Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 14, 2015

First Thoughts About The Iran Deal

Some deal was agreed upon between Iran and some security council countries. It will take some time to read and understand the full paper and the annexes, some 160 pages, to judge the outcome. What the media will write about it will be mostly spin from either side and the devil is as always in the details.

The deal itself is a major infringement on Iran's sovereignty extorted though a manufactured crisis about an Iranian nuclear weapons program that does not and did not ever exist. To see the hypocrisy of it just count the nukes:


The U.S. has a bad record of sticking to international deals it made. North Korea was promised two civil nuclear electricity plants to be build by the United States for stopping its nuclear activities. None was build and North Korea restarted its weapon program. Libya agreed to give up the tiny preliminary nuclear program it had and the U.S. destroyed the state.

Netanyahoo's puppets in the U.S. congress will do their best to blockade the current deal. Should they not be able to do so attempts will be made to press the next U.S. president into breaking the agreement.

Iran must now be very careful to not get trapped into more concessions or even a war.

Posted by b on July 14, 2015 at 10:36 UTC | Permalink


But recall how ruthless the actions against Iran have been.
See video mentioning terrorist attacks against Iran: Iran Deal Reached on Peaceful Nuclear Program

Posted by: Tom Murphy | Jul 14 2015 11:14 utc | 1

What omre is there to do? GIve up all their military sites so it will be added to targeting coordinates?

What's the final verdict on uranium enrichment and waste processing?

Posted by: DamascusFalling | Jul 14 2015 13:14 utc | 2

I wonder how many nukes are aimed right at Iran from both Israel and the USA. More than a few I wager.

Posted by: Mark Stoval | Jul 14 2015 13:42 utc | 3

One thing that favors the ability of Obama to sustain a veto of a Congressional override is the U.S. presidential race is getting underway. Neocon/Israeli positions might have great influence on the Hill but they are duds with the electorate. Independents and Dems are not big in general on banging the war drum. Hillary will have to mouth support, which will reverberate in Congress.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jul 14 2015 13:47 utc | 4

I wonder how many nukes are aimed right at Iran

None. Why bother, everyone knows Iran has NO nukes. This is all about Israel's hegemony in the region which includes their best ally KSA.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 14 2015 13:59 utc | 5

the deal as i See it is victory for cash and corruption .vs. military, specifically IRGC and their never be allowed to inspect military sites waffle. the chances of the deal being under pressure will grow when the fine details are read. Victory for Rafasjani at the Supreme Leader.

Posted by: papa | Jul 14 2015 14:03 utc | 6

I'd be all for this deal being part of a plan of universal nuclear disarmament, applying to the current weapons of the US, Russia, and Israel as well as prevention of future weapons development by Iran.

Posted by: Inkan1969 | Jul 14 2015 14:25 utc | 7

In some respects the Iranians can claim a victory [of sorts] since they never intended to produce a nuclear weapon in the first place, all the concessions made by them only put them into the same position as before. They can still enrich uranium, as much as they need to fuel their reactors and for medical isotopes, and, in theory, can look to grow rich by selling its vast reserves of oil and gas to the West and open up its lucrative home market to investors from all over the world. Possibly a win win for Iran, to the consternation of Israel and the Saudi perverts. As our host rightly say's the devil is in the detail, and many people will try and distort the interpretation of the text. The bottom line in my opinion is the US electorate do not want another war in the middle east. That much was made clear when the warmongers received condemnation from ordinary Americans when strikes against Syria were proposed. Now the Iranians can concentrate on helping Syria and Hezbollah eliminate the anti-human Jihadis.

Posted by: harry law | Jul 14 2015 14:45 utc | 8

Should they not be able to do so attempts will be made to press the next U.S. president into breaking the agreement.

It would be too late then since the Europeans are getting itchy to start piling on Tehran for businesses.

Remember how Germany came well ahead in China!
Now Minister Sigman Gabriel is planning to bring another business delegation to Tehran.

And bad cop Fabius , well now he is saying that he too does intend to go to Iran in the coming months. I guess he will be speaking from both sides of his mouth since he was a $hit disturber during those past 22 months. Need to sell those Rafales , n'est-ce pas? I doubt the Iranians will forget but as good diplomats they will know how to tell France to go to hell.

As far as the Americans, well if they don't want to trade with Iran , too bad for them but in a couple of years , they will use governmental threats to gain business as they do everywhere else except in China.

