Trending Topics:

How Obama won on Iran

Opinion
on 183 Comments

The opposition to the president’s historic deal with Iran is clear. It includes entitled foreign heads of state:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel.

Such a deal would increase the risks of nuclear proliferation in the region and the risks of a horrific war.

Such a deal would not block Iran’s path to the bomb. It would pave it.

Apocalyptic deadenders, like Bill Kristol:

Just FYI: Yesterday, the date of the Iran deal, was in the Hebrew calendar 13 Nissan. Cf. Book of Esther 3:12.

And a cavalcade of establishment hawks and Israel firsters led by Jeffrey Goldberg:

Jeffrey Goldberg doubts

Jeffrey Goldberg doubts

But the great news about the deal is that Obama has managed to assemble a wide coalition of support for peace inside the U.S. establishment. That includes:

Most importantly, Hillary Clinton, who “strongly support[s]” the president, and mentions Israel second;

Clinton Iran statement

Clinton Iran statement

the liberal Israel lobby group J Street, which also mentions Israel second–

in the essential interests of the United States, its allies in the region–including Israel–and the world…. There must also be no question that, if a final agreement ultimately cannot be reached, the United States is not to blame

the New York Times (which also mentions Israel second, to Sunni Arab nations)–

Yet in today’s poisonous political climate, Mr. Obama’s critics have gone to extraordinary lengths to undercut him and any deal. Their belligerent behavior is completely out of step with the American public, which overwhelmingly favors a negotiated solution with Iran, unquestionably the best approach.

Chris Matthews, who was strong for the deal last night; Jonathan Chait, a neocon-lite commentator who has been appalled by Israel’s conduct in the last year–

I was really hoping would go with 30 Years war negotiations this time, but nope, Munich again.

and Peter Beinart, who is astute as always:

can’t help thinking how different debate in Washington (+ Jerusalem) over would be if Sheldon Adelson had a different hobby.

What you must remember about Clinton, the New York Times, Chait and Beinart is that they all joined Kristol 12 years ago in supporting the disastrous Iraq war (in part, surely, because of Israel’s supposed security interests). So the war coalition of 2002-2003 is shattered. Hillary Clinton is getting beaten in Pennsylvania by Rand Paul in the latest Quinnipiac poll: she cannot run as a hawk.

We can thank history for that, principally, but Obama and Netanyahu also deserve credit. Netanyahu did so by overplaying his hand in the last three months and, in the most entitled manner, seeking to bully and manipulate the American political process. His strategy has backfired completely. It turns out that the U.S. is not something that can be easily moved, as he once claimed.

And Obama deserves credit for his strength throughout the last eight weeks. He allowed the fight with Netanyahu to become public. Doing so was a gamble, but he is a good student of politics and he saw that the lobby was fracturing; and the result was that he actually consolidated political support inside the liberal Jewish establishment.

For another thing, he made sure through John Kerry that the deal that was announced yesterday surprised everyone, overwhelming expectations. Remember that in the days leading up to the deal we thought it either wasn’t going to happen or they were going to kick the can down the road, issuing a flimsy statement of general agreement with June set as the hard deadline. No: they shocked the Lausanne deathwatch crew with pages of specifics.

The effect was electrifying. Reporters like Andrea Mitchell and Wolf Blitzer deferred to the diplomatic stroke on television yesterday. It’s not for nothing that reporters likened the talks to Versailles, which ended World War I; and the president’s speech was elegantly triumphant. Obama and Kerry had seized the moment, using the majesty of their offices to the utmost. With all the drama they could summon, they said, This is our generation’s historic moment. And almost everyone deferred to the presidency yesterday. Obama’s liberal base is over the moon; and the celebration in Tehran is also an element of the historic blow they struck. Reporters are sensitive to the zeitgeist. They sense, this is something that cannot be undone. It’s like the Cuba opening. Who will oppose that?

Of course there will be hardliners who try and block the deal, both in Washington and Tehran. But they already look to be obstructionists, fighting the stream of history. And here is my bet: Chuck Schumer will not be among them. The most important congressional swing vote will survey the political landscape and recognize that he must support the president.

The Iran deal is done. It was cut during the last eight weeks, first when Netanyahu tried to commandeer Congress and then when he issued his racist appeal against droves of Arabs on election day in Israel. Obama played that moment like a chess master. Netanyahu’s “kind of rhetoric… starts to erode the meaning of democracy,” he said. And today he has gotten his wish, of moving the U.S. and Iran forward, at last. The result will be growing pressure on the Israeli occupation.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

183 Responses

  1. Walid
    Walid on April 3, 2015, 9:41 am

    He finaly earned his Nobel.

    • ramzijaber
      ramzijaber on April 3, 2015, 10:50 am

      He only started down that path, Walid.

      To earn it, he needs Palestine. Otherwise, not worthy enough…….

      • just
        just on April 3, 2015, 1:00 pm

        +1, Ramzi!

        He’s on that path with Cuba and Iran~ he must insist on Palestine.

        He needs to educate the American people and drown out Congressional naysayers and the rest of the Neocons and the MSM.

        I don’t know if other folks noticed (as Phil did), but the MSM changed their tune ever so slightly yesterday. All of a sudden, they could say “Farsi”, though most networks did not bother to run Zarif’s or Rouhani’s speech in full~ they didn’t even bother to have a translator!!!

        A change is gonna come. (I usually play Sam Cooke, but I feel a change comin’)

      • just
        just on April 3, 2015, 1:08 pm

        Speaking of President Rouhani:

        “President Rohani vows Iran will abide by its commitments in nuclear deal
        Netanyahu: Final nuclear deal must force Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

        Iran’s President Hassan Rohani has pledged his nation will abide by its commitments in the framework nuclear agreement reached with the six world powers in Switzerland.

        Rohani said in a national address on Friday that the Iranians will “remain loyal and stand by the promises” they made,” and that they do not seek to deceive” the international community.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.650420

        I think the preferred spelling of his name is Rouhani… just sayin’.

      • annie
        annie on April 3, 2015, 1:48 pm

        Netanyahu: Final nuclear deal must force Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

        lol, you can’t make this stuff up!

      • JWalters
        JWalters on April 3, 2015, 6:42 pm

        Getting justice for Palestinians will be a lot easier with the MIC proxies in Israel and the U.S. weakened. This deal takes away a lot of their “need” for war with Iran. It also highlights their insanity, as Phil’s article points out. Brilliant diplomatic strategy, it seems to me. Also gutsy, and a lot of hard work. Obama said, “Interesting things can happen in the fourth quarter.” We’re seeing what he meant.

    • HarryLaw
      HarryLaw on April 3, 2015, 5:15 pm

      Walid I am surprised at you, at this very moment the US are coordinating massive air attacks on the civilian population of Yemen, one of the poorest countries on earth. Iran is still in the cross hairs, as far as the US are concerned those sanctions will stay until there is regime change in Iran. The BRICS and Europeans may have other ideas and when the US move the goal posts as I am sure they will, then they will start trading with Iran regardless of US wishes.

      • JWalters
        JWalters on April 3, 2015, 6:54 pm

        It seems to me “the US” is a fiction in this context. The Obama and Romney factions are completely different, and “the US” has very different goals depending which has control. Even now, Obama does not control all the levers of power, and must be careful lest he be done in. He has been subjected to character assassination his entire term. He simply cannot move on all fronts at once. The drone wars, while terrible, have been in place of even more terrible wars the MIC has been constantly pushing. Here’s an interesting article on what Obama has been up against.
        http://whowhatwhy.com/2010/03/10/what-obama-is-up-against/

      • Bandolero
        Bandolero on April 3, 2015, 9:37 pm

        Harry

        Yemen is a brutal and bloody war launched by the zionist wahhabi axis to undo the results of this deal. However, it is bound to fail. The result can very well be the unmaking of the kingdom of Netanyahu’s staunchest ally, the Sauds.

        http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/04/the-saudi-intervention-in-yemen-from-decisive-storm-to-looking-into-the-abyss.html

        The Sauds may rescue themselves from the consequences of their crimes in Yemen if they align their kingdom with the axis of resistance, though. Anyway, the Saudi war on Yemen may well prove to be a crucial event in the long struggle to successfully liberate Palestine.

        Did anyone remark that King Salman endorsed the Iran deal – thereby backstabbing his best buddy Bibi?

        http://www.themarketbusiness.com/2015-04-03-saudi-king-salman-agrees-on-iran-nuclear-deal

        Oh, what was such a statement painful for King Salman! But he needs Obama very much now for the mess he created in Yemen, and, due to Yemen, he will need Obama in the future, also, and Iran, too. So expect more good news to come from that corner.

      • just
        just on April 3, 2015, 9:49 pm

        Verrrrry interesting, Bandolero.

        I think that you may be on to something.

      • Bandolero
        Bandolero on April 3, 2015, 11:46 pm

        just
        The whole resistance is up to that. Didn’t you see how Hassan Nasrallah smiled in his speech on Yemen? As sad as this bloody crime is, the stupid Saudi aggression on Yemen is very likely the one crime too much committed by the axis of arrogance and ignorance. The resistance now got the Sauds by their balls. The likely outcome is a policy change in Saudi Arabia to team up with the axis of resistance, be it by an unlikely sudden enlightening of the Saudi regime or a regime change in Riyadh. The stakes are high as never. Just imagine for a second, how Bibi’s world looks like if Riyadh, and all their client regime, from Islamabad over Kuwait and Aman up to Cairo, suddenly team up with Iran and the resistance. But also are the chances for a crucial victory of the resistance. As chaos is the best result the Sauds can theoretically achieve in Yemen, but chaos in Yemen would mean the destabilization of Saudi Arabia, too, there is virtually no path to victory for the Saudi zio-wahhabi coalition in Yemen. And Ansarullah made it very clear, that, if the Saudi aggression on Yemen continues their war goal will be regime change in Riyadh. Is there anyone who thinks it’s a good idea and would do a lot to help them? I certainly would. Let’s wait and see, who else will.

        Have a look at some videos from Yemen:

        https://youtu.be/2fb-88Kw59w

        https://youtu.be/Lqk-6MqlR_A

        These brave guys are not only marching to liberate Yemen, but they also march to liberate Riyadh and al Quds. They are mostly very poor, and often poorly educated, too, but one thing they mastered very well: fighting.

      • just
        just on April 4, 2015, 6:08 am

        @ Bandolero’s “Didn’t you see how Hassan Nasrallah smiled in his speech on Yemen? As sad as this bloody crime is, the stupid Saudi aggression on Yemen is very likely the one crime too much committed by the axis of arrogance and ignorance.”

        I did. I read this yesterday: “A Saudi-led coalition trying to halt the advance of Yemen’s Shiite rebels airdropped weapons to beleaguered fighters in the southern port city of Aden on Friday, while Al-Qaida militants captured a key Yemeni military base in the city of Mukalla, further expanding their foothold in this impoverished country. (AP)”

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/middle-east-updates/1.650397

        I read this today: “Saudi-led airstrike in Yemen kills family of nine
        Red Cross says the Saudi-led coalition is blocking shipments of humanitarian aid and supplies into Yemen as fighting continues.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.650467?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

        And I heard that China evacuated people from Yemen yesterday~ a first.

        I do think that the Saudis have “crossed a bridge too far”.

        Many thanks for sharing your knowledge, Bandolero.

      • just
        just on April 4, 2015, 7:01 am

        “Monitor: ‘ISIS controls 90 percent of Palestinian refugee camp’

        ISIS’ offensive in Yarmouk camp gives it a major presence in Damascus, putting it only a few kilometers from Assad’s seat of power.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.650469?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

        What horror.

      • Walid
        Walid on April 4, 2015, 12:27 pm

        “Monitor: ‘ISIS controls 90 percent of Palestinian refugee camp” (just)

        Doesn’t sound like a smart move by ISIS. 90% of the camp is actually disease-infested rubble and totally surrounded by the Syrian Army with nothing moving in or out. People in the camp have been surviving by eating grass, insects, cats and dogs. Not exactly a great place from which to launch a final assault on Assad’s forces.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra on April 5, 2015, 3:29 am

        Greetings Harry Law,
        ….The Iran deal is done…..
        For whom?
        Allies share the same interests. Those interests can divert from all concerned after certain goals have been met:
        Roosevelt, Churchill & Stalin all shared the same interest & Goal to destroy Nazi Germany.
        As they acomplished this together Churchill noticed that Stalin had his eyes on parts of Europe. He begged Roosevelt to listen to no avail.
        Rossevelt’s interests changed & he would not go with Churchill because he needed Stalin to help him fight the Japanese in the Pacific.
        The US under Pres. Obama are happy with this deal. Iran doesn’t have or want the ‘N’, but Obama will be out in 20 month’s time & the Reps. have a good chance of taking over. They, like the Israelis will find every way to renege on going through with taking the sanctions off the table.
        ziusudra
        PS From the perspectives seen by the Israelis & Reps. of the US:
        Iran deleno est – Iran must fall!-

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      Atlantaiconoclast on April 3, 2015, 6:24 pm

      No, he has done far too many things to block peace and hurt innocent people, as with Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, and the regular drone strikes.

      • HarryLaw
        HarryLaw on April 4, 2015, 4:57 am

        Banderolo, thanks for your interesting take on the situation in Yemen.

  2. just
    just on April 3, 2015, 9:42 am

    He ‘won on Iran’ because it was the RIGHT and only civilized thing to do. The sanctions are an act of war and a violation of Iran’s sovereignty, imho. The Iranians are resilient. They have suffered much because of the neocons/pnac-ians. Making Israel obey the myriad laws that they’ve ignored (with the help of the US and others), sign the NNPT, submit to inspections, make a just peace with the Palestinians is also the RIGHT and civilized thing to do. If not, cut the billions to zero, stop the veto, abstentions, and boycott of UN votes, and slap some sanctions on Israel if it doesn’t comply~ and fast. Oh yeah, and no more weapons!

    “Netanyahu: Nuclear deal must require Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist
    Israel’s security cabinet is ‘united in opposition to the deal reached with Iran,’ the Prime Minister’s Office says after meeting.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.650420?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it

    WHY? Not everything revolves around Israel. It’s past time for the West to ‘get it’! (Besides, Iran did recognize Israel many years ago….)

    • ramzijaber
      ramzijaber on April 3, 2015, 10:53 am

      LOL just, nutnyahoo’s demands get nuttier by the second……

      First, Iran must never have ANY nuclear capability.

      Then, OK they can have some but as long as we totally control what they have and can do.

      And then, no deal is acceptable unless Iran stops trying to control the world.

      And now, any deal must force Iran to recognize the zionist entity.

      The nutnyahoo downwards slope continues…

    • JWalters
      JWalters on April 3, 2015, 6:59 pm

      It absolutely was the right thing to do. Next up, sanctions on Israel to bring it into compliance with international law and norms of decency.

    • annie
      annie on April 3, 2015, 9:29 pm

      just, speaking of the only civilized thing to do..i recommend Iran Nuke Deal is a victory for Iranian “culture of good manners” at taxi’s new blog:

      https://platosguns.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/iran-nuke-deal-is-a-victory-for-the-iranian-culture-of-good-manners/

      • just
        just on April 3, 2015, 9:44 pm

        Thanks so much for the heads- up and link, Annie! Taxi’s title and opening paragraph is spot-on:

        “I heard an analyst on Almayadeen TV yesterday say that first and foremost, the nuke deal is a victory for the Iranian “culture of good manners”. That it was specifically Rohani’s and Zarif’s exceptionally good manners that greased the deal forward from scratch.”

        Taxi’s analysis is super, as usual.

  3. just
    just on April 3, 2015, 10:10 am

    “The von Moltke Fallacy and avoiding another World War, with Iran

    Iran has just de facto announced that it does not want a nuclear weapon, at least in this generation, and probably ever. That American and Western hawks can’t see this is a measure of their own blinkered view of reality or their own corruption. Some hawkishness is a business plan; if you use up bombs in an elective war, you have to order more planes, bombs, tanks, etc. from the arms manufacturers who fund your political campaign. …

    …The people who argue for 1938 are unbeknownst to themselves actually stuck in Berlin, August 1914 and are perpetually playing von Moltke. They imagine an attack from a France that has already offered to stay neutral. They imagine a short war. They are intrigued by the possibilities of new military breakthroughs if only a years-old Schlieffen Plan can be implemented. They initiate aggression and genocide in the name of a phantasmic preemption. They act on paranoid hallucinations with real tanks and bombs.

    We already let the Neoconservatives play von Moltke in Iraq, arguing preemptive war, Iraqi Baathist bad intentions, secret nuclear weapons programs, etc., etc. After a century, surely von Moltke and preemptive war thinking, which polished off 16 million people and wounded 20 million, should have a worse reputation than they do.

    John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif have demonstrated that diplomacy can work, that war is not the only available policy tool or even a very good one, and that we don’t have to fight World War III in the Middle East.”

    read the whole thing @ http://www.juancole.com/2015/04/fallacy-avoiding-another.html

  4. pabelmont
    pabelmont on April 3, 2015, 10:13 am

    Yes, Obama and the other 5 did well, overcoming the stupid, ideologically-driven politicizations of many Congressmen. We’ve seen the same ideologically-driven machinations lately in the religious-protection laws recently passed in several states not to mention Kansas’s governor refusing to provide services because he won’t raise taxes.

    A warning: “It’s not for nothing that reporters likened the talks to Versailles, which ended World War I”. That was the treaty which demanded such terrific reparations from Germany that we later got quite a lot of German resentment and, ultimately, got Hitler. But I guess the “sanctions” against Iran are like the reparations and the eventual treaty, if it comes to pass, will be like a lifting of the sanctions and thus like a lifting of unbearable reparations. More or less.

  5. Kay24
    Kay24 on April 3, 2015, 10:26 am

    It is ironic that instead of celebrating this achievement, and a deal that would prevent more American bloodshed, and that would not cripple our economy further, Americans who are following the pied piper from Tel Aviv, are whining about it being such a bad deal, not good enough to please their Master, who basically has no other solution for this. It is all about Israel if you read the news and the war mongers statement. It is ISRAEL that must be safe, Israel that must be protected, and Israel’s demands MUST be considered first. Bibi realizes that Iran can no longer be called an existential threat, once the deal is signed, and the world accepts it.
    Israel cannot exist without a bogey man, it cannot get away with war crimes and using deadly banned weapons on civilians, if there is no bogey man. It is a shame that our leaders and media, keep this war monger’s narratives going by not questioning those minions who appear on their shows criticizing this deal. A deal that has even impressed some who were skeptical earlier.

    When will the media do the right thing, and help avoid a war, by questioning the opponents of this deal? They helped push for war with Iraq, in fact some lied and worked with the war mongers to bomb Iraq. It seems hundreds of thousands of people killed and US economy in shambles have not taught them to do the right thing. Zionism stinks.

    • John Fearey
      John Fearey on April 3, 2015, 10:56 am

      “Israel cannot exist without a bogey man, it cannot get away with war crimes and using deadly banned weapons on civilians, if there is no bogey man.”
      So true.

    • David Doppler
      David Doppler on April 3, 2015, 12:05 pm

      Kay, I would challenge this statement: “Israel cannot exist without a bogey man.” Why cannot Israel make peace?

      As Kafka wrote in his Little Fable:

      “Alas”, said the mouse, “the whole world is growing smaller every day. At the beginning it was so big that I was afraid, I kept running and running, and I was glad when I saw walls far away to the right and left, but these long walls have narrowed so quickly that I am in the last chamber already, and there in the corner stands the trap that I am running into.”

      “You only need to change your direction,” said the cat, and ate it up.

      Is it Israel that cannot exist without fear to hold it together, 67 years after its founding, or just the Netanyahu-led, right-wing, bunker-mentality, Neocon Clean-Break-following Apartheid state?

      Why is everything an existential crisis? Isn’t making everything an existential crisis one of the cornerstones of Neoconservatism? See Craig Unger, The Fall of the House of Bush, cited in History Commons for this summary:

      “Like Trotsky, Unger writes, the neoconservatives pride themselves on being skilled bureaucratic infighters, and on trusting no one except a small cadre of like-minded believers. Disagreement is betrayal, and political struggles are always a matter of life and death.” http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=neoconinfluence

      It is impossible to win a reasoned argument with someone who believes or pledges a pact with others together, group-thinking, to believe that it is their way or certain death. But such people can only lead into ever-expanding conflict. Megalomania, thy name is Netanyahu and Adelson and Kristol.

      Rather than allowing them to define the issue as, “do we allow Iran to follow a path to its bomb over Tel Aviv? [or blow them up first by way of pre-emptive war, our only alternative],” they must be disempowered and held accountable for their own treason, perjury, war crimes and crimes against humanity, miscellaneous felonies.

      In criticizing Neocon ideology by saying Israel “cannot exist without a bogeyman,” you buy into the identity of Israel with this megalomania. Let Israel change its direction, it’s fear that it is but a little short-lived mouse can be eaten up by a prosperous, peaceful future, following reparations, atonement, and learning to treat Arabs and Muslims as they would have them treat themselves, trusting, but subject to verification, secure under its Iron Dome, and with US backing.

    • JWalters
      JWalters on April 3, 2015, 7:12 pm

      The MIC owns the media. That deadly axis must be broken somehow.

  6. lysias
    lysias on April 3, 2015, 10:33 am

    Just FYI: Yesterday, the date of the Iran deal, was in the Hebrew calendar 13 Nissan. Cf. Book of Esther 3:12.

    It was also Holy Thursday aka Maundy Thursday, the day of the Last Supper.

    • marc b.
      marc b. on April 3, 2015, 12:41 pm

      yes, billy. très deep. it was also the last day of the two-for-one dress shirt sale at Macy’s department store. hmm.

      kristol. more like Scheiße.

    • Rusty Pipes
      Rusty Pipes on April 3, 2015, 5:40 pm

      It was also the day after April Fool’s day. Because it’s worth waiting for a deal the world can take seriously.

    • ziusudra
      ziusudra on April 5, 2015, 3:43 am

      Greetings lysias,
      …the last supper….
      was done by Jews on & for the Pessach.
      There was no other reason to have a meeting certainly not because Jesus knew he was celebrating his own passing.
      ziusudra

  7. ramzijaber
    ramzijaber on April 3, 2015, 10:49 am

    Bottom line: the zionist entity is nowhere to be seen during this long process. the zionist entity is not on stage.

    7 top global players standing with Zarif. no zionist entity.

    President Obama calls Saudi Arabia first.

    That is the new reality, the zionist entity is being brought down to its proper size. That is what is really bothering nutnyahoo and his US zionists.

    The dogs bark, the caravans pass.

    • Kay24
      Kay24 on April 3, 2015, 11:01 am

      Make that ” the MAD dogs bark, and the caravans still pass”.

      • ramzijaber
        ramzijaber on April 3, 2015, 11:02 am

        i will liberally plagiarize that Kay24!!

      • Kay24
        Kay24 on April 3, 2015, 11:20 am

        Go ahead, another version: “The RABID dogs bark, and the caravans still pass”.

        Heh. :))

    • amigo
      amigo on April 3, 2015, 12:16 pm

      “The dogs bark, the caravans pass.” Ramzi

      Dogs chase their own tails until they get dizzy and lie down.

      I just bet this deal has nietanyahu,s head spinning.He needs to lie down and take a very long rest.

      • just
        just on April 3, 2015, 12:50 pm

        They do other stuff when they lay down, too.

        :-0

      • Kay24
        Kay24 on April 3, 2015, 2:08 pm

        He needs to be in a strait jacket. His craziness is making the rest of the world dizzy. His lies have caused too much of trouble, his violent policies against civilians have left too many dead.
        He cheats, manipulates, and steals. This is no leader of a democracy, but a lying tyrant, who resorts to violence, and makes up excuses to keep it going. Those who support him, and hand over weapons to keep terrorizing the neighborhood, are equally guilty of these crimes. Every one knows he is a trouble maker, and he has been caught lying too many times – yet they keep the unwavering support going – for it is all for the good of the fatherland.

    • Abu Malia
      Abu Malia on April 3, 2015, 12:40 pm

      “That is the new reality, the zionist entity is being brought down to its proper size. That is what is really bothering nutnyahoo and his US zionists.”

      Ramzi Jaber, you’ve hit the proverbial nail on the head! I agree with your astute observation. The POTUS calling the house of (horrors) Saud first before ringing the Khalif of the Jews (funny how the US is allied with arguably the two most disgusting regimes this side of Alpha Centauri) is an unmistakable signal.

      totally agree it is high time Israel is treated commensurate with their weight and importance – without the American Jews’ connivance and money, the Zionist country would be as important t o Americans as inner Mongolia.

      I personally like the Mongolian Beef dish found on all chinese menus!

    • JWalters
      JWalters on April 3, 2015, 7:22 pm

      “The dogs bark, the caravans pass.”

      Beautiful metaphor. I deeply hope it is the new reality. But the MIC is hitting hard to stop Obama, outlast him, and reverse course. After relaxing and celebrating this huge advance toward peace, we will need to keep fighting tenaciously until the war profiteers are decisively defeated and blocked from power.

    • concernedhuman
      concernedhuman on April 4, 2015, 7:05 am

      Obama alone is assassinating the chieftain netnyahoo and the jewish lobby diplomatically.
      Something which was never even attempted by any POTUS before.

  8. Sulphurdunn
    Sulphurdunn on April 3, 2015, 10:53 am

    Out of curiosity, what international laws or norms is Iran accused of having broken that make it such an “existential” threat to world peace?

  9. Mooser
    Mooser on April 3, 2015, 11:08 am

    “Just FYI: Yesterday, the date of the Iran deal, was in the Hebrew calendar 13 Nissan.”

    Of course! That’s G-d, showing me I should go out and buy a new 370Z !

    • ramzijaber
      ramzijaber on April 3, 2015, 11:13 am

      Great way to celebrate peace Mooser!!

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 3, 2015, 11:44 am

        “Great way to celebrate peace Mooser!!”

        I’d better not, I think. My eyesight must be going, and I’m hallucinating comments.
        I may have to turn in my driver’s license.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer on April 3, 2015, 2:15 pm

        @Mooser

        Use taxis. I heard rumours that buses could be bad for your health.

  10. otc
    otc on April 3, 2015, 11:14 am

    Do the knee jerk critics even know the details of what is in the agreement yet? I suspect they had their responses all ready to go before the deal was announced and all they needed to do was click.

    If Netanyahu hadn’t repeatedly poked his finger in Obama’s eye (and in a sense, the US’s eye), and not played this issue for his own political opportunism, he might have had an opportunity to have a metaphorical “seat at the table” I sincerely hope it is a good deal and lasts – I don’t know enough to say yeah or nay, but I was happy to hear a deal was reached.

    However I do predict two things.

    1. The news media will do a lousy job of explaining and reporting on the details of the agreement, so we will get a lot of different “facts” on both sides about what is really in the deal.

    2. Sadly I think it will break down eventually and Iran will get a nuke – I think that is their aim. Hope I’m wrong –

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus on April 3, 2015, 3:18 pm

      Where do you find even the faintest evidence that Iran will ever even want to develop a nuke, let alone get a nuke? What a wild idea. Totally unsupported except by wild rants by repeatedly certified liars and warmongers.

      • just
        just on April 3, 2015, 4:15 pm

        +1, echinococcus!

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        Atlantaiconoclast on April 3, 2015, 6:32 pm

        I see no evidence Iran is going for a bomb either, however, given what was done to Libya, it would be smart to keep that option open.

      • otc
        otc on April 4, 2015, 6:26 pm

        @echinococcus

        “Where do you find even the faintest evdience that Iran will ever want to develop a nuke”

        The IAEA has expressed concerns. See link.
        They know alot more about it than either you or I. Do you think the UN agency the IAEA are a bunch warmongers and certified liars?
        http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-director-general-urges-iran-clarify-nuclear-concerns

        http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-director-general-urges-iran-clarify-nuclear-concerns

        I don’t think you give the leaders of Iran much credit. Israel has a bomb, the US does.
        Do you think the leaders of Iran are strategically stupid. Many well meaning experts have reasonable suspicions. I don’t know if they are right or wrong. I hope they are wrong.

      • annie
        annie on April 4, 2015, 7:44 pm

        technically, the IAEA did not “express concerns”. your report stated

        Iran needs to help clarify concerns about possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme

        they didn’t say the concerns were their own.

        , Mr Amano said he was committed to working with Iran to restore international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.

        that implies it is concerns of the international community.

        In November 2011, he stated in a report to the IAEA Board of Governors that credible information obtained by the Agency indicated that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.

        and that was promptly debunked. actually it was debunked before the report was even released:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/iaea-report-is-a-dud-and-moon-of-alabama-says-its-confused-nanodiamond-production-with-nukes

        and it wasn’t just reported here, it was reported in the guardian (citing this same MofA report) and elsewhere. in fact, if the neocons and their dutiful journo soldiers had held their friggin horses and not tried to slam dunk iran even before the IAEA report came out they could have at least tried slamming the report after it came out and grabbed the limelight. but since they spilled their collective beans for days and days right before the release, they gave up enough info to make the whole shibang look like what it was, a set up. massive #fail. do yourself a favor and read about it at the link.

      • otc
        otc on April 4, 2015, 7:52 pm

        @Annie,

        I disagree. I think you making a distinction without a difference.
        They said the information was credible – If the IAEA thinks the information is credible than
        they have a concern.

        “In November 2011, he stated in a report to the IAEA Board of Governors that credible information obtained by the Agency indicated that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicated that, before the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some might still be ongoing. The report identified 12 areas of concern.”

      • annie
        annie on April 4, 2015, 8:13 pm

        nope, too much “innuendo and insinuation”

        http://original.antiwar.com/muhammad-sahimi/2012/03/25/yukiya-amano-minion-of-the-empire/

        the allegations in my article are all sourced and they use msm reports. the 2011 aiea report was a big flop (really, find a report afterwards not by a neocon if you do not believe me) and was roundly recognized as such. besides, amano was a tool of the US, read the link, which everyone knows.

        the “relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” mentioned in the report was nano diamonds and the scientist referenced was a nano diamond scientist. so they didn’t lie, but they know very well “relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” was not related toa nuclear weapons program, at all. so to bring up this report from 2011, 4 years later, knowing it was already widely rejected by the scientific community, is deceptive.

        anyway, take the last word. i don’t care. phff.

      • otc
        otc on April 4, 2015, 8:32 pm

        @annie

        “Is deceptive”

        That’s not fair. I am not trying to be deceptive. The original link I cited is from March 2015.
        It’s a press release by the IAEA itself, on their website; and They mention the 2011 report, in the March press release. If it was such a DUD why are the bring it up.
        Fine – if you want to say the IAEA is just expressing the concern of the international community, that may be a reasonable interpretation. But I don’t think other interpretations are unreasonable and only indicate a neocon mentality.

      • annie
        annie on April 4, 2015, 8:51 pm

        That’s not fair. I am not trying to be deceptive

        dan, do you have difficulty w/reading comprehension? i referenced “they” not once but twice and “to bring up this report from 2011, 4 years later, knowing it was already widely rejected by the scientific community,[that would be them, amano and the iaea not you] is deceptive. ”

        i’m starting to figure you out dan. you enter into this conversation making ridiculous questions, allegations (or speculations or whatever you want to call it) that “knee jerk critics even know the details of what is in the agreement yet? ” that i verified in 2 seconds of googling and now you’re debating a topic you clearly no nothing about.

        this was not some flyby night report, it was a heavily anticipated report due to come out in nov 2011 on a specific date people knew about over 6 months before it arrived. as the days ticked away people were on the edge of their seats. it arrived with a big fat thunk, and a rejection from the scientific community. anyone who remembers that week can confirm that. you have no idea what you are discussing here and spamming the thread. it was all OLD rehashed repackaged “evidence” that didn’t hold water.

        follow all the links before wasting our time. even US intel says there’s no evidence iran has a nuclear weapons program. nada!

      • Shingo
        Shingo on April 4, 2015, 11:22 pm

        They know alot more about it than either you or I.

        But less than all 17 US intelligence agnecies that have reported every year since 2007 that Iran is not producing nukes.

        Do you think the UN agency the IAEA are a bunch warmongers and certified liars?

        Maybe not all of them, but Yukia Amano, who was exposed by a Wikileaks cable as a Washington stooge, certainly appears to be.

        I don’t think you give the leaders of Iran much credit. Israel has a bomb, the US does. Do you think the leaders of Iran are strategically stupid.

        You seem to think so. As the leaders have said, with the hundreds of nukes the US and Israel have, what good is one or 2 nukes to Iran?

        Many well meaning experts have reasonable suspicions.

        What do you mean many? The only expert the bomb Iran crowd keep pulling out of the rectum is David Albright who is no expert

      • annie
        annie on April 5, 2015, 3:24 am

        oh jeez, david albright, does that bring back memories or what. funny (sick funny that is) his wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albright states:

        (my bold)

        In 2001 Albright prepared an analysis, for CNN, of documents found in an abandoned Al Qaeda safe house in Kabul believed to have been used by Abu Khabbab, who they described as “Osama bin Laden’s top chemical and biological weapons commander.”[1] Albright confirmed the abandoned documents included plans for a nuclear bomb, and extensive training notes on the handling of radiological material.
        In September 2002, Albright and his organization ISIS were the first to publicly criticize the claims of the Bush administration and the CIA about the infamous Iraqi aluminum tubes. In response to Iraqi aluminum tubes, Albright said it was far from clear that the tubes were intended for a uranium centrifuge.[2]

        funny tho, the segment “Albright confirmed the abandoned documents included plans for a nuclear bomb” is not supported by any source. iow, i’m not so sure he “confirmed” it, it may have been he “established” it himself. and this was at a time when miraculously “evidence” kept cropping up because supposedly AQ kept abandoning places leaving lots of documents behind scrupulously documenting their nuclear plans in garbage cans! gee, how lucky. not to mention all those allegedly “found” laptops also including key documents. really unbelievable stuff. i mean imagine snowden or greenwald or some brilliant western mind just leaving behind lots of key docs in a garbage can or a “lost” computer. this stuff would never pass as reasonable intel today. back then, the key evidence of iran’s nuclear program were all discovered in abandon or lost or stolen laptops. plllleeease.

        anyway, let’s check out a segment of source “[1]” cnn transcript: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/10/bn.10.html

        (prior to this blockquoted segment it claims “(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) (voice-over): The neighbors agreed we should go there, told us it was an important house. A place, they said, where the big Arabs lived. “ and seriously some really funny other stuff, all from circa 2002 before we invaded iraq, this was the prelude to the real WOT, to soften the target which all along was the american public)

        UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was this pile of garbage. The house was completely empty. Completely empty, except for this one bag, obviously left behind, that had neatly stacked documents. And when we looked at them, we had a colleague, Eddie Maloof (ph), who’s a satellite engineer, and speaks Arabic. And he was able really quickly to determine what was on them. And when we realized what it was, we just ran out, grabbed all the documents.

        BOETTCHER: Scattered in the mess were documents and journals with notes on explosives. And not just any explosives.

        At this house, described by neighbors as occupied by armed Saudis, we found a bag near a shed containing neatly arranged piles of documents. Among them, this one. Large Arabic letters, written in blue marker, spelling the chilling words: “super bombs.” Inside: words in English: nuclear fission, isotopes and heating temperatures for uranium-235 and 238.

        If it was a blueprint for a nuclear bomb, experts say, it was not workable. But why was it even written? Why did discarded notes from an apparent al Qaeda safe house discuss nuclear designs?

        To try to find out why, we commissioned an exhaustive review of apparent al Qaeda documents CNN found in Afghanistan.

        UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here are some of your explosive mixtures.

        BOETTCHER: The lead analyst, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. He is an expert on nuclear weapons design and proliferations. In the past, he’s been a consultant to the U.N. inspection teams investigating Iraq’s weapons programs.

        Also helping with the review, institute senior analyst Corey Hinderstein, and one of the nation’s top Arabic translators, Ron Wolf (ph), who has experience translating technical and weapons documents.

        We start with this design, found in a 25-page document filled with information about nuclear weapons. The design would require difficult-to-obtain materials like plutonium to create a nuclear explosion, something al Qaeda is not believed to possess…

        moving on. let’s check out wiki’s 2002 source for “[2]” claiming “Albright.. the first to publicly criticize the claims of the Bush administration and the CIA about the infamous Iraqi aluminum tubes.” here: “White House ‘exaggerating Iraqi threat” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/09/iraq.usa

        President Bush’s case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
        Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration’s line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.

        “Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there’s a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA,” said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former head of counter-intelligence.

        that’s wiki’s source claiming Albright was the first to publicly criticize “the claims of the Bush administration and the CIA about the infamous Iraqi aluminum tubes.”

        but it was not the CIA pushing the Iraqi aluminum tubes story. that was cheney&co infamously harassing the cia to come up w/reasons to invade iraq. even the guardian article states:

        Mr Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington thinktank, said: “There’s a catfight going on about this right now. On one side you have most of the experts on gas centrifuges. On the other you have one guy sitting in the CIA.

        more on albright really worth reading: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/albright_david

    • annie
      annie on April 3, 2015, 8:02 pm

      Do the knee jerk critics even know the details of what is in the agreement yet? ….I don’t know enough to say yeah or nay… 1. The news media will do a lousy job of explaining and reporting on the details of the agreement

      google is your friend: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/world/iran-nuclear-deal-parameters/index.html

      Editors note: Details of the Iran deal as provided by the U.S. government.

      (CNN)Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program

      Below are the key parameters of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program that were decided in Lausanne, Switzerland. These elements form the foundation upon which the final text of the JCPOA will be written between now and June 30, and reflect the significant progress that has been made in discussions between the P5+1, the European Union, and Iran. Important implementation details are still subject to negotiation, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We will work to conclude the JCPOA based on these parameters over the coming months.

      Enrichment

      • Iran has agreed to reduce by approximately two-thirds its installed centrifuges. Iran will go from having about 19,000 installed today to 6,104 installed under the deal, with only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years. All 6,104 centrifuges will be IR-1s, Iran’s first-generation centrifuge.

      • Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for at least 15 years.

      • Iran has agreed to reduce its current stockpile of about 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to 300 kg of 3.67 percent LEU for 15 years.

      • All excess centrifuges and enrichment infrastructure will be placed in IAEA monitored storage and will be used only as replacements for operating centrifuges and equipment.

      • Iran has agreed to not build any new facilities for the purpose of enriching uranium for 15 years.

      • Iran’s breakout timeline — the time that it would take for Iran to acquire enough fissile material for one weapon — is currently assessed to be 2 to 3 months. That timeline will be extended to at least one year, for a duration of at least ten years, under this framework.

      Iran will convert its facility at Fordow so that it is no longer used to enrich uranium

      • Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium at its Fordow facility for at least 15 years.

      • Iran has agreed to convert its Fordow facility so that it is used for peaceful purposes only — into a nuclear, physics, technology, research center.

      • Iran has agreed to not conduct research and development associated with uranium enrichment at Fordow for 15 years.

      • Iran will not have any fissile material at Fordow for 15 years.

      • Almost two-thirds of Fordow’s centrifuges and infrastructure will be removed. The remaining centrifuges will not enrich uranium. All centrifuges and related infrastructure will be placed under IAEA monitoring.

      Iran will only enrich uranium at the Natanz facility, with only 5,060 IR-1 first-generation centrifuges for ten years.

      • Iran has agreed to only enrich uranium using its first generation (IR-1 models) centrifuges at Natanz for ten years, removing its more advanced centrifuges.

      • Iran will remove the 1,000 IR-2M centrifuges currently installed at Natanz and place them in IAEA monitored storage for ten years.

      • Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 models to produce enriched uranium for at least ten years. Iran will engage in limited research and development with its advanced centrifuges, according to a schedule and parameters which have been agreed to by the P5+1.

      • For ten years, enrichment and enrichment research and development will be limited to ensure a breakout timeline of at least 1 year. Beyond 10 years, Iran will abide by its enrichment and enrichment R&D plan submitted to the IAEA, and pursuant to the JCPOA, under the Additional Protocol resulting in certain limitations on enrichment capacity.

      Inspections and Transparency

      • The IAEA will have regular access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, including to Iran’s enrichment facility at Natanz and its former enrichment facility at Fordow, and including the use of the most up-to-date, modern monitoring technologies.

      • Inspectors will have access to the supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program. The new transparency and inspections mechanisms will closely monitor materials and/or components to prevent diversion to a secret program.

      • Inspectors will have access to uranium mines and continuous surveillance at uranium mills, where Iran produces yellowcake, for 25 years.

      • Inspectors will have continuous surveillance of Iran’s centrifuge rotors and bellows production and storage facilities for 20 years. Iran’s centrifuge manufacturing base will be frozen and under continuous surveillance.

      • All centrifuges and enrichment infrastructure removed from Fordow and Natanz will be placed under continuous monitoring by the IAEA.

      • A dedicated procurement channel for Iran’s nuclear program will be established to monitor and approve, on a case by case basis, the supply, sale, or transfer to Iran of certain nuclear-related and dual use materials and technology — an additional transparency measure.

      • Iran has agreed to implement the Additional Protocol of the IAEA, providing the IAEA much greater access and information regarding Iran’s nuclear program, including both declared and undeclared facilities.

      • Iran will be required to grant access to the IAEA to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of a covert enrichment facility, conversion facility, centrifuge production facility, or yellowcake production facility anywhere in the country.

      • Iran has agreed to implement Modified Code 3.1 requiring early notification of construction of new facilities.

      • Iran will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns regarding the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of its program.

      Reactors and Reprocessing

      • Iran has agreed to redesign and rebuild a heavy water research reactor in Arak, based on a design that is agreed to by the P5+1, which will not produce weapons grade plutonium, and which will support peaceful nuclear research and radioisotope production.

      • The original core of the reactor, which would have enabled the production of significant quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, will be destroyed or removed from the country.

      • Iran will ship all of its spent fuel from the reactor out of the country for the reactor’s lifetime.

      • Iran has committed indefinitely to not conduct reprocessing or reprocessing research and development on spent nuclear fuel.

      • Iran will not accumulate heavy water in excess of the needs of the modified Arak reactor, and will sell any remaining heavy water on the international market for 15 years.

      • Iran will not build any additional heavy water reactors for 15 years.

      Sanctions

      • Iran will receive sanctions relief, if it verifiably abides by its commitments.

      • U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.

      • The architecture of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be retained for much of the duration of the deal and allow for snap-back of sanctions in the event of significant non-performance.

      • All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency).

      • However, core provisions in the UN Security Council resolutions — those that deal with transfers of sensitive technologies and activities — will be re-established by a new UN Security Council resolution that will endorse the JCPOA and urge its full implementation. It will also create the procurement channel mentioned above, which will serve as a key transparency measure. Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution.

      • A dispute resolution process will be specified, which enables any JCPOA participant, to seek to resolve disagreements about the performance of JCPOA commitments.

      • If an issue of significant non-performance cannot be resolved through that process, then all previous UN sanctions could be re-imposed.

      • U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal.

      Phasing

      • For ten years, Iran will limit domestic enrichment capacity and research and development — ensuring a breakout timeline of at least one year. Beyond that, Iran will be bound by its longer-term enrichment and enrichment research and development plan it shared with the P5+1.

      • For fifteen years, Iran will limit additional elements of its program. For instance, Iran will not build new enrichment facilities or heavy water reactors and will limit its stockpile of enriched uranium and accept enhanced transparency procedures.

      • Important inspections and transparency measures will continue well beyond 15 years. Iran’s adherence to the Additional Protocol of the IAEA is permanent, including its significant access and transparency obligations. The robust inspections of Iran’s uranium supply chain will last for 25 years.

      • Even after the period of the most stringent limitations on Iran’s nuclear program, Iran will remain a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits Iran’s development or acquisition of nuclear weapons and requires IAEA safeguards on its nuclear program.

      • otc
        otc on April 4, 2015, 6:27 pm

        @ Annie – google is your friend.

        Oops – was I wrong on that one. Thanks!

    • otc
      otc on April 4, 2015, 8:24 pm

      It’s quite a stretch to say the report was “a dud”.

      “”It’s very thin, I thought there would be a lot more there,” says Robert Kelley, an American nuclear engineer and former IAEA inspector who was among the first to review the original data in 2005. “It’s certainly old news; it’s really quite stunning how little new information is in there.”

      “Yes, Iran is making progress, they’ve covered the waterfront in terms of the main technical areas that you need to develop a nuclear weapon,” says Mr. Kile. “But there is no evidence they have a dedicated program under way. It’s not like they are driving toward nuclear weapons; it’s like they’re meandering toward capability.”

      http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1109/Iran-nuclear-report-Why-it-may-not-be-a-game-changer-after-all

      • annie
        annie on April 4, 2015, 8:37 pm

        yes “capability” is the catch phrase for people who have nothing. he’s merely responding to those charges.

        ‘your ten year old daughter is meandering toward capability of becoming pregnant,’ as she approaches puberty. i mean really.

        and they were all old charges reframed in a glossy new package. it went kerplunk, which you would know had you been paying attention in 2011. it was heavily covered in the press. or were you in high school back then dan?

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra on April 5, 2015, 4:19 am

        Greetings Ms. Annie,
        Dan has other interests, it’s not that he’s incapable of understanding or agreeing with reality, hence, he stays on his trip of syncretism & heuristics till the cows come home.
        ziusudra

    • Shingo
      Shingo on April 4, 2015, 11:25 pm

      2. Sadly I think it will break down eventually and Iran will get a nuke – I think that is their aim. Hope I’m wrong –

      Yes you are wrong. Iran have had 3 decades to obtain a nuke. If they wanted one, they would have one by now.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra on April 5, 2015, 4:28 am

        Greetings shingo,
        Iran will not get the ‘N’, but will languish on the leash of sanctions like the No. Koreans & Cubans. Billions of Bucks will be thrown to both the Dems & Reps to keep this in place for the next vote. Obama will be long gone & none too sad that the Zios & the Evangelicals pinched him in the end, after all, he has a life to live after the Presidency .
        ziusudra

      • Shingo
        Shingo on April 6, 2015, 7:52 am

        Iran will not get the ‘N’, but will languish on the leash of sanctions like the No. Koreans & Cubans.

        No, Iran is far more important politically and economically than North Korea and Cuba. Iran have proven to the world they are rational and sensible actors through these negotiations. The grip the US has on international trade is slipping. China and Russia will begin trading with Iran regardless of what Congress has to say.

  11. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw on April 3, 2015, 11:16 am

    Unfortunately the Devil will be in the details, one commentator on MoA had this very interesting observation of the agreement …. “retired IAEA guy ‘analysing’ the deal point out that this is the red flag. He reminded that the inspection regime in Iraq was orders of magnitude tougher than what’s specified here … and that the IAEA (a crypto US political operation) still wasn’t ‘able’ to give Iraq a ‘clear bill of health’ TEN YEARS after those inspections were initiated. That would mean 10 more years of sanctions in Iran’s case. And the destruction of their nuclear program, which they value, presumably.” I do not trust the US government with this agreement, I hope I am wrong. Even the comments from H Clinton in Phil’s piece above “It is also vital that these efforts be part of a comprehensive strategy to check Iran’s regional ambitions” Now what does that mean? There is plenty of time for the deal to unravel and for the US to move the goal posts. Just watch them.

    • Citizen
      Citizen on April 3, 2015, 1:19 pm

      Yes, that is my fear too.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      Atlantaiconoclast on April 3, 2015, 6:36 pm

      Every time I hear them warn of Iran’s territorial ambitions, I want to throw up. The same when they accuse Iran of being the world’s leading supporter of terrorism. It isn’t Iran supporting ISIS, and Al Qaeda, and Al Nusra, etc. Its the Gulf oil states, AND Israel (at least via its attacks on Syria’s forces while its struggling with ISIS).

      Iran does support Hezbollah, but how is the latter a terrorist group? Its purpose is to preserve Lebanese sovereignty from Israeli encroachment.

  12. Kay24
    Kay24 on April 3, 2015, 11:22 am

    So anyone gives a damn about a Bibi appointed cabinet backing him on the opposition to the DEAL?

    “JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he and his Cabinet are united in “strongly opposing” an emerging framework agreement on curbing Iran’s nuclear program and demanded that any final deal contain Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

    Iran and six world powers announced a series of understandings Thursday, with a final agreement to be reached by June 30. A final deal is meant to cut significantly into Iran’s bomb-capable technology while giving Tehran quick access to assets and markets blocked by international sanctions.

    Netanyahu has harshly criticized the negotiations, demanding instead that the Iranian program be dismantled. He claims Iran cannot be trusted, and that leaving certain facilities intact would allow the Iranians to eventually build a bomb. Iran denies it has nuclear weapons ambitions and says its program is intended for peaceful purposes.

    However, it appears unlikely Israel will be able to prevent the final deal amid broad international support for such an agreement.” From Huffpost article.

    I guess he forgot to mention that members of the US Congress are moved by him on this easily too. Those unpatriotic fools.

  13. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw on April 3, 2015, 11:33 am

    Here is the extended interview with former Director of the IAEA on the framework deal mentioned in my comment above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCznToC3VcA&feature=youtu.be

  14. Pixel
    Pixel on April 3, 2015, 11:34 am

    Let’s put a little icing on this cake and jettison Rahm on Tuesday.

    • Citizen
      Citizen on April 3, 2015, 1:20 pm

      Yes!

    • JLewisDickerson
      JLewisDickerson on April 3, 2015, 3:54 pm

      From: Chuy Garcia
      Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 1:18 PM
      To: John Dickerson
      Subject: Take a sneak-peek at our new Chuy ad! ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhPi7JY7pIU

      Dear John,
      With five days of hard campaigning left to go, I want to take a moment to share our new ad and ask for your help in showing it to as many television viewers as possible between now and election day.

      As you know, we’ve been vastly outspent by the Mayor and his wealthy backers. But despite all their money, we’re confident we will win. This campaign isn’t about money, it’s about people who will vote on April 7 to improve the lives of every Chicagoan.

      With only five days left, we need your help to get our new ad on as many channels as possible. Please contribute now. ~ https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/chicagoforchuy

      Thanks so much for all your generosity and work.

      Jesus “Chuy” Garcia

  15. rensanceman
    rensanceman on April 3, 2015, 11:55 am

    One positive derived from the this on-going saga is the stark revelation of the degree of influence of the Israeli lobby in our media and Congress. Netanyahu’s address to Congress, Cotton’s letter to Iran, AIPAC provided talking points shared by Republican Presidential candidates left many with a degree of cogniitive dissonance that provoked a reexamination of how far our government should go to stand with a small country which practices apartheid, is brazenly racist, which takes our money but ignores our advice, and which rejects our policy of establishing a state for the Palestinians. if only the public would just take a little more time to become familiar with other events on the Israeli timeline of gross abuses: Lavon affair, Deir Yassin, USS Liberty, the Apollo affair, Operation Cast Lead, Mavi Marmara, et al.
    The agreement may provide the Jewish community in the U.S with the time to reevaluate their unconditional support for the Zionist-Likud government whose policies and actions should be abhorrent to those who follow the precepts pf Judaism.

    • just
      just on April 3, 2015, 7:18 pm

      Thanks for your comment, rensanceman.

    • JWalters
      JWalters on April 3, 2015, 7:26 pm

      The theory that there are no conspiracies crumbles as the evidence emerges.

  16. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw on April 3, 2015, 12:05 pm

    The IAEA have to declare Iran to be in compliance with IAEA safeguards, but who leads the IAEA.
    In a US embassy cable of October 2009 (released by Wikileaks in 2010) said Amano “took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency. Amano reminded the [American] ambassador on several occasions that … he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.” Iran will never get the all clear from that stooge.

  17. echinococcus
    echinococcus on April 3, 2015, 12:31 pm

    “It’s not for nothing that reporters likened the talks to Versailles, which ended World War I”
    Agree that there is good reason to compare it, but the good reason is that this accord, like Versailles, means another public humiliation and forced disarmament of a fiercely independent nation. Let’s not forget that Versailles was a direct cause of World War II, perhaps the most important.

  18. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson on April 3, 2015, 12:53 pm

    RE: “Apocalyptic deadenders, like Bill Kristol:
    Just FYI: Yesterday, the date of the Iran deal, was in the Hebrew calendar 13 Nissan. Cf. Book of Esther 3:12.”

    MY REPLY TWEET: @BillKristol You desperately need psychiatric help! SEE – “Neocons: the Echo of German Fascism” – https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/27/neocons-the-echo-of-german-fascism/

    P.S. A FUNDIE REPLY TWEET TO KRISTOL:

    Camille Patterson ‏@CamillePatter13 2h2 hours ago
    @BillKristol That gave me chills. I picked up by Bible and read several chapters of Esther this morning. Wake up America! Stand with Israel

    • Citizen
      Citizen on April 3, 2015, 1:23 pm

      Yep, read the story of Esther–it won’t make Gentiles feel very good or safe. especially from their own elite governors.

    • JLewisDickerson
      JLewisDickerson on April 3, 2015, 5:33 pm

      P.P.S. I would never speak ill of the dead, but wasn’t Bill Kristol’s father (Irving Kristol) a commie before he bumped his head on something and became a fascist? Enquiring minds mimes want to know!™

  19. just
    just on April 3, 2015, 1:28 pm

    Time to make some calls and write some emails, folks:

    “The White House was desperately trying to contain a congressional revolt against its tentative nuclear deal with Iran on Friday, amid concern that hardliners in Washington could sink the agreement before it has even been finalized.

    Republicans and some Democrats are demanding a say over the framework agreement, which would drastically cut Tehran’s nuclear program in return for relief of sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

    Barack Obama, who has called several key legislators over the last 24 hours to convince them of the merits of the deal outlined in Switzerland, insists it will cut off every pathway that Iran could take to a nuclear weapon, and avoids a military conflict.

    Yet the agreement, negotiated by the US and other world powers, is facing stiff opposition from Republicans on Capitol Hill – and received only a lukewarm reaction from Democrats.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/03/obama-republicans-iran-nuclear-deal#comment-49890225

    • JWalters
      JWalters on April 3, 2015, 7:28 pm

      Thanks for that reminder. Just sent an email to Obama. Senators next.

  20. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson on April 3, 2015, 1:55 pm

    RE: ‘It turns out that the U.S. is not something that can be easily moved, as he [Netanyahu] once claimed.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: At least, the U.S. is not something that can be easily moved without the help of Arthur J. Finkelstein and/or Lee Atwater. Fortunately, Ron Dermer and Bill Kristol just aren’t in their league.

  21. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson on April 3, 2015, 2:15 pm

    RE: “It’s not for nothing that reporters likened the talks to Versailles, which ended World War I . . .” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Let’s hope Lausanne doesn’t turn out to be too much like Versailles (or Olso, for that matter)! Versailles brought the National Socialists to power in Germany, thereby setting the stage for WW II (and Oslo provided cover for massive settlement expansion by Israel, thereby killing the two-state solution)!

  22. John Fearey
    John Fearey on April 3, 2015, 2:16 pm

    Except for his decision not to shoot missiles at Syria, I can think of no instance in my lifetime when I have been proud of, let alone agreed with, a US President’s foreign policy action until today.
    Full credit to Bibi and Boehner for demonstrating the ignorance and evil of their respective constituencies,
    Phil, you might want to add The Douche to your above list of shame (i.e., Goldberg et al). See, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/14c7d01f8b952b27. (I get Douche alerts through Google.) There was also somebody from Politico on NPR this morning who was pretty bad.
    A big high five to President Obama, Sec. of State Kerry and the Iranian negotiators and people. Again I ask, why isn’t Kerry running for president?

    • just
      just on April 3, 2015, 2:31 pm

      I hope that Kerry will run, John. I worked my derrière off for him the last time that he ran.

      I’d also like to see Jim Webb throw his hat in the ring.
      ————

      “Sen. Mark Kirk blasted the nuclear deal with Iran on Thursday, saying the Obama administration’s diplomacy was worse than Britain’s attempts to appease Nazi Germany and predicting Israel would soon be pulled into a war with Iran.

      The Illinois Republican trashed a deal struck by global powers with Tehran, concluding in a phone interview “that Neville Chamberlain got a lot of more out of Hitler than Wendy Sherman got out of Iran,” a reference to a top State Department negotiator on the deal.

      But Kirk wasn’t done, forecasting that lifting any more sanctions on Iran “dooms the Middle East to yet another war,” one that Israel will have to clean up, perhaps in a nuclear fashion.

      We should be a reviewing presence to see how this unfolds,” Kirk said of Congress’ role, adding: “Which we all know is going to end with a mushroom cloud somewhere near Tehran.”

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/mark-kirk-iran-deal-react-nazi-116632.html#ixzz3WGuGPjGn

      Shades of Condi/Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell, et al:

      “The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

      Condoleezza Rice

      Too much Ziocaine- laced psilocybin still being ingested in the TA- DC houses of horrors.

      • JWalters
        JWalters on April 3, 2015, 7:31 pm

        Kerry should have been president, but for the dirty deceptions of the MIC. I agree Webb would be a worthwhile voice in the discussion, and possibly a very good president.

    • JLewisDickerson
      JLewisDickerson on April 3, 2015, 6:42 pm

      RE: “Phil, you might want to add The Douche to your above list of shame . . .”

      MY REPLY: Shouldn’t that be “Le Douche”?

      • Walid
        Walid on April 3, 2015, 7:53 pm

        “Shouldn’t that be “Le Douche”?” (JLD)

        JLD, “Douche” all by itself simply means a “shower” and that would be feminine so you’d have to say “La Douche”. If you use the full intended term “douchebag”, which translates to “pomme de douche” the tool that is used to administer enemas, it’s still feminine but you could use “Le” on condition that you write the full word “douchebag” because it would be understood that you are referring to a guy in the same vein as you’d say “l’hotel Le Reine Elizabeth as the definite article “le” is used to designate the hotel, which is masculine.

        If you have the time, a great and fun comprehensive essay on the history of the use of the term “douchebag” and other racial slurs and what’s behind “douchebags” being exclusively applied to rich white jerks:

        https://medium.com/human-parts/douchebag-the-white-racial-slur-weve-all-been-waiting-for-a2323002f85d

      • JLewisDickerson
        JLewisDickerson on April 5, 2015, 1:53 am

        Thanks! I don’t know how you French ever get the hang that damn language!
        We moved during the summer before I began the fifth grade at a new school. Consequently, I had to take second year French without having had the first year.
        It was quite traumatic.
        I’ve never really gotten over it.

        P.S. In this 1950s encyclopedia, Asians live in pagodas and wear pajamas, Blacks live in mud huts and wear chains, and White people live in mid-century modernist mansions and wear suits.

        P.P.S. Tin Pan Alley Sheet Music, 1897

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 5, 2015, 4:00 am

        “Thanks! I don’t know how you French ever get the hang that damn language! ”

        They only made it up to annoy the rest of us. It serves no other purpose.

      • Walid
        Walid on April 5, 2015, 4:39 am

        ““Thanks! I don’t know how you French ever get the hang that damn language! ” (JLD)

        “They only made it up to annoy the rest of us. It serves no other purpose. -” (RoHa)

        You should experience the fun and games of manoeuvring around the landmines of exceptions.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 5, 2015, 5:44 pm

        “They only made it up to annoy the rest of us. It serves no other purpose”

        “Is a Frenchman a man?” “Yes”
        “WELL, den! Dad blame it, why doan’ he TALK like a man? You answer me DAT!”

  23. tombishop
    tombishop on April 3, 2015, 2:21 pm

    The response of Netanyahu, his supporters and Christian Zionists show they are increasingly even more detached from reality. For them, the only good result would be to jump into the abyss of war. They ignore the massive concessions Iran made because they want war.

    It reminds me of a statement Karl Rove made at the beginning of the attack on Iraq: “”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    Well, more than ten years later look at the reality they created in the Middle East. These neocons are more dangerous than ever because their attempt to control events is losing.

    Better a War than an Agreement
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13579

  24. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson on April 3, 2015, 2:27 pm

    RE: “They sense, this is something that cannot be undone. It’s like the Cuba opening. Who will oppose that? ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) for one.
    Robert “Bob” Menendez (D-NJ) for another, but hopefully not for much longer!

  25. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson on April 3, 2015, 2:37 pm

    RE: Netanyahu’s “kind of rhetoric…starts to erode the meaning of democracy,” he [Obama] said.

    MY COMMENT: “No sh · t, Sherlock!”

    SEE: “Neocons: the Echo of German Fascism”, By Todd E. Pierce, Consortiumnews.com, March 27, 2015
    Exclusive: The “f-word” for “fascist” keeps cropping up in discussing aggressive U.S. and Israeli “exceptionalism,” but there’s a distinction from the “n-word” for “Nazi.” This new form of ignoring international law fits more with an older form of German authoritarianism favored by neocon icon Leo Strauss, says retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.
    LINK – https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/27/neocons-the-echo-of-german-fascism/

    • JLewisDickerson
      JLewisDickerson on April 3, 2015, 2:48 pm

      P.S. ALSO RE: Netanyahu’s “kind of rhetoric… starts to erode the meaning of democracy,” he [Obama] said.

      FROM MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM (huckster) :

      huckster
      noun | huck·ster | \ˈhək-stər\
      : someone who sells or advertises something in an aggressive, dishonest, or annoying way

      • JLewisDickerson
        JLewisDickerson on April 3, 2015, 2:49 pm

        P.P.S. I’m going to start labelling Likudnik Israel the “Praxis of Evil”!

        FROM MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM (praxis) :

        praxis
        noun | prax·is | \ˈprak-səs\
        plural prax·es \-ˌsēz\
        Definition of PRAXIS
        1
        : action, practice: as
        a : exercise or practice of an art, science, or skill
        b : customary practice or conduct
        2
        : practical application of a theory

  26. joemowrey
    joemowrey on April 3, 2015, 3:09 pm

    IMHO, this deal is more Kabuki theater on the part of ObamaCon, the Wizard of Guile. The odds of this deal making it past our Congress are little to none. Obama knows this. But putting together this sham “framework” which has no chance of ever being finalized makes him look like a good guy. After all we’ve seen this con man do over the last 6 years, does anyone really believe he and his gang of warmongering thugs are actually interested in peace, with Iran or anyone else? Really? We are talking about an administration which is currently engaged in more direct and proxy wars than any other administration in the history of our country. Suddenly they are ambassadors for Peace? Think about it.

    If by some long shot this or any other deal with Iran is ever put into place, chances are it will be little more than a trigger for an actual war. Because no matter how one-sided and degrading such an agreement would be for Iran (and this framework deal is bizarrely weighted against Iran) the U.S. and Israel will find a way to make it look like Iran is in violation of it at some point.

    Ten bucks says there will eventually be an unprovoked attack on Iran by either the U.S. and or Israel. History has shown repeatedly that the U.S. rarely if ever opts for peace when war (no matter how irrational or destructive) is an option.

    • annie
      annie on April 3, 2015, 3:21 pm

      The odds of this deal making it past our Congress are little to none.

      the odds of a rejection of this deal making it past Congress w/a veto proof vote are little to none.

      • joemowrey
        joemowrey on April 3, 2015, 5:26 pm

        In that case, as I suggested in my comment, there will then be an automatic trigger in place for war with Iran when they “violate” the agreement. It is a win win situation for the war mongers.

        Remember how excited everyone was when Obama allegedly “avoided” war with Syria? We saw how long that little bit of peace making on the part of our Nobel Peace Laureate lasted. He did that because he knew we would be initiating a proxy war with Syria via the ISIS scam eventually anyway. Regime change there by hook or by crook. That was always the plan.

        These guys are masters of the long con. They will get their war with Iran, one way or another. Bet on it. It’s all a part of the Project for a New American Century. Lybia, Syria. Next up, Iran. It may not happen until the new administration in hired, but it will happen.

      • annie
        annie on April 3, 2015, 7:53 pm

        In that case, as I suggested in my comment, there will then be an automatic trigger in place for war with Iran when they “violate” the agreement. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/obama-won-iran/comment-page-1#comment-759012

        why assume they will violate the agreement? besides, it’s not just something the US or israel would decide. the agreement is not only w/US congress. our sanctions will be toothless unless other world powers follow suit. if we want to make war with iran we don’t need iran to break an agreement, we can just make war with them.

        i don’t agree with you joe.

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 3, 2015, 8:37 pm

        Joe isn’t assuming that Iran will violate the agreement. He is assuming that the US will claim that Iran has violated the agreement.

      • annie
        annie on April 3, 2015, 9:40 pm

        He is assuming that the US will claim that Iran has violated the agreement.

        and as i pointed out before “it’s not just something the US or israel would decide”. what i meant by that is, so what? so what if US congress reverses or imposes more sanctions? if the UN, russia, china, and the EU didn’t agree the sanctions would be toothless. the burden of proof would be on the US. and then it would be our loss. the world went along with the sanctions before but i don’t think they will do that again unless there is ironclad proof, unless iran gets caught red handed.

        they are more patient than we are, by a long shot.

      • joemowrey
        joemowrey on April 4, 2015, 10:09 am

        Annie, as RoHa pointed out, I wasn’t suggesting Iran would actually violate the agreement. I was suggesting that we would make it look like they had to justify an attack.

        One thing we can agree on for sure. As you say, if the U.S.wants to make war with Iran, we can just make war with Iran. As much as I wish it wouldn’t happen, I believe that it will, eventually. Only time will tell. Let’s hope you are right and I am wrong.

    • HarryLaw
      HarryLaw on April 3, 2015, 4:45 pm

      I agree joemowrey, can’t see why there is so much optimism about this framework agreement, in my opinion Obama has been proven to be a serial liar on so many occasions, cast your minds back to 2010 when Brazil and Turkey took what they thought were Obama’s terms for a nuclear deal with Iran and actually got a deal.
      The consensus in Washington at the time was Turkey and Brazil were wasting their time. When a deal was done, Obama reneged on it causing Brazil to release the letters from Obama proving that he had changed his mind. When those letters were published Obama could not give explanations as to why he changed his mind. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/01/why-iran-distrusts-the-us-in-nuke-talks/

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 3, 2015, 8:46 pm

        Harry, the problem with the Turkey/Brazil deal was that it was made by the wrong people.

        If the US and its President can’t crow about it, it doesn’t count.

    • Keith
      Keith on April 3, 2015, 5:47 pm

      JOEMOWREY- “IMHO, this deal is more Kabuki theater on the part of ObamaCon, the Wizard of Guile.”

      I agree. Apparently, Phil is still hung over from all of the wild celebrating he did over the “Arab Spring” and the upcoming Middle Eastern Age of Aquarius.

      • Walid
        Walid on April 3, 2015, 8:56 pm

        “… Phil is still hung over from all of the wild celebrating he did over the “Arab Spring” and the upcoming Middle Eastern Age of Aquarius.” (Keith)

        Keith, he got off the microbus the week he was visiting a friend in Cairo during the funeral of the massacred Copts. I think he hasn’t used that bogus term since. Nonetheless, there’s no harm in hanging on to a bit of his idealism; it makes life a bit more pleasant. I’m in a celebratory mood myself at the agreement with Iran as it will have repercussions on events in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. If Obama is so intent on hitting Iran, he would have have done it a long time back.

      • Keith
        Keith on April 4, 2015, 12:50 am

        WALID- “If Obama is so intent on hitting Iran, he would have have done it a long time back.”

        Nonsense! I see no indication that the empire has abandoned its ultimate objectives of either bringing Iran back into the vassal fold or destroying it. Obama already is engaged in an overwhelming number of interventions, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and now Yemen to name a few, that he needs to build support for increased sanctions and/or military intervention in Iran. The empire is on a militaristic rampage, destroying country after country. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Obama to do the right thing. He is an imperialist to the core, and Weiss is an imperial apologist to the core. I don’t buy this sunny side of life idealism excuse, he is supposed to be a journalist attuned to realistic assessments of current events. I’m tired of the excuses and the BS. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the US will seek a nuclear weapons free Middle East leading to the essential elimination of nuclear weapons. Time will tell. I’m not optimistic, are you?

      • Walid
        Walid on April 4, 2015, 5:52 am

        Keith, I can’t knock Phil’s idealism because by my nature, I’m not much different. I think Obama sees greater financial opportunies through peace with Iran than by maintaining an adverserial stance towards it. Another good reason of Obama playing nice with Iran is to short-circuit Russia’s attempt at controlling a large swath of land stretching from Syria’s Med shores through Iraq, Iran, Khazastan and so on all the way to Vladivostok. Not being discussed in the open is surely America’s insistance on Iran not getting on Putin’s BRIC bus of mucking around with the by passing of the US dollar. Helping the US put ISIS back in the bottle is another factor. The big winner in all of this is the US. and the big loser is Putin. In all this story, Netanyahu is not much more than the chickenshit he is.

      • Keith
        Keith on April 4, 2015, 11:16 am

        WALID- “Not being discussed in the open is surely America’s insistance on Iran not getting on Putin’s BRIC bus of mucking around with the by passing of the US dollar.”

        I trust you realize that you have just described “divide and conquer?” Unless Russia, China and Iran hang together, they will most likely hang separately. Ending dollar hegemony is essential to ending imperial financial control. Without the dollar as the reserve currency, all of these sanctions would be ineffective. Globalization has created a system of financial control whereby financial warfare has significantly replaced actual warfare as the preferred instrument of imperial control. My whole point being that the empire wants to establish and maintain significant control over Iran. If they can do it through one-sided negotiatiions and agreements, they will avail themselves of the opportunity. Only time will tell if the empire has been successful. As Michael Hudson says: “This financial warfare is trying to achieve the same thing that military warfare did in the past. It’s aim is to grab the land, to grab control of the public infrastructure, to grab control of governments themselves. But it’s doing it financially rather than militarily.” (Michael Hudson) http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/13/quantitative-easing-for-whom/

    • lobewyper
      lobewyper on April 3, 2015, 10:02 pm

      joemowrey wrote:

      Ten bucks says there will eventually be an unprovoked attack on Iran by either the U.S. and or Israel. History has shown repeatedly that the U.S. rarely if ever opts for peace when war (no matter how irrational or destructive) is an option.

      Disagree, Joe. I think the more likely outcome is that neither the US nor Israel will attack Iran, so long as Iran allies itself with the US against Muslim jihadists. We (the US) badly need the assistance of Iranian boots on the ground.

  27. Sycamores
    Sycamores on April 3, 2015, 5:00 pm

    seemingly yesterday first time ever on Iranian tv an American President was shown speaking live, which spark of an Iranian Obama selfie-fest.

    https://twitter.com/search?q=iranian%20selfie%20obama%20on%20tv&src=typd&lang=en

  28. Donald
    Donald on April 3, 2015, 5:29 pm

    Before people get too elated, the thing to watch out for now are the Israelis who want to go to plan B–that is, accept the Iranian agreement as a done deal, and use the fact that Obama wants Israel’s non-opposition to the deal to obtain leverage on the Palestinian issue. In short, Israel goes along with Obama on Iran and in exchange, the US continues to side with Israel in the UN.

    I don’t know if Netanyahu is a smart enough sociopath to try this and make it work, but Jodi Rudoren eagerly relays the views of Israelis (including Mr. “There are no civilians in Gaza” Eiland) who want to go this route.

    link to Rudoren story

    • Rusty Pipes
      Rusty Pipes on April 3, 2015, 6:56 pm

      Bibi’s speech was the straw that broke the camel’s back — Israelis just won’t admit it yet (nor will their stenographers at the NYT). Netanyahu lost his veto-proof majority with that stunt, forcing Democratic congresscritters to choose between him, with the Republican leadership’s backing, and the President. The White House is describing an Iran deal as the major legacy of Obama’s second term ,just as ACA was for his first. Democrats who buck the president on this will have a hard time turning out the base, especially people of color, in 2016.

      • lobewyper
        lobewyper on April 4, 2015, 1:35 pm

        Rusty wrote:

        Netanyahu lost his veto-proof majority with that stunt, forcing Democratic congresscritters to choose between him, with the Republican leadership’s backing, and the President – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/obama-won-iran#comment-758910

        Rusty,

        There are plenty of Republican voters who are also in favor of this deal with Iran. They are an important part of our electorate and we need to recognize their forthcoming contributions to the agreement’s passage. Boehner and co. are risking the support of these voters by opposing it as well as being charged with war-mongering. Netanyahu is making an abject fool of himself by insulting our leader and calling his and his state dept.’s judgment into question. N’s moves here can only accelerate the questioning of unqualified US support of Israel in the minds of many previously unqualified supporters.

    • JWalters
      JWalters on April 3, 2015, 7:37 pm

      Perhaps. But I see Obama using this change in context to push harder for justice regarding the Palestinians. I think he’s going for more touchdowns.

      • Donald
        Donald on April 4, 2015, 12:23 am

        That’s possible. I can’t tell for sure where Obama stands–I’m just pointing out the stance some Israelis and their supporters will take if they decide they can’t stop the Iran deal.

      • annie
        annie on April 4, 2015, 1:43 am

        donald, rudoren has proven time and again she’s been enveloped into a mental framework where her “analysis” cannot be trusted. so much of what she writes is wishful thinking tinged with a lot of propaganda. i won’t go so far as to say she’s purposely manipulative. frankly, i think she’s drunk too much israeli kool aid. what to make of this, to begin with:

        It took Mr. Obama about two hours to call Mr. Netanyahu after Thursday’s announcement of a framework agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program, and this time it was the Israeli leader who lectured the American that the emerging deal “would threaten the survival” of his state.

        the american what? did she say this: “this time it was the Israeli who lectured the American president that the emerging deal “would threaten the survival” of his state.”

        no, she didn’t. what journalistic standards is it to refer to the american president not by his name, or ‘the president’ but as “the american”?

        and where did she come up w/this:

        Mr. Netanyahu is now in a powerful position to undermine the Iran nuclear deal

        no actually, he isn’t. he’s just been demoted to ‘not so important’. and while it may be true “It took Mr. Obama about two hours to call Mr. Netanyahu after Thursday’s announcement of a framework agreement”, the operative phrasing here is “after Thursday’s announcement”, iow, obama made a very public national speech announcing the deal to the american public BEFORE talking to netanyahu. iow, he came last. contrary to the nyt spin, this was no “rush to call”. remember, in the olden days at the beginning of obama’s presidency, american diplomats used to stop by israel while they were on the other side of the atlantic before coming home. they’d touch down there and clear everything w/israelis prior to reaching our shores. this time israel found out about it by spying, word of mouth and the press and whatever and then obama told the nation and announced to the nation he had not contacted netanyahu yet but would..soon. and so he did. a couple hours later. whoopie/not. (as a thought exercise try imagining the ex fiance bragging about her ex calling her 2 hours after the press announced the man’s engagement to another woman). this is nothing to brag about.

        and this crazy allegation is no more than wishful thinking:

        “…because of this deal, there is a chance that the Americans will try to compensate Israel somehow if we stop fighting against this deal, and we should exploit it in a smart way,”

        oh please! there’s also a chance netanyahu will negotiate a palestinian state – doesn’t mean it will happen. this is jargon, suggestion w/a megaphone via the nyt. obama is not about to “compensate” israel for jack shit. we already give them billions a year. obama owes them nothing. obama should be taking a victory lap. obama knows full well aipac and ECI are fighting tooth n nail to bring down this deal (because they have announced as much) and don’t have the votes to over ride a veto. so why on earth would he offer them (his adversaries) a fig leaf? better to drive home the point; israel, back off.

        Netanyahu is not in a powerful position to undermine the Iran nuclear deal. he played that card already in a big grand way and came out looking the fool.

        and what’s this?:

        Mr. Eiland was one of several Israeli analysts who said the emphasis should turn to strengthening the verification procedures in the deal and clarifying the consequences if Iran violates it. “If Netanyahu chooses this option, at least we can gain some other benefits from the situation

        the emphasis has already turned to strengthening the verification procedures in the deal and clarifying the consequences if Iran violates it. so all this essentially means is israel/netanyahu trying to stick his head in and over see what’s going on and pressure the US. that’s what he’s always done. it’s wishful thinking he can “gain .. benefits” by tagging on.

        the thing is rudoren dutifully reports all this bs without thinking about how it undermines her credibility as a reporter.

        he said. “The time has come to make a real reassessment in regard to the Israel-American relationship.”

        they should have thought about that before the congressional speech. israel is now on the bottom wrung of the ladder and this “analyst” thinks it’s time to reassess the relationship. no shit sherlock. seriously, it really does not require an experienced analyst to figure that out. it’s as if a lightbulb goes off “bingo, we’re not popular now, we lost, lets shuffle the cards.”

        in your dreams. and here, maybe she thinks we have short attention spans:

        Though Israeli and American officials have long denied any link between the Iranian and Palestinian issues, the two are playing out simultaneously.

        did she forget the highly publicized first meeting of obama and netanyahu? where netanyahu said “iran” and obama said “negotiations”(re 2 states) and netanyahu tried to leverage one against the other (iran first natch, obama said no). so now, netanyahu is going to want to cash in on something because he wouldn’t play ball? seriosouly, it’s demented logic. he lost, he didn’t win. so no, he doesn’t get the US to back off on jerusalem or anything else. she’s writing like a spokesperson for the israeli government. and you’re swallowing it hook line and sinker for some god forsaken reason i don’t know why. it’s propaganda.

      • Donald
        Donald on April 4, 2015, 6:30 pm

        I pointed that article out precisely to say that this is plan B for some Israelis– if they can’t stop the Iranian agreement they will try and argue that Obama owes them something. I expect this might become the new line in some quarters in Congress. Obviously Rudoren herself is pushing this line and is spinning the story with her choice of “experts” . I have no idea why you think anyone who points these things out is swallowing her line hook line and sinker. Do you think you’re the only person who can see that Rudoren is openly siding with the Israelis she chooses to quote? Hell, after I typed that comment yesterday I wasted several minutes writing a letter to the NYT public editor on just that point, if only to let the paper know their readers can see obvious bias when it is rubbed in our faces. I still think it is worth pointing out that this is a strategy some Israelis wish to try.

        Whether there is any chance of any of it working I don’t know. The Obama people show signs of finally being sick and tired of Netanyahu, but I haven’t forgotten how they kowtowed and defended Israel’s right to “defend itself” last summer. Politicians are not the sort of people you can trust, not on human rights issues. If Obama is angry at Netanyahu it’s mainly because Netanyahu pushed him too far in the past few months. That is more Netanyahu’s doing–he seems to have a special talent for annoying the hell out of people.

    • annie
      annie on April 5, 2015, 2:46 am

      ok donald, point taken. sorry for making assumptions wrt your point of view. it really got my shackles up reading that article. ha!

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 5, 2015, 12:48 pm

        “it really got my shackles up reading that article”

        Annie, break free of your ‘shackles’, and it’ll be easier to get your “hackles” up. Which is not to say that Mondo doesn’t deserve a lot of credit for raising Kane!

  29. Keith
    Keith on April 3, 2015, 5:35 pm

    PHIL- “The Iran deal is done.”

    Oh, Lord, here you go again with yet another Pollyannaish overreaction. The only “deal” is an agreed upon framework for a final agreement to be reached no later than June 30. Since Iran’s nuclear program was simply a pretext for the sanctions, etc. this could simply be a ploy to make Obama look like a peace maker who is forced to resort to force when the Iranians fail to comply to US satisfaction. Also, it provides a brief period of Middle East stability to facilitate the destruction of Yemen. Much too soon to uncritically break out the champagne. I see no evidence that the empire has changed its spots, only its tactics. Below are two quotes and links on two aspects of the Iran situation which are quite pertinent.

    “The punishing US and EU sanctions that have halved Iran’s oil exports since 2011 and frozen it out of the world banking system will be “suspended”—not permanently removed. Moreover, their suspension will begin only when Iran has made good on all parts of the deal that are immediately applicable.” (Keith Jones) http://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-makes-sweeping-concessions-to-us-in-nuclear-framework-deal/5440492

    “Failure by Iran to comply fully with IAEA demands undermine Tehran’s efforts to win the lifting of crippling UN, US and other sanctions, which currently prohibit foreign companies from doing business with Iran and deny access to the global financial system. Media coverage of the negotiations regularly emphasize Amano’s claims of Iran’s insufficient responses to IAEA’s demands. It is thus worth inquiring just who is this man Amano.

    In 2009 Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano became the head of the IAEA. What the Western media routinely fail to remind its audience is that a US embassy cable of October 2009 (released by Wikileaks in 2010) said Amano “took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency. Amano reminded the [American] ambassador on several occasions that … he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”
    (William Blum) http://williamblum.org/aer/read/138

    • Sycamores
      Sycamores on April 3, 2015, 8:50 pm

      if there is an end of sanctions the price of oil will drop dramatically. in other words there are plenty of other players besides the US congress and Israel who would love to scupper this deal.

      • Keith
        Keith on April 4, 2015, 11:33 am

        SYCAMORES- “if there is an end of sanctions the price of oil will drop dramatically. in other words there are plenty of other players besides the US congress and Israel who would love to scupper this deal.”

        I agree that there are a lot of folks who would like to scupper this deal, however, the impact on the price of oil is uncertain. The current price is a result of the US and Saudi Arabia intentionally flooding the market for geostrategic reasons. Both Russia and Venezuela have been hit economically. This is a clear cut demonstration of the awesome strategic value inherent in the control of access to oil, long a part of US geostrategy. Any further reduction in prices for any significant length of time would require US/Saudi collusion and would have far reaching and unpredictable consequences, perhaps the intentional collapse of the global financial system to permit new financial architecture to replace the current system. The final two years of the Obama administration will be marked by increasing conflict and instability.

  30. michelle
    michelle on April 3, 2015, 6:11 pm

    .
    i keep reading how Iran is ‘broke’
    are power plants cheap
    seems like Iran doesn’t need to deal directly with America
    .
    the many interesting events of late do give one pause
    i do hope America and Israel aren’t playing some sort of game
    setting up another excuse to attack/go to war
    all while trying to make it seem like ‘their’ hands are clean
    .
    seems like
    none of this is about the Israel right to exist in the Middle East
    it’s about the Israel effort to take over/rule the Middle East
    .
    G-d Bless
    .

  31. mcohen.
    mcohen. on April 3, 2015, 6:11 pm

    the whole show is beyond me and the linkage to the “occupation” in israel even more baffling…..i always thought that this was all about iran wanting to protect it,s oil and gas resources

    what negioations ? the message is clear to all oil producers,the bomb will not save you and that goes for america too

    netanyahu was right in trying to prevent any linkage too israel,for one simple reason….the non oil producing countries like china and europe will be back for more cheap oil regardless of any deals made now.

    • Mooser
      Mooser on April 4, 2015, 11:11 am

      Careful “mcohen”, I think your hot plate is smoking!

  32. just
    just on April 3, 2015, 6:45 pm

    Blergh~ just heard David Brooks on NPR. He calls the regime in Iran “apocalyptic”.

    “NPR’s Audie Cornish speaks with political commentators Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post and David Brooks of The New York Times about the Iran nuclear deal announcement, the latest around the religious freedom laws in Indiana and Arkansas, and N.J. Sen. Robert Menendez’s corruption charges.”

    You can listen here (< 7mins, thankfully)

    http://www.npr.org/2015/04/03/397325212/week-in-politics-iran-nuclear-deal-announcement-religious-freedom-laws

  33. just
    just on April 3, 2015, 7:25 pm

    Simon Tisdall:

    “Presumably out of courtesy and as a matter of diplomatic protocol, Barack Obama called Binyamin Netanyahu on Thursday night to tell him the nuclear pact with Iran that Israel’s prime minister had so bitterly resisted was a done deal. It must have been a difficult conversation.

    Not only was the US president informing Netanyahu of something he already knew – that he had lost the battle, though not the war, to maintain the isolation and demonisation of Iran. Obama was also making a political point: Netanyahu’s brazen attempt to undermine presidential authority by conspiring with his Republican opponents had failed miserably. The morning after the day before in Lausanne, it is as though an opaque bubble has popped, as though a distorting veil has suddenly lifted. Videos of jubilant young Iranians celebrating in the streets of Tehran over-wrote the stereotyped, conservative narrative of a nation of bearded terrorists hell-bent on wreaking international mayhem.

    Iran is no natural pariah. Iran at heart is a country like any other, struggling to free itself from poisonous colonial and imperial legacies, pursuing its rights and interests in a world dominated by great powers, fought over by competing secular and religious elites, talented, potentially wealthy, badly governed, and deeply uncertain how to meet the rising expectations of coming generations. …

    ….. The obstinacy of Republicans, including the 47 senators who recently presumed to warn Iran’s supreme leader in a letter that they hold the whip hand on sanctions, is matched only by their fearful, know-nothing ignorance of modern Iran. Instead of a pretentious review of the Lausanne agreement, they should get on a plane to Tehran. Hospitable, erudite Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Majlis (parliament), would doubtless welcome his opposite number. John Boehner, who admits he is no foreign policy expert, badly needs to learn more about life beyond Ohio.

    Netanyahu’s government, too, will do all it can to scupper the deal. In this objective it will be joined by anti-western, rejectionist Iranian clerics such as the influential Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, plus hardline Sunni conservatives in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf who, in the wake of last week’s Yemen intervention, feel themselves engaged in an increasingly overt regional power struggle with Shia Iran.

    The outcome of Obama’s bid for Iranian detente remains uncertain. It behoves all who support the policy to ensure it works. This holds particularly true for Britain with its long Persian experience. The foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, welcomed the pact. He must not hesitate now, or hang back and wait to follow others. Full diplomatic relations with Iran should be restored without further delay. Hammond should go to Tehran and cement the deal. It is time to bring Iran in from the cold.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/03/britain-help-iran-cold-nuclear-deal#comment-49895318

    • JWalters
      JWalters on April 3, 2015, 7:40 pm

      Good points all. Hopefully the influence of Mondoweiss and other non-MIC news outlets will spread and the public will become better informed.

      • annie
        annie on April 3, 2015, 7:59 pm

        what is a MIC?

      • just
        just on April 3, 2015, 8:08 pm

        Military industrial complex…

        “The term the”military-industrial complex” was made famous by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address. Eisenhower warned:”In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.””

        http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/869

      • annie
        annie on April 3, 2015, 8:10 pm

        thank you!

      • just
        just on April 3, 2015, 8:11 pm

        ;-)

        Sadly, what he said about the MIC has expanded to other influences as well.

        But, you know that!

  34. just
    just on April 3, 2015, 7:50 pm

    And The Shavit:

    “Iran nuclear talks in Lausanne: Is this the Munich Conference of our day?

    After Lausanne, who will rise and say ‘no more!?’ Israel tried — and the world turned its back.

    …Also, if Iran has nuclear bombs, so will Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and the Gulf states. Thus, a multi-polar nuclear system will be created in the Middle East, which will be tantamount to a strategic nightmare.

    They also understand that if Iran acquires nuclear capability, there’s a high chance that capability will spill over to sub-state organizations, which will turn the 21st century into a century of nuclear terror and nuclear horror. …

    …In recent months the six major powers have faced a paper tiger, which only nuclear teeth would turn into a real tiger. But the powers’ incompetence and lack of resolve once again became Iran’s trump card. Just as it succeeded in deceiving the West for a decade of strategic wrestling, it succeeded in overcoming the West in a fateful year of diplomatic wheeling and dealing. The same combination of resolve, cunning and ingenuity that enabled Khamenai’s Iran to get as far as Lausanne, enabled it to maneuver in Lausanne and cast a giant shadow on world peace.

    So the question that must be asked after Lausanne is who will rise and say “no more!?” Israel tried — and the world turned its back. The Arabs tried — and the world ignored them. Even the British lion roared and fell silent. So all that remains now is Iranian arrogance and Western public opinion. Only a last-moment awakening of public opinion in the free world in the face of Iranian audacity can stop the the most abject march of folly of our time. ”

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.650103

    Anyone want to host a ‘Depend’ fundraiser for Shavit, Netanyahu, Kristol, Brooks, et al?

    Maybe AIPAC or Fingerhut or Shmuley will…

    • piotr
      piotr on April 3, 2015, 8:37 pm

      “Anyone want to host a ‘Depend’ fundraiser…”

      No amount of diapers will help without proper application. What we observe is a condition in which diarrhea and gasses emerges from the orifice (can you say oral orifice?), so one would have to apply diapers on the head, and just hope that a person that is so completely reversed can breath through anus. But would it really solve the problem, or just prove that the subject can spray around fecal matter from both ends of their alimentary tract?

      I conclude that cheap palliatives are unlikely to work. Instead, I would send the victims of this mysterious malady to high Arctic, so they would cool their feverish heads, and supply with copious amount of marijuana. After several weeks one could move them to more temperate locations, switch to methadone and start behavioral therapy. Full recovery from severe ziocaine addiction may take months.

      • just
        just on April 3, 2015, 8:44 pm

        That’s side- splittingly hilarious, piotr!

        It’s priceless, and more than worthy of sharing!

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius on April 4, 2015, 6:14 am

      ”Israel tried — and the world turned its back. The Arabs tried — and the world ignored them.”

      I surely can’t the only one astonished at how Israeli PR is now so closely alligned with ”The Arabs”.

      For decades, it was all about ”the Arabs want to push us into the sea”, ”the Arabs want to destroy Israel’ blah blah blah yet now they’re in love!

      I’m half expecting Israel to apply for membership of the Arab League any day now.

  35. stevelaudig
    stevelaudig on April 3, 2015, 8:15 pm

    “Reporters like Andrea Mitchell and Wolf Blitzer”. Surely “reporters is a typo. “Israeli state agents” is more accurate term for these propagandists.

  36. Tom Callaghan
    Tom Callaghan on April 3, 2015, 10:43 pm

    Obama made a first rate statement in the Rose Garden on Thursday. He cannot, however, rest on his laurels. The reasonableness of the deal must be sold.

    One can never underestimate the resources that the Israeli Prime Minister and Mr. Adelson can bring to bear on a situation. Every bad event in the next few months and the prior thirty years will be blamed on Iran. The good news is that they always overreach.

    Also in the good news department, is the people who will be out front carrying the message for the pro-deal side. Obama himself is good when he’s focused and his heart is in it. Kerry is tough and credible. I’ve seen the Energy Secretary, Dr.Ernest Moniz, once on CNN and he’s very calm and focused. He’ll be on Rachel Maddow on Monday.

    Also good news is that Sen. Ben Cardin will be taking over the Ranking Minority role on the Senate Foreign Committee from Senator Menendez. That’s a good trade.

    Finally, if this comes down to a veto override vote in both Houses, Nancy Pelosi is a great person to have on your side. She’ll support the President.

    http://www.wednesdayswars.com

  37. wondering jew
    wondering jew on April 4, 2015, 3:05 am

    Because of the “natural” opposition of this site to Israel there is no balance here in regards to Iran’s government and the trouble that it is responsible for throughout the region (and the world). I accept that opposition to Israel is part of the dogma of this site and the commentators. And I also accept that the US (in particular in 1954 and in its support of the Shah) has been destructive to Iran’s best interests. But 1. Iran is not a democracy. It is ruled by the ayatollahs, who say who can run for office and ultimately it is not the Iranian people and their elected (from a slate of preapproved) representatives who run the country, but rather the ayatollahs. 2. It is fighting wars in the region. It is by no means a peaceful influence in the region. (it is a player and thus bringing it to the table could be useful compared to ignoring and sanctioning them. but it is not a peaceful player.) 3. The accusation of iran’s culpability in the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994 is something that cannot be dismissed.

    If this site dealt with any of these three issues ever with any balance, then this site’s attitude towards Iran and its nuclear program might have some credibility.

    At this point, now that the pact’s framework has been signed onto, Iran’s nuclear desires are “besides the point”. Nonetheless, this site’s credibility is not “besides the point.”

    • annie
      annie on April 4, 2015, 3:20 am

      yonah, everything you have spoken here about iran could be said of israel (“by no means a peaceful influence in the region”). even here in the US, at the gop convention, it was announced on c-span live that the delegates at the convention could not vote for ron paul (“ultimately it is not the Iranian people and their elected”) , this was knowing paul had the majority of delegates. also, at the dem convention everyone saw the over riding of the jerusalem vote. also we saw what happen in ohio w/kerry and the sham “revote” they had there in 2004 and we know cheney-bush stole florida and the election on 2000. and we know all the polls stated the US financed “green revolution” lost (bigtime) in iran. so really, there’s nothing you are saying unique to iran we have not done. and israel is not a democracy by a long shot.

      If this site dealt with any of these three issues ever with any balance, then this site’s attitude towards Iran and its nuclear program might have some credibility.

      and you might have some credibility if you argued against israels nuclear program too, but that is really not the point is it? our credibility is not the point. the point is what is going down internationally. a rapprochement (hopefully) between the US and iran. this is really good news. after decades of the bff US/IS relationship, i’m ready to support shuffling the decks.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew on April 4, 2015, 5:59 am

        As to the major question: is this a good pact or a bad pact. My fears are not calm, but because Barak Ravid was the one who guided me against Obama in 2008 (because he was weak on Iran), which led me to abstain (although as a resident or citizen whose last residence was New York, there was no need to vote in the electoral college system of the United States) rather than vote for Obama and because he had that credit with me as a skeptic, now that he writes: It’s not a bad agreement, I accept his word. Otherwise this is a topic that I do not have sufficient knowledge about: neither technology, nor the world of nuclear exchanges or threats of exchanges, therefore I feel a need for some “Expert” to help me decide and because of the scariness of nukes, my knees will waver from time to time, but I support this agreement.

        I think that the position of this web site vis a vis Israel and US campaign finance laws or lack thereof leading to a dishonest American conversation on the topic of Israel are well known. But this web site’s position on Iran is nebulous. Do you give zero credence to the accusation of Iran participation in the bombing in Buenos Aires 1994? There is a war going on in Yemen and in Syria and Iraq involving Isis and what is reported as a Shiite Sunni schism and warfare. Do you know enough about that to feel that Iran is a positive influence. my zionism allows you a quick fix. I know you are, but what am I? okay. good. I’m no one to throw stones, cuz i live in a glass house. accepted. but what is this site’s stance on Iran and the sectarian warfare going on? Phil knows as little as I do about that aspect of Iran’s regional influence. As far as Iran’s lack of democracy, I think that is a given. But my googling a list put out by some think tank of the ranking of democratic values in the world’s countries is sometimes denigrated as some kind of a Zionist plot, so we can go to the list of countries and do a little research and see how the human rights people rate Iran. (israel is worse, i hear you say,) but that is not the point that will undo the negligence by this web site of the issue of freedom in Iran.

      • annie
        annie on April 4, 2015, 4:28 pm

        yonah, you say you “feel a need for some “Expert” to help me decide and because of the scariness of nukes” and you made very clear in your previous post (the one above i responded to) that there is “no balance here” and therefore no “credibility”. and you said “this site’s credibility is not “besides the point.” “. iow, you want to talk about our credibility.i get that.

        but what i can’t figure out is why my opinion matters to you about something that happened in ’94 if my opinions are not credible? and you say this cite’s “position on Iran is nebulous”.

        well, it may interest you to know we don’t have group meetings to align our personal opinions on certain countries. if you’re going to critique this article – which you’ve implied is “imbalanced” why not just choose something in it and challenge it?

        what difference does it make what i think of what’s going on in yemen?

        my zionism allows you a quick fix. I know you are, but what am I? okay. good.

        i have no idea what you are talking about. my opinion of the deal, yemen, a bombing here or there over the decades, has nothing to do with you being a zionist whatsoever. i tried directly addressing your claims and i did that by showing you that all of the claims you made – all of them — the same could be attributed to our country. furthermore, it doesn’t matter what i personally think of this deal or what i think if iran’s democracy because even if i thought it was horrible i would not approve of US intervention. when the US starts supporting the oppression of millions of people via shoveling billions of US funds into iran, making it a defacto arm of US foreign policy, and by extension me, then it becomes my business.

        as an american, i think it’s in our interests to have good relations with all world powers, even ones i may not like. i think china has some terribly despicable practices but i do not think we can change them if we do not work with them and have agreements with them on global issues, like global warming and human rights and international law and all sorts of things. same with russia and same with iran and same with saudi arabia. i do not want my country festering war with any of these countries. at all. so the things you mention, about iran’s democracy or the allegation they bombed argentina, is irrelevant to that overriding opinion i have about american intervention in the world.

        but once we do intervene, whether it be in the ukraine, israel, libya, iraq, yemen (especially criminal states like israel and/or regime change to facilitate worse conditions like iraq/ukraine/libya), it becomes my interest. i disapprove of financially supporting criminal states, which we do primarily and consistently with israel.

        it would be highly hypocritical of me to complain about iran having regional influence considering it is their region (unlike the US influencing the ME). what logic is behind recognizing iran actively fights against the growing influence of ISIS right next door to them in iraq and syria and then thinks they’d support them in yemen? no logic. why should i have an opinion about iran’s influence in yemen at all? because talking heads tell me what’s going on there is the fault of iran?

        but that is not the point that will undo the negligence by this web site of the issue of freedom in Iran.

        i get it. you’re interested in cutting down the website. you’re priority here is ad hominem in nature, because supposedly knocking us down a notch is an effective way of countering the information at the top of the page (scroll up to article). but please don’t expect anyone to think you care about “freedom in Iran”. really, it’s too much. why not consider the freedom of palestinians since they are the ones both countries, both the US and israel support oppressing. the day we start funding the oppression of the iranian people, then come back and ask me my opinion. until then, it is a moot point.

      • annie
        annie on April 4, 2015, 4:40 pm

        My fears are not calm

        so what? it’s probably not a coincidence that every neocon and rightwinger claims the same thing. my fears are not calm with israel having a nuke. in fact, the safest remedy for that is for them to dismantle it, but since that won’t happen the next safest thing is probably for them to know if they try using it they’ll get squished. and that means having another regional power with a nuke. we are not safer having a lone rouge trigger happy criminal state in the middle east with a nuke. advocate them to make a deal and sign the non proliferation treaty, then i’ll take your fears/tears more seriously.

      • just
        just on April 4, 2015, 7:29 am

        Thanks, Annie.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew on April 6, 2015, 2:46 am

        annie- You write: “but since that won’t happen the next safest thing is probably for them to know if they try using it they’ll get squished. and that means having another regional power with a nuke.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/obama-won-iran#comment-759078

        this is an opinion that i hear from you and i know where you’re coming from. but it is precisely this opinion of yours which disqualifies you as someone who has the interest of keeping a nuke away from Iran. You favor Iran having a nuke (for your given reason). those who oppose iran having a nuke (for whatever reason) would be foolhardy to listen to you. you are establishing us on opposite banks of the river with opposite objectives. difficult to communicate with anything approaching the concept of dialogue or understanding under these circumstances. do you not agree?

      • annie
        annie on April 6, 2015, 12:25 pm

        yonah, out here in the real world you don’t get to decide who is and is not disqualified to be in the discussion. i could just as easily say anyone not also advocating for israel to get rid of their nukes is disqualified from being in the discussion and it would be foolhardy to listen to and that they are establishing themselves on opposite banks of the river with opposite objectives. difficult to communicate with anything approaching the concept of dialogue or understanding under these circumstances. and i believe netanyahu would fit into that category, do you not agree?

        you get it? yours in an ad homimen comment. disqualifying the argument by disqualifying the person. try harder sans the rhetorical crutches.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on April 6, 2015, 5:09 pm

        but it is precisely this opinion of yours which disqualifies you as someone who has the interest of keeping a nuke away from Iran. You favor Iran having a nuke (for your given reason)

        Seeing as we’re throwing ad hominems and straw men around Yonah, I am going to assume you love killing women and children because you support Israel. Do you agree?

        Annie never said she supported Iran having a nuke, and you know that, but why let facts get in the way fo your bile?

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 6, 2015, 1:17 pm

        “you get it? yours in an ad homimen comment. disqualifying the argument by disqualifying the person. try harder sans the rhetorical crutches.”

        Very tempted to quote Ms. Parker’s remark on the raising of flowers and botanical specimens.

      • annie
        annie on April 6, 2015, 1:45 pm

        i need to brush up on ms parker mooser, i just recall it (you -she) was amusing ;)

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew on April 7, 2015, 4:46 am

        shingo- are we playing games here? whom do you think annie was referring to as a regional power, when she wrote: “in fact, the safest remedy for that is for them to dismantle it, but since that won’t happen the next safest thing is probably for them to know if they try using it they’ll get squished. and that means having another regional power with a nuke. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/obama-won-iran#comment-759078

        i made the logical fill in the blank as to which regional power she might be referring to. and based upon that leap, that tiny step, that logical fill in the blank, i get called strawman and ad hominem and bile. c’mon. you’re playing games.

      • annie
        annie on April 7, 2015, 12:22 pm

        yonah, the operative phrasing which prefaces my quote is “the safest remedy”, iow i am discussing the region with no nuclear weapons. you can’t start an arms race unless someone has the arms (nukes). israel has one. so i am beginning at the source, the beginning. (although i think pakistan has nukes now too, a much less stable country than iran actually but we’re not going crazy over pakistan’s nukes, ever so curiously/not.)

        contrary to your lies (mentioned here: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/compensate-netanyahu-propaganda#comment-759669 ) i don’t think anyone should have nuclear weapons, at all, including the US. you could have found that out by simply asking me which you didn’t do. meanwhile my comment doesn’t reflect a desire for anyone to have a nuclear weapon nor does it advocate anything. (although i do advocate the dismantling of nukes) it merely reflects common sense. you can read about it by googling “Nuclear Deterrence” or check out the wiki link on Deterrence theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory

        Deterrence is a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires. A credible nuclear deterrent, Bernard Brodie wrote in 1959, must be always at the ready, yet never used.[1]

        what’s the point of having any discussion with someone who launches into accusations anytime one contributes ideas to a conversation. you have nothing, quoting me is proof of nothing other than citing an opinion US military strategists (Bernard Brodie – military strategist) came up w/in the 50’s! it’s not even an original idea. cease and desist, you’re making a fool of yourself.

        [edit: p.s. if you think i will be facilitate a discussion in which your argument is that my “one goal” is “expediting” an iranian nuke you’re crazy, it’s not going to happen. i’m not an idiot.)

      • Shingo
        Shingo on April 7, 2015, 4:38 pm

        What do you not understand about “in fact, the safest remedy for that is for them to dismantle it meaning Isreal dismantling it’s nukes? After all, Iran has no nukes to dismantle.

        You didn’t make the logical fill in the blank, you reached for the cheap ad hominem as you always do.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew on April 7, 2015, 7:05 pm

        annie and shingo- here is what annie wrote, i paraphrase. It would be best if Israel would dismantle its nukes, but since it won’t it is best if a regional power would develop nukes.

        Here’s what I wrote: annie wants iran to have nukes.

        In fact here’s what I should have written: given Israel’s possession of nukes, annie wants Iran to have nukes.

        because i did not write this more careful sentence therefore according to shingo and annie robbins i deserve to be labeled as a liar and a cheap adhominem attacker.

        clear now? accurate now? or did i leave something out.

    • RoHa
      RoHa on April 4, 2015, 6:00 am

      Ok.
      1. Iran is far from being a perfect democracy.. Is that balanced enough?

      (And so what? How does this affect the deal? )

      2. Iran is fighting ISIS. It is doing the job the U.S. pretends to do, but does not arm and supply ISiS, as the US does., so I suppose that makes it a sort of ally and enemy of the U S. As far as I can tell, Iran is not actually taking part in other wars.
      Again, please provide extra balance if needed.

      3. The accusation tha Iran had a role in a bombing in BA cannot be dismissed if there is evidence to back it up. And this is your chance to shine, Yonah! Lay out the evidence, and give us some real balance.

      After all, you are a regular here, so I’m sure you are as keen as I am on the site having credibility.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius on April 4, 2015, 6:17 am

      Give it a rest Yonah.

      Nobody is buying it.

      You dislike Iran for one reason and one reason only: They are a rival to Israel. And if this deal leads to them becoming fully integrated into the world economy, a very formidable rival. So spare us with the human rights concern trolling. Nobody believes you.

      • just
        just on April 4, 2015, 7:32 am

        yonah~ do you know any Iranians who actually live in Iran?

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew on April 4, 2015, 8:27 am

        just- 30 or so years ago i worked with an iranian who left iran. he actually was armenian, but he was an iranian citizen.

        do you know any iranians who live in iran?

        do you think cuba is a free country? do you think china is a free country? do you think iran is a free country? where does iran rate compared to cuba and china?

        I understand that you disqualify my opinion because of my support for Israel. granted. but your opinions are based upon what? hatred for Israel? isn’t that a slim reed to base your politics? tens of millions of people live in Iran? hundreds of millions of Arabs live in the region as well. and your only organizing principle is hatred of zionism. it gives you credit here amongst your fellow believers, but it really ain’t enough to give you credence outside your little church here.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 4, 2015, 11:21 am

        “(The US shot its wad in fighting the war against Iraq in 2003. This deal reflects American fatigue on the international scene. Those pro Israel people who pushed for the war against Iraq in 2003 have now been proven wrong, because Iraq was a tiny threat in 2003 compared to the threat that Iran will be in 10 and 15 years. The stupid war against Iraq was the cause of this mediocre treaty.)”
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/wondering-jew#sthash.YtU6cMoJ.dpuf

        Yonah’s got all the answers. He reads Haaaretz

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 4, 2015, 12:20 pm

        Yonah, you want some credibility? Try learning how quotes, quoting and quote marks are used.

        I’ve noticed something; when you are quoting somebody, you refuse to use quote marks, but then you throw quote marks, double quotes, too, on odd words or phrases. Why? What are those quote marks supposed to mean?
        What is this abuse of quotes supposed to do for your credibility?

        “Natural” ? Does not appear in the article at all. First use on a comment from “just” :”Iran is no ‘natural’ pariah”
        “Beside the point” appears nowhere on the page or in a comment. What’s up, bro? Are you trying to make your comments even more obfuscatory, or is there some arcane meaning to this use of quotes I am not aware of?

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 4, 2015, 1:15 pm

        “Because of the “natural” opposition of this site to Israel”

        WTF does that even mean? Or are you simply trying to say that Mondoweiss is, at bottom, in its “natural” state, anti-Semitic?
        Yonah, I have four words for you: See the “about” page!

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 4, 2015, 6:28 pm

        ” 30 or so years ago i worked with an iranian who left iran. he actually was armenian, but he was an iranian citizen.”

        That’s pretty cool, Yonah, but some of my best friends are Jewish. Top that!

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 4, 2015, 6:42 pm

        ” and your only organizing principle is hatred of zionism. it gives you credit here amongst your fellow believers, but it really ain’t enough to give you credence outside your little church here.”

        Yonah, may I offer you, at long last, a suggestion which you may find profitable? Try thinking before you write. That “church” remark will go a long way towards endearing you to the Moderators, for one thing.

        And as far as that “hatred of Zionism” thing goes, Yonah, people who steal and collect a completely uncontrolled and illegal nuclear arsenal will be hated. It comes with the territory, Yonah. Or is everybody supposed to congratulate Israel for being so clever?

        “granted. but your opinions are based upon what? hatred for Israel? isn’t that a slim reed to base your politics? tens of millions of people live in Iran? hundreds of millions of Arabs live in the region as well. and your only organizing principle is hatred of zionism.”

        You know, Yonah is right! Here we are allegedly indulging in “hatred of Zionism” when there’s a couple of hundred million other people in the area we could be hating. We are missing so much!

      • RoHa
        RoHa on April 4, 2015, 7:03 pm

        “You know, Yonah is right! Here we are allegedly indulging in “hatred of Zionism” when there’s a couple of hundred million other people in the area we could be hating. We are missing so much!”

        Speak for yourself, Mooser. I hate nearly everyone, not only in the ME, but in the entire world! That’s roughly seven billion people, minus the tiny handful I can actually stand to be in the same room with.

        Makes for a rich and fulfilling life.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on April 5, 2015, 1:01 pm

        “Speak for yourself, Mooser. I hate nearly everyone, not only in the ME, but in the entire world!”

        Well, I take a more phlegmatic view. (Which, I hasten to add, does not include spitting on anybody). Anyway, if I can’t, as I should, bring myself to believe that all men are my brothers, I try and regard them as second cousins, once removed.
        As far as women go (and with me, they never go very far) I can only regard them as another sex.

    • Kay24
      Kay24 on April 4, 2015, 6:42 am

      Yonah: “1. Iran is not a democracy.

      Neither is Saudi Arabia, but hey look not only the US, but even Israel is chummy with it. So we can be selective who our buddies are in that region. Take Israel for instance, it has violated so many UN resolutions, and last year massacred civilians in UN shelters, but that was okay by the US, and we even handed MORE ammunition for them to continue their slaughter.

      It must be hard to accept the fact that finally Israel is going to meet it’s match in the region.
      Time the playing field was leveled and king kong was not the only monster thumping it’s chest at the rest, growling and threatening others.

    • eljay
      eljay on April 4, 2015, 8:56 am

      || y.f.: Because of the “natural” opposition of this site to Israel there is no balance here in regards to Iran’s government … ||

      Because of the “natural” bias of Zio-supremacists in favour of Israel and against Iran there is no balance in regard to Iran’s government.

      || 1. Iran is not a democracy. ||

      Israel is an oppressive and religion-supremacist “Jewish State”. Both states must reform.

      || 2. It is fighting wars in the region. It is by no means a peaceful influence in the region. ||

      Israel is a belligerent, colonialist and expansionist state which – for almost 70 years and with impunity – has been stealing, occupying and colonizing Palestinian land and torturing, oppressing and killing Palestinians. Both states must be held accountable for their past and on-going (war) crimes.

      || 3. The accusation of iran’s culpability in the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994 is something that cannot be dismissed. ||

      The accusation of Israel’s culpability in the bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967 is something that cannot be dismissed. Let’s hold both states accountable for all accusations levied against them.

    • Mooser
      Mooser on April 4, 2015, 11:16 am

      “If this site dealt with any of these three issues ever with any balance, then this site’s attitude towards Iran and its nuclear program might have some credibility.”

      Isn’t it ironic, Yonah? The only thing which gives Mondo any “credibility” is your presence in the comment section.

      BTW, Yonah, what is Israel’s “credibility” on the nuclear issue? They’ve been honest and upfront with everybody, haven’t they?

  38. just
    just on April 4, 2015, 6:25 am

    Interesting timing, eh?

    “Judith Miller, the correspondent whose mistaken reporting on Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program routinely decorated the front page of the New York Times in the run-up to the Iraq war, has launched a staunch defense of her work in a newspaper essay published Friday and in a forthcoming book.

    The essay, published in the Wall Street Journal, describes Miller’s frustration at the “enduring, pernicious accusation that the [George W] Bush administration fabricated WMD intelligence to take the country to war”.

    Miller writes that both she and the Bush team acted in good faith out of an honest belief that Hussein had a functioning WMD program based on faulty intelligence and misleading sourcing. US soldiers who began to search the country after the March 2003 invasion of Baghdad discovered that no such program existed.

    “No senior official spoon-fed me a line about WMD,” Miller writes in the Journal. “… The CIA repeatedly assured President Bush that Saddam Hussein still had WMD. Foreign intelligence agencies, even those whose nations opposed war, shared this view. And so did Congress.”

    In arguing that Bush was a victim of faulty intelligence analysis, Miller ignores extensive reporting showing that the Bush administration was making plans for an Iraq invasion before the advent of intelligence used to justify it….

    …Miller left the Times in 2005 and is currently a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    “There was no shortage of mistakes about Iraq, and I made my share of them,” Miller writes. “The newsworthy claims of some of my prewar WMD stories were wrong.”

    But the “stubborn myths” that remain about the Iraq war, she concludes, are not the ones that lured the US to invade. They are the ones that continue to hang over her reputation.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/03/judith-miller-essay-wmd-saddam-hussein-iraq-war

    So, she and Bush are the victims. Nothing about the millions of Iraqis that continue to suffer today. And from the article: ” The New York Times itself published a mea culpa for publishing Miller’s reporting as it did.”

    Perhaps the NYT will publish a mea culpa for their shameless shilling for Israel one day.

    Naaaaaah.

    • mcohen.
      mcohen. on April 4, 2015, 8:13 am

      just said……………..” naaaaah”

      here is a few facts for you ….never mind …the horror the horror….how about the hypocrisy

      shameless shilling …….hohohoho and away we go….guess who supplied those weapons

      The United States, alongside regional and international powers, supported Iraq with loans, military equipment and satellite imagery during Iraqi gas attacks against Iranian targets.[43][44] At the time of the conflict, the U.N. Security Council issued statements that “chemical weapons had been used in the war.” U.N. statements never clarified that only Iraq was using chemical weapons, and according to retrospective authors “the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian[s] as well as Iraqi Kurds.”[45][46][47]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

  39. MaoChengJi
    MaoChengJi on April 4, 2015, 9:57 am

    Haven’t read all the comments, so maybe this has been said already.

    I think much of the credit for this goes to George W Bush, who fucked up Iraq so badly that now they need Iran to deal with the ISIS.

    Plus their Ukraine adventure: all that bloodthirsty russophobe rhetoric , the new cold war, the BRICS and so on – a noticeable push-back against the unipolar geopolitical system that forces them to change their MO from straight bullying to some (if still rather weak) diplomacy. Which probably also explains their turnaround with Cuba.

    IOW, they bit off more than they can chew.

  40. just
    just on April 4, 2015, 10:45 am

    “The U.S. rejected Saturday Israel’s demand that the final deal between the world powers and Iran regarding its nuclear program would include recognition of “Israel’s right to exist,” Fox News reported.

    State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters that the deal is “an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue,” and that it doesn’t deal with any other issues.

    “Nor should it,” she added.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.650486?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    See how easy that was?

    (Never mind that Iran already recognized Israel years ago…)

  41. Kay24
    Kay24 on April 4, 2015, 12:23 pm

    Once again Obama shows Netanyahu that it is NOT all about Israel:

    “U.S.: Deal with Iran shouldn’t include clause about recognition of Israel
    Deal between Iran and world powers is only about nuclear issue, State Department spokeswoman says.

    The U.S. rejected Saturday Israel’s demand that the final deal between the world powers and Iran regarding its nuclear program would include recognition of “Israel’s right to exist,” Fox News reported.

    State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters that the deal is “an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue,” and that it doesn’t deal with any other issues.

    “Nor should it,” she added.

    On Friday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded that any final agreement with Iran include the aforementioned clause, a day after negotiators in Switzerland announced a framework for a nuclear deal.

    “Israel will not accept a deal that will allow a state that calls for its destruction to acquire nuclear weapons,” he said in a statement to the press.”

    Asked about the demand, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said he had not seen the specific request but was aware of Israel’s ongoing concerns.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.650486

    Let the grown up handle this, Beebs, and stop the tantrums. okay?

  42. jayn0t
    jayn0t on April 11, 2015, 10:58 pm

    Obama might have won, but the Iran deal is a victory for Israel, leaving her the only nuclear armed power in the Middle East. The fight between Democrats and Republicans is a game. When the Democrats succeed, it makes it look like a setback for Israel.

Leave a Reply