"The truth of the matter is, inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, hardliners who are implacably opposed to any cooperation with the international community... The reason that Mitch McConnell and the rest of the folks in his caucus who opposed this jumped out and opposed this before they even read it, before it was even posted, is reflective of a ideological commitment not to get a deal done. In that sense they do have much more in common with the hardliners who are much more satisfied with the status quo."Was he asked about Chuck Schumer? Or was that interview recorded before — as the NYT put it — "Senator Chuck Schumer, the most influential Jewish voice in Congress, said Thursday night that he would oppose President Obama’s deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program":
“Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed,” Mr. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in a lengthy statement. “This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.”What do you think of the Times's qualifier "the most influential Jewish voice in Congress"? I was a bit stunned.
The headline there is: "Chuck Schumer Opposes Iran Nuclear Deal, Shaking Democratic Firewall." So there was a "firewall." That "firewall" protected Obama as he doubled down on the idea that only Republicans oppose the deal — it's a partisan thing. Those terrible Republicans! They're like death-to-America Iranian hardliners.
And then along comes Chuck, screwing up the big man's polemic. What to do now? Point out that Schumer's Jewish??!
पोस्ट्स
१०५ टिप्पण्या:
The main is incapable of understanding any viewpoint other than his own. Ergo, anyone who disagrees with him must have bad motives.
And Schumer? Wadya expect? He's a Jew. Amirite? /snark
We have an intellectual midget for president. (Yes, I'm fully aware that "midget" is politically incorrect. Suck it up, buttercup.)
You're surprised that the Times and Obama are anti-Semitic?
Quick, call Leibowitz! Get him in here!
Schumer waited until it was safe to vote against the treaty, ie. plenty of other votes lined up for it. CYA with his Jewish donors who are, let's face it, largely idiots (isn't that true by definition, Schumer donor = idiot)?
I wouldn't touch that guy, his sleaze might rub off on me.
The main is incapable of understanding any viewpoint other than his own.
That's really the key to Obama. Whenever he says things are "just common sense", what he means is "based on a superficial analysis that represents the extent of my interest and capabilities".
The Ayatollahs of Iran are waging, overtly or covertly, war against the USA. The proposed "deal" with them aids them. Aiding those waging war VS. the USA is a violation of 18 USC 2381 (As supported by Article-III, Section-3 of the Constitution) AND is TREASON.
A Jew with influence. An influential Jew.
Poor Obama having to fight against such power.
How can anyone just eat their waffles when influential Jews are undermining the Leftist Messiah?
"Obama doubles down on his comparison between Iranian hardliners and Republicans who oppose his Iran deal."
If I were a disingenuous asshat like our president, I could note the congruence of the Iranian hard liners and Obama, who both seek the elimination of Israel.
The anti-Jewish spin shows the Times leftism, where most anti-Semitism resides today, and ignores its 75% Jewish readership in New York because, of course, leftism trumps (pardon the pun) any other consideration.
Chuck a Neocon...
Who new?
As Al Capone is reported to have said, "You get more with a gun and kind word than with a kind word alone."
Obama has seen to it that we don't have much in the way of guns left; he went into the "negotiations" leaving even those at home, and he got away with an empty bag of promises that the ayatollahs have told him right along they are not going to abide by, but he seems not to be able to hear them.
Does this guy hear anybody?
Given Obama's record of failure, opposing his policies is where the smart money is. It's like betting against the Cubs.
Barack was insane to double down on his insane remark.
Is Netanyahu also in bed with the Iranian hardliners, Quds and Revolutionary Guard? He also vehemently opposes this agreement, as does the Israeli left.
Yes, Chuck Schumer is Jewish. And Valrie Jarrett is Iranian. Guess which one I think matters?
Everything Obama says is a lie, including his oath of office.
What an ego.........
So the guys (Chuck and Bibi) who oppose giving Iran $150B in funds which they can use for Terrorism are actually the guys supporting the Hard liners?
That's powerful analytical thinking from the WH National Security Team...
rhhardin/
Or, to paraphrase Mary McCarthy about Lillian Hellman: "Everything she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.' " Hellman has found a true soulmate in Obama..
It's your party and you can cry if you want to.
There are lots of people to peacefully blame, so there's that.
He's been a dick since Day One.
Please! Schumer did this with Obama & Reiaf approval. This is truly about keeping the Jewish vote.
There will never be enough votes for a veto override.
People who don't see that believe spin!
Obama claims the average Iranian does not agree with the ruling class. HTF does Obama know that? Has he done a poll of the average Iranian?
It reminds me of when he claimed after the November election that the majority of the country agree with his ideas but not enough of them voted in the midterms.
Yes. And Neville Chamberlain actually achieved peace with Germany until those tricky Jews in Poland caused an invasion Germany that the peace loving Nazi Party had to defend the Volks from.Then Great Brittain and France started a war for no good reasoned crept FDR loved the Jews.
The narrative is always a creative Big Lie. You know, like CO2 being a pollutant.
Schumer finally gets one right.
Maybe it is the beginning of a new era.
Hope springs eternal.
Chucky best be lookin over his shoulder. The DOJ is combing the statutes.
President Projection and J Farmer want to know what Chucky proposes as the alternative. We are listening.
I'm open to being convinced, but my first reaction is that Obama must have the votes. Schumer was given permission to play to this base only after they confirmed 34 yes votes.
Tank @ 7:58,
I thought the same thing. There are X number of democrats who can vote "no" and still allow this to go through. So up to X will be allowed to vote "no."
With Boxer and Feinstein on board this sucker will not go down. Chucky is just covering himself with his donors after the damage is done. The best we can hope for is a substantial vote against this horrible deal. Obama is giving a multibillion dollar windfall in exchange for promises that are already being broken.
"What do you think of the Times's qualifier "the most influential Jewish voice in Congress"? I was a bit stunned."
Faux shock, right?
