Thread: Iran nuclear talks: 'Framework' deal agreed

CIA chief says criticism of framework Iran nuclear deal 'disingenuous'



WASHINGTON (AFP) - United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director John Brennan gave a staunch defence of the framework nuclear deal with Iran on Tuesday, calling some criticism of the accord "disingenuous" while expressing surprise at Teheran's concessions.

In his first public remarks since the outline agreement was announced last week, the spy agency chief said the deal would impose a litany of restrictions on Iran's nuclear work that had once seemed impossible to secure.

"I must tell you the individuals who say this deal provides a pathway for Iran to a bomb are being wholly disingenuous, in my view, if they know the facts, understand what's required for a (nuclear) program," Mr Brennan told an audience at Harvard University.

The accord would mean "cutting off pathways not just to uranium enrichment but to plutonium enrichment" and include a "very intrusive inspection regime", he said. "I certainly am pleasantly surprised that the Iranians have agreed to so much here. In terms of the inspections regime, the reduction as far as the centrifuges, the stockpile, what they're doing with the Arak reactor, all of that I think is really quite surprising and quite good."
CIA chief says criticism of framework Iran nuclear deal 'disingenuous' - United States News & Top Stories - The Straits Times


'Disengenous'- very politely put Mr Brennan.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Bibi better get those Mossad boys & girls into overtime, man

BM, this whole subject is way beyond your level of comprehension. You have never addressed any of the arguments being made. Just idiotic meme cut and paste from your right wing websites. All you understand is bluster.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

If you are so knowledgeable regarding foreign affairs and ME policy, get with John Purple Heart Kerry and work out a plan that doesn't make America look like the laughingstock it presently does.

All bluster, no concrete arguments. Pathetic.

BM

And when will Israel open its doors to the world and declare exactly how many nuclear warheads it has quietly stored way in its own lethal arsenal?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Bibi better get those Mossad boys & girls into overtime, man

BM, this whole subject is way beyond your level of comprehension. You have never addressed any of the arguments being made. Just idiotic meme cut and paste from your right wing websites. All you understand is bluster.

Bert, all you understand is capitulation and appeasement.

If you are so knowledgeable regarding foreign affairs and ME policy, get with John Purple Heart Kerry and work out a plan that doesn't make America look like the laughingstock it presently does.

Originally Posted by james777

BM
And when will Israel open its doors to the world and declare exactly how many nuclear warheads it has quietly stored way in its own lethal arsenal?

Big difference there james777. Israel is not a state sponsor of terrorism. Their nukes are MAD nukes (mutually assured destruction).

Obama's deal guarantees I-ran's goal of achieving the bomb while doing everything possible to restrict the US from interfering.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Israel is not a state sponsor of terrorism. Their nukes are MAD nukes (mutually assured destruction).

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Israeli nukes have a special sticker onthem or something? Since they won't sign the NPT and refuse to disclose how many they have their program is even more clandestine that Iran's.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Obama's deal guarantees I-ran's goal of achieving the bomb while doing everything possible to restrict the US from interfering.

Where are you getting this crap from? You are worse on this than you were on the Net Neut issue.

Wall Street Journal. The critique is here, but unless you're a WSJ subscriber you have to use the google backdoor to see it. The Iran Deal and Its Consequences - WSJ

"For 20 years, three presidents of both major parties proclaimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was contrary to American and global interests--and that they were prepared to use force to prevent it. Yet negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years.

Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head. Iran's centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran. While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal.

In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon. Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer."

The WSJ is not prone to fabricating.

You honestly believe Israel is a sponsor of terror?

Get a real grip...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The WSJ is not prone to fabricating.

It's an Op-Ed piece by Henry Kissinger!

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The WSJ is not prone to fabricating.

It's an Op-Ed piece by Henry Kissinger!

And George Schultz. Both of whom have more diplomatic experience in their little fingers than all of Obama's crew combined.

"Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz ran an op-ed by in the Wall Street Journal criticizing President Obama’s approach to foreign policy, especially with regard to Iran.

New State Department spokesperson Marie Harf called their opinions on the Iran negotiations “a lot of big words and big thoughts.”

Kissinger and Schultz, who served under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, said the strategy Obama has pursued is futile and dangerous.

“Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony,” the column said.

Harf sparred with AP reporter Matt Lee, interrupting him several times as he tried to get a reaction to the op-ed from the State Department.

“Really, you don’t think it’s nuanced?” Harf asked Lee.

“Is there a question or are you just commenting?” Harf replied. “I’m not going to go line by line.”

In defense of the deal, Harf employed the typical White House talking points. The Obama administration has repeatedly challenged critics of the deal to offer an alternative. This response has been used to rebut Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Republicans, foreign leaders, and even some from his own party.

“I didn’t hear a lot of alternatives. I heard a lot of–sort of a lot of big words and big thoughts in that piece, and certainly there is a place for that. But I didn’t hear a lot of alternatives about what they would do differently,” Harf said.

The same administration that asked questioners for their own solutions insisted that there are only three options in dealing with Iran: To bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, leading to war, to negotiate a deal with Iran that will cap their enrichment capabilities, or to increase sanctions on Iran in hopes it will force them to accept a better deal.

What this poster has been saying all along - keep the sanctions on.

"The administration has said their parameters are the only way to avoid another major war in the Middle East and worsen the chaotic environment in the region. Kissinger and Schultz disagreed.

“Until clarity on an American strategic political concept is reached, the projected nuclear agreement will reinforce, not resolve, the world’s challenges in the region. Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there—on complex new terms,” the column said."

