Obama Wins Round One on Iran

[DonViejo]

By Leslie H. Gelb December 4th 20135:45 AM

President Obama has quieted the mob of critics on the interim pact with Iran, so they’re now attacking the next deal—the one that hasn’t happened yet.

The Obama team has won the first round on the six-month agreement with Iran by a knockout. The phony, misleading, and dishonest arguments against the pact just didn’t hold up to the reality of the text. As night follows day, the mob of opponents didn’t consider surrender, not for a second. Instead, they trained their media howitzers on the future, the next and more permanent agreement, you know, the one that has yet to be negotiated.

The Saudis lost most gracefully. They simply said this step has been taken and they’ll see about the next one. The Israelis lost most tendentiously. Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu called the interim arrangement “a historic mistake.” His minions went further to say that, in retaliation, Israel might well just trash the ongoing private negotiations with the Palestinians, probably the last chance for a treaty in Obama’s tenure.

More creatively, American neoconservatives and conservatives are now contending that with his first round, Obama has mortgaged America’s future security, conceded Iran’s right to a nuclear capability in the second dance, and lost all U.S. leverage. In sum, while the president may not have lost the first round, he has inevitably set the stage for doom in the talks to come.

To be sure, it is much harder to argue against what has not happened than what has, and the anti-negotiating hawks know that very well. They are well aware that they have Obama on the political ropes generally, or that he has put himself there. Critics are thus hitting alarms on the Obama security policy that ring true in domestic politics. He offended genuine foreign policy sensibilities by drawing a “red line” in Syria, then abandoning it. He has worried most American friends in the dangerous Mideast by initially being for, then being against, the so-called Arab democratic Spring and by an ill-defined “pivot” to Asia. And Obama badly needs to get his strategic act together in the region to clarify these legitimate worries.

But in no way did the six-month semi-freeze on Iran’s nuclear program concede any future right to Tehran to do anything, let alone make it easier for Iranians to make nuclear weapons. U.S. negotiators specifically stated they were not bowing in any way or form to Iranian rights in this matter. The Iranian negotiators sometimes seem to claim this victory. But they more or less have to; they have little else to show for their Geneva efforts. This was their “rabbit,” nothing more. And those familiar with modern day bargaining realize that any such American concessions would have been leaked a thousand times over by now.

full article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/04/obama-wins-round-one-on-iran.html

-----------------------------------------

GOP Rep.: Nuke Iran If War Is Necessary

CAITLIN MACNEAL – DECEMBER 4, 2013, 12:39 PM EST

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) said Wednesday that if the U.S. needs to use the military option against Iran, America should deploy its "tactical nuclear devices."

"I think if you have to hit Iran, you don't put boots on the ground. You do it with tactical nuclear devices, and you set them back a decade or two or three," Hunter said in an interview with C-SPAN. "I think that's the way to do it -- with a massive aerial bombardment campaign."

Hunter said he wasn't sure whether war with Iran was inevitable, but when asked if he felt military action would be necessary, he said, "I sure as hell hope not."

The representative said that any war with Iran would be a "huge undertaking," and that he thinks the U.S. will be cautious about military action after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

full article
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-rep-nuke-iran-if-war-is-necessary

[TwilightGardener]

1. RE Duncan Hunter: shit like this is why other countries pursue nuclear weapons.

Goddamn, the stoopid. Everyone knows we could blow up the world a thousand times over, but the US is SUPPOSED to be steadfast and trustworthy and responsible enough not to threaten to use them every ten fucking minutes like North Korea.

[Whisp]

3. Hillitary Clinton speaks that repulsive language as well. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

4. Well, any public official who seriously suggests nuking another country

deserves a butterfly net and an escort off the stage. I haven't heard Hillary say that, but she is over-prone to trying to sound tough.

[Wounded Bear]

5. Actually, no.....

this is @ Rep Hunter, not you....

But shit like invading Iraq is why countries pursue nuclear weapons. After all, we've yet to invade a country which does have them.

As for NK, well, Bush reneged on Clinton's deal with them, and then when NK ramped up their program after Bush's "Axis of Evil" shit sandwich, he re-negotiated.....and made basically the same deal with them, a bit late, of course as they'd already done some active testing.

[Whisp]

2. some blood sucking vampires don't want peace

we know who they are, and some names will be a most unpleasant surprise around here, but they are named by their silence as well.