3 sides of Iran Deal debate: pro, con & ignored reality

[yurbud]

It's hard to add anything to this analysis.

But if you can use a lie to prevent a war based on lies, what the fuck.

Whatever works.

Let's do the count:

Senators rallying and whipping their colleagues to support the Iran agreement: 0.

Senators admitting that Iran has had no nuclear weapons program and has never threatened or been a threat to the United States: 0.

Senators pushing the false idea that Iran is a nuclear threat but indicating they will vote to support the agreement precisely in order to counter that threat: 16

(Tammy Baldwin, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand, Martin Heinrich, Tim Kaine, Angus King, Patrick Leahy, Chris Murphy, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Bernie Sanders, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall, Elizabeth Warren)

Republican (and "Libertarian&quot senators indicating they will try to kill the agreement, thereby moving the United States toward a war on Iran: 54.
(All of them.)

http://warisacrime.org/content/which-us-senators-want-war-iran

[cpwm17]

1. From David Swanson who used to post on DU.

The local war-mongers despised him and would swarm his posts.

War is the worst crime there is and the Iraq War was the world's worst crime this century, so we have no standing to tell the Iranians they can't have the weapons we have. Though there is no evidence that they are actually trying to develop nukes.

The US will attempt to use the inspectors to spy on Iran as they did against Iraq. This is a major violation of their sovereignty:

http://fpif.org/u-s-using-iran-inspections-to-tweak-targeting-in-event-of-military-option/

On July 17, perhaps unintentionally, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest revealed America’s dirty secret about the JCPOA, more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.

The military option would remain on the table, but the fact is, that military option would be enhanced because we’d been spending the intervening number of years gathering significantly more detail about Iran’s nuclear program. So when it comes to the targeting decisions that would be made by military officials either in Israel or the United States, those targeting decisions would be significantly informed, and our capabilities improved, based on the knowledge that has been gained in the intervening years through this inspections regime.

It’s startling to hear the White House sounding this hawkish on the heels of the Iran nuclear deal. It’s obviously bending over backwards to assure Republicans that, in the event of violations it dubs serious, the United States is still willing to attack Iran’s nuclear sites. True, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini panders to his hard right, as well. But, lurking in Earnest’s statement is a revelation that rubs one of the sorest spots in U.S.-Iran relations and, as well, is probably illegal under international law.

Did Earnest think — or just not care — that Iran wouldn’t notice? Bear in mind that Iran’s main stated rationale for opposing IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspections of military facilities is to keep characteristics of its national security that had nothing to do with its alleged development of nuclear weapons to itself, which is perfectly legal.

[yurbud]

2. oddly the swarm aint here yet. On some issues, they seem to realize the more they say, the worse

their position looks.