I have not argued one iota that the stricter enforcement of existing sanctions would not create problems under the interim agreement. Who are you addressing that point to?
I have argued quite correctly based on the facts that we can know that calling for new and tougher sanctions would give a certain amount of legitimacy to the Iranians if the Iranians had a problem with that and scuttled the deal.
It is quite a silly to argue that the interim agreement must mean that the US and our partners should cease to enforce the existing sanctions and not crack down on violators for fear that the Iranians would have an illegitimate problem with that.
If Obama were now calling for tough new sanctions and (a big if) I defended that you would have a point. But he didn’t and I won’t. As it stands therefore you have no point. Just a silly drive to belittle me for what you think is applying a double standard.
There is no double standard. Enforcing existing sanctions versus calling for new tougher sanctions are two separate and distinct actions.
Actually Obama is doing pretty much exactly what I think he should be doing on this issue. So must I criticize him enforcing existing sanctions in order to please your mistaken sense that agreeing in full with Obama is somehow a case of …
If you can’t argue that enforcing existing sanctions is the same as applying new and tougher sanctions then you should not bother with that ‘unwaivering partisanship’ routine. It is just a diversion from the discussion I am trying to have.
There is nothing to explain. He’s right to enforce existing sanctions because a lack of enforcement of existing sanctions on the books could also derail the interim deal if the Iranians see the interim deal as a way to beat the existing sanctions.
And that is not what they negotiated. We need to keep both sides honest.
No new sanctions from our side… No efn cheating on the existing sanction on their side.
nobody said he cheated. He ratcheted up the existing sanctions through enforcement. There is no dispute that he did this.
He signed a deal that was suppose to ease sanctions and he added companies to the list which had the opposite affect. There is no disputing this. You can pound square pegs into round holes all day long but for whatever reason Obama is jerking the Iranians around and they see this as a derailment that may hurt future talks.
This is the part where you jump in with some kind of explanation for what’s going on and why Obama is brilliant.
The Iranians said this. I provided a cite. You call it whatever you want. I also pointed out that he made a rather low estimate of success and that was before finding out he added more companies to the sanctions list.
What exactly is the conspiracy? Did Obama sign a deal with the Iranians to lesson sanctions in return for specified actions on their part? Did he add companies to the sanctions list following that deal?
I’m getting bored with explaining time and again that the accusation that Obama is intentionally sabotaging the agreement is WorldNetDaily-worthy unsubstantiated conspiracy theory nonsense.
No, what you’re getting bored with is dancing around the events that happened. You’ve resorted to rebranding what he did as a conspiracy so you can dismiss it.
So unless you have a cite that Obama doesn’t know what’s going on around him you’re stuck without an explanation for his behavior.
You don’t have a cite that he’s trying to sabotage the negotiations. It’s your own speculation, along the lines of, “Of COURSE the World Trade Center was blown up by explosives hidden by Dick Cheney and the Trilateral Commission! With everything that happened, its obvious! Are you denying that the Twin Towers fell on September 11, 2001?”
That’s conspiracy theory backed up by non sequitur statements, just like your allegation. It’s no longer worth discussing.
I’m not “suggesting” he did anything. I’m saying outright that he added to the sanctions list after agreeing to reduce sanctions. I cited it. You’re the one calling it a conspiracy not me. You don’t know the meaning of the word.
Conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
Where is this secret plan? He’s lawfully fucking them in broad daylight. But you can’t deal with this and are spinning in your seat trying to wave it off. NFBW just got done telling us what a bunch of clowns the Senators are for wanting to increase the sanctions.
They are clowns for wanting to add new sanctions beyond the sanctions that already exist after Iran began signaling a moderation of their position.
Obama opposes flat out and unequivocally objects to any notion or desire that new and tougher sanctions should be added. He actually won the latest round in the Senate on that. So good for him that he has kept the clowns at bay for now.
One time Rouhani can act on his own in a certain reversal of dealing with the West with Khomeini’s approval and another time Rouhani must have the Supreme leader’s approval before acting to reverse policy with the West in support of moderation.
I’d be interested to learn how you know when the Iranian Supreme leader is hands on or hands off whatever deal the Iranian President is making with the West.
Corrected the preceding post:
One time Rouhani can act on his own in a certain reversal of dealing with the West without Khomeini’s approval and another time Rouhani must have the Supreme leader’s approval before acting to reverse policy with the West in support of moderation.
First of all, I said it’s unclear whether he had Khamenei’s approval when he spoke early on. Not everything is black and white. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. I don’t think Rouhani has to get a blessing from Khamenei for everything he says. However, you claimed he had Khamenei’s approval for this. What is your evidence for that?
However, if he is going to enact a deal concerning the most important foreign policy issue facing Iran today, then it would be foolish to think he could do so without Khamenei’s approval. Do you honestly think otherwise?