Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LibCampFireClub

Iran

7 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei said in a speech on Thursday that he has neither endorsed nor rejected the basic framework for an agreement on Tehran’s nuclear program, which had been reported as agreed upon by both the P5+1 world powers and the Iranian regime.


The deal was widely praised by the Obama administration as one that would dramatically limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and that Iran had signed off on the understanding. Khamenei’s comments appear to reject the purported agreement.


“If the question is posed to me: ‘Are you for or against the latest nuclear negotiations,’ I would answer that I’m neither in favor nor opposed to it, since nothing has happened yet,” Khamenei said with regard to the nuclear negotiations. He added:


What has happened until now, does not guarantee the very principle of agreeing, nor negotiations ending in an agreement and not the substance of such an agreement. It does not even guarantee that these negotiations will end in an agreement. Therefore, it does not make any sense to congratulate. … I have never been optimistic concerning negotiations with the United States.


The “Supreme Leader” has ultimate authority over his country, which means that if he has not agreed to the basic framework for a nuclear accord, Iran as a country has not authorized the deal.


Khamenei said, “The White House, only two hours after the end of the negotiations, published a few pages, which in most regards was contrary to the realities, explaining the negotiations. … They were producing a statement which was faulty, incorrect and contrary to the substance of the negotiations.”


The Iranian dictator demanded that sanctions must be lifted the second he signs off on a final deal.


“Instant annulment of all sanction is one of the demands of our officials. … This issue is very important, and the sanctions must all be completely removed on the day of the agreement,” said the Ayatollah. “Should the removal of the sanctions be related to a process, the foundation of the negotiations would be senseless, since the goal of the negotiations was to remove the sanctions.”


Earlier in the day, President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, told his audience, “We will not sign any agreement unless all economic sanctions are totally lifted on the first day of implementation of the deal.”


Khamenei concluded that Iran’s nuclear “technical developments certainly must continue forcefully,” adding, “Securing these demands is in the hands of the negotiators which they must achieve by using the viewpoints of informed and trusted individuals, as well as the viewpoints of the critics.”



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAND: ‘I STILL AM IN FAVOR OF CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS’ WITH IRAN
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) declared “I still am in favor of continued negotiations,” with Iran and that “keeping the door open, continuing conversations, is better than war” on Friday’s “Hugh Hewitt Show.”
When asked if there was “any point” in the US going back to Switzerland to resume negotiations with Iran, Paul responded, “you should see proof of compliance and proof of goodwill on Iran’s part before any sanctions would be removed. But as far as going back, this is where I differ from some Republicans, I still am in favor of continued negotiations. I don’t think immediately stopping negotiations — I think they need to keep the sanctions in place, but I think that keeping the door open, continuing conversations, is better than war.”
Earlier, Paul said that pronouncements from Iran contradicting the US’ statements regarding the agreement reached between the countries caused “a great deal of concern of lack of sincerity on the Iranians’ part” and that he was “very skeptical.”
He added, “we cannot constitutionally let the president undo law on his own” and lift Congressional sanctions unilaterally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After Iran Publicly Disputes Nuclear Deal, White House Says ‘We’ve Been Through This Before’
The White House said it’s not concerned about recent comments by Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who challenged the U.S. assessment of the Iran nuclear deal reached last week.
“The supreme leader has said many, many things over the years that we have strong objections to,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters Friday in Panama City, where President Barack Obama is attending the Summit of the Americas.
Rhodes referred to the interim agreement between the United States and Iran reached in November 2013, which he said Iran abided by despite making a lot of noise.
Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei (L) meets with president of Iran Hassan Rouhani and cabinet ministeriel about the ongoing Israeli military airstrikes on Gaza in Tahran, Iran on July 14, 2014. (Photo by leader.ir/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, left, meets with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Tahran, July 14, 2014. (Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
“We released the information about that joint plan of action knowing we still had to finalized the implementation details, which were not done until January,” he said. “Between November and January, the Iranians criticized the information we put out and they said that it did not reflect the deal. The fact of the matter is, they then implemented the deal.”
The United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany agreed last week to the outlines of a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear development. While the United States says sanctions will be phased out as Iran opens up to international inspections, but Khamenei said that is not what Iran agreed to.
“All sanctions should be removed when the deal is signed. If the sanctions removal depends on other processes, then why did we start the negotiations?” said Khamenei, who has the final say over all matters in the country. He added, “Americans put out a statement just a few hours after our negotiators finished their talks…this statement, which they called a ‘fact sheet’, was wrong on most of the issues.”
The parties reached the parameters for a final deal that must be agreed to by June 30.
“They have abided by every commitment that they made to the United States and the P5+1 in the joint plan of action,” Rhodes said, referring to the interim deal. “So we’ve been through this before, where the Iranians fully want to highlight certain aspects for their own public. They have their own hardliners who are skeptical of this deal. But that cannot change the facts of what not just the United States but the P5+1 agreed to in terms of this framework.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran’s Cheating

Is President Barack Obama right that the so-called framework nuclear agreement with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) announced on April 2, will “cut off every pathway Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon”? Some will assess the truth of his statement by crunching the centrifuge and uranium stockpile numbers. However vital such analysis will be, it is important not to lose sight of the nuke for the centrifuges. For integral to Obama’s argument is his claim that this deal “provides the best possible defense against Iran’s ability to pursue a nuclear weapon in secret. .  .  . If Iran cheats, the world will know,” and “If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it.” But the promised inspections regime will not be intrusive enough to detect Iranian cheating or to thwart any breakout attempts in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tougher Sanctions Necessary to Force Iran to Change Its Terrorist Ways
Obama’s grand-bargain Iranian vision is creating a powder keg. If recent news accounts are to be believed, the framework of agreement between the U.S. and Iran is on the rocks. Iran’s top officials, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani, are saying economic sanctions must end immediately and that UN inspectors will not be granted unfettered access to military installations and nuclear construction sites. But this may be nothing more than Iranian domestic political spin. And as long as there’s a potential deal, a critical point needs to be made: There is no provision for, or even discussion of, putting political restraints on Iran. That is, there is nothing in this deal that would force Iran to change its terrorist ways. Iran will continue to be the number-one state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, no matter what the deal.
How can this be? Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz make a crucial point: “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.” (Italics mine.) Put another way, there could be a U.S.-Iran deal that postpones Iran’s nuclear weaponization for ten or more years. But tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that, Iran will continue to sponsor its terrorist proxies, like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, keep proxy troops in Syria, continue its efforts to take over Iraq, further its designs on Yemen, and confront Sunni Saudi Arabia.
And don’t forget, the U.S. has labeled Iran’s own Quds Force and Revolutionary Guard as terrorists. Kissinger and Shultz write, “Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries . . . With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally.” No one doubts these facts. Iran wants to dominate the Middle East. And it will not acknowledge the rights of the sovereign state of Israel. So the question is: Why is the U.S. not including political- and terrorist-restraint clauses in any Iran deal? This is why economic sanctions are crucial. Western-nation sanctions are slowly but surely smashing the Iranian economy. We have effectively stopped the flow of money and oil for Iran. The Iranian budget, which dominates the state-run economy, needs $130 a barrel. Today’s $50 price is an economic killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×