CDZ The Iranian nuclear deal: a deeper look

[RoccoR]

Tehon, et al,

I did not suggest anything!

The Constitution dictated that the Shah act within the confines of the law as dictated by the legislature. Are you now going to suggest that conspiring with foreign entities to overthrow the elected Prime Minister was within those laws. It could also be argued that the Shah's power was confined to appointing Ministers. That is something the Iranians would need to answer.

(COMMENT)

You are suggesting that the limit to Royal Authority is by appointment. I am not sure that this is true. Again, it is open to open minded interpretation of common language.

Art. 33. New laws which are needed shall be drafted and revised in the Ministries which are respectively responsible, and shall then be laid before the Assembly by the responsible Ministers, or by the Prime Minister. After being approved by the Assembly, and ratified by the Royal Signature; they shall be duly put into force.

Art. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.
​

The King (Shah) does not have to overthrow a Minister.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[I amso IR]

The who, how, where, when, and why, of what has or has not taken place110 or 65 years ago is old news. While it may be viewed as how Iran might act today has some relevance,but honestly is not of immediate importance. What is of importance is what Iran will do or attempt to do in the future. They have been given a degree of funding and allowed a period of 15 years to formulate what it is they will do and when. They enjoy the comfort of knowing they are somewhat free from attack by the United States or Israel, support of one sort or another by Russia and China and in general in a very decent position. Mr. Kerry has said, today, that he is concerned with comments coming out of Iran. So the idea that Iran views the "deal" being in their favor is well illustrated. The premise of this entire discussion is that given a fair shake, Iran is ready to become an partner of the modern world and will play nice, in the world sand box. From what has been observed, post agreement, that may not be the case.

Now we await the U.S. Congress and the approval/disapproval of this pact. From my stand point, which matters not, the western nations and their allies are in for more of the "same old, same old". Iran will use the 15 year grace period to develop and maintain a nuclear weapon(s) using to full advantage the time allowed (+) to prepare for inspection by the West as inspections will be on Iran's timetable not ours. This without ever mentioning captives.

Again, in my way of thinking, this agreement was made for others legacies and not for the benefit of mankind. I view the entire exercise as kicking the can, down the road, again. Time for a new can, this one filled with lead along with a mighty kicker.

I also tend to agree with Israel on this matter. Is it possible that Israel is able to defend itself from a dedicated attack against itself, without using a nuclear weapon remains to be seen. Should Iran organize all of it's forces domestic and otherwise, I doubt it. A blitzkrieg style attack would prove insurmountable for them, conventionally.

In summation, this accord, serves no real purpose other than to prove,once again, Iran cannot be trusted nor accepted as an trustworthy agent in any sense. Portions of the mid east have been allowed to revert to it's former divided self, (and that of our own doing) and archaic life style. The question truly is, should we, the West, simply back away and let them have at "it". Why not? We do not need them and their petty differences concerning ideology in our lives. And damn their oil! Let them eat it when they are hungry. Or, eat rice from China. as Russia has it's own supplies of oil and temperate climates in which to grow crops, something the Arabs are short of. Further, Russia has resources Europe requires. Putin not withstanding, can and will be dealt with. Use that to the West's advantage.

 

[Tehon]

Tehon, et al,

I did not suggest anything!

The Constitution dictated that the Shah act within the confines of the law as dictated by the legislature. Are you now going to suggest that conspiring with foreign entities to overthrow the elected Prime Minister was within those laws. It could also be argued that the Shah's power was confined to appointing Ministers. That is something the Iranians would need to answer.

(COMMENT)

You are suggesting that the limit to Royal Authority is by appointment. I am not sure that this is true. Again, it is open to open minded interpretation of common language.

Art. 33. New laws which are needed shall be drafted and revised in the Ministries which are respectively responsible, and shall then be laid before the Assembly by the responsible Ministers, or by the Prime Minister. After being approved by the Assembly, and ratified by the Royal Signature; they shall be duly put into force.

Art. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.
​

The King (Shah) does not have to overthrow a Minister.

Most Respectfully,
R

Art. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.

I see your point here but I would question if the word "effected" implies a unilateral action. It's my understanding that the constitution was intended to limit the Monarchy's authority. It is also my understanding that the Shah's appointments were conditioned on a vote of confidence from the Parliament. In the case of Mossadegh, it is my understanding that he was elected by the Majilis 79-12 before he received the Royal Decree. If Mossadegh was elected by Parliament, I find it questionable that the Shah could so easily dismiss him. I think this thought process is further evidenced by the Shah's fleeing to America until after the coup had transpired. The appearance is that it is a cowardly act if not lawless and I would think calls into question his constitutional duties to the sovereignty of Iran.

P.S. You suggest that the Shah doesn't need to overthrow a Minister but isn't that what in fact happened.

 

[RoccoR]

Tehon, et al,

I am not an authority on Constitutional Monarchies; but, I interpret it like this:

• Art. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is caused to happen by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.

----- or ----​

• Art. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is brought about by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.

This would seem to me to be the common law language and a reasonable understanding of the meaning.

• Art. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King.

I see your point here but I would question if the word "effected" implies a unilateral action. It's my understanding that the constitution was intended to limit the Monarchy's authority. It is also my understanding that the Shah's appointments were conditioned on a vote of confidence from the Parliament. In the case of Mossadegh, it is my understanding that he was elected by the Majilis 79-12 before he received the Royal Decree. If Mossadegh was elected by Parliament, I find it questionable that the Shah could so easily dismiss him. I think this thought process is further evidenced by the Shah's fleeing to America until after the coup had transpired. The appearance is that it is a cowardly act if not lawless and I would think calls into question his constitutional duties to the sovereignty of Iran.

P.S. You suggest that the Shah doesn't need to overthrow a Minister but isn't that what in fact happened.

(COMMENT)

Having said that, as I said in Post #199, this is really a question for the Persians that wrote the Constitution to interpret the "intent" of the clause. I can only say that Article 46, in my experience, is unambiguous and indicates that however the appointment is recommended, --- all by itself --- it is insufficient to make the appointment for any minister without the approval of the monarch. And unless challenged by an inferior authority before the Judiciary, and reversed, the assumption would remain valid. (Just my thought.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

Clearly, there is some validity here, in your observation.

Yes, many people believed that Iran was "desperate;" but it was not.

it is true that the country in all was not "desperate", many people living there were

(COMMENT)

Yes, there are two levels represented here in this observation; the government/national level and the private/citizenry level.

Sanctions have made it harder for the Iranian Regime to acquire weapons and military technology. But not impossible; as the Majlis (the Iranian pseudo-Parliament) explicitly recommended and funded operations using the private sector, in conjunction resources of the Revolutionary Guard, to circumvent sanctions and to import prohibited goods into Iran.

There is no question that many western observers have indicated that the sanctions have been punishing and dire conditions were the catalyst for Iran’s rapid push for a nuclear agreement. But that is not necessarily the case. Most countries have GDPs that run in cycles.

GDP IRAN 2014
Iran: GDP increases 1.5%

Gross Domestic Product of Iran grew 1.5% in 2014 compared to last year . This rate is 34-tenths of one percent higher than the figure of -1.9% published in 2013.

The GDP figure in 2014 was $415,339 million, Iran is number 30 in the ranking of GDP of the 195 countries that we publish. The absolute value of GDP in Iran dropped $34,991 million with respect to 2013.

The GDP per capita of Iran in 2014 was $5,293, $382 less than in 2013, when it was $4,911. To view the evolution of the GDP per capita, it is interesting to look back a few years and compare these data with those of 2004 when the GDP per capita in Iran was $2,655.

If we order the countries according to their GDP per capita, Iran is in 104th position of the 195 countries whose GDP we publish.

Here we show you the progression of the GDP in Iran. You can see GDP in other countries in GDP and see all the economic information about Iran in Iran's economy.
​

View attachment 45112​

The US imposed sanctions in 1979; then expanded those sanctions in 1995. In 2006, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1696 and imposed sanctions after Iran refused to suspend its uranium enrichment program. But as you can see, the GDP has not suffered a huge impact from the implementation.

Eventually, Iran will play this card again.

why do you say that? I still stand by what I said before that this deal eliminates all reasons for Iran to do this.

(COMMENT)

This is sometimes referred to as "economic jihad." This is based in the guidance from the Supreme Leader (Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Head of State) that under Islamic Law, "any form of domination of infidels over Muslims in any field, political, social, cultural, economic and military, is not allowed.” Thus, it is generally believed by Western Intelligence Services that no matter what Islamic Republic of Iran may formally agree to with the E3+3, under Islamic Law, there is no dishonor in breaking an obligation in which the Muslim is subordinate to a non-believer (infidel). When the time comes that an agreement is no longer advantageous for the Muslim, fraud and deception may be used to circumvent the obligations in the eyes of Islamic Law (as interpreted by the Supreme Leader).

The need for the weapon is not at issue. You may be right -- that Iran does not need the weapon. Gaining the diplomatic upper hand by merely turning up enrichment to 90% will rattle the Western Powers and Gulf Region States to make concessions they otherwise would not be inclined to agree to.

Most Respectfully,
R

1st: I would not consider Iran's GDP to be a good indicator of the impact of sanctions, as its main source of income is the exportation of oil, and it was still allowed to sell its oil, but the money stayed frozen in foreign banks, so its GDP was not greatly affected, but it could not use that money.

2nd: you make a good point here, but while yes, Iran will lack a weapon that some western countries have, and that could be considered military superiority, Iran has much, much more to lose from cheating than it does to gain.

P.S.
I most likely will not be able to get online tomorrow or Thursday to answer any response.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

The who, how, where, when, and why, of what has or has not taken place110 or 65 years ago is old news. While it may be viewed as how Iran might act today has some relevance,but honestly is not of immediate importance. What is of importance is what Iran will do or attempt to do in the future. They have been given a degree of funding and allowed a period of 15 years to formulate what it is they will do and when. They enjoy the comfort of knowing they are somewhat free from attack by the United States or Israel, support of one sort or another by Russia and China and in general in a very decent position. Mr. Kerry has said, today, that he is concerned with comments coming out of Iran. So the idea that Iran views the "deal" being in their favor is well illustrated. The premise of this entire discussion is that given a fair shake, Iran is ready to become an partner of the modern world and will play nice, in the world sand box. From what has been observed, post agreement, that may not be the case.

Now we await the U.S. Congress and the approval/disapproval of this pact. From my stand point, which matters not, the western nations and their allies are in for more of the "same old, same old". Iran will use the 15 year grace period to develop and maintain a nuclear weapon(s) using to full advantage the time allowed (+) to prepare for inspection by the West as inspections will be on Iran's timetable not ours. This without ever mentioning captives.

Again, in my way of thinking, this agreement was made for others legacies and not for the benefit of mankind. I view the entire exercise as kicking the can, down the road, again. Time for a new can, this one filled with lead along with a mighty kicker.

I also tend to agree with Israel on this matter. Is it possible that Israel is able to defend itself from a dedicated attack against itself, without using a nuclear weapon remains to be seen. Should Iran organize all of it's forces domestic and otherwise, I doubt it. A blitzkrieg style attack would prove insurmountable for them, conventionally.

In summation, this accord, serves no real purpose other than to prove,once again, Iran cannot be trusted nor accepted as an trustworthy agent in any sense. Portions of the mid east have been allowed to revert to it's former divided self, (and that of our own doing) and archaic life style. The question truly is, should we, the West, simply back away and let them have at "it". Why not? We do not need them and their petty differences concerning ideology in our lives. And damn their oil! Let them eat it when they are hungry. Or, eat rice from China. as Russia has it's own supplies of oil and temperate climates in which to grow crops, something the Arabs are short of. Further, Russia has resources Europe requires. Putin not withstanding, can and will be dealt with. Use that to the West's advantage.

Im tires of typing, do if you want to hear my response to that, read my essay or look at some of my previous responses.