Posted by: Yul | Jul 14 2015 14:58 utc | 9

. The bottom line in my opinion is the US electorate do not want another war in the middle east. That much was made clear when the warmongers received condemnation from ordinary Americans when strikes against Syria were proposed. Now the Iranians can concentrate on helping Syria and Hezbollah eliminate the anti-human Jihadis.
Public opinion clearly means little, voting might account for even less. We'll soon have a new presidential regime that can decide whatever they want to do, and the public will just follow along, or at least the media substitutes that represent the 'national discussion' will anyway

Posted by: DamascusFalling | Jul 14 2015 15:19 utc | 10

I tend to agree with harry law. I Haven't read the public agreement yet but so far from what I'm hearing and from a strategic point of view, out of 10 stars this deal is a 7 stars for Iran. Most of the concessions are done on the "new technological advances" front that happened during the last 5 or 6 years and were basically meant to represent more bargaining chips in negotiation. The access to the military sites seams to be a one purpose access, i.e. somewhere in the Parchin complex which I guess now, after 10 years of controversy, has been thoroughly emptied for a useful military/intelligence hands on spooking. And, even if the US long-term objectives are not re-alignment, plus obviously the required respect for a sovereign state on top of the Iranian plateau, this deal will open up a bigger political space for Iran to expand freely its goals towards the East and the West.

Just remember the mantra of the Iranian revolution was "neither East nor West..." and you can do that with an aggressive defense or with a charm offensive.

Posted by: ATH | Jul 14 2015 15:35 utc | 11

It's an unnecessarily long-winded document. I'd want to chop up a hard copy and see how many of the oft-repeated clauses could be (safely) eliminated, before I'd consider signing it. There are several things not to like:

P157 TERMINATED (subject to re-implementation)
P157 TRANSITION DAY (8 years after Adoption Day)

and clauses within/ under the following headings:

P152 Working Group on Implementation of Sanctions Lifting
P148 (6) Procurement Working Group
P147 (4) Decisions

There are 62 pages of entity lists, about 8 pages of technical tables and a few blank pages. And the remaining 90 pages of text could be reduced to 45 pages if competently drafted. So it's a 45 page document masquerading as a 160 page document.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 14 2015 16:01 utc | 12

So how does USA benefit from this? Obama has pushed it... vanity policy hallmark? What would the economic benefits be?

Iran aside, the biggest benefactors from this seem to be Russia, Germany, China. They will immediately flood Iran with products and trade deals I would imagine.

Where does USA benefit? I would've expected extensive stall tactics in order to keep Iran tied up.

Was Washington DC just plain outgamed?

Posted by: aaaaa | Jul 14 2015 16:19 utc | 13

Obama can claim this, as well as Cuba, to be a major part of his legacy.

Also, he sticks it to the people who have long defied and infuriated him.

Posted by: lysias | Jul 14 2015 16:30 utc | 14

@10 df quote "The bottom line in my opinion is the US electorate do not want another war in the middle east."

as if that ever counted for anything! give it up.. the war party runs the usa and no election is going to stand in the way of murdering or destroying other countries... that is the reality which runs counter to your viewpoint on the us electorate..

Posted by: james | Jul 14 2015 16:35 utc | 15
Moscow expects Washington to drop missile defense shield plans

Lavrov stressed that Russia expects Washington’s move towards giving up plans on creating the missile defense shield in Europe after the deal on Iran’s nuclear program has been reached.

Speaking on the deal in a "broader context," Lavrov reminded that US President Barack Obama said in 2009 in Prague that there would be no more need to create a European segment of the missile shield should a solution be found to Iran's nuclear issue.
"That’s why we drew the attention of our American colleagues to this fact today and we will expect a reaction," Lavrov stressed.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 14 2015 16:57 utc | 16

In general this looks like a very good deal for the Iranians. It is also a good deal for the US since it will reduce the chances of war. There a two points that are problematical however.

One is that the arms embargo will continue for 5 years. Iran is still threatened by an air attack by Israel. Does this mean Russia will not be able to deliver the S-300 antiaircraft missiles they already ordered and paid for? This sounds like a major concession.

Two concerns the inspection of Iran's conventional military sites. Iran rejected the demand for "unfettered" access to their military sites. However they agreed to this:

Iran will allow UN inspectors to enter sites, including military sites, when the inspectors have grounds to believe undeclared nuclear activity is being carried out there. It can object but a multinational commission can override any objections by majority vote. After that Iran will have three days to comply. Inspectors will only come from countries with diplomatic relations with Iran, so no Americans.

"Inspectors have ground to believe" leaves many opportunities for Israel to fabricate some documents and send them to the "inspectors" which I presume will be IAEC personnel. Under Amano the IAEC has been a tool of the US. Israel has been sending fabricated documents to that agency for some time.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 14 2015 17:28 utc | 17

Pres. Obama finally earned that Nobel Prize.

Posted by: chet380 | Jul 14 2015 17:35 utc | 18

Pres. Obama finally earned that Nobel Prize.

