Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Sun, Nov 24, 13 at 8:12

A lot of accolades in the news this morning for this deal. Of course Israel hates it it. But most offer praise. Well, except for this guy:

Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care. - Senator John Cornyn, Texas-Republican.

Really? That's a relevant comment, Senator? Sheesh.

Still, others hail the deal as a way to avert war:

Before this deal was struck, Iran was on pace to accomplish a so-called "breakout capability" -- in which it could enrich uranium to weapons grade before being caught by inspectors -- by next year. U.S. sanctions were escalating to a point of no return, with nothing left to sanction but key allies and the long discussed last option on the table appearing increasingly likely. Short of a diplomatic offramp, the two countries were nearing the climax on the long road to war.

What do you think? Good, bad, just a distraction?

Here is a link that might be useful: source of course


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

I would like to think it is a good deal. But since Israel has a much deeper investment in the direction of Iran's nuclear development, I have a tendency to trust their intelligence in this matter. When if ever has Iran's word been anything but words?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Well apparently they have a new guy and that is probably what made this all possible (sorry John Kerry). From the article:

Last June, with the entire world having largely dismissed the prospects of any positive news coming out of Iran's elections, the people of Iran defied the odds and shocked the system by turning out in droves to elect the lone moderate candidate--Hassan Rouhani--into office.

Rouhani campaigned on the promise to end the securitized environment inside the country and rebuild Iran's international relations through constructive engagement. His agenda, anathema to the hardline establishment in Iran, was given tentative backing by the Supreme Leader on what appeared to be a conditional, time limited basis. The Supreme Leader, who has long espoused the view that the U.S. is dedicated to keeping Iran weak and dependent, allowed Rouhani to test his election mandate and show that Iran's hardliners were and the U.S could indeed be negotiated with. Rouhani's ability to secure an interim deal that has benefits for Iran will not just lift the threat of war that has choked off space for Iranian civil society, but will provide him and the moderates that surround him with more capital and maneuverability against hardliner opponents to not just resolve the nuclear issue, but to deal with internal issues like human rights and regional concerns.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

The entire world has a stake in ensuring a nuclear free Iran. Israel has the most to fear given the informatory rhetoric of Rouhani's predecessor but an attack on Israel would surely have led to a world wide altercation.

Although the US was definitely key to this deal it was done through the UN Security Council group of 6 Nations which is a good thing. I am supportive of the deal . We can only wait and see what the next 6 months bring.

There can be no progress without negotiations and negotiations by default are a two way street.

As the old saying goes, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Nov 24, 13 at 9:55

Yeah sure, that's right Senator John Cornyn! The NATO members involved with hammering out this deal did it to distract the attention from Obamacare. It's more likely that Texas politicians are trying to distract the attention from their stupid republican counterparts in Florida. They don't realize that this masters of dumbness goal was already achieved some time ago......the TP cokehead notwithstanding.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Oh goodie vgkg...a little tit for tat...cokehead huh? From the party that kept re electing the Grand Wizard from the KKK over and over again. The guy that left a young girl to die in a car he drove off a bridge while he ran and hid. Sure you want to go down that road?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Nov 24, 13 at 10:28

Current events Mrskjun, Current events! The road I'm going down was paved so recently that the asphalt is still warm and stinks. Your old crumbling and weed sprouting road leads to a cemetery where all the bodies are long buried. Am I to assume that you support Senator John Cornyn comments?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Let have a contest who will find the first loophole?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

I don't have enough insider information to pass judgment; other than to declare detente is better then war.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

As always, sanctions rarely end up hurting the leaders and those responsible for the policy, they have the power and money to get around them, its an inconvenience at best. They've still been selling oil to China, India, and Japan, the money laundered via some other mechanism that keeps it out of the sanction-country banks. The military smuggles stuff in and out, using their equipment.

The sanctions hurt the rest of the population, and the calculation is that they will blame the regime, not those imposing the sanctions. Thats a pretty iffy bet.

I'm very hopeful it works. I'm afraid that there are too many fanatics to do so.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

I don't expect any Romney supporters to be happy with this agreement. After all, their candidate had a cluster of neoconservative foreign policy advisors that are Iran hawks, and part of the same group that brought us the horrendous Iraq debacle.

Intelligence has failed to confirm that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Pentagon officials believe that Iran is a rational actor. Netanyahu, for all his bluster and animosity towards President Obama, does not have the backing of crucial elements of Israeli society for a go-it-alone military strike against Iran.

The consequences of an Israeli military strike against Iran are (hopefully) deterrent against this action. Now that the U.S. has an agreement with Iran, the odds that Netanyahu would act against its patron's interest are greatly reduced.

I predict more terrorist attacks against Iran, both inside and outside the country, in an attempt to provoke abandoment of the agreement.

I applaud President Obama for taking this initiative, and pray that his administration has the fortitude to continue on the path despite the formidable pressure that will be mounted in the U.S. to break the agreement.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

From the party that kept re electing the Grand Wizard from the KKK over and over again.

By 1950 Robert Byrd was no longer a member of the Klan. He apologized numerous times, and stated many times that intolerance has no place in the United States.

I'm surprised that the ideas of repentance, forgiveness, and redemption are so foreign to some participating on HT.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Sun, Nov 24, 13 at 11:25

It's a good beginning.

And that's where things start......at the beginning.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

At least Kerry seems to be trying to please the female dictator in the WH. What could go wrong. (snarc)


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

My next question is...how many billions are we giving over to Iran before they bite our hand?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

.how many billions are we giving over to Iran before they bite our hand?

Is there a proposal to give foreign aid to Iran?

If you mean aid going to Iranian dissidents, if they're as crafty as Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, they'll make a good sum from playing Uncle Sucker -- pocketing money for supplying bogus intelligence.

I hope and pray that President Obama has learned from the Bush Administration's blunders with Iraq.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Nov 24, 13 at 12:17

Easing sanctions translates into giving them billion$?
Isn't it more like selling them stuff via international commerce for billion$ in return.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

I'm hopeful but cynical. It's a start, but it has nothing to do with "nuclear free."


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

I hope and pray that President Obama has learned from the Bush Administration's blunders with Iraq.

Re: Afghanistan. Too late to learn. And it's difficult to teach the unteachable.

Nuclear free? Not until the USA is nuclear free will the world be able to rest in peace.

“So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly �"- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence” Barack Obama, in Prague.

Then.

Now.

The administration of President Barack Obama plans to upgrade about 180 B-61 nuclear bombs stored in Europe, at a cost of about $10 billion, to increase their reliability and accuracy, and to extend their lifetimes. The bombs, which are currently deployed with United States Air Force Europe units in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey, would be fitted with new tail fins that would turn them into guided weapons that could be delivered by stealth F-35 fighter-bombers.

That's $10 billion that won't go to feed hungry Walmart employees.

Here is a link that might be useful: America’s Nuclear Arsenal


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Nov 24, 13 at 16:13

I hope they cut $10 Billion for unneeded extra tanks and unworkable over budgeted aircraft to cover the costs for this nuke project, though $0 dollars would be a much better price to pay for peace.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Brush, you missed my point in your rush to criticize President Obama.

I think he has learned the "verifiable intelligence not what the neoconservatives and hawks want you to hear" lesson from George W. Bush's mistake with Iraq. (One could also say that President Bush learned from his own mistake in that he resisted Dick Cheney's push for a strike against Iran; he listened to his generals instead. Thankfully Rumsfeld was long gone and not able to replace dissenting generals with those more willing to echo bellicose opinions.)

President Obama has resisted other attempts to pressure him to begin a shooting war against Iran.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Kerry says an end to the enrichment program, Iran says the treaty says the enrichment program can continue. Which is it?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Regardless of who said what publicly you can be sure the details are well understood. Not like there was nobody else in the room. Five other world powers signed on

Will they be adhered to........time will tell.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

The info here may help.

Here is a link that might be useful: CNN 20 questions


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Good info esh..thanks.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Hell and damnation. This thread collapsed into the P-gutter pretty fast as spin0meisters went to work to discredit everyone on every side. Israel will be pleased even if it had no hand in this shambles.

And no, I have not read the links or every post above.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Marshall, for what it's worth (and that may not be much), when President Obama previously resisted the push for military action against Iran, some said that it represented a lessening of the power and influence of the Likudniks in Congress and in the punditocracy. Perhaps it's true, but I wouldn't bet the farm.

