Sen. McCaskill supports Iran deal: The world is united with the exception of Israel

[Cali_Democrat]

I'm happy to see prominent US politicans pointing out the fact that Israel stands alone, along with the GOP Bomb Bomb Iran Caucus:

--------

McCaskill supports Iran deal
By Jordain Carney

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/251551-mccaskill-to-support-iran-deal

Sen. Claire McCaskill said Thursday that she will support the Iran nuclear deal, saying it would be "more dangerous" to reject the agreement.

"This deal isn't perfect and no one trusts Iran, but it has become clear to me that the world is united behind this agreement with the exception of the government of Israel," the Missouri Democrat said in a statement.

"I respect and understand those who oppose it but I have become convinced that it is more dangerous to Israel, America and our allies to walk away in the face of unified world-wide support."

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. Not true...

...with the exception of the government of Israel, and a cadre of GOPigs + some Dems that would rather scuttle diplomacy and peace.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. So far...two Dems in the Senate

As far as I'm concerned, they are part of the GOP Bomb Bomb Iran Caucus.

The good news is that one of them, Menendez, will likely be in an orange jumpsuit in the future.

[Mosby]

3. the world in not united except for israel.

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/565673-iran-in-a-bubble

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/565639-what-a-better-iran-deal-should-look-like

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/565670-the-iran-deal-the-shiites-and-demography

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/2015/08/20/Poll-Most-Iraqis-see-U-S-Iran-as-factors-of-instability.html

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Can you name a single government which has come out forcefully against the deal?

And please provide me with a link and statements from their leader/foreign minister.

The only government I'm aware of that has come out forcefully against the Iran deal is the government of Israel.

[oberliner]

5. Why Saudi Arabia and Israel oppose Iran nuclear deal

Iran, the United States and five other world powers have sealed a breakthrough framework agreement outlining limits on Iran's nuclear programme, despite attempts by Israel and Saudi Arabia to thwart the deal. Al Jazeera spoke with four analysts about why Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, along with Israel, are upset about the agreement.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/saudi-arabia-israel-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal-150401061906177.html

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Can you quote their foreign minister or any government official?

Show me where the government of Saudi Arabia has come out against the Iran deal.

That article is from April.

The Gulf Cooperation Council, which Saudi Arabia is a part of, has endorsed the deal. Note the date:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/world/middleeast/gulf-states-cautiously-support-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0

DOHA, Qatar — Persian Gulf monarchies issued a cautious endorsement on Monday of the accord Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated last month to constrain Iran’s nuclear program.

“This was the best option among other options,” said Khalid al-Attiyah, the foreign minister of Qatar, who hosted a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council that Mr. Kerry attended.

In a news conference with Mr. Kerry, Mr. Attiyah said the secretary of state had repeated his assurance that the United States would stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon if Tehran failed to adhere to the accord.

“We are confident that what they undertook makes this region safer and more stable,” he added.

<...>

I can provide official statements from the Gulf Cooperation Council. All you have is opinion editorials.

[oberliner]

7. Saudi prince: Iran deal worse than one with N. Korea

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former ambassador to Washington, has said in an opinion piece for Elaph newspaper that the United States moved forward with the Iran nuclear deal despite predictions of the situation developing into a North Korean-style scenario.

In a column published by the London-based Arabic news website Elaph, the former chief of intelligence said the nuclear deal “will wreak havoc in the Middle East,” a region already plagued by major conflicts.

“Serious pundits in the media and in politics say that President Obama’s Iran deal is ‘déjà vu’ in relation to President Clinton’s North Korean nuclear deal.”

President Clinton’s decision was based on strategic foreign policy analysts, top secret national intelligence, and the desire “to save the people of North Korea from starvation,” wrote Prince Bandar, in reference to the 1994 “Agreed Framework” between North Korea and the United States that aimed to freeze the country’s nuclear power program.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/07/16/Saudi-Prince-Bandar-Iran-deal-worse-than-North-Korean-deal-.html

[Cali_Democrat]

8. He's a former ambassador to the US and is not currently a government official.

He was also very close to the former Bush administration which we know was blood thirsty and always aching for war.

