|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I'm a little baffled by this :
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.html
WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes.
Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already.
|
On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlShow nested quote +WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already.
It's hard to deny that it bolsters the position of the extremists in Iran who say not to trust the US and suggest that Iran work towards a nuke anyway. Here you have almost half the Senate saying essentially that the president doesn't speak for them and they likely wouldn't honor any agreements made by the president.
Why would you stop working on a nuke when the main country trying to talk you out of it has half of it's most powerful body send you a letter that basically says that the US doesn't see itself as bound to any agreement we make with them?
|
Issuing a an open letter to a foreign country while an acting president is actively negotiating is a bad move and will only goad the opposition in doing the same to an opposing party president. But according to the US constitution, the Senate has to ratify a treaty: [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause).
If the president is negotiating without including the senate then he is negotiating blindly and risks embarrassing himself, his party, and the country if the senate rejects the treaty. The senate, having openly undermined the president, has already achieved the same result. I fear for the future of the country when the opposing parties are so intent on killing each other and have zero room for compromise.
|
On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlShow nested quote +WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already.
I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah.
|
On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah.
Tough inspections are one possibility of something we don't have but could get.
"If there's no deal, then we walk away," Obama told CBS News. "If we cannot verify that they are not going to obtain a nuclear weapon, that there's a breakout period so that even if they cheated we would be able to have enough time to take action, if we don't have that kind of deal, then we're not going to take it."
|
On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah.
Iran is probably the only real country in the region left while almost all other "post WW I" nations are disintegrating. Who else is supposed to be a partner against ISIS and such? If somehow the whole Israel-Iran mess could be cleared up or at least stabilized, which is admittedly a though task, Iran would potentially be the only realistic and better partner than the crazy Sauds or failed states like Iraq.
|
On March 10 2015 07:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah. Tough inspections are one possibility of something we don't have but could get. Show nested quote +"If there's no deal, then we walk away," Obama told CBS News. "If we cannot verify that they are not going to obtain a nuclear weapon, that there's a breakout period so that even if they cheated we would be able to have enough time to take action, if we don't have that kind of deal, then we're not going to take it."
Ability to confirm that they are keeping their side of the deal doesn't really seem like gaining anything significant.
|
Opening Iran for trade would probably be quite a few billion dollars in trade. Also, think of how much military and intelligence spending we could cut, not immediately but eventually, if we could trust Iran even a little bit.
On the flip side, what is to be gained by allowing things to stand as is?
We don't even have a deal together. I can understand rejecting a deal once it's on the table, but killing the negotiations seems like cowardice, selfishness, and ignorance. Perhaps the Republicans are scared that a reasonable deal will be put on the table and they'd look bad for cutting that and having a shit (or no) alternative. Just like Obamacare-- they complain about it, it's clearly working, but they have no alternative.
As for a personal story, my dad is a researcher. One of his collaborators is at the Pasteur Institute in Tehran (one thing that a lot of people don't mention is that Iran actually has some pretty great academic research). It took them 3 years extra (or so my dad estimates) because of all the hoops they had to jump through just to communicate. The scientific research in question isn't anything like curing cancer, but what if it were?
Having like daily inspections is a position. Everyone's underlying interest that drives the position is to ensure that Iran uses its nuclear facilities for reasons that do not violate the NPT. While two positions, like "we want to be able to do frequent, unannounced examinations" and "we will allow you to look at our nuclear facilities x times a year" are incompatible, interests like "we don't want you to get nukes" and "we want our sovereignty to be respected" are not mutually exclusive.
|
On March 10 2015 07:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah. Iran is the probably the only real country in the region left while almost all other "post WW I" nations are disintegrating. Who else is supposed to be a partner against ISIS and such? If somehow the whole Israel-Iran mess could be cleared up, which is admittedly a though task, Iran would potentially be the only realistic and better partner than the crazy Sauds or failed states like Iraq.
I wouldn't say Turkey is disintegrating, and despite their shenanigans they're probably still more reliable than Iran as an ally. It's also an option to renew relations with Egypt, despite el-Sisi being a really nasty motherfucker. Presumably Israel would not mind making a bit more friends with Egypt since they just declared Hamas a terrorist organization and are bombing IS in Libya (both of which are probably calculated moves to reach out to the west).
The main problem is that neither Turkey, nor Egypt have much incentive to intervene in Iraq or Syria, whereas Iran is a Shi'ite nation watching a bunch of crazy Sunnite lunatics slaughter Shiites in Iraq and Syria. It's bad for the Ayatollah's credibility to stand by idly, and thus Iran has a vested interest in stabilizing Iraq and Syria (whereas Turkey has a vested interest in keeping it destabilized, and Egypt does not give a fuck).