Posted by: chet380
good joke - altho at this point I guess you have to notice the good in addition to the bad

Posted by: aaaaa | Jul 14 2015 17:39 utc | 19

Great News: The nuclear industry finally solves its spent fuel problem. " All spent fuel from ... will be shipped out of Iran to a mutually determined location in E3/EU+3 ..." May we all be so lucky.

Also, the agreement is not that long of a read, if you skip the many lists of companies and things.

The bottom line is that someone is really, really interested in Iran not developing nuclear weapons. The documents goings into all sorts of technical details that Iran can not do, like explosive neutron generators, simulation software, and high speed imaging to see what your bomb is doing. All the standard equipment that everyone in the industry has, but they want to be sure that Iran does not.

Bottom line - politics in the 21st century.

Posted by: Peter Berger | Jul 14 2015 17:44 utc | 20

Escobar has an optimistic take on these accords. Though he does make my point 2 (#17) sound worse than the official wording I quoted.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 14 2015 17:57 utc | 21

b says:

The deal itself is a major infringement on Iran's sovereignty extorted though a manufactured crisis about an Iranian nuclear weapons program that does not and did not ever exist

yeah, it's so reassuring to know that this "historic moment" is fundamentally based on lies and nonsense.

Posted by: john | Jul 14 2015 18:07 utc | 22

Baseline is - I am pretty certain the Iranian negotiating team know what they're doing. They are not being fooled by the US. If they accept conditions, they understand what the implications are, and find them acceptable. Khamenei has supported them.

That is different from Syriza, where Greece is more out of control.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jul 14 2015 18:27 utc | 23

#20 Peter Berger

Good point. It is Brer Rabbit asking farmer John "please don't throw me in that brier patch". Iran will have the only nuclear power industry in the world that will not have to worry about that spent fuel. In the US the costs of storage (not disposal) of spent fuel has rendered nuclear power uneconomical. Today Iran has found a solution -- they can dispose that toxic mess to the West. I wonder if Nevada is willing to take it?

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 14 2015 18:33 utc | 24

The loosers of this deal: Saudi Arabia and Israel.
While Israel may fear that Iran will give more support to Hezbollah and the willing Palestinians, Saudi Arabia is now entering into a phase of deep panic and depression.
The growth of Iran influence is inevitable. It is the only country in the region that proposes a Islamic-based democracy that has been building for over than 30 years and still in the process of evolution.
After this deal, not only the West will stop demonizing Iran but it will recognize the political,social and economical progress brought by the Islamic revolution.
Saudi Arabia's main fear is that its people ( and the sunnis in general) start to look at Iran as a daring country and a model of progressive democracy and want to apply it to Saudi Arabia.
Thus Saudi Arabia's only weapon is to demonize the Shias. Yet any propaganda to do this will reflect negatively on its own Shia minority and would encourage terrorist attacks within the kingdom.
Therefore Saudi Arabia has limited options in front of Iran's and the Shias growth of influence in the region.
One of their option left is to weaken Iran by creating troubles in countries where Iran has influence: Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. Yet until now this strategy has shown to be inefficient and dangerous
The pillars of the Kingdom may be well shaken by the re-entry of Iran in the international community. It is doubtful it will survive long.

Posted by: Virgile | Jul 14 2015 18:54 utc | 25

Now the Iranians can concentrate on helping Syria and Hezbollah eliminate the anti-human Jihadis.

Iran, Syria and Hezbollah at the forefront of the anti-terrorist fight. Awesome.

yeah, it's so reassuring to know that this "historic moment" is fundamentally based on lies and nonsense.

Which "historic moment" isn't?

Saudi Arabia is now entering into a phase of deep panic and depression.

I love good news.

Posted by: Some Guy | Jul 14 2015 19:38 utc | 26

Fantastic graphic. A million words in one picture.

To your inventory of busted US promises please add the biggest: reparations promised to VietNam.

Seems to me this whole process has been a 10-yr. win for IRI. Recall how in 2005 airstrikes were imminent according to Hersh and every other Chicken Little with a keyboard? Bibi has been saying an IRI nuke is four months away for at least 12 years. It was through the negotiations that Obama could ignore Bibi beating the war drums for more US blood in GoI's behalf.

But the last decade of extending, re-extending, and re-re-extending negotiations has given IRI the time it needs to dig deeper and deeper into the mountain so that even the Northrop Massive Ordnance Penetrator won't reach what they've got, and what they've got is (will be) whatever war heads NoKo has sent (sends) them by sub. After all IRI helped pay for and develop those NoKo nukes for a reason. Now they are buried so deeply that IAEA will never get close to them, much less GoI/IDF/Mossad.