Fugitive Dem who wanders off plantation must be vilified. What better way than to insinuate dual loyalty tropes, linking Chuck to the hated Bibi?
Won't be long before Dems dispense with professing support for Israel altogether. BDS movement is there already, of course, O still just mouthing the old platitudes.
tim, Tank, CJW, are correct. Schumer has come out against the deal, finally, which only means that there are enough Dems supporting it to give O the win.
Thanks, Obama! I, for one, look forward to a future president using US nukes to respond to a future Ayatollah's destruction of Jerusalem, because then the occupation of Iran will proceed with less opposition from the locals, like in Japan. Or maybe we just respond and let them fend for themselves for a year or two after Tehran and Qom are obliterated, along with every hardened nuke facility in the country.
That scenario is what Obama has started. God help the Iranians, for their leadership and our president aren't.
Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam; it will not be deliberately targeted by a Moslem government.
Of course, I do not know if the residents of Jerusalem - of any or no religion - greatly care if they are deliberately targeted or more or less accidentally destroyed as collateral damage.
mikee @ 9:31 AM: "...Thanks, Obama! I, for one, look forward to a future president using US nukes..."
Word.
Man. Real journalists must be pissed that Zakaria is getting an interview when people who actually did their own work didn't get an interview.
As Powerline said the other day, "Obama is a terrible President, and a worse man."
" The reason that Mitch McConnell and the rest of the folks in his caucus who opposed this jumped out and opposed this before they even read it, before it was even posted"
-- Congress should never have been kept in the dark about what was in the deal in the first place. Given what has been made publicly available -- with things like European allies having to provide research help to Iran, no drop-in unannounced investigations, and no restrictions on spending money to kill innocent civilians -- that's enough to be against the deal, whatever the other bits of the text may have.
If you can't access the NYT, Schumer's editorial "Why I'm voting to disapprove the Iran deal" can be accessed here:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0815/schumer_says_no_to_iran_deal.php3
Although it's sometimes difficult to see much daylight between Obama and Schumer, the difference is here:
Schumer: "For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are 'state sponsors of terrorism.' "
Whereas it's all too obvious that Pres. Obama sees Iran as a possible ally in containing ISIS and perhaps elsewhere in the Middle East, Schumer recognizes that U.S. and Iranian interests are not aligned and thus can't be reconciled, and therefore it is not in our interest that Iran should become more powerful than it already is.
"Whereas it's all too obvious that Pres. Obama sees Iran as a possible ally in containing ISIS"
-- I don't think Obama is that stupid. He told us why he's doing this. He doesn't want to risk war on his watch, so he'll have peace in our time, at whatever the cost.
"And then along comes Chuck, screwing up the big man's polemic."
A swing-and-a-miss from the Old Perfesser. This low-level snark demonstrates a childish comprehension of politics and an apparent unfamiliarity with basic canons of logic.
Really sloppy thinking. You can do better.
"Iranian hardliners" are not opposed to this deal. They are the ones in power in Iran. They are the ones negotiating this deal. Because they want a fake deal that lets them build nukes before anyone knows they've started.
What to do now? Point out that Schumer's Jewish??!
A few days ago Schumer met with 60 "Jewish-American leaders" (as characterized by the Jewish Press) and there seems to have been quite the heated exchange resulting in his "exploding" at them. Did Chuck Schumer start thinking about the fate of Chuck Percy back in the day after he left the venue?
Do you think that Valerie Jarrett's being born in Shiraz, Iran, will come out if Chuck Schumer becomes a target for Obama's special vitriol? It's going to be interesting!
I think that if they did a poll of Iranians who had weapons and a past history of murder, you would find this subset strongly in favor of the President's plans. Obama is hoping that the Iranian feminists and environmentalists will overthrow the murderers currently in power and everything will work out for the best.
Chuck Shumer must be one of those hardline republicans that wants war. It's not at all that its a terrible deal that rewards Iran. oh, no Chuck Shumer is EVIL. and Iran is reasonable.
We are truly living in 1984.
Obama and facts...no, that doesn't compute.
France is also opposed to the deal. They are clearly beholden to the hardliners and are warmongers.
Is
France is also opposed to the deal. They are clearly beholden to the hardliners and are warmongers.
And Jewish, too!
Hagar said...
Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam; it will not be deliberately targeted by a Moslem government.
Of course, I do not know if the residents of Jerusalem - of any or no religion - greatly care if they are deliberately targeted or more or less accidentally destroyed as collateral damage.
8/7/15, 9:45 AM
It's not that far from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And its not very far from Tel Aviv to the West Bank. If the Iranians really do nuke Tel Aviv the fallout is going to fall of the West Bank and Jerusalem and kill a lot of Arabs. But then again the Iranians are Persians and Persians don't like Arabs, especially Sunni Arabs. From the Iranian perspective its buy one, get one free.
I helped a friend move to Ohio last weekend. Flying back into LGA, I walked off the plane and saw someone in the Delta lounge from the corner of my eye. Would you believe it was Chuck. He was on a cell phone and looked quite old. I turned to be sure, made eye contact, nodded. He nodded back.
I walked on then thought of all this. Begged pen and paper at a counter, wrote him a note, nothing crazy, just Dear Sen. Schumer, please try to get a better deal on Iran. Best, Nichevo. Walked back, caught his eye-I was now noticing one or two husky men by him who might have been there on his behalf-and put the folded note on the seat in front of him.
Perhaps he read it, perhaps he cared. Perhaps not. Perhaps it's all kabuki anyway. He looked tired.
For the al Quds, it would be a fun test of Obama's gullibility to come out for the deal. Can you picture Obama saying, "See! Even the al Quds force is for the deal. Our Republicans are more extreme than they are!"