 

[Bobby1250]

Rumor has it that Nut Yahoo cried on the floor of the Knesset for two full hours after the Iran deal, which still reamed Iran BIG TIME passed, just because it was something Iran could survive if all the past economic aggression's did not already finish Iran off.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

Rumor has it that Nut Yahoo cried on the floor of the Knesset for two full hours after the Iran deal, which still reamed Iran BIG TIME passed, just because it was something Iran could survive if all the past economic aggression's did not already finish Iran off.

um...no.

 

[Bobby1250]

Rumor has it that Nut Yahoo cried on the floor of the Knesset for two full hours after the Iran deal, which still reamed Iran BIG TIME passed, just because it was something Iran could survive if all the past economic aggression's did not already finish Iran off.

um...no.

Um, yes.

Btw?

Leader Of Iran’s Jewish Community Calls Netanyahu ‘Delusional’ Over Iran Deal

Iran’s Jewish community remains outspoken in its loyalty to the Islamic Republic and in its opposition to Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and continued war crimes.

Leader Of Iran s Jewish Community Calls Netanyahu Delusional Over Iran Deal

Delusional. Just like all of his followers.

 

[Josf]

"Iran’s Jewish community remains..."

Self hating? That is so twisted as to be ridiculous. So these people claim these other people are "self hating" and the evidence inspiring the accusation that these people are "self hating" is their continued efforts to defend innocent people from genocidal criminally insane posers of religious faith and moral authority?

 

[I amso IR]

The who, how, where, when, and why, of what has or has not taken place110 or 65 years ago is old news. While it may be viewed as how Iran might act today has some relevance,but honestly is not of immediate importance. What is of importance is what Iran will do or attempt to do in the future. They have been given a degree of funding and allowed a period of 15 years to formulate what it is they will do and when. They enjoy the comfort of knowing they are somewhat free from attack by the United States or Israel, support of one sort or another by Russia and China and in general in a very decent position. Mr. Kerry has said, today, that he is concerned with comments coming out of Iran. So the idea that Iran views the "deal" being in their favor is well illustrated. The premise of this entire discussion is that given a fair shake, Iran is ready to become an partner of the modern world and will play nice, in the world sand box. From what has been observed, post agreement, that may not be the case.

Now we await the U.S. Congress and the approval/disapproval of this pact. From my stand point, which matters not, the western nations and their allies are in for more of the "same old, same old". Iran will use the 15 year grace period to develop and maintain a nuclear weapon(s) using to full advantage the time allowed (+) to prepare for inspection by the West as inspections will be on Iran's timetable not ours. This without ever mentioning captives.

Again, in my way of thinking, this agreement was made for others legacies and not for the benefit of mankind. I view the entire exercise as kicking the can, down the road, again. Time for a new can, this one filled with lead along with a mighty kicker.

I also tend to agree with Israel on this matter. Is it possible that Israel is able to defend itself from a dedicated attack against itself, without using a nuclear weapon remains to be seen. Should Iran organize all of it's forces domestic and otherwise, I doubt it. A blitzkrieg style attack would prove insurmountable for them, conventionally.

In summation, this accord, serves no real purpose other than to prove,once again, Iran cannot be trusted nor accepted as an trustworthy agent in any sense. Portions of the mid east have been allowed to revert to it's former divided self, (and that of our own doing) and archaic life style. The question truly is, should we, the West, simply back away and let them have at "it". Why not? We do not need them and their petty differences concerning ideology in our lives. And damn their oil! Let them eat it when they are hungry. Or, eat rice from China. as Russia has it's own supplies of oil and temperate climates in which to grow crops, something the Arabs are short of. Further, Russia has resources Europe requires. Putin not withstanding, can and will be dealt with. Use that to the West's advantage.

Im tires of typing, do if you want to hear my response to that, read my essay or look at some of my previous responses.

I amso IR responds:

A response is not required. I have read the thesis you present and explain in detail. I disagree. I do not feel another period of waiting to see if Iran is sincere, is a correct answer to the problem they, Iran, have created. Aligned nations requested and then demanded that Iran cease it's nuclear program which could be used to construct nuclear weapons. Iran refused to comply and so here we are, awaiting another face off with Iran. The attempt to control weapons of mass destruction has been mired in another period of extension of time. The out come will mirror the last except it will involve surrender demands, with regards to an existing weapon, developed by Iran. Which they will refuse to do and then yada, yada, yada! The most important factor, Mr. Obama will then crow loudly, "Hey, I tried"! "No more my job, man" To which folks of the liberal stripe will cry in unison, "right on, baby"! What else is new, if anything?

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

The who, how, where, when, and why, of what has or has not taken place110 or 65 years ago is old news. While it may be viewed as how Iran might act today has some relevance,but honestly is not of immediate importance. What is of importance is what Iran will do or attempt to do in the future. They have been given a degree of funding and allowed a period of 15 years to formulate what it is they will do and when. They enjoy the comfort of knowing they are somewhat free from attack by the United States or Israel, support of one sort or another by Russia and China and in general in a very decent position. Mr. Kerry has said, today, that he is concerned with comments coming out of Iran. So the idea that Iran views the "deal" being in their favor is well illustrated. The premise of this entire discussion is that given a fair shake, Iran is ready to become an partner of the modern world and will play nice, in the world sand box. From what has been observed, post agreement, that may not be the case.

Now we await the U.S. Congress and the approval/disapproval of this pact. From my stand point, which matters not, the western nations and their allies are in for more of the "same old, same old". Iran will use the 15 year grace period to develop and maintain a nuclear weapon(s) using to full advantage the time allowed (+) to prepare for inspection by the West as inspections will be on Iran's timetable not ours. This without ever mentioning captives.

Again, in my way of thinking, this agreement was made for others legacies and not for the benefit of mankind. I view the entire exercise as kicking the can, down the road, again. Time for a new can, this one filled with lead along with a mighty kicker.

I also tend to agree with Israel on this matter. Is it possible that Israel is able to defend itself from a dedicated attack against itself, without using a nuclear weapon remains to be seen. Should Iran organize all of it's forces domestic and otherwise, I doubt it. A blitzkrieg style attack would prove insurmountable for them, conventionally.

