Can someone please tell me a real problem with the Iran nuke deal.

New York Post noting that Iran's text doesn't remotely resemble Kerry's text.

I'm not arguing for war with Iran. What I'm saying is that this "agreement" is worth two things: jack and shit. It won't hinder the Iranian effort any more than Clinton's "agreement" hindered the North Koreans. If you think otherwise you're just not being realistic.

The Washington Post on Obama's Iran deal. They are not a bit pleased.

Here's a more centered opinion from Fareed. Wapo's editorial board has been a bit shrill lately.

Bombing Iran is the worst possible outcome. It would ignite a holy war with a vastly more sophisticated opponent.

What would be the effect of such an attack? When any country is bombed by foreigners, its people tend to rally around the regime. The Islamic Republic would likely gain domestic support. It would also respond in various ways, through its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere. The attacks might be directed at U.S. troops or allies.

An attack would also mean the splintering of the international coalition against Iran. Russia, China and many other countries would condemn it. Iran would be seen as the victim of an unprovoked invasion. The sanctions would crumble. Its nuclear program would be devastated, but Iran would begin to rebuild it. Even under the current sanctions regime, Iran makes tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues, more than enough to afford to rebuild its facilities.

Finally, once it had been attacked, Tehran would invoke the need for a deterrent against future attacks and would work directly and speedily not on a nuclear program but a nuclear weapon. In his op-ed advocating war with Iran, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton argues that military attacks “should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.” But bombing and then threatening the Islamic Republic’s existence would likely produce exactly the opposite effect — a government strengthened at home with a clear rationale to acquire a nuclear deterrent.​

I wonder why the admin. is so quick to run around Congress. This should be treated as a treaty, yet it's not. Congress basically has no say in the "deal".

This deal definitely has all the callings of the Democrat Party in that it rewards bad behaviour and is full of empty promises.

Simple. The Obama Admin. knows it has no chance of getting a favorable vote in Congress.

Not unless President Obama is willing to wheel and deal and give up some things in exchange for Senate support. And that the president will not do.

But according to the first sentence "it's no secret." So that means either you are racist (whether you know it or not! That's why we have liberals, to set us straight)
or you are jealous of Obama's blowing awesomeness.
The bottom line is liberals are mind readers. Actually they are soul readers - they can read right into your very soul, kind of like god can!

So we as a nation cannot be taking a bath on the Iran situation. Iran will cooperate fully and honestly and all the inspections will reveal exactly the information
we need to keep them compliant. Just ask the libs, they will back me up on this. When Iran wishes "death to America" they don't really mean it!
It's just a cultural misunderstanding.

RACIST! You are just upset that Bush never thought of this first.

The Iranian people are more friendly to America than our 'allies' in Saudi Arabia. I think this agreement helps on a lot of fronts - it opens up Iran for engagement and investment, it helps us balance Iran and Saudi Arabia against each other, it engages China and Russia, both of whom don't want to see another war in the Middle East. It takes away the #1 weapon of the hardliners - that the Great Satan is out to get the Iranian people.

And best of all it helps avert yet another in an endless line of Middle Eastern wars and breaks the perception that America is only a flunky to Israel in the ongoing conflict there.

That being said, there's still some pretty significant holes in how this is all to be implemented, and if it only provides the illusion of safety then its worse than useless. If enacted correctly, it could be a milestone in the Middle Eastern power balance and end the 40 year old cold war between the US and Iran.

They killed several thousand American soldiers. Saudi Arabia didn't. They just had a drill where they sank a stand-in for a US aircraft carrier. Saudi Arabia didn't. We're talking to them because they're trying to build nuclear weapons to use against every US ally in the region, and probably against Europe.

That's like balancing Nazi Germany and France against each other. Why would we want our enemies to balance our allies?

Another war? There are half a dozen going on there right now!

Nobody except Iran wants to see a Middle Eastern power balance that shifts toward Iran, since Iran is one of the region's worst actors, funding and equipping terrorists throughout the region and the world. The agreement allows Iran to build nuclear weapons, and in response just about every country in the region will have to follow suit. The opinion of the Pentagon is that within five years of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, the region will see a major nuclear exchange. This agreement makes a future nuclear war a virtual certainty, and puts nuclear weapons in the hands of theocratic apocalyptics.

Actually, it doesn't even provide the "illusion" of safety except to children, or possibly politicians struggling to present some of "legacy". In time, Obama's sad legacy re this "pact" will be just another joke in a long series of bad jokes. Also, how odd that when a liberal bulwark like the Wash. Post raises concerns, it suddenly becomes "shrill" or whatever one of the kids said up there. God I feel like a jaded cynic stuck in a room full of wide-eyed 10-year-olds. Did any of you even read any of the fine print?

Obama says that this pact will see Iran become moderate. He also said that Kentucky would beat Villanova tomorrow.

Saudi Arabians killed several thousand American civilians.

Because the while the government of Saudi Arabia is an ally, the people sure as fuck aren't. And that's directly the fault of the House of Saud, which wouldn't have emerged as the power they became without sponsoring radical Wahabbi Islam.

Saudi Arabia is one of the #1 funders and #1 recruiting grounds for terrorists.

Yes, but neither America nor Israel are substantially involved at the moment. No external power wants to see us send in large numbers of ground troops again - especially ones such as the PRC that are worried about transit in the Strait of Hormuz. That's the #1 choke point for oil exports in the world, and Iran has had some success in shutting it down in the past.

My hairy ass. Us bombing Iran to stop them from getting a bomb is a much more likely scenario for starting a war here, and there's considerable doubt whether we can stop them without going nuclear ourselves - which we won't do. And speaking of hairy asses, you are pulling most of that paragraph out of yours - there's no consensus in the Pentagon that a nuclear exchange will occur if Iran gets the bomb. This is the same argument that was made about the Soviet Union, with the same endgame - the leadership of the country isn't going to want to see if destroyed around them, and they don't actually want to die either. Notice the clerics and mullash aren't the ones strapping bombs on their chests.

Do you want to go to war with Iran tomorrow?
Are you going to war with Iran tomorrow?

If your answers to each of those questions are no, then this agreement is worth a lot.

Somehow, people keep ignoring the value of peace that is the first hallmark of successful diplomacy. They do the same here. "I'm not saying we should go to war with the rest of Europe, but I just don't see the value of anything the EU does." What were we doing before the EU? Going to war with the rest of Europe every two decades or so.

And they do the same globally. "Of course nobody wants a nuclear World War Three, but all those superpowers coming together in the UNSC don't seem to be accomplishing a lot, do they?"

That last part is the whole problem. It WILL only provide the illusion of safety and it WILL NOT be enacted correctly. Wishing that weren't true won't make it so.

Really? When was that?

The Iranian government, the people we're negotiating with, did send their soldiers to kill Americans. "Death to America" isn't just their slogan, it's their goal.

And a sanctions-free, reinvigorated militant Iran with nukes is going to make the Saudi people behave better, somehow? What we've been watching is how Sunni and Shia militants feed on each other, radicalizing both sides to unheard of levels.

Heck, even countries there want to see large numbers of US boots on the ground.

Except what we've got is not really peace. It's breathing space for the Iranians. This ends with nukes going off in the ME and possibly elsewhere.

Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. Israel has'm. Welcome them to the club. What they won't have are lots and a delivery mechanism capable of taking out more than Tel Aviv. If they attempt the latter, I think they can expect some very precise tactical nukes up their ass ending the story. A mini-MAD.

In the meantime we have the opportunity to ply them with evil western music, fashions, Chevrolets and GMC trucks, not to mention defense contracts, breaking down their society, returning them to the glory days of the Shah.

We're going to give Iran defense contracts now? What will Obama do next?

We had a chance to support an Iranian cultural revolution, but Obama gave the protesters the back of his hand because he wanted to make peace with the mullahs who run the militarist theocracy. With Iran's leadership emboldened by our weakness, there isn't much chance that evil western music even being heard, much less topple their society. We've been in Afghanistan for twelve years with our boots on the ground. The Taliban are still trying to blow us up.

To the Iranian leadership and loyalists, a GMC is just a required component of a truck bomb.

If we can. Why let Russia have all the profit?

I've been hearing for 25 years about ..........how Iranians love the United States........how most don't even remember the 1979 revolution.........how most Iranians are really moderates.

I've been hearing about it but I've never seen actual evidence when it comes down to it. When they have to choose the Iranians routinely default to "death to America".

Loving western tv so much you put up illegal satellite dishes doesn't mean that you're going to advocate policies that result in the safety of Americans or westerners.

Lenoid Brezhnev loved "The Rifleman".

Didn't make his 7,000 nuclear weapons and Gorshkov's monster fleet any less dangerous to the U.S.

DaytonWorld: If I haven't seen it, it doesn't exist.

Then perhaps you can provide some evidence that it does exist. I'm not saying you can't. It might be enlightening.

Oh yeah I forget, I'm the only person here required to actually provide evidence............hypocrite.

For evidence, you can look at the politics of two of the three most recent Iranian Presidents.

And the reactionary, Ahmedinejad, had to resort to fraud in his re-election effort.

Yet did he win?

Ultimately leaders only are able to take power because lots of people want them there for one reason or the other.

And you believe there public statements and pronouncements?

Ironic, more people seem to trust the statements of foreign leaders than that of American presidents.

Get the sand out of your weeping vagina, coach.

Watch the Iran episode of Anthony Bourdain's CNN show as just one of hundreds of examples of how average Iranians don't foam at the mouth when it comes to the US.

And the reason people don't feel like providing "evidence" to you very often is that no matter how factual it may be, you automatically dismiss it unless it somehow fits the narrow, bigoted worldview that you carry around.