Six Powers Clinch Breakthrough Deal Curbing Iran's Nuclear Activity

First, the Obama Administration got Syria to destroy it's chemical weapons and their means of production without firing a shot. Now, Iran has agreed to halt it's nuclear ambitions in a deal announced earlier today. A necessary first step on Iran's part that does not rely on trust but rather daily inspections. All of this good foreign policy news will undoubtedly be heralded by the GOP as major accomplishments that make this country that much more safe and secure I'm sure.

Enter GOP faithful John Cornyn...

"Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care" Cornyn tweets

Yes, I am almost certain that the deal we have been trying to strike with Iran over their nuclear weapons ambitions all these years was all just a cynical game to distract this country from the GOP's obsession with Obamacare. What else could it possibly be?

 

Oh, sure.. don't listen to those crazy Israelis. They don't know what they're talking about. (sarcasm).

John Kerry is a loser and an idiot. (no sarcasm).

Report: Kerry Tells Senators ‘Stop Listening To Israelis’ On Iran​

​

​

​

United States Secretary of State John Kerry has controversially claimed that American Senators should 'stop listening to the Israelis' in respect to Iran's nuclear program.​

​

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/24/report-kerry-tells-senators-‘stop-listening-israelis’-iran​

 

Peace In Our Time...(WooHoo!!!)

 

A Hitler reference

 

‘Historic Mistake’: Netanyahu Says Israel Not Bound By Iran Nuke Deal​

​

(Newsmax)
A "dangerous" and "historic mistake" was how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterized the deal reached in Geneva between six world powers, the so-called P5+1 – the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union – and Iran.

Netanyahu told the Israeli cabinet Sunday that Jerusalem was not bound by the agreement which legitimizes Iranian nuclear enrichment, according to Israel Radio.

Saying that Iran was committed to Israel's destruction and that the Jewish state has the right to defend itself, Netanyahu reiterated that Jerusalem would not stand by as Iran gains nuclear weapons capability.

Israel's scathing reaction is tied to the fact that the agreement does not force Iran to stop enriching uranium, or to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges, or agree to a completely unrestricted inspection regime by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Israeli media are reporting.



http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/2...etanyahu-says-israel-not-bound-iran-nuke-deal

 

Hey, if the shoe fits.....

 

Nope...a Neville Chamberlain reference.

I'm STOKED!! Who would have thought that Middle East Peace was as simple as ignoring Israel. We could have done that forty (40) years ago and saved ourselves a whole lot of money and trouble. What's the worst case scenario...Palestinians take over Israel? ...who cares?!

...not Democrats, apparently.

 

Putin brokered the Syrian deal after Syria kept crossing BO's "lines" and BO began the sabre rattling.

 

So we should listen to Israel rather than our own Secretary of State? I wonder at what point the Right-wing in this country abdicated our foreign policy to the Israelis?

Bomb-Bomb..Bomb Iran... Oh yeah!

 

So Putin gets the credit rather than our foreign policy team? The absolute hypocrisy of the Right-wing is complete. They have officially lost all connection with reality in order to maintain their fanatical hatred of the black guy in the White House.

 

Well, that's the end of this thread. As usual, you brought race into it. From this point forward, you're just arguing with yourself.

 

What credit should "our foreign policy team" be given, exactly? Our conflict with Syria was going nowhere (well, I guess we were heading toward military action, weren't we?) until Putin stepped in & took charge. BO has made himself such an irrelevant joke on the world stage that he's completely impotent in international matters.

 

So, let's recap BO's last 3 foreign policy opportunities....
1) Putin brokered the deal BO couldn't accomplish with Syria
2) BO caves to Iran & basically "negotiates" business as usual regarding their nuclear program
3) BO decides he wants to commit thousands of US troops (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to Afghanistan for the next 10 years.

Great job!

 

When it comes to foreign policy, I think it's important that America speaks with one voice. As I mentioned before, there are many Democrats that I admire and seek out their views in the process of developing my own.

One of those Democrats is the former Senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman. Given his Jewish heritage, I believe he can offer a Fair & Balance assessment of our new policy towards Iran. He wrote an Op-Ed to the Washington Post a few days ago, before the agreement was finalized (See link below).

He supports the President and the Six State agreement that was reached. However, he acknowledges Iranian ambitions in the region and heightened sensitivities of our Allies.

His conclusion, which I hadn't considered, is that the Obama Administration will necessarily have to be more openly engaged with Syria and Iraq. Let's see if Obama steps up or if Israel and Saudi Arabia need to take matters into their own hands.

Joseph Lieberman...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...f97882-5081-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html

 

Little Joe, exactly HOW do you think this is a good deal?

View attachment 2128

 

So one Jewish Democrat wants no deal whatsoever with Iran and the entire Right-wing of course. That's some "double-barreled attack". meh!

 

How about Chuck Schumer? Is that enough of a big-wig for ya?

Sen. Chuck Schumer is panning President Obama’s deal with Iran.

The New York Democrat and key White House ally sounded less than pleased with the agreement during a Sunday night speech to Ohel, a Jewish social service group. The deal calls for Iran to slow down its nuclear program in exchange for a loosening of international sanctions.

“Democrats and Republicans are going to work to see that we don’t let up on these sanctions,” Schumer said. He also promised to keep up pressure against the country “until Iran not only gives up all nuclear weapons, but all nuclear weapon capability.”

“So I want to leave you with that plan and that assurance,” Schumer said, according to video published by JP Updates.

“It was strong sanctions, not the goodness of the hearts of the Iranian leaders, that brought Iran to the table, and any reduction relieves the psychological pressure of future sanctions and gives them hope that they will be able to gain nuclear weapon capability while further sanctions are reduced,” Schumer said in a Sunday statement.
Schumer’s remarks could signal that Obama faces an uphill battle as he works to convince pro-Israel Democrats to support the deal.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/2...-schumer-slams-obama’s-iran-deal-jewish-forum

 

So...Joe, what's your opinion of Joe Lieberman's OpEd piece in the Liberal Washington Post? It's about as far away I can get from Fox News and still hold my dinner down.

 

Key Democratic senator says White House 'fear-mongering' on Iran

The Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee accused the Obama administration Wednesday of using "fear-mongering" rhetoric in urging Congress to delay new sanctions against Iran as world powers try to secure nuclear concessions from Tehran.

Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said he would continue to push for fresh sanctions in the wake of a nuclear deal brokered in Geneva, in which Iran agrees to a six-month pause in its nuclear program in exchange for eased sanctions worth $7 billion.

Menendez, speaking on the National Public Radio program "All Things Considered," cited White House Press Secretary Jay Carney's remarks at a recent press briefing about Americans not wanting a "march to war" with Iran as over-the-top rhetoric.

"What I don't appreciate is when I hear remarks out of the White House spokesman that ... if we're pursuing sanctions we're marching the country off to war. I think that's way over the top, I think that's fear-mongering," Menendez said, according to Reuters.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ator-says-white-house-fear-mongering-on-iran/

 

Hmmmmmm....... very interesting. Thirteen dimocrat senators along with an equal number of Republican senators have authored a bill that's completely contrary to Obama's intentions with Iran. THIRTEEN! That's nothing to sneeze at, Little Joe. How do you feel about 13 dimocrat senators defying our Dear Leader?

Democratic, GOP senators defy Obama with Iran sanctions bill

December 19, 2013
Twenty-six senators, half of them Democrats, defied President Obama on Thursday by introducing a bill that could impose new sanctions on Iran -- despite urgent pleas from the White House to shelve the legislation.

Several sources told Fox News that White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other top officials had been calling top Democrats over the last 24 hours urging them not to move forward.

After it was introduced, Obama's chief spokesman, Jay Carney, said the bill could "derail" nuclear talks and "divide the international community." The White House also threatened to veto.

But the senators pushed the legislation arguing that it could help bring about a better deal in the end. The bill calls for "prospective sanctions" that go into effect if Tehran violates the nuclear deal it reached with world powers last month or lets it expire without a long-term accord.

The measures include a global boycott on Iranian oil exports within one year and the blacklisting of Iran's mining, engineering and construction industries. The goal, according to supporters, is to strengthen the negotiating leverage of the Obama administration as it seeks to pressure Iran into a comprehensive agreement next year that would eliminate the risk of the Islamic republic developing nuclear weapons.

"Current sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table and a credible threat of future sanctions will require Iran to cooperate and act in good faith at the negotiating table," Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

The legislation is sponsored by 13 Democrats and 13 Republicans. It was introduced by Menendez and Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill. Among the prominent senators to join as co-sponsors were Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Under the Geneva deal with Iran, the Obama administration promised no new sanctions for six months. It has furiously lobbied Congress not to act during that period.

Asked about the bill on Thursday, Carney said: "We don't think it will be enacted, we certainly don't think it should be enacted." He said it was not necessary, since Congress can "act quickly" to sanction Iran at any point if necessary.

Under the bill, the administration would have to certify to Congress every 30 days Iran's adherence to the interim pact. Without that certification, the legislation would re-impose all sanctions that have been eased and put in place the new restrictions. Foreign companies and banks violating the bans would be barred from doing business in the United States. Beyond the economic measures, the bill includes potentially contentious language requiring strong American action if Israel decides to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear program. Israeli Prime Minister Benajmin Netanyahu has regularly issued such threats.

A Senate vote is unlikely to happen until January at the earliest.

Kirk called the draft law "an insurance policy to defend against Iranian deception."

Iran's foreign minister has said new sanctions could scuttle hopes of a diplomatic resolution. Iran maintains its program is solely for peaceful energy production and medical research purposes, but the United States and many other countries harbor severe doubts. Israel is perhaps most adamant in insisting Iran's true intentions are to develop an atomic weapons arsenal.

Highlighting the divisions among Democrats about new sanctions, Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., penned an opinion piece Thursday saying the package of restrictions "would run the risk of derailing efforts toward a peaceful resolution, and risk the unity we have achieved with the world community that has been so crucial."

"We shouldn't pass legislation now that would endanger negotiations that most people and countries want to succeed," they said. "Such congressional action now could bolster the efforts of Iran's militants to kill the deal."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ama-back-iran-sanctions-bill/?intcmp=HPBucket