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