The Iran Deal

[57Brave]

If you count Hezbollah as a subsidiary of Iran the tally is similar.

But I guess that's an inconvenient truth (hey, I like that term).

When Lyndon Johnson was asked why he was including some opponent in on a policy Johnson's rely was
"I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in"
////

Iran is now inside the tent .
Let me ask, how much influence did we have 5 years ago on Iran's complicity with Hezbollah -- and how much do we have today ?

 

[Hawk]

Let me ask, how much influence did we have 5 years ago on Iran's complicity with Hezbollah

A great deal -- we financially disabled their chief benefactor. So they moved primarily into Syria.

-- and how much do we have today ?

Less than we did two days ago.

 

[57Brave]

Was Hezbollah funded by Iran or not?
Because I don't see how if " we financially disabled their chief benefactor " ...

your second point - I see where events of the past few days give us more influence.

we disagree

 

[Hawk]

Was Hezbollah funded by Iran or not?
Because I don't see how if " we financially disabled their chief benefactor " ...

your second point - I see where events of the past few days give us more influence.

we disagree

Feel free to provide any evidence which would support your disagreement.

As to your first question, I'd suggest looking at how active Hezbollah has been independently in the Middle East for the past 5 years. Gotta take the blinders off here.

 

[57Brave]

Feel free to provide any evidence which would support your disagreement.

As to your first question, I'd suggest looking at how active Hezbollah has been independently in the Middle East for the past 5 years. Gotta take the blinders off here.

First off, we have no idea how this this going to turn out let alone evidence supporting what won't happen .
I believe open dialogue where both parties have a vested interest will lead to more influence. Time will tell
Using your recent past on reading the tea leaves of current events -- I'd wager

I am confused
Are you saying Iran is or isn't supporting Hezbollah ?
I am read criticism of the "deal" because Iran is a rogue nation that supports terrorism evidenced by Hezbollah
Then reading the sanctions worked because it took funds from Hezbollah

 

[Hawk]

First off, we have no idea how this this going to turn out let alone evidence supporting what won't happen .
I believe open dialogue where both parties have a vested interest will lead to more influence. Time will tell
Using your recent past on reading the tea leaves of current events -- I'd wager

So you don't have any evidence that would back up your assertion that this gives the United States more influence except that it has 'opened a dialogue'?

And supposing that what we're seeing here actually does that: why settle?

Better yet, what did the United States have to lose by not making this deal right now?

I am confused
Are you saying Iran is or isn't supporting Hezbollah ?
I am read criticism of the "deal" because Iran is a rogue nation that supports terrorism evidenced by Hezbollah
Then reading the sanctions worked because it took funds from Hezbollah

- Iran is supporting Hezbollah, and has for some time. This is clear and not disputed, I'm not sure what's confusing you.
- We saw Hezbollah weakened (somewhat) as a result of our financial sanctions on Iran. Call it trickle-down terrorism.
- This agreement removes those sanctions, while not addressing the Hezbollah situation.

 

[BedellBrave]

As mentioned, from the GOP/Israel side there was only one option being promoted.

If the deal is window dressing and can be abandoned at any time, isn't promoting more economic activity and cooperation in the region a good incentive for them to keep the peace?

You put it in an either/or framework. I'm not sure any R or the Israelis would say only this deal or full blown war. There are all manner permutations the deal could have taken - for instance inclusion of the release of the 4 men in Iranian captivity.

 

[57Brave]

a ) Logic 101 teaches you can not prove a negative. as in what would happen if there was no deal.
Let alone the fools errand of foretelling the future based on the Wall Street Journal .

b) Iran supports Hezbollah
Sanctions weakened Iran support for Hezzbollah
in effect, Iran no longer supports terrorism ? But given the chance ...

Are you saying Iran has been licking their chops waiting for sanctions to be lifted so they can re start financially supporting Hezbollah ?
Evidence?

A lot of people are certain Iran will buck the world community - for really no reason that benefits -- Iran

Let me turn it to you, what proof do you have to support this certainty?

 

[57Brave]

You put it in an either/or framework. I'm not sure any R or the Israelis would say only this deal or full blown war. There are all manner permutations the deal could have taken - for instance inclusion of the release of the 4 men in Iranian captivity.

Oh great, another Johnny Come Lately with the hostages.
And still another poster that doesn't watch Fox News but somehow or other divines their every thought and opinion. Verbatim

You say no (R) or Israeli would say the deal or war. I guess like the jobs bill, the alternative to ACA we see no alternative. Just a bunch of hot air
And if so, it is all Monday morning QBing. My guess is Obama offered Bibi a seat at the table but Bibi was a jerk about it.
I see that in everyday life.

Shame about the hostages -- but where were you and Fox News 2 weeks - a month ago

 

[BedellBrave]

Well, it's awfully hard to prove either way, right? Could the parties have gotten a better deal? We don't know. Would a tough-talking Republican president have gotten more, starting with Iran two years closer to the finish line? I doubt it. What's your alternative?

Your saying "full-on war" implies that there is an efficacious military option short of that.

It implies that there might be. I've laid out plenty of varying options in several Iran threads in the past - albeit conjectural layman alternatives. Take them for what they were/are worth. I just don't see how anyone can honestly say, "well it was only this deal or full on war." That seems incredibly homeristic or simplistic.

 

[BedellBrave]

Oh, another Johnny Come Lately with the hostages.
Here is one that doesn't watch Fox News but somehow or other divines their every thought and opinion. Verbatim

I don't watch TV. I do care about American hostages. I do care about the people of Iran. I do know Iranians and ministries that are making an impact with Iranians. I have met with Iranian refugees in Turkey. For what it is worth.

 

[BedellBrave]

a ) Logic 101 teaches you can not prove a negative. as in what would happen if there was no deal.
Let alone the fools errand of foretelling the future based on the Wall Street Journal .

b) Iran supports Hezbollah
Sanctions weakened Iran support for Hezzbollah
in effect, Iran no longer supports terrorism ? But given the chance ...

Are you saying Iran has been licking their chops waiting for sanctions to be lifted so they can re start financially supporting Hezbollah ?
Evidence?

A lot of people are certain Iran will buck the world community - for really no reason that benefits -- Iran

Let me turn it to you, what proof do you have to support this certainty?

You'll pardon me, but I wouldn't take a Logic course offered by you.

 

[BedellBrave]

Oh great, another Johnny Come Lately with the hostages.
And still another poster that doesn't watch Fox News but somehow or other divines their every thought and opinion. Verbatim

You say no (R) or Israeli would say the deal or war. I guess like the jobs bill, the alternative to ACA we see no alternative. Just a bunch of hot air
And if so, it is all Monday morning QBing. My guess is Obama offered Bibi a seat at the table but Bibi was a jerk about it.
I see that in everyday life.

Shame about the hostages -- but where were you and Fox News 2 weeks - a month ago

I've been where I am now and in places that you'll likely never be, including numerous Muslim nations.

 

[57Brave]

" ... been where I am now ... "
?

The hostages are simply more spaghetti thrown against the wall trying to disparage this "deal". Just to see if it sticks

For all of the places you've been and that is great -- why are we now hearing RW concern for "the hostages"
why not 2 weeks or a month ago? Why not cries that this deal have language addressing the hostages when the"deal" was the cause celebre of Fox News at the first deadline??
When do you hop off the wagon of outrage of the day.

"been where I am now"
indeed

 

[Hawk]

a ) Logic 101 teaches you can not prove a negative. as in what would happen if there was no deal.
Let alone the fools errand of foretelling the future based on the Wall Street Journal .

b) Iran supports Hezbollah
Sanctions weakened Iran support for Hezzbollah
in effect, Iran no longer supports terrorism ? But given the chance ...

Are you saying Iran has been licking their chops waiting for sanctions to be lifted so they can re start financially supporting Hezbollah ?
Evidence?

A lot of people are certain Iran will buck the world community - for really no reason that benefits -- Iran

Let me turn it to you, what proof do you have to support this certainty?

Wait, you ask for me to provide evidence but you haven't provided a single SHRED except your gut and an incorrect reading of basic logic? Sigh.

But since you clearly need to do your homework:

Iran & Hezbollah:
“There’s no doubt that it’s going to strengthen those Iranian proxy forces throughout the region,” said Russell A. Berman, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a public-policy think tank based at Stanford University in California. “Initially it will be a source of moral encouragement. Secondly, it will mean they will be using their resources now in anticipation of greater resources.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/will-nuclear-deal-iran-strengthen-american-enemies-across-region-2008602
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/16/syrian-rebels-decry-irans-nuclear-deal-with-the-west
http://time.com/3961113/gulf-states-iran-nuclear-deal/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/with-more-cash-iran-poised-to-help-mideast-friends-1436963901

Iran's History:
http://www.economist.com/node/1606618
https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/iran

Since the 2013 interim agreement was reached with Iran to slow down its program, Tehran violated the caps on its sale of crude oil, as well as tested advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium for a weapon.

Indeed, a German intelligence source reported that Iran continued to procure illicit nuclear and ballistic missile technology into June.

“You would think that with the negotiations, [Iranian] activities would drop,” said the source, adding that “Despite the talks to end Iran’s program, Iran did not make an about turn.” The findings of Iran’s double-dealing are contained in Germany’s June domestic intelligence agency report.

---

Ever heard the old saying, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"?

... I think something similar is said about insanity.

 

[Hawk]

Human Rights Watch:

Although Iran elected a moderate candidate, Hassan Rouhani, to be president in 2013, the country has seen no significant improvements in human rights. Repressive elements within the security and intelligence forces and the judiciary retain wider powers and continue to be the main perpetrators of rights abuses. In 2014 Iran had the second highest number of executions in the world after China, and executed the largest number of juvenile offenders. The country remains one of the biggest jailers in the world of journalists, bloggers, and social media activists. Prominent opposition figures Mir Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard, and Mehdi Karroubi, held without charge or trial since February 2011, remain under house arrest.

Pleasure doing 'business' with ya.

 

[BedellBrave]

" ... been where I am now ... "

?

The hostages are simply more spaghetti thrown against the wall trying to disparage this "deal". Just to see if it sticks

For all of the places you've been and that is great -- why are we now hearing RW concern for "the hostages"

why not 2 weeks or a month ago? Why not cries that this deal have language addressing the hostages when the"deal" was the cause celebre of Fox News at the first deadline??

When do you hop off the wagon of outrage of the day.

"been where I am now"

indeed

If you haven't been hearing concerns raised about the hostages then 57 that's just proof you live in your own liberal bubble where there was no concern for them.

 

[Hawk]

If you haven't been hearing concerns raised about the hostages then 57 that's just proof you live in your own liberal bubble where there was no concern for them.

Truth.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/241690-senate-passes-resolution-on-iran-hostages
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-02/the-new-iranian-hostage-crisis

When the family of Amir Hekmati, an Iranian-American Marine, learned he was taken prisoner in 2011, the State Department told them to keep quiet. Family members were told Amir would be in greater danger if they went to the media than if they remained discreet.

That silence now looks like a mistake. In testimony Tuesday before Congress, Sarah Hekmati, Amir's sister, said, "Our family learned later that our silence allowed Amir to suffer the worst torture imaginable." A National Security Council spokeswoman declined to discuss the specifics of the government's conversation with the Hekmati family.

---

But ignorance is bliss, no?

 

[Hawk]

There's also the issue of the ORIGINAL American hostages in Tehran still trying to get restitution from Iran.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-maryland-hostages-20150413-story.html#page=1

 

[57Brave]

No, I was pointing out there is no evidence to prove what will happen or what will not happen.
All conjecture.