My question is that now that the negotiations are over, will GoI start killing IRI scientists and generals again, trying to provoke IRI into retaliating. Probably once Obama is off writing his memoirs, we will be back to the bad old days of Mossad hits every month.

As to Brer Rabbit @ TS #24, I believe it was Brer Fox and Brer Bear that threw the wily rabbit back. They set up a tar-baby on the road and caught the rabbit when he punched the tar-baby in the face. This is, essentially, what has happened to Bibi and the way he thought he was punching Obama in the face; i.e., the visit to Congress before the GoI elections. Only Obama is too smart to let Brer Bibi go.

Posted by: Denis | Jul 14 2015 20:01 utc | 27

Virgile @ 25 says, with some understatement that "One of their [KSA's] option left is to weaken Iran by creating troubles in countries where Iran has influence: Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. Yet until now this strategy has shown to be inefficient and dangerous."

The Kingdom will not change its strategy. Its takfiri proxies have been very successful so far. The blowback is going to be a shattered EU, as more displaced persons arrive on Greek beaches. Member states will fight among each other. Greece is already on its way to being another Serbia. Marine Le Pen should do quite well. A Brexit will probably make a lot of sense to the English in another two years.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jul 14 2015 20:01 utc | 28

Denis #27 Thanks for the correction. I was relying on memory here. Good catch, the parable has even better lessons for the present.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 14 2015 20:08 utc | 29

the Empire tagteam of republicans and Democrats only difference is their their; war sooner or war later thinking.
When the Democrats we can weaken Irans nuclear program with these bullshit negotiations , that's when they tag off to the Republicans who will start the war crimes sooner. Of course not excluding the war crime cradentals of the Democrats themselves.

These negotiations are a tactic to weaken Irans economy overall, with a view in the future to militarily attacking them later. That's if regime change doesn't happen another way.
While The evil empire is busy in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria through terrorist proxies, as well as Yemen and covert ops crimes in Africa, taking on a larger opponent in Iran, would be a stupid idea to attack simultaneously.

This is all part of the schedule, whereas a more sophisticated Empire in the Democrats want to weaken, then attack, The more brutal Republicans want to attack sooner rather than later, so negotiating is pointless to them.

Posted by: tom | Jul 14 2015 20:23 utc | 30

The announcement of the agreement was greeted with an explosion of anger from Tel Aviv. I take that as a good sign.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jul 14 2015 20:51 utc | 31

Successfull conclusion to a long negotiation. It was negotiation or war. A successful war by the black hats is now an impossibility with Iran sticking to its obligations - which will be easy. The crucial date is the passing of the un resolution confirming the accord in about a week. After that, if some wazack attacks them, they,ll have plenty of big brothers to hold their coats.

Posted by: bridger | Jul 14 2015 21:16 utc | 32

Col Wilkerson on the Iran deal

Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 14 2015 21:50 utc | 33

It shall be interesting. The U.S.Congress will posture, at least from the GOP/NEOCON side of it, but if they follow the CUBA playbook, then the U.S. will again be left out in the cold. The handwriting is on the wall, though it remains to be seen if the members will open their eyes and read it, or continue to bow to the money changers?

Posted by: Norman | Jul 15 2015 4:47 utc | 34

The alleged 'deal' is way over my head. So, no comment ...

BUT, since when has American opinion against war ever mattered? 1848? 1898? 1916-17? 1938-1941? 2001 and subsequently?

When our oligarchs want war, we end up with a black flag, or backdoor to war ... and always go blindly off to war. And, it is always the 'exceptional/indispensable' us against the evil them!

Does that mean war with Iran? I have no idea, but if our owners want the US at war, we will find a way ... no matter who the enemy might be. Living near Texas, maybe even the 7 states of Jade Helm 15?

Do have a day ... whatever flavor it may be.

Posted by: Rg an LG | Jul 15 2015 5:38 utc | 35

The deal is a bit better than I expected, Iran did an amazing job of withstanding an insane pressure from the West. Iran had to make some big concessions, but they are non-essential. Countries' economy will boom and Iran would become a legit region superpower, this naturally created a hysteria in Israel and Saudi.

The main problem, US has reneged on every single agreement with Iran before, and they can easily do it with current deal. Consider two points:

"Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency had “entered into an agreement to address all questions” about Iran’s past actions within three months, and that completing this task was “fundamental for sanctions relief.”"

Amano will do as US says, and if US wants for IAEA to not give a green light, thats what he'll do. Amano has been doing it for years.

Diplomats also came up with unusual procedure to “snap back” the sanctions against Iran if an eight-member panel determines that Tehran is violating the nuclear provisions. The members of the panel are Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United States, the European Union and Iran itself. A majority vote is required, meaning that Russia, China and Iran could not collectively block action.

So if anyone says "Obama wont allow this deal to be tanked", so what? Next president will be able to, at will. Under any bogus pretext of Iran's non-compliance, US with its minions will be able to re-start sanctions and there is nothing Iran, Russia or China can do about that.

Granted, EU by that time will have invested tens of billions in Iran, mass flowing of goods, and more importantly - EU is desperate for alternative to Russia's oil/gas, and Iran is a perfect choice. Therefore if US wants to sanction Iran again, it will face serious intransigence from EU, nonetheless US is still superpower with a lot of clout over minions, so they'll have to comply. Just like EU doesnt want to pay for US proxy-war in Ukraine, but are forced to. Just like they were forced to even initiate sanctions on Iran before and lose hundreds of billions in the process.

Posted by: Harry | Jul 15 2015 7:16 utc | 36

Some Guy @ 26 says:

Which "historic moment" isn't?

well, how 'bout when the Funnel Beaker culture invented the wheel?

Posted by: john | Jul 15 2015 8:11 utc | 37

"US will face serious intransigence from EU"...

huh, EU from which planet ? last time I checked they pretty much all insisted on committing suicide on US-demanded sanctions (while US laughed and evaded pretty much these same sanctions at will)...

Posted by: zingaro | Jul 15 2015 9:12 utc | 38


For your answer, visit
Visit it every day for a month.
2/3rds of all Mil.Gov contracts go to 'Defense'
(sic) aka Nazionale Ziggurat

Then ask yourself:

Did 'China' really attack and hack the entire Mil.Government employee database? Last year it was all Mil.Govs contractors who got hacked. Was it really 'Russia' then? My banker said my subcontractor business account was pinged a week after, from an ISP inside the US. Are there that many zombie PCs, or has NSA backdoored everyone, and are hacking anything they want?

They're probably reading this as I type.

How hard would NSA have to try to DDOS another US stock exchange, and blame it on Iran? Or $tuxnet a US nuclear plant under some crypto-DHS-Israel 'security' contract, like the Israeli 'security' contract at Fukushima, or the one at WTC, then let 'er rip, and blame it on 'Iran sleeper cells'?

Israel is DHS largest subcontractor now, and Pentagon's biggest arms beneficiary, which they deal around the world.

I guess my point is, you are playing with a $7B paper tiger composed of millions of fat pension for life Nazionale Ziggurat rice bowlers, but don't see how 'Defense' and a compliant RINO-ZIO Congress can craft another $180B profit center out of this treaty-that-is-not-a-treaty.?

I could draw you their next move, in crayon, in my sleep, to ramp up the already largest arms program since the Cold War.
Because, you know, now 'Iran Has The Bmob'!!

Posted by: Chipnik | Jul 15 2015 9:24 utc | 39

Now the GOP will have to work even harder to find an excuse to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age...

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 15 2015 9:54 utc | 40

Re: the 'hypochrite club' image on top of the post - Germany does not have 20 nukes. Actually, they don't have any nukes at all. Just saying.

Posted by: confusedponderer | Jul 15 2015 10:39 utc | 41

confusedponderer says:

Germany does not have 20 nukes

nope, Germany doesn't even have sovereignty, it's an occupied country and has about 53,000 US troops, some of whom manage those 20 nukes.

Posted by: john | Jul 15 2015 11:00 utc | 42

wow, the obama pinheads are out in force at moa.

fucking asshats

Posted by: john | Jul 15 2015 11:04 utc | 43

The suspect, Muhammad Abu-Shaheen, a 30-year-old resident of the Qalandiya refugee camp who receives a regular salary from the Palestinian Authority, confessed to six shooting attacks over the course of the past year, including an incident that wounded a soldier in a-Ram and the killing of Gonen

Tommy knockers, Tommy knockers , where are you, where are you.....wonder where this will lead to

Posted by: mcohen | Jul 15 2015 11:59 utc | 44

Meanwhile commentating on the Iran deal, Saudi Arabia expressed "hope for an end to Iran's regional “interference.” Put another way we [the Saudis] want Iran to shut up, while we bomb civilians in Yemen, fund terrorists in Syria to bring down its legitimate government, put troops into Bahrain to put down legitimate protests, give Egypt 12 billion dollars to influence policies there and generally fund any mercenary who will give up their lives in order that the Saudi family can frequent the best casinos and whore houses of Europe and fly anywhere in the world in their gold plated airplanes. Not to mention all the be-headings and flogging of "critics" of the regime. I for one would like to head a necktie party for this gang of perverts and criminals.

Posted by: harry law | Jul 15 2015 13:17 utc | 45

re 44.

wonder where this will lead to
You mean it will be used as a justification for yet more oppression of Palestinians? Inevitable, I would say.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jul 15 2015 13:19 utc | 46

Said some deal would get done with high prob. Biz community all go.

