world

Biden tells Israel president he won't tolerate nuclear Iran

39 Comments
By AAMER MADHANI and JOSH BOAK

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


39 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

How does Biden being tough on Oran play onto the “conservative” narrative that Biden is weak on Iran?

If Israel wants peace, it has to stop incessantly abusing the human rights of the Palestinians.

BDS Israel; Iran is already suffering under sanctions.

6 ( +17 / -11 )

I guess Joe's okay with Israel's 400 nukes.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

Vietnam War chicken hawk old Joe's swiftly getting back on script emerging from the phone booth as the bellicose Biden ever ready to bomb till they cry uncle.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Well, that would mean, Biden will quite possibly go to war, telling them won’t make them stop. So this President will in that case get the US into another war, now don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see a nuclear Iran either, the Obama administration should have never tried to push a non-binding treaty secretly without the approval of Congress, instead they should have made a binding resolution backed up by enforcing military action should any part of it be non-compliant. If Biden can stop Iran, I’ll support it, we can’t have a nuclear Iran and if Biden won’t take action, the Israelis will, but this President looks like he’s going to shape up to be a war President if this continues.

-12 ( +6 / -18 )

the Obama administration should have never tried to push a non-binding treaty secretly without the approval of Congress,

It didn’t. Please stop pushing misinformation.

instead they should have made a binding resolution backed up by enforcing military action should any part of it be non-compliant.

You are advocating for a war here, yet just a few weeks ago you were constantly pillorying Biden for being a warmonger.

what do you think about Iran having been in compliance with the Nuclear Deal right up until 45 pulled out with zero actual cause?

If Biden can stop Iran, I’ll support it, we can’t have a nuclear Iran and if Biden won’t take action, the Israelis will, but this President looks like he’s going to shape up to be a war President if this continues.

How do you square this with your recent claims that Biden was weak on Iran and a warmonger?

4 ( +13 / -9 )

But the conservative losers are whining "Biden weak, Biden weak"...

Pathetics.. lol !!..

1 ( +9 / -8 )

So, bass thinks that the JCPOA should have included measures that would have required the US to be bombed until it complied with its obligations, starting while Obama was President and continuing until today.

That's one of the things that is conveniently seldom mentioned, that the US was never able to be certified as being in compliance.

The other thing that is conveniently seldom mentioned is that the snapback clause was written to be able to be used by both parties, and means that Iran is STILL in complete compliance as it continues to abide by the General Safeguards of the NNPT. It is the UK, France, and Germany that are out of compliance, and the US an outsider to the JCPOA with zero rights under it.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Biden is weak. He won’t confront Iran.

instead bombing Syria and Iraq under false pretenses to look tough.

now our troops are under attack in response.

weak, yet warmonger.

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

Joe wants to look and sound tough because his domestic agenda is a mess. So far so predictable. Things will only get more bellicose once he is asked to step down for medical reasons and KH takes over. She will be dead keen to make her chops by picking on some smaller victim. How these 2 ever made it into office is a mystery and a tragedy.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Biden tells Israel president he won't tolerate nuclear Iran ...

... then went for a nap.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Grandstanding, they are already and there is little he can do about it, just like North Korea.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Hapless Joe is just displaying his war-hawk feathers. The military-industrial complex is loving it. The RINOs are also pleased.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Good. How about not tolerating nukes in the USA and everywhere else in the world? How about insisting on worldwide dismantling?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Bass: backed up by enforcing military action

The only military option would he regime change. There is no strike the can take out facilities buried underground.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

No American president would dare say otherwise

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It didn’t. Please stop pushing misinformation.

It didn’t and I wouldn’t.

Iran used red lines and deadlines to wear down the administration, which played a strong hand weakly.

The administration undermined its own bargaining position by making it clear that it wanted a nuclear agreement more than Tehran seems to have wanted one, despite the fact that Tehran needed an agreement more for economic reasons.

The administration’s downplaying of the military option and front-loading of sanctions relief early in the negotiations reduced Iranian incentives to make concessions.

This gave the Iranians bargaining leverage they have used shrewdly.

Iran dug in its heels on key red lines proclaimed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, while the administration’s red lines gradually became blurred pink lines.

Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is left largely intact. Centrifuges will be mothballed but not dismantled.

https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/the-most-glaring-flaws-obamas-iran-deal

You are advocating for a war here,

Prove where I said or implied that I wanted war. Prove it and leave the emotion aside.

what do you think about Iran having been in compliance with the Nuclear Deal right up until 45 pulled out with zero actual cause

They didn’t and weren’t and never had the intention on doing so according to Israeli intelligence.

How do you square this with your recent claims that Biden was weak

Bombing them is easy, getting the Mullahs to give up their nukes os something totally different.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

President Joe Biden sought to assure Israel that he would not tolerate a nuclear Iran as he met with outgoing Israeli President Reuven Rivlin on Monday amid a major shakeup in Israeli politics and growing angst in Tel Aviv over the U.S. administration's effort to reenter the Iran nuclear deal.

In 2016, Iran had their hands tied by the multilateral nuclear agreement, had IAEA inspectors on the ground certifying their compliance, and had not enriched uranium to weapons grade level...

After Trump unilaterally reneged on the treaty, the Iranians have stockpiled 10 times the uranium allowed under the agreement, and have enriched uranium to almost weapons grade level...

So, are we safer today from Iran getting a nuclear weapon?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Biden, as a dog lover, knows that the bark is preferable to the bite.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

bass: https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/the-most-glaring-flaws-obamas-iran-deal

This link is an opinion piece from a right-wing writer 6 years ago. All he has are predictions, none of which have come true. This is similar to the other opinion piece you used to pass around from before the deal was even signed.

They didn’t and weren’t and never had the intention on doing so according to Israeli intelligence.

It's pretty silly to expect people to throw intelligence agencies from a half-dozen countries under the bus in favor of Israel, who wants nothing more than to see Iran destroyed.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"Bombing them is easy, getting the Mullahs to give up their nukes os something totally different."

What about getting the Rabbis to give up theirs??? about the same I reckon...

BDS

2 ( +6 / -4 )

"Bombing them is easy, getting the Mullahs to give up their nukes os something totally different."

What about getting the Rabbis to give up theirs??? about the same I reckon...

BDS

Well stated.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The only clear message that the US sent that I understood was when US helicopters evacuated ISIS leaders in Syria to safety.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Good thing Trump made things safer by motivating the Iranians into developing nuclear war capability, after Obama finessed them into abandoning that path.

Oh wait...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

This link is an opinion piece from a right-wing writer 6 years ago. All he has are predictions, none of which have come true.

I predict a response of: "Maybe for you, but not for me".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The only clear message that the US sent that I understood was when US helicopters evacuated ISIS leaders in Syria to safety.

Cite?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Can’t even handle in that region some taliban out of mountain holes, incoming militia drones damaging camps and a ‘defeated’ IS getting stronger again. All that in the area or neighborhood. So why should anybody think they could prevent already 60% enriched uranium being further enriched and put into Iranian atomic bombs? They just draw back and hurry up out of there, for good and understandable reason, and that’s it. But any of those guarantees or strong supporting words to Tel Aviv, Kabul, Bagdad , Riad etc. are not even worth the ink and paper or news. They are fake.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Bass: Yes, they have or are you telling us that Iran is in some way contained from proliferation? How?

The deal went a long way in limiting their capabilities, along with inspections. Trump destroyed all of that.

But not immediately. He certified Iran's compliance for at least a year after being elected. Ask him why he did that.

Ahhh, so basically, screw Israel

You can choose to see it that way if you want. I suppose that would mean your opinion is screw the US, UK. France, Germany, etc. Plus you have China and Russia, no friends of ours, agreeing.

Screw everyone but Israel?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I dont believe anything Biden says. Neither does he.

So what he wont tolerate today is likely "a-ok" next time. Like he said he wouldnt sign the legislation, then he would.

During a virtual speech for the Democratic National Party, the president said his trip lasted 13 days, tacking on an additional five days

"I just got back, by the way, from Europe, after being there for I guess 13 days – I forget how many days," Biden said. "And I met for five days with the G-7 nations."

The G-7 summit in Cornwall took place over three days.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The irony is that when it comes to the Israeli regime and Iran, Biden is just as disconnected from the facts as Trump was.

Did the Iranian population think that there was an acceptable deal that would curb American hostility to an independent Iran?

Yes, and they elected a President who gave them just that, the JCPOA.

But after three American Presidents showed that even with such an agreement, America would not honour it, or reduce its hostility to the Iranian population, they elected a President who will be taking office with a mandate that REJECTS appeasement and embraces active measures to free not just Iran, but the entire region, from American efforts to eliminate independence.

And the American view of all that is that the Iranian President lacks the legitimacy, and the Iranian military the technical capacity and manufacturing base to do anything but stand by while the US crushes the Iranian population underfoot.

And by the time America wakes up to the reality that all of that is the product of the same sort of self deception that sent German troops marching through Holland, on their way to quickly crush the French military, and then back through Germany to crush the Russians, only to find that reality would see them unable to do any of it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Biden tells Israel president he won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Translates to: “please give the Democrat party lots of maaaney! “Show me da maaney!”

meanwhile, strange large explosions of infrastructure in Iran these last few weeks.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The deal went a long way in limiting their capabilities,

No, it did not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-took-lying-to-new-heights-with-the-iran-deal/2018/06/07/b75f72d2-6a7c-11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html

First, President Barack Obama failed to disclose to Congress the existence of secret side deals on inspections when he transmitted the nuclear accord to Capitol Hill. (They were only uncovered by chance when then-Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) learned about them during a meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency officials in Vienna.) Then, we learned that the Obama administration had secretly sent a plane to Tehran loaded with $400 million in Swiss francs, euros and other currencies on the same day Iran released four American hostages, which was followed by two more secret flights carrying another $1.3 billion in cash.

