Discussion for article #235030
Hatās off to Kerry & Co. This is the unsung nitty gritty hard work of diplomacy that in the long-run prevents the need for wars.
12 Likes
Regardless if the deal comes to fruition, Kerry & Co have done an amazing job and demonstrated what quiet, persistent diplomacy can accomplish.
Many folks scoffed when ānaiveā candidate Obama stood by his assertion we must talk with our adversaries.
I pray this deal happens. Itās so important.
9 Likes
Storys like this make me nostalgic for Teddy Whiteās Making of the President books! Why did he have to die of old age?
Just read a very interesting Politico article about Andrew Sullivanās sub-rosa role in this diplomacy from the very beginning until the very end. Mr. Sullivan debate-prepped Hillary during the 2008 primarys and followed her to the State Department. He remained as a key member of Obamaās Iran negotiating team after she resigned. He is reputed to be a key member of candidate Clintonās election team and is touted as the potential Secretary of State or National Security Advisor in her cabinet.
Reading the article reduces my anxiety about foreign policy drift under a Hillary administration.
2 Likes
Link???
EDIT: Found it, and you meant Jake Sullivan, not Andrew.
3 Likes
Letās see where this āagreementā leaves the world:
- No more economic sanctions on Iran, thus guaranteeing plenty of funding for Hezbollah, Houthi Rebels, and Hamas.
- Elimination of any military threat to degrade Iranās ability to develop nuclear weapons.
- A firm ānon-negotiableā promise to wipe Israel off the face of the earth from the Iranians.
- A 10 year time limit on any inspections; after 10 years, Iran is free to build nuclear weapons.
- No restrictions on Iranian development of intercontinental missiles capable of striking Europe and the U.S.
- So in the year 2025, Iran can load nuclear warheads on their well-Tested ICBMs and require the U.S. to do whatever the Iranians want them to or they will vaporize a large American city.
Way to go, John and Barack. In 2025, it will be someone elseās problem to deal with.
Wow, that is so like the Republican criticsā¦cat food, naps on the floor.
For the record, a nuclear armed Iran would have a stabilizing effect on regional politics. To date, only one country has been willing to use or sell all varieties and technologies of weapons of mass destruction. Thatās right, you guess itā¦now go back into your backyard bunker.
Very good article indeed. But as AlphaDad pointed out, it is Jake Sullivan, not Andrew.
What a mindlessly vapid comment. Well done.
1 Like
I sure wish TPM would stop shoring up their page count with AP reports.
Thanks for the edit.
1.) Not true. All sanctions remain in place until Iran proves that theyāre complying with the terms of the agreement. Sanctions will resume if they backtrack at some point. This agreement has absolutely no effect on other sanctions levied against Iran for human rights abuses and sponsorship of terrorism, and new sanctions could be levied any time for those reasons.
2.) Again, completely untrue. All the military might of the U.S. (and Israel) remain in place if Iran fails to comply with the agreement.
3.) The agreement doesnāt address other issues. This is a nuclear agreement, not an agreement on all other policy issues. Without nukes, it is impossible for Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, so the net result is the same; Iranās rhetoric is meaningless without the means to back it up.
4.) 10 year time limit on some things, but not all things. Some of the terms last 15, 20 and 25 years. Any terms can be renewed with the threat of sanctions or forceā¦ none of that changes.
5.) Missiles - again, this is a nuclear agreement, not an arms agreement. A missile attack with conventional weapons at such a distance is far from Iranās capabilities, is not an eminent threat to Europe or the U.S., and poses no threat of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. Were Iran to develop such a capability, it would be suicide for Iran to actually take advantage of it. Essentially, it is not a concern.
6.) If Iran complies with the terms of the agreement, they wonāt have nuclear warheads in 2025. If Iran fails to comply with the terms of the agreement, harsh sanctions will resume (which was enough to get them to the table this time) and if that fails, the military option always remains on the table. Iran will not achieve nuclear capability.
Finally, letās consider the alternative to an agreement such as this. More big talk and sanctions, while Iran does whatever it wants to do without an inspections regime in place? Thatās not a better situation. A regional war that risks becoming a religious and world-wide war? Definitely not better. What have you got, buddy? Tell us your big plan.
3 Likes
Great photo too.
2 Likes
I know the title of this news site is ātalking points memoā. Thatās not meant as an invitation to paste talking points youāve been sent from your local right wing committee, willy nilly.
Oh thank you. I was wondering about that!
That photo is so staged itās risible! It reminds me of how Kerry took his camera to Nam with him so he could film himself at war! Yeah, good job on the diplomacy end, but no need to ham it up like that.
Beats the Bush administrationsā supposedly hard-nosed negotiating strategy - N Korea got nukes under their watch.
2 Likes