Please provide me links to statements from current government officials.

[oberliner]

9. Saudi Arabia's King Salman backs Israel over Iran nuclear deal concerns

King Salman of Saudi Arabia voiced misgivings about the Iran nuclear deal to Ashton Carter, the visiting US defence secretary, on Wednesday, as the battle for hearts and minds over this month's agreement moved from the Middle East to Washington.

Mr Carter, on a mission to sell the July 14 accord to America's Middle Eastern allies, said the Saudi monarch had expressed reservations even while ostensibly welcoming it when they met in the Red Sea port of Jeddah.

It was the second day running Mr Carter had listened to allied concerns about the agreement thrashed out in Vienna, which lifts a catalogue of crippling sanctions against Iran in exchange for its theocratic rulers accepting strict limits on the country's nuclear program me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11756739/Saudi-Arabias-King-Salman-backs-Israel-over-Iran-nuclear-deal-concerns.html

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Nice link to the conservative Torygraph, but I don't even see any quotes from Salman

The article simply says that he has concerns and voiced those concerns to Ash Carter

At no point did he actually come out against the deal. Nobody said that people didn't have concerns.

From the article:

Mr Carter, on a mission to sell the July 14 accord to America's Middle Eastern allies, said the Saudi monarch had expressed reservations even while ostensibly welcoming it when they met in the Red Sea port of Jeddah.

Also, the Gulf Cooperation Council, which Saudi Arabia is a part of, has endorsed the deal.

You're really struggling to find any government other than Israel who is opposed to the deal, aren't you?

The fact remains that no government has officially come out against the deal except Israel.

Face it, Israel is completely isolated.

[oberliner]

11. Gulf expert: Arab states oppose Iran deal but don't want to show agreement with Israel

US President Barack Obama’s statement on Wednesday that all countries that have commented on the Iran deal support it – except for Israel – is misleading. Arab leaders are only being polite in their reticence.

Leaders of the Gulf Arab states have opted for a less confrontational approach with Washington than the strong public opposition exhibited by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government.

Instead of voicing their displeasure publicly and directly to the US over its rapprochement with Iran, they have instead chosen to get their message across unofficially through articles in Arab owned-media and by leaking their strong discontent to the Western press.

Abdulrahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya TV and former editor-in-chief of the popular Arab daily Asharq Alawsat, wrote a recent article in the Saudi-backed publication stating that the Iran deal “was viewed by some as a rather low move by Washington against its longtime allies in the Gulf, who were loyal for over five decades.”

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Gulf-Expert-Arab-states-oppose-Iran-deal-but-dont-want-to-show-agreement-with-Israel-411399

[Cali_Democrat]

13. An opinion editorial from Ariel Ben Solomon in the Jerusalem Post?

[oberliner]

15. Reuters contributed to this report.

It's not an editorial.

Abdulrahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya TV is quoted extensively.

If you think that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are totally supportive of the deal, that is your prerogative.

You are more than free to base your opinion entirely on official public statements from representatives of those dictatorships.

[geek tragedy]

16. that tends to highlight Israel's isolation, no?

Israel is really out there by itself, along with its supporters amongst the War Party in the US.

[oberliner]

25. Indeed

The Arab world has isolated Israel for decades.

Even when they have common ground, Arab leaders are wary to say so publicly.

[leftynyc]

22. You want to scoff

at every single source, every single article that proves you wrong. Go ahead and blame Israel for everything - it doesn't make you look good at all. At all.

[azurnoir]

14. Saudi Arabia Approves of Iran Nuclear Deal, U.S. Defense Chief Says

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter gave a surprisingly upbeat assessment on Wednesday of American relations with Saudi Arabia, asserting that the kingdom welcomed the international nuclear deal reached with its regional rival, Iran.

Mr. Carter, who visited Jidda and held his first meeting with King Salman, also said the Saudi monarch would visit the United States this fall and was committed to fighting the Islamic State, the Sunni militant extremist group.

The defense secretary’s description of ties with the Saudis, which he made to reporters after the meeting while en route to Amman, Jordan, was unexpectedly upbeat, considering Saudi Arabia’s strong reservations about the nuclear negotiations between the big world powers and Iran that yielded an agreement last week.

The defense secretary’s description of ties with the Saudis, which he made to reporters after the meeting while en route to Amman, Jordan, was unexpectedly upbeat, considering Saudi Arabia’s strong reservations about the nuclear negotiations between the big world powers and Iran that yielded an agreement last week.

Israel, another crucial American ally in the Middle East, has strongly protested the Iran accord and bluntly conveyed that message to Mr. Carter during his stop there this week. Israel regards Iran as one of its most dangerous foes

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-saudi-arabia.html?_r=0

[King_David]

17. Canadian government

Probably Australian too.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-says-iran-remains-significant-threat-to-peace-security/article25499682/?service=mobile

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Nowhere at that link does it say that the Canadian government opposes the Iran nuclear deal

Keep trying....

[oberliner]

19. Minister Nicholson Comments on Nuclear Deal Reached by P5+1 and Iran

July 14, 2015 - Ottawa, Ontario - Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada

The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement:

“We appreciate the efforts of the P5+1 to reach an agreement. At the same time, we will continue to judge Iran by its actions not its words. To this end, Canada will continue to support the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor Iran’s compliance with its commitments.

“Iran continues to be a significant threat to international peace and security owing to the regime’s nuclear ambitions, its continuing support for terrorism, its repeated calls for the destruction of Israel, and its disregard for basic human rights.

“We will examine this deal further before taking any specific Canadian action.”

http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2015/07/14a.aspx?lang=eng

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Again...nowhere does it say the Canadian government opposes the deal

You guys are really getting desperate. It's pathetic.

Out of the nearly 200 countries in the world, you cannot find a single country besides Israel that has come out and opposed the deal.

Face it, the only country that has come out officially against the deal is Israel.

Those are the facts and you're just gonna have to deal.

Israel is completely isolated and they still have yet to sign the NPT while they cry about Iran.

[leftynyc]

23. LOL - what a bunch of bullshit

It's YOU that sounds desperate - but it is pretty amusing watching you trash every single source that proves your OP is nothing but complete bullshit. I don't blame you for trying to ignore the obvious but you aren't fooling anyone. Now don't forget the juvenile smilies or I'll be very disappointed.

[King_David]

21. I do not have to 'keep trying' , keep up if you going to post in this group....

this is common knowledge for those of us who do keep up...


(I support the deal btw)

When it comes to Iran, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government long ago nailed its colours to the mast, as a vocal critic of the regime, sympathetic to Israel’s dire warnings, and skeptical of any nuclear deal. This government was never going to suddenly endorse a deal with Iran – it just didn’t want to be seen criticizing its major allies in Washington, London and Paris who negotiated it.

Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson, in a statement issued Tuesday, expressed appreciation for the “efforts” of the so-called P5-plus-one group that struck the deal with Iran – the U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany. But Canada, Mr. Nicholson said, “will continue to judge Iran by its actions not its words.” Ottawa will examine the deal more before changing any policy, he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-puts-staunchly-pro-israel-tories-in-tricky-spot/article25507326/

[leftynyc]

24. That poster is looking more and more

desperate while they trash every single source you and others have posted proving them wrong. It's pathetic to watch.

[King_David]

27. Exactly

Poster asks for links and gets them .

[grossproffit]

29. Not the first time, either.

[geek tragedy]

12. They are not publicly backing Israel now.

Also, don't expect them to have Israel's back when the Palestinian issue returns to the Security Council.

Israel and its dutiful political foot soldiers in the US have burned up a lot of good will by aligning themselves with the rightwing and war monger caucus. So, people won't be inclined to listen the next time Netanyahu and AIPAC and the Lobby cry wolf.

It's increasingly moving to its proper place in the ideological spectrum--rightwingers wanting to give the Israelis a blank check, and liberals wanting us to stop supporting racism, war, and apartheid.

[6chars]

26. When Iran starts chanting "death to the world"

Instead of death to Israel, that might change. At least part of why Israel is more concerned than Sweden is that Iran hasnt been calling or obliteratation of Sweden. If, hypothetically, there was a deal to enslave every Israeli Jew and give every other person in the world $1000, we might have a similar division of support.

[grossproffit]

28. Their chanting "death to America" doesn't seem to phase some, either.

They're obviously joking, right?

[6chars]

30. It's a question of what they can do

They have clients on the borders of Israel. They are much larger, more populous, more economically powerful.

There is an unsavory bit of wordplay going on. The Claire McCaskills point to Israel' concerns about the deal as if they derive from the nature of Israel, and that Israel stands apart from the world. Actually, they derive from the nature of the Iranian government's stated and chanted positions.

[Mosby]

31. this is what the deal does

-snip-

 Iran will probably behave in Iran. The argument that the hardliners in Iran are against the deal and that President Hassan Rouhani is facing a challenge in convincing them is just a show. The hardliners have no problem with the deal as long as it brings economic prosperity and at the same time allows Iran to boost its military operations in the region. And that’s exactly what they will do.
 
The challenge, however, is not in Iran. Assad and Hezbollah will receive a boost in money and weapons, which will prolong the conflict, though not necessarily end it in their favor. This prolongation of war will have repercussions on both the Arab Shiites and the Sunnis.
 
Hezbollah will benefit from the influx of money, and it will be able to increase the social services it had to cut down on recently. This will also help the Party of God recruit more Shiites from Lebanon and across the region to fight in Syria. With better salaries and benefits, many of the increasingly unemployed Shiites will join the war. But even more of them will come back in coffins.
 
This is already creating agitation within the Shiite community. The lack of alternatives is keeping many silent, but it doesn’t mean that they’re satisfied with the deaths and lack of victory. With no alternatives, increased dissatisfaction among the Shiites will not lead to a weakened Hezbollah in Lebanon. On the contrary, Hezbollah will not stop its war in Syria and the Shiites in Lebanon and elsewhere will always be the victims of it. The only result of this will be more isolation of the community — by its own leaders through increased sectarian rhetoric, and by the other communities who can now only see Shiites as their enemies.

On the other hand, the Sunnis of the region are not going to face a better fate. For them, the US and Europe have taken sides. Perception in our region is often more important than truth, and for the majority of the people in the Middle East, the US has taken sides in this sectarian conflict. This perception is leading to fears that the US will ally with Iran in the region as a whole — in the same vein as what has started to happen in Iraq — to fight ISIS, which will boost the position of Iran and its militias in Syria, too.  
 
Even if they don’t prove true, these concerns are valid if only because no one has addressed them so far. The deal was signed and not a single official responded to these fears with the depth and strategy they require.
 
To defeat ISIS, the US also needs the Sunni community as an ally, not as an antagonist. Therefore, these concerns should be addressed today. Otherwise, the repercussions are going be further militarization and radicalization of the Sunni community.
 
Then comes the issue of demography, which will be in direct confrontation with Iran’s interests in Syria. More money for Iran will not reduce the sectarian hatred this conflict has fed. With more radicalized conflict on both the Sunni and Shiite sides, demography will eventually win. The Shiites will always remain a minority that continues to fight an ‘existential battle,’ and the Sunnis in Syria will not stop trying to fight Hezbollah and other foreign Shiite militias in their country. 
 
The Iran deal guaranteed economic and social benefits for the Iranian people and authorities. It gave the Obama administration its ‘legacy,’ but it made the war in the region more sectarian, and more radicalized.
 
Hanin Ghaddar is the managing editor of NOW and a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council. She tweets @haningdr


https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/565670-the-iran-deal-the-shiites-and-demography