In summation, this accord, serves no real purpose other than to prove,once again, Iran cannot be trusted nor accepted as an trustworthy agent in any sense. Portions of the mid east have been allowed to revert to it's former divided self, (and that of our own doing) and archaic life style. The question truly is, should we, the West, simply back away and let them have at "it". Why not? We do not need them and their petty differences concerning ideology in our lives. And damn their oil! Let them eat it when they are hungry. Or, eat rice from China. as Russia has it's own supplies of oil and temperate climates in which to grow crops, something the Arabs are short of. Further, Russia has resources Europe requires. Putin not withstanding, can and will be dealt with. Use that to the West's advantage.

Im tires of typing, do if you want to hear my response to that, read my essay or look at some of my previous responses.

I amso IR responds:

A response is not required. I have read the thesis you present and explain in detail. I disagree. I do not feel another period of waiting to see if Iran is sincere, is a correct answer to the problem they, Iran, have created. Aligned nations requested and then demanded that Iran cease it's nuclear program which could be used to construct nuclear weapons. Iran refused to comply and so here we are, awaiting another face off with Iran. The attempt to control weapons of mass destruction has been mired in another period of extension of time. The out come will mirror the last except it will involve surrender demands, with regards to an existing weapon, developed by Iran. Which they will refuse to do and then yada, yada, yada! The most important factor, Mr. Obama will then crow loudly, "Hey, I tried"! "No more my job, man" To which folks of the liberal stripe will cry in unison, "right on, baby"! What else is new, if anything?

you oversimplify the issue, as many others have. Iran did not create this problem. the people who created the problem are long dead. blaming it on Iran will not solve anything. even if Iran had caused the problem, that is not a good reason to refuse to contribute to a solution.

 

[I amso IR]

The who, how, where, when, and why, of what has or has not taken place110 or 65 years ago is old news. While it may be viewed as how Iran might act today has some relevance,but honestly is not of immediate importance. What is of importance is what Iran will do or attempt to do in the future. They have been given a degree of funding and allowed a period of 15 years to formulate what it is they will do and when. They enjoy the comfort of knowing they are somewhat free from attack by the United States or Israel, support of one sort or another by Russia and China and in general in a very decent position. Mr. Kerry has said, today, that he is concerned with comments coming out of Iran. So the idea that Iran views the "deal" being in their favor is well illustrated. The premise of this entire discussion is that given a fair shake, Iran is ready to become an partner of the modern world and will play nice, in the world sand box. From what has been observed, post agreement, that may not be the case.

Now we await the U.S. Congress and the approval/disapproval of this pact. From my stand point, which matters not, the western nations and their allies are in for more of the "same old, same old". Iran will use the 15 year grace period to develop and maintain a nuclear weapon(s) using to full advantage the time allowed (+) to prepare for inspection by the West as inspections will be on Iran's timetable not ours. This without ever mentioning captives.

Again, in my way of thinking, this agreement was made for others legacies and not for the benefit of mankind. I view the entire exercise as kicking the can, down the road, again. Time for a new can, this one filled with lead along with a mighty kicker.

I also tend to agree with Israel on this matter. Is it possible that Israel is able to defend itself from a dedicated attack against itself, without using a nuclear weapon remains to be seen. Should Iran organize all of it's forces domestic and otherwise, I doubt it. A blitzkrieg style attack would prove insurmountable for them, conventionally.

In summation, this accord, serves no real purpose other than to prove,once again, Iran cannot be trusted nor accepted as an trustworthy agent in any sense. Portions of the mid east have been allowed to revert to it's former divided self, (and that of our own doing) and archaic life style. The question truly is, should we, the West, simply back away and let them have at "it". Why not? We do not need them and their petty differences concerning ideology in our lives. And damn their oil! Let them eat it when they are hungry. Or, eat rice from China. as Russia has it's own supplies of oil and temperate climates in which to grow crops, something the Arabs are short of. Further, Russia has resources Europe requires. Putin not withstanding, can and will be dealt with. Use that to the West's advantage.

Im tires of typing, do if you want to hear my response to that, read my essay or look at some of my previous responses.

I amso IR responds:

A response is not required. I have read the thesis you present and explain in detail. I disagree. I do not feel another period of waiting to see if Iran is sincere, is a correct answer to the problem they, Iran, have created. Aligned nations requested and then demanded that Iran cease it's nuclear program which could be used to construct nuclear weapons. Iran refused to comply and so here we are, awaiting another face off with Iran. The attempt to control weapons of mass destruction has been mired in another period of extension of time. The out come will mirror the last except it will involve surrender demands, with regards to an existing weapon, developed by Iran. Which they will refuse to do and then yada, yada, yada! The most important factor, Mr. Obama will then crow loudly, "Hey, I tried"! "No more my job, man" To which folks of the liberal stripe will cry in unison, "right on, baby"! What else is new, if anything?

you oversimplify the issue, as many others have. Iran did not create this problem. the people who created the problem are long dead. blaming it on Iran will not solve anything. even if Iran had caused the problem, that is not a good reason to refuse to contribute to a solution.

I amso IR responds, again and for the final time;

Honestly, it matters not to me. They want the bomb, let them have it. They simply do not understand the magnitude of the decision. Should Iran think nothing of having nuclear tipped missiles aimed at them, so be it. And should Iran be silly enough to use one against Israel, shame, shame, shame. They have insisted the USA and Israel are to be destroyed. My response is, give it a shot. It is time for Iran to put up or shut up! Certainly they can harm Israel, but it will come at a price they cannot afford to pay nor should want to pay. They have had a few thousand years to settle old scores and have not. Their time draws near and are still far too ignorant to understand. There are other issues far more important than Iran. Been good talking to you. See you when the smoke clears from over Iran.

 

[Lipush]

Screw Iran. I hope Israel NUKES them.

Ahhh,

No.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

The who, how, where, when, and why, of what has or has not taken place110 or 65 years ago is old news. While it may be viewed as how Iran might act today has some relevance,but honestly is not of immediate importance. What is of importance is what Iran will do or attempt to do in the future. They have been given a degree of funding and allowed a period of 15 years to formulate what it is they will do and when. They enjoy the comfort of knowing they are somewhat free from attack by the United States or Israel, support of one sort or another by Russia and China and in general in a very decent position. Mr. Kerry has said, today, that he is concerned with comments coming out of Iran. So the idea that Iran views the "deal" being in their favor is well illustrated. The premise of this entire discussion is that given a fair shake, Iran is ready to become an partner of the modern world and will play nice, in the world sand box. From what has been observed, post agreement, that may not be the case.

Now we await the U.S. Congress and the approval/disapproval of this pact. From my stand point, which matters not, the western nations and their allies are in for more of the "same old, same old". Iran will use the 15 year grace period to develop and maintain a nuclear weapon(s) using to full advantage the time allowed (+) to prepare for inspection by the West as inspections will be on Iran's timetable not ours. This without ever mentioning captives.

Again, in my way of thinking, this agreement was made for others legacies and not for the benefit of mankind. I view the entire exercise as kicking the can, down the road, again. Time for a new can, this one filled with lead along with a mighty kicker.

I also tend to agree with Israel on this matter. Is it possible that Israel is able to defend itself from a dedicated attack against itself, without using a nuclear weapon remains to be seen. Should Iran organize all of it's forces domestic and otherwise, I doubt it. A blitzkrieg style attack would prove insurmountable for them, conventionally.

In summation, this accord, serves no real purpose other than to prove,once again, Iran cannot be trusted nor accepted as an trustworthy agent in any sense. Portions of the mid east have been allowed to revert to it's former divided self, (and that of our own doing) and archaic life style. The question truly is, should we, the West, simply back away and let them have at "it". Why not? We do not need them and their petty differences concerning ideology in our lives. And damn their oil! Let them eat it when they are hungry. Or, eat rice from China. as Russia has it's own supplies of oil and temperate climates in which to grow crops, something the Arabs are short of. Further, Russia has resources Europe requires. Putin not withstanding, can and will be dealt with. Use that to the West's advantage.

Im tires of typing, do if you want to hear my response to that, read my essay or look at some of my previous responses.

I amso IR responds:

A response is not required. I have read the thesis you present and explain in detail. I disagree. I do not feel another period of waiting to see if Iran is sincere, is a correct answer to the problem they, Iran, have created. Aligned nations requested and then demanded that Iran cease it's nuclear program which could be used to construct nuclear weapons. Iran refused to comply and so here we are, awaiting another face off with Iran. The attempt to control weapons of mass destruction has been mired in another period of extension of time. The out come will mirror the last except it will involve surrender demands, with regards to an existing weapon, developed by Iran. Which they will refuse to do and then yada, yada, yada! The most important factor, Mr. Obama will then crow loudly, "Hey, I tried"! "No more my job, man" To which folks of the liberal stripe will cry in unison, "right on, baby"! What else is new, if anything?

you oversimplify the issue, as many others have. Iran did not create this problem. the people who created the problem are long dead. blaming it on Iran will not solve anything. even if Iran had caused the problem, that is not a good reason to refuse to contribute to a solution.

I amso IR responds, again and for the final time;

Honestly, it matters not to me. They want the bomb, let them have it. They simply do not understand the magnitude of the decision. Should Iran think nothing of having nuclear tipped missiles aimed at them, so be it. And should Iran be silly enough to use one against Israel, shame, shame, shame. They have insisted the USA and Israel are to be destroyed. My response is, give it a shot. It is time for Iran to put up or shut up! Certainly they can harm Israel, but it will come at a price they cannot afford to pay nor should want to pay. They have had a few thousand years to settle old scores and have not. Their time draws near and are still far too ignorant to understand. There are other issues far more important than Iran. Been good talking to you. See you when the smoke clears from over Iran.

1. there is no proof tat Iran has a bomb. it took the US years to develop one with thousands of scientists and huge amounts of resources.

2. I completely agree that it would be beyond stupid of Iran (or any country for that matter) to actually use a nuclear weapon. I do not see why you say it as if you are trying to convince me.

3. it is true that in the past Iran was hostile to the west, but the people living in Iran today are not those same people.

4. there is no "settling of old scores" to be done. this is because of a concept which many people have perplexing difficulty comprehending (it is a sort of understandable, as it is a primitive tenancy that I may explain my thoughts on in a thread sometime soon), which is that a country is not a person. it is just an organization of people, and the people do not remain the same. the people living in and running Iran today are not the same people as those who were involved in the conflicts that caused the middle east mess hundreds (not thousands) of years ago. the people living in the USA and other western countries today were not involved in any of that, nor were the people living today in Iran. we are only living with the consequences of them. we don't have any beef with them except the conflict that we (both sides) have created by not understanding this principle.

all we can do now is wait and (in my case) hope that congress passes the deal, then see if it works out.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

Rumor has it that Nut Yahoo cried on the floor of the Knesset for two full hours after the Iran deal, which still reamed Iran BIG TIME passed, just because it was something Iran could survive if all the past economic aggression's did not already finish Iran off.

um...no.

Um, yes.

Btw?

Leader Of Iran’s Jewish Community Calls Netanyahu ‘Delusional’ Over Iran Deal

Iran’s Jewish community remains outspoken in its loyalty to the Islamic Republic and in its opposition to Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and continued war crimes.

Leader Of Iran s Jewish Community Calls Netanyahu Delusional Over Iran Deal

Delusional. Just like all of his followers.

could you please clarify?

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

eagle1462010, et al,

This is (IMO) closer to the track of the discussion -- where it should be.

The Iran Nuclear Negotiations U.S. Concession After U.S. Concession

So what are the metrics to judge the outcome—to judge whether this is a good or bad deal. I think they are straightforward. Here are five:

1. Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability—the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?
2. Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?
3. Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?
4. Is the agreement effectively verifiable?
5. And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

The answer to each of these questions is NO—a reality that is becoming apparent across party lines.

(COMMENT)

Q1: Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability — the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?

A1: Even the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) does not deny any country Nuclear Weapons (NW). At best it can delay it. Under Article X each party to the NPT has the right to withdraw if it decides that the agreement jeopardizes the their individual national security interests. Any party can withdrawal at any time given a 90 day notice (3 months). Iran is no exception. Iran is not likely to accept any deal that does not have a similar escape clause. While the NPT, which entered into force in 1970 --- has been extended indefinitely (Decision 3 --- 1995 NPT Review Conference), there is a review conferences required every five years; with the last one held in last month (May 2015). The NPT is 45 years old.​

Q2: Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?

A2: This new agreement seems to prevent Iran from building a Heavy Water (HW) facility or accumulating Heavy Water for a 15 year period (2030). This only delays the production of of weapons grade plutonium based on the one technology. I'm not sure how confident we should be that other technologies will not become available in that interval. The current Arak HW Reactor is not currently fueled. Under the new agreement, Iran agrees to re-engineer the Arak Reactor such that it cannot be used to general the useable fuel rods. All spent fuel will be shipped to a disposal program outside Iran; for as long as the Arak Reactor exists. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will cut the centrifuges use by about 75% (least efficient models) and Iran will limit their enrichment process to less than 5% (3%-4% concentration of U-235). It appears the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will pickup surveillance. The language used was a "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection." Apparently Iran has agreed to implement the additional Protocols relative to the Safeguards Agreement.​

Q3: Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?

A3: Break-out Time is related to the factors that constrain the development of plutonium at the 90% enrichment level. By reducing the number of centrifuges to about 25% of their current numbers and retaining the least efficient models; as well as preventing enrichment beyond the 5% level, the break-out period will be approximately 45 days to generate weapons grade material in the quantity required to make the first weapon after the termination of the agreement.​

Q4: Is the agreement effectively verifiable?

A4: I'm not sure the question can be answered. However, the production, logistics, storage and maintenance of a warhead is very expensive under normal security conditions. The necessary covert and clandestine activities associated with and necessary to defeat IAEA Inspection Protocols would be huge. Even in Iran, it might become cost prohibitive.​

Q5: And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

A5: "Snap-Back refers to the UN approved sanctions/embargoes mechanisms, once lifted, to be re-introduced and put back in place. As extensive as the provisions are, it might take 3-to-6 months to get a majority in place, while some --- may never get back in place.​

So how did we get into this mess? The answer is clear:

• The Administration has violated every rule of good negotiating practice—the basic tenets of negotiating 101.
• Instead of increasing pressure on Tehran through more sanctions, they relieved sanctions to, in their words, keep Iran at the table, but it was these very sanctions that brought them to the table.
• Instead of making clear to Iran that Iran needed an agreement more than we, the Administration has demonstrated just the opposite: that it is desperate for an agreement—a desperation that Iran’s negotiators have exploited to the fullest, as seen today with Iran’s last minute insistence on ending the arms embargo.
• Instead of insisting that a deadline actually means a deadline, the Administration has allowed Iran to squeeze further concessions each time the latest deadline approaches and passes.
• Most important, instead of holding the line on those key issues that would determine whether the agreement is good or bad—whether it advances our security interests or undermines them—the Administration made concession after concession.

(COMMENT)

Maybe. Certainly I know a number of knowledgeable people that would agree with some of this criticism. Having said that, the establishment of a NW Program is an expensive proposition for any nation; superpowers on down --- let alone Iran. And it is a weapons system that Iran is not likely to ever use. Any nation that would attempt to use such a weapon, or provide it to some hostile non-state actor, or a state actor supporting some radical or jihadist movement, runs the risk of being significantly harmed by one or more of the superpowers. The idea of sanctions is to induce the sanctioned party to the negotiations table and act in good faith. And importantly enough, it is the need to steer research and development in the direction of high energy commercial projects; as opposed to, weapons programs.

It is almost impossible to tell the actual motivation (political, diplomatic, militarily, economically, industrially and cultural legacy) behind the US involvement in the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany) sponsorship of these negotiations. It is likely that while there are some commonalities shared in the effort, some of the parties are interested in some future advantage this might hold for them in the future.

I think (IMO) it is a bit too early to cheer or criticize the outcomes. We simply do not have enough information on the subject.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with most of what you say here

the relevant points you make here are ones I have already addressed many times. your attacks on my intelligence and knowledge of the situation are unfounded and just make you sound desperate. If you want to present a relevant argument, I am happy to talk, but all you are doing is saying that I am wrong without any sort of counterclaim. you think that you know everything about the middle east because you know a few Iranians, but you are wrong, and I would venture to say you are not as smart as you think you are.

wrong again----you made very specific and UNFOUNDED assertions which I countered. ------but--it is true---not in detail. You decided that people with a clean house and food-----never become terrorists. You decided that the deal between the US and Iran WILL reduce Iranian terrorism. You were very nonspecific as to what YOU consider Iranian terrorism----and I, very simply, disagreed and still do I consider terrorism that which Iran has supported
in YEMEN for many years and now accelerating. Hezbollah in an organization FULLY funded and controlled by Iran----with plants all over the middle east.
You can ASSERT from today until tomorrow and standing on your head that Hezbollah will no longer engage in terrorism or even that it never did as many
persons who imagine themselves "liberal humanists" claim----
Iran has an agenda that it has OPENLY stated of ISLAM OF THE SHIITE VARIETY FOR THE WORLD -------you missed that fact completely---or preferred to ignore it ------or want to cover it up. It is for this reason that I considered the possibility that you are Iranian. You also ignore the reality of the Middle east----
TODAY------including the MANIACAL ambitions of ERDOGAN-----and----isis.
You delight youself with--------"if everyone eats, nobody fights" << nope

again, you provide no counter to my arguments. you keep saying that Iran has funded-and continues to fund terrorist organizations. this is true, and I never denied it. you have not, however, told me why you disagree with my prediction.

