Presence of senior ministers had raised expectations of agreement
Negotiators have been working on a deal since Wednesday
However, Israel has criticised the agreement and says it will ‘defend’ itself
History will again be made in 6 months when the “freeze” is lifted and Iran has nuclear weapons anyway. what is the real reason for the six month 'freeze"? It delays the talk of Iran’s nuclear program until after the primaries in 2014. Like much else of this decade, history will show it to be a sham smokescreen for the real back room deal which is ultimately removing all sanctions against Iran.
"Mr Obama hailed the deal as putting ‘substantial limitations’ on a nuclear programme that the US and its allies fear could be turned to nuclear weapons use.
‘While today’s announcement is just a first step, it achieves a great deal,’ Mr Obama said. ‘For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear programme, and key parts of the programme will be rolled back.’
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512625/History-Iran-agrees-world-powers-freeze-nuclear-programme-months.html#ixzz2lbrc2ptz
According to the United States’ own intelligence agencies (reported in 2007), Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and abandoned it in 2003. No change has been reported in this area since then.
Apart from unfounded suspicions, on what basis do you post such absurdities as this?
NB: I have no patience for an Islamic theocracy which thus persecutes Muslims who become Christian, such as Pastor Nadarkhani, and adherents of the Baha’i religion.
The U.S. And the Europeans have, apparently, conceded nuclear weapons to Iran. This is an existential threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia. It reminds me of Neville Chamberlain claiming “Peace in our time” after giving up Czechoslovakia to Hitler (I know, the simile ain’t perfect, but it’s close enough for me)–anyway, WWII began within the year. The consequences to the world of this treaty with Iran may end catastrophically for the world.
They are founded on the same beliefs held by Obama and the U.S., France, Great Britain, Germany and the other signatories to the agreement–including, since they agreed to the terms, the Iranians themselves.
Where did you get the idea that Iran is developing nuclear weapons? Enriching uranium to about twenty percent maximum is a completely different story.
This is an existential threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Israel already has dozens of nuclear weapons, so is perfectly equipped to deter and defend against a nuclear attack.
Why should we Christians give a flying fig about the welfare of the intolerance-promoting Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, a human rights disaster if there ever was one?
It reminds me of Neville Chamberlain claiming “Peace in our time” after giving up Czechoslovakia to Hitler (I know, the simile ain’t perfect, but it’s close enough for me)–anyway, WWII began within the year. The consequences to the world of this treaty with Iran may end catastrophically for the world.
This isn’t a final deal. The U.S., its Western allies, and Israel are far more powerful militarily than Iran. If I’m not mistaken, Washington has a military budget of over $500 billion, while Tehran spends a meagre $11 billion or so on its armed forces. To argue that the former are in serious danger from the latter is preposterous.
I came across this article a little while ago and you may find it interesting.
You haven’t answered my question. Please cite a news source to the effect that the West and/or Iran said that the latter’s current nuclear program has been aimed at developing nuclear weapons.
There are peaceful ends to which uranium can be enriched, after all.
These links in no way, shape, or form show that Iran has been developing nuclear weapons.
If you believe they do, please provide specific quotes.
Clinton made the same kind of deal with North Korea, and look what happened. So, I’m not too optimistic.
Another Obama foreign policy failure.This almost assures an Israeli attack on Iran’s Nuclear facilities
This is just a show for the public in both countries. Politics at its finest. Iran agrees to halt something it doesn’t really have for 6 months, which makes Obama look good. Meanwhile, Iran gets a reprieve of sanctions and their government looks good to its own people. Nothing is changed, and Iran, armed with nukes or without them, still poses a threat to Israel and the US as well.
It’d be great to see US foreign policy to stop being dominated by that region of the world. It really has brought the US no benefits to be heavily engaged in that region for the last 40 years. If this is a starting point for improved relationships between the US and Iran, that would be a plus. But I’ll wait and see.
Stabilizing oil prices and rooting out terrorism are huge benefits to the US, and the world in general.
Given the facts I’ve provided earlier in the thread, how?
Terrorism, as defined in the part 9/11 era, started as a result of arming religious zealots to fight a ‘holy war’ against Russia and then getting involved in a regional conflict between Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Iraq. What happened was not just, deserved or a reasonable response to any perceived slight by the United States - but it was a result of action that the US put in motion. Which is why I went back 40 years.
As for oil prices, does the US need boots on the ground in that region to keep them stabilized? I just don’t think so.
Our military is a precious resource and not to be used as the world’s policeman. If the world is so offended by something, they can send their children to go fight the battle. I like George Washington’s view of entangling alliances, and while the world has certainly changed and people of good will can disagree with me, I think a little bit of isolationist might be a good thing.
State-sponsered terrorism, sparking an arms race with Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni countries nearby, and a more aggressive foreign policy due to having nukes in their back pocket all threaten oil prices and lives.
Islamic terrorism did not start with U.S. support of Mujahaddin in Afghanistan. It even predated Arafat, though he really did improve on its effectiveness a great deal.
I think from the hysterical record Islamic terrorism goes back 1300 years or so. .
Yes, but it wasn’t directed at the US. That part of the equation changed with the US intervention in the Middle East.