Schumer says no.

Time to get nervous.

There won't be any sanctions relief until Implementation Day when Iran has fulfilled all its major nuclear commitments.

And, as far as good will is concerned and for what good will is worth, Iran has - for two years now - lived up to its end of the bargain contained within the interim agreement of 2013 or the Joint Plan of Action. That should count for something ... if only to give a reason for NOT killing this deal before implementation has a chance to proceed.

I might borrow my wife's Kindle Fire HD and read this...

Michale

I would just be happier... almost ACCEPTING of the deal if it was guaranteed that Iran wouldn't get one red cent until they demonstrated their good will..

But even Obama admitted that the money Iran will be getting will likely go towards killing more innocent people...

Michale

I will admit that, after reading a lot of the JCPOA and raising an eyebrow here and there, and after have listened to more than my fair share of Republican-led congressional hearings on the subject, this deal is far from the ideal arrangement to prevent Iran from being a nuclear-armed state if that is the course it ultimately chooses to take.

Having said that, though, I do still see this deal as being a very good one and I find it odd that most of the JCPOA opponents refuse to even admit the benefits of the deal. And, there are many benefits which, I believe, far outweigh the risks.

In the final analysis, the JCPOA, is a very good test for Iran. And, if Iran passes this test, and if the US and international community properly enforce this deal and act to put in place a strategy and polices that will increase the general security and stability of the Middle East region, then the JCPOA could conceivably lead to a far better and more durable outcome than any military option ever could.

My hope today is that Congress doesn't deprive us of this test but, rather allow some time to see if Iran is serious about any of this. Because, at the very least, this deal is more than good enough to do just that.

And, if Iran behaves in a manner inconsistent with the JCPOA - not to mention nefarious non-nuclear behavior inconsistent with the norms of the community of nations - then the international community will be more solidly together if stronger action against Iran needs to be taken.

It will just depend on how actively Schumer opposes it. He might vote no, but if he doesn't actively campaign against it, it still might fly...

But you can bet that, when he does announce, I'll let ya know! :D

Michale

Rep. Steve Israel opposes Iran deal
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/steve-israel-long-island-congressman-comes-out-against-iran-deal-1.10707764?firstfree=yes

Obama is losing support fast...

Michale

How so?

Flushing (I like that term :D) the JCPOA will only have negative consequences for Obama..

It will be a very big positive for the country, the region and the world..

Michale

I think I may know why ... :)

On a more serious note, you don't understand how rejection of the JCPOA will be flush with negative consequences for America, Republicans, Democrats and for the duration of the Obama administration.

I'm sorry, Michale, but no real American would wish for such an outcome.

Ironically enough, Iran is right. The Obama administration IS already violating the deal...

Michale

But I HAVE read where many of the undecided DEMOCRATS are coming down on the opposition side...

As Democrats go to the opposition side, Obama loses his VETO ability..

It's going to be close... I expect Congress to approve the deal, but it's close enough that I might be pleasantly surprised..

Put another way.. It's 6 weeks before Congress has to vote on it...

The more time passes, the more that is found wanting..

As of today, Iran is ALREADY accusing the US of being in material breach of the deal...

Michale

Oh, by the way, have you heard the latest!? The Gulf Cooperation Council - Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait - have come out in full support of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as the best way toward stability and security in the region.

Support for the JCPOA in the US Congress is also looking stronger with the announcement by Rep. Chris Van Hollen giving a powerful endorsement of the Iran deal. He's a strong supporter of Israel and so this could be a real game changer in how Congress votes on this next month.

His press release: “I have concluded that this agreement advances the national security interests of the United States and all of our allies, including our partner Israel… Indeed, I firmly believe that, should Congress block this agreement, we would undermine that goal, inadvertently weaken and isolate America, and strengthen Iran.”

150 BILLION may not be limitless.. But it's a buttload.. Think of how much terrorism that could buy. Think of the thousands of deaths of innocents that would buy...

To put it simply, Iran can bide it's time, wait until they have all their frozen assets and then decide NOT to abide by the JCPOA. And there is not a damn thing anyone on the planet can do about it...

You talk as though these frozen assets of Iran's are a limitless bounty. They are not.

And, if Iran acts in the manner you say, then most of the international community will be able to act in concert to stop Iran in its tracks with all of the options available to do that.

You talk as though these frozen assets of Iran's are a limitless bounty. They are not.

And, if Iran acts in the manner you say, then most of the international community will be able to act in concert to stop Iran in its tracks with all of the options available to do that.

I am referring to what happens AFTER the dispute resolution has run it's course..

Section 36 clearly states that, if the complainant (Iran) is not satisfied with the ruling of the dispute council(s) then the complainant can forgo all compliance with the JCPOA..

After Iran has received the 150 BILLION dollars, do you think that Iran is going to CARE if sanctions are re-imposed or not??

To put it simply, Iran can bide it's time, wait until they have all their frozen assets and then decide NOT to abide by the JCPOA

And there is not a damn thing anyone on the planet can do about it...

It's a BAD deal.. Obama and Kerry should walk away as they claimed they would do...

Michale

If the US Congress rejects this deal by overriding a presidential veto, then not one of the US partners in the P5+1 will go to Iran and say, "Let's re-negotiate a better deal!"

Get real, Michale!

Frankly, I don't know what will happen with respect to the implementation of the JCPOA in these circumstances. But, I do know that whatever happens, the US will be standing all alone in dealing with Iran.

Further, Iran can quit the deal anytime by simply complaining that other countries are not honoring their part of the deal. Mind you, Iran doesn't have to PROVE that other countries are not honoring the deal. Iran just has to CLAIM that other countries are not honoring the deal and that frees Iran up from any obligations..

In reality, if Iran were to act in a manner you suggest here, it would be in material breach of the JCPOA and all the consequences, therein, would follow. This would include triggering the dispute resolution process ending with a vote at the UN Security Council to continue lifting sanctions where any one of the five permanent members would be able to veto the continued lifting of sanctions and all previous UN resolutions would be reinstated as they were before the JCPOA.

Obama and Kerry have stated that, if it's a bad deal, the US will walk away..

Congress is set to declare that it's a bad deal..

Obama and Kerry should keep their word and walk away...

Michale

Mind you, Iran doesn't have to PROVE that other countries are not honoring the deal.

Iran just has to CLAIM that other countries are not honoring the deal and that frees Iran up from any obligations..

So, basically, Iran can wait a few months to get all the money from frozen assets and then... viola'...

"Oh sorry, the US is being mean and being mean is not honoring the deal, so we quit..."

Now, honestly.. what kind of deal allows that??

A deal solely and completely favoring Iran...

Michale

Did IAEA Inspections prevent war in Iraq??

Or did the inspections (or lack thereof) LEAD to war in Iraq??

So it was with Iraq, so it will be in Iran...

This deal practically guarantees war in Iran..

Michale

Unless, of course, Congress killing the deal leads to a BETTER deal or regime change in Iran.

Then we'll know that I was right. :D

Michale

Oh, we were done a long time ago..

Both our minds are made up and neither will be convinced by anything..

The only thing left to do is wait and see who was right. :D

Michale

I have only so much time to devote to non-serious discussion.

Saying that Obama didn't negotiate the deal is like saying Tom Brady had nothing to do with the Patriot's Super Bowl win...

Yea, a lot of people were involved in the JCPOA..

But it's Obama's deal, pure and simple..

You believe the world is incompetent and only has its own interests in mind.

No.. Just Obama..

I think Congress is opposed to this deal because they are collectively wrapped around Netanyahu's finger and are so scared of the Israeli lobby that they will act against the best interests of Israel and, more importantly, against the best interests of their own country!

Or, this deal is REALLY a bad deal and Congress is looking out for the interests of their constituents..

Opposition to this deal is running 3 to 1... The American people are against this deal..

You still haven't explained how this deal makes all of us less safe than we would all be without the deal.

Actually, I have. Several times.

It legitimizes everything Iran has done, does and will do..

It gives the CIVILIZED stamp of approval on EVERY action Iran takes...

Iran funds Hamas???

"Well, the world is OK with that because if the world was opposed, it would have been part of the JCPOA."

In other words, SILENCE GIVES ASSENT

Obama and Kerry were silent on Iran's sponsor of terrorism insofar as the JCPOA was concerned..

Ergo, Iran has tacit approval...

In other words, there isn't going to be a better deal than the JCPOA. There is the JCPOA or nothing. Only a very foolish individual, incapable of critical thinking, would choose the latter.

Or an individual who doesn't want to see Iran have nuclear weapons..

That would be me...

Like I said, it's a moot point. If Schumer goes against the JCPOA, then it's dead...

Michale

I am also constrained to point out that America's prestige is not on the line if Congress kills the JCPOA...*OBAMA'S* prestige is on the line...When Congress kills the deal, it will show the world that our president is incompetent and only has his OWN interests in mind.

How do I break it to you, gently? Obama didn't negotiate this deal, the world did. And, by world I mean Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, the United Nations and European Union.

You believe the world is incompetent and only has its own interests in mind.

You have an extremely warped perspective ... just like most Republicans and quite a few Democrats.

I think Congress is opposed to this deal because they are collectively wrapped around Netanyahu's finger and are so scared of the Israeli lobby that they will act against the best interests of Israel and, more importantly, against the best interests of their own country! That's insane!

You still haven't explained how this deal makes all of us less safe than we would all be without the deal. And, don't recite any fantasy world outcomes that would be better than this deal because we must stick with what is possible.

You must understand that we live in the world we have, not the world we wish we had. In other words, there isn't going to be a better deal than the JCPOA. There is the JCPOA or nothing. Only a very foolish individual, incapable of critical thinking, would choose the latter.