(from a friend and confirmation small snippet in news), about 15 days ago GM had a huge meet in Teheran. The title of the junket and all the signs said GM - We’re back! — A case of real men returning to Teheran ;)

(haven’t read the agreement)

Where does USA benefit? aaaa at 13.

What? The Sanctions weren’t working they were ‘eroded’ or ‘ignored’ in major ways, set to collapse in any case and the US can’t do much (outside of a bombing campaign) .. specially the banking sector was terminal fed up and Obiman is a puppet of Wall Street. And supportive of GM workers, say (GM got a massive bail-out way back when, 2008 iirc, care of O.) That fits together right nice. Also Kerry has an obsession since decades to bring Iran into the fold, imho.

Iran is one of the few places in the world where major biz oppos exist, it is large, it is potentitally rich (oil..), it has a consequent educated middle class, it is dying to be more ‘modern’ (ipads, imports, investments, cheaper cars, etc.), it has a stable Gvmt (the ppl are controlled), and color revolutions there have failed. The US, as I said before, would lose as compared to EU cos. Big time.

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 15 2015 14:13 utc | 47

Rg & LG @ 35: I'm paraphrasing here, but, when you said "When Oligarchs want War, we get War", you nailed it.
If anyone here thinks the Empire is changing its' position on Global ambitions, guess again. Global hegemony for its Trans-National Corporations is STILL the main goal, IMO.

I think this Iran "deal", is a ruse, and will NEVER be lived up to.

Posted by: ben | Jul 15 2015 14:24 utc | 48

do you have a point to make?

Those 20 nukes are US nukes.

They are in Germany under NATO administration, provided by the US for NATO. The Bundeswehr could technically be ordered to use them, by a US general (Breedlove), but all of that doesn't make them German nukes (in fact, a previous foreign secretary made it a point to call for their removal) i.e. the image inscription is BS, which was my point in the first place.

Posted by: confusedponderer | Jul 15 2015 15:55 utc | 49

@49 cf.. i think johns point is that germany is just a whore for the usa, like a lot of other countries i might add.. and that maybe you are nitpicking about the picture at the top..

Posted by: james | Jul 15 2015 16:31 utc | 50

confusedponderer says @ 49:

in fact, a previous foreign secretary made it a point to call for their removal

there have been numerous calls for their removal, for years, but they are still there.

Posted by: john | Jul 15 2015 16:50 utc | 51

Did Obomba kick Shillary out,or did she resign in protest over his Iran talks?She also initiated the Ukraine disaster also right?Nuland is her person?
And most of the comment boards at least the ones I go to,are very supportive other than the usual Zionists and their willing and duped followers.
And he'll start to earn that Nobel would be more accurate.

Posted by: dahoit | Jul 15 2015 16:58 utc | 52

Lysias:Maybe from our POV,Cuba,but I have a feeling Cuba loses.The old US embassy problem.

Posted by: dahoit | Jul 15 2015 17:00 utc | 53

The Ayatolla has declared Nukes unIslamic and evil.It would be a very very black mark against religion there and his authority if he wasn't truthful.I believe the guy,myself,which of course means less than squat.

Posted by: dahoit | Jul 15 2015 17:04 utc | 54

I forgot;The Zionist neocon warmongers at the NYTS and Wapo,of course, say Iran is untrustworthy.
The ultimate pot kettle remark.

Posted by: dahoit | Jul 15 2015 17:06 utc | 55

The Iran deal will allow oil to flow to Europe. It is a temporary measure to try and keep Russia out of business with the EU. The ultimate fear of the Atlanticists is collaboration between Russia and Germany.

Posted by: linda amick | Jul 15 2015 18:13 utc | 56

@ 37

well, how 'bout when the Funnel Beaker culture invented the wheel?

I thought that was the ability of adults to digest lactose but hey, records of that era are spotty at best.

Posted by: Some Guy | Jul 15 2015 18:57 utc | 57

I suspect this story was leaked from the NSA to Glenn Greenwald's The Intercept as a way of warning the Israelis how much more the U.S. could leak if they felt provoked: ISRAELI SPECIAL FORCES ASSASSINATED SENIOR SYRIAN OFFICIAL.

Posted by: lysias | Jul 15 2015 20:07 utc | 58


It is possible that good can come from a tragedy,they say the killer called in and confessed.

It will not lead to anything other than justice

Posted by: mcohen | Jul 15 2015 20:50 utc | 59


No not quite...It is a message to the Syria military leadership.....something you will not find in the 160 page report.

Posted by: mcohen | Jul 15 2015 21:04 utc | 60

I just heard on the radio a report that AIPAC (the pro-Israeli lobbying group in the U.S.) has come out against the agreement with Iran, and is urging Congress to vote against it.

