Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are equal. Cordesman is also known for his analysis of the Gaza conflict where he indicated Israel had legitimate security concerns, attacked legitmate military targets, even though the humanitarian cost was high, and that it did not violate the laws of war. Bunn's CV at Harvard: http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/faculty/cv/MatthewBunn.pdf Joyner is a nuclear non-proliferation expert. His CV at Alabama: http://www.law.ua.edu/directory/People/view/Daniel_Joyner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_N._von_Hippel Hippels work: Von Hippel and his colleagues have worked on fissile material policy issues for the past 30 years, including contributions to: "ending the U.S. program to foster the commercialization of plutonium breeder reactors, convincing President Gorbachev to embrace the idea of a Fissile Material Production Cutoff Treaty, launching the U.S.-Russian cooperative nuclear materials protection, control and accounting program, and broadening efforts to eliminate the use of high-enriched uranium in civilian reactors worldwide".[5]
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...er-on-iran-than-expected-nuclear-experts-say/ A couple more non-proliferation experts chime in. David Albright, von Hippel again, and Greg Theilman. One thing to remember - the current Iranian president ran on reestablishing ties to the rest of the world. The sanctions have hurt them a LOT. They may be motivated to heal their economy.
Are they basing their analysis on what John Kerry claims Iran agreed to or what Iran claims Iran agreed to? The Iranians have already said that pretty much nothing in the fact sheet was agreed to.
No, they haven't. The one thing that absolutely hasn't been identified yet as when the sanctions crippling their economy will be retracted. There would need to be broad specific verbiage for that to be implemented. Saying otherwise is just a blatant lie.
Yes they did, shortly after Kerry released his "fact sheet". LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic. Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research. Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations. Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry—and release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions—Zarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies. “The solutions are good for all, as they stand,” he tweeted. “There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on.” Zarif went on to push back against claims by Kerry that the sanctions relief would be implemented in a phased fashion—and only after Iran verifies that it is not conducting any work on the nuclear weapons front. Zarif, echoing previous comments, said the United States has promised an immediate termination of sanctions. “Iran/5+1 Statement: ‘US will cease the application of ALL nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.’ Is this gradual?” he wrote on Twitter. He then suggested a correction: “Iran/P5+1 Statement: ‘The EU will TERMINATE the implementation of ALL nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions’. How about this?” The pushback from Iran’s chief diplomat follows a pattern of similar accusations by senior Iranian political figures after the announcement of previous agreements. Following the signing of an interim agreement with Iran aimed at scaling back its nuclear work, Iran accused the United States of lying about details of the agreement. On Thursday evening, Zarif told reporters the latest agreement allows Iran to keep operating its nuclear program. “None of those measures” that will move to scale back Iran’s program “include closing any of our facilities,” Zarif said. “We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.” “Our heavy water reactor will be modernized and we will continue the Fordow facility,” Zarif said.
Try reading the story again. Take out the part that was inserted as narrative by the FreeBeacon, and instead look at what are actual quotes. Notice the story changes signficantly when you do that. You still can't do something as simple as parse a news story. The Iranians are focusing on the fact that their negotiation successfully kept two of their nuclear sites operatioinal - just with a drastically reduced capacity to build a bomb. They have an internal hard line audience to sway as well. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...ds-landmark-nuclear-deal-150404233133580.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/04/us-iran-nuclear-zarif-idUSKBN0MV0P720150404
AP Analysis: Nuclear Agreement Risk Projecting US Weakness. Of course it does. That's the administration's policy. Washington's bridled ambitions are understandable given its recent failures in the region. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are still at war more than a decade after the U.S.-led invasions. The Islamic State group, an al-Qaida breakaway, controls a third of both Syria and Iraq. A NATO intervention helped topple dictator Moammar Gadhafi, but Libya today is a failed state in the grip of rival militias and jihadi groups. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in shambles If they've fucked up every single thing they've done, why would this be any different? Iran, by the way, was on the ground with lots of cash in Benghazi when things went pear shaped.
It's funny how the previous administration's fuck-ups are placed under the responsibility of the current administration. But I suppose that sort of lie is necessary to maintain the overall framework of delusion that gturner spins.
Yeah, George Bush withdrew every last soldier from Iraq, led from behind in Libya, drew red lines in Syria, etc. After six years in office, Obama has yet to make a single policy announcement. Currently Libya is saying "No US involvement" in their disastrous conflict. Why? Their ambassador says that based on events of the last few years, US involvement would assuredly see her side lose and ISIS win. A Saudi diplomat recently commented that it's far safer to be America's enemy than its friend, a view widely shared.
This Gturner character is brilliant. A complete idiot/moron or wind up merchant, but for the sake of generating some discussion between opposing viewpoints, he's great for the board.
Except that I back it all up with actual news stories and quotes from the primary sources - like Iran's foreign minister saying that Kerry is lying, which you absolutely refuse to believe - even though the words are directly from papers like the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc.
I'm sure any lines that Obama the Manlet draws in the sand will certainly be enforced, though. *cough Syria cough cough*
