What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

EU Spokesman: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached (1 Viewer)

Tackling Dummies said:
"Saying 'Death to America' is easy. We need to express 'Death to America' with action. Saying it is easy"

Hasson Rouhani, May 8, 2013 remarks at a campaign speech in the city of Karaj

What could go wrong here?
Oh well, I guess that means we can never have diplomatic relations with them.

:rolleyes:
Not with the direct comments from them.

In 95, he was also quoted "The beautiful cry of 'Death to America' unites our nation."

“Today, the time has come for the disappearance of the West and the Zionist regime (Israel) - which are two dark spots in the present era - from the face of the universe,” said Ali Larijani in a Thursday conference in Tehran commemorating the birth anniversary of Shia Islam’s 12th Imam Mahdi.
Well #####, let's bomb the motherf###ers.

 
Sand said:
Homer J Simpson said:
Yes, it's disgusting.WHY DOES OBAMA HATE AMERICA?!?
Why would any agreement not have this is an up front condition?
Maybe it's something that can be negotiated later? Maybe they have a legitimate reason for imprisoning whoever you're talking about? Maybe it's stupid to go into negotiations like this with an opening list of demands? Maybe this deal is way bigger than a handful of prisoners?

 
Sand said:
Homer J Simpson said:
Yes, it's disgusting.WHY DOES OBAMA HATE AMERICA?!?
Why would any agreement not have this is an up front condition?
I refuse to answer this question until you give me a f###ing sandwich! In fact, we will never discuss anything about anything until I get my f###ing sandwich.

 
Sand said:
Fennis said:
Sand said:
Saeed Abedini.

Edit: And Robert Levinson.
Thanks. Although my knowledge of them is admittedly very limited I personally see zero issue with the interim or a long term nuclear deal without any change in either of their status.
That's just awesome. You're a peach.
Thanks I think so too.

So can we get an all encompassing list you want to see sanctions against Iran for? Nuclear program, US citizens arrested and political prisoners. What else?

 
Sand said:
Fennis said:
Sand said:
Saeed Abedini.

Edit: And Robert Levinson.
Thanks. Although my knowledge of them is admittedly very limited I personally see zero issue with the interim or a long term nuclear deal without any change in either of their status.
That's just awesome. You're a peach.
Thanks I think so too.So can we get an all encompassing list you want to see sanctions against Iran for? Nuclear program, US citizens arrested and political prisoners. What else?
Stop photoshopping their military "inventions", stop killing monkeys with their "space program", stop claiming there is such a thing as a stealth flying boat, until they can successfully shoot down a damn UAV with an aircraft specifically designed to shoot down smaller and slower flying aircraft... I could go on.Schlzm

 
Sand said:
Homer J Simpson said:
Yes, it's disgusting.WHY DOES OBAMA HATE AMERICA?!?
Why would any agreement not have this is an up front condition?
Maybe it's something that can be negotiated later? Maybe they have a legitimate reason for imprisoning whoever you're talking about? Maybe it's stupid to go into negotiations like this with an opening list of demands? Maybe this deal is way bigger than a handful of prisoners?
We have completely collapsed Iran's currency. We have them over a barrel. When is there ever a better time to secure the life and well being of American citizens?

Reagan managed to get 52 out. Obama is incapable of getting two?

 
Sand said:
Homer J Simpson said:
Yes, it's disgusting.

WHY DOES OBAMA HATE AMERICA?!?
Why would any agreement not have this is an up front condition?
Maybe it's something that can be negotiated later? Maybe they have a legitimate reason for imprisoning whoever you're talking about? Maybe it's stupid to go into negotiations like this with an opening list of demands? Maybe this deal is way bigger than a handful of prisoners?
We have completely collapsed Iran's currency. We have them over a barrel. When is there ever a better time to secure the life and well being of American citizens?

Reagan managed to get 52 out. Obama is incapable of getting two?
Reagan didn't secure the release of the hostages.

 
Reagan didn't secure the release of the hostages.
I'd disagree with that, but just to go with it - say Carter was responsible. That's even worse, given that he's the worst president we've had in a long, long time.

