The discourse (so far) about the Iran deal has been rather discouraging so far

[Proud Liberal Dem]

The Republicans are acting as though President Obama- in true Neville Chamberlain fashion- is giving the Iranian regime everything it wants without conditions and is being foolishly naive about its intentions and/or claiming that President Obama is using this deal in a cynical "wag-the-dog" fashion to distract everybody from the troubled (but improving) ACA roll-out. There was one of them whom said that we are rewarding bad behavior in spite of the fact that it seems to be quite opposite. This all despite the fact that this deal has been in the works for some time and could hardly be said to have just come from out of the blue, not to mention that Iran's new Iranian President has clearly indicated that he is much more willing to deal with the US on this issue than their previous President. I'm also not very happy with some of the Democratic Senators whom are continuing to saber rattle and are still supporting ADDITIONAL sanctions on the moment at the precise moment when we are trying to lift some of the sanctions in return for Iran's cooperation on the nuke concerns but their problem is just that they- for whatever reason- seem to be more concerned about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's position on the matter than US President Barack Obama's position. Et tu, Chuck?


Certainly, we need to keep up the pressure on Iran to make good on their end of the deal and the partial lifting of the sanctions can easily be reversed if they're not and military action, which is what most Republicans are usually salivating for (unless a Democrat is President that is), is always on the table if there is a real threat but Iran is also going to be allowing some pretty intrusive inspections on its part, so it's not like we're just pinky-swearing with them.

[Liberal Veteran]

1. Repubs would complain if the Iranians agreed to unilaterally disarm, give us all their oil for free,

convert to Christianity, and become the personal protectors of Judaism in the region.

They hate Obama so much more than they love America or peace, nothing would satisfy them.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. I'm pretty sure that's what's it's all about

sadly

[Igel]

2. It rather depends if the Iranians really are trustworthy.

There have been suspicions that even under prior agreements there were off-the-books projects that still proceeded.

A number of people also remember with a bit of chagrin how Pakistan developed a bomb in secret. The first announcement that they were working on a nuclear bomb was the seismograph traces that pointed to a specific kind of seismic source in the wrong place.

That left Pakistan out of large portions of the international community for a limited time. Then the WTC was struck and Pakistan became indispensible. So in exchange for helping to track down mass murderers, Pakistan demanded that not only their transgressions be forgiven but they also be given billions of dollars in aid. They still play this game: They officially protest what could be stopped with an order from the government; they protest drone strikes that could be prohibited. The protests are face saving measures for political spin; behind the scenes they're glad for the money and don't mind the deaths caused by the strikes. That's the level that politicians go to, to the delightedly grateful visages of their benighted supporters.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. It's not without risks to be sure

but IMHO nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Laelth]

5. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[BlueMTexpat]

8. And the US has been so trustworthy

during our shared history with Iran? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24316661

Iranians have good right to be skeptical as well, IMO. And Iran is not Pakistan, already disastrously weakened from its eternal strife and tensions with India as well as its use as a prime staging area for US covert efforts against the USSR in Afghanistan in the 80s-90s and for the disastrous US invasion of Afghanistan under Bush-Cheney.

Let us hope that ALL involved are not swayed by the radical zealots on both sides!

[RBInMaine]

10. We propped up the ROTTEN dictator Shah and exploited their oil and then wonder why they were mad.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. Then our former (P)resident includes them in an "Axis of Evil" and invades it's neighbor

and then wonder why they are scared of us and interested in nukes (because we've shown that we won't directly attack anybody who has them).

There's a logical/rational thread here that most neocons can't/won't follow in terms of how what we do in terms of foreign policy can (and often does) affect us in the long term.

[mwrguy]

6. not just the rethugs

Chuck Schumer is helping.

[madrchsod]

7. what does israel and saudi arabia have in common?

they both hate this deal.

well done obama , kerry,and the iranians! this is how grown ups work out their differences.

[RBInMaine]

9. They want to make this a political issue with American Jews. That is ALL this is about. It is a

GREAT step forward, very measured, with MUCH more work to do though. It is a good step. Israel needs to be a bit more flexible here.

[Arkana]

11. Last poll put 64% of Americans in support of this deal.

Chuck Schumer and the rest of the AIPAC thralls can bleat all they want. This is still a good thing.

And the GOP loses here too--Obama looks like the grownup in the room for getting Iran to agree to something that can be a foundation on which further progress can be made.

[Viva_Daddy]

13. Israel has no credibility. It is a rogue nuclear State.

Israel is widely believed to have hundreds of nuclear weapons, yet refuses to admit to having them (probably because it might then have to answer questions as to when, how and from whom it acquired the weapons). Unlike Iran, Israel is NOT a signatory to ANY international nuclear agreement. So, essentially, Israel is a ROGUE NUCLEAR STATE and is only protected by Americans veto power at the UN Security Council.

[leftynyc]

15. Uh - perhaps with you they

don't have credibility. But in the larger United States, Gallup has done the same question for decades asking if sympathies were with Israel or the Palestinians. Most recently 2/13 has 64% with the Israelis. So perhaps you should speak for yourself only.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/gallup.html

Edited to add: wow - in looking at that chart further, it's not limited to the Palestinians - it covers all Arab states. Also interesting, that 64% figure is the highest it's ever been except for January 1991. Wonder why that is.

[Avalux]

14. The neocons are pissed - their dream of bombing Iran is fading away.

Equally, Netanyahu (the Israeli equivalent of Dick Cheney), is pissed as well. Lots of pissed off and angry people who don't want peace and want to continue the empire building plan of PNAC.

[Arneoker]

16. Of course we shouldn't trust the Iranians, and we should try to keep the bomb away from them

But that doesn't mean this deal is bad. They are never going to give up their nuclear program. (At least not until Israel gives up THEIR nukes. Not that the Israelis don't have their own legitimate interests and rational worries.) But they aren't necessarily going for the bomb, and maybe we can keep them from getting it with the right incentives. However, if we attack them, no way they aren't getting it, even if we delay them.

Bottom line, if my now almost ten-year old son ever decides to join the military, I don't want him pulling occupation duty in Teheran in 10 years, worrying that my Iranian neighbor's relatives might kill him. (And my Iranian neighbors hate the ruling mullahs, but all Iranians love their country, just like we love ours.)

This deal deserves a chance, and to hell with Lindsey Graham and Charles Krauthammer and the rest of their ilk!

[TheDonkey]

17. The GOP and FOX are panicked about this deal

The people want peace.