State Dept Downplays Kissinger/Schultz Op-Ed as ?A Lot of Big Words and Big Thoughts? | Washington Free Beacon

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The WSJ is not prone to fabricating.

The WSJ is nothing more than a tabloid rag ever since Newscorpse bought it. It has lost all credibility.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.

So exactly what honest Bibi was saying seven years ago? And exactly what the neo-con liars were saying about Iraq all those years ago. Pants on fire.

There are two types of people- those that know this is utter bullshit and cynical propaganda, and brainless idiots. Even the gullible types have spotted the lies now, having been subjected to them for so long.

So yet again it's the "pro-Israeli Right" (what a bluddy misnomer) screeching to a diminishing choir. I think the days of the USA being Israel's willing and subservient piss-boy are coming to a close.

Those hundreds of centrifuges spinning like mad mullahs are not 'utter bullshit & cynical propaganda', eh?

To further the discussion:

Iranian defense minister: This nuke deal doesn’t allow you to inspect our military sites

The deal was struck on April 2nd. And here’s the first glaring evidence that Iran doesn’t intend to comply with the west’s most important demand, comprehensive inspections of all nuclear facilities. It took six days for this thing to turn into a transparent sham.

Iran’s Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan categorically rejected as a “lie” a Guardian report alleging that Tehran has granted access to its military facilities under the recent framework agreement with the world powers.

“No such agreement has been made; principally speaking, visit to military centers is among our redlines and no such visit will be accepted,” Gen. Dehqan stressed on Wednesday, rejecting “the report by foreign media outlets, such as the Guardian” as “untruthful allegations”…

In relevant remarks on Monday, Commander of Iran’s Basij (volunteer) Force Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi said the untruthfulness of Washington officials in their remarks about the Lausanne Statement issued jointly by Iran and the six world powers displayed that the US was an untrustworthy partner to any deal.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2...to-inspectors/

Farsnews

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Big difference there james777. Israel is not a state sponsor of terrorism.

Sure Israel is the model country for all the world.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.

2 or three months eh, about the same time it will take, allegedly, for the "agreement" to agreed by all the participants and signed off. Or as some here think, rubber stamped, it already having been "struck".

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The deal was struck on April 2n

A document has been published by one of the 7 or 8 participants in a discussion and you call that striking an agreed deal.

Some dissent is already appearing as to its, whiter than white/economicallity with the truth see (Robert Temple Armstrong, Baron Armstrong of Ilminster GCB, CVO) , status.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Only reason I-ran has even come to the negotiating table is because the sanctions are working.

Not at all to try and "suggest" the POTUS can be suceessful at all eh?

Impossible.

The man is incapable of forming the slightest nuance of objectivity with regard to foreign affairs. Dangerously naive.

I figure futher negotiations based on the framework will fail. The proxy war in Yemen between Iran and Saudi is going to raise tensions between the negotiating parties to the point where both sides will back away from whatever has been agreed during the framework negotiations.

Originally Posted by Norton

I figure futher negotiations based on the framework will fail. The proxy war in Yemen between Iran and Saudi is going to raise tensions between the negotiating parties to the point where both sides will back away from whatever has been agreed during the framework negotiations.

Let's hope so.

These naive foreign policy makers are just that - naive.

A few hours ago on Mad Mullah TV he said no deal unless all sanctions are dropped from the start.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Big difference there james777. Israel is not a state sponsor of terrorism. Their nukes are MAD nukes (mutually assured destruction).

Not a state sponser of terrorism, just a terrorist state.

Originally Posted by Necron99

A few hours ago on Mad Mullah TV he said no deal unless all sanctions are dropped from the start.

It's just an ongoing circle jerk while Israel, who has there whole nation to lose if it go's tits up is not saying much.
Yesterday when Mad Mullah no.1 came out and raised their ante demanding all sanctions dropped before any deal or no deal then its celebration time for Netanyahu because Obama is already 2 steps backwards.
Never before has a US administration negotiated with any nation on the backfoot like this with so much at stake.
This is part why Saudi is getting on the front foot over there because Iran is like a schoolyard bully that needs a good slapping and the Israelis cleverly will wait but would love to get a job done on them overtly (besides the car accidents that the Iranian scientists will inevitably be involved in.)

Originally Posted by Necron99

A few hours ago on Mad Mullah TV he said no deal unless all sanctions are dropped from the start.

Iran: New Nuke Deal Is ‘Not Acceptable’

"Framework collapses days after historic announcement.

Iran has described an agreement to curb its nuclear program as “not acceptable” days after the United States hailed the new framework deal.

Following the announcement of a framework accord that the United States described as a major step in rolling back Iran’s nuclear work, leaders in Tehran began to accuse the Obama administration of lying about the deal’s parameters."

Iran: New Nuke Deal Is ?Not Acceptable? | Washington Free Beacon

Guess this historic 'framework' was so bad even the I-rainians aren't going for it.

Originally Posted by Necron99

A few hours ago on Mad Mullah TV he said no deal unless all sanctions are dropped from the start.

And if they dig in on that position there will be no agreement. Nobody, repeat nobody is going to agree to that.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Necron99

A few hours ago on Mad Mullah TV he said no deal unless all sanctions are dropped from the start.

And if they dig in on that position there will be no agreement. Nobody, repeat nobody is going to agree to that.

Would be interested to get your feedback on the following post:

https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/...ml#post2994556

State Dept Struggles to Explain Rouhani and Ayatollah Claims US is Lying About Iran Deal Facts



Can't spin this one.