U.S. Caves to Iranian Demands

so much for rigorous inspections.

You fucking naive/willful idiots.


March 26, 2015 2:00 pm

LAUSSANE, Switzerland—The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.

U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.

Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.

Concern from sources familiar with U.S. concessions in the talks comes amid reports that Iran could be permitted to continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.

This type of concession would allow Iran to continue work related to its nuclear weapons program, even under the eye of international inspectors. If Iran removes inspectors—as it has in the past—it would be left with a nuclear infrastructure immune from a strike by Western forces.

“Once again, in the face of Iran’s intransigence, the U.S. is leading an effort to cave even more toward Iran—this time by whitewashing Tehran’s decades of lying about nuclear weapons work and current lack of cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency],” said one Western source briefed on the talks but who was not permitted to speak on record.

With the White House pressing to finalize a deal, U.S. diplomats have moved further away from their demands that Iran be subjected to oversight over its nuclear infrastructure.

“Instead of ensuring that Iran answers all the outstanding questions about the past and current military dimensions of their nuclear work in order to obtain sanctions relief, the U.S. is now revising down what they need to do,” said the source. “That is a terrible mistake—if we don’t have a baseline to judge their past work, we can’t tell if they are cheating in the future, and if they won’t answer now, before getting rewarded, why would they come clean in the future?”

The United States is now willing to let Iran keep many of its most controversial military sites closed to inspectors until international sanctions pressure has been lifted, according to sources.

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...-iranian-demands-as-nuke-deal-comes-together/

So it's becoming painfully obvious that it's not about the terms of the deal, just that there's a deal.
 
I'm not sure anything is becoming painfully obvious just yet.
The freebeacon is notorious for this kind of "article", based on these kind of "sources".

Among other features, the page containing this article links to articles (including one titled "Obama Declares War On Israel) at The Gatestone Institute...a New York-based advocacy organization that is tied to neoconservative and other right-wing networks in the United States and Europe. Chaired by John Bolton, a former Bush administration diplomat and a conservative foreign policy hardliner, Gatestone is a clearinghouse for right-wing commentaries on national security, the Middle East, and Islam, as well as a convener of high-dollar events on security and energy issues. It is an offshoot of the neoconservative Hudson Institute.

Maybe it'll turn out that there's some real meat to this story, but for the time being, and lacking palpable evidence, I'll withhold opinion/judgment.
 

Ace Boobtoucher

Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
I love how the pogues in the white house have been trying to downplay Iran's supreme leader ending his speeches regularly with "death to America," by saying he was playing to an domestic audience and he didn't really mean it.
 
I love how the pogues in the white house have been trying to downplay Iran's supreme leader ending his speeches regularly with "death to America," by saying he was playing to an domestic audience and he didn't really mean it.


Yeah, the supreme leader was just in campaign mode.
 
Iran is more a threat to Israel, but Israel has a second strike capability with their Dolphin class SSKs. The U. S. has anti ABM systems, and the second biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. If someone one destroyed are land ICBMS, we still have 4 Ohio class SSBNs deployed at all times. Each Ohio class SSBN has more firepower then all the bombs dropped in WWII.
 
Iran is more a threat to Israel, but Israel has a second strike capability with their Dolphin class SSKs. The U. S. has anti ABM systems, and the second biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. If someone one destroyed are land ICBMS, we still have 4 Ohio class SSBNs deployed at all times. Each Ohio class SSBN has more firepower then all the bombs dropped in WWII.

Again, that second strike means alot when the area the size of New Hampshire has been wiped out. Those Israeli sub crews wouldn't have anything to come home to.


Which is why Israel, among any other country, has the most vested interest in the bullshit negotiations going on with Iran right now.
 
The second strike capability means a great deal, the Iranians would have to pay a catastrophic price, if they ever attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. Israel a ABM system, and nuclear material can be traced. I highly doubt Iranians, will give up their right to use civilian nuclear technology, that is allowed by NPT treaty. The Israelis can launch air attacks on Iran, but they probably would to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's underground nuclear sites. If Stanislav Petrov, was diehard communist we probably would not be alive today.
 
The second strike capability means a great deal, the Iranians would have to pay a catastrophic price, if they ever attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. Israel a ABM system, and nuclear material can be traced. I highly doubt Iranians, will give up their right to use civilian nuclear technology, that is allowed by NPT treaty. The Israelis can launch air attacks on Iran, but they probably would to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's underground nuclear sites. If Stanislav Petrov, was diehard communist we probably would not be alive today.

Would that catastrophic price outweigh the end result - the elimination of Israel? The Iranian mullahs would probably be whisked away to Moscow beforehand anyways, so they would have no personal stake. Don't think that the entire persian and arab world (and many in the west) would be celebrating the elimination of Israel. That would solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict real quick.

And mutually assured destruction is not a guaranteed scenario.

Would the U.S. launch a nuclear attack on Iran killing millions of civilians as a response to Israel being annihilated? You and I both know that wouldn't happen regardless of who was president. The U.S. would be too concerned with the international outcry. And what's a few million jews incinerated? It's happened before.

And even Israel would not be guaranteed to be a part of mutually assured destruction:

Menachem Begin, the Israeli Prime Minister who ordered the preventive attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, expressly renounced mutually assured destruction as a policy. He said that Israeli "morality" would never permit a retaliatory attack against an Iraqi city: "The children of Baghdad are not our enemy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/why-deterrence-wont-work-_b_1367346.html?

It's a shame Israel's enemies don't have the same respect for innocents.
 
The West has helped Israel survive for over the last six decades. The Israelis sailors would launch nuclear armed cruise missiles at Iran, if Israel is destroyed by Iran. Again, the Israelis can attack Iran's nuclear sites.
 

Ace Boobtoucher

Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Given the choice between feeding their people for generations or dropping a nuke on Israel, which city do you think would Iran bomb first, Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
Has any newspaper or siomilar media that is actually not a right-wing propaganda outlet like the Beacon shared a similar look and take on the Iran / USA dealngs?

Just look at the guys in charge ogf the Beacon. The chairman alone is making it clear what they are about:

Michael Goldfarb is Chairman of the Center for American Freedom and served as deputy director of communications for McCain-Palin '08.

The Editor-in-chief, Matthew Continetti wrote thhis gem: The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star (2009)

Need I go on?
 
Yeah-well-you-know-thats-just-like-your-opinion-man.jpg
 
1st the US is not the sole decider for a deal.

2nd no deal and a extension of talks.

3rd Russia concerns are right that they get the spent rods for disposal. That is the sticking point and if sticking to Iran demands then the Obama Admin must take the Russians concerns.

Iran rocket tech is not a threat to the US. Their range with N. Korea tech can reach Israel and Western Europe southern nations.

We must take these concerns for Europe but IMO MOFO Israel apartheid that is the root cause of problems of the ME. Remember before Iran Saddam also wanted to take this racist regime out also with the illegal occupied land grab since 1967,
 
Iran is violating the NPT, so Russia and China are apart of the Iran Nuclear Talks. A ground invasion of Iran, is the only concrete way of guaranteeing Iran, does not get nuclear weapons. We know a ground of Iran is off the table for the West.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Iran is the biggest threat of the whole middle east and their radical islamism is a real danger
 
Iran is the biggest threat of the whole middle east and their radical islamism is a real danger
And they are fighting DAECH, just like the western civilised countries...

I consider Qatar and Saudi Arabia to be much bigger threats : officially, they stand with us. In reality many rich Saudis and Qataris sponsor DAECH and Al-Qaeda
Ossama Bin Laden wasn't from Iran or Iraq, he was from Saudi Arabia...

May God defend me from my friends ; I can defend myself from my enemies.
Voltaire
 
We have a nuclear deal, and we see if the republicans current the anti Iran Nuclear Deal rhetoric? The U.S. public is against another war, so Hillary should still be in good position for the 2016 elections.
 
Top