world

Iran confronts U.S. at nuclear talks over Republican letter

27 Comments
By BRADLEY KLAPPER

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

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

27 Comments
Login to comment

Republicans may have just been doing it to sabotage the talks, but it's also dead accurate. At best, this deal won't last past the first day of a Republican administration - at worst until the next NDAA in September.

In the long run, it's better for America that it's to be seen honoring is commitments, which this one won't be.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

" In the long run, it's better for America that it's to be seen honoring is commitments, which this one won't be. - "

The commitment to help the Iranian mullahs to get the nuclear bomb? If the letter stated that Obama is not emperor and a future administration might take a second look at this disastrous deal, it is spot on and a reminder to the Iranians that there are different opinions in the US and not everybody agrees with "the futue must not belong to those who blaspheme the prophet Mohammed" Barrack Hussein.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

At best, this deal won't last past the first day of a Republican administration

I've got to disagree there. Any deal reached would not be bilateral but would involve all of the countries now implementing sanctions. As such, these countries would lift their sanctions to the extent that the agreement allows - and would leave them lifted no matter what the US does. A Republican president who chose to abrogate the agreement would be left with the worst of all worlds: Iran would be free in its nuclear ambitions, and no other country would join the US in sanctions, meaning that US sanctions would be useless.

I hope - hope! (vainly, perhaps?) - that even a Republican president would not be so stupid.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Republicans may have just been doing it to sabotage the talks, but it's also dead accurate. At best, this deal won't last past the first day of a Republican administration - at worst until the next NDAA in September. In the long run, it's better for America that it's to be seen honoring is commitments, which this one won't be.

In that case, wouldn't it be on the Republicans to do what's best for the country and honor the commitment? It's awfully optimistic of them to think that they'll be in a position to toss the agreement though. Who do they have right now that can beat Hilary?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Fortunately, the letter by the treasonous 47 has all but assured an already safe bet the Republicans won't get in in 2016. So, even if they can get over the in-fighting that will see Boehner out before long, and the party fracturing even more with the new "Freedom Caucus" or whatever it's called, the laws cannot be changed until 2020 at earliest, and by then they'll be too ingrained and the Republicans screaming about other things they've imagined anyway.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The radical right:

"The commitment to help the Iranian mullahs to get the nuclear bomb? If the letter stated that Obama is not emperor and a future administration might take a second look at this disastrous deal, it is spot on and a reminder to the Iranians that there are different opinions in the US and not everybody agrees with "the futue must not belong to those who blaspheme the prophet Mohammed" Barrack Hussein."

The moderates:

Any deal reached would not be bilateral but would involve all of the countries now implementing sanctions. As such, these countries would lift their sanctions to the extent that the agreement allows - and would leave them lifted no matter what the US does. A Republican president who chose to abrogate the agreement would be left with the worst of all worlds: Iran would be free in its nuclear ambitions, and no other country would join the US in sanctions, meaning that US sanctions would be useless.

Who are you going to go with?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Republicans can be so stupid. If the US normalizes relations with Iran, imaging what will happen to the price of gas when all that oil starts flowing into the US. How about 50 cents a gallon? It must be big oil that is behind this. Just as long as the increased flow to the US does not decrease the flow to Japan.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A Republican president who chose to abrogate the agreement would be left with the worst of all worlds: Iran would be free in its nuclear ambitions, and no other country would join the US in sanctions, meaning that US sanctions would be useless.

Exactly why it's preferable to sabotage it now. Theoretically.

Fortunately, the letter by the treasonous 47 has all but assured an already safe bet the Republicans won't get in in 2016.

It's awfully optimistic of them to think that they'll be in a position to toss the agreement though. Who do they have right now that can beat Hilary?

I wouldn't underestimate the collective short term memory loss of the American people - on either side of the aisle. It is as frightening as it is astonishing. Also remember that the Clintons used the principle of humanitarian interventionism while in office, both in the presidency and as SoS - and Hillary has always come off as a bit of a warhawk.

If the US normalizes relations with Iran

Under no circumstances is normalization on the table. It won't happen until the Ayatollah himself apologizes for taking hostage the US embassy. It is just as normalization with Cuba is predicated on restitution for the expropriations of the Cuban revolution.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's got to the point where the Republican party are scarier than the Iranian mullahs.