Obama is such a fool. Does he really think elevating form over substance is a real tangible victory and will be recognized as such by normal sane people who live in the real world? Does he really believe he can turn the Iranians into our Hessians to do the mercenary work of getting rid of ISIS? Schumer is looking out for Schumer, he knows if he goes for this deal he will have plenty of problems and he sees no reason to take one for Obama. Even whores have limits. Barry is now past his sell-by date and Schumer knows this. Why Boxer and Feinstein are onboard with this is something I don't get. There is no gain for them, there is no national security benefit in this deal unless surrendering to Iran is perceived to be in our national interest and it's not like at their age they need the gig so what motivates them I don't understand.
Bbk,
I despise her increasingly as well, doubtless not for your reasons, but did you have any content to offer? Not sure what you resent there.
"Schumer waited until it was safe to vote against the treaty, ie. plenty of other votes lined up for it. CYA with his Jewish donors "
Tank is right.
President Obama is an asshole.
""Iranian hardliners" are not opposed to this deal. They are the ones in power in Iran. They are the ones negotiating this deal."
Yeah, I don't know where Obama gets this shit.
Actually, I do know (per my last comment). He's just making it up.
Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam; it will not be deliberately targeted by a Moslem government.
I wish I could believe that, but Muslims murder each other at prayer all the time. See "Grand Mosque, 1979" and "Golden Mosque, 2006".
Besides, neither "Jerusalem" (Hebrew or Arabic variant) or "al Aqsa" are referenced by name in the Q'oran.
Here is a song about Obama and use the tune of the old Swamp Fox TV show:
Dumb Fuck
Dunb Fuck
Head up his ass
Nobody knows what the Dumb Fuck does next.
Must, must, must read from James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" online column:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/full-orwell-1438882438
This is a savagely brilliant column. You have to read this one.
I must be old--I remember when Pres Bush said "you're either with us or you're against us" when discussing foreign nations and their commitment to the global war on terror and the Media/liberals everywhere lost their damn minds for months and months, whining that Bush smeared them as terrorists, etc. "How dare he question my patriotism!" and so on ad infinitum.
The current President explicitly says Republicans who oppose him make common cause with Iranian hard liners (who by the way want to destroy Israel, make war on Iran's neighbors, continue sponsoring terrorist attacks around the globe, all that hits) and the Media's collective response is "you go, girl!"
I mean, I know it's Fen's Law, but damn.
Chuck: It's a good column but honestly doesn't go far enough. Geez, remember the hell Joe Wilson got for saying "you lie!" during the President's speech? (It was rude of Wilson and one shouldn't interrupt a speaker like that, but it turns out Wilson was correct...) That's never been done before! That kind of partisan attack on a member of the opposition is un-American, it tarnishes the office, it's too much!
Taranto highlights this from Obama's nomination acceptance speech:
But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and each other’s patriotism.
The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.
Oh well, guess that one had an expiration date, too. At long last, has he no decency? Just kidding, of course he doesn't. And no one cares!!
Fen's Law is the best kind of law. Short, succinct, clear and powerful.
Roy Jacobsen said...
The main is incapable of understanding any viewpoint other than his own. Ergo, anyone who disagrees with him must have bad motives.
Yes, precisely, and further I think that's Jon Stewart's (and Steven Colbert's) real legacy--promoting exactly that approach. It's not just that the other guy is wrong, or misguided, or has a different set of values--if he disagrees with us he must be evil, and furthermore his point of view shouldn't be treated as valid enough to even discuss. You either agree with the correct view (which somehow always coincides with a reflexive liberalism unbounded by critical thought) or you aren't worthy of being taken seriously as a person. That type of "analysis" is now mainstream, and it actively discourages one from trying to think about political questions or even entertain the idea that someone else's point of view might be in any way valid (or worthy of consideration). It's not just partisanship, it's the primacy of a tribal reflex and the purposeful denial of consideration to anyone outside the tribe.
Agree with the Left or you're always a joke, literally...even when what the Left believes changes rapidly! We've always been at war with Eastasia, of course, and Pres Obama has always supported gay marriage (to give just one example). And Stewart had the gall to say that something as irrelevant as the CNN show Crossfire was "hurting the nation!"
Republicans are basically just Iranian terrorists and Schumer is a disloyal Jew. And that's fine for the Left to say...even the President himself!
Ho-hum, that's American politics for you, no big deal. You know what, though, I blame Fox News for our partisan divide--always scaring old white folks and what not. There oughta be a law.
The Ayatollah is a hardliner. If he opposed the deal, it wouldn't happen. Hardliners don't oppose the agreement because, al taqiyya.
Will Obama ever stop lying?
I am sure Fareed will go though each string of absurdities uttered by the President and demolish him. Ha, ha.
I, too, suspect that the only reason Schumer is coming out against the Iran deal is because enough Yea votes have been found to prevent an override. But I was struck by the phrase in his statement: "I have decided I must oppose the agreement." He wrote "must oppose" instead of "cannot support," which might suggest he will actually lobby other Senators to vote against it (while Pelosi rounds up the requisite Yea votes in the House to prevent an override).
If Obama isn't lying, this time, then why is he keeping this "treaty" secret?
I know this question is not adequately stated to suffice for Althouse's "the way republicans must speak and ask questions to be sufficiently palpable to progressive sensibilities", but can you just answer it anyway? Or maybe rephrase it so that we non-democrat party members can see an example of how questions must be asked of democrat party members?
@Hombre:
"The Ayatollah is a hardliner. If he opposed the deal, it wouldn't happen. Hardliners don't oppose the agreement because, al taqiyya."
This is not entirely true.
"Even before the Council passed the resolution in New York, top Iran Revolutionary Guards commander Mohammed Ali Jafari denounced it for interfering with Iran's military operations and crossing "red lines" set by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
"We will never accept it," he was quoted as saying by the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.
Iranian hardliners are worried that U.N. inspectors may gain some access to sensitive military sites under the resolution, which becomes international law.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/21/us-iran-nuclear-un-idUSKCN0PU1BH20150721
The rally Tuesday by 200 hard-line protesters took place in front of the parliament in the Iranian capital as Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif briefed lawmakers there in a closed-door session. Iran's official IRNA news agency reported that the protesters launched their demonstrations without the permission of authorities.
Protesters carried banners calling the agreement a "defeat" — despite the overwhelming backing of the deal by the government of moderate President Hassan Rouhani.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/07/iran-nuclear-deal-hardlin_n_7016652.html
Rather, some elements of the paramilitary Basij — most of them younger hard-liners — have objected to the deal primarily on social networks such as Instagram, and the popular smartphone app Viber.
One of these figures is Seyed Morteza Rashidi, who is based in the holy city of Qom. Since the conclusion of the nuclear deal earlier this month, Rashidi has lashed out at Rouhani and the negotiating team — including Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi — in over 20 Facebook posts. He argues that "the Islamic Revolution is now controlled by those who do not even believe in its principles, but are also as Westernized as one can get." One week after the agreement was struck, Rashidi wrote on his Facebook page: "The deal, signed by enemies of the Revolution, is legally too flawed. It seems that Iranian negotiators are either traitors or uneducated individuals."
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/07/basij-reaction-iran-deal.html#
But Mr. Zarif was walking his own high-wire act at home. While he had an important ally in Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, hard-liners did not want to reach any deal at all; many were making a fortune from the sanctions because they controlled Iran’s black markets.
And conservatives around the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were looking for any signs that their Americanized chief negotiator, who studied at the University of Denver, was ready to give away too much nuclear infrastructure without getting Iran the sanctions lifted in return, as the ayatollah had decreed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/middleeast/clearing-hurdles-to-iran-nuclear-deal-with-standoffs-shouts-and-compromise.html?_r=0
@jacksonjay:
"President Projection and J Farmer want to know what Chucky proposes as the alternative."
If Schumer has an alternative plan that he believes would be more effective, then I'd be more than willing to evaluate it and give my opinion. If you have a better plan, I'll listen to that, too.
Whenever I say that invasion and occupation is the only conceivable way of reaching the level of certainty that commenters here seem to demand, I get accused of creating a false dichotomy. Fine. Absent invasion/occupation, how do you prevent Iran obtaining a bomb, if the regime is as monomaniacally obsessed with obtaining one as commenters here seem to believe?
The Ayatollah is a hardliner. If he opposed the deal an IRGC firing squad would be greet the Iranian delegation upon their return from Vienna.
There, fixed it for you.
People are peddling the line that the Clerical leadership and their guard dogs don't set and enforce policy on the Iranian diplomatic corps? Seriously?
Fine. Absent invasion/occupation, how do you prevent Iran obtaining a bomb...?
We didn't have to invade Libya to force Qadaffi to fess-up and turn over his WMD program. Then Hillary! and Obumbo phucked up that one-car parade.
Mujah said...Rezi said...Farook said...
What's the Farsi translation for Don't throw me into that Briar Patch! ? Obumbo and his crack negotiating team got stared down by people who've been haggling over rugs since the Babylonian Captivity.
@furious_a, not true. The Iranians prefer to loop a noose around the neck and hoist the hapless individual up with a construction crane.
@furious_a:
"The Ayatollah is a hardliner. If he opposed the deal an IRGC firing squad would be greet the Iranian delegation upon their return from Vienna.
There, fixed it for you."
No, actually, you didn't. Nobody claimed that Khamenei was opposed to the deal. But there are elements in Iran, some of whose quotes I included above, who take a more hardline stance and who do oppose the deal. As noted, some of the more conservative elements were worried that Iran's chief negotiator was untrustworthy and compromised because he had studied in the US. Members of Iran's military also fear that the inspection regime may threaten military installations. So there is, in fact, resistance to the deal from hardliners in Iran.
For actual analysis of how politics work in Iran, as opposed to your seemingly caricatured understanding, I would suggest http://www.iranpolitik.com.
"We didn't have to invade Libya to force Qadaffi to fess-up and turn over his WMD program."
Correct. Gaddafi made the choice to seek normalization over his WMD program. So what's your plan? Wait until the Iranians come to a similar decision? How do you build an effective sanctions regime absent Chinese and Russian support? Do you find North Korea instructive in regards to how much isolation a country can tolerate if it prioritizes obtaining nuclear weaponry above all else?
Blogger Gabriel said...
"Iranian hardliners" are not opposed to this deal. They are the ones in power in Iran. They are the ones negotiating this deal. Because they want a fake deal that lets them build nukes before anyone knows they've started.
Exactly. They already have a big investment in reserch and development. They aren't stupid.They aren't going to throw that away. They are going to continue.Now they're going to have the funds to escalate the process.
I'm finding farmers faith in the mullahs rather quaint.
How do you build an effective sanctions regime absent Chinese and Russian support? Do you find North Korea instructive in regards to how much isolation a country can tolerate if it prioritizes obtaining nuclear weaponry above all else?
You build an effective sanctions regime by using diplomacy to prolong Chinese and Russian support. It takes an entirely different worldview than Obama's to make that argument, but it's certainly been done in the past.
I think the effectiveness of the sanctions suggests that Iran wouldn't tolerate the same degree of isolation as North Korea.
@Pookie Number 2:
"You build an effective sanctions regime by using diplomacy to prolong Chinese and Russian support."
That's spectacularly vague. What do you offer the Russians and the Chinese, who pay a pretty big cost to sanction Iran, in order to pursue a goal that they do not agree with anyway. Iran is a signatory to the NPT and has a rise to a domestic nuclear energy program.
"I think the effectiveness of the sanctions suggests that Iran wouldn't tolerate the same degree of isolation as North Korea."
I agree with that. The two primary goals of the talks for the Iranians was to get the sanctions lifted and to allow them to maintain their nuclear program, which is a huge source of national pride for the Iranians. In exchange, they agreed to tighter controls than what they would be permitted even under the NPT, and they agreed to an intrusive inspections regime. The argument being made by the hardliners in Iran that oppose the deal is that Iran gave up too many concessions.