If it's the beginning of anything, it will be a slow decline of influence. If a more appealing (and sane) leader than Netanyahu comes from Likud, that could be reverse any trend that is beginning now.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Iran Deal: Practical, Far-Sighted and Fair

A very interesting innovation in the Plan of Action is the agreement to establish a Joint Iran/E3+3 Commission to address plan implementation issues and to work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern. Iran has long argued that some of the demands for cooperation made of it by the IAEA Director General and his subordinates fall outside the IAEA’s legal authority and are unreasonable. This new Commission will provide Iran with a forum in which it can set out such cases, confident that at least two other members of the Commission, Russia and China, will be ready to give impartial consideration to its arguments.

This Commission is also likely to facilitate resolution of questions relating to possible research by Iran into the technology of nuclear devices. Such research is believed to have taken place during the years when Saddam Hussein either ran a nuclear weapons program or was suspected of wanting to resurrect that program after its dismantlement by the UN and IAEA.

Together these provisions in the action plan amount to a very promising package. They make possible state-of-the-art verification of the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Such high-quality verification was never available in the only state that has developed nuclear weapons while adhering to the NPT, North Korea -- nor in Iraq prior to 1991 and between 1998 and 2003.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Here is what some are saying...

"The White House found broad bipartisan skepticism Sunday on the deal reached between six world powers and Iran, and top Democrats criticized the Obama administration for what they saw as a disproportional deal that favors Iran.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the White House's key Senate allies, said in a statement that the disproportional nature of the agreement made it "more likely" that the Senate would move to impose new sanctions on Iran.

"Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions," Schumer said.

"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. A fairer agreement would have coupled a reduction in sanctions with a proportionate reduction in Iranian nuclear capability."

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, similarly criticized what he perceived as a more one-sided deal that benefits Iran. However, he said that he expected any further sanctions legislation would provide for a six-month window on the interim agreement, allowing for negotiators to work on a permanent deal."

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

I saw another article in which Iran said that any "new" sanctions imposed would cause the deal to be taken off the table.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

The President has said he will veto any new sanctions during this 6 month period.

Our Canadian PM is not being positive about the deal either. Ya think it may be because the West is a Conservative stronghold and that Canadian oil prices tanked as a result of the deal?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Mon, Nov 25, 13 at 9:37

With every international deal there are roles played by the optimystic good cops and the pessimystic bad cops. The bad cops always grumble and threaten in the back ground to insure that the deal is adhered to.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Listening to BBC 4 radio, and the Iranians are saying exactly the opposite of what we are hearing in the U.S.

It'd be pretty hilarious if the situation weren't so potentially serious.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Nov 25, 13 at 21:47

So let me get this straight ... all I hear on HT is how Obama has us bogged down in a war and then we he attempts to use diplomatic solutions there is still beatching?

"bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" Remember that old guy?

You can please some of the people and none of the people and ring around the rosie we go.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

"RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?"

Good for whom?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

According to the new president of Iran, he gave a speech today and said the "world" had given the go ahead for his enrichment program. According to John Kerry, Iran had agreed to stop it's enrichment program. Do you think Iran's partner in nukes North Korea has made any agreements?

om, if Iran makes a nuclear bomb, you can bet the Saudi's will feel compelled to start their own program.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

There are different levels of enrichment.

One needs to have some level or uranium is pretty much worthless.

Iran is supposed to destroy their 20% stuff and quit making it.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Well david, I hope that's the case. As long as they're supposed to and all. I sure hope we have some real good incentives in place. "Pretty please" probably won't do the trick. And no; I am not a hawk. I live on this planet too.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

I am hopeful, but of course time will tell. Its a first step. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Thank goodness Obama won the last election. From what the R&R team had to say during the last election year, no detente with Iran would have been given a thought. Romney was all for solving the Iran problem with military intervention. I like to think the majority of voters were repelled at the eagerness of his tone.
It's time to try other avenues when dealing with other countries.
Clearly, military intervention never works out well in our favor, much less theirs, and detaching ourselves from our wars is as time consuming and as difficult as detaching ourselves after both hands have been entangled in a bunch of fly paper.