Perhaps their should be international talks to ensure the Republican party never again have the Whitehouse.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Israel's getting tense, wants one for self defense

"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm, but just in case, we better get a bomb!

Who's next? Iran!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Y'know, Superlib, it's not leftist or centrist or conservative - it is realistic. Some events are bound to happen; trying to prevent these is counterproductive. Instead, one should stay ahead of the curve by managing them.

Iran has a role to play in the Mideast. America can acknowledge this and work to ensure that Iran's unfolding influence works in unison with America's goals, or it can attempt - futility - to thwart it, thus ensuring that it won't.

Iran likely does not even want a nuclear weapon; they're more trouble than they're worth. What it wants is acknowledgment that it has the right, as a sovereign, modern state, to conduct nuclear research. Acknowledge this, set up safeguards, and let this first step be a precedent for future cooperation. The current situation reminds me of that between Japan and America during the years proceeding WWII: our interests aligned against European colonialism, and we should have been the best of friends, but suspicion got in the way. Give Iran a chance not to blow it like Japan did, and they likely won't.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Fortunately, the letter by the treasonous 47 has all but assured an already safe bet the Republicans won't get in in 2016.

You guys lost that bet twice now, wanna make it a third. Remember the quote they say about chicks.

So, even if they can get over the in-fighting that will see Boehner out before long, and the party fracturing even more with the new "Freedom Caucus" or whatever it's called, the laws cannot be changed until 2020 at earliest, and by then they'll be too ingrained and the Republicans screaming about other things they've imagined anyway.

Smith, what on Earth.....Lol

It's got to the point where the Republican party are scarier than the Iranian mullahs.

Impossible!!! Obama would most definitely be the first and with each passing day 604 more days left to go before that nightmare is over.

Perhaps their should be international talks to ensure the Republican party never again have the Whitehouse.

Now you no that would never happen, come on now.

@Super

I'd go with a NO Deal, which is THE best option at this point.

Iran has a role to play in the Mideast.

And what precisely is that?

America can acknowledge this and work to ensure that Iran's unfolding influence works in unison with America's goals, or it can attempt - futility - to thwart it, thus ensuring that it won't.

Again, that will NEVER happen. Hasn't for 36 years and is NOT about to happen now. Also, if you look at Iran's history, they have cheated and reneged on EVERY deal so far, but now all of a sudden just like that with a stroke of his scepter, Obama can change all that??! Anyway....

Iran likely does not even want a nuclear weapon; they're more trouble than they're worth.

No, they do and to even insinuate is like saying Man has never been to the moon.

What it wants is acknowledgment that it has the right, as a sovereign, modern state, to conduct nuclear research.

We are talking about a nation that is run by Theocratic religious Mullahs that believe in a prophecy that calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, all infidels and the so called Great Satan, this deal will NOT constrain or contain Iran. How about asking the Saudis and the Egyptians whether to trust Iran or not with this deal and I assure you they will think that this president is nuts. What you are now asking for is a nuclear arms race. The Sunnis and Israel are not going to allow it as they will purchase nukes of their own via Pakistan and when the Saudis allow Israel to use their airbase to strike Iran, you know it's really serious.

Acknowledge this, set up safeguards, and let this first step be a precedent for future cooperation.

Won't work.

The current situation reminds me of that between Japan and America during the years proceeding WWII: our interests aligned against European colonialism, and we should have been the best of friends, but suspicion got in the way. Give Iran a chance not to blow it like Japan did, and they likely won't.

Iran is NOT Japan, also the Japanese are not controlled by religion, that is your big catalyst there.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

We are talking about a nation that is run by Theocratic religious Mullahs that believe in a prophecy that calls for the destruction of the Jewish state

Replace "mullahs" with " preachers" and you've got the Tea Party - except the former has a greater tendency to ask their faithful for bucks to buy a private jet.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

...latter.....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Replace "mullahs" with " preachers" and you've got the Tea Party - except the former has a greater tendency to ask their faithful for bucks to buy a private jet.

No, you don't. It was a perfectly legitimate statement, so tell me what makes the Mullahs after 36 years now so peaceful? Humor me, please.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Ha! What makes the "mullahs" so peaceful? Nothing bass4fnk. Cause 36 yrs ago, they were roughly the equivalent of modern day Isis. The sooner world opinion grasps this, the better not to ease up on them.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The current situation reminds me of that between Japan and America during the years proceeding WWII: our interests aligned against European colonialism, and we should have been the best of friends, but suspicion got in the way.

