• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

SeaKingTacco said:
That probably sells well to a certain segment in the Iranian sphere. I doubt it is a serious endeavour to most of the Iranian leadership, who would prefer hegemony over most the Middle East.

It is difficult to have hegemony over a smoking, radioactive wasteland....

The only serious threat to Iranian hegemony of the Middle East is Israel with its military/intelligence services/nukes. Take Israel out and the rest of the Middle East will fall into their laps.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
I'll bet that both the Turks and the Saudis would beg to differ.

Exactly.  This a story - a very old story - of the struggle between three Empires: the Ottoman; the Persian; and the Arabian.  Some kind of dynamic tension between the three of them is the best that we can hope for.  More importantly, that tension can only find rest if we, the West, are not there to fuck it up.
 
tomahawk6 said:
The alternative is to stay the course with sanctions.Otherwise I think a nuclear Iran will be a major proliferator of nuclear weapons.North Korea helps Iran with missiles and in exchange they could get nuclear weapons.The trick is to obtain the technology to build nulear warheads for their missiles.Thats not easy to create on their own.Buying the technology would be easier.Whats to stop Japan from acquiring the technology ? Just time.

BUt the problem with that argument is that under the current sanctions Iran has come to within (by some accounts) 2 months from developing a workable device (or at least producing sufficient fissile material for one).

It's hard to square that circle.

At least under the proposed agreement the refining / enrichment capability gets rolled back, the highly enriched stockpile is eliminated, the low enrichment level stockpile gets reduced, and inspection mechanisms are put in place before sanctions get lifted.

The only viable alternative to the agreement is a military intervention.

But at what point do you pull the trigger? And how do you sell that to an American public that seems to be war weary (this latest issue with ISIS has tilted the scales somewhat)? Although I believe the timing issue will be moot, as Israel will most likely use the doctrine of preemption as justification for taking out Iranian facilities before Iran get any closer to membership in the nuclear club.
 
cupper said:
BUt the problem with that argument is that under the current sanctions Iran has come to within (by some accounts) 2 months from developing a workable device (or at least producing sufficient fissile material for one).

It's hard to square that circle.

At least under the proposed agreement the refining / enrichment capability gets rolled back, the highly enriched stockpile is eliminated, the low enrichment level stockpile gets reduced, and inspection mechanisms are put in place before sanctions get lifted.

The only viable alternative to the agreement is a military intervention.

But at what point do you pull the trigger? And how do you sell that to an American public that seems to be war weary (this latest issue with ISIS has tilted the scales somewhat)? Although I believe the timing issue will be moot, as Israel will most likely use the doctrine of preemption as justification for taking out Iranian facilities before Iran get any closer to membership in the nuclear club.

This is precisely why I don't believe claims that Iran was ever 2 months away from a workable bomb.  In my opinion, the only thing that one can take to the bank in the Middle East is that Israel will strike if a threat is actually imminent, not rhetorically imminent. 

Besides, there will never be only 2 nuclear club members in the Middle East.  It will be 1 (Israel), or it will be 3 (Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia).  If Iran were to get a nuclear weapon, the Saudis will have one the next day - bet on it. 

Iran and Saudi Arabia may jaw about Israel, but their biggest concerns are each other.

MAD works, as perverse a concept as it is.  In fact, I would even suggest that it still works for Russia even after 1989.

Harrigan
 
Obama seeking to use this as a "legacy" remindes me of the scene in "The Princess Bride" where Inigo Montoya says: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".

http://www.hoover.org/research/obamas-disastrous-iran-deal

Obama’s Disastrous Iran Deal
by Richard A. Epstein
Monday, July 20, 2015

In his famous 1897 essay, “The Path of the Law,” Oliver Wendell Holmes said that to understand the law, it would be necessary to adopt the perspective of the famous “bad man,” the one “who cares only for the material consequences” of his actions, but “does not care two straws for the axioms or deductions” of natural law. Our bad man just wants “to know what the Massachusetts or English courts are likely to do in fact.”

Today, Holmes’s quintessential bad man is Iran, as it only cares about what happens if it gets caught,—caught, in this case, developing nuclear weapons. With most contracts, people work overtime to avoid that problem by choosing the right business partners. But there is no such luxury in international affairs.

Last week, Iran and the six world powers—the United States, China, Russia, Great Britain, France, and Germany—plus the European Union signed a nuclear deal called the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.” Any examination of this deal has to start with the ugly but accurate assumption that Iran will, at every opportunity, act in bad faith.

The agreement starts off on a grand note: “The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iranˈs nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons.” But it is straight downhill from there.

The first problem with the deal is that it gives Iran an undeserved respectability that comes simply from being allowed to sign a significant international agreement.

Worse still, China and Russia should not be understood as adverse to Iran, their present and future ally. They are better understood as a Fifth Column against the West, and Iran’s many other foes, whose role in the negotiations is akin to the role that Vladimir Putin played in the embarrassing negotiations over chemical weapons in Syria that all but destroyed Obama’s credibility in foreign policy. Putin will be happy to take any excess uranium ore off the hands of the Iranians. But at the most opportune time, he might be prepared to return it to Iran if doing so would benefit Russia. The Chinese, for their part, also sense weakness in the United States and the West, as they build up illegal islands in the South China Sea subject to our diplomatic objections that accomplish nothing.

The remaining parties are our nominal allies who must believe that this nuclear deal represents a retreat from the basic proposition of Pax Americana—the guarantee that the U.S. will provide meaningful guarantees for the security of its allies. Our allies may well become less hostile to Russia and China precisely because they cannot count on U.S. leadership in tough times. The situation is starker still for the Israelis, who fear that the deal will embolden the Iranians to create more mischief in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Saudis are probably next in line in this belief. And both are surely right.

Iran’s promises count for nothing. Iran is quite happy to fund Bashar al-Assad in Syria, to back Hamas, and to launch terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East. It is eager to confront its Sunni rivals, most notably Saudi Arabia, by supporting their enemies. It is eager to annihilate Israel. Indeed now that the agreement seems in place, the Ayatollah says flat out that deal or no deal, “we will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon.”

Why then would anyone be surprised that Iran would be willing to make high-sounding promises that it has every intention to quickly break? Does anyone really agree with the President’s rosy view that Iran will reciprocate our respect with its respect? Putting our best foot forward makes sense with ordinary business deals where reputations count. It makes no sense when dealing with a Holmesian bad man who has no need or intention of reciprocating good will with good will.

In this sort of negotiating environment, reviewing the counterparty’s track record is a must, and Iran’s is far from laudable. Hence the guts of this deal lie not in lofty preambles, but in its gritty details of enforcement and sanctions, two issues which should be non-negotiable—a word that President Obama never invokes to defend our position.

One issue concerns the sequence in which the various stipulations of the agreement go into play. The black mark against this agreement is that it virtually guarantees immediate removal of the full set of economic sanctions against Iran, which will lead to an infusion of cash, perhaps in excess of $150 billion, into the country, some fraction of which will promptly flow to affiliate groups that cause mayhem around the world. But what does the President say about this substantial negative? Nothing. He just ignores it.

In his much-ballyhooed interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, he stated: “Don’t judge me on whether this deal transforms Iran, ends Iran’s aggressive behavior toward some of its Arab neighbors or leads to détente between Shiites and Sunnis. Judge me on one thing: Does this deal prevent Iran from breaking out with a nuclear weapon for the next 10 years and is that a better outcome for America, Israel and our Arab allies than any other alternative on the table?”

In fact, we should judge President Obama and his treaty harshly on each of these points. By providing Iran with billions of dollars of immediate cash, this agreement will help Iran fund wars and terrorist attacks that could take thousands of lives. To offset this possibility, the President has indicated that he will try to bolster American assistance to the various countries that will be affected by Iranian aggression, but none of our allies can have much confidence in the leadership of a President who has made at best negligible progress in dealing with ISIS. His public vow to never put American ground forces in the Middle East turns out to be the only promise that he is determined to keep—for the benefit of our sworn enemies who have greater freedom of action given his iron clad guarantee. The objection to the President here is not that he has merely failed to curb Iranian mischief. It is that his clumsy deal will massively subsidize it.

Second, there is no more “snap back” here. Once the sanctions set out explicitly in the agreement are lifted from Iran, they won’t be reinstated any time soon. Gone are the days of anytime, anywhere inspections. In stark contrast, Articles 36 and 37 of the agreement outline a tortuous review process to reinstate any sanctions. First the Joint Commission must act, then the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and then a nonbinding opinion by a three-member Advisory Board must be issued. If the matter is not resolved to mutual satisfaction after this process runs its course, any participant “could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this ICPOA.”

Section 37 then contains a murky provision under which the UN Security Council might possibly reimpose sanctions in part. But the entire procedure could take months, and at the end of this process Iran is free to walk if it does not like the outcome. Iran would also know that reassembling the original set of sanctions would be extremely difficult. Putting this agreement in place will likely end collective sanctions irreversibly.

And what do we get in exchange for all of the added risks we assume? The President claims that we have secured the best path possible to slow down the ability of the Iranians to make a nuclear weapon for at least ten years. But why should anyone believe that that will be the result when we are dealing with the quintessential bad man? The only safe way to slow down Iran’s nuclear capabilities is to do what the President claimed was necessary earlier, which is to knock out Iran’s total production of enriched uranium, subject to constant supervision.

It is all too clear that what Obama has offered today is a far cry from the deal he outlined to the country before these negotiations. It was easy for the President to talk tough to Mitt Romney in the course of their 2012 debates by then claiming it was “straightforward” that Iran has to “give up” its nuclear program in its entirety. As the President once recognized, there are no peaceful ends for which Iran needs a nuclear program. It is awash in oil, and it can satisfy any desire for medical isotopes by buying off-the-shelf products from any of a dozen nations that would be thrilled to supply them for free.

The agreement dramatically changes Iran’s status as an international aggressor. Elliott Abrams gives us the grim tally. Right off the bat, Iran’s nuclear program has gone from illegal to legal. The new agreement lets Iran keep 6,000 centrifuges and it allows the country to continue to do its own weapons research. It is likely that it can do a lot more outside the agreement as well. In five years the agreement lifts an arms embargo and in eight years all restrictions on ballistic missiles will be lifted.

It is often said that negotiation involves the process of give and take, by which it is not meant that the United States and its allies give and Iran takes. Unfortunately, that pattern has been observed in this recent deal. Iran had no hesitation in stating in the eleventh hour that various limitations on its sovereignty, e.g. inspections, were “unacceptable.” Today its position is that the sanctions must be lifted immediately. But the Obama administration was extraordinary reluctant to say that any Iranian proposal was unacceptable. The drama in the negotiation was how far the Iranians would push the agreement to their side of the table—which is exactly what to expect from any negotiation that relies exclusively on carrots and disdains all sticks.

This agreement does not require detailed study to conclude that it is a dead loser. Nonetheless, the United States has put it forward in the United Nations for approval before Congress has spoken, and the President, incorrigible as ever, has announced that he will veto any Congressional legislation that seeks to block the treaty. Many members of his own party do not share the President’s unfailing instinct for self-destruction. They should join the Republicans to reject the treaty by veto-proof majorities in both houses before the President and his team can do any further harm.
 
Well this is comforting to know. Obama's legacy is now confirmed: He will be the man remembered for igniting the Mid East nuclear arms race. Once Iran is free of restrictions they will race full tilt to get a nuclear weapons capability, and Saudi arabia won't rest until they have one as well. The Turks, another contender for the role of regional hegemon, may be slower off the mark, but they certainly won't sitr still once they realize the Arabs and Persians have nuclear wweapons or are close to getting them.

An astounding example of "Smart Diplomacy" in action:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-secret-iran-deals-exposed/2015/07/27/26d14dbc-3460-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html

Obama’s secret Iran deals exposed

President Obama promised that his nuclear deal with Iran would not be “based on trust” but rather “unprecedented verification.” Now it turns out Obama’s verification regime is based on trust after all — trust in two secret side agreements negotiated exclusively between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that apparently no one (including the Obama administration) has seen.

Worse, Obama didn’t even reveal the existence of these secret side deals to Congress when he transmitted the nuclear accord to Capitol Hill. The agreements were uncovered, completely by chance, by two members of Congress — Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) — who were in Vienna meeting with the U.N.-releated agency.

Marc Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. 

In an interview, Pompeo told me that he and Cotton were meeting with the deputy director of the IAEA and the agency’s two top Iran negotiators just days after the nuclear accord was announced, when they asked how the agency will carry out verification at the Iranian military complex at Parchin. IAEA officials told them, quite casually, that the details were all covered in agreements negotiated between the IAEA and the Iranian government. It was the first they had heard of the side deals.

Pompeo says they asked whether they could see those agreements. He says IAEA officials replied, “ ‘Oh no, of course not, no, you’re not going to get to see those.’ And so everybody on our side of the table asked, ‘Has Secretary Kerry seen these?’ ‘No, Secretary Kerry hasn’t seen them. No American is ever going to get to see them.’ ”

It turns out that only the two parties — the IAEA and Iran — get to see the actual agreements (though you can see a picture of Iranian and IAEA officials holding up what appear to be the secret accords here).

The Iran deal: Who’s for it and who’s not

Iran and major world powers announced a long-awaited agreement on Tuesday that aims to prevent the Islamic Republic from building a nuclear weapon in return for relief from tough economic sanctions. Here, a look at some of the deal’s major players and critics.

In other words, Obama is gambling our national security and handing over $150 billion in sanctions relief to Iran, based on secret agreements negotiated between the IAEA and Iran that no U.S. official has seen.

“We need to see these documents in order to evaluate whether or not verification is ample to make such a big concession to the Iranians,” Pompeo says. “No member of Congress should be asked to vote on an agreement of this historic importance absent knowing what the terms of the verification process are.”

In fact, the Obama administration’s failure to transmit these side deals to Congress is a violation of the law. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which Obama signed into law, explicitly states that the president must transmit the nuclear agreement along with “all related materials and annexes.” That clearly covers any side agreements covering the verification of Iran’s compliance.

Susan Rice told reporters the administration “provided Congress with all of the documents that we drafted or were part of drafting and all documents shared with us by the IAEA.” Sorry, that’s not what the law requires.

But the administration cannot hand over what it apparently does not have. For Pompeo, that raises even more troubling questions. “Why on earth is the president letting the negotiations [on verification] be negotiated by someone other than us?” he asks. How can it be that the administration would “do a deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, that’s spent its entire existence cheating, and we would sign off on a deal with them whose core provisions are completely unknown to our side? It’s remarkable.”

What is in the secret side deals? According to Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the side deals governing inspections of the Parchin military complex allows Iran to collect its own soil samples, instead of IAEA inspectors. That is like letting Lance Armstrong collect his own blood samples for a doping investigation. “I suspect if we’re able to actually go over [these agreements], you find half a dozen that you would stare at and realize we really didn’t get verification,” Pompeo says.

Congress should insist on seeing the side deals before it votes on the Iran accord. The only way to stop the agreement is for Congress to override the president’s veto through a resolution of disapproval with a two-thirds vote in both houses. That would require 13 Senate Democrats and 45 House Democrats to vote no — which would have been highly unlikely until the revelation of these secret deals.

It remains to be seen whether the revelation of the secret side deals will make it impossible for Democrats to vote in favor of the Iran agreement. How, Pompeo asks, can they explain to their constituents that they voted for a nuclear deal with Iran without knowing how it will be verified?

“My mission in the next 45 days is to convince 45 House Democrats to override the veto,” Pompeo says. “It’s a long climb, but this is important.”

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
 
Not really surprising: Khamenei and the other Ayatollahs/clerics are the ones who want this "hudna"- a strategic treaty with enemies which they can break anytime. PM Rouhani and the diplomats Kerry are seeing face to face are merely the public face for the clerics.

Reuters

Iran's parliament has no power over nuclear deal, top negotiator says
Sat Aug 1, 2015 10:08am EDT
DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran's parliament does not have authority over the nuclear agreement signed with world powers last month, the Islamic Republic's top nuclear negotiator was quoted as saying on Saturday.

The comments from Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's atomic energy agency, are the latest volley in a lengthy battle between Iranian officials supportive of the deal, and hardliners who are skeptical of it.

The conservative-dominated parliament in June passed a bill imposing strict conditions on any nuclear deal, such as barring international inspectors from Iran's military sites.

(....SNIPPED)
 
One view of what could happen if the Iran deal unravels:

Foreign Policy

Israel Could Lose America’s Democrats for a Generation

If the nuclear deal collapses, U.S. liberals will never forgive Israel for its starring role in a catastrophic turn of events.

Israel Could Lose America’s Democrats for a Generation

Last week, I went to hear Secretary of State John Kerry defend the Iran nuclear deal at the Council on Foreign Relations. Richard Haass, president of the organization, began by asking Kerry to explain what “we have gained by this agreement.” The first thing the secretary said was that he was “very proud” of his “100 percent voting record for Israel” as a senator. The second thing he said was that nobody had worked harder than he had to bring peace to the Middle East. The third thing was, “I consider Bibi” — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — “a friend.” What we have gained, Kerry summed up, is “safety and security … for Israel and the region.”