Posted by: lysias | Jul 15 2015 21:31 utc | 61

@61 That's a surprise. Meanwhile over at J Street...,

Posted by: dh | Jul 15 2015 22:22 utc | 62

AIPAC wasn't committing itself yesterday. Now they've committed themselves to a cause that they will probably lose, and they will thus demonstrate a loss in their power, something that they are usually unwilling to do.

Posted by: lysias | Jul 15 2015 23:01 utc | 63

@13 "So how does USA benefit from this?"

The USA avoids wasting $Trillions on a war that has no purpose except to make the Israelis sleep better at night.

The USA avoids looking like it is doing the bidding of one Netanyahu, Benyamin.

The USA avoids all the blowback and unexpected setbacks that come from starting a fight that it won't really know how to finish.

Those are all "benefits" for the USA, but only insofar as their own incompetence has ensured that the only alternative is much, much worse.

A more thoughtful superpower would never has allowed itself to be manoeuvred into this position - and certainly not via the shenanigans of a mini-me client state - but if it is any consolation to Obama then this is an indisputable truth: the USA had already been manoeuvred into that corner well before he became President.

He has had to spend nearly two terms in office manoeuvring the USA out of that corner, and this is the moment when he can say that he has succeeded.

Which means that this agreement represents not much of an achievement in one respect (the USA should never have been cornered in this way) and a massive achievement in another respect (this wasn't easy to pull off, and Obama and Kerry appear to have pulled it off).

Posted by: Johnboy | Jul 16 2015 2:36 utc | 64

The Greek people finally respond. The house of cards is beginning to capitulate......

Posted by: easy e | Jul 16 2015 2:58 utc | 65

@36 "Amano will do as US says, and if US wants for IAEA to not give a green light, thats what he'll do."

Absolutely. The IAEA will be *the* litmus test for how genuine the USA is regarding this agreement, precisely because Amano does as he is told.

So if he reports that the Iranians have answered all questions regarding "PMD" to the IAEA's satisfaction then, well, heck, everyone can conclude that Obama really is serious about this agreement, because Amano would have been told by the USA to reach that conclusion.

Alternatively, if Amano can't be satisfied No Matter What then you know for a certainty that he is being obstinate on the orders of Obama. Which means that the USA has no intention of ever allowing Iran to re-engage with the rest of the world.

Amano's inability to act independently makes him the perfect yardstick for judging the USA's real intentions.

We could spend years dissecting *this* statement or *that* complaint from various Notable Americans. We can then argue for/against where that official's true loyalties are, and it's all totally unnecessary.

Just keep your eye on the puppet over at the IAEA, because it is abundantly clear that
(a) he doesn't think for himself, and
(b) he answers to only one master.

So what he says on any issue will be a true, unadulterated representation of what the USA really, truly, means, precisely because he will mouth words without any considerations of petty politics or the need to jerk off the critics.

Posted by: Johnboy | Jul 16 2015 3:06 utc | 66

I have been reviled in several venues for suggesting that Obama has negotiated a deal with Iran to get them to stop doing something that they were not doing to begin with. Anybody want to pay me some big bucks to stop beating my wife?

Posted by: Bill H | Jul 16 2015 5:40 utc | 67

that they are still there doesn't make them any less american / any more german.

Posted by: confusedponderer | Jul 16 2015 6:45 utc | 68

Iran Deal Heads Toward Showdown With Adelson’s GOP

This process not only represents a key test of Obama’s ability to deliver his most significant foreign-policy achievement to date. It also sets up a major showdown between the GOP’s single biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson, and the president of the United States.

Interesting to see who 'wins', eh? I'd imagine it's even money.

Posted by: jfl | Jul 16 2015 6:55 utc | 69

@67 "I have been reviled in several venues for suggesting that Obama has negotiated a deal with Iran to get them to stop doing something that they were not doing to begin with."

As far as suggestions go, that one appears to be a perfectly reasonable observation.

@67 "Anybody want to pay me some big bucks to stop beating my wife?"

No, sorry, that bit is not at all accurate.

A more accurate analogy would be your cruel victimization because of accusations that you have been beating your wife, followed by a grudging acceptance by your persecutors that they will agree to release their hold on your testicles if you promise to subject yourself to intrusive supervision.

Oh, yeah, and with no apologies forthcoming from anyone if that intrusive supervision conclusively shows that the accusation of wife-beating was, well, never anything other than a slanderous lie from a vexatious neighbour.

Because that's the thing I find so infuriating about this whole exercise: Iran can keep its nose clean for 10 years, and it can supply the IAEA with the information that Amano needs in order for him to conclude that, well, yep, that laptop of death was a fake.

