Apparently you aren’t aware that the hardliners run Iran.
But if that’s a tough pill to swallow, do you think the Al Quds force general going to Russia to negotiate arms sales is a guy who is unhappy with the deal and rooting for it to be killed?
There are hardliners and there are hardliners. Iran is not a monolith. From what I can tell, the Iranians who want this deal to get passed are less “hardline” and more moderate than those Iranians who want it sunk.
I don’t know. Do you have a cite for what he supports?
Do you have a cite that says what these “hardliners” who don’t run things believe? Are there hardliners harder than the Supreme Leader?
Oh wait, the President basically called him a liar. “He’s a politician just like the rest of us.” Talk about not knowing your enemy, geez.
If the Iran hardliners don’t like it, why does that make it a bad deal?
First find me one person in Iran who has spoken out against the deal.
Are you saying he’s not a politician? Do you think he’s just a fundamentalist fire-breather?
According to your article, Iran hasn’t even accepted the deal yet. The ayatollah is still thinking about it.
This article also notes that opposition is very muted at the moment, one reason being that in many ways there still isn’t actually an agreement. The Iranians and us can’t even agree on whether we’ve recognized a right to enrich or not.
That’s not what you asked for. You asked for something and it was delivered.
If Iran doesn’t accept the deal, then they look very bad. If we don’t accept the deal than we look very bad. I’m worried about America’s future, and since I see no better outcome (and a lot of worse outcomes) if the US rejects the deal, then I’m in favor of us accepting the deal. If Iran rejects it, than that’s a shame… but it’s mostly a shame for Iran.
Since Obama said that it’s either deal or war, is that another bluff? If Iran did decide to reject it(which is very likely if the hardliners are indeed against it, as they control the country), then does that mean Obama will be prosecuting another bombing campaign before he leaves office?
Then ask the question you want answered.
I think it has more to do with the fact that opponents of the deal can’t explain what’s wrong with it (other than it not being as good as an imaginary deal) that holds up to any scrutiny, and have no plan whatsoever should the deal fail. It’s like Republicans’ position on Obamacare: Let’s repeal and replace! They never get around to describing what the “replace” part really means.
In any case, if Iran rejects the deal then it’s far more likely that multilateral sanctions remain in place, because Iran is the country that was dealing in bad faith. If the US sinks the deal, why should Russia and China keep up their end of sanctions when it was the United States who was dealing in bad faith?
The real irony of this situation is that had the talks failed on their own, people like you would be yammering non-stop about how Obama can’t work with NATO partners like the UK, France and Germany, therefore he’s the worst foreign policy president evah.
I sure hope it’s a bluff (and hope even more that we never have to find out). I care far less about Obama’s credibility than any possibility of thousands of Americans dying in another catastrophic stupid war.
This is 100% my view. I don’t know enough about the course of negotiations to know if we got a “good deal” or not. I know the inspection regimen is basically consistent with the normal IAEA safeguards, and that it’s the deal we got. So until somebody makes a case to oppose it - with specifics other than “it’s the deal the worst president ever got” (that being the apparent Republican objection - I am very much in favor.
If Congressional Democrats don’t kill it, then I’ll be fine enough with it too. If they do, then obviously it’s unacceptable.
By my math, it would only take 12 Democrats to kill it. But sure, I’ll go with that.
The WSJ has a blog post describing how the arguments made by hardliners in the US and Iran are essentially mirror images of each other. I think the expression “making common cause” is perfectly appropriate and accurate.
The Republicans are arguing that Iran’s rocket program should not be messed with and that Iran has a right to enrichment?
Is that enough, or should I continue?
Why yes, it is nice to stay well-informed. Fairly easy, too, if one just bothers to do one’s research.