- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,666
- Reaction score
- 39,922
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
... ?I certainly would not be surprised, if it weren't legally binding.
The reason that Obama is doing this is the longterm bet that if delay Iran long enough, eventually the moderates and reformers will come into power (e.g., the 2011 Green Revolution) or exert enough influence to void the hardliner's nuclear aspirations.
... and if you don't get it, like FOX News doesn't.
The US is not negotiating a treaty, nor anything "legally binding" with Iran. In fact the US does not even have a diplomatic relationship with Iran. A treaty with a county we do not have a diplomatic relationship with would be very strange. Instead what the US is doing is helping broker an 'executive agreement' between the P5+1 countries -- Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- which is an agreement conducted only by the executive branch, represented by the State Branch under Secretary Kerry.
What's being discussed is not the brunt of the US' sanctions on Iran, with whom we've not traded with since the 80s, but the sanctions that P5+1 as a coalition is holding over Iran. What P5+1 as a coalition is demanding is that Iran enthusiastically adhere to its already agreed upon binding non-proliferation obligations, submit to further reviews by watchdog groups and a few other stipulations. In exchange Iran will receive temporary relief on the sanctions from the coalition as a whole. We don't know exactly what form of relief will be delivered, because that's what is being discussed, but it could be anything from member countries like Germany lifting trade restrictions, to unfreezing cash assets or something like the WTO or the World Bank offering backing or assistance to Iran.
The Iran deal is not a treaty, nor does it need to be "legally binding." That's because it's primarily a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran shows even the slightest bit of backtracking, the P5+1 coalition will be able to immediately pull back the relief. This is also why Tom Cotton is a moron. There's nothing the Senate will do to sign off on the deal. Not unless Cotton decides to (1) overthrow and assume the executive branch's role in diplomacy, (2) overthrow and assume leadership over Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, as well as NGOs like the WTO/World Bank, or (3) do something very illegal beyond staging a coup.
The reason that Obama is doing this is the longterm bet that if delay Iran long enough, eventually the moderates and reformers will come into power (e.g., the 2011 Green Revolution) or exert enough influence to void the hardliner's nuclear aspirations.
:doh Then he's an idiot. They just selected the guy in charge of the Council of Experts who will oversee the selection of the next Supreme Leader. Hint: not a Green Revolutionary, who are mostly either in jail or at home nursing broken bones and the like. Giving Iran nuclear capability in hopes of enabling the Green Revolution types is like giving Putin Crimea in hopes of enabling Russian Homosexuals.
:doh Then he's an idiot. They just selected the guy in charge of the Council of Experts who will oversee the selection of the next Supreme Leader. Hint: not a Green Revolutionary, who are mostly either in jail or at home nursing broken bones and the like. Giving Iran nuclear capability in hopes of enabling the Green Revolution types is like giving Putin Crimea in hopes of enabling Russian Homosexuals.
It's a unilateral agreement that "sets up a framework for enforceability". Since the US hasn't had diplomatic relations with Iran for 35 years...they gotta start somewhere. What's the alternative besides war?
It's a unilateral agreement that "sets up a framework for enforceability". Since the US hasn't had diplomatic relations with Iran for 35 years...they gotta start somewhere. What's the alternative besides war?
Iran might be religious ideologues but I don't think they're irrational or suicidal.
Iran might be religious ideologues but I don't think they're irrational or suicidal.
Yep, Obama wants to keep things "cool" with Iran (and Israel) until his term as POTUS is over. Meanwhile, Iran will continue to keep its nuclear program going, sponsor "terrorists" and expand its regional power.
Was it a declared war by congress or just wishful thinking by neocons?1. We are already at war with Iran, and have been for at least a decade. More, depending on how you count.
From what I understand, the sanctions are still in place and they didn't prevent Iran from building/expanding it's nuclear energy program.2. If by "war", however, you mean full conventional military seizure of sovereign space, well then, there is a full range of military and non-military options available prior to that. Simply re instituting the sanctions, for example.
Iran might be religious ideologues but I don't think they're irrational or suicidal.
Bingo. But by the time Iran actually publicly goes nuclear, it's Not His Problem.
Ignoring what I said and replacing it with a strawman speaks volumes, too.Μολὼν λαβέ;1064419275 said:You don't think the country of Iran's leaders' that have threatened to blow Israel off the map and track down Jews world wide to kill them aren't irrational?
You don't think Iran being one of the biggest state supporters of global terrorism isn't irrational?
That speaks volumes...
1. We are already at war with Iran, and have been for at least a decade. More, depending on how you count.
2. If by "war", however, you mean full conventional military seizure of sovereign space, well then, there is a full range of military and non-military options available prior to that. Simply re instituting the sanctions, for example.
I thought we were talking Iran's government and as far as I know, they've never used "suicide bombers".Are you kidding me? You don't see (even a smidgeon of) irrationality or willingness to become martyrs among "religious ideologues" aka "extreme Islamic terrorists"?
... ?
ad·mit confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance.
Kerry's not confessing or admitting anything. The deal doesn't and shouldn't be "legally binding. " It's an executive agreement.
I thought we were talking Iran's government and as far as I know, they've never used "suicide bombers".
Ba-WA-hahahahahahahahaha! :lamo
the $1 million question.Iran might be religious ideologues but I don't think they're irrational or suicidal.