White House celebrates disaster of a “deal” with Iran

posted at 9:31 am on November 24, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

The news broke fairly late in the evening (3 AM in Geneva) and was quickly being trumpeted by the media and the Obama administration. A deal had been struck with Iran to “limit” their nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from sanctions. We’ll let the Washington Post start the crowing.

Iran and six major powers agreed early Sunday on a historic deal that freezes key parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions.

The agreement, sealed at a 3 a.m. signing ceremony in Geneva’s Palace of Nations, requires Iran to halt or scale back parts of its nuclear infrastructure, the first such pause in more than a decade.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif hailed the deal, which was reached after four days of hard bargaining, including an eleventh-hour intervention by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and foreign ministers from Europe, Russia and China.

When you dig into the details of this arrangement, there’s a lot of frosting and not much cake. First of all, this is not a permanent agreement in any way shape or form. It’s a six month “arrangement” which Iran could simply walk away from at the end (or at any point, really) after receiving a massive fiscal injection in the form of sanction relief. It is also simply a “suspension” of certain enrichment activities, with no dismantling of any of Iran’s facilities. The entire show can be started back up at any time. There’s additional transparency, with more inspectors allowed into additional facilities, which is good, but much like the suspension of enrichment this can be terminated any moment Iran decides not to honor the deal. (As they have done numerous times in the past.) The deal also allegedly limits the level of uranium enrichment the Iranians can reach, but that’s the same bone we’ve been chewing on for years. And finally, we have the Iranians on every cable channel doing an end zone dance saying this is “formal recognition” of their right to enrich uranium, while Kerry and his team are saying the opposite. It’s hard to imagine how solid any “deal” can be when the two sides are announcing essentially 180 degree opposite conclusions on basic terminology.

Israel was having none of it, as Netanyahu made clear almost immediately.

Israel’s prime minister harshly condemned the international community’s nuclear deal with Iran on Sunday, calling it a “historic mistake” and saying he was not bound by the agreement.

Speaking to his Cabinet, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the world had become a “more dangerous place” as a result of the deal and reiterated a long-standing threat to use military action against Iran if needed, declaring that Israel “has the right and the duty to defend itself by itself.” …

“What was reached last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, it is a historic mistake,” Netanyahu said. “Today the world became a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world made a significant step in obtaining the most dangerous weapons in the world.”

Voicing what he called Israel’s right to self-defense, he said, “I want to clarify that Israel will not let Iran develop nuclear military capability.”

Daniel Pipes at The Corner describes it as nothing less than A Foreign-Policy Disaster.

But the American goal for the accord was that the Iranians not “advance their program” of building a uranium nuclear bomb (and perhaps a plutonium bomb too); the apparent deal exactly permits such advancement, plus sanctions relief to Tehran worth about $9 billion.

This wretched deal offers one of those rare occasions when comparison with Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938 is valid. An overeager Western government, blind to the evil cunning of the regime it so much wants to work with, appeases it with concessions that will come back to haunt it. Geneva and Nov. 24 will be remembered along with Munich and Sep. 29.

For an opposing view, Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway isn’t ready to reflexively dismiss the deal and sees reasons for optimism.

There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about this deal, and about whether the Iranians will both comply with its terms and negotiate in good faith toward a longer term agreement. However, at first glance this seems to me to be a good step in the right direction, and a far better alternative than the idea that the only way to deal with Iran is to become more and more bellicose to the point where military action would seem to be our only option. As Winston Churchill once said, “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” So, while it’s far too early to say that we’ve averted an eventual path toward war, there at least seems to be some hope that we have. Since this is only a temporary deal, why not at least give diplomacy a chance?

There’s nothing wrong with continuing to talk to Iran regarding their nuclear program. In fact, for all Western nations it’s pretty much a requirement, as we are honor bound to seek a diplomatic resolution to problems before resorting to a military one. But when signing off on “deals” we need to at least show some concrete progress. There is nothing here which can’t be reversed in the blink of an eye in terms of what Iran is “giving up” while there will be no taking back the economic – and public relations – windfall the Iranians will reap from it. I’m not sure if the world is any more dangerous as a result of this, as both Pipes and Netanyahu infer, but it’s certainly difficult to see how it’s any less dangerous, either. Iran has great cause to celebrate from this one, but I don’t see why anyone else should be doing any dancing. If there was any victory for the West here, it was just a chance for John Kerry to put a feather in his cap for being involved in getting a relatively toothless piece of paper signed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I am glad that Obama is president and has continued Bush’s warmongering policies, including his breaking his promise and keeping GITMO open.

antifederalist on November 24, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Edited to reflect your sad reality. Now wipe your chin off and adjust your O’bama Kneepads, they’re crooked.

Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Judging by the statements coming from Iran and Kerry the Iranians seem to have signed the Farsi version of the agreement not the English version that Kerry signed.

kcewa on November 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Lee Harvey Oswald and antifederalist appear to be cut from the same mold.

SC.Charlie on November 24, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Sanctions are enforced at the barrel of a gun. Therefore, they are not peaceful.

antiintelligent on November 24, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Economic sanctions may include various forms of trade barriers and restrictions on financial transactions.

F-

Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2013 at 1:33 PM

I have no problem trading with Cuba (I hear they have great cigars). The US government prevents me from do so.

antiintelligent on November 24, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Save yourself the hassle, Cuban cigars circa 2013 are shallow shadows of a once legendary industry.

Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2013 at 1:36 PM

af is a Paulene of epic talking points proportion.

Rio Linda Refugee on November 24, 2013 at 1:40 PM

When the ill winds blow, I will always stand with the Muslims.

Barak Obama (in his book, The Audacity of Hope.”)

Rea1ityCheck on November 24, 2013 at 1:44 PM

it doesn’t surprise me that Hotair is parroting the Israeli line…listen Israel is not US, Israel interests don’t concern me

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Besides, they are mostly Jews, mostly those evil white privileged people.

slickwillie2001 on November 24, 2013 at 1:52 PM

it doesn’t surprise me that Hotair is parroting the Israeli line…listen Israel is not US, Israel interests don’t concern me

nonpartisanhack on November 24, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Leftists in the US and in Europe always hate the Jews. Heck, some of you are Jews and hate yourselves.

Schadenfreude on November 24, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Iran’s commitment to destroy Israel is proven by the fact that Iranian citizens overwhelmingly elected a moderate who would negotiate with the West.

/

antifederalist on November 24, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Elections in Iran are a joke. Those that run for elections are hand-picked by the real leader Khameini.

Khameini is the one with a burning hatred for Israel and the USA, and he will burn many millions of his own people to achieve his objectives.

slickwillie2001 on November 24, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Lee Harvey Oswald and antifederalist appear to be cut from the same mold.

SC.Charlie on November 24, 2013 at 1:31 PM

‘Fair Play for Iran’?

slickwillie2001 on November 24, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Play this, over and over, and send it around.

The WH thinks they can fool you. They can, if you let them.

Schadenfreude on November 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM

For all the idiots around here. This is who rules Iran.

Schadenfreude on November 24, 2013 at 2:06 PM

The Obama administration never misses an opportunity to sell us out.

Axion on November 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Utter surrender, which is what the leftists aim for, every second of their meager existence. May you all go under from it.

Schadenfreude on November 24, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Safer,…WTF:

John Irish ‏@IrishJReuters 15h

#US’ kerry says nuke deal will make region, #Israel safer.

Next phase will be more difficult, but more consequential pic.twitter.com/qZSvmHCMN2

https://twitter.com/IrishJReuters/status/404459362346754048/photo/1/large

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Obama, empowering our enemies and weakening our allies since 2009. It’s blatantly obvious the disdain and just pure hate that he has for Israel. Not even trying to hide it anymore.

sadsushi on November 24, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Next, John Horseface Chamberlain will tell us he spent Christmas in Geneva.

growl on November 24, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Appeasement is the word, just like Chamberlain. It’ll end the same way.

Schadenfreude on November 24, 2013 at 2:38 PM

it doesn’t surprise me that Hotair is parroting the Israeli line…listen Israel is not US, Israel interests don’t concern me

nonpartisanhack on November 24, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Leftists in the US and in Europe always hate the Jews. Heck, some of you are Jews and hate yourselves.

Schadenfreude on November 24, 2013 at 1:57 PM

They prove it every four years by voting democrat, the Jews.
Nonballsackhack’s interests are unfit for human consumption.

AllahsNippleHair on November 24, 2013 at 2:38 PM

The Obama administration never misses an opportunity to sell us out.

Axion on November 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM

The President and his inner circle have more in common with our enemies than they do with America or traditional American values.

He’s been indoctrinated from birth that this is a fundamentally broken, unfair, and unjust country that is the source of all of the world’s problems and challenges.

Athos on November 24, 2013 at 2:40 PM

14h
Rep. Ed Royce, R-California, on nuclear deal: ‘I have serious concerns that this agreement does not meet the standards necessary to protect the United States and our allies – @washingtonpost
read more on washingtonpost.com
===============================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/23/congressional-reaction-to-the-iran-nuclear-deal/

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 2:53 PM

plus sanctions relief to Tehran worth about $9 billion.

Damnable, unconscionable, treasonous motherf*cking bastards.

Every day. Every f*cking damn day, more unfathomable, America-last, destructive behavior from this shit-ridden government.

May God damn every last one of them.

Midas on November 24, 2013 at 2:55 PM

As a Canadian,………..NO SH*T:

Canada
1h
==

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says Canadian government is ‘deeply skeptical’ of Iran nuclear deal; says Canadian sanctions against Iran to stay in place – @CBCAlerts
read more on twitter.com
========================

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/iran-nuclear-program/

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

The DemoRat MindSet:

Iran
2h
==

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., on Iran deal: ‘It is a choice between a pause or imminent war. I choose a verifiable pause’ – @edatpost
read more on twitter.com
=========================

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/iran-nuclear-program/

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

** Unicorn Neville Chamberlian Pelosium:

Iran
55m
=====

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: Last night’s agreement is an essential step toward meeting our ultimate objective: to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon – @ChadPergram
read more on twitter.com
========================

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/iran-nuclear-program/

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters 4m

Obama has leeway on Iran, despite U.S. lawmakers’ concerns http://reut.rs/IaCv2s
=======================

Obama has leeway on Iran, despite U.S. lawmakers’ concerns

By Caren Bohan and Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON Sun Nov 24, 2013 2:48pm EST
**************************************

(Reuters) – Republican and Democratic U.S. senators on Sunday voiced skepticism about an interim nuclear deal reached with Iran but Congress looked likely to give President Barack Obama room to see if the agreement works.

The deal does not need to be ratified by Congress and Obama is using his executive power to temporarily suspend some existing U.S. sanctions on Iran.

Senators have been discussing for months imposing even tighter sanctions, which could anger Tehran and put Sunday’s deal reached in Geneva in jeopardy.

But influential Democrats – who control the Senate – made clear that any new sanctions against Iran would include a six-month window before they took effect.

That would allow time to see if Iran is sticking by the pact, worked out between Tehran, the United States and other world powers.

“It is a choice between a pause or imminent war. I choose a verifiable pause,” Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida said.

Influential Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, who is known as a hawk on Iran, said forthcoming legislation would “provide for a six-month window to reach a final agreement before imposing new sanctions on Iran.”

Menendez, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and sits on the Senate Banking Committee, said the legislation would also make clear that the sanctions could kick in if talks toward a longer-term agreement falter or if Iran fails to live up to the interim agreement.

The agreement, reached after marathon talks in Switzerland, curbs the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for initial sanctions relief. Iran could access $1.5 billion from trade in gold and precious metals and could see the suspension of some sanctions on its automotive sector and a revival in its petrochemical exports.

While expressing concerns about the interim nuclear deal, even several Republican senators appeared willing on Sunday to allow time to judge its effectiveness.

Speaking on ABC television’s “This Week,” Republican Saxby Chambliss, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said he believed a “strong movement” would build in the Senate for tighter sanctions.

But Chambliss said any bill would likely include a “time frame” before the actions would take effect.

“They’ve done this deal. And this can be done without the approval of Congress. So for the next six months, it looks like this deal is going to be in place,” he said.

Senator Bob Corker, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” pledged to hold the Obama administration’s “feet to the fire” to ensure that Tehran follows through on its obligations.

“My biggest concern is seeing follow-through here,” said Corker, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland, emphasized a similar point on Fox.

“These sanctions that have been released are just part of overall sanctions and can be re-imposed at any time,” Cardin said. “Congress, I think, will want to make it clear that if Iran does not live up to these commitments, we will not only insist that the sanctions be reapplied, but we will have stronger sanctions against Iran.”
========

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/24/us-iran-nuclear-usa-congress-idUSBRE9AN0I920131124?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 3:04 PM

That would be because the Antifederalist opposed the creation of the Federal government because they feared that it would consolidate power all unto itself. Obviously they were right. Since I oppose what the Federal government has become, I chose this name.

antifederalist on November 24, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Dumb@ss, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists from the founding era were proper names that were misapplied. James Madison and the so-called Federalists supported creating a larger central government than had previously existed w/ the Articles of Confederation. They seized the name Federalist b/c they liked the name. Their opponents were the actual federalists, little f. Federalism is the decentralization of power.

Someone that thinks the Federal government has gotten too big today and opposes it on that basis is a federalist, not an antifederalist.

BTW, have you figured out that WTC 7 stuff yet? Something fishy going on there, don’t you think?

xblade on November 24, 2013 at 12:23 PM

THIS!! The Iraq War is only unambiguously ill-advised if 9/11 was a hoax!! Imagine having fought a post 9/11 War on Terror w/o dealing with Iraq!! That would have been silly.

So AF, do you think 9/11 was a hoax?

And btw, the NIST report dealt with building 7, and the Truthers are stubbornly misinformed on its findings. For instance, the Truthers are the only ones that say the building fell at “free fall speed”.

#dismissed

Terp Mole on November 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM

THIS TOO!! I am probably dumber for having read AF’s delusional ramblings.

blockchords on November 24, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Bi Bi
*****

http://www.breakingnews.com/

8h
Israel ‘cannot and will not’ let Iran have nuclear weapons capability, says Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu –

8h
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: I can’t back nuclear deal when Iran is ‘regime that calls for destruction of Israel’ -

10h
Iran nuclear deal ‘historic mistake’ that makes world ‘much more dangerous,’ says Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Boehner Statement:

Iran
4h
===

House speaker Boehner, R-Ohio: Iran ‘interim deal has been and will continue to be met with healthy skepticism and hard questions, not just of the Iranians, but of ourselves and our allies involved in the negotiations’ – statement
read more on speaker.gov
========================

Speaker Boehner Statement on Obama Administration Deal With Iran –
Posted by Speaker Boehner’s Press Office
November 24, 2013
Press Release
*************

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the Obama administration’s deal with Iran:

“The interim deal has been and will continue to be met with healthy skepticism and hard questions, not just of the Iranians, but of ourselves and our allies involved in the negotiations. Iran has a history of obfuscation that demands verification of its activities and places the burden on the regime to prove it is upholding its obligations in good faith while a final deal is pursued.

“The Administration and its negotiating partners claim that a final deal can be completed that affirms Iran does not have a right to enrich and permanently and irreversibly dismantles the infrastructure of its uranium and plutonium nuclear programs. That is a goal the House shares. The lingering question, however, is whether the negotiating partners will work equally hard to preserve the strong international sanctions regime until that goal is achieved. Otherwise, we will look back on the interim deal as a remarkably clever Iranian move to dismantle the international sanctions regime while maintaining its infrastructure and material to pursue a break-out nuclear capability.

“The House looks forward to the Administration providing a briefing on the interim deal and the next steps.”

###

http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/speaker-boehner-statement-obama-administration-deal-iran

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Barack Obama = Arthur Neville Chamberlain

How come liberals are damned to repeat history?

They really are stupid.

Their supposed intelligence will kill us all.

redguy on November 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM

** Unicorn Moment **

Iran
11h
====

Iran ‘has never and will never’ seek nuclear weapons,

President Rouhani says after deal signed

– @BBCBreaking
read more on twitter.com
========================

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/iran-nuclear-program/

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 3:19 PM

This is a very biased article as it completely ignores the two major concessions Obama and Kerry were able to impose on the Iranians: to firmly agree to never mine any uranium on Jupiter or Saturn as well as promise never to assemble any nuclear bombs on February 30..

VorDaj on November 24, 2013 at 3:21 PM

To warmongers, it’s forever 1938. Imagine the movie Groundhog Day except its perpetually September 30, 1938. That’s how you all imagine the world.

antifederalist on November 24, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I can’t believe that no one has pointed out to this douchebag that, on 30 September 1938, the German invasion of Poland, starting WWII, was 30 days old. The Soviet invasion was 13 days old. If his point was the date of the status quo prior to the war’s start, that date was 31 August 1938. This basic error causes me to nullify everything this moron says as factually suspect.

El Salsero on November 24, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Patricia Zengerle ‏@ReutersZengerle 16h

GOP Sen Kirk; Deal appears to provide world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism w/billions of dollars in exchange for cosmetic concessions

https://twitter.com/Reuters

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Maybes “Apologies Up Front”,..should of been a prerequisite:

Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters 6h

Former Iran hostages: amid rapprochement they still want apologies http://reut.rs/I9UIwZ
======================

Former Iran hostages: amid rapprochement they still want apologies

By Tabassum Zakaria
WASHINGTON Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:03am EST
**************************************

(Reuters) – Despite humiliation, solitary confinement and having a gun held to his head during the U.S. Embassy crisis in Iran three decades ago, former hostage Bruce Laingen still favors diplomacy with Tehran.

The most senior diplomat at the embassy when it was seized by Islamist students in 1979, Laingen argued for years afterward for opening dialogue with Iran and backs the talks that led to a breakthrough agreement over Tehran’s nuclear program in the early hours of Sunday in Geneva.

But as hostility between the United States and Iran eases, Laingen and fellow ex-hostages want the Islamic Republic at least to acknowledge the trauma of their captivity.

“We haven’t heard that expression of apology yet. Why not?” said Laingen, whose wife Penelope started what became the campaign to tie a yellow ribbon around a tree to remember the hostages while they were being detained.

He and other former hostages spoke last week about talks between six major powers, including the United States, and Iran. Those talks led to Sunday’s deal to curb Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief, in what could be the first sign of an emerging rapprochement between the Islamic state and the West.

Before news of the deal, Reuters interviewed six of the former hostages who were released in 1981. Some backed President Barack Obama’s attempt to thaw relations with Iran and others thought the White House is being duped by a secretive government that may be building a nuclear bomb.

But one common thread running through their opinions about Iran three decades later is the feeling that Tehran needs to acknowledge the 444-day ordeal of 52 Americans – 39 of them are still alive – or be held accountable for it.

The hostage-taking from November 1979 to January 1981 prompted Washington to break diplomatic ties and set the stage for decades of mistrust between the two countries.

“I personally believe there should be no relationship established whatsoever until Iran has had extracted from them some type of reparations,” said Kevin Hermening, who was a Marine guard at the embassy when it was over-run by supporters of the Islamic Revolution.

“To relax the sanctions is to reward them for simply having waited us out based on the idea that we would forget or ignore or pretend it never happened,” said Hermening, who now lives in Wisconsin and has run unsuccessfully for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican.

Efforts by former hostages to win compensation were ignored for years and dealt a setback in 2012 when the U.S. Supreme Court let stand lower court decisions that the Algiers Accords – the deal reached by the United States and Iran that released the hostages – prohibited compensation lawsuits against Iran.

Former hostages are now hoping that Congress can take action. Senators Johnny Isakson, a Georgia Republican, and Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, have sponsored legislation to compensate the hostages and their families from fees collected from violations of the current sanctions against Iran.

It is not clear if that bill will succeed and the Obama administration is keen to keep the talks with Iran focused only on the issue of its nuclear program to avoid complicating already difficult negotiations. Iran has long said that its nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes.

‘TRAUMATIC DAYS’

Seeing Iran talk to the United States without acknowledging blame for the hostage crisis upsets Rodney “Rocky” Sickmann, a former Marine guard at the embassy. “It hurts that here we are negotiating with Iran, and Iran acts like nothing really happened.”

Sickmann was locked in a room with 24-hour armed guards, enduring mock firing squads and Russian roulette, and allowed outside only seven times during “444 traumatic days” of captivity.

“They told us in my interrogation it is not you the American people we hate, it’s your government, but we will use you to humiliate your government,” he said. “And they’ve done it for 34 years.”

Laingen was acting head of the embassy when hundreds of Iranian students invaded and took it over and demanded that Washington hand over for trial the toppled Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who was in America for medical treatment.

Now 91, the U.S. diplomat who has favored dialogue with Iran for years says “It’s high time, it’s overtime.”

“We have so much to talk about. There is all manner of issues that confront both governments. It’s a lot easier to talk about those problems if you have a direct, face-to-face relationship with each other,” he said.

The nuclear issue aside, the United States and Iran have a host of grievances, many of them rancorous and unlikely to be resolved soon.

Just as the hostage-taking soured Americans’ views of Iran for decades, Iranians still remember with bitterness the CIA’s role in the 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and the U.S. Navy’s shooting down of an Iran Air commercial plane in 1988 that killed all 290 people on board.

The two countries have been at loggerheads for years over what Washington says is Iran’s support for terrorism, and over Tehran’s backing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Iran’s standing in the world would improve if it apologized for the hostage-taking, said Laingen.

“What have they got to lose by doing that? Except a recognition by all inhabitants on the planet.”

Former hostages who were diplomats appear more in favor of rebuilding a relationship with Iran than those who were military personnel at the time.

“In my view it should be that at least we be able to talk about things that concern both of us, not that we are friends, not that we like each other, not that we are allies, but that at least we can talk to each other, which we have not been able to do for 34 years,” said John Limbert, 70, who was a political officer at the embassy and is now a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland.

Limbert said he confronted Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a couple of years ago at a dinner in New York for American academics where Ahmadinejad had talked about how he would like to see better relations.

“I asked him about those events and he looked at me right in the face and he said ‘Well, we treated you OK didn’t we?’”

“And I said, ‘Sir you did not.’”

‘PLAY HARDBALL’

David Roeder, who was an Air Force attache at the embassy, said he hoped the American delegation in the Iran nuclear talks would “play hardball.”

Roeder said the hostage-takers found out he had a handicapped son and during interrogations would threaten to kidnap the boy and send body parts to his wife unless he cooperated.

Iran is masterful at negotiation and stalling tactics and has never paid for violating international law in the hostage crisis, said Roeder, 74.

“I’m very, very concerned that we might be on the verge of rewarding bad behavior,” he said. Iran denies Western charges that its nuclear program is intended to build an atomic bomb.

Roeder criticized Obama for making a phone call to Rouhani in September even though the Iranian leader declined to meet the U.S. president at the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

“I was disappointed that he blinked first, if you will, by calling Rouhani, when apparently the new president of Iran didn’t have time to meet personally with him at the General Assembly,” he said

Some of the hostages have let go of hatred for Iran.

Kathryn Koob, 75, was an embassy cultural officer and one of two women held hostage. She says her Lutheran Christian faith helped her deal with anger toward Iran both during captivity and afterward.

“If you harbor resentment, anger, bitterness, hatred, that dominates your day for the rest of your life. In a sense the people who have perpetrated some sort of evil upon you win every single day,” she said.

Her response when she learned about the thaw in relations was: “It’s about time, really.”
==========================

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/24/us-iran-nuclear-hostages-idUSBRE9AN0BR20131124?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Results for #Iran
*****************

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Iran&src=hash

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 3:51 PM

So, each American family just paid $4,000 blackmail each so we won’t be nuked for 6 months????

faraway on November 24, 2013 at 3:51 PM

ZalmiU ‏@ZalmiU 3m

If anyone survives the #Iran nuclear winter, to write the history of this day, this will be the Wiki picture. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZ0IZj3CEAAxJwq.jpg:large
=============================

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZ0IZj3CEAAxJwq.jpg:large

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM

To warmongers, it’s forever 1938. Imagine the movie Groundhog Day except its perpetually September 30, 1938. That’s how you all imagine the world.

antifederalist on November 24, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I can’t believe that no one has pointed out to this douchebag that, on 30 September 1938, the German invasion of Poland, starting WWII, was 30 days old. The Soviet invasion was 13 days old. If his point was the date of the status quo prior to the war’s start, that date was 31 August 1938. This basic error causes me to nullify everything this moron says as factually suspect.

El Salsero on November 24, 2013 at 3:34 PM

The dude is completely clueless, beginning with an understanding of federalist/anti-federalist and the choosing his nick on that false understanding.

Best to rack this one up alongside nonp, libtardordie, etc.

Midas on November 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Exclusive: Burns led secret US back channel to Iran
Posted on November 24, 2013 by Laura Rozen
*******************************************

Geneva, Switzerland __ Deputy Secretary of State William Burns has led a secret U.S. back channel to Iran going back to before the June election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, U.S. officials told Al-Monitor.

Burns was tapped to lead the US diplomatic effort to establish a bilateral channel with Iran, which gained momentum after the exchange of letters between US President Barack Obama and Iranian President Rouhani in early August, US officials said. Led by Burns, the US’s second highest ranking diplomat and a former lead US Iran nuclear negotiator, the US effort to form direct contacts with Iran also includes two officials from the Obama White House: Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, and Puneet Talwar, the National Security Staff senior director for Iran, Iraq, and Persian Gulf affairs, US officials confirmed. Talwar’s role in back channel discussions with Iran was previously reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Following the exchange of letters between Obama and Rouhani in August, “Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns met bilaterally with Iranian counterparts,” several times over the past few months, starting before the UN General Assembly opening session in September and in Geneva this month, a senior U.S. Administration official told Al-Monitor in an interview late Friday.

President Obama referred obliquely to the establishment of a direct U.S.-Iranian channel in a statement from the White House after negotiators for six world powers and Iran reached a nuclear deal here in Geneva tonight.

“We have pursued intensive diplomacy – bilaterally with the Iranians, and together with our P5+1 partners: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as the European Union,” Obama said from the White House Saturday. “Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure – a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful, and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.”

Al-Monitor learned that Burns was in Geneva during the second round of nuclear talks between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the US, UK, France, Russia, China) plus Germany (P5+1) and Iran held here November 7-9, and subsequently learned additional details about the bilateral channel, but agreed to hold the story at the administration’s request until the conclusion of the third round of nuclear talks that ended here in a breakthrough tonight.

Al-Monitor also learned that Burns is currently in Geneva during this round of Iran nuclear negotiations. Both times, he did not stay at the main diplomatic hotel, the Intercontinental, where many of the negotiations have taken place, but at another site, the US official said. Talwar has been seen by journalists at bus stops in the city and running towards the hotel at various times during the last three rounds of talks here; it could not be confirmed if he was relaying messages between the discussions taking place on site at the hotel, where the US, European and Iranian delegations stay, to Burns at another site.

US officials did not confirm by name which Iranian officials participated in the meetings with Burns. Al-Monitor has learned that they involved two of his diplomatic counterparts, Iraniam Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Ravanchi and Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the top deputies on the Iranian nuclear negotiating team led by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Iranian officials did not respond to previous queries from Al-Monitor about alleged meetings with Burns.

“You know we have always said that we are open to bilateral discussions with Iran, in addition to the P5+1,” the senior US administration official told al-Monitor in an interview. “But this was always with the understanding that the nuclear negotiations were going to be resolved through the P5+1 even if other bilateral channels were going on.”

Burns’ first sit-down with the Iranians occurred before the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September, the US official said, and helped bring about the 30-minute meeting between Zarif and US Secretary of State John Kerry on the sidelines of the UN September 26, 2013, as well as the historic Obama-Rouhani phone call on September 27th, the first conversation between the presidents of the two countries in over thirty years. The US official declined to say where the two Burns-led meetings with the Iranians occurred before UNGA; there have, in all, been “several,” the US official said.

“Bill [Burns] knows the Iranians, and he knows the issue really well,” the senior US administration official told Al-Monitor to explain why he was tapped for the sensitive mission.

Burns, only the second career US foreign service officer to be confirmed as deputy secretary of state, previously served as the lead US negotiator at P5+1 talks with Iran from 2008-2011, including at October 2009 talks in Geneva at which then Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili agreed to a nuclear fuel swap deal that Iran later backed away from amid domestic political criticism. In July 2011, when Burns was confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State, he turned over the Iran/P5+1 nuclear negotiating file to his successor, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who has led the US negotiating team to the last eight rounds of P5+1 talks with Iran that culminated in an agreememt here.

Burns also previously served as US Ambassador to Russia from 2005 until 2008, and as Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs from 2001 until 2005. Zarif, tapped by Rouhani as foreign minister and top nuclear negotiator in August, previously served as the Iranian ambassador to the UN in New York in the early 2000s, during a brief period of testing for more constructive US-Iranian relations, including on Afghanistan in 2001.

“Running up to the [June] 2013 Iranian election, there was a sense that we had to wait and see if the Iranians under the new administration were serious about negotiations,” the US official said. “And it became clear after the Rouhani election, that they seem serious.”

“Following the election, as has been reported, Obama sent Rouhani a letter that was delivered in early August,” the official said. “Following the exchange of letters between the two presidents, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns met bilaterally with Iranian counterparts before UNGA.”

“In those conversations, Burns and his team began to develop ideas that could be fed into the P5+1 process,” the US official said. “All of our bilateral discussions are designed to support and advance the P5+1 process; they have never been designed as a substitute. “

“As the P5+1 negotiations started picking up, Burns was joined as needed by [Under Secretary of State] Wendy Sherman,” the US official said. “They worked together to develop ideas that could be further negotiated with the P5+1. The goal, everything in the bilateral channel, was to be fed into the P5+1 channel,” the official stressed.

The US has notified P5+1 partners about the bilateral channel, the US official said, but would not disclose when. “We briefed them on the bilateral channel at the appropriate time,” the US official said. There are signs that at least some P5+1 partners were not aware of it at the second round of nuclear talks in Geneva Nov 7-9, during which the six world powers spent much of the meeting agreeing on their own text which they finally presented to Zarif late November 9.

“At the second and third rounds [of P5+1 talks with Iran in Geneva], Burns was present on the margins, to be available to the P5+1 and the Iranians, and to make sure the ideas discussed were integrated back into the P5+1,” the US official said.

“Given that so much of the economic pressure on Iran comes from the United States among other reasons, that is one reason it was important to establish this direct channel,” the official said. “Our P5+1 partners all encouraged us to have a bilateral channel, and they all have their own. And they told us, eventually to get an agreement…these discussions would be necessary.”

“None of the substance in the bilateral channel differed from the P5+1,” the US official stressed. “New issues weren’t raised. It enabled more detailed discussions [to occur] in the P5+1. It’s not like any of the issues are a secret.”

Talwar has served as the top Iran advisor to the Obama White House since 2009, and previously served as a professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when it was chaired by then Senator, now Vice President Biden.

Sullivan, previously deputy chief of staff to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during Obama’s first term, became Vice President Biden’s national security advisor early this year, after Clinton atepped down from the job.

White House press officials have previously deflected queries from Al-Monitor about possible, rumored meetings involving US and Iranian officials. An NSC official suggested to Al-Monitor last week, for instance, in response to a query, that Sullivan could not be part of a meeting with Iranians because he was last week traveling with Biden in Mexico and Panama. Sullivan did not respond to a query from Al-Monitor Saturday.

Similarly, the State Department’s official public schedules have regularly dissembled about Burns’ whereabouts. During both the second and current round of P5+1 Iran nuclear talks in Geneva this month, the State Department schedule said Burns was attending meetings at the White House and State Department, when Al-Monitor has confirmed that he was in fact in Geneva, even in advance of the rest of the US negotiating team. Those were apparently the instructions of his office to the State Department press officer who puts together the schedules, the official said.

“We thought it important to have these discussions [with the Iranians] discreetly, given the amount of ground we had to cover, lots of it very complicated,” the US official said Friday. However, the official added, “while in some respects” the US-Iran channel “had to be secretive, it is not a surprise.”

Geneva, Switzerland __ Deputy Secretary of State William Burns has led a secret U.S. back channel to Iran going back to before the June election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, U.S. officials told Al-Monitor.

Burns was tapped to lead the US diplomatic effort to establish a bilateral channel with Iran, which gained momentum after the exchange of letters between US President Barack Obama and Iranian President Rouhani in early August, US officials said. Led by Burns, the US’s second highest ranking diplomat and a former lead US Iran nuclear negotiator, the US effort to form direct contacts with Iran also includes two officials from the Obama White House: Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, and Puneet Talwar, the National Security Staff senior director for Iran, Iraq, and Persian Gulf affairs, US officials confirmed. Talwar’s role in back channel discussions with Iran was previously reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Following the exchange of letters between Obama and Rouhani in August, “Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns met bilaterally with Iranian counterparts,” several times over the past few months, starting before the UN General Assembly opening session in September and in Geneva this month, a senior U.S. Administration official told Al-Monitor in an interview late Friday.

President Obama referred obliquely to the establishment of a direct U.S.-Iranian channel in a statement from the White House after negotiators for six world powers and Iran reached a nuclear deal here in Geneva tonight.

“We have pursued intensive diplomacy – bilaterally with the Iranians, and together with our P5+1 partners: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as the European Union,” Obama said from the White House Saturday. “Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure – a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful, and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.”

Al-Monitor learned that Burns was in Geneva during the second round of nuclear talks between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the US, UK, France, Russia, China) plus Germany (P5+1) and Iran held here November 7-9, and subsequently learned additional details about the bilateral channel, but agreed to hold the story at the administration’s request until the conclusion of the third round of nuclear talks that ended here in a breakthrough tonight.

Al-Monitor also learned that Burns is currently in Geneva during this round of Iran nuclear negotiations. Both times, he did not stay at the main diplomatic hotel, the Intercontinental, where many of the negotiations have taken place, but at another site, the US official said. Talwar has been seen by journalists at bus stops in the city and running towards the hotel at various times during the last three rounds of talks here; it could not be confirmed if he was relaying messages between the discussions taking place on site at the hotel, where the US, European and Iranian delegations stay, to Burns at another site.

US officials did not confirm by name which Iranian officials participated in the meetings with Burns. Al-Monitor has learned that they involved two of his diplomatic counterparts, Iraniam Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Ravanchi and Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the top deputies on the Iranian nuclear negotiating team led by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Iranian officials did not respond to previous queries from Al-Monitor about alleged meetings with Burns.

“You know we have always said that we are open to bilateral discussions with Iran, in addition to the P5+1,” the senior US administration official told al-Monitor in an interview. “But this was always with the understanding that the nuclear negotiations were going to be resolved through the P5+1 even if other bilateral channels were going on.”

Burns’ first sit-down with the Iranians occurred before the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September, the US official said, and helped bring about the 30-minute meeting between Zarif and US Secretary of State John Kerry on the sidelines of the UN September 26, 2013, as well as the historic Obama-Rouhani phone call on September 27th, the first conversation between the presidents of the two countries in over thirty years. The US official declined to say where the two Burns-led meetings with the Iranians occurred before UNGA; there have, in all, been “several,” the US official said.

“Bill [Burns] knows the Iranians, and he knows the issue really well,” the senior US administration official told Al-Monitor to explain why he was tapped for the sensitive mission.

Burns, only the second career US foreign service officer to be confirmed as deputy secretary of state, previously served as the lead US negotiator at P5+1 talks with Iran from 2008-2011, including at October 2009 talks in Geneva at which then Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili agreed to a nuclear fuel swap deal that Iran later backed away from amid domestic political criticism. In July 2011, when Burns was confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State, he turned over the Iran/P5+1 nuclear negotiating file to his successor, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who has led the US negotiating team to the last eight rounds of P5+1 talks with Iran that culminated in an agreememt here.

Burns also previously served as US Ambassador to Russia from 2005 until 2008, and as Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs from 2001 until 2005. Zarif, tapped by Rouhani as foreign minister and top nuclear negotiator in August, previously served as the Iranian ambassador to the UN in New York in the early 2000s, during a brief period of testing for more constructive US-Iranian relations, including on Afghanistan in 2001.

“Running up to the [June] 2013 Iranian election, there was a sense that we had to wait and see if the Iranians under the new administration were serious about negotiations,” the US official said. “And it became clear after the Rouhani election, that they seem serious.”

“Following the election, as has been reported, Obama sent Rouhani a letter that was delivered in early August,” the official said. “Following the exchange of letters between the two presidents, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns met bilaterally with Iranian counterparts before UNGA.”

“In those conversations, Burns and his team began to develop ideas that could be fed into the P5+1 process,” the US official said. “All of our bilateral discussions are designed to support and advance the P5+1 process; they have never been designed as a substitute. “

“As the P5+1 negotiations started picking up, Burns was joined as needed by [Under Secretary of State] Wendy Sherman,” the US official said. “They worked together to develop ideas that could be further negotiated with the P5+1. The goal, everything in the bilateral channel, was to be fed into the P5+1 channel,” the official stressed.

The US has notified P5+1 partners about the bilateral channel, the US official said, but would not disclose when. “We briefed them on the bilateral channel at the appropriate time,” the US official said. There are signs that at least some P5+1 partners were not aware of it at the second round of nuclear talks in Geneva Nov 7-9, during which the six world powers spent much of the meeting agreeing on their own text which they finally presented to Zarif late November 9.

“At the second and third rounds [of P5+1 talks with Iran in Geneva], Burns was present on the margins, to be available to the P5+1 and the Iranians, and to make sure the ideas discussed were integrated back into the P5+1,” the US official said.

“Given that so much of the economic pressure on Iran comes from the United States among other reasons, that is one reason it was important to establish this direct channel,” the official said. “Our P5+1 partners all encouraged us to have a bilateral channel, and they all have their own. And they told us, eventually to get an agreement…these discussions would be necessary.”

“None of the substance in the bilateral channel differed from the P5+1,” the US official stressed. “New issues weren’t raised. It enabled more detailed discussions [to occur] in the P5+1. It’s not like any of the issues are a secret.”

Talwar has served as the top Iran advisor to the Obama White House since 2009, and previously served as a professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when it was chaired by then Senator, now Vice President Biden.

Sullivan, previously deputy chief of staff to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during Obama’s first term, became Vice President Biden’s national security advisor early this year, after Clinton atepped down from the job.

White House press officials have previously deflected queries from Al-Monitor about possible, rumored meetings involving US and Iranian officials. An NSC official suggested to Al-Monitor last week, for instance, in response to a query, that Sullivan could not be part of a meeting with Iranians because he was last week traveling with Biden in Mexico and Panama. Sullivan did not respond to a query from Al-Monitor Saturday.

Similarly, the State Department’s official public schedules have regularly dissembled about Burns’ whereabouts. During both the second and current round of P5+1 Iran nuclear talks in Geneva this month, the State Department schedule said Burns was attending meetings at the White House and State Department, when Al-Monitor has confirmed that he was in fact in Geneva, even in advance of the rest of the US negotiating team. Those were apparently the instructions of his office to the State Department press officer who puts together the schedules, the official said.

“We thought it important to have these discussions [with the Iranians] discreetly, given the amount of ground we had to cover, lots of it very complicated,” the US official said Friday. However, the official added, “while in some respects” the US-Iran channel “had to be secretive, it is not a surprise.”

Read more: http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/11/7115/exclusive-burns-led-secret-us-back-channel-to-iran/#ixzz2lbHRlHYw

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Iran nuclear program deal
9m
===

White House: President Obama has spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu about the Iranian nuclear deal – @Reuters
end of bulletin

10m
=====
White House: President Obama was focused on ensuring that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu understood that US committed to closely consulting with Israel during process – @stevebruskCNN
read more on twitter.com
=========================

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/iran-nuclear-program/

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 4:30 PM

This White House would have had a ticker tape parade for Neville Chamberlain.

rplat on November 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 23, 2013

Fact Sheet: First Step Understandings Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program

The P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) has been engaged in serious and substantive negotiations with Iran with the goal of reaching a verifiable diplomatic resolution that would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

President Obama has been clear that achieving a peaceful resolution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is in America’s national security interest. Today, the P5+1 and Iran reached a set of initial understandings that halts the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and rolls it back in key respects. These are the first meaningful limits that Iran has accepted on its nuclear program in close to a decade. The initial, six month step includes significant limits on Iran’s nuclear program and begins to address our most urgent concerns including Iran’s enrichment capabilities; its existing stockpiles of enriched uranium; the number and capabilities of its centrifuges; and its ability to produce weapons-grade plutonium using the Arak reactor. The concessions Iran has committed to make as part of this first step will also provide us with increased transparency and intrusive monitoring of its nuclear program. In the past, the concern has been expressed that Iran will use negotiations to buy time to advance their program. Taken together, these first step measures will help prevent Iran from using the cover of negotiations to continue advancing its nuclear program as we seek to negotiate a long-term, comprehensive solution that addresses all of the international community’s concerns.

In return, as part of this initial step, the P5+1 will provide limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible relief to Iran. This relief is structured so that the overwhelming majority of the sanctions regime, including the key oil, banking, and financial sanctions architecture, remains in place. The P5+1 will continue to enforce these sanctions vigorously. If Iran fails to meet its commitments, we will revoke the limited relief and impose additional sanctions on Iran.

The P5+1 and Iran also discussed the general parameters of a comprehensive solution that would constrain Iran’s nuclear program over the long term, provide verifiable assurances to the international community that Iran’s nuclear activities will be exclusively peaceful, and ensure that any attempt by Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon would be promptly detected. The set of understandings also includes an acknowledgment by Iran that it must address all United Nations Security Council resolutions – which Iran has long claimed are illegal – as well as past and present issues with Iran’s nuclear program that have been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This would include resolution of questions concerning the possible military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program, including Iran’s activities at Parchin. As part of a comprehensive solution, Iran must also come into full compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its obligations to the IAEA. With respect to the comprehensive solution, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Put simply, this first step expires in six months, and does not represent an acceptable end state to the United States or our P5+1 partners.

Halting the Progress of Iran’s Program and Rolling Back Key Elements

Iran has committed to halt enrichment above 5%:

· Halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%.

Iran has committed to neutralize its stockpile of near-20% uranium:

· Dilute below 5% or convert to a form not suitable for further enrichment its entire stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium before the end of the initial phase.

Iran has committed to halt progress on its enrichment capacity:

· Not install additional centrifuges of any type.

· Not install or use any next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium.

· Leave inoperable roughly half of installed centrifuges at Natanz and three-quarters of installed centrifuges at Fordow, so they cannot be used to enrich uranium.

· Limit its centrifuge production to those needed to replace damaged machines, so Iran cannot use the six months to stockpile centrifuges.

· Not construct additional enrichment facilities.

Iran has committed to halt progress on the growth of its 3.5% stockpile:

· Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low enriched uranium, so that the amount is not greater at the end of the six months than it is at the beginning, and any newly enriched 3.5% enriched uranium is converted into oxide.

Iran has committed to no further advances of its activities at Arak and to halt progress on its plutonium track. Iran has committed to:

· Not commission the Arak reactor.

· Not fuel the Arak reactor.

· Halt the production of fuel for the Arak reactor.

· No additional testing of fuel for the Arak reactor.

· Not install any additional reactor components at Arak.

· Not transfer fuel and heavy water to the reactor site.

· Not construct a facility capable of reprocessing. Without reprocessing, Iran cannot separate plutonium from spent fuel.

Unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program

Iran has committed to:

· Provide daily access by IAEA inspectors at Natanz and Fordow. This daily access will permit inspectors to review surveillance camera footage to ensure comprehensive monitoring. This access will provide even greater transparency into enrichment at these sites and shorten detection time for any non-compliance.

· Provide IAEA access to centrifuge assembly facilities.

· Provide IAEA access to centrifuge rotor component production and storage facilities.

· Provide IAEA access to uranium mines and mills.

· Provide long-sought design information for the Arak reactor. This will provide critical insight into the reactor that has not previously been available.

· Provide more frequent inspector access to the Arak reactor.

· Provide certain key data and information called for in the Additional Protocol to Iran’s IAEA Safeguards Agreement and Modified Code 3.1.

Verification Mechanism

The IAEA will be called upon to perform many of these verification steps, consistent with their ongoing inspection role in Iran. In addition, the P5+1 and Iran have committed to establishing a Joint Commission to work with the IAEA to monitor implementation and address issues that may arise. The Joint Commission will also work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present concerns with respect to Iran’s nuclear program, including the possible military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s activities at Parchin.

Limited, Temporary, Reversible Relief

In return for these steps, the P5+1 is to provide limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible relief while maintaining the vast bulk of our sanctions, including the oil, finance, and banking sanctions architecture. If Iran fails to meet its commitments, we will revoke the relief. Specifically the P5+1 has committed to:

· Not impose new nuclear-related sanctions for six months, if Iran abides by its commitments under this deal, to the extent permissible within their political systems.

· Suspend certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue.

· License safety-related repairs and inspections inside Iran for certain Iranian airlines.

· Allow purchases of Iranian oil to remain at their currently significantly reduced levels – levels that are 60% less than two years ago. $4.2 billion from these sales will be allowed to be transferred in installments if, and as, Iran fulfills its commitments.

· Allow $400 million in governmental tuition assistance to be transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students.

Humanitarian Transaction

Facilitate humanitarian transactions that are already allowed by U.S. law. Humanitarian transactions have been explicitly exempted from sanctions by Congress so this channel will not provide Iran access to any new source of funds. Humanitarian transactions are those related to Iran’s purchase of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices; we would also facilitate transactions for medical expenses incurred abroad. We will establish this channel for the benefit of the Iranian people.

Putting Limited Relief in Perspective

In total, the approximately $7 billion in relief is a fraction of the costs that Iran will continue to incur during this first phase under the sanctions that will remain in place. The vast majority of Iran’s approximately $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings are inaccessible or restricted by sanctions.

In the next six months, Iran’s crude oil sales cannot increase. Oil sanctions alone will result in approximately $30 billion in lost revenues to Iran – or roughly $5 billion per month – compared to what Iran earned in a six month period in 2011, before these sanctions took effect. While Iran will be allowed access to $4.2 billion of its oil sales, nearly $15 billion of its revenues during this period will go into restricted overseas accounts. In summary, we expect the balance of Iran’s money in restricted accounts overseas will actually increase, not decrease, under the terms of this deal.

Maintaining Economic Pressure on Iran and Preserving Our Sanctions Architecture

During the first phase, we will continue to vigorously enforce our sanctions against Iran, including by taking action against those who seek to evade or circumvent our sanctions.

· Sanctions affecting crude oil sales will continue to impose pressure on Iran’s government. Working with our international partners, we have cut Iran’s oil sales from 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in early 2012 to 1 million bpd today, denying Iran the ability to sell almost 1.5 million bpd. That’s a loss of more than $80 billion since the beginning of 2012 that Iran will never be able to recoup. Under this first step, the EU crude oil ban will remain in effect and Iran will be held to approximately 1 million bpd in sales, resulting in continuing lost sales worth an additional $4 billion per month, every month, going forward.

· Sanctions affecting petroleum product exports to Iran, which result in billions of dollars of lost revenue, will remain in effect.

· The vast majority of Iran’s approximately $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings remain inaccessible or restricted by our sanctions.

· Other significant parts of our sanctions regime remain intact, including:

o Sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran and approximately two dozen other major Iranian banks and financial actors;

o Secondary sanctions, pursuant to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA) as amended and other laws, on banks that do business with U.S.-designated individuals and entities;

o Sanctions on those who provide a broad range of other financial services to Iran, such as many types of insurance; and,

o Restricted access to the U.S. financial system.

· All sanctions on over 600 individuals and entities targeted for supporting Iran’s nuclear or ballistic missile program remain in effect.

· Sanctions on several sectors of Iran’s economy, including shipping and shipbuilding, remain in effect.

· Sanctions on long-term investment in and provision of technical services to Iran’s energy sector remain in effect.

· Sanctions on Iran’s military program remain in effect.

· Broad U.S. restrictions on trade with Iran remain in effect, depriving Iran of access to virtually all dealings with the world’s biggest economy

· All UN Security Council sanctions remain in effect.

· All of our targeted sanctions related to Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism, its destabilizing role in the Syrian conflict, and its abysmal human rights record, among other concerns, remain in effect.

A Comprehensive Solution

During the six-month initial phase, the P5+1 will negotiate the contours of a comprehensive solution. Thus far, the outline of the general parameters of the comprehensive solution envisions concrete steps to give the international community confidence that Iran’s nuclear activities will be exclusively peaceful. With respect to this comprehensive resolution: nothing is agreed to with respect to a comprehensive solution until everything is agreed to. Over the next six months, we will determine whether there is a solution that gives us sufficient confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful. If Iran cannot address our concerns, we are prepared to increase sanctions and pressure.

Conclusion

In sum, this first step achieves a great deal in its own right. Without this phased agreement, Iran could start spinning thousands of additional centrifuges. It could install and spin next-generation centrifuges that will reduce its breakout times. It could fuel and commission the Arak heavy water reactor. It could grow its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium to beyond the threshold for a bomb’s worth of uranium. Iran can do none of these things under the conditions of the first step understanding.

Furthermore, without this phased approach, the international sanctions coalition would begin to fray because Iran would make the case to the world that it was serious about a diplomatic solution and we were not. We would be unable to bring partners along to do the crucial work of enforcing our sanctions. With this first step, we stop and begin to roll back Iran’s program and give Iran a sharp choice: fulfill its commitments and negotiate in good faith to a final deal, or the entire international community will respond with even more isolation and pressure.

The American people prefer a peaceful and enduring resolution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and strengthens the global non-proliferation regime. This solution has the potential to achieve that. Through strong and principled diplomacy, the United States of America will do its part for greater peace, security, and cooperation among nations.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/23/fact-sheet-first-step-understandings-regarding-islamic-republic-iran-s-n

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Obama was looking for a distraction and he stumbled into this piece of crap. Don’t let him get away with it .

rplat on November 24, 2013 at 4:42 PM

* The Stache *

Abject Surrender by the United States
What does Israel do now?
8:50 AM, Nov 24, 2013 * By JOHN BOLTON
**************************************

Negotiations for an “interim” arrangement over Iran’s nuclear weapons program finally succeeded this past weekend, as Security Council foreign ministers (plus Germany) flew to Geneva to meet their Iranian counterpart. After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result. So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective. Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement. Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.” This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.

In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.

Second, Iran has gained legitimacy. This central banker of international terrorism and flagrant nuclear proliferator is once again part of the international club. Much as the Syria chemical-weapons agreement buttressed Bashar al-Assad, the mullahs have escaped the political deep freezer.

Third, Iran has broken the psychological momentum and effect of the international economic sanctions. While estimates differ on Iran’s precise gain, it is considerable ($7 billion is the lowest estimate), and presages much more. Tehran correctly assessed that a mere six-months’ easing of sanctions will make it extraordinarily hard for the West to reverse direction, even faced with systematic violations of Iran’s nuclear pledges. Major oil-importing countries (China, India, South Korea, and others) were already chafing under U.S. sanctions, sensing President Obama had no stomach either to impose sanctions on them, or pay the domestic political price of granting further waivers.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s earlier warning that this was “the deal of the century” for Iran has unfortunately been vindicated. Given such an inadequate deal, what motivated Obama to agree? The inescapable conclusion is that, the mantra notwithstanding, the White House actually did prefer a bad deal to the diplomatic process grinding to a halt. This deal was a “hail Mary” to buy time. Why?

Buying time for its own sake makes sense in some negotiating contexts, but the sub silentio objective here was to jerry-rig yet another argument to wield against Israel and its fateful decision whether or not to strike Iran. Obama, fearing that strike more than an Iranian nuclear weapon, clearly needed greater international pressure on Jerusalem. And Jerusalem fully understands that Israel was the real target of the Geneva negotiations. How, therefore, should Israel react?

Most importantly, the deal leaves the basic strategic realities unchanged. Iran’s nuclear program was, from its inception, a weapons program, and it remains one today. Even modest constraints, easily and rapidly reversible, do not change that fundamental political and operational reality. And while some already-known aspects of Iran’s nuclear program are returned to enhanced scrutiny, the undeclared and likely unknown military work will continue to expand, thus recalling the drunk looking for his lost car keys under the street lamp because of the better lighting.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/abject-surrender-united-states_768140.html
===================

PAGE:# 2

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/abject-surrender-united-states_768140.html?page=2

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM

The Associated Press ‏@AP 27m

BREAKING: Obama phones Israeli PM Netanyahu, pledges consultations with ally on Iran nuclear deal.

The Hill ‏@thehill 21m

Breaking: White House says Obama, Netanyahu “reaffirmed their shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” during call

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM

November 24, 2013, 04:46 pm
Obama promises to keep Israel in Iran loop

President Obama phoned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, promising to consult with him on ongoing efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

Obama told Netanyahu that he wanted to begin consultations “immediately” on Iran, after diplomats struck a temporary deal in Geneva to begin placing limits on Iran’s nuclear ambitions in exchange for sanctions relief.

Netanyahu blasted that accord after it was struck, calling it a “horrible mistake.” He added that Israel would not be bound by it.

According to a White House readout of the call, the two “reaffirmed their shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Obama reiterated that the six-month deal will provide an opportunity to strike a “lasting, peaceful, and comprehensive solution” to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Even as Israel criticized the deal, Obama told Netanyahu that the U.S. “will remain firm in our commitment to Israel, which has good reason to be skeptical about Iran’s intentions.”

The two agreed to stay in close contact over the next six months as talks progressed.

The new deal places new limits on Iran’s nuclear capabilities by capping its stockpile and halting work on a new reactor at its Arak site, as well as the construction of new centrifuges. The two sides disagree on whether the agreement allows Iran to enrich its uranium, and whether it takes any military action against the country off the table.

In exchange, the U.S. and international partners agreed to temporarily relax economic sanctions on Iran, specifically in the sale of its crude oil, automotive sector, and other parts of the economy.

The deal has been met with skepticism from lawmakers in both parties. Republicans and Democrats have said the deal is disproportionately favorable to Iran, and have doubted that country’s willingness to actually adhere to the terms of deal. Top senators have indicated that they will use the six-month negotiation period to craft a new set of harsher sanctions that could go in place if talks falter.
===================================

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-eastnorth-africa/191288-obama-calls-netanyahu-on-iran-nuke-deal

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM

The Associated Press ‏@AP 3m

MORE: Obama has called Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to discuss Iran nuclear deal: http://apne.ws/1chLXdN -SS
==============================================

Obama phones Israeli PM to discuss Iran deal
Nov. 24, 2013 4:47 PM EST
*************************

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — The White House says President Barack Obama has phoned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss a tentative deal with Iran over its nuclear program.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters traveling with Obama on Sunday that the United States looks forward to consulting with its ally Israel on international negotiations with Tehran. Earnest says the White House understands Israel’s skepticism about Iran’s intentions.

In an early morning announcement, Tehran agreed Sunday to a six-month pause of its nuclear program while diplomats continue talks aimed at preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu criticized the deal, calling it a “historic mistake” and saying he was not bound by the agreement.
==========================================

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-phones-israeli-pm-discuss-iran-deal

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Heh, Obama will let Iran develop nuclear energy,
but for all intensive purposes kills it here in the US.

redguy on November 24, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Mahmoud ‏@MahmoudRamsey 3m

Full text (only four pages) of the #Iran agreement in PDF format. | http://goo.gl/Htsf9i #GenevaTalks
===================================

Geneva, 24 November 2013

Joint Plan Of Action
********************

http://i.alalam.ir/news/Image/original/2013/11/24/agreement.pdf

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Barack Obama = Arthur Neville Chamberlain

How come liberals are damned to repeat history?

They really are stupid.

Their supposed intelligence will kill us all.

redguy on November 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM

That won’t resonate far, because the proggies have been at work for a decade or two rebuilding Chamberlain’s reputation.

slickwillie2001 on November 24, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Obama’s Statement on Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program

President Obama’s statement on the first-step agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, issued by the White House on Saturday night.
*************************************************************

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Today, the United States — together with our close allies and partners — took an important first step toward a comprehensive solution that addresses our concerns with the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program.

Since I took office, I’ve made clear my determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. As I’ve said many times, my strong preference is to resolve this issue peacefully, and we’ve extended the hand of diplomacy. Yet for many years, Iran has been unwilling to meet its obligations to the international community. So my administration worked with Congress, the United Nations Security Council and countries around the world to impose unprecedented sanctions on the Iranian government.

These sanctions have had a substantial impact on the Iranian economy, and with the election of a new Iranian President earlier this year, an opening for diplomacy emerged. I spoke personally with President Rouhani of Iran earlier this fall. Secretary Kerry has met multiple times with Iran’s Foreign Minister. And we have pursued intensive diplomacy — bilaterally with the Iranians, and together with our P5-plus-1 partners — the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as the European Union.

Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure — a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.

While today’s announcement is just a first step, it achieves a great deal. For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program, and key parts of the program will be rolled back. Iran has committed to halting certain levels of enrichment and neutralizing part of its stockpiles. Iran cannot use its next-generation centrifuges, which are used for enriching uranium. Iran cannot install or start up new centrifuges, and its production of centrifuges will be limited. Iran will halt work at its plutonium reactor. And new inspections will provide extensive access to Iran’s nuclear facilities and allow the international community to verify whether Iran is keeping its commitments.

These are substantial limitations which will help prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Simply put, they cut off Iran’s most likely paths to a bomb. Meanwhile, this first step will create time and space over the next six months for more negotiations to fully address our comprehensive concerns about the Iranian program. And because of this agreement, Iran cannot use negotiations as cover to advance its program.

On our side, the United States and our friends and allies have agreed to provide Iran with modest relief, while continuing to apply our toughest sanctions. We will refrain from imposing new sanctions, and we will allow the Iranian government access to a portion of the revenue that they have been denied through sanctions. But the broader architecture of sanctions will remain in place and we will continue to enforce them vigorously. And if Iran does not fully meet its commitments during this six-month phase, we will turn off the relief and ratchet up the pressure.

Over the next six months, we will work to negotiate a comprehensive solution. We approach these negotiations with a basic understanding: Iran, like any nation, should be able to access peaceful nuclear energy. But because of its record of violating its obligations, Iran must accept strict limitations on its nuclear program that make it impossible to develop a nuclear weapon.

In these negotiations, nothing will be agreed to unless everything is agreed to. The burden is on Iran to prove to the world that its nuclear program will be exclusively for peaceful purposes.

If Iran seizes this opportunity, the Iranian people will benefit from rejoining the international community, and we can begin to chip away at the mistrust between our two nations. This would provide Iran with a dignified path to forge a new beginning with the wider world based on mutual respect. If, on the other hand, Iran refuses, it will face growing pressure and isolation.

Over the last few years, Congress has been a key partner in imposing sanctions on the Iranian government, and that bipartisan effort made possible the progress that was achieved today. Going forward, we will continue to work closely with Congress. However, now is not the time to move forward on new sanctions -– because doing so would derail this promising first step, alienate us from our allies and risk unraveling the coalition that enabled our sanctions to be enforced in the first place.

That international unity is on display today. The world is united in support of our determination to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran must know that security and prosperity will never come through the pursuit of nuclear weapons — it must be reached through fully verifiable agreements that make Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons impossible.

As we go forward, the resolve of the United States will remain firm, as will our commitments to our friends and allies –- particularly Israel and our Gulf partners, who have good reason to be skeptical about Iran’s intentions.

Ultimately, only diplomacy can bring about a durable solution to the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But I have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully, rather than rush towards conflict. Today, we have a real opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, peaceful settlement, and I believe we must test it.

The first step that we’ve taken today marks the most significant and tangible progress that we’ve made with Iran since I took office. And now we must use the months ahead to pursue a lasting and comprehensive settlement that would resolve an issue that has threatened our security — and the security of our allies — for decades. It won’t be easy, and huge challenges remain ahead. But through strong and principled diplomacy, the United States of America will do our part on behalf of a world of greater peace, security, and cooperation among nations.

Thank you very much.

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-390528/

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Since I oppose what the Federal government has become, I chose this name.

antifederalist on November 24, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Oh you don’t listen to blockchords. All that history stuff is just so confusing and was a long time ago anywho. You call yourself anything you want.
And I wouldn’t listen to anything Victor Davis Hanson had to say. He’ll make you sad.

onomo on November 24, 2013 at 5:55 PM

No doubt it was a birthday present…

Born: November 14, 1956 (age 57), Shiraz, Iran

… Happy Birthday, Valerie!

Seven Percent Solution on November 24, 2013 at 6:01 PM

No doubt it was a birthday present…

Born: November 14, 1956 (age 57), Shiraz, Iran

… Happy Birthday, Valerie!

Seven Percent Solution on November 24, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Seven Percent Solution: Good one SPS—-:)

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 6:40 PM

That picture. It shows the sincere human face of someone who has gotten exactly what they want.

Mimzey on November 24, 2013 at 7:06 PM

If the death panels don’t getcha, Iran’s nukes will.

Good job, scooter.

petefrt on November 24, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Maybe Kerry sees a Peace Prize in his future.

TimBuk3 on November 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Obama has kept a promise: if you like your nuclear program, you can keep your nuclear program.

Dhuka on November 24, 2013 at 7:31 PM

“Peace in Our Time”.

Iran ought to pull the trigger in about, oohh…six or eight months. Not that I claim to be a nuclear programs expert, but they appear to have been working on a nuclear weapon for quite some time. With sanctions lifted, it’ll probably speed up their R&D exponentially, and they won’t “threaten” Israel…it’ll be a full-on field-test.

I hope liberals enjoy the post-apocalyptic world. …I know I will.

a5minmajor on November 24, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Our president daily, weekly, monthly, and annually celebrates his idiocy.

Sherman1864 on November 24, 2013 at 8:59 PM

78 percent of the Jewish vote went to Obama. My friends, there is nothing enlightened about giving those who want to cut your throat the sharpest knife.

V7_Sport on November 24, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Iran nuclear program deal
9m
===

White House: President Obama has spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu about the Iranian nuclear deal – @Reuters
end of bulletin

10m
=====
White House: President Obama was focused on ensuring that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu understood that US committed to closely consulting with Israel during process – @stevebruskCNN
read more on twitter.com
=========================

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/iran-nuclear-program/

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 4:30 PM

I understand that Obama Called Netanyahu to assure him that if he likes his country he can keep his country!

jaydee_007 on November 24, 2013 at 11:05 PM

Americans support an Iran nuclear deal 2 to 1. That’s a big deal.

Wake up to reality. Warmongers, weep!!!

antifederalist on November 24, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Who said?

“Since I first went to Berchtesgaden, more than 20,000 letters and telegrams have come to No.10, Downing Street. Of course, I have been able to look at a tiny fraction of them, but I have seen enough to know that the people who wrote did not feel that they had such a cause for which to fight, if they were asked to go to war in order that the Sudeten Germans might not join the Reich.”

Who said?

“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”

Who was right?

Who never learned?

Shy Guy on November 24, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Bait n switch. Obamacare is a wreck. Change subject. Iran gets nukes. Change Subject. Bad economy..Time for Obama to release his March Madness tournament teams.

Gedge on November 25, 2013 at 6:37 AM

If Zarif shaved his beard and took off his glasses, he’d look like the “Mayhem like me” guy in the Geico commercials.

Weird coincidence, isn’t it?

NoPain on November 25, 2013 at 7:59 AM

This is perhaps the worst foreign policy blunder in several generations. It makes the world a more dangerous place by bowing to a regime that is largely responsible for a great deal of conflict in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Iran’s fingerprints are all over just about every anti-American effort perpetrated by terrorists and Jihadists. They have funded efforts to create everything from IED’s, weapon and training that are used daily against our military. Iran has kept places like Lebanon under their thumb and have been involved in opposition movements from Iraq to Syria- all the while moving closer to building a nuclear weapon. For what? As a negotiating tool? To negotiate what exactly?

Notwithstanding the aforementioned, what does this indicate to an Iranian populations that has been put under the thumb of one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet? Are they to believe we still stand for freedom, democracy and righteous humanity? Hardly and it is quite the opposite.

What Mr. Obama and Kerry have done is reward the Iranians for all their ignominy. They will provide them with much needed cash to further fund their efforts I’ve mentioned above and also move themselves one step closer to the bomb.

With this “deal” we’ve reversed all the gain made with sanctions and thrown in with one of the worst, most dangerous dictatorships in the world. For what? Appearances or perhaps distraction from the President’s other domestic disasters?

This is not only foolish and naive, but makes the world a more dangerous place. The incompetence and mendacity is staggering.

Marcus Traianus on November 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM

If Israel is assured that Iran is on the cusp of a nuclear weapon and that they intend on deploying it against them, then they are free to attack Iran. I don’t understand why the US has to be involved.

antifederalist on November 24, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Because in every rant Muslims make about Israel, the US is next on their list. But only the people that actually listen to what they’re saying will hear it. The US may not have to participate directly, but should be prepared.

dominigan on November 25, 2013 at 8:47 AM

And let’s not forget the French, who alleged to have “substantive” disagreements to any Iranian deal.

The French now are poised to profit handsomely from this agreement. Their companies have the largest economic interests in Iran.

Apparently, their “substantiation” had to do with how much they would potentially profit from the agreement. It looks like their mark has also been hit.

Marcus Traianus on November 25, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Our President is virulently anti-American.

Just think about that.

justltl on November 25, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Our local left-wing paper(I hesitate to call it, “News-”, but to be fair, it IS on paper) had a big, optimistic headline yesterday:
DEAL REACHED!
Wow, you would have thought that the Japanese surrendered and WW2 just ended.

I read it and found nothing that solves anything or that Iran will adhere to(They’re so honest, you know).

Sterling Holobyte on November 25, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Sadly, President Obama has left Pastor Saeed in Iran to die…

Fallon on November 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM

“Beware a smiling Persian”. If that’s not a centuries old adage, it should be.

SpiderMike on November 25, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Great transcript of a speech made by Rep. Louis Gohmert at the Freedom Center about ten days ago. He touches on the many ways that this administration has been lawless. The very last part notes the numerous times that the Obysmal administration has betrayed Israel.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/rep-louie-gohmert-the-intentional-betrayal-of-israel

onlineanalyst on November 25, 2013 at 8:10 PM

antifederalist on November 24, 2013 at 9:55 AM

You really are too stupid to walk and breath at the same time.

Just one instance: YELLOWCAKE
We shipped over 550 metric tons of yellowcake from Iraq to Canada.

If you can’t even get that right, why would anyone give credence to anything you write.

Not only are you stupid…you’re a LIAR, as well.
As such, you are a nobody who can be safely ignored; or – at best – laughed at.

Solaratov on November 26, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Next, John Horseface Chamberlain will tell us he spent Christmas in Geneva.

growl on November 24, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Yeah…but does he have a hat to prove it?

Solaratov on November 26, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Only fools, the cowards, and the traitors sent US soldiers to be maimed and killed for lies.

antifederalist on November 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM

But not you. Right, nancy-boy?

Nobody ever got you into a uniform, did they?

You’re just too smart to fall for any of that patriotism crap, aren’t you? Just like all cowardly leftists, you want the privilege without the price.

Solaratov on November 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Time for Netanyahu to lunch with Putin.

virgo on November 26, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3