The question being posed, to the Republican and Democrat aligned constituencies of Senator Schumer and other pro-war or pro-tough or pro-Netanyahu members of Congress, is ultimately an anti-war or pro-diplomacy type of national security question.
When I compare Obama’s political position on Iran to the political hype and hullaballoo about whether Obama should bomb Assad’s regime over crossing the red-line on the stockpiling and use of chemical weapons I see that his position is flipped now on Iran. This time Obama is in the stronger political anti-war position and some Dem members of Congress are taking a stand perhaps, perhaps not, that bucks the majority public opinion and general anti-war mood on the matter.
I also find it interesting that on Syria Netanyahu backed Obama’s pro-war position but the quickly assembled anti-war coalition of Republicans and Democrats rendered Netanyahu’s pro-strike position as irrelevant. But now because Republicans must oppose Obama on every thing he does Netanyahu again must be heard and listened to.
So lets watch how this all plays out and whether the anti-war/Rand Paul Republicans and isolationists hold fast to their principles and side with Obama on pursuing a peaceful diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue or if they fall back to the pre-Syria position and buck overall public opinion on the matter.
Ever since WWII Korea and Vietnam a consistent majority of Americans favor diplomacy if at all possible over war. Obama should and I believe he will get a diplomatic solution passed in Congress with plenty of public support for that proper route to a solution of a major national security trouble spot for years.
They commonly refer to America as the Big Satan and Israel as the little Satan. So, israel goes first, then the U.S. Is next. Remember Heroshima? It ain’t pretty.p/quote]
Great, so Israel is our canary in the coal mine. Sounds like we will have time to respond if Iran goes batshit crazy.
Who generates electricity from oil anymore?
Iran isn’t a desperate regime run by madmen on the brink of collapse with nothing left to lose. They won’t do anything that crazy. If North Korea (which is considerably more batshit crazy than Iran) doesn’t pull the trigger on Japan (And there is at least as much historical justification for North Korea attacking Japan as there is for Iran attacking Israel (seriously other than regional political convenience, why does Iran even give a shit about Israel?)) or South Korea, then what makes anyone think that Iran, which could be one of the wealthiest and most influential nations in the region if it could get its act together, would throw that all away to express their (recent, and I think politically driven) hatred of Israel in a suicidal nuclear attack.
I always figured that Iran certainly wanted nukes. And who could blame them? But it may turn out that not having nukes is more valuable than having them. Sure gives them something powerful to bargain over.
Having nukes pretty much makes them immune from invasion, but they might figure that the possibility of invasion is relatively low. And once they get nukes, the sanctions will never come off. But as long as they can trade not having nukes for not having sanctions, they’re probably better off overall.
I’m starting to think that this is more of a side show for them, like Chemical Weapons for Syria. Throw The West a bone, and consolidate power. Seems to be working well of Assad.
The Saudis are pissed off over the rapprochement with Iran. Anything that pisses off the Saudis is per definition good. So less sanctions and don’t wait.
Well, I never thought Bush would invade Iran, but I could see why the Iranians might think he would. With Bush out of the way, they probably feel pretty safe. And with Americans being as war weary as we are, not even rallying behind Obama’s proposed “unbelievably small” strike agains Syria, they probably feel they have nothing to worry about in that department.
Philosophically, maybe. Not politically. They’re our putative allies. The US is walking a fine line with the Saudis on the Iran deal. John Mace, that’s fair.
The “death to America” crowd is not the majority of the people in Iran but it is the majority of the religious wack-a-do’s who are in charge and have the power to override all public political disagreement.
I wouldn’t disagree with that. Not sure how that relates to the post you quoted.
“Death to America” is a convenient catch-phrase for the rulers who want to distract the populace from what a shitty job they are doing ruling the place. If America died, they’d have to find a new villain to blame for their incompetence.
Bush was not as tough on Iran as Obama has been if you think about it. Obama tripled the US troop presence to the east of Iran in Afghanistan. Bush boosted Iranian Shiites by dislodging Sunnis from power to the west of Iran. Obama toughened sanctions on Iran that were more effective. Obama forced Iran’s ally regime in Syria to give up its chemical weapons arsenal.
And when it is recognized that Bush showed US military weakness by bogging down the US military in a quagmire thus bringing the American public including some Republicans to become antiwar isolationists, then it can be seen that Iranians probably miss Bush’s military antics more than fear them.
*Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi underlined that Iran has accepted to stop its 20-percent grade enrichment for a period of six months in a voluntary move to build the opposite parties’ confidence.Salehi
Salehi pointed to a final agreement concluded by Iran and the Group 5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany) in Geneva on Sunday morning, and said, “We will not stop any of our nuclear activities, but we will only voluntarily limit the level of our enrichment for a six-month period until comprehensive negotiations are held and a relevant decision is made for enrichment above the 5-percent grade.”*
Unless the near 20 percent LEU oxide is converted to fuel assemblies and irradiated, it can easily be reconverted to uranium hexafluoride suitable for further enrichment. Even if Iran began rapidly producing fuel assemblies for the TRR, due to the small size of the research reactor, Iran cannot realistically irradiate this fuel. As such, this action cannot be seen as a significant confidence building measure. Even so, Iran should be commended for taking measures to convert its uranium to uranium oxide at the Esfahan facility.
Do you know that most of the population of Iran are extremely proud and supportive of their nations nuclear program? That includes a vast number of moderates who do not buy the extremist death to America message that you believe the theocratic regime puts forth.
Peaceful use of nuclear power is something all Iranians want and they take pride in their nuclear scientists.
So going down the ‘death to America’ neocon bs rhetoric as some form of plan to block Iranians from developing nuclear power plants is quite non/productive if one truly
wants a solution to the matter of ensuring that Iran does not try to develop nuclear weapons.
That conservative Republican neocon message should be dissed by all Americans and their politicians.
How about death to the neocon ideology for once and for all?
For one who dislikes any ideas of US military interventions around the world I find it odd that you are open to the neocon broadcasts that diplomatic solutions are mere sideshows by diabolical regimes to dupe Democrat presidents and Democrat members of congress.
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, nor any idea how that related to the post of mine that you quoted-- other than that you don’t like Republicans.
The ranting from Iran of “Death to America” is not political rhetoric from the United States. It’s the message sent from the leaders of Iran.
Allowing a country to build a nuclear weapon who sponsors Hezbollah and routinely calls for the destruction of the United States is dangerous and will completely destabilize the region. Obama has stated he will not allow Iran to build one. As cited above, they are not giving up their processing or their 20% refined material. As it stands now they are weeks or months away from weapons-grade uranium and this agreement literally buys them time to complete the other components needed.
Dude, your cite was prior to the announcement of the deal. The deal includes them giving up their [20% refined material:](Dilute below 5% or convert to a form not suitable for further enrichment its entire stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium before the end of the initial phase.)
Dilute below 5% or convert to a form not suitable for further enrichment its entire stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium before the end of the initial phase.
If you want to quibble that they’re not “giving it up” if they convert it to a form that can’t be further refined, then that’s just ridiculous. You can’t use any of that material to build a bomb, and that’s the reason for that clause.