Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[ChrisL]

All of the recent events in the ME are advantageous to Iran.

Analysis Iran is no partner in the fight against the Islamic State The Long War Journal

Although both US and Iranian negotiators maintain that nothing but the nuclear issue is being discussed, this of course is fiction. On Sept. 22, Fars News, quoting an anonymous American source, reported that Secretary of State John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, discussed the nuclear issue as well as the fight against the Islamic State. And Admiral Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary, has also connected both issues. Clearly, Tehran’s cooperation with Washington in the fight against the Islamic State comes at a price, which Washington must pay at the negotiating table in Geneva.

Iran has Washington where it wants it. Iran wants a favorable deal, and the Obama administration is signaling that such a deal is forthcoming. US “strategic patience” is allowing Iran to increase its influence and presence in Iraq and Syria. Assad is waiting out the Americans and the international community, and Shia militias are now viewed as legitimate forces in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. But most importantly, US “strategic patience” signals to Iran an unwillingness to jeopardize the talks by linking them to Iran’s role in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

Iran benefits from the threat of an Islamic State, and if the US continues its courtship of Tehran, it may find the Islamic State replaced by an Islamic Republic.

Ali Alfoneh is a senior fellow at Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Michael P. Pregent is a former intelligence officer and military adviser and now adjunct at National Defense University.

 

[bendog]

Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran. He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran. Next.

That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.

It is a fact. He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran. The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S. Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI

So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Is that what you're claiming now? The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.

Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East? They understand what is at stake far more than you do. That much is obvious. They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people. And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country. They came to us, asking for discussions. They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working. You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences. That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.

Did you read my link about the Iran/Syra/ISIS connection?

There is no "discussing" things with the insane, and the Iranian regime is insanity defined.

Well, at least you've come out clearly. And, as I recall, you linked to an Israeli site. The Iranians are dangerous, but not insane. They didn't attack the towers.

 

[ChrisL]

ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Vol. 14, No. 21 June 20, 2014

• Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

• Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

• The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

• It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.

The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony

Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis. Your link seems mostly fiction.

Oh, they have a general? Wow! That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not. Iran are propaganda masters. Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?

I didn't see facts, it was fiction. The fact is Iran is fighting Isis now.

You just keep repeating that. Lol. Obviously you cannot understand the links I've provided for you to read.

Hatchet-Wielding Lunatic Kills ISIS Thrills Iran The Daily Caller

From your link . . .

Iranian proxies have been using social media as a tool for making them appear like legitimate agents since before the rise of the Islamic State- and in a more advanced manner- according to Smyth.

Kataib al-Imam Ali was launched about a month after the Islamic State overran Mosul in June, 2014. The militia’s secretary-general, Shebl al-Zaidi, is a brutal, sectarian fighter who was cultivated by the Iranians, says Smyth. He was imprisoned by the U.S. during the war in Iraq and released by the Iraqi government in 2010.

Zaidi has been photographed with Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani, a powerful operative who’s leading the offensive to retake Tikrit from the Islamic State.(RELATED: Top Iranian General Is Taking The Lead Against ISIS, Spreading Iranian Influence Across Middle East)

Although currently fighting the Islamic State, these Iranian proxies pose a serious, long-term threat to American interests. According to an analysis by Smyth:

Although these radical militias are fighting ISIS in parallel with the U.S.-led effort, their actions and sectarian agendas are separate from the coalition’s and run counter to the goal of building inclusive governments and societies in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, Kataib al-Imam Ali and its ilk present long-term threats to regional stability and U.S. interests.

The militia is even trying to train up Christians and indoctrinate them into believing they’ve been abandoned by the West. Kataib al-Imam Ali ”set about training Christians for a subgroup called Kataib Rouh Allah Issa Ibn Miriam (The Brigade of the Spirit of God Jesus Son of Mary),” wrote Smyth.

 

[ChrisL]

That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.

It is a fact. He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran. The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S. Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI

So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Is that what you're claiming now? The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.

Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East? They understand what is at stake far more than you do. That much is obvious. They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people. And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country. They came to us, asking for discussions. They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working. You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences. That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.

Did you read my link about the Iran/Syra/ISIS connection?

There is no "discussing" things with the insane, and the Iranian regime is insanity defined.

Well, at least you've come out clearly. And, as I recall, you linked to an Israeli site. The Iranians are dangerous, but not insane. They didn't attack the towers.

They are insane. They want a post apocalyptic world so that their 12th Imam can come and deem them the rulers of the world. Are you people really this naive?

 

[Brain357]

Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis. Your link seems mostly fiction.

Oh, they have a general? Wow! That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not. Iran are propaganda masters. Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?

I didn't see facts, it was fiction. The fact is Iran is fighting Isis now.

You just keep repeating that. Lol. Obviously you cannot understand the links I've provided for you to read.

Hatchet-Wielding Lunatic Kills ISIS Thrills Iran The Daily Caller

From your link . . .

Iranian proxies have been using social media as a tool for making them appear like legitimate agents since before the rise of the Islamic State- and in a more advanced manner- according to Smyth.

Kataib al-Imam Ali was launched about a month after the Islamic State overran Mosul in June, 2014. The militia’s secretary-general, Shebl al-Zaidi, is a brutal, sectarian fighter who was cultivated by the Iranians, says Smyth. He was imprisoned by the U.S. during the war in Iraq and released by the Iraqi government in 2010.

Zaidi has been photographed with Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani, a powerful operative who’s leading the offensive to retake Tikrit from the Islamic State.(RELATED: Top Iranian General Is Taking The Lead Against ISIS, Spreading Iranian Influence Across Middle East)

Although currently fighting the Islamic State, these Iranian proxies pose a serious, long-term threat to American interests. According to an analysis by Smyth:

Although these radical militias are fighting ISIS in parallel with the U.S.-led effort, their actions and sectarian agendas are separate from the coalition’s and run counter to the goal of building inclusive governments and societies in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, Kataib al-Imam Ali and its ilk present long-term threats to regional stability and U.S. interests.

The militia is even trying to train up Christians and indoctrinate them into believing they’ve been abandoned by the West. Kataib al-Imam Ali ”set about training Christians for a subgroup called Kataib Rouh Allah Issa Ibn Miriam (The Brigade of the Spirit of God Jesus Son of Mary),” wrote Smyth.

Yes it confirms they are fighting Isis.

 

[Brain357]

It is a fact. He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran. The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S. Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI

So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Is that what you're claiming now? The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.

Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East? They understand what is at stake far more than you do. That much is obvious. They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people. And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country. They came to us, asking for discussions. They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working. You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences. That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.

Did you read my link about the Iran/Syra/ISIS connection?

There is no "discussing" things with the insane, and the Iranian regime is insanity defined.

Well, at least you've come out clearly. And, as I recall, you linked to an Israeli site. The Iranians are dangerous, but not insane. They didn't attack the towers.

They are insane. They want a post apocalyptic world so that their 12th Imam can come and deem them the rulers of the world. Are you people really this naive?

Sure they do. Sounds like fiction. Fact is they are fighting Isis.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Here is the poll I posted which is much more in depth. Read it please.

All I could find here since you can't bother to show which poll you are referring to was this;

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). March 1-5, 2015. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide.

."And, thinking about Iran: As you may know, the United States is currently in negotiations with Iran that would limit, for at least ten years, Iran's ability to produce nuclear material. The deal would not end Iran's nuclear program, but would delay Iran's ability to produce enough materials to make nuclear weapons. In return, the United States and other Western nations would ease economic sanctions that have been imposed on Iran, and would eventually allow Iran to use nuclear power for other purposes, like energy. Do you think that this agreement will make a real difference or will not make a real difference in preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons?"

Will make a real difference 24%
Will not make a real difference 71%
Unsure. 5%. 3/1-5/15

That does not refute the fact that the majority of Americans in poll after poll support the negotiations and reaching a deal.

Did you bother reading these polls you linked to?


CBS News/New York Times Poll. June 20-22, 2014. "Do you favor or oppose the United States working with Iran in a limited capacity in order to try and resolve the situation in Iraq?" 6/20-22/14. 53% Favor. 39% oppose


ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Nov. 14-17, 2013. "Thinking now about the situation with Iran: Would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift some of their economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?" Support 64% Oppose 30% 11/14-17/13

"How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons: very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?"
Very confident 4% Somewhat confident 32% Not so confident 27% Not confident. 34%. 11/14-17/13

CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 27-29, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose direct diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?" Favor 76% Oppose 22%. 9/27-29/13


The recent poll I cited from UoM has not changed much since 2013.

A majority of Americans support making this deal with Iran and always have.

To state otherwise is a lie.

 

[nat4900]

So, the leftists have nothing left but to call me names because they cannot refute any of my most valid and truthful posts. Then we have others posting memes off google images.

I think I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.

Here, this for you, chrisy

delusion, in psychology, a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence.

 

[ChrisL]

Here is the poll I posted which is much more in depth. Read it please.

All I could find here since you can't bother to show which poll you are referring to was this;

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). March 1-5, 2015. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide.

."And, thinking about Iran: As you may know, the United States is currently in negotiations with Iran that would limit, for at least ten years, Iran's ability to produce nuclear material. The deal would not end Iran's nuclear program, but would delay Iran's ability to produce enough materials to make nuclear weapons. In return, the United States and other Western nations would ease economic sanctions that have been imposed on Iran, and would eventually allow Iran to use nuclear power for other purposes, like energy. Do you think that this agreement will make a real difference or will not make a real difference in preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons?"

Will make a real difference 24%
Will not make a real difference 71%
Unsure. 5%. 3/1-5/15

That does not refute the fact that the majority of Americans in poll after poll support the negotiations and reaching a deal.

Did you bother reading these polls you linked to?


CBS News/New York Times Poll. June 20-22, 2014. "Do you favor or oppose the United States working with Iran in a limited capacity in order to try and resolve the situation in Iraq?" 6/20-22/14. 53% Favor. 39% oppose


ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Nov. 14-17, 2013. "Thinking now about the situation with Iran: Would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift some of their economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?" Support 64% Oppose 30% 11/14-17/13

"How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons: very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?"
Very confident 4% Somewhat confident 32% Not so confident 27% Not confident. 34%. 11/14-17/13

CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 27-29, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose direct diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?" Favor 76% Oppose 22%. 9/27-29/13


The recent poll I cited from UoM has not changed much since 2013.

A majority of Americans support making this deal with Iran and always have.

To state otherwise is a lie.

No, I don't think you read the entire poll. It clearly states that Americans are against a nuclear Iran.

 

[ChrisL]

So, the leftists have nothing left but to call me names because they cannot refute any of my most valid and truthful posts. Then we have others posting memes off google images.

I think I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.

Here, this for you, chrisy

delusion, in psychology, a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence.

That describes Iran, the people that Obama wants to have nuclear power.

Here's some more information for you too.

Iran The Great Satan Still Our Number One Enemy FrontPage Magazine

 

[ChrisL]

Here is another poll . . .



Iran's Development of Nuclear Weapons Seen as Critical Threat

Nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans (77%) say the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a "critical threat," perhaps underscoring the importance of these talks. Another 16% say the threat is important, but not critical. Since 2013, a preponderance of U.S. adults have identified possible Iranian nuclear weapons as a critical threat and the issue has ranked highly compared with other possible threats facing the U.S.

As Nuclear Talks Progress 11 in U.S. See Iran Favorably

 

[ChrisL]

So, the leftists have nothing left but to call me names because they cannot refute any of my most valid and truthful posts. Then we have others posting memes off google images.

I think I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.

Here, this for you, chrisy

delusion, in psychology, a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence.

Also, this does nothing to negate my claims which are all correct. You cannot refute them, so this is what you are reduced to. Pathetic.

 

[ChrisL]

So, the leftists have nothing left but to call me names because they cannot refute any of my most valid and truthful posts. Then we have others posting memes off google images.

I think I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.

Here, this for you, chrisy

delusion, in psychology, a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence.

Also, you spelled "Chrissy" wrong, but that is not surprising given the examples of your intellect here, which is apparently very low on the totem pole. I also think it's funny as hell that the two biggest dummies liked this post with no substance, which was just meant to be insulting but does nothing to add to the debate or to negate any of the well-documented posts I've made on this topic.

 

[Brain357]

Here is another poll . . .



Iran's Development of Nuclear Weapons Seen as Critical Threat

Nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans (77%) say the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a "critical threat," perhaps underscoring the importance of these talks. Another 16% say the threat is important, but not critical. Since 2013, a preponderance of U.S. adults have identified possible Iranian nuclear weapons as a critical threat and the issue has ranked highly compared with other possible threats facing the U.S.

As Nuclear Talks Progress 11 in U.S. See Iran Favorably

It's about how to have them not get a nuke. Most think an agreement is the best way to keep that from happening.

 

[nat4900]

Tom Cotton picked apart by Army general over mutinous Iran letter - The Washington Post

“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said
Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton

Senior Advisor

The mounting criticism against all the other 46 and especially directed
toward the seditious Cotton, are NOT going to stop for quite a while.....Can you picture what his next opponent's ads will look like?

 

[ChrisL]

So, some smart senators realize the terrible consequences that are going to happen with a nuclear Iran, along with blessings of the US, and they decided to write a letter to the Iranian leadership to let them know that most of us know better and there will be no nuclear agreement once the Obamanator is out of office, and the libs blow a gasket because they are undermining Obama? I think Obama has undermined himself by agreeing to this little deal, not to mention all of his past foreign relation disasters. The guy is completely clueless, and a lot of people know this. Sending Obama a letter would be useless. Remember his little temper tantrum with McCain when discussing the healthcare bill? How he declared that it was HE who was president now and basically stated nobody else's opinions matter.

Obama is a like a child-like wanna be celebrity. He likes to feel important and hobknob with the celebrities and the rich, trying to make a name for himself with the unconstitutional healthcare fiasco which he mandated upon us all in a shady manner as claiming it to be a "tax." Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

Here is another poll . . .



Iran's Development of Nuclear Weapons Seen as Critical Threat

Nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans (77%) say the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a "critical threat," perhaps underscoring the importance of these talks. Another 16% say the threat is important, but not critical. Since 2013, a preponderance of U.S. adults have identified possible Iranian nuclear weapons as a critical threat and the issue has ranked highly compared with other possible threats facing the U.S.

As Nuclear Talks Progress 11 in U.S. See Iran Favorably

It's about how to have them not get a nuke. Most think an agreement is the best way to keep that from happening.

Only a liberal could make sense of such a statement. Basically you are saying that by okaying a nuclear Iran that is going to prevent them from developing nukes. I'll have to give you a "funny" for that one.

 

[nat4900]

At the recent CPAC gathering, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a likely Republican presidential candidate, seemed to stumble on one of the basic facts of the Middle East. “The reason Obama hasn’t put in place a military strategy to defeat ISIS is because he doesn’t want to upset Iran,” the Florida Republican said.

The senator seemed confused. In reality, President Obama has put an anti-ISIS military strategy in place, and that’s fine with Iran, since Iran and ISIS are enemies.

I’d hoped that Rubio just misspoke, or had been briefed poorly by an aide, but apparently not - -at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this afternoon, the far-right Floridian continued to push this strange theory, pressing Secretary of State John Kerry on the point. “I believe that much of our strategy with regards to ISIS is being driven by a desire not to upset Iran so they don’t walk away from the negotiating table on the deal that you’re working on,” Rubio said. “Tell me why I’m wrong.”

And so, Kerry told him why he’s wrong.
View attachment 37800
Kerry teaches Rubio the basics about the Middle East | MSNBC

To state that Rubio is an idiot....is to insult idiots......Yeah, GOPers pick Rubio for your next VP candidate......LOL

 

[bendog]

He walked with dinosaurs.

 

[ChrisL]

At the recent CPAC gathering, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a likely Republican presidential candidate, seemed to stumble on one of the basic facts of the Middle East. “The reason Obama hasn’t put in place a military strategy to defeat ISIS is because he doesn’t want to upset Iran,” the Florida Republican said.

The senator seemed confused. In reality, President Obama has put an anti-ISIS military strategy in place, and that’s fine with Iran, since Iran and ISIS are enemies.

I’d hoped that Rubio just misspoke, or had been briefed poorly by an aide, but apparently not - -at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this afternoon, the far-right Floridian continued to push this strange theory, pressing Secretary of State John Kerry on the point. “I believe that much of our strategy with regards to ISIS is being driven by a desire not to upset Iran so they don’t walk away from the negotiating table on the deal that you’re working on,” Rubio said. “Tell me why I’m wrong.”

And so, Kerry told him why he’s wrong.
View attachment 37800
Kerry teaches Rubio the basics about the Middle East | MSNBC

To state that Rubio is an idiot....is to insult idiots......Yeah, GOPers pick Rubio for your next VP candidate......LOL

And you picked Obama. Look at the condition of the world now!