*OBAMA'S* prestige is on the line...

When Congress kills the deal, it will show the world that our president is incompetent and only has his OWN interests in mind.

Not the interests of the world, the region, America's allies or his own country..

It's all about Obama's legacy... That's where it starts. That's where it ends..

Michale

Schumer owes no loyalty to Obama..

To paraphrase Theo in DIE HARD...

"OOOHHH AND THE {JCPOA} IS TOAST!!!"

:D

Michale

You want real world??

It looks like Schumer is going to oppose the JCPOA..

If Schumer opposes the deal, there is your veto-proof majority..

It's rather ironic..

The opponents of the deal are opposing it because of the harm it will cause to Israel and the region..

The proponents of the deal are supporting it because it will be Obama's foreign policy legacy..

That says a lot right there.. :D

Michale

Let me know when you're back in the real world. Have fun while you're gone, tho ... :)

Or, we have 60 days until a REAL deal with REAL consequences and a REAL dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure..

It all depends on how ya look at it. :D

Iran is a scumbag country.. They don't deserve ANY of the consideration Obama is giving them..

That's the long and short of it..

Michale

Well, apparently there is about 150 billion dollars on the line with less that half of that in cash.

And, if Congress proves just how obtuse its members are by killing the deal, then we have less than 60 days before the deal begins to fall apart and we see what real negative consequences look like.

OK, how much do YOU think Iran is going to get from this??

Why don't we just be patient - say, for about 6-9 months - and see how the deal gets implemented. Of course, I'm assuming that Congress won't make a mess of things, again ...

Hell, we don't have to wait that long.. We'll know by Nov how bad this deal is going to be....

Considering the arms race that is ALREADY beginning in the Middle East, Nov is actually a best-case scenario.. :D

Michale

Inaccurate, misleading and false statements, like the one above, only succeed in decreasing your credibility and I know you don't want that, Michale.

So, have you run out of arguments to use against the JCPOA?

Why don't we just be patient - say, for about 6-9 months - and see how the deal gets implemented. Of course, I'm assuming that Congress won't make a mess of things, again ...

This is the regime we just gave hundreds of billions of dollars to...

I mean, honestly..... I find no logic...

Michale

Careful, you are in serious jeopardy of going off the rails, so to speak ... :)

Which is a clear sign that the arguments you are using against the JCPOA are not working to persuade anyone.

It's a perfect fit to what we are discussing..

Because, as been more than adequately proven throughout history...

APPEASEMENT NEVER WORKS...

And the JCPOA is Appeasement On Steroids...

Michale

I disagree..

If Israel could be properly equipped and be assured that the US would not actively oppose a military strike, you can bet that Israel wouldn't hesitate...

This is as close to fact as is possible to be without being an actual fact...

[M]ilitary action against the Iranian nuclear program in 2025 would in all probability not be much more complicated or difficult than in 2015… [T]he Iranian program will be reduced compared to what it is today, intelligence about it will be better, and it will be less immune than it is at present.”

With all due respect to Yadlin, he assumes that Iran's Air Defense capability in 2025 will be the same as it is in 2015..

Considering the upgrades in Russian AD technology that is on it's way to Iran, this is an inaccurate and fatal assumption...

Give Iran a year or two with Russia as it's Military/Air Defense partner and Iran is going to be a LOT harder nut to crack...

Anyone who thinks that 2025 Iran will be as easy to attack as 2015 Iran is a political flunky with an agenda...

Michale

It basically buys time and lots of support for what may very well be inevitable military action to stop Iran's nefarious nuclear and non-nuclear behavior.

And, just remember...Peace at any cost is not true peace...It's slavery....

That is good to remember but, it doesn't apply to what we are discussing ...

Peace at any cost is not true peace...

It's slavery....

Michale

"This is not my conclusion only. It is the judgment of the individual who arguably knows the most about using military force to prevent states from acquiring nuclear weapons. As a young pilot in the Israeli Air Force, Amos Yadlin was one of the pilots who dropped the bombs that destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981. As Israel’s head of military intelligence, he designed the attack that destroyed Syria’s nuclear plant and developed capabilities and plans for attacking Iran’s nuclear program. Assessing the parameters of the framework agreement Iran and world powers struck in April, Yadlin wrote, “[M]ilitary action against the Iranian nuclear program in 2025 would in all probability not be much more complicated or difficult than in 2015… [T]he Iranian program will be reduced compared to what it is today, intelligence about it will be better, and it will be less immune than it is at present.”
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/07/why-best-arguments-against-iran-deal-are-all-wrong/117322/

I also don't think that the implementation of the JCPOA would limit the ability of the US to take effective military action, if needed, against Iran. In fact, I think the opposite is true. With the agreement, Iran's nuclear program will be more restricted than without the deal and intel about the program will be much enhanced. Which will render Iran far less immune from the impacts of military action against its nuclear infrastructure.

This is one reason why I thought you would be in favour of the JCPOA.