Change is difficult and many will be very uncomfortable with a new way of dealing with other countries, but imo it's time for Americans to learn how to deal with change without so much baby boomer angst.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

MsK, you don't know that there is a differenc between enrichment grade for nuclear energy and a nuclear bomb?

And a quick reminder that this agreement isn't just between the U.S. and Iran. If it's such a bad deal please consider that the other negotiating countries support the agreement -- unless one is nhabiting la-la land where Iran snookered six powerful countries.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

".. if Iran makes a nuclear bomb, you can bet the Saudis will feel compelled to start their own program."

You are right, but in the general noise about the characters in this brouhaha, the Saudi reaction has not been much mentioned. Note, MrsK, that you are the first person to mention SA here. And yet Saudi is a crucial player in the drama.

There have been reports about the Saudis talking to the Pakistanis for quite awhile. Now, according to various analysts in the field of WMDs and nuclear proliferation, it's close to a done deal: Saudi will not start its own program, it will buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan. Some are reporting that the money has already been paid. I don't know whether or not these reports are true in every detail, but have read and heard enough rumors to believe that there is substance to them.

The tribes of the Arabian Peninsula have been dealing with the Persians for a few thousand years, and have been dealing with them as Shi-ites for fourteen hundred years. Each side knows the other very, very well.

Here is a link that might be useful: Will Saudi buy Pakistani nukes?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

The genie is still coming out of the bottle...


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

It seems that those that will be most affected by any agreement would be those closest to Iran. Israel and Saudi Arabia. Yet they were not consulted.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

MsK, do you propose that the U.S. act in its own national interest, or for the interests of Saudi Arabia?

Given the recent reported actions of Bandar bin Sultan, Saudia Arabia is not thinking of the interests of the U.S. when conducting its foreign policy.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Mrs, what do you suppose Israel and SA would say ? It is not like their positions as it relates to Iran aren't well known. I wouldn't be so sure that there was no back room talking happening either.

Both Saudi Arabia and Israel have no interest in lifting any of the sanctions. Saudi especially likes the oil sanctions placed against Iran...as does Canada by the way.

Self interests are always at the for front of these things......


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Sable, there's little mention of the Saudis in the news because the powers that be in the media think we are all too stupid to care.

Who cares if they are Sunnis or Shiites and who is aligned with whom? (Although it looks like Israel and Saudi Arabia are lining up on the same side to oppose this plan. I guess in this case "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" holds true. For the moment.

We are fed crapola for news.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Both Saudi Arabia and Israel have no interest in lifting any of the sanctions.

Well chase, tell me why we have an interest in lifting the sanctions from a terrorist state?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Well as a Canadian I sure as heck feel I have an interest in temporarily lifting certain sanctions in return for a deal that leads to ensuring Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon.

I would not be supportive of a deal that was open ended but a 6 moth time frame with 6 Nations watching provided us an opportunity to see if Iran means what they say.

If not then even tougher sanctions should be introduced.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Just for discussion. A terrorist state...why not tougher sanctions instead of lifting any? The reason I ask this question, is billions of dollars are being unfrozen, and we still have troops in Afghanistan.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

why we have an interest in lifting the sanctions from a terrorist state?

"We" includes the US, the UK, Russia, China, France and Germany. "We" happen to share a common interest with Iran in stopping the terrorism of Al Qaeda.

If one calls Iran a "terrorist state" surely the same would apply to Saudi Arabia.

Why would "we" have an interest in consulting Saudi Arabia?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Why would "we" have an interest in consulting Saudi Arabia?
You are absolutely right nancy..we shouldn't.

So, we don't negotiate with terrorists unless?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

The only way to resolve issue is to negotiate.......if you don't talk you don't make progress.

One thing many seem to overlook is the impact of tough sanctions on the youth of Iran.

A very large percent of Iran's population is under 30 and
has a very high unemployment rate

When young men have limited options and see no improvement in their future AND they perceive this to be because of the actions of the West , especially the US, they get cranky......and they radicalize....and bad things happen.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf States are the main supporters of Sunni Islamic extremism, supplying money and volunteers to such groups as al Qaeda. I do not trust them. The Bush family and their allies have gotten richer from associations and business deals with Saudi interests, for example. My anger toward this association relates to broad and immediate protection of Saudis and their interests following the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington DC. Saudis and Egyptians were among the attackers led by Saudi citizens.