I found it astonishing that Kerry had answered a question about the most consequential diplomatic agreement the United States has signed over the last four decades as if he were the foreign minister of another country. Wasn’t the “we” in question “the American people”? Of course, Kerry’s political instincts were perfectly accurate. He knows that he and President Barack Obama don’t need to persuade the Democratic left of the deal’s merits and needn’t bother trying to convert Republican conservatives. He needs to reach the people who view American national security as not just inextricable but indistinguishable from Israeli security.
(...SNIPPED)

Plus more rhetoric from Rouhani:

Reuters

Rouhani says nuclear deal a 'third way' for Iranian foreign policy
Sun Aug 2, 2015 4:37pm EDT

By Sam Wilkin and Babak Dehghanpisheh

DUBAI/BEIRUT (Reuters) - President Hassan Rouhani affirmed his confidence in Iran's nuclear deal with world powers on Sunday, tackling the criticisms of hardliners and highlighting the achievements of his two-year-old presidency.

With one eye on a likely run for re-election in 2017, Rouhani used a live interview on state TV to tout the deal as a new "third way" for Iranian foreign policy, dismissing hardliners' criticism that he had capitulated to the West.

"This idea that we have two options before the world, either submit to it or defeat it, is illogical: there is also a third way, of constructive cooperation with the world in a framework of national interests," he said.

(...SNIPPED)
 
Good news for Airbus if this pushes through. How do we know Hezbollah won't implant listening devices on these planes?

Reuters

Iran plans to buy 80-90 Boeing, Airbus planes a year, post sanctions
Sun Aug 2, 2015 4:33am EDT

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran plans to buy as many as 90 planes per year from Boeing BA.N and Airbus AIR.PA to revamp its antiquated fleet once Western sanctions are lifted, its state news agency IRNA quoted a senior aviation official as saying on Sunday.

"Iran will buy a total of 80-90 planes per year from the two aviation giants in the first phase of renovating its air fleet," said Mohammad Khodakarami, the caretaker director of Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization, according to IRNA.

Last month's nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers has raised the prospect of banking and trade sanctions on Iran being lifted, perhaps around the end of this year, which would mean a chance to renew a fleet of commercial aircraft whose average age of 23 years is almost twice the international average.

(...SNIPPED)
 
Not sure whether to believe this or not:

Diplomat

Will Iran Order 150 New Fighter Jets From China?
Is Tehran going on a military shopping spree in Asia?

By Franz-Stefan Gady
August 04, 2015

China allegedly has agreed to sell 150 J-10 multirole fighter jets to Iran, the Israeli military intelligence website DEBKAfile reported last week.

“Beijing has agreed to sell Tehran 150 of these sophisticated jets,” the website states, based on information obtained from unnamed intelligence and military sources.

No public officials from either country have denied or confirmed the weapon deal so far. It is also unclear whether the purchase would include the Chengdu J-10A or the modern J-10B version of the plane.

However, according to other media reports earlier last month, Beijing is considering selling the J-10B fighter to potential customers in in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Pakistan reportedly already signed a deal for the purchase of 36 J-10A jets in 2009.

(...SNIPPED)
 
S.M.A. said:
Not sure whether to believe this or not:

Diplomat

Was there anything stopping them from buying Russian or Chinese hardware before other than lacking funds?

I figured that if Lockheed wasn't so busy trying to push the F-35, they'd be offering refurbed or new F-16s to Iran to match the ones that Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the UAE already have, and that the Iraqis are in the process of receiving.
 
chanman said:
I figured that if Lockheed wasn't so busy trying to push the F-35, they'd be offering refurbed or new F-16s to Iran to match the ones that Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the UAE already have, and that the Iraqis are in the process of receiving.

Really? Have you been paying attention to what has happened in that part of the world since 1979? Not exactly sure that that idea would fly (pardon the pun) to the countries you named, and many others not named.
 
The one thing I think that will save us from a religious nuclear war is greed. The IRGC is becoming a Junta using the Ayatollahs as a cover. At some point the Junta is going ensure the nutbars can't threaten their earthly delights. The Ayatollahs are going to find themselves in gilded cages with their protectors, now their jailors. Anyone that threatens the Junta hold is going to end up dead, jailed or disappeared. The IRGC will continue to exert pressure on the region through proxies, which is really the main type of warfare for all nuclear powers. I agree that Israel is no real threat to Iran and they know it, but the Saudi's are and always will be. 
 
Rhetoric over reason? Obama continues to defend the deal with Iran despite Congressional opposition:

Reuters

Obama defends Iran nuclear deal as U.S. diplomacy over war
Wed Aug 5, 2015 5:53pm EDT

By Julia Edwards and Doina Chiacu

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama defended the U.S.-led international nuclear deal with Iran on Wednesday against a furious lobbying effort by political opponents and Israel and said abandoning the agreement would open up the prospect of war.