This is not my conclusion only. It is the judgment of the individual who arguably knows the most about using military force to prevent states from acquiring nuclear weapons. As a young pilot in the Israeli Air Force, Amos Yadlin was one of the pilots who dropped the bombs that destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981. As Israel’s head of military intelligence, he designed the attack that destroyed Syria’s nuclear plant and developed capabilities and plans for attacking Iran’s nuclear program. Assessing the parameters of the framework agreement Iran and world powers struck in April, Yadlin wrote, “[M]ilitary action against the Iranian nuclear program in 2025 would in all probability not be much more complicated or difficult than in 2015… [T]he Iranian program will be reduced compared to what it is today, intelligence about it will be better, and it will be less immune than it is at present.”

Let's be accurate here...

The deal is not "fully endorsed" by most of the rest of the world let alone the rest of the P5+1...

The ONLY governments that are as supportive of the deal as Obama is governments like Syria, Russia and China..

Hardly the shining enlightened beacon of support that you make it out to be..

Every ally in the region is opposed to this deal..

Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Qatar
UAE
Israel
Bahrain

Are all opposed to this deal because it empowers Iran and gives them hundreds of billions of fresh new dollars..

To put it into context, it would be as if the US Government gave the American Nazi Party a couple hundred billion dollars and elevated then to "respected Party" status...

No way, no how could ANY good come of that...

It's the same thing...

Michale

One of the arguments in favor of the deal and against continuing sanctions is that other countries were not willing to continue the sanctions..

No, that's not right.

Part of the deal is sanctions relief. Without sanctions relief, there would be no deal. Of course, without the very muscular international sanctions, there would have been no incentive for Iran to come to the negotiating table and satisfy the demands of the international community with respect to restricting Iran's nuclear program.

And, of course, if the US unilaterally rejects this deal, a deal that is fully endorsed by the rest of the P5+1 and most of the rest of the civilized world, you can imagine why sanctions won't be reinstated in the absence of American endorsement of the JCPOA.

To reiterate, if the US rejects this deal at this stage, then the US will lose more than the ability to use sanctions on Iran or on any other deserving country, for any reason, for a very long time. Because, it will take a very, very long time for the US to regain the credibility and trustworthiness that it will certainly lose in the wake of such a ... what's your word? ... ah, yeah, boneheaded move as rejecting the JCPOA.

DOH!!!

If Hillary never transmitted or received any classified material on her home-brew mailserv...

Why are the majority of her emails that are being released heavily redacted???

Michale

One of the arguments in favor of the deal and against continuing sanctions is that other countries were not willing to continue the sanctions..

If Iran fails to meet its obligations under the JCPOA, then sanctions won't really do the trick anyway.

Then the only option left is bombing Iran back to the Stone Age...

Especially in the case where the dreaded military options must be taken in the sense that this deal ensures that we will know so much more about Iran's nuclear program and increases the chances that some of our international partners will be with the US if military action is required.

Just take the leash off of Israel and arm them appropriately..

Problem solved.. :D

Michale

We weren't trying to convince the rest of the P5+1 to continue sanctions ... the idea was to negotiate a deal to restrict Iran's nuclear program in exchange for some sanctions relief.
That's called a compromise and a very good one at
that.

If Iran fails to meet its obligations under the JCPOA, then sanctions won't really do the trick anyway. As for Iran's continuing nefarious non-nuclear activity, we have to come up with better ways than sanctions to deter that, I think.

So, for me, there is altogether too much focus being put on sanctions.

If this deal was the equivalent of simply kicking the can down the road, you would have a valid point. But, it does so much more than that. Especially in the case where the dreaded military options must be taken in the sense that this deal ensures that we will know so much more about Iran's nuclear program and increases the chances that some of our international partners will be with the US if military action is required.

Nothing earth shattering or unexpected..

We simply disagree on the best way to implement the agreed upon facts...

Snap-back on the sanctions simply will not work for the exact same reasons you state continuing sanctions won't work...

If we couldn't convince our international partners to CONTINUE the sanctions that WERE working, then we will be unable to convince our international partners to re-impose sanctions that had already been lifted...

Therefore, as I see, there won't be any consequences for Iran cheating..

And once Iran realizes that sanctions won't be re-imposed, they will ramp up their nuclear progress even further than it was before the deal..

Because Iran will have hundreds of billions of fresh new dollars that they can use to further their terrorism and their nuclear program...

If we want to stop Iran's nuclear program, we have to change their behavior..

Simply kicking the can down the road for a future POTUS to handle doesn't accomplish anything..

Michale

I'm sensing some uncommon ground approaching but, do carry on!

We both agree that Iran has no "right" to nuclear weapons.

We both agree it is IMPERATIVE that Iran be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons..

We further agree that Iran cannot be trusted..

We also agree that Iran will, in all likelihood, cheat on the deal they have made...

Would this be an accurate assessment of the common ground we share??

Michale

I'll let ya know where I am going with this once I figure it out myself.. :D heh

Michale

And would you also agree that, regardless of the rights of sovereign nations, etc etc that, due to Iran's sponsor of terrorism and their repeated statements regarding Israel, that Iran does not have the "right" to develop nuclear weapons??

That Iran forfeited that right based on their actions and statements..

Michale

Do you agree that Iran acquiring Nuclear Weapons would be a very VERY bad thing for the region, for Israel and for the United States??

Michale

If you wish your arguments to be taken seriously, then you really must stop quoting people out of context. Your absolute penchant for doing so only betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of some very critical issues of the day and how they are being addressed.

The goal of the Iran negotiations has always been to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. The JCPOA, if fully implemented, goes quite a long way toward achieving that goal by putting in place verifiable restrictions on Iran's nuclear programme and infrastructure for the duration of the agreement and beyond.

It will be the US Congress, if it fails to support this agreement, that will be responsible for allowing Iran to continue its nuclear programme without any effective restrictions or restraints.

One final word on sanctions, if I may ...

Sanctions have succeeded in bringing Iran to the negotiating table to restrict its nuclear programme to solely peaceful purposes.

Sanctions have most decidedly NOT worked to curb Iran's nuclear programme or to change its behavior with respect to support for terrorism, violation of human rights and destabilizing activities in the Middle East.

"I will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power."

And Kerry's words..

"The sanctions were put in place to dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure."

With THAT goal in mind...

The stated and obvious goal that the whole world strove for...

With THAT goal, the JCPOA is a dismal failure.

This is undeniable...

Michale

IF Congress supports Iran obtaining Nuclear Weapons, then yes..

It's a GREAT deal that deserves the active and full support of the US Congress...

Because that is exactly what this deal will deal. Encourage, facilitate and guarantee that Iran becomes a nuclear power..

If it's such a good deal, why did Obama have to bribe Israel with the Pollard release? :D

Michale

However, the safeguards confidential agreement that the IAEA negotiates with individual countries - in this case, Iran - are kept confidential and the US Congress has no role in reviewing those documents.

Any careful reading of the JCPOA, Michale, will lead to the conclusion that it is a deal that deserves the active and full support of the US Congress.

You see, Liz...

It's a bad deal if Obama is hiding the docs from the American people...

Michale

It IS true and it's likely to give Democrats the cover they need to override Obama's veto....

See http://www.c-span.org if you're interested.

I don't do links.. hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

J/K....

But seriously, if anyone is owed an apology, it's the American people who are owed an apology by Kerry..

AND the Israeli people...

We will know sooner rather than later that this is a bad deal..

I just hope the proof doesn't come in the form of a dirty bomb armed Hamas or a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or Haifa..

Michale

Cruz proved, in less than five minutes, that he is completely unfit to be a US senator, let alone POTUS. Unbelievable!

See http://www.c-span.org if you're interested.

The frustrating part about it is that the absolute foolishness over this deal with Iran will have been so unnecessary. EVERYTHING the opponents are decrying will happen in 10 years, 15 years, 25, years will begin the day that this deal is rejected. How can they be that obtuse?

They are so worried they won't be able to slap on sanctions if Iran engages in non-nuclear nefarious activity. Yeah, well, sanctions have been soooooooooooo successful at curbing Iran's behavior, haven't they? I mean, really!. Wake up and smell the coffee, people! Sanctions haven't done anything to curb Iran's behavior - on their nuclear program or on anything else!

They are worried about the "secret side deal" - GIVE ME A BREAK! - that the IAEA negotiates with Iran over how the Additional Protocol will be implemented. They want to drag the head of the IAEA before their committee - for what? So they can grill him and lecture him on why the United States of America is the best entity to deal with this situation? Oh, please. Think invasion of Iraq and non-existent WMD that the IAEA said in March of 2003 it could find no evidence of before the US rushed into a war it couldn't or wouldn't properly execute and resource to rid Iraq of WMD!!!!

So, guess what? The US Congress is going to have to grow some brain cells and figure out just what needs to be done to curb Iran's behavior when it comes to their sponsorship of terrorism and their actions against civil human rights. Because, sanctions aren't worth the trouble if you don't want to negotiate or accept a deal like the JCPOA.

The US Congress has a role to play in implementing the JCPOA and in ensuring Iran actually does change its behavior but, killing this nuclear deal with Iran has US priorities and interests, not to mention those of Israel, completely ass-backwards.

Congress should and could start engaging in enlightened behavior and help to ensure that this deal lives up to its great potential. It could start by ensuring that the IAEA has all of the resources it needs to carry out its duties as outlined in this JCPOA. Of course, that would take a lot of hard work and really doesn't lend itself to self-righteous finger wagging asinine lines of questioning and grandstanding.

When did the US Congress become so dangerously self-destructive?

My mistake..

It was the French equivalent of our National Security Adviser who made the comments..

My bust...

The top French negotiator is saying that, if Congress votes this deal down, they can go back to the negotiating table and get a BETTER deal..

So much for all the gloom and doom from Obama and Kerry, eh??

They are, once again, lying thru their teeth to push their political agenda...

Before, I was ambivalent about Congress killing this deal.

Now, I am enthusiastically supporting Congress killing this deal..

Michale

Michale

Of course, this comment has come through, without a hitch ... ??

Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not stop Iran's illicit nuclear programme. You need only review our recent history with Iran on this issue to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table to restrict their nuclear programme is because those sanctions are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was successful in bringing the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime that was unprecedented in its scope and severity. This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will present for you in further detail, someday. If you're lucky. :)

... continued

Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not work to stop Iran's illicit nuclear programme. You need only review our recent history with Iran to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table to restrict its nuclear program is because those sanctions are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was successful in bringing the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime that is unprecedented in its scope and severity. This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out in greater detail for you, someday. If you're lucky. :)

Now, if Iran refused to agree to the deal it was being offered by the P5+1, then you could make a good wager that the sanctions would have been left in place, if not further strengthened. Iran would remain isolated, stuck with a crippled economy, yet fully capable of realizing many of its nuclear ambitions. Because, we have already seen that even under the strongest sanctions regime ever imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran was able to move its nuclear programme significantly forward.

On the other hand, if the US Congress rejects a deal that the rest of the P5+1 countries worked so long and hard to achieve and that they all whole-heartedly support, then it will be the US, not Iran, that finds itself isolated from the international community on this issue - and on many other critical issues, for that matter - with all of the catastrophic consequences that would surely follow such a foolhardy move.

Only a fantasist would argue that sanctions could remain in place or be strengthened if the US rejects the JCPOA. You see, Michale, your sanctions arguments lack context and, therefore, are devoid of any meaningful substance.

My questions for you: Why would you wish to reject a deal before we find out if it can be fully implemented, verified, monitored and enforced BEFORE we resort to any military option? And, is the US military prepared to go it alone in starting a war with Iran and will the American people support yet another long and costly war in the Middle East, especially without having exhausted all of the diplomatic otpions?

Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not work to stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. You need only review our recent history with Iran to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table to restrict its nuclear programme is because they are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was successful in bringing the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime unprecedented in its scope and severity.This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out for you in further detail, someday. If you're lucky. :)

... continued ...

Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. You need only review our recent history with Iran to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table to restrict its nuclear programme is because those sanctions are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was successful in bringing the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime unprecedented in its scope and severity. This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out for you in further detail, someday. If you're lucky. :)

... continued ...

Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. You need only review the recent history of Iran's nuclear program to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table to restrict its nuclear programme is because they are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was successful in bringing the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime unprecedented in its scope and severity. This was the Obama Doctrine, by the way, in action. Which I will lay out for you in further detail, someday. If you're lucky. :)

Now, if Iran had refused to agree to the deal it was being offered by the p5+1, then you could have made a good wager that the sanctions would have been kept in place. Iran would remain isolated, stuck with a crippled economy, yet full capable of realizing many of its nuclear ambitions. Because, we have already seen that even under the strongest sanctions regime ever imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran was able to move its nuclear programme significantly forward.

On the other hand, if the US rejects a deal that the P5+1 countries worked so long and hard to achieve and that they all fully support, then it will be the US, not Iran, that finds itself isolated from the international community on this issue - and on other critical issues, for that matter - with all of the catastrophic consequences that would surely follow such a foolhardy move.

Only a fantasist would argue that sanctions could remain in place or be strengthened if the US rejects the JCPOA. You see, Michale, your sanctions arguments lack context and, therefore, are devoid of any meaningful substance.

My questions for you: Why would you wish to reject a deal before we find out if it can be fully implemented, verified, monitored and enforced BEFORE we resort to any military option? And, is the US military prepared to go it alone in a war with Iran and will the American people support yet another long war in the Middle East?

Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not work to stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. You need only review recent history to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table to restrict its nuclear programme is because they are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was successful in bringing the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime unprecedented in its scope and severity. This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out for you in further detail, someday. If you're lucky.

Now, if Iran had refused to agree to the deal it was being offered by the P5+1, then you could have placed a good bet that the sanctions would have been left in place, if not further strengthened. Iran would remain isolated, stuck with a crippled economy, yet fully capable of realizing many of its nuclear ambitions. Because, we have already seen that even under the strongest sanctions regime ever imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran was able to move its nuclear program significantly forward.

On the other hand, if the US Congress rejects a deal that the rest of the P5+1 countries worked so long and hard to achieve and that they all whole-heartedly support, then it will be the US, not Iran, that finds itself isolated from the international community on this issue - and on many other critical issues, for that matter - with all of the catastrophic consequences that would surely follow such a foolhardy move.

Only a fantasist would argue that sanctions could remain in place or be strengthened if the US rejects the JCPOA. You see, Michale, your sanctions arguments lack context and, therefore, are devoid of any meaningful substance.

My questions for you: Why would you wish to reject a deal before we find out if it can be fully implemented, verified, monitored and enforced BEFORE we resort to any military option? And, is the US military prepared to go it alone in starting a war with Iran and will the American people support yet another long war in the Middle East?

Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not work to stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. You need only review recent history to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table to restrict its nuclear programme is because they are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was successful in bringing the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime unprecedented in its scope and severity. This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out for you in further detail, someday. If you're lucky.

Now, if Iran had refused to agree to the deal it was being offered by the P5+1, then you could have made a good wager that the sanctions would have been left in place, if not further strengthened. Iran would remain isolated, stuck with a crippled economy, yet fully capable of realizing many of its nuclear ambitions. Because, we have already seen that even under the strongest sanctions regime ever imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran was able to move its nuclear program significantly forward.

On the other hand, if the US Congress rejects a deal that the rest of the P5+1 countries worked so long and hard to achieve and that they all whole-heartedly support, then it will be the US, not Iran, that finds itself isolated from the international community on this issue - and on many other critical issues, for that matter - with all of the catastrophic consequences that would surely follow such a foolhardy move.

Only a fantasist would argue that sanctions could remain in place or be strengthened if the US rejects the JCPOA. You see, Michale, your sanctions arguments lack context and, therefore, are devoid of any meaningful substance.

My questions for you: Why would you wish to reject a deal before we find out if it can be fully implemented, verified, monitored and enforced BEFORE we resort to any military option? And, is the US military prepared to go it alone in starting a war with Iran and will the American people support yet another long war in the Middle East?

Sanctions have been PROVEN to work...Continuing the sanctions was the ONLY logical response to Iran..NOW, thanks to Obama's deal, the *ONLY* way to stop Iran *IS* with War... Overt or covert, but war is the ONLY option now..

... continued

Sanctions have been PROVEN to work...Continuing the sanctions was the ONLY logical response to Iran...NOW, thanks to Obama's deal, the *ONLY* way to stop Iran *IS* with War... Overt or covert, but war is the ONLY option now..

Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not work to stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. You need only review recent history to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table to restrict its nuclear programme is because they are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was successful in bringing the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime unprecedented in its scope and severity. This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out for you in further detail, someday. If you're lucky. :)

Now, if Iran had refused to agree to the deal being offered by the P5+1, then you could have placed a good bet that the sanctions would have been left in place, if not further strengthened. And, Iran would remain isolated, stuck with a crippled economy, yet fully capable of realizing many of its nuclear ambitions. Because, we have already seen that even under the strongest sanctions regime ever imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran was able to move its nuclear program significantly forward.

On the other hand, if the US Congress rejects a deal that the rest of the P5+1 countries worked so long and hard to achieve and that they all whole-heartedly support, then it will be the US, not Iran, that finds itself isolated from the international community on this issue - and on many other critical issues, for that matter - with all of the catastrophic consequences that would surely follow such a foolhardy move.

Only a fantasist would argue that sanctions could remain in place or be strengthened if the US rejects the JCPOA. You see, Michale, your sanctions arguments lack context and, therefore, are devoid of any meaningful substance.

My questions for you: Why would you wish to reject a deal before we find out if it can be fully implemented, verified, monitored and enforced and BEFORE we resort to any military option?

And, is the US military prepared to go it alone in starting a war with Iran and will the American people support yet another long war in the Middle East?

Sanctions have been PROVEN to work...Continuing the sanctions was the ONLY logical response to Iran..NOW, thanks to Obama's deal, the *ONLY* way to stop Iran *IS* with War... Overt or covert, but war is the ONLY option now..
Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not work to stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. You need only review recent history to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table to restrict their nuclear programme is because they are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was successful in bringing the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime that was unprecedented in its scope and severity. This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out in further detail for you, someday. If you're lucky.

Now, if Iran had refused to agree to the deal it was being offered by the P5+1, then you could have placed a good bet that the sanctions would have been left in place, if not further strengthened. Iran would remain isolated, stuck with a crippled economy, yet fully capable of realizing many of its nuclear ambitions. Because, we have already seen that even under the strongest sanctions regime ever imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran was able to move its nuclear program significantly forward.

On the other hand, if the US Congress rejects a deal that the rest of the P5+1 countries worked so long and hard to achieve and that they all whole-heartedly support, then it will be the US, not Iran, that finds itself isolated from the international community on this issue - and many others, for that matter - with all of the catastrophic consequences that would surely follow such a foolhardy move.

Only a fantasist would argue that sanctions could remain in place or be strengthened if the US rejects this deal. You see, Michale, your sanctions arguments lack context and, therefore, are devoid of any meaningful substance.

When you see any of the former, please let me know.. :D

Sorry, but I have to bail now.. It's time for MY swim...

Plus the grandkids are here... So I am pretty much done for the night..

I'll catch ya early in the AM.. :D But I have Gampy duty all day so it's gonna be sporadic :D

Michale

Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not work to stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. You just have to review recent history to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table is because they are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was able to bring the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime that was unprecedented in its scope and severity.This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out for you in further detail, someday. If you're lucky.

Now, if Iran had refused to agree to the deal it was being offered by the P5+1, then you could have placed a good bet that the sanctions would have been left in place, if not further strengthened. Iran would remain isolated, stuck with a crippled economy and fully capable of realizing many of its nuclear ambitions. Because, we have already seen that even under the strongest sanctions regime ever imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran was able to move its nuclear program significantly forward.

On the other hand, if the US Congress rejects a deal that the rest of the P5+1 countries worked so long and hard to achieve and that they all whole-heartedly support, then it will be the US, not Iran, that finds itself isolated from the international community on this issue, with all of the catastrophic consequences that would surely follow such a foolhardy move.

Only a fantasist would argue that sanctions could remain in place or be strengthened if this scenario plays out. You see, Michale, your sanctions arguments lack context and, therefore, are devoid of any meaningful substance.

Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not work to stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. You just have to review recent history to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table is because they are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was able to bring the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime that was unprecedented in its scope and severity.This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out for you in further detail, someday. If you're lucky.

Now, if Iran had refused to agree to the deal it was being offered by the P5+1, then you could have placed a good bet that the sanctions would have been left in place, if not further strengthened. Iran would remain isolated, stuck with a crippled economy, yet fully capable of realizing many of its nuclear ambitions. Because, we have already seen that even under the strongest sanctions regime ever imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran was able to move its nuclear program significantly forward.

On the other hand, if the US Congress rejects a deal that the rest of the P5+1 countries worked so long and hard to achieve and that they all whole-heartedly support, then it will be the US, not Iran, that finds itself isolated from the international community on this issue, with all of the catastrophic consequences that would surely follow such a foolhardy move.

Only a fantasist would argue that sanctions could remain in place or be strengthened if this scenario plays out. You see, Michale, your sanctions arguments lack context and, therefore, are devoid of any meaningful substance.

Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not work to stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. You just have to review recent history to know that.

The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table is because they are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was able to bring the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime that was unprecedented in its scope and severity. This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out for you in further detail, someday. If you're lucky.

Now, if Iran had refused to agree to the deal it was being offered by the P5+1, then you could have placed a good bet that the sanctions would have been left in place, if not further strengthened. Iran would remain isolated, stuck with a crippled economy and fully capable of realizing many of its nuclear ambitions. Because, we have already seen that even under the strongest sanctions regime ever imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran was able to move its nuclear program significantly forward.

On the other hand, if the US Congress rejects a deal that the rest of the P5+1 countries worked so long and hard to achieve and that they all whole-heartedly support, then it will be the US, not Iran, that finds itself isolated from the international community on this issue, with all of the catastrophic consequences that would surely follow such a foolhardy move.

Only a fantasist would argue that sanctions could remain in place or be strengthened if this scenario plays out.

You see, Michale, your sanctions arguments lack context and, therefore, are devoid of any meaningful substance.

That was nice ... I feel re-energized. Which is very bad for you, Michale. :)

A word about the media before we resume our discussion, if I may ...

There are only two kinds of media ... the kind that informs and the kind that wastes my time.

Moving on ...

Now let me give you a recent example of the persisting insularity of liberal thought in the media. When the first secret Planned Parenthood video was released in mid-July, anyone who looks only at liberal media was kept totally in the dark about it, even after the second video was released. But the videos were being run nonstop all over conservative talk shows on radio and television. It was a huge and disturbing story, but there was total silence in the liberal media. That kind of censorship was shockingly unprofessional. The liberal major media were trying to bury the story by ignoring it. Now I am a former member of Planned Parenthood and a strong supporter of unconstrained reproductive rights. But I was horrified and disgusted by those videos and immediately felt there were serious breaches of medical ethics in the conduct of Planned Parenthood officials. But here’s my point: it is everyone’s obligation, whatever your political views, to look at both liberal and conservative news sources every single day. You need a full range of viewpoints to understand what is going on in the world.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/29/camille_paglia_takes_on_jon_stewart_trump_sanders_liberals_think_of_themselves_as_very_open_minded_but_that%E2%80%99s_simply_not_true/

You GO girl!!! :D

Couldn't have said it better myself... :D

Michale

Why thank you.. :D That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.. heh :D

Michale

Yer just dying for a war with Iran, eh?? :D

Sanctions have been PROVEN to work...

Continuing the sanctions was the ONLY logical response to Iran..

But sanctions would not have gotten Obama his legacy....

So, the sanctions had to go...

And here we are...

NOW, thanks to Obama's deal, the *ONLY* way to stop Iran *IS* with War... Overt or covert, but war is the ONLY option now..

Great job, Obama...

Michale