PDA

View Full Version : Iran



Gerry Clinchy
09-20-2013, 10:40 AM
Iran Said to Seek a Nuclear Accord to End Sanctions (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pgSlpnXF sDxHkI/CmDP3nQEz3q73Mn5RDydQwGRcuMts9iYZUD2PxW9+PEIEt5Um3 YXYvA5ia/JDk9e/iVDMXotu1SfMuyB0R4CptzS1aUApQjMTIRW8nAW8xWIPOYU0HY qmxpH5U8Wo0ofumKVUbCXFSOvCrnYHxB6eJKhMoh6b8=&campaign_id=129&instance_id=32514&segment_id=50659&user_id=43ef0a15b1a965b08524a96f5c206b51&regi_id=30531749)By THOMAS ERDBRINK and MARK LANDLERSeizing on a perceived flexibility in a letter from President Obama to President Hassan Rouhani, Iran's leaders are focused on getting quick relief from crippling sanctions, a top adviser to the Iranian leadership said.

Yup ... I believe them, don't you?

mudminnow
09-20-2013, 11:22 AM
Is it bad that I believe them more than I do our government? Iran has the potential to be a great ally, the people just elected a moderate candidate that ran on improving relationships with the western powers. He beat out the bomb Israel candidate and the other candidate that wanted to bomb Israel and sprinkle salt on the ground after. Our media is trying to paint them as an unredeemable bad guy, but there is great opportunity there for better relations.

paul young
09-20-2013, 11:48 AM
I think they need a little more crippling. They want the sanctions eased so that they can accelerate their nuclear weapons program. When they start drinking their oil because they have run out of food, it will ALMOST be time to ease up. -Paul

GaryJ
09-20-2013, 08:12 PM
So do we trust first and hope or do we make Iran earn our trust. Where I come from you need earn my trust. It would be very easy to open the doors to the UN to validate where the Uranium is going.

swampcollielover
09-21-2013, 10:46 AM
Iran is not ruled by an ‘elected’ official, he us just afigure head. The Supreme Leader of Iran is Ayatollah Khameneithe head of state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state) and highest ranking political and religious authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_leader) in the Islamic Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_republic) of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran). Theleader is more powerful than the President of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran) and appoints the heads of many powerfulposts in the military, the civil government, and the judiciary. The current President is Hassan Rouhani he is the mainnegotiator with the West, but has no power, only what Ayatollah tells him to door not to do!
Remember Iran’scurrent Ayatollah and original Ayatollah has sworn to destroy Israel and allher allies. That is the only promise youcan trust from Iran!

Gerry Clinchy
09-30-2013, 08:07 PM
Interesting ... is the fatwa against nuclear weapons a hoax; and has Obama bought into the hoax?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/30/phony-fatwa-group-claims-iranian-anti-nuke-edict-cited-by-obama-hoax/?intcmp=latestnews


Carmon noted that Khamenei in 2012 was asked directly about the morality of pursuing nuclear weapons, and his answer was telling.

The question asked to Khamenei was, in light of a Koran teaching that orders Muslims to “prepare against [non-Muslims] whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah,” is it also “forbidden to obtain nuclear weapons, as per your ruling that their use is prohibited?”


Khamenei’s answer, according (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6291.htm)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png to MEMRI, was “your letter has no jurisprudential aspect. When it has a jurisprudent position, then it will be possible to answer it.”


In April 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking at a NATO conference, cited the supposed fatwa, but with a degree of skepticism.

Gerry Clinchy
11-08-2013, 11:37 PM
Looks like Obama/Kerry decide to trust first, ask questions later.

"I met Secretary Kerry right before he leaves to Geneva," said Netanyhau. "I reminded him that he said that no deal is better than a bad deal. That the deal that is being discussed in Geneva right now is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. Iran is not required to take apart even one centrifuge. But the international community is relieving sanctions on Iran for the first time after many years. Iran gets everything that it wanted at this stage and it pays nothing. And this is when Iran is under severe pressure. I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deal--a very, very bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community."
I think that Obama/Kerry have been played big time.

However, another article mentioned that Congress could have something to say about lifting sanctions.

Henlee
11-09-2013, 05:28 AM
It is good to negotiate with Iran. They do not trust us and most likely never will and we do not trust them and never will. Odd as it sounds that is actually a pretty predictable platform to do work with. The president of Iran is the type of person we want in there. Letting him have some wins will help raise his level of influence. I am not suggesting dropping sanctions and letting them be, but defiantly being supportive of this guy is a good thing for us.

Gerry Clinchy
11-10-2013, 12:55 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/09/iran-general-no-doubt-israel-and-america-will-be-attacked/
Henlee, I don't believe that Iran ever really wanted to negotiate. Rhouhani may "look" better, but he has the same beliefs as his predecessor ... just may present himself with less passion.

Obama had eased up on some sanctions to show good will (presumably; though it could have been just guilability) ... but I sure hope that Congress doesn't agree to more of that.

Gerry Clinchy
11-10-2013, 02:12 PM
“The presidenthttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/10/john-kerry-obama-prepared-use-force-iran/#) has been willing and made it clear that he is prepared to use force with respect to Iran (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iran/)’s weapon, and he has deployed the forces and the weapons necessary to achieve that goal if it has to be achieved,” he said. “We can’t let mythology and politics start to cloud reality.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/10/john-kerry-obama-prepared-use-force-iran/#ixzz2kGsuj6oY
This sounds a little like the "red line" drawn for Syria. I doubt world leaders place much credibility in Obama's "clear" statements any longer.

Was kind of surprising to see France stand up, I thought.

Terri
11-10-2013, 07:29 PM
I feel bad for the Iranian people, but if we were going to get involved we should have done that a couple years ago when the people were in the streets protesting the false election. The people are in a bad situation, but the mullahs are not interested in the people. Most people throughout the world do not trust the US because they see our government as putting oil before people. If it was not us it would be some other country stepping in for the oil. They displace their hatred on us when it should be directed as their corrupt leaders who do nothing for the average man on the street. I'm paraphrasing from the book I just read. The author is an victim of Iran's government, but now is a citizen of Canada. She does not trust the Iranian government. She is still a Muslim, unlike most Iranians who have felt victimized by the Islamic Republic.

Terri

Gerry Clinchy
11-13-2013, 11:23 PM
Los Angeles Timess

The White House (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/executive-branch/white-house-PLCUL000110.topic) warned Congress (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic) on Tuesday that slapping new sanctions on Iran could sink international negotiations to curb Tehran’s nuclear program (http://www.latimes.com/topic/science-technology/irans-nuclear-program-EVGAP00032.topic) and send America on a “march to war.”

In the latest ratcheting up of the administration’s effort to stop Congress from adding to existing sanctions, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/jay-carney-PEPLT008453.topic) said Americans are in a deeply antiwar mood and implied that voters might turn their anger on lawmakers if a failure of diplomacy leads to military action to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.


Do I understand this correctly? We must be nice to Iran so they don't accelerate their advance to nuclear capability. If we are not nice, we might need military action instead.

When Iran announces it has nuclear capability, I can already hear Obama saying, "I didn't know. Nobody is angrier than I am."

Henlee
11-14-2013, 06:42 AM
They are using the carrot and the stick. They are already beat up with sanctions, now we need to show them that we are willing to negotiate if they are willing to comply. Their new prime minister is not nearly as bad as some of the other former leaders. Letting him have some wins to boost his personal power with the Ayatollah is a good option, if for no other reason than to see if peaceful options exist.

Gerry Clinchy
11-14-2013, 12:18 PM
They are using the carrot and the stick. They are already beat up with sanctions, now we need to show them that we are willing to negotiate if they are willing to comply. Their new prime minister is not nearly as bad as some of the other former leaders. Letting him have some wins to boost his personal power with the Ayatollah is a good option, if for no other reason than to see if peaceful options exist.
Truthfully, I think it's just a play of "good cop-bad cop", but Iran's goals are the same, and always directed by the Ayatollah. Rhouhani may have a different "facade" than his predecessor, but same objectives. Most of the other Arabs don't trust the Iranians desire for control of the region either.