Obama on cusp of winning Iran nuclear vote

[waltky]

Granny says one o' dese days the world gonna wake up an' Israel gonna go up inna mushroom cloud...

State Dept.: Iran’s Parchin Base Is ‘Conventional Military Site,’ So No Restrictions on Construction There
August 28, 2015 – A new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report says there are signs of new construction work at Iran’s controversial Parchin military complex, but State Department spokesman John Kirby said Thursday that the base is “a conventional military site, not a nuclear site,” and as such there would be no restrictions on new construction there.

The latest IAEA Iran safeguards report says that since the previous report was issued three months ago, “at a particular location at the Parchin site, the agency has continued to observe, through satellite imagery, the presence of vehicles, equipment, and probable construction materials.” The report, which has not yet been officially released but has been posted online, added that “a small extension to an existing building appeared to have been constructed” at the site. The IAEA reiterated its earlier-stated concerns that work undertaken by the Iranians at Parchin since 2012 is “likely to have undermined the agency’s ability to conduct effective verification [there].”

The base near Tehran is suspected to have been used for clandestine nuclear weapons-related activity, including explosive tests with applications for nuclear warhead development. But for more than a decade Iran has denied the IAEA access to Parchin, and a recently-signed confidential IAEA-Iran arrangement allegedly allows the Iranians to collect their own photos, videos and samples there, instead of the U.N. watchdog’s inspectors doing so themselves. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement reached between Iran and six world powers, sanctions against Iran cannot be eased until the IAEA has clarified questions about past and present “possible military dimensions” (PMDs) of the Iranian nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's latest Iran safeguards report cites evidence that construction work has been carried out at the Parchin military base over the last three months.

JCPOA critics worry that absent the physical presence of IAEA inspectors at sites like Parchin, it will not be able to resolve the PMD questions in a way that inspires confidence as the broader nuclear deal moves forward. The IAEA and Iran have agreed to finalize the PMD investigation by October 15. Kirby would not speak about specifics in the latest IAEA report, on the grounds it has not yet been released officially.

However, he told a daily briefing, “I think it’s important to remember that when you’re talking about a site like Parchin, you’re talking about a conventional military site, not a nuclear site. So there wouldn’t be any IAEA or other restrictions on new construction at that site, were they to occur.” “Which begs the question why it would be in the report then,” a reporter commented. “I’m not going to confirm details in a report that hasn’t been publicly released,” Kirby responded, “and I would refer you to the IAEA for any contents that may or may not be in there.”

MORE

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...parchin-base-conventional-military-site-so-no

See also:

Support for Iran Deal Grows Among Senate Dems; Only 5 More Needed to Sustain Veto
August 26, 2015 – A growing number of U.S. senators now support the Iran nuclear deal. Just five more are needed to sustain President Obama’s promised veto of a resolution to disapprove the agreement. Announcements of support for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) took the number of its Democratic supporters in the Senate to 29.

Assuming that all Republicans vote to disapprove the deal when the resolution comes to the floor by mid-September, the support of 13 Democrats would be needed to override a promised presidential veto. But only two Democrats – Sens. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.) – had announced their opposition to the deal as of late Tuesday. Eleven of the still-undeclared 15 would have to join them to reach the target. As it has done every time a member of Congress has come out in support of the JCPOA, the Obama administration celebrated Murray’s and Stabenow’s decisions. “Another YES for @TheIranDeal,” tweeted Marie Harf, strategic communications adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry, after each senator make their stance public. Harf provided links to their statements explaining their reasons, and @TheIranDeal, an administration-controlled Twitter account, also highlighted the announcements.

In their statements, Murray and Stabenow both acknowledged concerns with parts of the agreement but said after close review and consultations they ultimately decided it was worthy of support. Murray said it was “not a perfect deal, and there are several elements I would like to be stronger,” but concluded that she was “convinced that moving forward with this deal is the best chance we have at a strong diplomatic solution …” Stabenow also described the deal as “not perfect,” but said, “I have determined that the imminent threat of Iran having a nuclear weapon outweighs any flaws I see in the international agreement.”