But not immediately. He certified Iran's compliance for at least a year after being elected. Ask him why he did that.

Wrong again.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/how-iran-scammed-the-us-out-of-a-nuclear-deal/381014/

The rulers of Iran brilliantly upended the whole grammar of the negotiation. Instead of offering their nuclear program to get rapprochement, they began offering rapprochement in exchange for the U.S. accepting a higher level of Iranian nuclear capacity. They convinced the Americans that the thing Iran most desperately needed—a rapprochement with the United States—was in America’s interest even more than theirs. They convinced the Americans that it was America, not Iran, that should therefore make nuclear concessions to achieve this rapprochement. In the annals of flimflam, there stand few more impressive achievements. We are heading toward an outcome in which Iran will not only get everything it wanted, but also will pay nothing for it. And not only will the U.S. have been thoroughly scammed, but the victims of the scam will brief friendly journalists about their diplomatic triumph—and, even more pitifully, will believe it.

You can choose to see it that way if you want.

No, I always see the world for what it is, not how I would hope it to be.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Then you’d be a hypocrite for using them given your constantly pillory those sources.

Ok, so the Dems basically once again have no leg to stand on.

Yeah! Wait, what are you trying to say?

Exactly, how I was supposed to be perceived.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"we can’t have a nuclear Iran "

@bass4funk - Classic White entitlement.. They can have whatever they want.. Trumpy did squat about it and Biden isn't going to do nothing. you couldn't prevail over sandal wearing villagers in Afghanistan in the last 20 yrs.. leaving with your tails between your hind legs.. Hope they send you and your kids first arm chair quarterback..

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I couldn't care less about what Obama told Congress or didn't tell Congress. Their only involvement was, "It's Obama so we have to paint a narrative and oppose it. 'It' being whatever Obama was trying to do at any point in time."

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/how-iran-scammed-the-us-out-of-a-nuclear-deal/381014/

Jeeze, now we're going back to 2014 again?

You still haven't said why Trump certified Iran was in compliance multiple times. He promised to rip up the deal on day 1. What changed his mind?

Hint: Another opinion piece from 7 years ago won't have the answer.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

“What I can say to you is that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon on my watch," Biden said at the White House meeting.

Wheeeeew... Now there's a load off.

Biden has low hopes, at least for the moment, of reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, according to an official familiar with Biden administration deliberations.

Not low hopes, low abilities or intentions.

How these 2 ever made it into office is a mystery and a tragedy.

A tragedy, yes, a mystery, no.

https://rumble.com/vhotsz-how-to-steal-an-election-in-one-minute.html?mref=4kf0v&mrefc=2

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

does this also apply to people who write books? No evidence of anything, right?

Opinion pieces aren’t evidence of anything beyond the writer’s opinion.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Bombing Iran would have been somewhat easy a decade ago. The thing is that while the US has vast stores of weapons and munitions from a decade or more ago, what Iran will be defending itself with, and hitting American forces with, are weapons and munitions from today, and as Dan Carlin is fond of pointing out, it's been a century since old weapons, munitions, and tactics were anything other than dead weight against new ones.

A 'new' American missile was designed to meet specifications written a decade ago by someone intent on securing future high paying employment by writing them to suit a preexisting design of one corporation, designed and built with the most numerous, exotic, expensive, blinged out components possible, each piece in a single different plant with no consideration of the logistical problems its location presents to volume manufacturing, and then slowly fed into stockpiles intended to be not used, but sold, as it becomes obsolete enough.

A new Iranian missile is designed to meet specifications written last year by someone intent on his country being able to defend itself and drive into surrender the military might of NATO, designed and built to use the fewest, commonest, cheapest, functional components possible, in as many plants as possible, with a lot of attention paid to ensuring mass production even after attempts to eliminate such capabilities, then enough to meet immediate needs (training, testing, war gaming, and tactical usage experiments) are produced while a new design that increases capabilities and decreases vulnerabilities at all stages is being drawn up.

Think of trying to compete with a decade old 'new' phone against someone who has the latest model.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Blacklabel: does this also apply to people who write books? No evidence of anything, right?

They are opinion pieces predicting gloom and doom that never happened, written before the deal was even signed. So yeah, excuse us if we don't consider their points to be relevant today.

And if you support the tough guy approach, then fine. Support it. What you're saying is that you have the right method but put your faith in the wrong guy to pull it off, and that would be Trump.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

History will very probably reveal that, amongst the very many blunders, mistakes and idiotic moves of the Trump administration, backing out of the Iran deal was globally one of the worst.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites