Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal?

[Duchess]

The Prez is going to overrule his top security advisors and decline to certify the Iran nuclear agreement.

[HairOfTheDog]

The Prez is going to overrule his top security advisors and decline to certify the Iran nuclear agreement.

Really bad move, in my opinion. I so wish President Trump would listen to his experts.

Last I read, even Netanyahu was against negating the deal because it made Israel and the region more secure.

Plus, why the hell would leaders of other countries want to negotiate with the U.S. if we break formal deals when there's no evidence of non-compliance?

[HairOfTheDog]

Just got up to speed.

Netanyahu reportedly wanted to fix rather than nix the deal earlier this year.

But, now he's reportedly standing behind Trump all the way. Not surprising.

Trump's own experts, our allies, and other countries in the region do not want to see the deal nixed.

[Duchess]

Plus, why the hell would leaders of other countries want to negotiate with the U.S. if we break formal deals when there's no evidence of non-compliance?

I've seen this addressed quite a bit today. The common consensus seems to be that it's reaching the point where agreements made by the United States are subject to change at any time. There is no longer good faith.

[Maggot]

So Israel has documents that verify Iran's true intentions. Verifiable evidence. I understand the release of Iran's American freeze on assets through oil which was about 1 million barrels a year and worth a few billion returned to them but what I didn't know was The payoff from the Obama administration was nothing. Compared with the deal that Iran is now able to export as much oil as they want now after the deal, they now sell over 2 million barrels and are projected to double that next year. Nothing to do with nuclear ambitions, this from the Israeli ambassador to the U.S.

The payoff by America to Iran was never about the pittance they received, it was all about the future trillions they would earn from future earnings.

Hopefully Trump can negotiate with them like he did with N.Korea.

I am wondering why rocket man started talking about de nuclear ambitions at the same time Iran realized their fat wallet deal may fall through now. Kim has the means and Ayatollah has the payload. If Trump gets together with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and a few others in the mid east he may be better off. They seem to want a more stable region.

I'm kinda sick of the entire thing though, and want to wish it all away into the cornfield.

[HairOfTheDog]

Maggot, please.

It's been posted upthread about how Bibi (Netanyahu) presented charts, cartoon bombs, and supposed evidence about how Iran was only months away from nuclear weapons FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS..... Do you see how that proves his claims false after the first year? You're not an idiot and that's pretty rudimentary logic.

The data Netanyahu presented today is pre-nuclear agreement data and skewed to achieve Bibi's agenda. Don't believe me simply because I research the FACTS behind this shit. Take a few minutes outside the twilight zone, delve in to reality, and research the shit yourself.

Bibi's new bullshit theatrics did succeed in handing Trump more conspiracy theory to use in pushing forward with his opposition to the Iran Nuclear deal though. You know, the deal negotiated by multiple countries (including the U.S., during the Obama administration, coincidentally enough). And, of course, President Trump jumped right on it, just like you.

Have you ever considered or researched the reasons why all of our Western allies and other Middle Eastern allies, along with the true security/military experts in Trump's own administration, are strongly cautioning Trump against scrapping the agreement? Or, do you assume/believe that everyone but Bibi and Trump are just "lefty" idiots and anti-Semites harboring a death wish? That's a serious question for YOU (not an invitation for a re-post of some published extremist rhetoric).

Another serious question from me to YOU: Would you support requiring Bibi to open up Israel's nuclear facilities to global inspection, like Iran has done and Israel refuses to do? Would you support Trump condemning Bibi on the global stage for violating international law and expanding settlements into occupied Palestinian territories, against international law and in contrast to Netanyahu's public claims that he supports a two state solution?

[Duchess]

So Israel has documents that verify Iran's true intentions. Verifiable evidence.

That would be a perfect example of misleading propaganda and by some accounts has been in the public domain since 2007 (probably longer). Jesus, Maggot. "Verifiable evidence" *snorts*

This is nothing more than our new SoS teaming up with the Israel PM to turn intel that both governments already knew into a propaganda campaign intended to manipulate our dumbass president into reneging on an agreement that is being complied with.

[Maggot]

It looks like both of you believe Iran is trustworthy and are not pursuing nuclear bombs. You would believe a dictatorship before you would believe an American ally. Even with evidence. OK.

[Duchess]

It looks like both of you believe Iran is trustworthy and are not pursuing nuclear bombs. You would believe a dictatorship before you would believe an American ally. Even with evidence. OK.

That's not what I said & that's not what I implied.

When you say American ally are you referring to Israel?

What's the evidence you are referring to? Show me. Thanks!

[HairOfTheDog]

It doesn't look like that at all, Maggot. It looks like to me like Duchess and I are both looking at facts and all sides, not simply buying into what one ally (Israel) is claiming without evidence. News flash: Israel isn't the U.S.'s only ally.

The old data Netanyahu presented yesterday is why a nuclear agreement with Iran was needed and pursued in the first place -- of course Iran was not telling the truth about never having intentions to pursue nuclear weapon capabilities. The old data Netanyahu presented yesterday wasn't evidence of anything not already known and acknowledged when the Iran nuclear deal was negotiated.

And, Netanyahu provided no evidence to substantiate his allegation yesterday that Iran is currently actively working on nuclear weapon development in violation of the 2015 agreement. That's a false allegation according to the U.N., U.S, and European ally inspectors who are directly involved in the verification process -- they all concur that Iran is complying with the terms of the deal.

I don't want to see another case of false rhetoric, baseless allegations, and/or manufactured evidence being used by any hawkish government to justify a war or an invasion. We should have learned from what we did in Iraq, with help from our misled allies. So many people died needlessly and the U.S. is still there, 17 years later.

I understand Israel's fears of Iran. I understand that Trump thinks he knows better than experts and his own defense chiefs as to what constitutes a 'good deal', even before having read the deal. And, I understand why Iran is pissed off about threats by Trump to welch on the deal despite the fact that Iran is complying with the terms and Israel is sitting right next to them with its own arsenal of (uninspected) weapons, billions of dollars a year in defense aid from the U.S., and several nuclear-capable allies (allies who are frustrated to no end with Netanyahu's propaganda and theatrics).

[Maggot]

You both are such trusting souls it really warms the birds nest in my soul. I now know that when the Iranians are marching and holding up signs that say "death to America" and "death to Israel" they are not talking about you. Just the other infidels. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Duchess]

Nah. I'm not trusting. I don't trust Iran. I don't trust Israel and I don't trust my own government.

[HairOfTheDog]

You both are such trusting souls it really warms the birds nest in my soul. I now know that when the Iranians are marching and holding up signs that say "death to America" and "death to Israel" they are not talking about you. Just the other infidels. Thanks for clearing that up.

Pfft.

Verbal threats against other countries in not exclusive to Iran. In any case, verbal threats are less concerning when the capability to carry them out is limited or non-existent.

Anyway.........why don't you answer any of the questions we've asked you about the subject matter instead of insisting that you know what we think?

You're wrong about what we think. We know what we think and don't have a problem articulating it, as evidenced in our posts.

You can keep believing any rhetoric you want based only on who's spouting it, regardless of the facts/truth of the matter, Mags. But, that's not my style. You're wrong in insisting that makes me more trusting than you; it makes me less trusting of unsubstantiated claims and more informed.

Anyway, the deal to delay Iran from nuclear weapons development doesn't rely on trust. It relies on adherence to the terms and verification of compliance via regular inspections. Over the last 3 years, those robust verification processes have shown Iran to be in compliance with the deal agreed-to by the United States. That's just truth.

[Maggot]

That would be more believable if it were in Farsi. I do not have a problem with you believing that the Iranians are truthful and are complying with their part of the bargain. I don't believe it, and that's the simple math to that.

[HairOfTheDog]

Okay Mags, more of the same jibberish from you; wrongly telling others what they think/feel instead of addressing the topic at hand.

You're either doing some weak trolling or totally blocked to anything that you don't just 'believe'. They're your beliefs and you're entitled to them.

I'm sticking with the verifiable facts, man.

[Maggot]

OK. You can trust your "facts" all day but take those glasses off and view the Qom site.

Qom site

brought to you by ISIS Not the one you're thinking about.

[Blindgreed1]

OK. You can trust your "facts" all day but take those glasses off and view the Qom site.

Qom site

brought to you by ISIS Not the one you're thinking about.

I'm not clicking that link. It's a jibberish troll link.

[HairOfTheDog]

OK. You can trust your "facts" all day but take those glasses off and view the Qom site.

Qom site

brought to you by ISIS Not the one you're thinking about.

Maggot, your link only contains a recap and the images pertaining to the old data Netanyahu presented yesterday.

Even your link indicates that the content was already exposed and publicly known in 2009, long before the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal was finalized. That's what we've been trying to tell you. You've proven our point.

If you have a link contradicting all of the inspectors' reports (which confirm Iran has been in compliance with the terms of the 2015 deal), then post it up.

[Duchess]

That's what we've been trying to tell you. You've proven our point.

[HairOfTheDog]

That's what we've been trying to tell you. You've proven our point.

I just read that the White House had to issue a revision to the false public statement they put out yesterday following Netanyahu's presentation.

Snip:
The White House on Monday night revised a public statement that said Iran currently has a secret nuclear weapons program, an assertion that contradicts what international observers have concluded.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released the initial statement on Monday evening, hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out his case publicly for why President Trump should leave the Iran nuclear deal.

"These facts are consistent with what the United States has long known: Iran has a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program that it has tried and failed to hide from the world and from its own people," the statement from Sanders read.

After being called out on the false statement, the statement was revised to read that "...........Iran had a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program...."

Huge difference. The first statement is contradicted by verifiable evidence. The revised statement is accurate and something everybody already knew years ago (except perhaps Trump and Maggot).

The White House claims it was a 'clerical error'. Okay. They can't write Trump's ignorant public response to Netanyahu's theatrics off to a clerical error though. Here's what he said:

"I think if anything what’s happening today and what’s happened over the last little while and what we’ve learned has really shown that I’ve been 100 percent right (in looking to scrap the deal)” <-- He kills me; it shows just the opposite -- he's woefully uninformed and gullible.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/3...ar-weapons