The joint resolution to disapprove the JCPOA was introduced early this month by House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.). The measure would also require the support of 44 House Democrats to override a veto. And it now appears that some Senate Democrats are not content to merely uphold President Obama's veto of a resolution disapproving the Iran deal. The Associated Press reported that Democrats who support the deal are now talking about getting enough votes -- 41 -- to kill the disapproval resolution outright in the Senate, preventing the need for a presidential veto.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday called the plan stunning. "I find that stunning that the leader, the Democratic leader, is proposing that," Corker told The Associated Press in a phone interview, referring to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "All but one senator voted in favor of having the right to vote on the final deal, so then to turn right around and filibuster it to me is very inconsistent, and I think would be confusing to the people they represent." Corker told the AP he doesn't know if Republicans could block a filibuster. "I don't think there's any question but the lobbying effort by the administration certainly has generated results, and I have no idea what the final vote is going to be but certainly they've picked up some support on the Democratic side," Corker said.

MORE

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-among-senate-dems-only-5-more-needed-sustain

 

[rightwinger]

Your backing and promoting a deal that will start more wars and cause more death and you are telling ME that My information is filtered?

you don't know what the fuck your talking about.....

Go read some reports on the groups are are positively salavating at the prospect of Iran loaning them money from the 120 billion dollar windfall they are about to have....

Hell, go look at the reports out of N. Korea....

Wake the fuck up..

I am awake, so is the world. The way it is shaking out the only opposition is from people who see their political positions in their own countries weakened by a thawing of tensions and a step back from the brink of war. Just so happens they are all conservatives so fuck them. If Iran takes all the money, that is theirs, and funnels it right into military and terror their own citizens will revolt. The Iranian people strongly expect their economy to quickly improve after sanctions are lifted. If it does not improve the Iranian government is in a great deal of trouble since they have been blaming everything entirely on sanctions.

At this point, what does Iran have to gain by secretly resurrecting their nuclear weapons program?

More sanctions?

The whole bomb thing was just a mouse that roared scenerio. One designed to scare everyone into thinking we need to deal with the sponsors of terrorism. Other then a suitcase nuke, which they still could get with 5000 spinning centrafuges we have very little to fear from Iran having a bomb they couldn't possiblly use. That is if we had strong leadership.

But terrorism, that hits home pretty quickly and Iran has promised to keep on funding terrorism and with 120 billion who knows what can be bought. Along with a better military then they have today.

So what they get is to keep enriching uranium, money to sponsor terrorism and a military buiild up and what does the world get? Well for one thing more trade so big business is happy and more terrorism and a false sense of relief over Iran not building a bomb. Just like we did with Korea.

Actually no

They are enriching uranium right now under the Republican endorsed plan. They are much closer to a bomb TODAY than they will be a year from now
They can support terrorism whether they have a nuke program or not....it does not cost much

Why will they still have 5000 centrifuges spinning? What would you be doing if you were a sponsor of terrorism and wished for the destruction of a people? Or at least SAID you do?

They do not have enough to produce the level of enriched uranium to produce a bomb......they do now

Why do you insist on keeping them?

 

[charwin95]

American conservatives, Israeli conservatives, Iranian conservatives - all united in their opposition to a nuclear deal for the same reason, their political positions depend on being able to scare their own people.

And those in favor are scaring us that the world will end if there is no agreement. Both sides use fear. We know what Iran will do, they told us.

No one is trying to say the world will end, they are just saying what you should have already known, we were on a path to eventual war with Iran that promised to be costlier, bloodier, more prolonged and more futile than Iraq.

bullshit, the sanctions were bringing them to their knees.

Did the clinton deal with north korea keep them from getting nukes? Duh----------------------------no

Bullshit? Did it stop them from building their ambitions? Look how far they got?
More sanctions?
Do they look starving because of the sanctions?

 

[charwin95]

The best deal is worse then no deal when dealing with terrorism. All I need as proof is that they changed their vote. Nothing else has changed. This is a vote on Obama's legacy. Letting a sworn enemy, an enemy that has sworn to continue to fund terrorism against us just does not make sense. Except to try and preserve some sort of legacy for Obama and I am afraid that legacy will be a suitcase nuke.

It is the best deal Neville Chamberlain Kerry and Obama can get.

Here's a better deal...cancel the deal and have ZERO inspections of Iran's nuclear program...

Terrorist need nuclear weapons to REALLY take over the world...

So tell us how depending on Iran to inspect their own facilities and turn themselves in will help.

These just shows what you and your friends knew about this nuclear deal... SEE Post #52. How AP news screwed up their news regarding self inspection.

 

[charwin95]

Anyone ever notice that, as far as conservatives are concerned, the sky is always falling even though their predictions of doom and gloom never seem to come to pass.

Meanwhile, when a monumental screw up like George W. Bush gets in the WH, they wholeheartedly support him. But when his policies proved to be a series of unmitigated disasters, they blame the mess on his Democratic predecessors, Carter and Clinton, and his successor, Obama?

It's a pathetic display, I must say.

I know read somewhere that the Iranian government was trying to reach Bush to discuss some kind of agreement regarding their nuclear program but Bush refuse to deal with them. Bush policy at that time was....drop your nuclear program and will negotiate...
I cannot find that news. Does anyone knew or heard about this?

 

[rightwinger]

Once again...Obama wins and Republicans lose

Getting to be a habit

 

[nuhuh]

Anyone ever notice that, as far as conservatives are concerned, the sky is always falling even though their predictions of doom and gloom never seem to come to pass.

Meanwhile, when a monumental screw up like George W. Bush gets in the WH, they wholeheartedly support him. But when his policies proved to be a series of unmitigated disasters, they blame the mess on his Democratic predecessors, Carter and Clinton, and his successor, Obama?

It's a pathetic display, I must say.

I know read somewhere that the Iranian government was trying to reach Bush to discuss some kind of agreement regarding their nuclear program but Bush refuse to deal with them. Bush policy at that time was....drop your nuclear program and will negotiate...
I cannot find that news. Does anyone knew or heard about this?

Here is an article but it looks just like Obama's deal. The Iran deal began with George W. Bush

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Here's my take on the deal.
I see there are four choices to deal with Iran.

Do nothing
Take the deal
Bomb them
Invade

Taking the deal does not remove the others as options. If it works the way it's meant to, great. If not we still have options. Going for a military option as a first choice is just dumb.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's my take on the deal.
I see there are four choices to deal with Iran.

Do nothing
Take the deal
Bomb them
Invade

Taking the deal does not remove the others as options. If it works the way it's meant to, great. If not we still have options. Going for a military option as a first choice is just dumb.

Status quo is a loss

That is what Republicans support

 

[Desperado]

This will be one of two legacies of his Presidency, the other is normalizing relations with Cuba

 

[rightwinger]

This will be one of two legacies of his Presidency, the other is normalizing relations with Cuba

Add in...

Stopping a depression
Passing Obamacare
Gay rights
Killing bin Laden

 

[Bfgrn]

Here's my take on the deal.
I see there are four choices to deal with Iran.

Do nothing
Take the deal
Bomb them
Invade

Taking the deal does not remove the others as options. If it works the way it's meant to, great. If not we still have options. Going for a military option as a first choice is just dumb.

Exactly...taking the deal does not remove the others as options...and if Iran were to break the agreement, we would have universal support for whatever option we choose.

 

[Freewill]

I am awake, so is the world. The way it is shaking out the only opposition is from people who see their political positions in their own countries weakened by a thawing of tensions and a step back from the brink of war. Just so happens they are all conservatives so fuck them. If Iran takes all the money, that is theirs, and funnels it right into military and terror their own citizens will revolt. The Iranian people strongly expect their economy to quickly improve after sanctions are lifted. If it does not improve the Iranian government is in a great deal of trouble since they have been blaming everything entirely on sanctions.

At this point, what does Iran have to gain by secretly resurrecting their nuclear weapons program?

More sanctions?

The whole bomb thing was just a mouse that roared scenerio. One designed to scare everyone into thinking we need to deal with the sponsors of terrorism. Other then a suitcase nuke, which they still could get with 5000 spinning centrafuges we have very little to fear from Iran having a bomb they couldn't possiblly use. That is if we had strong leadership.

But terrorism, that hits home pretty quickly and Iran has promised to keep on funding terrorism and with 120 billion who knows what can be bought. Along with a better military then they have today.

So what they get is to keep enriching uranium, money to sponsor terrorism and a military buiild up and what does the world get? Well for one thing more trade so big business is happy and more terrorism and a false sense of relief over Iran not building a bomb. Just like we did with Korea.

Actually no

They are enriching uranium right now under the Republican endorsed plan. They are much closer to a bomb TODAY than they will be a year from now
They can support terrorism whether they have a nuke program or not....it does not cost much

Why will they still have 5000 centrifuges spinning? What would you be doing if you were a sponsor of terrorism and wished for the destruction of a people? Or at least SAID you do?

They do not have enough to produce the level of enriched uranium to produce a bomb......they do now

Why do you insist on keeping them?

So, since for about all of the last 10 years it has been democrat rule we can blame Obama for the mess in the first place? This deal is made to fix his failed foreign policy?

So let's go ahead a pass it and feel real good about ourselves. I am sure we can feel just as good as Chamberlain felt when he shook Hitler's hand.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

So let's go ahead a pass it and feel real good about ourselves. I am sure we can feel just as good as Chamberlain felt when he shook Hitler's hand.

You can feel even better because the chances of Iran invading Poland are almost zero.

 

[Freewill]

This will be one of two legacies of his Presidency, the other is normalizing relations with Cuba

Add in...

Stopping a depression
Passing Obamacare
Gay rights
Killing bin Laden

Stopping a depression: The country never went into depression nor was there really a risk of doing so. What he did do was plunge our children into debt that even the CBO is warning is unsustainable. He took a recession that we historically should have recovered quickly from and became stronger and made it the weakest and longest recovery in history, along with the debt.

Passing Obamacare: Purely party line vote that he had to buy off some of his
own party to get passed. Not hard to get what you want when you can buy people off, and we know all democrats are suseptible to "Corn Husker Kicbacks."

Gay rights: Meaningless to the majority of Americans.

Killing bin Laden: Show the proof. bin Laden died of kidney failure long before the show. Good to see you celebrate death.

 

[Freewill]

So let's go ahead a pass it and feel real good about ourselves. I am sure we can feel just as good as Chamberlain felt when he shook Hitler's hand.

You can feel even better because the chances of Iran invading Poland are almost zero.

Good one.

But then again since Iran has vowed to keep funding terrorism, and I assume at a greater extent once they have their 120 billion, who knows what country they will invade through terrorism.

 

[deltex1]

Now one must wonder what the democrats were offered to change their vote. This is pure American political BS. Nothing in the "agreement" has changed so why are the those opposing the deal changing their vote? Only one real reason, pay off. The corn husker kick back is alive and well.

This "agreement" will be hailed as a great accomplishment meanwhile it will be like a boil on your ass. Put a little ointment on it and it feels a little better yet it is just getting worse waiting to burst. Nothing good can come out of appeasing a sworn enemy who has already told us what they will do with the money, military build up and they will continue to fund terrorism. WTF is Obama trying to get the US military complex into business with Iran? But as usual when the boil pops Obama will be long gone and it will be blame on others.

Obama on cusp of winning Iran nuclear vote - FT.com

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Obama on cusp of winning Iran nuclear vote - FT.com

Democratic aides in Congress say party leaders are working hard to convince undecided members to support the deal and are still wary that new revelations could alter the political debate in Washington, but they are growing increasingly confident that the agreement will survive.

Now one must wonder what the democrats were offered to change their vote. This is pure American political BS. Nothing in the "agreement" has changed so why are the those opposing the deal changing their vote? Only one real reason, pay off. The corn husker kick back is alive and well.

This "agreement" will be hailed as a great accomplishment meanwhile it will be like a boil on your ass. Put a little ointment on it and it feels a little better yet it is just getting worse waiting to burst. Nothing good can come out of appeasing a sworn enemy who has already told us what they will do with the money, military build up and they will continue to fund terrorism. WTF is Obama trying to get the US military complex into business with Iran? But as usual when the boil pops Obama will be long gone and it will be blame on others.

Obama on cusp of winning Iran nuclear vote - FT.com

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Obama on cusp of winning Iran nuclear vote - FT.com

Democratic aides in Congress say party leaders are working hard to convince undecided members to support the deal and are still wary that new revelations could alter the political debate in Washington, but they are growing increasingly confident that the agreement will survive.

The die is cast. Obabble opened a bucket of worms and there's no putting them back. The other five nations are voting their interest...could care less about US and Israeli view. Get ready for all out war in the ME...and a real leader to clean up the mess in 2017. A few million or more will have to die...but that's what happens when morons rule.

 

[Freewill]

Once again...Obama wins and Republicans lose

Getting to be a habit

Once again Obama has to buy of his own party. Obama may win but we know that the country loses. His winning doesn't mean it is a good deal. Have you told your children lately how much debt Obama has heaped upon them?

 

[Bfgrn]

So, since for about all of the last 10 years it has been democrat rule we can blame Obama for the mess in the first place? This deal is made to fix his failed foreign policy?

So let's go ahead a pass it and feel real good about ourselves. I am sure we can feel just as good as Chamberlain felt when he shook Hitler's hand.

Blame George W. Bush for Iran Deal

Today is the worst day of the George W. Bush administration. The deal U.S. President Barack Obama has struck with Iran to curb its nuclear weapons program amounts to a pragmatic recognition that Iran has joined the U.S. as a crucial regional player not just in the Persian Gulf but also in the whole Middle East. Iran's rise wouldn't have been possible -- and the deal wouldn't have been necessary -- had the U.S. not unleashed Iran from the regional power that did the most to contain it: Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Blame George W. Bush for Iran Deal - Bloomberg View

On Iran’s nuclear program, Bush administration strategy was to rally the international community to confront the Iranian regime with a strategic choice. Tehran could transparently and verifiably give up its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, especially its enrichment facility at Natanz. If it did, the international community would respond with substantial diplomatic, economic and security benefits. These would include the relaxation of existing economic sanctions and active international support for a truly peaceful civilian nuclear program, including the supply of nuclear fuel so Iran would not need an enrichment facility. If it rejected this choice, the regime would only be further isolated diplomatically, incur increased economic sanctions, and run the risk of military action.

The George W. Bush Administration | The Iran Primer

 

[JoeB131]

So, since for about all of the last 10 years it has been democrat rule we can blame Obama for the mess in the first place? This deal is made to fix his failed foreign policy?

So let's go ahead a pass it and feel real good about ourselves. I am sure we can feel just as good as Chamberlain felt when he shook Hitler's hand.

Wow, guy, you really don't understand what was going on at Munich, did you?

Anyway, not going to correct your historical ignorance.

Fact is, this is as good of a deal as we are going to get, and it doesn't stop us from bombing in the future if Iran violates the agreement.

But then again since Iran has vowed to keep funding terrorism, and I assume at a greater extent once they have their 120 billion, who knows what country they will invade through terrorism.

Iran has a 1.5 Trillion dollar economy. the 120 billion of their own assets won't make that much of a difference.

Again, guy, you are 10 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist, so maybe you need to stop wetting your pants over it.