It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is Irans official position on the attack and stand down orders?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Mach2




I suppose you could make an arguement that the US backed out, from Iran's point of view.

From any point of view America pulled out of the "bad deal" but they weren't the only signatories which is why Europe are trying to keep the deal alive but it seems Iran are sick of getting sanctions for doing nothing and are going to start doing something.

Brilliant work Donald.




posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: Aazadan

That's the problem with "deals". Any president can make one and any president can break one. What is needed is a treaty with Iran. A treaty is passed by congress and is binding. A treaty is a "deal" with the American people and not just a deal with the president.


Which is the entire issue. If it would've had to go through Congress, the deal would've actually had to accomplish something. The "deal" Obama and Kerry got didn't do #, which is the only reason Iran agreed to it. They knew going into negotiations that the Obama administration just wanted A deal, no matter how bad it was. That gave them all the leverage.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: Aazadan

That's the problem with "deals". Any president can make one and any president can break one. What is needed is a treaty with Iran. A treaty is passed by congress and is binding. A treaty is a "deal" with the American people and not just a deal with the president.


Correct. But, Congress refused to ratify it, which is absurd, but they mostly held that position for the sake of upcoming elections. It was by far the best deal the US was going to get, considering the US had a very weak negotiating position to begin with. Honestly, Obama messed up here and he should have pulled out at the end (which would have also been catastrophic to our future Middle East diplomacy, but less so than this has been), and gotten some language instead that would have forced Europe to take a more militant stand against anyone who attacks Iran.

Instead, Obama went with it, and assumed that rational, responsible, people would be running the government after 2016. Unfortunately, that has not been the case, and we instead have people running things who say that absolutely no deal can even begin to be negotiated in any circumstance without a very long list of preconditions that will never be met.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2
I suppose you could make an arguement that the US backed out, from Iran's point of view.

From the current administrations perspective, however, it was a terrible deal that was not ratified by congress, as any "binding" treaty or agreement with a foriegn government, as required.


It is what it is, at this point, anyway. Hindsight is not going to change either party's position.


And yet, even by that point of view, it is the US abandoning the deal. And with abandoning a deal, it means the other party is under no obligation to follow through on their end.

This is not a matter of hindsight. Literally every single foreign policy expert in the world said this would be the outcome of Trump backing out. There is no hindsight here unless you want to grant that the person making the decision is a blithering idiot with less than a toddlers grasp of foreign policy, game theory, and completely unwilling to listen to literally anyone on the issue.

If you assume that is not the case, then you must also assume that recent developments did not catch the administration by surprise, and instead that they want to instigate a war. This isn't some unintended consequence of some random policy, this is by design.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
Which is the entire issue. If it would've had to go through Congress, the deal would've actually had to accomplish something. The "deal" Obama and Kerry got didn't do #, which is the only reason Iran agreed to it. They knew going into negotiations that the Obama administration just wanted A deal, no matter how bad it was. That gave them all the leverage.


Not really. The framework was actually paid in the mid 2000's by the Bush administration, and it was negotiated for over a decade. The problem is that the US had only limited political capital to spend on this, largely due to Israel's US lobby with Israel being 100% opposed to this deal (SA too for that matter)... we had virtually nothing to negotiate with as a result. Europe got everything it wanted, as did Russia and China. Iran got most of what they wanted, we got enough to ensure Iran wouldn't be able to develop a nuclear weapon without us finding out and having time to respond, but little else... but that should have been enough.

Of course it wasn't, because Republicans wanted to throw things in there like Iran giving reparations to Israel, and restrictions on how and what Iran spends it's money on.

Note, this was also intended to be a temporary deal, with another one in place by 2030. With our stunt pulling out of the current one, we are no longer involved in the replacement either. Meaning, that even if we get through the current crisis, we have lost all say in how Iran conducts itself, for at least the next 30 years.
edit on 23-6-2019 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The Obama administration never even submitted it to the Senate for ratification. They couldn't even get all of the Democrats to support it. Congress wouldn't ratify it because it didn't accomplish anything. It gave Iran sanctions relief up front instead of holding that to ensure they complied. It let them dictate to use when and where IAEA could do inspections. And it just kicked the problem down the road 15 years even if Iran did comply. All the restrictions will come off and Iran can legally build a bomb. It was a joke.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



For the same reason felons can't have guns. Iran has no problem giving weapons to terrorists to use. Weapons with the capability to end the world should not be given to everyone.


