Iran's take on GOP Treason Letter

[QuickSilver]

Well... Thanks so much you 47 traitors.. Thanks for knocking the USA down in the sight of an adversary. If that's not treason what is. These 47 nutjobs need to compose another letter... One of apology to the President, and also to the American people for doing this to our image. HOW do they expect to be seen as strong now? Oh... yeah.. that's right... bomb bomb bomb.......bomb bomb Iran. Fools..

http://abcnews.go.com/International...-gop-letter-points-us-disintegration-29576197

Iran's supreme leader said Thursday that a letter from Republican lawmakers warning that any nuclear deal could be scrapped by the next U.S. president is a sign of "disintegration" in Washington.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the letter a sign of "the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system's internal disintegration," according to the official IRNA news agency. It was the first reaction to the letter by Khamenei, who has the final say over all major policies.
Khamenei said states typically remain loyal to their commitments even if governments change, " but American senators officially announced the commitment will be null and void after this government leaves office. Isn't this the ultimate degree of the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system's internal disintegration?"

 

[Ralphy1]

Yup, Iran sees what's going on clearer than many of us do...

 

[QuickSilver]

I'm not sure if the Republicans don't see this letter as a rounding success now. Why should Iran reach a peaceful settlement on Nuclear control with us? Isn't that what the GOP really wants... NO nuclear agreement? Therefore, Iran will build a bomb... and WE will be able to start a war with them. That IMO was the real intended consequence of this letter. They all need to hang their heads in SHAME.

 

[Josiah]

I'm surprised we are not seeing more peevish irritation from the five other countries working with us to negotiate an enforceable nuclear understanding with Iran. They too have stakes in seeing that Iran doesn't become a nuclear power and I don't think they want to see a war with Iran.

 

[Misty]

I'm surprised we are not seeing more peevish irritation from the five other countries working with us to negotiate an enforceable nuclear understanding with Iran. They too have stakes in seeing that Iran doesn't become a nuclear power and I don't think they want to see a war with Iran.

Our Arab allies are not in agreement with Obama's Iran talks

MIDDLE EAST CROSSROADS
Like Israel, U.S. Arab Allies Fear Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal
Kerry Visiting Saudi Arabia to assuage concerns
ENLARGE
Saudi Arabia's King SalmanMIDDLE EAST CROSSROADS
Like Israel, U.S. Arab Allies Fear Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal
Kerry Visiting Saudi Arabia to assuage concerns



By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV
March 4, 2015 4:32 p.m. ET
198 COMMENTS
DUBAI—It isn’t just about Bibi.


The Israeli prime minister’s public confrontation with President Barack Obama over the U.S. administration’s pursuit of a nuclear bargain with Iran may have drawn all the spotlight this week. But America’s other key allies across the Middle East—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates—are just as distraught, even if they lack the kind of lobbying platform that Benjamin Netanyahu was offered in Congress


These nations’ ties with Washington have already frayed in recent years, dented by what many officials in the region describe as a nagging sense that America doesn’t care about this part of the world anymore.


Now, with the nuclear talks nearing a deadline, these allies—particularly in the Gulf—fret that America is about to ditch its long-standing friends to win love from their common foe, at the very moment that this foe is on the offensive across the region.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/like-israel-u-s-arab-allies-fear-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-1425504773

 

[Josiah]

Our Arab allies are not in agreement with Obama's Iran talks

MIDDLE EAST CROSSROADS
Like Israel, U.S. Arab Allies Fear Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal
Kerry Visiting Saudi Arabia to assuage concerns
ENLARGE
Saudi Arabia's King SalmanMIDDLE EAST CROSSROADS
Like Israel, U.S. Arab Allies Fear Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal
Kerry Visiting Saudi Arabia to assuage concerns


By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV
March 4, 2015 4:32 p.m. ET
198 COMMENTS
DUBAI—It isn’t just about Bibi.


The Israeli prime minister’s public confrontation with President Barack Obama over the U.S. administration’s pursuit of a nuclear bargain with Iran may have drawn all the spotlight this week. But America’s other key allies across the Middle East—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates—are just as distraught, even if they lack the kind of lobbying platform that Benjamin Netanyahu was offered in Congress.


ANALYSIS


These nations’ ties with Washington have already frayed in recent years, dented by what many officials in the region describe as a nagging sense that America doesn’t care about this part of the world anymore.


Advertisement


Now, with the nuclear talks nearing a deadline, these allies—particularly in the Gulf—fret that America is about to ditch its long-standing friends to win love from their common foe, at the very moment that this foe is on the offensive across the region., right, receives Egypt's President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi in Riyadh on Sunday. PHOTO: SAUDI PRESS AGENCY/REUTERS

By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV
March 4, 2015 4:32 p.m. ET
198 COMMENTS
DUBAI—It isn’t just about Bibi.


The Israeli prime minister’s public confrontation with President Barack Obama over the U.S. administration’s pursuit of a nuclear bargain with Iran may have drawn all the spotlight this week. But America’s other key allies across the Middle East—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates—are just as distraught, even if they lack the kind of lobbying platform that Benjamin Netanyahu was offered in Congress.


ANALYSIS


These nations’ ties with Washington have already frayed in recent years, dented by what many officials in the region describe as a nagging sense that America doesn’t care about this part of the world anymore.


Advertisement


Now, with the nuclear talks nearing a deadline, these allies—particularly in the Gulf—fret that America is about to ditch its long-standing friends to win love from their common foe, at the very moment that this foe is on the offensive across the region.

I'm sorry this doesn't make much sense to me. In what way would the US be ditching its long-standing friends? Nor are we seeking to win the love of Iran. We're just trying to limits Iran's ability to become a nuclear power. If this indeed is the feeling of the Arab countries, the US can well do without such friends IMHO.

 

[QuickSilver]

I'm sorry this doesn't make much sense to me. In what way would the US be ditching its long-standing friends? Nor are we seeking to win the love of Iran. We're just trying to limits Iran's ability to become a nuclear power. If this indeed is the feeling of the Arab countries, the US can well do without such friends IMHO.

Yes...I agree... Looks like Israel does too.. because since his ill conceived speech in Washington, his poll number in Israel have dropped drastically.. Looks like he has a very good chance of losing the election.

 

[Debby]

............
Now, with the nuclear talks nearing a deadline, these allies—particularly in the Gulf—fret that America is about to ditch its long-standing friends to win love from their common foe, at the very moment that this foe is on the offensive across the region.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/like-israel-u-s-arab-allies-fear-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-1425504773

Have Iranian armies become a thing and I didn't notice? Where are they marching to in their 'offensive'? I can't help but wonder if the author isn't stretching things about Iran in an effort to support aggression towards Russia. After all,Yaroslav Trofimov, the guy who made that statement is born in Kiev, Ukraine and has worked in the US for Wall Street Journal for years and Russia and Iran have ties. Not unlikely at all as far as I can see.



Let's see, his article is decidedly negative and yet when I look at a page out of Newsweek, I find this, which having read it, I would call more positive (and declarative) than anything:

What is Iran doing in Iraq? How important is Iran in the ground war against ISIS?
The Iranian government, particularly the Revolutionary Guards, is playing a huge role in helping the Iraqi security forces fight the Islamic State, especially in Diyala. The Guards are working with the Iraqi central government, but they are reportedly heavily reliant on Shiite militias with close ties to Iran. Iran is now arguably the most influential foreign actor in Iraq........Secretary of State John Kerry has acknowledged that the net effect of Iranian strikes on ISIS “is positive.” http://www.newsweek.com/what-are-iranians-doing-iraq-303107


Two different American msm organizations, two different attitudes. Is this one more example of how much trust we should be giving to pronouncements by anyone in the mainstream media? A further support for the idea that we should look for multiple sources before accepting inflammatory rhetoric?

 

[QuickSilver]

Have Iranian armies become a thing and I didn't notice? Where are they marching to in their 'offensive'?

Oh yes.. Iran IS on the offensive... Iran is fighting ISIS in Iraq... This is something that I don't think our Republican friends understand.. Marco Rubio had a hard time with it in a hearing yesterday.. Saying that Iran is afraid of the US coming in to defeat ISIS.. NO... Iran is HAPPY that we are bombing ISIS.. because folks.. On this point.. WE and IRAN happen to be on the same side.. The Iraqi army as well as the Iranian army have teamed up to run ISIS out of major cities.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/rubios-confusion-about-isis-and-iran-continues/

“I believe that much of our strategy with regards to ISIS is being driven by a desire not to upset Iran so that they don’t walk away from the negotiating table on the deal that you’re working on,” Rubio said to Secretary of State John F. Kerry. “Tell me why I’m wrong.”
“Because the facts completely contradict that,” Kerry replied. “But I’m not at liberty to discuss all of them here for a lot of different reasons.”
Rubio was suggesting that the Obama administration is stinting in its airstrikes against the Islamic State in order to allay Iranian anxiety about a new American military incursion into the region [bold mine-DL]. In preamble questions for Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Rubio suggested that any American military presence would threaten Iran’s desire to be a regional “hegemon.” And by holding back, Rubio suggests, Obama is paving the way for a diplomatic deal on the Iranian nuclear program — a deal that Republicans on and off Capitol Hill are deeply skeptical about.

When Rubio and Jindal floated this idea last month at CPAC, I thought it might have just been a ridiculous crowd-pleasing line. The fact that Rubio is bringing it up again in a committee hearing means that he must really think this is a clever line of attack. The trouble is that it makes no more sense today than it did then. Iran is actively fighting against ISIS in Iraq, the Iraqi government it supports is threatened by ISIS, and ISIS itself is antithetical to Iran’s own prevailing religious tradition. If the U.S. were attacking ISIS more aggressively, it is hard to see how Iran would be alarmed or concerned by this.

 

[Josiah]

What the Iranian armies have been doing is assisting us in combating ISIS.

 

[Jackie22]

Oh yes.. Iran IS on the offensive... Iran is fighting ISIS in Iraq... This is something that I don't think our Republican friends understand.. Marco Rubio had a hard time with it in a hearing yesterday.. Saying that Iran is afraid of the US coming in to defeat ISIS.. NO... Iran is HAPPY that we are bombing ISIS.. because folks.. On this point.. WE and IRAN happen to be on the same side.. The Iraqi army as well as the Iranian army have teamed up to run ISIS out of major cities.

Good point, QS, you are correct, just another example of Republicans acting without facts.

 

[QuickSilver]

What the Iranian armies have been doing is assisting us in combating ISIS.

Yes... I was posting that above. Seems like some folks just don't seem to have a grasp on what is going on.. Rubio.. being one of them.. and that's scary because HE thinks he can be President....

 

[Misty]

I'm sorry this doesn't make much sense to me. In what way would the US be ditching its long-standing friends? Nor are we seeking to win the love of Iran. We're just trying to limits Iran's ability to become a nuclear power. If this indeed is the feeling of the Arab countries, the US can well do without such friends IMHO.

I think one of their worries, Josiah, is about the 10 year agreement in the talks for Iran to be able to rebuild their nuclear capabilities after 10 years. Iran is already discussing that they will not follow that agreement. Iran often states they will not go along with the U.S. peace talk negotiations, and then Pres. Obama backs down.

 

[Josiah]

So our Arab friends would prefer to swap a 10 year hiatus in Iran's march to Nuclear armaments for no hiatus?

 

[QuickSilver]

I think one of their worries, Josiah, is about the 10 year agreement in the talks for Iran to be able to rebuild their nuclear capabilities after 10 years. Iran is already discussing that they will not follow that agreement. Iran often states they will not go along with the U.S. peace talk negotiations, and then Pres. Obama backs down.

What's the alternative... Sabotage the talks so that instead of 10 years they start to build the bomb NOW? So you want to go to war? Because without any alternative plan that's what is going to happen.. Is that what you want? That's what many in the Congress want.. including those 47 signing that letter.

 

[Misty]

What's the alternative... Sabotage the talks so that instead of 10 years they start to build the bomb NOW? So you want to go to war? Because without any alternative plan that's what is going to happen.. Is that what you want? That's what many in the Congress want.. including those 47 signing that letter.

The alternative could be Strong Sanctions with no agreement to Iran on 10 years, that there would be no nuclear enrichment for them at all. I think that is what the Arab countries would recommend. War was not mentioned by me.

 

[QuickSilver]

The alternative could be Strong Sanctions with no agreement to Iran on 10 years, that there would be no nuclear enrichment for them at all. I think that is what the Arab countries would recommend. War was not mentioned by me.

Please explain how more sanctions are going to prevent them from continuing to develop a nuclear bomb? When they haven't so far. Do you think that with no concessions at all, Iran is just going to stop nuclear enrichment... because we tell them to? That's not how negotiations work. No..they will continue to enrich.. and we will eventually have to go to war.. Problem is.. Russia is Iran's ally.. AND last time I checked. Russia has the bomb.

 

[Josiah]

The alternative could be Strong Sanctions with no agreement to Iran on 10 years, that there would be no nuclear enrichment for them at all. I think that is what the Arab countries would recommend. War was not mentioned by me.

I'm sorry Misty I don't understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that in exchange for continuing the sanctions, Iran will stop its program of nuclear enrichment? Sounds like a classic lose lose arrangement for the Iranians.

 

[QuickSilver]

This IMO is a real problem for the GOP... the fact that all this "hard line" talk makes negotiations impossible. They simply cannot negotiate with anyone and maintain a "my way or the highway" attitude. That's only going to lead to war. It's already almost destroyed the ability of Washington to govern. Compromise is not even a word that John Boehner can SAY let alone do. Negotiations work when both sides give and take.. that's what it means.. This hardline GOP rational has got to go.. Hopefully in 2016 it will.

 

[Misty]

Please explain how more sanctions are going to prevent them from continuing to develop a nuclear bomb? When they haven't so far. Do you think that with no concessions at all, Iran is just going to stop nuclear enrichment... because we tell them to? That's not how negotiations work. No..they will continue to enrich.. and we will eventually have to go to war.. Problem is.. Russia is Iran's ally.. AND last time I checked. Russia has the bomb.

Here are the New York times suggestions on strong sanctions

The first, and easiest, would be to end public subsidies of economic development in Iran through loan guarantees. All developed countries (Japan, the E.U., etc.) should stop using taxpayer money to guarantee investments in Iran. Many governments have cut back on such guarantees — they should now end them.

Foreign governments should also prohibit their companies from undertaking large infrastructure projects in Iran, especially in the energy sector. If foreign companies do pursue such projects, they should be prohibited from doing business in the United States — either selling their products or accessing U.S. capital markets.

Second, all exports of refined petroleum products to Iran should be banned. Congress is now considering legislation that would penalize companies that defy such a ban, including shipping companies and insurance companies that cover these shipments. The legislation should be adopted, and U.S. trading partners should pass similar laws. A shortage of fuel could have a quick and negative effect on the ruling regime.

Finally, Iran’s banking sector should be further squeezed. Euro-zone countries could follow the example of the United States and prevent Iranian entities from using the euro. Without the dollar or the euro, it would be costly and difficult for Iran to move hard currency around the world, and would further raise the cost of doing business for the Iranian government and Iranian companies.


Sanctions are a blunt instrument and will undoubtedly hurt Iranian business and individuals. But given the dreadfulness of the other options now available, sanctions are our best bet.




http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes....tions-work-against-iran/comment-page-11/?_r=0

President Obama stated that he would veto any new Iran sanctions by congress. I don't understand why the President never works with Congress, he just does whatever he wants to do on his own, without any input on those we put in Congress to address our concerns. Not everyone voted for Obama, and our congressmen should be allowed to have input too on decisions made by Obama.

 

[Josiah]

Misty, strong sanctions which have been in place for years have worked. They have brought the Iranians to the table to negotiate limitations on their Nuclear enrichment. That's what we wanted the sanctions to accomplish. So now we're trying to hammer out an understanding whereby the Iranians won't continue nuclear enrichment and you want to scuttle the negotiations? I don't understand.

 

[AZ Jim]

Sanctions haven't worked. We need to persevere with negotiations, short of armed conflict it's our only option.

 

[Misty]

Misty, strong sanctions which have been in place for years have worked. They have brought the Iranians to the table to negotiate limitations on their Nuclear enrichment. That's what we wanted the sanctions to accomplish. So now we're trying to hammer out an understanding whereby the Iranians won't continue nuclear enrichment and you want to scuttle the negotiations? I don't understand.

I would be very happy about an agreement with Iran not to continue nuclear enrichment, Josiah, but the agreement to last 10 years and then have ability to enrich is the deal breaker for me. It should not have a 10 year limit in my opinion. Iran is already stating that they will not go along with the 10 year hiatus on nuclear enrichment.

[h=3]Iran rejects Obama's 10-year nuclear-freeze demand[/h] Iran has rejected as "unacceptable" US President Barack Obama's demand that it freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years as part of a landmark nuclear deal,...
Al Jazeera 2015-03-04
[h=3]Iran calls Obama's demand for freezing nuclear activities for 10 years 'unacceptable'[/h] Iran rejected on Tuesday as "unacceptable" U.S. President Barack Obama's demand that it freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years but said it would continue...
DNA India 2015-03-04
[h=3]UPDATE 4-Iran calls Obama's 10-year nuclear demand 'unacceptable'[/h] (Adds Tuesday's talks end, Obama comments on Netanyahu speech) By Arshad Mohammed MONTREUX, Switzerland, March 3 (Reuters) - Iran rejected on Tuesday as "unacceptable" U.S....
Philadelphia Daily News 2015-03-03

 

[Josiah]

Misty, Maybe the Iranian hardliners are saying 10 years is unacceptable, but the understanding that the US Iran and five other nations is negotiation is for 10 years and the prospects seemed good that these negotiations would have led to such an understanding agreed to by Iran, accept for the efforts of the Iranian hardliners and their allies in the US Senate to scuttle the negotiation. I'm sure you're aware Misty, that the only way we can ever feel confident that Iran in not secretly doing nuclear enrichment is if independent observers are allowed by Iran to monitor compliance within the country of Iran. The only way to get those monitors into Iran is with a negotiated understanding such as we are trying to negotiate.

 

[Debby]

Oh yes.. Iran IS on the offensive... Iran is fighting ISIS in Iraq... This is something that I don't think our Republican friends understand.. Marco Rubio had a hard time with it in a hearing yesterday.. Saying that Iran is afraid of the US coming in to defeat ISIS.. NO... Iran is HAPPY that we are bombing ISIS.. because folks.. On this point.. WE and IRAN happen to be on the same side.. The Iraqi army as well as the Iranian army have teamed up to run ISIS out of major cities.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/rubios-confusion-about-isis-and-iran-continues/

​

S0 I have learned something here too and thanks for that folks. I really wasn't aware that Iran was a big player in the fight against ISIS so I'm glad that this came up here.​