I do agree that Saudi Arabia is about the worst and least reliable ally to have at the moment... and I fail to see how:
Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah.
is any worse than Yemen being a puppet state of S.A. and Iraq being a failed state ruled by landgrabbing tribal warlords.
|
On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah.
If Iran was able to obtain a nuke, they are suddenly complete equals to the US and Israel in the middle east. Right now, they have great relations, but they don't have the authority that comes with power. Israel and the US are still the "end all" power in the region and that would all be gone as soon as Iran had the ability to nuke Israel. Mutually assured destruction is what has kept Russia and the US playing nice and prevented them from ever actually having a viable means of conflict. Iran having a nuke would force all other countries to take it entirely seriously. Israel would lose any hope of ever having complete dominance.
If we are able to keep Iran from ever having a nuke, we hold the final options. They can be economically powerful, but they don't have the same bargaining power that Russia gained when it became fully nuclear capable.
|
Also, I'd like to throw The Logan Act out. It prohibits unauthorized citizens from interfering with negotiations with foreign governments. Doing so is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.
|
On March 10 2015 07:51 Acrofales wrote:
I wouldn't say Turkey is disintegrating, and despite their shenanigans they're probably still more reliable than Iran as an ally. It's also an option to renew relations with Egypt, despite el-Sisi being a really nasty motherfucker. Presumably Israel would not mind making a bit more friends with Egypt since they just declared Hamas a terrorist organization and are bombing IS in Libya (both of which are probably calculated moves to reach out to the west).
Turkey's standpoint when it comes to ISIS is far from clear and at times very disturbing given all the reports about alleged cooperation to diminish the Kurds. Also it's not a "core" country in the region like Iran with the power to project or create political stability. Turkey is on it's way to turn into the light version of Saudi-Arabia, at least from a religious ideological perspective.
|
On March 10 2015 08:01 ticklishmusic wrote:Also, I'd like to throw The Logan Act out. It prohibits unauthorized citizens from interfering with negotiations with foreign governments. Doing so is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.
The thought of Obama pushing for all 47 of these dudes to be arrested gives me the hugest boner.
|
What are conservatives thinking about about this Christopher Lee Cornell guy?
|
Just read the letter sent by those senators, seems quite insulting, and poor form. Boo to those senators who signed it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
any future active cooperation with iran will probably involve some sort of regime change in iran itself. the religious hardliners will still do their part in the sectarian struggle in the region. right now the big problem is sunni militia, but this was fueled by shia patronage.
this current nuclear deal is not as dangerous as netanyahu makes it out to be, but let's not harbor illusions of a cooperative iran just yet.
|
On March 10 2015 07:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. I'm still failing to see what the US would get out of any prospective deal with Iran. Normalization of relations isn't enough. If a deal is struck, the big winner will be Iran. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, Iran is already winning big in the region. Its sphere of influence has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. Both Yemen and Iraq are well on their way to becoming Iranian proxies like Syria and Hezbollah.
Iran is just not under enough pressure with the lightweights conducting the diplomatic efforts. An end to their nuclear program needs to be on the table. It isn't. It won't be until Iran feels that it would lose more by not negotiating a favorable end to enrichment.
Iran's been on the ascendancy and frankly the US is negotiating from a position of weakness. I don't endorse nipping at the edges of the development/capacity curve to the bomb while legitimizing the continued progress. Deals at this point are lose-lose. This is the administration that couldn't even negotiate a status of forces agreement in Iraq to distance Iranian and IS control.
|
On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlShow nested quote +WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already.
American politics has been like this for ages.
It's a shame really.
And I am neither for or against Iran's nuclearization. It's time for the US to back off from intruding in other countries' business. We've already lost thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
On March 10 2015 10:37 QuantumTeleportation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2015 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I'm a little baffled by this : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.htmlWASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran against making an agreement with President Obama and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In an exceedingly rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans sent an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling an agreement even as negotiators grow close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the emerging agreement would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, while critics from both parties contend that it would be a dangerous charade that would still leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could destroy Israel or other foes. Sounds like a really petty move aimed at disturbing Obama's foreign policy for domestic political gains. The whole Iran situation is messy enough already. American politics has been like this for ages. It's a shame really. And I am neither for or against Iran's nuclearization. It's time for the US to back off from intruding in other countries' business. We've already lost thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Right. US should withdraw and let other countries do their things, like letting Russia take over Ukraine. After all, who are we to tell these people what to do with their resources and lives? #clueless
|
Whether the Republican letter might undercut Iran’s willingness to strike a deal was not clear. Iran reacted with scorn. “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said in a statement. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