You are funny. Have you looked at just how many the weapons the state sponsored terrorists of 9/11 really have?



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
Which is the entire issue. If it would've had to go through Congress, the deal would've actually had to accomplish something. The "deal" Obama and Kerry got didn't do #, which is the only reason Iran agreed to it. They knew going into negotiations that the Obama administration just wanted A deal, no matter how bad it was. That gave them all the leverage.


Not really. The framework was actually paid in the mid 2000's by the Bush administration, and it was negotiated for over a decade. The problem is that the US had only limited political capital to spend on this, largely due to Israel's US lobby with Israel being 100% opposed to this deal (SA too for that matter)... we had virtually nothing to negotiate with as a result. Europe got everything it wanted, as did Russia and China. Iran got most of what they wanted, we got enough to ensure Iran wouldn't be able to develop a nuclear weapon without us finding out and having time to respond, but little else... but that should have been enough.

Of course it wasn't, because Republicans wanted to throw things in there like Iran giving reparations to Israel, and restrictions on how and what Iran spends it's money on.


Yeah all of this is wrong. The talks you're referring to that happened under the Bush admin were discontinued (ETA: not really discontinued, more like they stalled.) But the JCPOA had precisely nothing to do with the Bush administration. The US had ALL the leverage heading into the negotiations. Sanctions actually worked for once and brought Iran to the table. Then, when they got there, we let THEM dictate to us what was up for negotiation. They told us their support for terror wouldn't be on the table, their missile program wouldn't be on the table, their human rights record wouldn't be on the table. And Obama and Kerry just said okay. That signaled to them up front that they could walk all over us. We should've told them that's not acceptable and to enjoy those sanctions, and here's some more on top of that, until they came back and agreed to our terms for negotiation. But Obama wanted it done before his presidency was over at all costs, so they gave up the farm. Stop listening to propaganda.
edit on 23 6 19 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Aazadan

The Obama administration never even submitted it to the Senate for ratification. They couldn't even get all of the Democrats to support it. Congress wouldn't ratify it because it didn't accomplish anything. It gave Iran sanctions relief up front instead of holding that to ensure they complied. It let them dictate to use when and where IAEA could do inspections. And it just kicked the problem down the road 15 years even if Iran did comply. All the restrictions will come off and Iran can legally build a bomb. It was a joke.


Because Republicans pledged to block it no matter what. Submitting it for ratification would have basically meant it failed and completely ended the deal, as no party would sign without all parties agreeing to go forward with it.

As far as kicking the problem down the road... welcome to treaties. Do you think Iran is going to permanently table their nuclear ambitions? Pushing it 15 years into the future, to potentially get a better government in place is a good solution to the problem, where another deal can then be potentially signed.

Ending that and giving them free reign to go nuclear is basically saying you're going to do nothing, because you're going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
Which is the entire issue. If it would've had to go through Congress, the deal would've actually had to accomplish something. The "deal" Obama and Kerry got didn't do #, which is the only reason Iran agreed to it. They knew going into negotiations that the Obama administration just wanted A deal, no matter how bad it was. That gave them all the leverage.


Not really. The framework was actually paid in the mid 2000's by the Bush administration, and it was negotiated for over a decade. The problem is that the US had only limited political capital to spend on this, largely due to Israel's US lobby with Israel being 100% opposed to this deal (SA too for that matter)... we had virtually nothing to negotiate with as a result. Europe got everything it wanted, as did Russia and China. Iran got most of what they wanted, we got enough to ensure Iran wouldn't be able to develop a nuclear weapon without us finding out and having time to respond, but little else... but that should have been enough.

Of course it wasn't, because Republicans wanted to throw things in there like Iran giving reparations to Israel, and restrictions on how and what Iran spends it's money on.


Yeah all of this is wrong. The talks you're referring to that happened under the Bush admin were discontinued. The JCPOA had precisely nothing to do with the Bush administration. The US had ALL the leverage heading into the negotiations. Sanctions actually worked for once and brought Iran to the table. Then, when they got there, we let THEM dictate to us what was up for negotiation. They told us their support for terror wouldn't be on the table, their missile program wouldn't be on the table, their human rights record wouldn't be on the table. And Obama and Kerry just said okay. That signaled to them up front that they could walk all over us. We should've told them that's not acceptable and to enjoy those sanctions, and here's some more on top of that, until they came back and agreed to our terms for negotiation. But Obama wanted it done before his presidency was over at all costs, so they gave up the farm. Stop listening to propaganda.


