• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran Threatens to Walk Away From Nuke Deal After New Missile Test

Some are, but few go to the extent we do.

We do because we can.

I don't agree with meddling but, foreseeing potential threats and acting on them is wise in today's geopolitical climate
 
We do because we can.

I don't agree with meddling but, foreseeing potential threats and acting on them is wise in today's geopolitical climate

You really think that is what is happening? (The reality of our policy has a much different conclusion.)
 
How bad did we mess up this deal with Iran?

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) test-fired two ballistic missiles on Wednesday that it said were designed to be able to hit Israel, defying U.S. criticism of similar tests carried out the previous day.

Do we have leverage anymore? Do they still get our economic support?
 
anyone who isn't a registered democrat actually believed that Iran would stick to the deal?
 
How bad did we mess up this deal with Iran?

Do we have leverage anymore? Do they still get our economic support?

A long way back when our more left leaning friends were arguing for dealing with Iran, they did have a point but I argued that it was foolish to trust that Iran would stick to the deal. Their goals in the region, and their goals for their economy, and goals of their ideological leaders are not always on the same page. They may never be on the same page.

But the idea that Iran is continuing to increase their presence and ability to strike Israel in multiple regards suggests they have already ignored the intentions of the deal. It was always more than just nuclear productions for military purposes, but we are past that.

No one is in a condition to really trust anyone else, that is why the deal was doomed from the start. There is no basis for trust and odds are economic sanctions are on the way. Well, unless the Obama administration and the UN has zero backbone then Iran will have a green-light to go to the next evolution of weapons development. What to put in that vehicle to deliver to Israel.
 
Iran is no threat to the US.
 
No one should be even mildly surprised at this. This marks the second time since January that Iran is violating UN restrictions (payload/range) regarding its ballistic missiles.
 
It had to do with Obama's concept of an effective legacy.

That is what I'm reading from you and other posters. And what of Kerry's, and for that matter, Hilary Clinton's legacy as Secretary of State?

Hilary is on record as being in support of the Iran deal, although she has said she didn't trust the regime. That's an interesting way to believe common ground has been reached.

In the end, Iran gets it's hands on $10's of billions, and nothing has been accomplished.

My guess is the same backroom people who negotiate trade deals were involved in the backroom work on the Iran deal.
 
Where'd you go? You've been shown numerous "reputable" sources. Cat got yer tongue? :roll:

I would note that Iran, as part of the nuclear deal, did not agree to stop ballistic missile testing. That is the subject of other sanctions that were not rolled back (and, in fact, increased) following Iran's continued testing of ballistic missiles. Instead, Iran agreed to several aspects with relations to its nuclear capabilities - some of which it has fulfilled.

The bluster from Iranian diplomats is aimed at trying to link the newly imposed sanctions for the ballistic missile testing to the nuclear deal. The requirements and sanctions of each are not related in the eyes of the six nations that reached the nuclear agreement with Iran. If Iran wishes to link the two together, and takes actions that are inconsistent with the requirements from the nuclear deal, then the "snap back" provision will kick in and the Iranian sanctions from the nuclear deal will be reimposed.

The fact that Iran, during its most recent election, virtually allowed a sweep for the moderate faction of the Government makes that later move unlikely.
 
The Administration will fold. They need that agreement far more than Iran does.

But isn't it kind of interesting how Iran is acting exactly like conservatives said it would...?
But but but... this is impossible. My liberal friends on Facebook assured me that the nuke deal was a shining moment of Obama Administration diplomacy.
 
But but but... this is impossible. My liberal friends on Facebook assured me that the nuke deal was a shining moment of Obama Administration diplomacy.

Iran isn't building a nuke. ;)
 
A slap in the face of our administration many of us have seen coming. Like Iran was committed to honoring anything. Right. May be in the distance future, but not now.

Was there ever a deal? I don't think Iran ever signed the non binding agreement. But they got paid 150 billion.

This from National Review, it's a couple of months old, but I believe it's still true.

President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review. “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter. Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.
 
Was there ever a deal? I don't think Iran ever signed the non binding agreement. But they got paid 150 billion.

This from National Review, it's a couple of months old, but I believe it's still true.

President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review. “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter. Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

They did not get paid 150B.
 
John Kerry: Some money Iran received will fund terrorism - CNNPolitics.com

The news sources say otherwise. Some of the money went to pay off outstanding debts. Leaving Iran with a substantial chunk of change. And no downside whatever.

This relies a bit on semantics; however, Iran was not technically paid anything. In exchange for their agreement to dismantle multiple aspects of their nuclear program and to agree to subject themselves to the most rigorous and invasive nuclear inspection regime in the world, the United States agreed to un-freeze assets that were previously frozen as a result of nuclear sanctions.
 

I showed you evidence of where the nuclear agreement has actually accomplished something concrete (pun intended). Your response of noting that Iran has violated an arguably unrelated ballistic missile sanctions or the political arguments made by those opposed to the deal in regards to the ability of Iran to somehow hide its nuclear work within a 72 hour period does not dismiss my evidence or change that evidence into "hope."
 
This relies a bit on semantics; however, Iran was not technically paid anything. In exchange for their agreement to dismantle multiple aspects of their nuclear program and to agree to subject themselves to the most rigorous and invasive nuclear inspection regime in the world, the United States agreed to un-freeze assets that were previously frozen as a result of nuclear sanctions.

It makes no difference to the partisan. ;)
 
I showed you evidence of where the nuclear agreement has actually accomplished something concrete (pun intended). Your response of noting that Iran has violated an arguably unrelated ballistic missile sanctions or the political arguments made by those opposed to the deal in regards to the ability of Iran to somehow hide its nuclear work within a 72 hour period does not dismiss my evidence or change that evidence into "hope."

Sure it does.
 
I would note that Iran, as part of the nuclear deal, did not agree to stop ballistic missile testing. That is the subject of other sanctions that were not rolled back (and, in fact, increased) following Iran's continued testing of ballistic missiles. Instead, Iran agreed to several aspects with relations to its nuclear capabilities - some of which it has fulfilled.

The bluster from Iranian diplomats is aimed at trying to link the newly imposed sanctions for the ballistic missile testing to the nuclear deal. The requirements and sanctions of each are not related in the eyes of the six nations that reached the nuclear agreement with Iran. If Iran wishes to link the two together, and takes actions that are inconsistent with the requirements from the nuclear deal, then the "snap back" provision will kick in and the Iranian sanctions from the nuclear deal will be reimposed.

The fact that Iran, during its most recent election, virtually allowed a sweep for the moderate faction of the Government makes that later move unlikely.

Yeah, the "snap back", too little too late. Face it, your lord and savior cut the worst deal in the history of "diplomacy". But keep bowing down to the moron, it's all you and your ilk have got. :roll:
 
Yeah, the "snap back", too little too late. Face it, your lord and savior cut the worst deal in the history of "diplomacy". But keep bowing down to the moron, it's all you and your ilk have got. :roll:

Iran has not violated the nuclear sanctions such that the snap back provisions are required.
 
Back
Top Bottom