Ok----here goes----you have predicted that somehow----the "agreement" will provide impoverished Iranians with a clean house and food-----and therefore---it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to want to be involved in that "DEATH TO...." cult that the AYATOILETS have imposed on them since 1979 because they will be 'HAPPY"---------History has demonstrated that "food and a clean house" has
never excluded the LURE OF TERRORISM---------some of our most nefarious
terrorist murderers come from-----"clean houses" and more than sufficient food. ------take the recent event in CHATTANOOGA-------middle class American
muslim-------college graduate----degree in engineering-------SHOT UP A BUNCH OF KIDS HE NEVER MET FOR THE GLORY OF ALLAH---and his rapist pig friend ---muhummad ------Go further back in history-----HERNAN CORTEZ was a wildly wealthy man when he decided that he needed to murder MONTEZUMA and thousands of Mexicans for the glory of Christianity and endless gold and the favor of that disgusting whore ISABELLA ----and----ultimately------the pope. Starvation does not create Islamic or --past Christian terrorism--------the two religions did it

i'm going to stop responding to your illogical comments and respond to RoccoR's instead, because he presents valid points.

I have you stumped-----keep in mind----YOU PREDICTED that Hezbollah terrorism will be attenuated because IRAN GOT SOME MONEY

no, you do not"have me stumped", but I have said the same thing to you over and over again, and you continually ignore it, or twist my words to make my argument sound ridiculous. I am beginning to think you just enjoy calling people terrorists.

 

[irosie91]

eagle1462010, et al,

This is (IMO) closer to the track of the discussion -- where it should be.

(COMMENT)

Q1: Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability — the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?

A1: Even the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) does not deny any country Nuclear Weapons (NW). At best it can delay it. Under Article X each party to the NPT has the right to withdraw if it decides that the agreement jeopardizes the their individual national security interests. Any party can withdrawal at any time given a 90 day notice (3 months). Iran is no exception. Iran is not likely to accept any deal that does not have a similar escape clause. While the NPT, which entered into force in 1970 --- has been extended indefinitely (Decision 3 --- 1995 NPT Review Conference), there is a review conferences required every five years; with the last one held in last month (May 2015). The NPT is 45 years old.​

Q2: Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?

A2: This new agreement seems to prevent Iran from building a Heavy Water (HW) facility or accumulating Heavy Water for a 15 year period (2030). This only delays the production of of weapons grade plutonium based on the one technology. I'm not sure how confident we should be that other technologies will not become available in that interval. The current Arak HW Reactor is not currently fueled. Under the new agreement, Iran agrees to re-engineer the Arak Reactor such that it cannot be used to general the useable fuel rods. All spent fuel will be shipped to a disposal program outside Iran; for as long as the Arak Reactor exists. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will cut the centrifuges use by about 75% (least efficient models) and Iran will limit their enrichment process to less than 5% (3%-4% concentration of U-235). It appears the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will pickup surveillance. The language used was a "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection." Apparently Iran has agreed to implement the additional Protocols relative to the Safeguards Agreement.​

Q3: Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?

A3: Break-out Time is related to the factors that constrain the development of plutonium at the 90% enrichment level. By reducing the number of centrifuges to about 25% of their current numbers and retaining the least efficient models; as well as preventing enrichment beyond the 5% level, the break-out period will be approximately 45 days to generate weapons grade material in the quantity required to make the first weapon after the termination of the agreement.​

Q4: Is the agreement effectively verifiable?

A4: I'm not sure the question can be answered. However, the production, logistics, storage and maintenance of a warhead is very expensive under normal security conditions. The necessary covert and clandestine activities associated with and necessary to defeat IAEA Inspection Protocols would be huge. Even in Iran, it might become cost prohibitive.​

Q5: And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

A5: "Snap-Back refers to the UN approved sanctions/embargoes mechanisms, once lifted, to be re-introduced and put back in place. As extensive as the provisions are, it might take 3-to-6 months to get a majority in place, while some --- may never get back in place.​

(COMMENT)

Maybe. Certainly I know a number of knowledgeable people that would agree with some of this criticism. Having said that, the establishment of a NW Program is an expensive proposition for any nation; superpowers on down --- let alone Iran. And it is a weapons system that Iran is not likely to ever use. Any nation that would attempt to use such a weapon, or provide it to some hostile non-state actor, or a state actor supporting some radical or jihadist movement, runs the risk of being significantly harmed by one or more of the superpowers. The idea of sanctions is to induce the sanctioned party to the negotiations table and act in good faith. And importantly enough, it is the need to steer research and development in the direction of high energy commercial projects; as opposed to, weapons programs.

It is almost impossible to tell the actual motivation (political, diplomatic, militarily, economically, industrially and cultural legacy) behind the US involvement in the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany) sponsorship of these negotiations. It is likely that while there are some commonalities shared in the effort, some of the parties are interested in some future advantage this might hold for them in the future.

I think (IMO) it is a bit too early to cheer or criticize the outcomes. We simply do not have enough information on the subject.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with most of what you say here

wrong again----you made very specific and UNFOUNDED assertions which I countered. ------but--it is true---not in detail. You decided that people with a clean house and food-----never become terrorists. You decided that the deal between the US and Iran WILL reduce Iranian terrorism. You were very nonspecific as to what YOU consider Iranian terrorism----and I, very simply, disagreed and still do I consider terrorism that which Iran has supported
in YEMEN for many years and now accelerating. Hezbollah in an organization FULLY funded and controlled by Iran----with plants all over the middle east.
You can ASSERT from today until tomorrow and standing on your head that Hezbollah will no longer engage in terrorism or even that it never did as many
persons who imagine themselves "liberal humanists" claim----
Iran has an agenda that it has OPENLY stated of ISLAM OF THE SHIITE VARIETY FOR THE WORLD -------you missed that fact completely---or preferred to ignore it ------or want to cover it up. It is for this reason that I considered the possibility that you are Iranian. You also ignore the reality of the Middle east----
TODAY------including the MANIACAL ambitions of ERDOGAN-----and----isis.
You delight youself with--------"if everyone eats, nobody fights" << nope

again, you provide no counter to my arguments. you keep saying that Iran has funded-and continues to fund terrorist organizations. this is true, and I never denied it. you have not, however, told me why you disagree with my prediction.