Theirs may not have been as sprawling as Europe's, but both Japan and the United States were imperial powers. They dressed it up as pan-Asianism and republicanism respectively, but they had no intention of ever letting go. The tension arose because they wanted the same territories.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran confronts U.S. at nuclear talks over Republican letter

The thing that Iran and the Obama Administration seem to be forgetting is that the President will need 2/3 of the Senate to ratify any treaty. Well, unless the President tries to push his pro-Iran treaty through with an impeachable executive order.

But, seeing how he and his Muslim Brotherhood friends want Iran to have the bomb so badly I wouldn't put it pass him. If he does try his legacy will be that of Nixon, impeachment........

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You guys keep talking about 36 years ago, but you never mention what happened before that. The west orchestrated the coup of a democratically elected secular leader simply because he wanted to nationalize Iranian oil for the Iranian people. They replaced him with a brutal dictator who knew how to play ball, and the revolution and fundamentalist leaders that took over 36 years ago were a direct result.

You talk about not being able to trust Iran, but why should they trust us? Despite all this, Iran has one of the most sophisticated and modern youth populations in the Middle East. We should be doing everything we can to bring them over to our side instead of trying to sanction them and pushing them back into the dark ages.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" You guys keep talking about 36 years ago, but you never mention what happened before that. The west orchestrated the coup of a democratically elected secular leader simply because he wanted to nationalize Iranian oil for the Iranian people. They replaced him with a brutal dictator who knew how to play ball, and the revolution and fundamentalist leaders that took over 36 years ago were a direct result. "

If you talk about the Shah, he also modernized Iran, kept the mullahs in check, gave equal rights to women, and instituted modern enlightened law instead of Shariah. What the Jimmy Carter do? Throw the Shah under the bus and helped Khomeini take over and turn Iran into mediaeval Shariah hellhole, with covered women, homosexuals dangling from cranes, and permanent support the islamic terrorism.

Well done, US policy! That some people continuously harp about Mossadek but completely ignore the West`s role in the Iranian islamist revolution is amazing.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Willi

So SAVAK was just a bunch of friendly,local cops with the interests of the citizens at heart?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Lubracasi:

" So SAVAK was just a bunch of friendly,local cops with the interests of the citizens at heart? "

No, but they were better than the Revolutionaly Brigades and Shariah Police that you got under Khomeini.

When will Western politicians and their followers learn that not every rabble-rousing mob protesting against a local strawm are wonderful humintarians intending to introduce Western style democracy????

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Willi

Fair point. Agreed.

But let's not whitewash the Shah's horrible regime.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The 47 traitors letter

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The thing that Iran and the Obama Administration seem to be forgetting is that the President will need 2/3 of the Senate to ratify any treaty. Well, unless the President tries to push his pro-Iran treaty through with an impeachable executive order.

Treaties approved solely by the Chief Executive - so-called "sole-executive agreements" - are very common. For example, most SOF agreements have not been put through Congress. You might want to do your homework.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"American Public Supports Iran Negotiations, But Not All in Favor of GOP Letter"

http://jpupdates.com/2015/03/17/american-public-supports-iran-negotiations-but-not-all-in-favor-of-gop-letter/

When it comes to direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran, 68 percent favor them, while 29 percent oppose them.

49 percent of Americans say the letter went too far, 39 percent think it was an appropriate response. Opinions on the letter were divided along partisan lines, with 67 percent of Democrats saying it went too far while 52 percent of Republicans called it appropriate. Among independents, 47 percent thought it went too far, 42 percent that it was appropriate.

Only 18 percent of Americans think the letter assisted U.S. efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, 32 percent thought it hurt it. With 44 percent saying the letter had no impact on the U.S. negotiations.

Of Republicans, 50 percent said it had no impact, 24 percent said it helped; 21 percent said it hurt the efforts. Among Democrats, 44 percent said it had no impact, 30 percent that it hurt and 22 percent that it helped.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iostrune2: ... Only 18 percent of Americans think the letter assisted U.S. efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, 32 percent thought it hurt it. With 44 percent saying the letter had no impact on the U.S. negotiations. ...

How soon we forget the DPRK.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites