putting the pieces into place to have a major confrontation with Iran."
Others say that regardless of the administration's goals, the chances of miscalculation, especially with Israel and Saudi Arabia urging Trump to confront Tehran, are high.
"We could very easily see ourselves in a military confrontation in the near future," said Bruce Riedel, director of Brookings' Intelligence Project.
CNN's Zachary Cohen contributed to this report
The Iran deal was a fuck up from the beginning, We had a incompetent piece of shit president giving money to Iran to make more nuclear weapons… End of story
The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law
by THOMAS KNAPP
On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”
While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”
Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”
On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.
It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”
.
...but ultimately that *is* the choice of their government, who *could* choose to be peaceful neighbors, but who choose to engage in futile imperialism attempts instead.
yes, it could be *argued* that NATO and especially the US engages in imperialism, but the reality is that countries that had to undergo regime-change end up being left in the hands of their own people. their own ability to elect quality leaders and not get stuck in civil war like situations, is the biggest factor in determining the quality of life in those countries (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan)....but ultimately that *is* the choice of their government, who *could* choose to be peaceful neighbors, but who choose to engage in futile imperialism attempts instead.
Eh, Iran is on the other side of the planet, it's not your neighbour
So which side is engaging in imperialism again?
....so i can't call NATO's actions imperialism, because in an empire, once nations are conquered they pay tax to the conquering nation..
....so i can't call NATO's actions imperialism, because in an empire, once nations are conquered they pay tax to the conquering nation..
And you think they don't pay?
The taxes consists of having a loyal puppet in power that does the bidding of the empire and surrendering their economy to the benevolent powers of the 'free' market
Stop lying, the countries are left to its people in ruins and in a civil war like state.yes, it could be *argued* that NATO and especially the US engages in imperialism, but the reality is that countries that had to undergo regime-change end up being left in the hands of their own people. their own ability to elect quality leaders and not get stuck in civil war like situations, is the biggest factor in determining the quality of life in those countries (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan).
Well, you call yourself Peacefan but you call efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons "unreasonable" and you call efforts to stop Iran's imperialist wars across the ME "unreasonable". If you truly wanted peace you would not call these things unreasonable. Again, there is proof that Iran had a robust nuclear weapons program a few years ago, and there is substantial evidence that it still exists, but you ignore all the evidence and suggest it is all some Jewish conspiracy. What is your real agenda?There is no media buildup towards war with Iran from the US or Israel, the pressure is to open negotiations about Iran's nuclear weapons program and its imperialist ambitions. The only people who seem interested in war are people like you.
no first it starts with unreasonable demands and/or accusations coupled to a sanctions regime designed to derail an entire country.
oh, and the WMD claims are put forth by Netanyahu from Israel, but they are well-advertised in the US, and on some channels (Fox) i can imagine they do little fact-checking for such 'revelations about an Iranian nuclear weapons program' by the "unassailable" Israelis.
so i'm seeing your President Trump and his buddy Netanyahu embarking on serious war-mongering, extending far beyond words with that sanctions program (that happens to threaten the EU in case of non-compliance, as well).
the fact that i expose it and vocally oppose it, means i'm anti-war. i don't get how you missed that.
Well, you call yourself Peacefan but you call efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons "unreasonable" and you call efforts to stop Iran's imperialist wars across the ME "unreasonable". If you truly wanted peace you would not call these things unreasonable. Again, there is proof that Iran had a robust nuclear weapons program a few years ago, and there is substantial evidence that it still exists, but you ignore all the evidence and suggest it is all some Jewish conspiracy. What is your real agenda?There is no media buildup towards war with Iran from the US or Israel, the pressure is to open negotiations about Iran's nuclear weapons program and its imperialist ambitions. The only people who seem interested in war are people like you.
no first it starts with unreasonable demands and/or accusations coupled to a sanctions regime designed to derail an entire country.
oh, and the WMD claims are put forth by Netanyahu from Israel, but they are well-advertised in the US, and on some channels (Fox) i can imagine they do little fact-checking for such 'revelations about an Iranian nuclear weapons program' by the "unassailable" Israelis.
so i'm seeing your President Trump and his buddy Netanyahu embarking on serious war-mongering, extending far beyond words with that sanctions program (that happens to threaten the EU in case of non-compliance, as well).
the fact that i expose it and vocally oppose it, means i'm anti-war. i don't get how you missed that.
