Skip to main content

View Diary: Amazing...Senate Democrats Criticize Obama's Iran Deal (218 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh please (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandbox

    In 6 months when Iran has not moved there will be another 6 months of discussions. This deal is weaker than the UN security council's established criteria. I do not understand why, when sanctions brought Iran to the table we are weakening them for a promise to stop furtire weapins grade enrichment. Note that is not to roll back previous enrichment to weapon grade.  And all this for just 6 months. I dont get the euphoria.

    •  As long as Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      copymark, caul

      is frozen or set back for that next six months, that works.

      This deal is a win for the US and the world.  It is not a crushing, overwhelming victory but it is a win and as long as it is extended we continue to win.

      •  But why give them a break? (0+ / 0-)

        Why not continue sanctions (as the Senate just may demand) until they DO give up their nuke ambitions. This deal seems to be such a waste e of negotiating strength.

        •  Our own military intelligence (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PrahaPartizan, caul, ukit

          says they are years away from being able to make a nuke.

          This is a good deal that the President made.  Unless the "nuke fairy" waves his/her magic wand to give Iran nukes, they don't have any yet.

          To the NSA douchebag who is reading this: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

          by Indiana Bob on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:02:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where do you get that? (0+ / 0-)

            Obama earlier this year:

            “Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close,” Obama told Israeli Channel 2
            And the breakout time gets shorter and shorter:
            "Shortening breakout times have implications for any negotiation with Iran," stated the report by the Institute for Science and International Security. "An essential finding is that they are currently too short and shortening further."
            •  Our Military and Israel's Military (0+ / 0-)
              Reporting from Washington — As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb
              and
              The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

              To the NSA douchebag who is reading this: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

              by Indiana Bob on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:26:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Here is the 2012 report (0+ / 0-)

              http://articles.latimes.com/...

              Now sure, they may have some genius scientists who have figured out everything between then and now, but seeing as how Israel assassinates them, even that is hard to believe.

              To the NSA douchebag who is reading this: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

              by Indiana Bob on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:28:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  This step is to prove both sides' good faith (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PrahaPartizan, caul, ukit, Justanothernyer

          We give them some relief from sanctions and they freeze their nuclear program.  They'll even be setting themselves back a ways by having to dilute some of their enriched uranium.

          If both sides hold up their ends then it allows for both sides to take a larger step, hopefully Iran dismantling their nuclear program completely in exchange for the end of sanctions altogether.

          "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

          by Quanta on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:04:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. The fact that a deal was reached (0+ / 0-)

            at all after years of endless stop and start negotiations is significant. Success begets success.

            Apparently nothing will ever teach these people that the other 99 percent of the population exist. —George Orwell

            by ukit on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:37:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I would think past actions (0+ / 0-)

            are a predictor of current "good faith". Iran's violation of the UNSC resolutions would beg for proof rather than a ice and a promise before lifting 7 billion in sanctions.

        •  How Do You Prove It? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          caul, snowwoman

          Just what "nuke ambitions" does Iran have?  Prove that they've got them.  What criteria gets applied to prove that they've abandoned them?  Bibi wants Iran to forego all enrichment.  What's it worth to Bibi and Likud Israel?  Iran might be willing to forego uranium enrichment in return for receiving subsidies to buy enriched uranium for their nuclear power needs on the global market, which would be more expensive than using domestic Iranian sources.  A back of the envelope calculation would seem to show that three full nuclear power reloads might cost $150 million for the uranium fuel, per reactor.  Those three reloads would cover a thirty year operating need.  Providing that subsidy might persuade the Iranians to forego enrichment.  When does somebody make the offer?

          "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

          by PrahaPartizan on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:31:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Better Review the Agreement Again (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, ukit
      "...Note that is not to roll back previous enrichment to weapon grade.  And all this for just 6 months..."
      First, Iran has enriched no uranium to weapons grade that IAEA has been able to discover after considerable investigation.  The Iranians did enrich uranium to the 20% level for use in their research reactor, but that is the highest level they've so far achieved.  The agreement, from my reading, indicates that the Iranians will dilute that 20% stockpile back to a 3.5-5% level and take out of processable form any uranium materials enriched to the 20% level (that would be the uranium fluoride gas run through the centrifuges).  So, if the Iranians stop further enrichment to the 20% level they would have considerable difficulty making the jump to the 90+% required for weapons grade uranium.  That's why the euphoria.  