 
Some are calling this "appeasement", but, it's time someone in the region finally knocked Israel down a few pegs. A rich, tiny little country has been oppressing the rest of the Middle East for far too long.
Given the rest of your insipid viewpoints, somehow this doesn't surprise me.
 
Can we learn more through six months of this agreement then the status quo? Do we have more access to Irans' doings? Would resistance not tell us more to a degree? Granted, Saddam resisted despite not having the goods.

The bomb is all important. So Iran can free up some money but perhaps we get more intel. What is the downside? All options are still on the table if they don't comply.

 
Tackling Dummies said:
"Saying 'Death to America' is easy. We need to express 'Death to America' with action. Saying it is easy"

Hasson Rouhani, May 8, 2013 remarks at a campaign speech in the city of Karaj

What could go wrong here?
Oh well, I guess that means we can never have diplomatic relations with them.

:rolleyes:
Not with the direct comments from them.

In 95, he was also quoted "The beautiful cry of 'Death to America' unites our nation."

“Today, the time has come for the disappearance of the West and the Zionist regime (Israel) - which are two dark spots in the present era - from the face of the universe,” said Ali Larijani in a Thursday conference in Tehran commemorating the birth anniversary of Shia Islam’s 12th Imam Mahdi.
Well #####, let's bomb the motherf###ers.
PM TheIronSheik, he's usually up for that!

 
Sand said:
Homer J Simpson said:
Yes, it's disgusting.

WHY DOES OBAMA HATE AMERICA?!?
Why would any agreement not have this is an up front condition?
Maybe it's something that can be negotiated later? Maybe they have a legitimate reason for imprisoning whoever you're talking about? Maybe it's stupid to go into negotiations like this with an opening list of demands? Maybe this deal is way bigger than a handful of prisoners?
We have completely collapsed Iran's currency. We have them over a barrel. When is there ever a better time to secure the life and well being of American citizens?

Reagan managed to get 52 out. Obama is incapable of getting two?
Still waiting for my sandwich before negotiations can begin.

 
Can we learn more through six months of this agreement then the status quo? Do we have more access to Irans' doings? Would resistance not tell us more to a degree? Granted, Saddam resisted despite not having the goods.

The bomb is all important. So Iran can free up some money but perhaps we get more intel. What is the downside? All options are still on the table if they don't comply.
Update

Iran has converted most of a nuclear stockpile that it could have turned quickly into weapons-grade uranium into less volatile forms as part of a deal with six world powers, the U.N. atomic agency reported Thursday.

The development leaves Iran with substantially less of the 20-percent enriched uranium that it would need for a nuclear warhead. Iran denies any interest in atomic arms. But it agreed to some nuclear concessions in exchange for a partial lifting of sanctions crippling its economy under the deal, which took effect in January.

Uranium at 20 percent is only a technical step away from weapons-grade material. By the time the agreement was reached late last year, Iran had amassed nearly 200 kilograms (440 pounds). With further enrichment, that would have yielded almost enough weapons-grade uranium for one atomic bomb — a threshold Israel had vowed it would prevent by any means possible.

Under its agreement, Iran agreed to stop enriching to grades beyond 5 percent, the level most commonly used to power reactors. It also committed to neutralizing all its 20-percent stockpile — half by diluting to a grade that is less proliferation-prone and the rest by conversion to oxide used for reactor fuel.

In line with information given to The Associated Press by diplomats earlier this week, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Thursday that Iran had completed the dilution process.

The confidential IAEA report obtained by the AP also said conversion was well underway, with over 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of the 20-percent material rendered into oxide.

Iran has until July to fulfill all of its commitments under the deal. But it has to show progress in exchange for sanctions relief, and it is eager to get its hand on the next tranche of some $4.2 billion of oil revenue funds that were frozen under international sanctions meant to force it into nuclear compromise. It already has received more than half of that amount in exchange for step-by-step implementation of the agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Will Iran sell out Al Qaeda for nukes?

The Iranians want to make a deal with the U.S.: They help us fight terror in exchange for nuclear concessions. Tehran could start by giving up the al Qaeda leaders it’s harboring.

On Wednesday in New York, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani offered to help the West fight terrorism—and play a more “active role” in the Middle East—as long as the West is willing to do it Iran’s way and also come to a deal on its nuclear program.