@Rusty:
"I'm finding farmers faith in the mullahs rather quaint."
This does not require "faith in the mullahs." The fact of the matter is that there is significant criticism of the deal from hardliners in Iran whether know-nothings like yourself want to keep your heads buried in the sand or not.
Iranian Hard-Liners Say Nuclear Accord Crosses Their Red Lines
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/middleeast/iranian-hard-liners-say-nuclear-accord-crosses-their-red-lines.html
From that article: "In a hastily assembled news conference in Tehran on Thursday, hard-line analysts triumphantly announced they would do the leader’s bidding by examining the agreement for any devious legal tricks or loopholes the “arrogant” nations might be trying to slip into the text.
...
They were disturbed by what they found. 'We quickly realized that what we had feared all the time had become a reality,' said Alireza Mataji, an organizer of the Tehran event. 'If Iran agrees with this our nuclear industry will be handcuffed for many years to come.'"
Iran’s hard-liners want a better nuclear deal, too
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/08/03/irans-hard-liners-want-a-better-nuclear-deal-too/
From that article: "Ever since the agreement was announced in mid-July, Iranian hard-liners have fumed over its provisions, which some believe force Tehran into making too many concessions to the international community and cross certain "red lines" laid out earlier by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. It calls for dramatic curbs on the country's nuclear facilities, including removal of many of its centrifuges as well as its stockpile of enriched uranium."
ANALYSIS: Iranian hardliners trying to kill nuclear pact
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/analysis-iranian-hardliners-are-striving-kill-vienna-agreement-666148695
From that article:"Nonetheless, Hossein Shariatmadari, the chief editor of the hardline newspaper Kayhan wrote an op-ed, arguing: 'A quick review of the text of the Vienna agreement shows clearly that some red lines have been ignored.'
Moreover, Nine Days weekly, owned by a hardline MP Hamid Rasaie, described the deal as 'worse than bad.' Attacks by hardliners were so overwhelming that an article published on the supreme leader's website asked critics not to brand the negotiators as 'traitors.'
On 21 July, Iran’s foreign minister along with the head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, went to the parliament to submit the full text of the deal. During the session, Zarif attempted to explain the vague parts of the deal, answering many questions that were brought up by Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani and other MPs. While Zarif was elaborating on the deal’s details, some of the hardliners posed as if they were sleeping."
p.s. In a previous thread you mentioned that you were willing to "bet real money" on the prospects of a looming Iranian bomb. I've offered to take you up on that bet three times now, and so far gotten crickets from you.
Absent invasion/occupation, how do you prevent Iran obtaining a bomb, if the regime is as monomaniacally obsessed with obtaining one as commenters here seem to believe?
Regime change, perhaps by supporting an internal revolution (I don't know maybe it could be called the green revolution?). Perhaps by imposing intense sanctions which cause a revolution. Perhaps a SEAL assassin team (that would be traditional after all).
Why is the Iran deal so heavily in Iran's favor? Why did the U.S. Get none of the six major points that the Administration has said over the past several years were absolutely critical? The answer is that Obama took military action off the phone able and signaled that he had to have a deal. No leverage and no willingness to walk away means a crappy deal. In other words, this is all on Obama. It's his clusterfuck from start to finish.
* off the table
@Gahrie:
"Regime change, perhaps by supporting an internal revolution (I don't know maybe it could be called the green revolution?)."
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say Iran completely transforms into a more genuinely democratic country. This would presumably result in a government that was more constricted than an authoritarian government by popular demand and the will of the people. There is strong popular support for a nuclear program among the Iranian people. And I have to admit, I find it mildly shocking that one can see the results of regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and come to the conclusion that fourth time will be the charm. There is a strong historical argument to be made that America's support for the Shah helped to significantly lead to the conditions causing the 1979 revolution. I am not sure if you consider yourself to have sympathy for conservative ideology, but if so, how do you reconcile your position with the fact that modern conservatism is born out of suspicion for revolution and the law of unintended consequences. Even if the US could foment some kind of revolutionary action on the ground in Iran, it would have no conceivable way of controlling events on the ground once such forces were unleashed, and it would have no way of guaranteeing that whatever regime arose in its place would be even more antithetical to US interests.
@Douglas:
"The answer is that Obama took military action off the phone able and signaled that he had to have a deal. No leverage and no willingness to walk away means a crappy deal. In other words, this is all on Obama. It's his clusterfuck from start to finish."
What "military action" can prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? The consensus opinion among military types seems to be that a bombing campaign could delay a program. After the first Gulf War, Iraq was discovered to have a covert nuclear arms program much more advanced than any had guessed. The program went underground and intensified after the 1981 Israeli airstrike against Osirak. Even if we ignore arguments for or against Operation Opera, it is still a historical precedent.
The US had tremendous "leverage." Iran was forced to the table because of the effects of sanction. It agreed to the most intrusive inspection regime that has ever been imposed on a country not defeated in war. The US has given up practically nothing in return. It's concession is simply to lift the sanctions. In other words, a return to normalcy. The notion that this represents some kind of massive concession to Iran is ridiculous.
Contrary to the absurd, alarmist rhetoric, Iran is not on any sort of "march of conquest." And it is nowhere near being a regional hegemon or even dominant power. It's military is significantly outspent and outclassed by the Gulf Coast Council countries that partially encircle Iran. The Assad regime is in charge of a fractured country wracked by civil war and is thus far less powerful than it was before the Syrian civil war. Support for Hamas and Hezbollah certainly poses security challenges to Israel, but both groups are extremely limited in what they can achieve. These are not the tools of a regional hegemon but are rather reflective of Iran's relative weakness.
p.s. In a previous thread you mentioned that you were willing to "bet real money" on the prospects of a looming Iranian bomb. I've offered to take you up on that bet three times now, and so far gotten crickets from you.