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:25:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nah (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        misslegalbeagle

        getting from 20 to 90 is much easier than 2 to 20, which they have already done.

        The agreement is a promise for future actions in return for immediate lifts of sanctions. It's a sucker deal if you ask me. It basically gives Iran 7 billion for a 6 month pause. And they don't even have to comply with the current UN SC resolutons. Dollars to donuts their will be "issues" with inspections.

        •  Thanks for Confirming Initial Lie (0+ / 0-)

          I applaud your honesty for confirming the initial lie that Iran had produced weapons grade enriched uranium.  While the uninformed might think that moving to the weapons grade level is simple, it isn't in reality.

          The agreement lifts hardly any sanctions at all and merely releases moneys which are due the Iranians.  Further, it justifies the IAEA continuing an intensified inspection regime during the six months.  That package pretty tightly defines what Iran needs to do to begin to loosen the sanctions, which will not be lifted.

          BTW, don't talk about ignoring US SC resolutions.  The Israelis have lit more UN SC resolutions on fire and pissed on them than any of us can count.  Somehow they're still considered to be part of the community of nations.  How come?

          "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

          by PrahaPartizan on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:16:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A few things. (0+ / 0-)

            I did not lie, so bite me on that accusation. I should have been more clear that they were sitting at the 20% level and breaking into weapons grade is a matter of months if they have the infrastructure. It certainly is higher than the 4% need for conventional energy use. Get a clue on that.

            And a decade ago, nuclear inspectors announced they had found traces of highly-enriched uranium at a plant in Natanz. Iran temporarily halted enrichment, but resumed enriching again in 2006.

            The deal does not deal with their missile advancement.

            The agreement DOES lift sanctions, 7 Billion worth. And without ANY actions on Iran's part. Just a promise (see above).

            The inspections are scheduled, not surprises. Wow. That will work.

            Lets put it this way. Our intel about their nuke program is limited. They have violated and deceived about previous and current nuclear programs. What makes you think that a regime that doesn't include unannounced and invasive inspections is worth a grain of salt?

            And your inclusion of Israel is an obvious change of the subject but really is irrelevant to this discussion. You obviously are quite happy with Iran, the terror supporting state, to have nukes. The rest of the ME, and globe? Not so much.

            •  More Smoke and Mirrors (0+ / 0-)

              The Iranians might not need more than 5% for standard nuclear power generation, but they do need the 20% for the research reactor needed to produce isotopes used for medical and research purposes.  That's for materials the sanctions have prevented the Iraninans form buying on the global market. so they do have a legitimate domestic need.

              As I recall that claim about highly-enriched uranium began to fall apart almost immeidately after it was made.  Certainly the IAEA has not made any such announcement since.  It smelled like the yellow cake claims made about Saddam Hussein and has received the attention it deserved.

              Well, I'm sorry that I upset you because I pointed out that Israel has been just as cavalier about hewing to the UN resolutions as the rest of the actors in the Middle East.  And making claims that Iran is a terror supporting state while glossing over the support Israel has given to terror efforts within Iran and the the general terror its "security" forces exert every day in the Occupied Territories just shows your lack of seriousness.  Do your write comedy for a living?

              "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

              by PrahaPartizan on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:16:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                "The Iranians might not need more than 5% for standard nuclear power generation, ". It isn't might, the simply do NOT need more than 4 or 5%.

                Says it all. You can call it optimism, I'll call it naiveté.

                It isn't a claim, Iran IS a terror supporting state. Do you wrote fiction for living?

    •  Do you have any idea (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SouthernLeveller, ukit

      How sanctions hurt the people in those countries?  
      Life saving meds for cancer and other diseases are cut off.
      5000,000 Iraqi kids died from Iranian sanctions.
      When asked if those kids deaths were worth it, Albright said YES.
      Now imagine another country sanctioning the US and someone in your family dies.
      We don't have control of our government and neither to they.

      Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

      by snoopydawg on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:09:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site