I could never understand how M. Atta's wallet was uncovered from the debris whereas none of his body parts were identified, as far as I know.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

You are absolutely right nancy..we shouldn't

I'm glad that you now take back what you wrote earlier re Saudi Arabia:

Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on Tue, Nov 26, 13 at 7:12

It seems that those that will be most affected by any agreement would be those closest to Iran. Israel and Saudi Arabia. Yet they were not consulted.

I second what Marshall wrote @ 10:16.

The Saudis are funding the most extreme of the jihadists in Syria, and will willingly sabotage negotiations aimed at a settlement of the Syrian situation.

Iran is a rational actor. Better negotiations than continued tensions destablilizing the region. Six of the world's most powerful countries agree.

I hope we cut funding and training for the terrorist group MEK, which was removed from the State Department's list. MEK is responsible for a number of assassinations within Iran, so the charge can be made that the U.S. does fund terrorism.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Want to repeat it again nancy...I did say you were right..flashing lights maybe....HEY EVERYONE, I SAID NANCY WAS RIGHT

Obama is amazing. He will negotiate with the terrorist state Iran, but says he will not negotiate with Republicans. What a hoot!


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

It's not that Obama won't negotiate with Republicans. It's that they won't negotiate with him.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

That's because he is a terrorist esh! ;)


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Want to repeat it again

I'm constantly amazed at the comments that you and other detractors of President Obama make which, if thought about for a quick minute, reveal themselves to be nonsensical. The rush to criticize President Obama seems to overtake any logical thinking.

He will negotiate with the terrorist state Iran

He and five other countries, as has been pointed out several times in this thread.

but says he will not negotiate with Republicans.

Iran has been judged to be a rational actor by the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and China; the Republicans have yet to prove that they are as well. For confirmation on the international level, please refer to the allies that did not support the U.S. preemptive war against Iraq. For confirmation on the domestic scene, please refer to the series of extremists that had their 15 minutes of fame during the 2011-2012 Republican presidential primary season.




Edited for a mistake in punctuation. If there are other mistakes, I missed them.

This post was edited by nancy_in_venice_ca on Wed, Nov 27, 13 at 13:03


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

"State Sponsors of Terrorism" is a designation applied by the United States Department of State to countries which have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism."[1][2] Inclusion on the list imposes strict sanctions.

The list began on December 29, 1979, with Libya, Iraq, South Yemen, and Syria. Cuba was added to the list on March 1, 1982; and Iran was added on January 19, 1984

Overview: Iran [has] remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2010. Iran’s financial, material, and logistic support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia had a direct impact on international efforts to promote peace, threatened economic stability in the Gulf, and undermined the growth of democracy.

They are on the United States State Dept's list of state sponsors of terrorism. What does that have to do with five other countries? Was Iran partly responsible for the deaths of 3,000 people on 9/11 in their countries?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Was Iran partly responsible for the deaths of 3,000 people on 9/11 in their countries?

Are you sure that you wish to make the allegation that Iran was involved in 9/11?

Now would be the time to take a quick minute and reconsider what you just wrote.

I presume that you have the urge to make another retraction in this thread if you continue with this assertion.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Wed, Nov 27, 13 at 17:16

Yeah, what's Iran got to do with 911? Everyone knows that Saddam was behind that, and he was Iran's mortal enemy.

(every day is April fools day here)


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

All swarthy looking people are suspect.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Iran and 911 ???? Did I miss something?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

A federal district court in Manhattan yesterday entered a historic ruling that reveals new facts about Iran's support of al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled yesterday that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

•Posted by nancy_in_venice_ca SS24 z10 CA (My Page) on Wed, Nov 27, 13 at 13:28

"Are you sure that you wish to make the allegation that Iran was involved in 9/11?

Now would be the time to take a quick minute and reconsider what you just wrote.

I presume that you have the urge to make another retraction in this thread if you continue with this assertion."

The link is to an article that is 2 years old. What's up, nancy? Was this story de-bunked, or is mrs correct?


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Debunked.

Here's where the one minute of reflection comes into play: If there were any credible evidence linking Iran to the September 11 attacks, the neoconservatives would be using that as an excuse for a military strike against Iran. Instead, nothing from the Iran hawks. Something fishy, no?

Muslim Haters Tie Iran to 9/11

Another half minute of reflection would reveal that little coverage was given to the ruling, and another 15 seconds would tell you that no one from the intelligence community endorsed this fantasy.

Yet another retraction for this thread.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

So when the 9/11 Commission claimed there was a direct connection to Iran they were just fantasizing? okey dokey


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

"Another half minute of reflection would reveal that little coverage was given to the ruling, and another 15 seconds would tell you that no one from the intelligence community endorsed this fantasy."

The district court's ruling was a fantasy, you say? Okey dokey.

No retraction necessary. Get a grip.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

You left out an important fact. The commission found although there were some "connections" there was no evidence that Iran had prior knowledge that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US.

The findings also found that there were connections to Saudi Arabia yet Bush protected his connections,the Royal family, with safe passage on flights out of the country when all other flights were grounded. .

"Connections" can mean many things. You can read the report yourself to see what exactly was found and what these "connections" were.

This post was edited by epiphyticlvr on Wed, Nov 27, 13 at 20:38


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

The district court's ruling was a fantasy

No, the tales of the unnamed persons are fantasies, and have not been endorsed by the intelligence community. Nor were any intelligence experts in the court to testify as to the veracity of the unnamed persons.

If this evidence is credible, why have the Iran hawks not used it in making their case for a military attack? Those pushing for a strike against Iran have excellent contacts in the media, and their voices are not being censured. So where is the endorsement of Iran's involvement?

Again, with a moment of reflection one would question why Sunni Wahhabis and Salafists would be making common cause with Shia Iran.

And then there is this information: Iran Gave U.S. Help On Al Qaeda After 9/11

ran rounded up hundreds of Arabs to help the United States counter al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attack after they crossed the border from Afghanistan, a former Bush administration official said Tuesday. Many were expelled, Hillary Mann Leverett said, and the Iranians made copies of almost 300 of their passports.

The copies were sent to Kofi Annan, then the secretary-general of the United Nations, who passed them to the United States, and U.S. interrogators were given a chance by Iran to question some of the detainees, Leverett said in an Associated Press interview.

Leverett, a Middle East expert who was a career U.S. Foreign Service officer, said she negotiated with Iran for the Bush administration in the 2001-3 period, and Iran sought a broader relationship with the United States. "They thought they had been helpful on al Qaeda, and they were," she said.

For one thing, she said, Iran denied sanctuary to suspected al Qaeda operatives.

Some administration officials took the view, however, that Iran had not acknowledged all likely al Qaeda members nor provided access to them, Leverett said.

Many of the expelled Arabs were deported to Saudi Arabia and other Arab and Muslim countries, even though Iran had poor relations with the Saudi monarchy and some other countries in the region, Leverett said. Iranians are Persian, not Arab, and most belong to the Shiite sect of Islam rather than the Sunni, the majority sect in most Arab countries.

James F. Dobbins, the Bush administration's chief negotiator on Afghanistan in late 2001, said Iran was "comprehensively helpful" in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack in 2001 in working to overthrow the Taliban militias' rule and collaborating with the United States to install the Karzai government in Kabul.

Iranian diplomats made clear at the time they were looking for broader cooperation with the United States, but the Bush administration was not interested, the author of "After the Taliban: Nation-Building in Afghanistan," said in a separate interview.

Here are some example of Iran's so-called involvement with Al Qaeda:

From 2002 - Iranian authorities have arrested 150 Arab, African and European nationals they suspect of being members of either the Taliban or al Qaeda, the Iranian news agency IRNA said Thursday

From 2004 -- Iran has arrested a number of Iranian supporters of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group

From 2005 -- Iran arrests 200 suspects in broad terrorist sweep

TEHRAN -- Iran said over the weekend that it had arrested 200 people and deported another 800, all of whom it said were part of a terrorist cell.

The information minister, Ali Younessi, said Saturday that the arrests were made the previous week after the ministry started a "fifth wave" of a crackdown against operatives linked to Al Qaeda, the IRNA news agency reported.

It was the largest roundup of terrorism suspects announced by the Iranian authorities.