OK. I'll bet you a C note that they have enough refined uranium to build a bomb in five years. If not sooner.
You will have to believe Israeli intelligence on this. That they have it , that is. Our intlligence agencies aren't trustworthy. I don't know how you're going to prove they don't.
The Iranian Quds commander just went to Moscow. A violation of the agreement. I think there are going to be more violations.
Of course it congress doesn't agree to the agreement then I'll relieve of your obligation.
@Rusty:
You said "real money." I said ten thousand dollars, in an escrow account. I'll contact you with my personal information and arrange it if you are serious. If you're not serious, then I don't care. The bet would be that Iran had a bomb in five years, and we can define that any number of ways. If they were to test a bomb, declare themselves to have one, declared by the IAEA, or declaration by the majority of some multilateral organization (e.g. UN Security Council). The notion that if Israeli intelligence declares something, it is ipso facto true is absurd. Go back and read what Bibi Netanyahu was saying about Iraq WMD in 2002. He was dead wrong. But if you want to say the opinion of Israeli intelligence should be treated as holy writ, what do you make of Mossad's 2012 finding that there was no evidence for a nuclear weapon program? You can continue to make the claim that Iran is monomaniacally pursuing a nuclear weapon with intent to use it, but you shouldn't be under the misapprehension that Israeli intelligence agrees with you.
http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1424713149380/Mossad-On-Iran-Nuclear-Stat.pdf
Rusty:
"Of course it congress doesn't agree to the agreement then I'll relieve of your obligation."
I'd just like to add for posterity that in my opinion, if Congress rejects this deal and overrides a Presidential veto, it will be the stupidest decision it has rendered on a matter of foreign affairs since the authorization for military force against Iraq. This is a spectacularly good deal for the United States. We obtained a great deal of concessions from the Iranians and gave practically nothing in return, save ending the sanctions (which were applied in order to obtain the concessions we ended up obtaining). Of course the US did not obtain 100% of what it wanted. Any such deal would amount to the Iranians simply being dictated to, which would in all likelihood result in a sense of national humiliation. The Iranians did not get 100% of what they wanted, either. And, in fact, if you look at the hardliners who are most loudly attacking and opposing the deal in Iran, they are attacking it on exactly the grounds that Iran made too many concessions and gained too little in return. If the irony of that is lost on you, then I have no choice but to declare you anemic.
@J. Farmer: The rally Tuesday by 200 hard-line protesters took place in front of the parliament in the Iranian capital as Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif briefed lawmakers there in a closed-door session. Iran's official IRNA news agency reported that the protesters launched their demonstrations without the permission of authorities.
How can you quote this with a straight face?
How many of those "hardliners" demonstrating "without the permission of authorities" are having their faces smashed in like they did with protests in 2009?
These hardliners supposedly defying their government are getting curiously soft treatment.
"Special riot police officers, Revolutionary Guards, and members of the volunteer Basij paramilitary deployed in overwhelming force throughout the capital Tehran and other Iranian cities, preventing protesters from gathering, and responded with immediate violence to any attempts by protesters to mount further demonstrations. In the ensuing clashes between the security forces and unarmed demonstrators, eyewitnesses said security forces used live ammunition as well as tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse protesters.
At least 10 people died in clashes between protesters and security forces on June 20, and at least 100 were wounded. Among the dead was 26-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan, a philosophy student who was a bystander to the protests when she was shot in the chest on Kargar Street. At the time of the shooting, Agha-Soltan was not actively protesting, according to her relatives and eyewitnesses. She had been traveling in a private car stuck in traffic several kilometers from the main protests at Azadi Square, and had just stepped out of the car. Numerous witnesses have stated that there were no active clashes between protesters and security forces in the area where she was shot."
What I quoted above from Human Rights Watch is what the government of Iran metes out to "unauthorized protests".
I'm not sure whether you are playing stupid or being stupid.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:
I don't want your money. I wasn't being literal, but if you want to commit that kind of money, be my guest. I'm not going to. I have a child to send to college. If this sounds like I'm weasling out of a bet not made in earnest. I am.
I stand by what I've said.
And I will take the word of Isreali intelligence over the IAEA anyday. They couldn't find a violation if they tripped on it.The UN? Really?
Iran knows we won't do anything. There is no incentive for Iran not to continue.
Your assumption that we are in control of the situation is laughable.
Iran is in China making a deal on 24 J10 fighters. Under the agreement thay're not supposed to be doing this.
Tell me again, farmer, how they are going to made to obey the rules.
"be"
Iran is busy sanitizing its Parchin(?) military nuclear facility prior to the Sept. inspection by the IAEA.
"'The tone of the U.N. Security Council resolution has changed compared to the previous ones. Regarding Iran's missile activities, it doesn't order but only asks for Iran's compliance,' Firouzabadi said, referring to an international resolution passed in the wake of the deal."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/08/08/iran-military-nuclear-deal_n_7959716.html
I wonder when the first N. Korean ship is going to be stopped and boarded with nuclear materials on board.
Just a matter of time.
@Gabriel:
"I'm not sure whether you are playing stupid or being stupid."
Nothing you quoted has anything to do with anything being discussed here. People in this thread were claiming that there was no hardline opposition to the nuclear deal in Iran; that is demonstrably untrue, and I have given several links to articles that discuss hardline opposition. So I really have no clue what your point is.
@Rusty:
"I wasn't being literal, but if you want to commit that kind of money, be my guest. I'm not going to."
Fair enough.
"Iran is in China making a deal on 24 J10 fighters. Under the agreement thay're not supposed to be doing this."
Pakistan signed a billion-dollar deal back in 2009 for the same fighter jet and is still waiting on delivery. The agreement lifts the conventional arms embargo on Iran in 5 years. Nobody doubts that Iran will use part of its sanction relief to upgrade and modernize it military. If I was an Iranian, I'd want that, too. Although from the preliminary press reports I've read, Iran gave up way too much to the Chinese, who will be able to control an Iranian oil field for 20 years.
