A state department graphic:
Which is also, arguably trolling Netanyahu some (context)
A state department graphic:
Which is also, arguably trolling Netanyahu some (context)
Originally posted by Tzeentch
The conservative response to that picture would likely be that the consequences of "no deal" would be Israel bombing the shit out of them while we flooded their country with marines because hoora 'murica etc.
Or in other words, "We don't like this deal because we want to go to war with Iran."
And that's frankly stupid, and if they wanted to go to Iran, they should just say so and try and justify themselves.
And, wow, Senator Cotton does come out and ask for outright war with Iran, thinking (wrongly) that we can take out their program with just a few quick strikes.
Note that these strikes would involve targeting active nuclear plants, so we're talking Chernobyl situations as well.
Lol look at this goody..
Just days before Secretary of State John F. Kerry heads to Vienna to join nuclear talks with Iran, the country’s supreme leader is staking out what he considers the “major red lines,” any one of which could sink a deal.
In a speech Tuesday night, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei laid out several demands, including the lifting of economic sanctions as soon as a deal is reached and before Iran dismantles some of its nuclear infrastructure. He also ruled out a freeze on nuclear research and development, inspections of military sites and restrictions lasting 10 years or more.
“We don’t accept 10-year restriction,” he said. “We have told the negotiating team how many specific years of restrictions are acceptable. Research and development must continue during the years of restrictions.”
The United States is leading a negotiating group that includes the four other permanent members of U.N. Security Council, plus Germany. Despite the hostility between the United States and Iran, direct and intense talks between the two nations have made up the backbone of the negotiations.
[Fact Checker: President Obama’s claim of ‘unprecedented inspections’ in Iran]
On Wednesday, Khamenei tweeted what he called the seven “major red lines” in the talks. As Iran’s supreme leader, he has the final say in all matters of state.
But the limitations he outlined could undercut the ability of Iranian negotiators to make concessions as a June 30 deadline for a final deal looms. They also appear to contradict U.S. positions in an April 2 framework agreement, and American negotiators say they will not back down from them.
For example, Khamenei reiterated that all economic, financial and banking sanctions must be lifted on the same day that a deal is signed. He said that includes not only sanctions imposed by the United Nations, but also those voted into law by Congress.
“Lifting sanctions can’t depend on implementation of Iran’s obligations,” he said.
[Fact sheet from State Department: Parameters of plan on Iran nuclear program]
The Obama administration has said that the sanctions will be phased out, but only after inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency verify Iran’s compliance on dismantling centrifuges used to enrich uranium and the country reduces its stockpiles of the material and converts its enrichment plants into labs. Enriched uranium can be used as fuel for nuclear power plants and, at much higher concentrations, as fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, such as producing energy and medical isotopes, and that it has no intention of building nuclear weapons, which Khamenei says are forbidden by Islam. However, many observers are skeptical of Iran’s assertions.
Khamenei also took a swipe at the IAEA, whose work would underpin any agreement.
“Because the IAEA has proved for several times that neither does it work independently, nor is [it] fair, and thus we are pessimistic about it,” according to his tweet. Khamenei said the red lines he outlined in the tweet were all points he had made in meetings with officials on Tuesday.
Some believe his remarks amount to a last stab at driving a hard bargain.
“It’s unlikely that Khamenei would have allowed his negotiators to come this far only to sabotage the deal at the last moment,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “He doesn’t want to be held responsible if talks fail. He appears overconfident that the other side won’t take no for an answer. It’s natural to try and extract more concessions.”
The talks between Iran and the six world powers have been going on for more than a decade, but they gained momentum a year and a half ago after the election of President Hassan Rouhani, who pledged to free Iran from the burden of international sanctions. The negotiations aim to provide sanctions relief if Iran agrees to curb its nuclear program. Hard-liners in Iran oppose any deal with the United States or one that would compromise a nuclear program that is a symbol of national pride.
Kerry will join the talks this week for the first time since he was sidelined when he broke a leg in a bicycle accident on May 31, a day after meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Geneva.
Although U.S. negotiators insist they are aiming for a final deal by June 30, Iran and several of the European countries negotiating alongside the United States have urged an extension. In practical terms, the Obama administration would like to present a final deal to Congress by July 10. Under legislation enacted in May, Congress would have 30 days to review the deal if the July 10 deadline is met. If a final deal is presented after that date, Congress would have 60 days to review it.
It's really hard to tell if Khamenei's newest rhetoric is just dick-wagging to try to get a better deal or if he's actually trying to sink the deal by demanding terms that he knows the US will never accept. My money is on the former but who really knows.
In other news, Obama's own advisors are urging that fewer concessions be made than are currently planned: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33269405
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You never really take what they say serious.You complain about maniacs with gun in America yet a country that is getting Nukes says they will wipe Israel off the map and its non negotiable.
1) Israel has nukes. Lots of them. Iran knows this. Iran also knows that America has nukes. LOTS OF THEM.
2) Since the revolution in 1979, Iran hasn't engaged in a direct, unprovoked attack on another country. Iran prefers to work through asymmetrical warfare and local proxies. It's a very aggressive country in the sense it's constantly meddling in neighbors' affairs and isn't above things like bombing Israeli embassies, but it has no track record for attacking its enemies first with actual military assets. Mark my words: if there is ever a shooting war between Israel and Iran, Israel will be the one who fires the first official shot.
3) Many in the Iranian government have clarified that what they mean when they say "wipe Israel off the map" they mean erase the borders of the Israeli state and return control of the territory to the Palestinians, probably through military force. Still pretty bellicose, but not quite the same as threatening to turn Israel into radioactive glass.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You never really take what they say serious.You complain about maniacs with gun in America yet a country that is getting Nukes says they will wipe Israel off the map and its non negotiable.
Iran hasn't said they want to wipe Israel off the map.
Their actual stated preference is for the government to be replaced with a non-jewish lead one. Note how unlike some countries, they aren't rapidly anti-jewish, they have a jewish population. Still anti-Israeli, yes, but there's a distinction.
They're sane enough to not want to be blow up in return. They have more self-interest than the strong-man dictator states, and value their own hide much more than attacking someone else.
On the analogy, here's a thing- if a 'maniac with a gun' said, "Hey, he's the deal, I want to keep my gun, but I'll come and let you check my safety precautions, limit the amount of ammo I have at any one time, see to it that I only use ammo at the gun range* or in designated hunting areas, and let you watch to make sure this is the case for years," then, well, that makes them much less likely to shoot anyone! That would, indeed, seem to be a quite good deal, and make them come across as not-particularly-maniac.
*Which is similar to what Switzerland has. Everyone has a gun, but ammo is restricted.
Originally posted by Q99
Iran hasn't said they want to wipe Israel off the map.Their actual stated preference is for the government to be replaced with a non-jewish lead one. Note how unlike some countries, they aren't rapidly anti-jewish, they have a jewish population. Still anti-Israeli, yes, but there's a distinction.
They're sane enough to not want to be blow up in return. They have more self-interest than the strong-man dictator states, and value their own hide much more than attacking someone else.
On the analogy, here's a thing- if a 'maniac with a gun' said, "Hey, he's the deal, I want to keep my gun, but I'll come and let you check my safety precautions, limit the amount of ammo I have at any one time, see to it that I only use ammo at the gun range* or in designated hunting areas, and let you watch to make sure this is the case for years," then, well, that makes them much less likely to shoot anyone! That would, indeed, seem to be a quite good deal, and make them come across as not-particularly-maniac.
*Which is similar to what Switzerland has. Everyone has a gun, but ammo is restricted.