Iran can do all that and more, and you can be absolutely certain that nobody - not the USA, not the IAEA, not the EU - will have the good grace to then say "Ooops, sorry dude! Looks like we were being lied to".

There will be no apologies, ever. Nobody will be called to account for their mendacity, and nobody will learn a damn thing because the instigators of all this will just move on to the next manufactured imaginary crisis.

It's what they do, after all....

Posted by: Johnboy | Jul 16 2015 6:58 utc | 70

@ Johnboy | 66

The IAEA will be *the* litmus test for how genuine the USA is regarding this agreement, precisely because Amano does as he is told.

We are in full agreement, however its a litmus test for Obamas administration only. Next US president most likely will be even bigger warmonger, and it wont be THAT hard for him (or her, if Hillary gets elected) to break this deal. Thats the problem.

In Iran's place, as soon as sanctions are lifted, I would transfer every penny and asset from the West to home or China. And every business deal in the future would automatically mean funds transferred to safe place, and in the West held only absolutely minimum.

Posted by: Harry | Jul 16 2015 7:07 utc | 71


There will be no apologies, ever ...

Iran Air Flight 655

Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air civilian passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from Vincennes.

All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died. This event ranks eighth among the deadliest disasters in aviation history,

The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives, but never apologized or acknowledged wrongdoing. George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United States at the time commented on the incident during a presidential campaign function (2 Aug 1988): "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." Bush used the phrase frequently during the 1988 campaign and promised to "never apologize for the United States" months prior to the July 1988 shoot-down and as early as January 1988.

Despite the mistakes made in the downing of the plane, the men of the Vincennes were awarded Combat Action Ribbons for completion of their tours in a combat zone. Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, received the Navy Commendation Medal. In 1990, The Washington Post listed [Lt. Cmdr. Scott] Lustig's awards as one being for his entire tour from 1984 to 1988 and the other for his actions relating to the surface engagement with Iranian gunboats. In 1990, [Captain William C., III] Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989." The award was given for his service as the commanding officer of the Vincennes from April 1987 to May 1989.

And the neo-con pigs call the Iranians 'terrorists'.

Posted by: jfl | Jul 16 2015 7:17 utc | 72


And denominate all gas/oil sales in Rial or SCO currencies. Don't trade too much with the US/EU either ... remember the Mistrals, Vladivostok and Sevastopol.

Posted by: jfl | Jul 16 2015 7:25 utc | 73

re 73. I'd have thought that the current crises (Greece/Iran)show quite well how difficult it is these days to escape from the Western financial system. I should think Tsipras et al. quailed at the prospect of erecting a new national financial system, the new drachma, etc. Equally the Iranians have suffered for years from exclusion from the exchange arrangements - VISA, etc. That's the way the US has got hold of your testicles.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jul 16 2015 7:57 utc | 74

After a few years of Iran sitting it out, the pressure will be on the Israelis to give up their actually existing nuclear weapons. The cynics among them must be hoping that some confederation of the Sunnis would make a lot of noise about wanting a nuclear weapon. But they are unlikely to get one as long the Iranians cannot get one. In the end the focus would be on the Samsonites. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of troublemakers.

Posted by: Ivan | Jul 16 2015 9:43 utc | 75

Obama presenting his case to the press and addresses some of its criticism.

He handled himself pretty good, whether he's being sincere or not is up for debate. But I like how he answered his critics. With logic.

Will the US still undermine Iran wherever it could do so? Of course it will. Which is why this deal needs to be comprehensive, free of any language barriers, so that there isn't any room for reinterpretation.

Posted by: never mind | Jul 16 2015 9:44 utc | 76

I heard on Democracy Now! this morning that #58 was not leaked by the NSA, at least not deliberately. The source was apparently one of Snowden's documents.

Interesting, that. Is it the first one of the Snowden documents that makes Israel look bad?

Posted by: lysias | Jul 16 2015 19:49 utc | 77

"After a few years of Iran sitting it out, the pressure will be on the Israelis to give up their actually existing nuclear weapons. " this should be the world peace movements #1 goal now.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 17 2015 5:04 utc | 78


It's the first of Snowden's documents that contains any specific content rather than discourses on methodology, isn't it?

Posted by: jfl | Jul 17 2015 5:22 utc | 79

Iranian officials, however, have called for stricter terms for new tie-ups so that foreign automakers do not easily withdraw under the slightest pressure as they did in 2012. They are also calling for technology transfer to become a central term of any new contract.

Smart. Thats what I would do it Iranians place as well. Limit imports of Western ready-made products, rather promote investments and manufacture them in Iran with imported advanced technology and know-how.

Posted by: Harry | Jul 17 2015 10:37 utc | 80

The comments to this entry are closed.