Ok----here goes----you have predicted that somehow----the "agreement" will provide impoverished Iranians with a clean house and food-----and therefore---it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to want to be involved in that "DEATH TO...." cult that the AYATOILETS have imposed on them since 1979 because they will be 'HAPPY"---------History has demonstrated that "food and a clean house" has
never excluded the LURE OF TERRORISM---------some of our most nefarious
terrorist murderers come from-----"clean houses" and more than sufficient food. ------take the recent event in CHATTANOOGA-------middle class American
muslim-------college graduate----degree in engineering-------SHOT UP A BUNCH OF KIDS HE NEVER MET FOR THE GLORY OF ALLAH---and his rapist pig friend ---muhummad ------Go further back in history-----HERNAN CORTEZ was a wildly wealthy man when he decided that he needed to murder MONTEZUMA and thousands of Mexicans for the glory of Christianity and endless gold and the favor of that disgusting whore ISABELLA ----and----ultimately------the pope. Starvation does not create Islamic or --past Christian terrorism--------the two religions did it

i'm going to stop responding to your illogical comments and respond to RoccoR's instead, because he presents valid points.

I have you stumped-----keep in mind----YOU PREDICTED that Hezbollah terrorism will be attenuated because IRAN GOT SOME MONEY

no, you do not"have me stumped", but I have said the same thing to you over and over again, and you continually ignore it, or twist my words to make my argument sound ridiculous. I am beginning to think you just enjoy calling people terrorists.

yes----you say the same thing over and over-----Iran will give up its imperialist ambitions---(the reason for its support of terrorism)---because once its population all have clean houses and good food----they will give up the PERSIAN SHIITE EMPIRE FANTASY and none
will be induced to fight for that fantasy. Not true <<< you read it here.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I agree with most of what you say here
again, you provide no counter to my arguments. you keep saying that Iran has funded-and continues to fund terrorist organizations. this is true, and I never denied it. you have not, however, told me why you disagree with my prediction.

Ok----here goes----you have predicted that somehow----the "agreement" will provide impoverished Iranians with a clean house and food-----and therefore---it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to want to be involved in that "DEATH TO...." cult that the AYATOILETS have imposed on them since 1979 because they will be 'HAPPY"---------History has demonstrated that "food and a clean house" has
never excluded the LURE OF TERRORISM---------some of our most nefarious
terrorist murderers come from-----"clean houses" and more than sufficient food. ------take the recent event in CHATTANOOGA-------middle class American
muslim-------college graduate----degree in engineering-------SHOT UP A BUNCH OF KIDS HE NEVER MET FOR THE GLORY OF ALLAH---and his rapist pig friend ---muhummad ------Go further back in history-----HERNAN CORTEZ was a wildly wealthy man when he decided that he needed to murder MONTEZUMA and thousands of Mexicans for the glory of Christianity and endless gold and the favor of that disgusting whore ISABELLA ----and----ultimately------the pope. Starvation does not create Islamic or --past Christian terrorism--------the two religions did it

i'm going to stop responding to your illogical comments and respond to RoccoR's instead, because he presents valid points.

I have you stumped-----keep in mind----YOU PREDICTED that Hezbollah terrorism will be attenuated because IRAN GOT SOME MONEY

no, you do not"have me stumped", but I have said the same thing to you over and over again, and you continually ignore it, or twist my words to make my argument sound ridiculous. I am beginning to think you just enjoy calling people terrorists.

yes----you say the same thing over and over-----Iran will give up its imperialist ambitions---(the reason for its support of terrorism)---because once its population all have clean houses and good food----they will give up the PERSIAN SHIITE EMPIRE FANTASY and none
will be induced to fight for that fantasy. Not true <<< you read it here.

there you go again.

 

[irosie91]

Ok----here goes----you have predicted that somehow----the "agreement" will provide impoverished Iranians with a clean house and food-----and therefore---it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to want to be involved in that "DEATH TO...." cult that the AYATOILETS have imposed on them since 1979 because they will be 'HAPPY"---------History has demonstrated that "food and a clean house" has
never excluded the LURE OF TERRORISM---------some of our most nefarious
terrorist murderers come from-----"clean houses" and more than sufficient food. ------take the recent event in CHATTANOOGA-------middle class American
muslim-------college graduate----degree in engineering-------SHOT UP A BUNCH OF KIDS HE NEVER MET FOR THE GLORY OF ALLAH---and his rapist pig friend ---muhummad ------Go further back in history-----HERNAN CORTEZ was a wildly wealthy man when he decided that he needed to murder MONTEZUMA and thousands of Mexicans for the glory of Christianity and endless gold and the favor of that disgusting whore ISABELLA ----and----ultimately------the pope. Starvation does not create Islamic or --past Christian terrorism--------the two religions did it

i'm going to stop responding to your illogical comments and respond to RoccoR's instead, because he presents valid points.

I have you stumped-----keep in mind----YOU PREDICTED that Hezbollah terrorism will be attenuated because IRAN GOT SOME MONEY

no, you do not"have me stumped", but I have said the same thing to you over and over again, and you continually ignore it, or twist my words to make my argument sound ridiculous. I am beginning to think you just enjoy calling people terrorists.

yes----you say the same thing over and over-----Iran will give up its imperialist ambitions---(the reason for its support of terrorism)---because once its population all have clean houses and good food----they will give up the PERSIAN SHIITE EMPIRE FANTASY and none
will be induced to fight for that fantasy. Not true <<< you read it here.

there you go again.

Ronald Reagan repeated the phrase "there you go again"-----during a period of time that his Alzheimer's was well advanced but unrecognized One of my brothers is an expert in alzheimers-----he made the diagnosis on Reagan during Reagan's second run for president----years before it was officially established. The sickness-----when examined RETROSPECTIVELY-----by examining writings by those afflicted---manifests years before it becomes clinically evident. I have no way of making such a diagnosis in you----in my mind you are just playing silly.