From 2007 -- Iran arrests top Al Qaeda men

From 2010 -- Iran reports arrest of 7 al-Qaeda suspects

From 2011 -- Report: Iran arrests 5 members of al Qaeda


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Al Quaeda hasn't the most positive attitude towards the Shiite sect of Islam, which dominates the theocracy and population of Iran.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

And leading up to the lawsuit.

The court papers also include sworn statements from staff members of the 9/11 Commission, including Dietrich Snell, a former top terrorism prosecutor at the Justice Department, who says in his affidavit that "there is clear and convincing evidence the government of Iran provided material support to al Qaeda in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attack." He said the support came in the form of "facilitating the travel of members of the 9/11 conspiracy to and from Afghanistan and Pakistan, in which countries, in my opinion and as found by the 9/11 Commission, the plot was hatched and developed."

Another former commission staff member, speaking to The Daily Beast on condition of anonymity since he still works for the government, said the lawsuit was "a relief for a lot [of people] who believe that the commission never properly grappled with the question of what Iran knew in advance about 9/11��"the whole issue of Iran came up so late that we couldn't grapple with it."

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

You can fool some of the people all the time, especially those who refuse to open links to information that debunks half truths, disinformation, and outright lies.

From my link above, Muslim Haters Tie Iran to 9/11:

The most egregious allegations of Iranian complicity in 9/11 come from three former staff members of the 9/11 Commission -- Daniel Byman, Dietrich Snell and Janice Kephart.

They had all worked on the section of the 2004 report that had given heavy emphasis to the fact that Iran had not stamped the passports of Saudis who had later become hijackers in the 9/11 attacks when they entered Iran. The section had suggested that this and other evidence could indicate Iranian complicity in the plot, even if it could not yet be proven.

In their affidavits to the court, those three former staffers, two of whom (Snell and Kephart) are lawyers, argue that Iran’s failure to stamp the passports of the Qaeda operatives constituted provision of “material support” to al-Qaeda in executing the 9/11 attacks. U.S. anti-terrorist law specifies that the provision of “material support” to terrorists includes any “service” to terrorists if the provider is “knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out” a terrorist action.

However, a key piece of information in a different chapter of the 9/11 Commission report shows that Iran’s failure to stamp passports was not intended to aid al-Qaeda. On page 169, the report says that, in order to avoid the confiscation by Saudi authorities of passports bearing a Pakistani stamp, the Saudi al-Qaeda operatives, “either erased the Pakistani visa from their passport or traveled through Iran, which did not stamp visas directly into passports.”

In other words, the Iranian practice of not stamping visas directly into passports applied to everyone. And since, as the Commission report acknowledged, there was no evidence of Iranian foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, the existence of that policy did not support the thesis of Iranian “material support” for the 9/11 plot. [ . . . ]

Paul Pillar, who was the CIA’s senior intelligence officer on the Middle East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005 and had previously been the senior analyst at the agency’s Counterterrorism Center, was categorical about the matter when I interviewed him in 2006. The facts detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report about passports, travel of the hijackers through Iran, and the presence of a Hezbollah official on one of the flights “don’t show Iranian collusion with al-Qaeda,” he told me.





Edited to add the quote by Paul Pillar.

This post was edited by nancy_in_venice_ca on Wed, Nov 27, 13 at 23:59


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

More from Gareth Porter:

The central pretense of the neoconservative “safe haven” ploy was that, if any al-Qaeda operatives were able to function in Iran, Iran must have deliberately permitted it. But the United States has been unable to shut down al-Qaeda’s operation in Pakistan after a decade of trying, despite the cooperation of the Pakistani intelligence service and the drone coverage of the tribal areas.

If the same criteria applied to Iran were to be applied to the Bush administration and the government of Germany (where part of the 9/11 conspiracy was hatched), they could be accused of having provided “safe haven” for al-Qaeda operatives prior to 9/11.

So much for the "safe haven" argument. The actions of Iran after Sept 11 are not consistent with a country that is supposed to be operating with Al Qaeda. The news articles of arrests of Al Qaeda operatives by Iran which are posted above are examples of the actions mentioned in Porter's article.

In fact, after U.S. complaints about al-Qaeda presence in Iran in late 2001, Tehran detained nearly 300 al-Qaeda operatives, and gave a dossier with their names, passport pictures and fingerprints to the United Nations. Iran also repatriated at least 200 of those detainees to the newly formed government of Afghanistan.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker revealed last year that, in late 2001, the Iranians had been willing to discuss possible surrender of the senior al-Qaeda officials it was detaining to the United States and share any intelligence they had gained from their investigations as part of a wider understanding with Washington.

But the neoconservative faction in the administration rejected that offer, demanding that Iran give them al-Qaeda detainees without getting anything in return.

Iran’s crackdown on al-Qaeda continued in 2002-03 and netted a number of top officials. One of the senior al-Qaeda detainees apparently detained by Iran during that period, Saif al-Adel, later told a Jordanian journalist that Iran’s operations against al-Qaeda had “confused us and aborted 75 percent of our plan.”

The arrests included “up to 80 percent” of Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s group, he said, and those who had not been swept up were forced to leave for Iraq.

In further negotiations with the Bush administration in May 2003, Iran again offered to turn over the senior al-Qaeda detainees to the United States in return for the MEK captured by U.S. forces in Iraq. The Bush administration again refused the offer.

By 2005, a “senior US intelligence official” was publicly admitting that 20 to 25 top al Qaeda leaders were in detention in Iran and that they were “not able to do much of anything.” In 2008, one U.S. official told ABC News that administration officials had not been raising the Qaeda issue publicly, because “they believe Iran has largely kept the al-Qaeda operatives under control since 2003, limiting their ability to travel and communicate.”


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

I suppose we can have dueling websites all day long nancy. But neither refutes the fact that Iran is on the State Depts list for state sponsored terrorism. And we are negotiating with terrorists.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 28, 13 at 9:17

I suspect that Kevin Bacon has some connection with 911.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

MsK, your claim is that Iran is involved in Sept 11.

Not true. The evidence is not there, nor is it supported by the intelligence community, nor are any Iran hawks claiming that Iran was involved in Sept 11.

Now you're backing off your clain regarding 9/11 and using the fact that Iran in on the terrorist list maintained by the State Department. So was MEK until a few years ago, and then we trained and funded that group that had been a declared terrorist group for years. I'm not going to link yet again to Sy Hersh's investigative piece that exposes JSOC collaborating with Jundallah and MEK for terrorist activity against Iran. Iran would be equally correct in claiming that the U.S. promotes terrorist attacks against its territory and citizens,

And once again, "we" means the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China are negotiating with Iran -- a rational actor in the international arena.

Were our situation with Iran reversed -- Iran having engineered the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in the U.S. and supported a repressive dictator for decades -- I suspect that you would be among those crying against any negotiations with the great satan Iran. The claim can be made that Iran has to negotiate with a terrorist state as well.

When all options are on the table, that inlcudes diplomatic solutions.

Instead of welcoming this needed change in relations, you and other Iran hawks want the explosive current situation to continue.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

Honestly Nancy, I think it has much more to do with the fact that there are some, actually many, who cannot bring themselves to be perceived in any way as supportive of anything this President does.

Everything he does, everything he says must be met with negativity.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

cannot bring themselves to be perceived in any way as supportive of anything this President does

True.

But there is a greater danger -- the type of bogus intelligence presented by the unnamed and unchallenged sources is what led this country into war with Iraq. A decade later and some still have no skepticism nor learned the lesson or Iraq when the pattern of false intelligence is presented.

I presume that more *have* learned the lesson since the neoconservatives are not pushing the so-called evidence presented in the court case. (Not that the Iran hawks are not indulging in hyperbole regarding the state of Iran's nuclear development, and conflating nuclear power for domestic energy with development of a bomb.)


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

This from the same people who were joining the chant of go kids go for the Arab Spring. Allrighty then.


 o
RE: Historic Iran Deal - is it as good as they say?

"Instead of welcoming this needed change in relations, you and other Iran hawks want the explosive current situation to continue."

We do? Your way or the highway, eh, nancy? Like the AHCA in its current deplorable form. You're one of those folks who says, when presenting your shoddy work, "if you can do better...otherwise this is it. You'll learn to like it."

If that truly works for you, enjoy. Like everyone else, I'm hoping the "historical Iran deal" works out to the peaceful benefit of the planet, but I'm not going to throw a victory party just yet.

This post was edited by elvis on Thu, Nov 28, 13 at 14:50


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here