Exactly. Why should any of that be on the table? With every single issue you introduce to a deal, you make things more complex and less likely to succeed. Make deals that are issue by issue. Not only do you get some things accomplished that way, but it means that a violation doesn't end EVERYTHING, and instead ends only that one issue.

That is how deals work.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Aazadan

The Obama administration never even submitted it to the Senate for ratification. They couldn't even get all of the Democrats to support it. Congress wouldn't ratify it because it didn't accomplish anything. It gave Iran sanctions relief up front instead of holding that to ensure they complied. It let them dictate to use when and where IAEA could do inspections. And it just kicked the problem down the road 15 years even if Iran did comply. All the restrictions will come off and Iran can legally build a bomb. It was a joke.


Because Republicans pledged to block it no matter what. Submitting it for ratification would have basically meant it failed and completely ended the deal, as no party would sign without all parties agreeing to go forward with it.

As far as kicking the problem down the road... welcome to treaties. Do you think Iran is going to permanently table their nuclear ambitions? Pushing it 15 years into the future, to potentially get a better government in place is a good solution to the problem, where another deal can then be potentially signed.

Ending that and giving them free reign to go nuclear is basically saying you're going to do nothing, because you're going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.


They didn't pledge to block it no matter what. They pledged to block it in its current form because it was abysmal and didn't do anything. You've been drinking a ton of kool aid. It did precisely nothing. We have no idea what the current state of their nuclear program is because we can only inspect where Iran says we can. How naive are you? If you catch your kids doing drugs and you tell them you're gonna search their room once a week, and they're like "Okay but you can't look in that top drawer" are you confident they're clean?

Come join us in the real world please.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

No, they would have blocked it no matter what. This is the same Congress that blocked hearings on Supreme Court nominations for a year just to deny the President their constitutional authority to nominate a justice, and then shamelessly turned around a few months after we had a new President and said that it was a special circumstance and they wouldn't hold the new President to the same standard if a seat opened up in the final year of their term.

The Republicans were determined to block literally everything. It didn't matter what was or wasn't in the deal. An excuse would be invented (that you're repeating now) to justify not passing it.

And many more than the US are in this deal, every other party has no problems with the current state of Iran's nuclear program. That includes Europe. It is only the US that has a problem here, what's more it is only one party in the US that has a problem here.
edit on 23-6-2019 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: face23785

No, they would have blocked it no matter what. This is the same Congress that blocked hearings on Supreme Court nominations for a year just to deny the President their constitutional authority to nominate a justice, and then shamelessly turned around a few months after we had a new President and said that it was a special circumstance and they wouldn't hold the new President to the same standard if a seat opened up in the final year of their term.

The Republicans were determined to block literally everything. It didn't matter what was or wasn't in the deal. An excuse would be invented (that you're repeating now) to justify not passing it.


Yeah that has nothing to do with this. Both parties have stymied each other's SCOTUS nominees at the end of a presidential term for decades. Take the partisan blinders off. The deal accomplished nothing, that's why Congress wouldn't support it. It wasn't just the Republicans. I realize you've been told Republicans are responsible for everything bad in the world but this deal sucked, it didn't do anything, and that's why it wouldn't get ratified by the Senate. The Obama administration wasn't even sure they could keep enough Democrats in line to make sure Congress couldn't pass a veto-proof resolution condemning the deal because it was so bad. Of course you don't know any of this, because you're uninformed on the subject, and I doubt you even understand what that means, but it means it was a joke of a deal. Learn to think for yourself. Whoever told you what to think about this Iran situation made a fool out of you. I know better than to keep wasting my time with you though. I know your post history. You're one of the most brainwashed people here.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

If it was so bad, why was every other country involved in it, happy with it?



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Most people in Iran are good people, just like everywhere else. I have meet a few here in the US. They are people just like the rest of us. They deserve better leaders and maybe someday they will make a change. Saw this link to ATS posted on another forum today. It's about 9 years old and a really good thread.

The Beautiful Iran You Weren’t Aware Of!


edit on 23-6-2019 by LookingAtMars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 10:08 PM
link   
War is Business...Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco and Royal Dutch/Shell for well over a century.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, & Syria.....Who’s next?
If we take a moment to let this sink in, it becomes quite clear. Iran?
United States military bases are now present all over the world, well positioned to invade wherever they are directed to.



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17

Thanks for the replies all. That really helps on perspective.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join