You are plainly incorrect. What I said is correct. Here it is again:
Obama is not and must not be concerned or submissive to Iranians’ hurt feelings over this action of clamping down on violaters of existing sanctions.
Obama is correct to put a stop to those members of Congress who want tougher new sanctions and tougher compliance requirements.
Iran could justifiably walk away from new tough demands but Iran would be wrong and unjustified to walk away from the deal because Obama is clamping down on established sanctions being violated by certain companies.
You need to see the distinction between old and new.
OK. I did make an honest effort to find this on the news websites, but none was there. At any rate, this is exactly the sort of thing that demonstrates Iran’s eagerness to use any excuse it can find to scuttle talks and delay negotiations. However, I predict they will be back. As I said earlier, they have MUCH more to gain from these talks than we do.
Obama cannot be concerned about Iranians’ hurt feelings but Congress must give peace a chance and not say or do anything that might undermine the moderates.
In this case, the temerity of your double standard is only eclipsed by the gusto with which you propose it.
The careful reader you are so concerned with is also likely to wonder why you think Iran is a single entity of one unified mind. You state in almost the same breath that Iran is eager to scuttle talks but will be back because they have so much to gain. Is there a change of unified mind predicted there? The single will of Iran thinks A today but will think B tomorrow?
Here in America, we of the peacenik caucus almost invariably enjoy massive majority support, but usually only after the blood has been spilt and the treasure squandered. That’s when we hear the explanation that no, no effort to sabotage peace, but only to strengthen our negotiating position, as befits hard headed realists with an eye to the main chance.
So you suffer from the same inability to distinguish between existing and new sanctions.
I have not argued against saying ‘anything’ that might upset the moderates. Go back and read the record. I am against toughening or adding NEW sanctions to the existing sanctions.
We still must enforce the sanctions that are in place and there is no double standard here at all for doing so.
Why are you against new sanctions? I thought it was because new sanctions might cause the Iranians to scuttle negotiations. But you seem to be okay with more stringent enforcement of current sanctions EVEN IF it may cause Iran to scuttle negotiations.
It’s totally a double standard. If Obama does it, it is okay.
When you have a “Supreme Leader”, it actually isn’t very complicated. That title isn’t honorary or inaccurate. What he says goes. It’s generally understood that he allows the president some flexibility in dealing with internal matters, but not matters of foreign policy. If I’m wrong, I’m open to being corrected.
No doubt, but one can be entirely too simplistic without being the least bit wrong. Since I don’t have any certainties to offer against yours, I’ll confine myself to teasing you mildly in the hope that you will re-examine your own. And if you do, and find it nonetheless solid, well, bless your heart!
I see. So, when I see some guy spouting nonsense about the meaning and significance of Iranian elections, and the changes being compelled by a younger and less theological population, I can simply dismiss that as nonsensical, because you and John say so?
And I don’t refute your argument, John, because I am not pretentious enough to claim certainty when our sources within Iran are so limited. You are not hindered by my limitations, and more power to you. But with all due awe, I find it hard to believe that your sources are clearer and more informative than my own, because they are likely to be the same, i.e, through a glass darkly.
Now, I won’t tell you I’m sure that you are wrong, because I’m not sure, couldn’t be sure. But I will suggest that your certainty is likely to be exaggerated. Indeed, almost has to be.
The Supreme leader controls the court system, the military, and those who are allowed to run for election. Not that it matters because it doesn’t matter who gets voted in. He has veto power over them. In all matters.
As well you might, being so much better informed than I. Perhaps you will share your sources of such concise and detailed fact? Hell, I’d like to be as sure about anything as you are sure about this! How did you come by this encyclopedic knowledge that seems to have eluded so many lesser minds?
It’s because the Iranians agreed to the deal as Obama is enforcing it. A deal is a deal. I’m agsinst breaking the deal which is what imposing mewer tougher sanctions involves.
OIF the Iranians break the deal they are wrong - if we break the deal we are wrong. That is simple. No double standard at all. You
And Magiver are wrong.
