Iran Nuclear Deal

  1. Israel knows offense is the best defense.
  2. Obummer knows this.
  3. Israel will strike before Iran gets the bomb.
  4. Obummer knows this.
  5. Iran will have the means/resources to build the bomb.
  6. Israel will attack before bomb is fully developed.
  7. A huge war begins
  8. Israel will get the blame.
  9. Obummer knows this.
  10. It will be another President’s mess to clean up, and of course, Obummer knows this.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The clerical regime has to shore up its support among the public. That is why Rouhani, a moderate, was allowed to assume the presidency. He ran on a platform to end Iran’s pariah status and to pursue the end of biting international sanctions, which have had a devastating effect on the economy.
[/quote]

That it all well and good for duping foreign leaders and gaining public support, but the presidency means dick. Rhouhani has almost no real power.
[/quote]

And you base that on what, exactly? Actual study of the convulted and opaque nature of Iranian domestic politics? Or an ill informed sound bite that corresponds with you’re equally ill informed biases?

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Chapter IX

Article 113

After the office of Leadership, the President is the highest official in the country. His is the responsibility for implementing the Constitution and acting as the head of the executive, except in matters directly concerned with (the office of) the Leadership.

Article 125

The President or his legal representative has the authority to sign treaties, protocols, contracts, and agreements concluded by the Iranian government with other governments, as well as agreements pertaining to international organizations, after obtaining the approval of the Islamic Consultative Assembly.

Article 126

The President is responsible for national planning and budget and state employment affairs and may entrust the administration of these to others.
[/quote]

Every responsibility of the president of Iran can have an asterisk next to it. At the bottom of the page it will say *Unless the Supreme Leader says otherwise.

"The IRGC?s top commander in Tehran province, Brigadier General Mohsen Kazzemeini, told operating units undergoing drills in the capital that ‘they (the US and the Zionists) should know that the Islamic Revolution will continue enhancing its preparedness until it overthrows Israel and liberates Palestine,’ according to Fars.

‘And we will continue defending not just our own country, but also all the oppressed people of the world, specially those countries that are standing on the forefront of confrontation with the Zionists,’ Kazzemeini said.

I think his words were taken out of context. No they were mistranslated. The problem is, we don’t understand Farsi. What he meant was he wants to sit down with the Israeli leaders and sing Kumbaya.

Insane to think we can trust the Iranian government.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11841008/feminists-angry-kermit-the-frog-new-girlfriend.html[/quote]

What’s the point of this? That more people are worried about this than concerned with the Iran situation?

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
"The IRGC?s top commander in Tehran province, Brigadier General Mohsen Kazzemeini, told operating units undergoing drills in the capital that ‘they (the US and the Zionists) should know that the Islamic Revolution will continue enhancing its preparedness until it overthrows Israel and liberates Palestine,’ according to Fars.

‘And we will continue defending not just our own country, but also all the oppressed people of the world, specially those countries that are standing on the forefront of confrontation with the Zionists,’ Kazzemeini said.

I think his words were taken out of context. No they were mistranslated. The problem is, we don’t understand Farsi. What he meant was he wants to sit down with the Israeli leaders and sing Kumbaya.

Insane to think we can trust the Iranian government.[/quote]

Actually, this is pretty much regular in military/security circles, together with “death to America” chants. However, one has to take into account that such statements are regularly being made for the last 25 years or so, so they are nothing exceptional. It is what defines the current regime.

It is a nature of a tyrannical regime to develop a politically collect narrative that one has to adhere to. The same things was with the USSR where military musters were regularly accompanied by ranting against “decadent Western plutocracies”

Also, if someone didn’t notice, the Putin’s Red Army is painting “to Berlin” on bombs during military maneuvers and threating the US of A with a first strike.

Like I said, nothing exceptional in that rhetoric for tyrannical regimes around the globe.

In terms of the Iranian Nuclear Deal, much more important was Khamnei’s decision to consult the Parliament. I’m not yet sure what that means in terms of Iranian shadowy political circles.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Who capitulated again?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/iran-nuclear-deal/world-leader-statements/[/quote]

We did. We gave them so much they would have stupid not to take the deal.

This is what it looks like:
US: We think you are building scissors for the purpose of stabbing people.
Iran: No we’re not. We have a pair of scissors to cut paper, we would never stab somebody with them.
US: Put away those scissorsor we’ll take away your scissors.
Iran: We will not, we need scissors to cut paper, we have no intention of stabbing somebody.
US: You are definitely going to stab somebody, so here’s what we’ll do. We will give you a billion dollars and all the child-proof scissors you want to cut the paper if you turn in your sharp scissors and stop making news ones.
Iran: hmmmm, Okay. We really want our sharp scissors, but we will give them up just to make you happy and you let us have paper to cut.

Finally the mainstream media is picking up the story that Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar are the main backers of ISIS.

“wealthy Arabs are playing a dirty double game.” - who would’ve thought that?

The so-called Paris conference against ISIS was pretty schizophrenic as it gathered most of the nominal US allies who are in fact ISIS staunchest supporters but excluding Iranians.

Yet at the same time there there is a consensus that combating ISIS involves, among other things, “arming the Iraqi Army”, which is despite its all encompassing name a shia force and an Iranian proxy.

Insane.

Unfortunately, Rouhani is correct:

[quote] “Most participants in that – in that meeting in one form or another provided support to ISIS in the course of its creation and upbringing and expansion, actually at the end of the day, creating a Frankenstein that came to haunt its creators,” Zarif told the CFR. “So this group has been in existence for a long time. It has been supported, it has been provided for in terms of arms, money, finances by a good number of U.S. allies in the region.”

In an interview earlier the same day with Ann Curry of NBC News, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was just as emphatic, asking a string of rhetorical questions.

“Who financed them? Who provided them with money? It’s really clear – where do the weapons come from?” asked Rouhani. "The terrorists who have come from all the countries, from which channel [did they enter], where were they trained, in which country were they trained? I don’t think it is somehow difficult to identify this information.â?? [/quote]

Most people who read up on this know the Sunnis are backing ISIS. Just the same way the Pakistanis are backing the Taliban.

But what do you have to say about the punishment Pakistan has taken, the vast civilian death toll inflicted upon them by the Taliban? How could the government ISI back this organization which targets it’s civilians? Or are they using it to keep their civilians in line? What’s your take on this?

The problem the US faces when getting involved in these wars is it doesn’t research the area’s history and figure in the multiple tangents of past grievances and how they will play out once the US is involved. I could have predicted this as one of 2 possible outcomes when Saddam fell. I was right on about Libya and dread what will happen if Assad falls.

Do you think the US is purposefully stirring up the violence in the Middle East to screw with the Russians, Chinese & Iranians and other old cold war enemies? What is the endgame in all of this? How could we also be backing a group with designs to ultimately destroy us?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Iran Commander: We?re Getting Prepared to Overthrow Israel

…and we’ve got somebody here yappin’ about the Iranian constitution and what a powerful insurance policy it is.

Good grief.[/quote]

Clearly you had more than your share of Bookers. I was merely responding to the poster’s asinine description of Iranian domestic politics. I never argued that the Iranian constitution was a pacifying document, your whiskey did.

Anyways, here’s to opening weekend!

.