Invoking the Cold War peacemaking initiatives of former U.S. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, Obama said if Congress blocked the deal it would accelerate Tehran's path to a bomb and severely damage America's credibility.

Obama said "alternatives to military actions will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports."

(...SNIPPED)

Chronicle Herald

Despite relative merits, Iran nuclear deal may not pass muster
FRANK P. HARVEY
Published August 5, 2015 - 12:57pm

The U.S. congress has about six weeks to debate and vote on the Iran nuclear deal. Judging by the grilling Secretary of State John Kerry and his team are getting in House and Senate hearings, the deal’s proponents are having a hard time addressing at least four key problems.

• First, the agreement does not dismantle the country’s nuclear industry or deny Iran the right to enrich uranium; that battle is over.


The measures are designed instead to disassemble, restrict and confine important parts of the country’s nuclear program to achieve one specific goal: increase the timeline required for Iran to enrich a sufficient quantity of weapons-grade uranium to produce a nuclear bomb, its “breakout capacity.”

(...SNIPPED)
 
Here we go again...Obama plays the "blame game" on the last administration yet again.

Foreign Policy

To Sell Iran Nuclear Deal, Obama Invokes Iraq War Fiasco

Warning Congress not to derail his agreement, the president compares critics of the Iran nuclear accord to those who backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


President Barack Obama on Wednesday made his strongest and most detailed argument to date for his landmark nuclear deal with Iran by likening opponents of the agreement to supporters of the Iraq War — and warning that congressional rejection of the accord could pave the way to a new, bloody, and unpredictable Mideast conflict.

Speaking to a crowd of students, professors, and diplomats at American University, Obama said the nuclear deal now being reviewed by Congress represented the “most consequential foreign-policy debate” since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, and warned lawmakers not to fall for similar arguments that could lead to another disastrous war.

(...SNIPPED)
 
To think this is the same country the US recently reached a nuclear deal with:  :o

US Naval Institute

Crew of Iranian Frigate Points Weapons at U.S. Navy Helo, Coalition Auxiliary

By: Sam LaGrone
August 5, 2015 2:55 PM • Updated: August 5, 2015 3:22 PM

The crew of an Iranian frigate briefly trained crew served weapons on a U.S. Navy helicopter and a coalition auxiliary ship during a July 25 incident in the Gulf of Aden, an U.S. Navy official told USNI News on Wednesday.
Iranian Navy frigate IRS Alvand (F 71) engaged the MH-60R Seahawk and the auxiliary during a training operation with the USS Farragut (DDG-99).

The Navy did neither disclose the nationality of the auxiliary nor provide details of the type of ship.

Alvand — a 1960s era Vosper-class frigate built in the U.K. — came within 200 yards of the auxiliary and briefly pointed crew served weapons at both the auxiliary and the Seahawk before breaking away, the official told USNI News.

(...SNIPPED)
 
Sanctions haven't been fully lifted and already ships from countries not allied to Iran are trickling in:

Reuters

Container ships make slow return to Iran after nuke deal
Thu Aug 6, 2015 9:49am EDT
By Jonathan Saul

LONDON (Reuters) - The first international container ships began arriving in Iran this week after the nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers, yet many ship owners remain wary of resuming business until sanctions are removed - still some months away.

Iran had depended on foreign ships for much of its imports, but has relied more on land routes and its own commercial fleet, particularly since 2012, as layers of sanctions led to an exodus of Western shipping firms, leading to supply disruptions.

In one of the first signs of change, the world's third largest container shipping group, France's CMA CGM, said on Monday it would restart services to Iran in early August.

(...SNIPPED)
 
cupper said:
Really? Have you been paying attention to what has happened in that part of the world since 1979? Not exactly sure that that idea would fly (pardon the pun) to the countries you named, and many others not named.

It would fly well with Lockheed's shareholders and as a 40-year old design, the level of equipment available for the F-16 runs the gamut from '70's day fighter' through to the UAE's newest Block 60s. Now whether Lockheed-Martin or US allies in the ME have more influence over US export restrictions (which may well limit them to selling less advanced models, like what Taiwan got), I've got no idea.

If those neighbouring countries can't stop the sale, then it might still spur them to spend more on upgrading their existing fighters or replacing older planes (like Turkey's F-4Es) with the F-35. Even if Lockheed doesn't make the sale, Dassault and Sukhoi selling Rafales or Flankers would be hardly an improvement.
 
Back
Top