The Iranian offer has been widely interpreted as one to fight ISIS alongside the U.S. After all, Iranian-backed militias and American airpower earlier this month helped drive ISIS out of the Iraqi town of Amerli.

But there’s a second possibility. Iran has long been harboring senior al Qaeda, al Nusra, and so-called Khorasan Group leaders as part of its complicated strategy to influence the region and keep itself off the terrorist target list, according the U.S. government, intelligence agencies, and terrorism experts.

Now, with a potential nuclear deal and rapprochement with the West in sight, the Shiite regime in Tehran could be looking to sell its Sunni terrorist friends down the river.

“The Iranians have kept a lot of these guys as a point of protection. They are explosive bargaining chips,” said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. “If they would have handed them over to the United States years ago without getting anything in return, they would have become a greater target for al Qaeda and they would have less cards to play with the U.S. now.”

U.S. officials have insisted all week that although U.S. and Iranian officials have been discussing the war on ISIS and Tehran’s nuclear program on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly this week, the two issues are not linked and never should be. But Iranian officials told Reuters that Iran would help the U.S. fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria only if the U.S. made concessions on Tehran’s nuclear program. The White House publicly rejected the offer.

On Wednesday, Rouhani connected the issues again and said that if only the U.S. struck a deal with Iran on the nuclear issue, Iran could really start to help on ISIS and other terrorist organizations.

“If Iran could reach a comprehensive deal on its nuclear program and leave sanctions behind, it would be able to assume a more active position on interregional dialogue in the Islamic world,” Rouhani told an audience at an event hosted by the New America Foundation.

“No one is justified in helping terrorists, whether they are taking action in Syria, or Iraq, or Lebanon, it really doesn’t matter,” he said. “Terrorism must be driven out and eradicated from the region.”

“The Iranians are the masters of creating monsters, using them against their enemies, and then selling them…It’s a good card in your hand when you are in a de facto war with the U.S. and you are deep into negotiations over the nuclear program.”

Washington experts often point out that Iran has more to lose than any country from the spread of ISIS and al Qaeda. The predominantly Shiite country is ideologically opposed to the Sunni terror groups, and ISIS threatens Iran’s dominance over neighboring Iraq. In 2003, Iran handed over to the United Nations the names of hundreds of al Qaeda suspects.

Yet the relationship between the Shiite mullahs and the Sunni extremists isn’t that simple. The question now is whether Iran is willing to trade those bargaining chips in exchange for the ability to preserve its nuclear program.

“The Iranian regime has nurtured al Qaeda for many years. There are links, there are contacts, they know these people,” said Fouad Hamdan, executive director of the Netherlands-based Rule of Law Foundation, which funds Naame Shaam, an NGO focused on Iran’s role in Syria.

Naame Shaam has produced a 105-page report on Iran’s mischief inside Syria and its ties to al Qaeda, al Nusra, and ISIS. Al Qaeda and ISIS are under orders not to attack inside Iran in order to preserve their supply network there, the report states. The U.S. government concurs.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, Muhsin al Fadhli, a longtime al Qaeda member and the leader of the newly public Khorasan Group, lived in Iran from 2009 until 2013 with the knowledge and support of the Iranian government. (Jihadist web forums reported that Fadhli was killed Tuesday by U.S. airstrikes.) Treasury said Fadhli took over as head of al Qaeda’s operations in Iran in late 2011 in place of Yasin al-Suri, another senior al Qaeda leader who was detained briefly by the Iranian regime.

Fadhli was considered a major facilitator for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of al Qaeda in Iraq, which eventually gave rise to ISIS. Al Qaeda’s network in Iran also is suspected of having planned attacks on foreign interests, including a thwarted 2013 plot to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

As recently as this past February, the Treasury Department reported that Suri had resumed control of the al Qaeda branch in Iran, after Fadhli returned to Syria to take over the al Nusra Front following its public split with ISIS.

“As head al Qaeda facilitator in Iran, Yasin al-Suri is responsible for overseeing al Qaeda efforts to transfer experienced operatives and leaders from Pakistan to Syria, organizing and maintaining routes by which new recruits can travel to Syria via Turkey, and assisting in the movement of al Qaeda external operatives to the West,” the Treasury Department said. “Al Qaeda’s network in Iran has facilitated the transfer of funds from Gulf-based donors to al Qaeda core and other affiliated elements, including the al-Nusra Front in Syria. The Iran-based al Qaeda network has also leveraged an extensive network of Kuwaiti jihadist donors to send money to Syria via Turkey.”

But recently, Hamdan said, Iran’s ties to al Qaeda and al Nusra have become less valuable. Al Nusra is more dependent on its Gulf patrons and the al Qaeda offshoot ISIS is running wild, fighting Iraqi and Iranian forces in Iraq. That’s why Iran might be willing to deal them away to the U.S.

“These guys, when they are totally out of the control of the Iranians, they are of no longer of use to the Iranians. The Iranians are the masters of creating monsters, using them against their enemies, and then selling them,” he said. “It’s a good card in your hand when you are in a de facto war with the U.S. since 1979 and when you are deep into negotiations over the nuclear program.”

Iran’s complicated relationship with al Qaeda stretches back to at least the late 1990s. The 9/11 Commission’s final report, for example, said, “There is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”

After the fall of the Taliban in 2001, several senior al Qaeda leaders fled to Iran, including a former Egyptian special operations officer named Saif al-Adel. Adel and others helped facilitate the movement of Zarqawi to Iraq from Afghanistan, where he became the first leader of al Qaeda’s franchise in Iraq, the predecessor organization to ISIS.

Nonetheless, in 2003 Iranian and U.S. negotiators discussed a possible trade of al Qaeda operatives in Iran in exchange for members of the People’s Mujahadin, an anti-Iranian terrorist organization that was based in Iraq after being expelled from Iran in the early 1980s.

In recent years Iran’s relationship with al Qaeda has soured. Al Qaeda leaders began leaving Iran in late 2008, including Osama bin Laden’s son Saad bin Laden. Today, Iran supports the governments of Syria and Iraq in their fight against al Qaeda franchises and ISIS.

Nonetheless, some al Qaeda senior managers remain in Iran. Seth Jones, the director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the Rand Corporation, said Iran could help the new U.S. campaign against ISIS and al Qaeda by rounding up the remaining al Qaeda operatives on its own territory.

“They could capture and hand over the remaining al Qaeda officials on Iranian soil,” he said. “A few, including Saif al Adel, remain in Iran.”

Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and senior editor of The Long War Journal, said Iran’s government could hand over intelligence on al Qaeda operatives and leaders it has hosted over the years.

“The Iranians probably have dossiers on most, if not all, of these guys because some of the key leaders were harbored by them in recent years,” he said. “All of that intelligence should be put on the table if they want to help us out on this. If there really is a deal on this, then why wouldn’t they offer this up?”

If Iran is ready to forgo its long-standing relationship with al Qaeda and help the U.S. and West fight against ISIS and al Qaeda, that could be a game changer in the overall relationship. It could make a nuclear deal more possible, said Jim Smith, an expert on Iran’s nuclear program at MIT.

“The U.S. is going to want to keep these as separate issues and not link them formally with a quid pro quo,” he said. “But the reality is that those issues with ISIS change the incentive structure. It gives the parties all the more reason to cooperate.”
 
The likelihood of Iran and the west actually reaching an agreement on the nuclear front waivers constantly. But given that this article comes from an ex-diplomat and is as optimistic as anything I've seen recently I thought I'd share...

Iran nuclear deal within graspThe US-Iranian negotiations for a nuclear deal are slated to resume on Monday amidst growing optimism that this could be the end of the year-long endgame under way, and an accord is in sight, finally. The US secretary of state John Kerry recently said that the effort will be to reach an accord even before the extended deadline of end-June.

The target is to reach a political agreement by March 1, 2015 and a comprehensive agreement by July 1. To be sure, if there was any disappointment that the deal couldn’t be struck yet after intense talks began an year ago, that has dispelled. The mood in Tehran bazaar is “bullish”, according to New York Times, sensing that a deal with the US is in the works.

The main reason for this growing optimism is that the two sides have a good idea by now of each other’s ‘red lines’ and also the grey area where give-and-take is possible. In sum, there is no more a need for brinkmanship or grandstanding.

A first-hand American account captured the increasingly relaxed mood: “At a human level it’s very interesting to watch the evolution of these talks. Slightly more than a year ago, it was impossible to imagine that the parties [uS and Iranian diplomats] would mingle with each other in such a relaxed manner and would call each other “Hey Bob” and “Hey Abbas”. They bump into each other at the breakfast buffet and joke about the watery scrambled eggs or the giant chocolate croissants. Obviously the Iranians avoid pork and alcohol, but they share everything else. There may not be trust at the political level but there now is significant trust at a personal level. They’ve spent so many hours with each other that now they are intimately familiar with one another’s body language and mood. In the last days in Vienna, even the U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers were meeting alone, as they no longer felt the need for the EU mediator.”

The respective ‘red lines’ are: a) Iran insists on the right to industrial-scale nuclear enrichment and wants sanctions to be lifted and not merely suspended; b) the US wants the ‘breakout time’ (time needed for Iran to develop one nuclear weapon) to be not less than a year and is eager to retain in some measure the leverage of sanctions to ensure Iran’s commitment to any deal.

Besides, new salients have appeared. For sure, the US and Iran are already working together (without acknowledging so) to ease regional tensions in the Middle East, which in turn instills mutual confidence at the negotiating table.

Second, the US’ ‘partners’ within the P5+1 (European allies, Russia and China) are eager to settle the Iran nuclear issue and move on with Iran’s full integration with the international community.

Third, steadily, an Iranian domestic consensus has formed as regards the imperative need to resolve the nuclear issue. Fourth, there is, possibly, a certain easing of Israeli opposition to an Iran deal (that is, any deal that allows Iran’s enrichment program to continue in any form).

Five, and most important, a breakdown of the talks becomes in reality a ‘non-option’. On the one hand, Europeans and Russia and China have had enough of Iran’s sanctions, while on the other hand, the US (and Israel) simply lacks the capacity to stage a military attack against Iran with impunity.

Finally, at least for the present, the Obama administration is not allowing itself to be held hostage by the US’ Gulf Arab allies – Saudi Arabia, in particular – and has not embarked on a direct confrontation with the Syrian regime (which would upset the apple cart.) See an excellent round-up of the overall state of play by the International Crisis Group’s Iran Senior Analyst Ali Vaez.

Some of this may have begun rubbing on the US Congress, which, according to conventional wisdom, is under the Israeli thumb and/or is itching to somehow deny President Barack Obama a historic foreign-policy legacy.

At any rate, there are incipient signs that the Congress is opting for a pragmatic approach and sidestepping the route of imposing any more sanctions to pressure Iran. The Congress is strengthening its oversight by legislating that there ought to be formalized reporting and information sharing by the Administration regarding the negotiations but, interestingly, not insisting an immediate ‘up-or-down’ vote in the Congress following the negotiation of an accord with Iran.

Equally, there is a groundswell of circumspection among lawmakers regarding new sanctions that would have curtailed the US diplomats’ ability to strike a nuclear deal. At any rate, the 113th Congress is winding up without passing new Iran sanctions. Therefore, in diplomatic terms, as an AP report assessed last week, the US diplomats would have “a short window to negotiate unimpeded by Congress.”
 
The main reason for this growing optimism is that the two sides have a good idea by now of each other’s ‘red lines’ and also the grey area where give-and-take is possible. In sum, there is no more a need for brinkmanship or grandstanding.

...The respective ‘red lines’ are: a) Iran insists on the right to industrial-scale nuclear enrichment and wants sanctions to be lifted and not merely suspended; b) the US wants the ‘breakout time’ (time needed for Iran to develop one nuclear weapon) to be not less than a year and is eager to retain in some measure the leverage of sanctions to ensure Iran’s commitment to any deal.
So the deal we reach will respect these red lines?

That is, Iran maintains its capacity and all they have to promise is that it will take them a year to make a weapon if they so desire?

That's the deal?

And will there be a full inspection protocol like we saw in Iraq? Or not?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top