But I must say, I love your ability to (a) make an assertion (b) have that assertion contradicted (c) happily move on to making another assertion while ignoring your other assertions that were wrong. Iran's military is significantly outclassed by the much better funded GCC countries. And if you look at where Iran has been prioritizing its spending (e.g. air defense systems, upgraded fighter jets), it is doing so as a means to prevent invasion and outside aggression. In other words, the same reason virtually every country upgrades its military hardware and capabilities. The arms embargo was specifically added to compel Iran to come to the table and reach an agreement about their nuclear power. It only makes sense that under such an agreement, the arms embargo go.
@J. Farmer:So I really have no clue what your point is.
My point is that it is one thing to say that this deal is better than any realistically achievable alternative.
It is an entirely different thing to uncritically repeat Iranian propaganda in service of that end. And that is now what you are doing. You have put yourself in "fool or knave" territory.
The Iranian government does not tolerate protest. They have proved that over and over. The "hardliner protest" is as fake as the "spontaneous" anti-American demonstrations that Communist nations use to gin up. Demonstrably fake. If the so-called hardliners were really in opposition, a lot of them would have been killed. They would not have been allowed to protest in front of the parliament building for a few hours and just go home.
@Gabriel:
You don't know what you're talking about. You have a cartoonish view of the regime. Nobody denies that the Iranian government cracked down on protesters and dispelled them by force in 2009. The protests involved thousands and thousands of people across a wide geographic area and was attacking the legitimacy of the government itself. That is not a basis for saying that the government "does not tolerate protest." It is not uncommon for members of the Iranian Parliament or other organizations to critique decisions the government makes or policies it pursues, and they have not "been killed." Again, you are clueless. Go and actually read the reporting. Have the members of the Basij who have called the deal a betrayal of the principles of the revolution "been killed?" The Steadfast Front faction in the Parliament had been extremely critical of the government's actions as the negotiations unfolded. Granted, parliament has next to know power to stop a deal going through if Khamenei supports it. But it is simply, factually untrue to say that there has not been hardline critique of the nuclear deal.
@J. Farmer:It is not uncommon for members of the Iranian Parliament or other organizations to critique decisions the government makes or policies it pursues, and they have not "been killed." Again, you are clueless. Go and actually read the reporting. Have the members of the Basij who have called the deal a betrayal of the principles of the revolution "been killed?"
No they haven't. Because the regime tolerates hardliners. Because hardliners includes the Supreme Ayatollah. Because hardliners are a valued and integral part of the government. Because a "protest" by hardliners is a "protest" of insiders who have a large say in how faithfully this arms deal is carried out.
If the government of Iran, in which you repose such confidence, actually disagreed on fundamentals with the "hardliners" the "hardliners" would be crushed by force. Since the "hardliners" can come "back into power" any time Khameini decides they can, and since he has said "Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change," of what worth are your assurances that the "hardliners" are so butthurt about getting $50 billion or so and a toothless inspection process?
Again, you're just parroting regime propaganda and expecting everyone else to take it at face value.
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
@Gabriel:
"Again, you're just parroting regime propaganda and expecting everyone else to take it at face value."
If you go back and look at the comments I quoted and was responding to, you will see people claiming that there was no hardline criticism of the deal. That is demonstrably false. There is critique of this deal from a hardline opposition. And some of their critique is valid. The deal does involve concessions from Iran that Khamenei had previously identified with "red lines." The critique has all been from a strongly nationalist perspective. Khamenei is undoubtedly the single most powerful figure in Iran, but his power is neither monolithic nor absolute. There are various factions within Iran (e.g. military force, religious figures, clerical establishment, political figures, etc.). Any Supreme Leader's power is contingent on making certain concessions to these interests. To use western language, he has forces to his left and forces to his right that he must balance. For example, it has been reported that conservative figures around Khamenei continually expressed concern that the Iranian negotiator had been at educated at an American university.
Contrary to the ridiculous "march of conquest" language, this deal represents how weak Iran is relative to the great powers. It was forced to accept a more restrictive arms control regime than has ever been imposed on a country not defeated in war. The P5+1 extracted a great deal of concessions from Iran and at an extremely small price to us. The interventionist mindset is making its classic mistake of overestimating foreign threat, underestimating the cost of intervention, and defining national interests expansively.
If you want to actually know something about the deal, I would suggest reading "Solving the Iranian Nuclear Puzzle: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" by the Arms Control Assocation. They say, among other things:
"This comprehensive agreement will effectively block Iran's uranium and plutonium pathways to the bomb for 15 years or longer. Among other features, the agreement establishes verifiable limits on Iran's uranium-enrichment capacity and its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Under the JCPOA, the time it would take Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb would increase to 12 months or more. It will also dramatically cut the output of plutonium at the Arak heavy-water reactor and eliminate Iran’s ability to pursue plutonium-based nuclear weapons.
The JCPOA will also put in place additional measures to ensure that any covert program is deterred or quickly detected. These measures will build on the additional monitoring and verification under the interim agreement, which expanded international oversight of Iran's nuclear program through increased IAEA access to sites.
In addition, Iran is required to implement and ratify its additional protocol as part of the JCPOA. Specifically, the additional protocol gives the IAEA expanded rights of access to information and sites. With the additional protocol, the agency will continuously monitor Iran's entire fuel cycle, including facilities such as Iran's uranium mines, centrifuge production facilities, and its heavy-water production plant. This will make it extremely difficult for Iran to siphon off materials for a covert program without prompt detection."
Their briefing book also includes a small section explaining why the 24-day timeframe for undeclared sites is not a significant impediment to detection.
http://www.armscontrol.org/files/ACA_Iran-BB_2015%20Aug6_FINAL.pdf
How come all of the arguments in favor of this treaty sound like bitter excuses for failure?
Shouldn't this be the victory lap? Shouldn't Obama be selling us on the merits?
The Iranian hardliners, now there are some people trumpeting the merits. Money for terrorism, lifting of sanctions, and a guaranteed path to a nuclear bomb. Those are real benefits. Ain't no recriminations in that camp.
@Zach:
"...and a guaranteed path to a nuclear bomb."
This isn't true at all. This deal significantly inhibits Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. If the US had walked away from the table, as opponents of the deal had wanted, the talks would have collapsed. And the sanctions regime would soon follow. Once that occurred, the funds that are currently frozen would be freed up, plus there'd be no restrictions on or inspections of their nuclear program. Iran is not a dominant power in the region, and the supposed "windfall" it will receive from sanctions relief will not seriously alter the balance of power in the middle east. The GCC countries have much better funded and better equipped militaries than Iran. This deal is reflective of Iran's weakness vis-à-vis the great powers. It had to make significant concessions with regard to its nuclear program with the western powers simply lifting sanctions and allowing more normal international relations to resume. In this regard, the US gives up practically nothing for the deal but gains quite a bit. Again, any serious minded looked at this deals sees it as a significant contribution. Read the serious literature from people that do arms control work for a living. I have disagreed with about 90% of Obama's foreign policy conduct. You don't have to like Obama to like this deal.
Did you have any evidence for the notion that we couldn't have kept the sanctions on, that is, if our sole objective hadn't been to release the sanctions? When even the French were on the right side of Obama?
There's really no educating you, as an anti-semite, I mean as a worshiper of The American Conservative magazine (reading TAC to get sense out of it is like reading Playboy for the articles), there probably is no education for you. The only cure for the hunchback is the grave.
And by the way if you wonder why people conflate your f******* with your foreign policy views, one does wonder if there is a correlation for playing the catamite in personal relations as well as in international ones.
Why are we not supposed to humiliate Iran? I can't think of a better result. Iran should be humiliated to the point where their leadership is repudiated and ideally dragged out of the halls of power to be strung up like Ceaucescu or, this being Iran, like some poor f***** got caught smoking the wrong pole in a Tehran alley. The fact that we haven't gone for the win these last 30-40 years with them, doesn't mean that we should be trying to lose.
I have no sympathy for the non interventionist argument. None. Save your breath. You could quibble about whether it's being well done, I'm aghast at Libya for instance, but the notion that we don't take a hand in the world just means that you're not serious.
You ask for alternatives to this rotten plan. Here they are. One. Targeted strikes at the nuclear assets, rinse and repeat. Two. Decapitate the regime. Rinse and repeat if it comes to that. Three. Sanctions squared until you starve them into line. EASY.
Also, without parsing through your hardliners say this hardliners say that squid-ink, let's take this in sequence like the underpants gnomes.
1. Iran signs a piece of paper.
2. US gives Iran hundred fifty billion dollars.
3. Iran has a good laugh and goes back to what they were doing, whether trying to fool us or not.
4. US sooner or later cottons on, looks around wild-eyed while rest of the world shrugs and Iran caresses their newly bought air defense systems.
5. Profit! But not for us.
@Nichevo:
"I have no sympathy for the non interventionist argument. None. Save your breath. You could quibble about whether it's being well done, I'm aghast at Libya for instance, but the notion that we don't take a hand in the world just means that you're not serious."
Unfortunately, there's no cure for the interventionist mindset. No matter how many of their unmitigated disasters they are faced with, they will always just laugh them off and go about arguing loudly for the opportunity to smash up yet another country and get more people killed. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. When someone has a criticism of those actions, it's a mere "quibble." Wait, somebody does not want to invade Iraq because they fear it will turn it into a Shia-majority ally of Iran, and its Kurdish/sunni majority could devolve into separatist fighting? Eh, simply not serious! America has to "take a hand in the world." Shorter interventionist thinking: "America must do something. Hey, here's something. Let's do it!"
"You ask for alternatives to this rotten plan. Here they are. One. Targeted strikes at the nuclear assets, rinse and repeat. Two. Decapitate the regime. Rinse and repeat if it comes to that. Three. Sanctions squared until you starve them into line. EASY."
There is no support for such sanctions among the Russian and Chinese. Also, American isolation of Cuba didn't do much to "starve them into line." And a place like North Korea is an example of how much diplomatic isolation a country can endure if it wants a bomb. Wiping out their leadership would be meaningless, since there is broad popular support for a nuclear program. And of course, propping up a leader who enjoyed very little legitimacy in Iran has never backfired on the US.
I see that invasion/occupation wasn't on your list. Why not? If their nuclear program is so dangerous, why not advocate that step? Israel tried to bomb Iraq's nuclear program out of existence, and that resulted in the Iraqis speeding up their program and making it more covert. So covert, in fact, it shocked the western powers when it was discovered after the first Gulf War.
Of course, there is no evidence Iran is even trying to get a bomb. US intelligence and Israeli intelligence agree on this.
Nichevo nailed it. Farmer, you look like a fool because you think the Iranians are going to hold up their end of the bargain. The only parts of the agreement that we are sure will happen are Iran will get their 150 billion dollars back and sanctions will be lifted.
The likelihood that Iran will adhere to any other parts of the agreement is specious, especially with so many built in ways for the Iranians to delay and obfuscate.
The brilliance on the Iranians part is getting this agreement that has them getting everything they want up front while their fulfillment of the agreement is an ongoing process that they can postpone. They don't need to do one part of their end of the agreement and by the time the US objections to the Iranian failure to abide by the terms is accepted by the "international community", China and Russia will shrug it off because they like the increased trade they have established with Iran.
Even if the other nations agree to re-establish sanctions, that would probably take a couple years to happen and Iran will have hardened their defenses, boosted their economy and gotten that much closer to a bomb.
'But, but... why do the hardliners oppose the deal then?'
Have you considered that it is political theater for your benefit? Nah, the Iranians are too simple a people to pull that off, right Farmer?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा