Slashdot Mirror
Iran Has Signed a Nuclear Accord
New submitter divide overflow writes: According to the New York Times, 'Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States have agreed to a historic accord to significantly limit Tehran's nuclear ability for more than a decade in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions against Iran, a senior Western diplomat involved in the negotiations said on Tuesday. The deal, which President Obama had long sought as the biggest diplomatic achievement of his presidency, culminates 20 months of negotiations.' Not everyone approves.
Let's look at the great list of broken promises and bullshit by which America exists today as we know it?
None the least of which, the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran's government to install a western puppet and which precipitated the Iranian Islamic Revolution directly,
or the 1990 visit to Saddam Hussein by US Diplomat April Glaspie, who informed him that "The US isn't interested" were he to invade Kuwait, among others.
Considering the sheer volume of lies that the US is built upon, self contradictions with its own Constitution to say nothing of agreements like the Geneva Conventions that it makes pretense of being in accord with but only in semantics, to the UN's failure to reign in "acceptable" war criminals like Israel via US veto?
Considering all that, we're the ones wagging fingers at IRAN, who is at war with nobody but the terrorists that US regime change in Iraq left for the region to absorb?
Wake me from this sea of rhetorical bullshit and Israeli war drums. This deal is better than ANYTHING Israel ever agreed to.
If inspectors have concerns about undeclared sites, they must submit to Iran a request in writing that explains their concerns. Iran may counter with a proposal for “alternative means” of resolving the issue without actually allowing inspectors to inspect anything. If the inspectors and the regime can’t agree to a solution within two weeks, the dispute gets kicked up to a higher level. In other words, Iran has a license to stall for two full weeks whenever it does something suspicious.
After two weeks, the problem gets handed over to the Joint Commission, a new body whose membership and responsibility is defined in Annex IV to the agreement. Basically, the commission has eight members, one for each of the countries who are party to the agreement, plus the EU. A majority of five commission members may “advise” Iran on how to resolve the inspectors’ concerns. The commission has seven days to address the inspectors’ concerns, after which Iran has three days to implement any recommended measures. So, at minimum, Iran will have 24 days to clean up any suspicious sites before inspectors get a first look.
But what if Iran doesn’t comply with the commission’s requests within three days? Alas, that is a mystery. Section Q ends with the pronouncement that Iran will implement such measures. However, there is a “Dispute Resolution Mechanism” described in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the main body of the deal. This process requires another 50 days — the precise length is difficult to discern from the text, since it involves three separate levels of evaluation. So in practice, Iran may be looking at a minimum of two and a half months before they have to do anything.
And what if the inspectors are still left out in the cold? Then the only option left for the U.S. (or the U.K. or France) is to go to the UN Security Council and try to blow up the entire deal, in accordance with the “snapback” provisions of the deal.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...> Read more
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's difficult to say that Iran never invaded anyone since Iran is an Islamic 'nation' that rejects the notion of 'nation'. The religious leaders want an Islamic world without the Western secular idea of nation. But they first need to turn every citizen of their 'nation' into a 'good' Muslim, and than every Muslim in friendly nations and than every Muslim in unfriendly nations and only than they can start to convert non Muslims all over the world. But they are still having problems taming their own citizens and fail miserably in friendly nations (like Syria).
The only thing that is better about Iran's Islamic revolution versus ISIS is that after following the religious texts for over 30 years, their God hasn't given them paradise like described in their scriptures. Instead they have shattered dreams, a lost generation, are hated by about everyone else in the world, are in an economic mess, have no future without support from secular, Christian and Western nations (Crusaders, which should be their biggest enemy)
What will happen when Iran gets some more secular support (foreign money through investments/selling resources)? Will people start to believe that the Islamic paradise is a reality? Or will people finally step up against the religious leaders and ask for a more secular government or will the religious leaders finally see that secular forces are needed in a modern nation?
I don't know, but apparently the west is trying to make them a stronger opponent against Arabian Salafist influences (ISIS). The idea probably is that the worst thing that would happen is that they (Iran vs ISIS) destroy each other... or maybe, but probably not, another thing that could happen is that Iran turns in a modern democracy with Islamic roots (just like a typical Western country is a modern democracy with Christian roots)...
Indeed. I agree, past Iranian presidents have been pretty immature, and quite frankly stupid in publicly encouraging nuclear enrichment, in return for crippling sanctions that hurt most of its citizens. They couldn't see the big picture and simply wanted to look hard. This is school boy bully behaviour and didn't help the country long term at all.
The current Iranian president seems a lot more sensible. He wants to talk, he wants to be part of the worldwide conversation, and over and above his predecessors immature behaviour, he is focussing on his people's well being. That's leadership. We need to keep talking with Iran, we need to listen to them and they listen to us. This surely is the best way for long term peace? If someone doesn't take the high ground and give in, we'll just be in a silly stalemate for another 200 years because of some issue that is in the past, between people that aren't included in the conversation any more.
Iran has stood and given ground, we (the west) have also given ground. This is sensible negotiation. If we continue to drag up past arguments and events, blame each other for whatever has happened before and refuse to help them because of statements made by past presidents, then we're no better than boys in a school playground. We need leaders who are prepared to talk, negotiate, and give in sometimes, rather than just puffing out your chest and wielding power. Obama in my view is one of these people (and no, I'm not American and don't live in America).
1. Holocaust denying kills or maims no one. It's stupid propaganda but that's all
2. Israel has called for the destruction of Iran, to wipe it off the map. look it up
3. USA has funded plenty of terrorists, revolutions, despots, mass murder (example providing money and dual use tech to Saddam for WMD) more than Iran has.