Iran's top leader: No nuclear deal unless sanctions lifted

[cigaretteman]

This is likely just for internal consumption, but could scuttle the deal:


Iran's supreme leader says world powers must lift international sanctions and not merely suspend them as part of a landmark nuclear agreement.

Speaking to a group of clerics, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said "there will be no deal" if the sanctions are not lifted. His remarks were read by a state TV anchorman.


Khamenei says some U.S. officials have spoken of the "suspension" of the sanctions, which he says is unacceptable. He says Iran will only partially comply with its commitments if the sanctions are merely suspended.

U.S. President Barack Obama recently secured enough support to prevent the Republican-led Congress from blocking the deal. The agreement would curb Iran's nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief.

http://www.nonpareilonline.com/news...cle_ace6eedc-a585-5e3e-a9d9-3813b1ecf072.html

 

[thewop]

As long as we can put them back in place if Iran violates, they can call it whatever they like.

 

[22*43*51]

Of course the sanctions have to be lifted.

This whole thing was about restoring billions of dollars in revenue for Iran.

The sanctions were put in place by the West as punishment for open aggression towards the West, poor human rights, financing terrorists and researching a bomb.

Iran just waited everyone out.

They still show open aggression towards the West, support poor human rights, finance terrorists and are researching a bomb.

Now they'll just do all of that with our tax dollars.

Let's make a deal!

 

[Vroom_C14]

Release all hostages... period.

 

[cigaretteman]

Here's a slightly different take:

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered Parliament to vote on an agreement to curb the country’s nuclear program, the state news media reported on Thursday, announcing his decision a day after President Obama secured enough votes to ensure approval of the deal in the United States.

Although Parliament is expected to approve the agreement, the announcement nonetheless represents a blow for President Hassan Rouhani and his team of nuclear negotiators. They had long insisted that such a vote was not constitutionally required because the agreement between Iran and the world powers was not an international treaty.

Mr. Rouhani and the negotiating team have argued that Iran’s Supreme National Security Council should review the agreement, which would lift sanctions against Iran in exchange for a series of restrictions on the country’s nuclear program.


Mr. Khamenei told an audience of Shiite Muslim clerics that Parliament “should not be bypassed” in the review of the nuclear deal. He was careful not to show any support or opposition to the agreement, saying it was up to the “representatives of the nation” to decide.

He is widely seen as the architect behind the nuclear agreement, and analysts expect that lawmakers will support the deal, which has the public support of Ali Larijani, the influential head of Parliament. A small but vocal faction is expected to put up a fight, but ultimately, the members of Parliament are expected to look to Mr. Khamenei for guidance.


Sounding a more cautionary note, Mr. Khamenei expressed doubt about whether the world powers would lift all of the sanctions and warned that Iran would cancel the deal if any of them remained in place.

“If we compromised on the certain issues in the negotiations and conceded certain things, it was mainly to have the sanctions lifted,” he said. “If the sanctions are not to be lifted, there will not be a trade-off. Therefore, this issue has to be clarified.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/w...ei-iran-supreme-leader-nuclear-deal-vote.html

 

[Vroom_C14]

So we have a child (Iran) that wants an "all or nothing" deal (candy store). So either way the world powers are in a corner...

 

[TexMichFan]

Of course the sanctions have to be lifted.

This whole thing was about restoring billions of dollars in revenue for Iran.

The sanctions were put in place by the West as punishment for open aggression towards the West, poor human rights, financing terrorists and researching a bomb.

Iran just waited everyone out.

They still show open aggression towards the West, support poor human rights, finance terrorists and are researching a bomb.

Now they'll just do all of that with our tax dollars.

Let's make a deal!

Waiting out the West is a lesson learned from the Vietnam War.

 

[gusto79]

Of course the sanctions have to be lifted.

This whole thing was about restoring billions of dollars in revenue for Iran.

The sanctions were put in place by the West as punishment for open aggression towards the West, poor human rights, financing terrorists and researching a bomb.

Iran just waited everyone out.

They still show open aggression towards the West, support poor human rights, finance terrorists and are researching a bomb.

Now they'll just do all of that with our tax dollars.

Let's make a deal!

Nearly all the sanctions were put in place because of nuclear activities, not because of terrorism and human rights. Plus the US sanctions relating to terrorism and human rights will stay in place.

What do you mean they'll do it with our tax dollars?

 

[aflachawk]

As long as we can put them back in place if Iran violates, they can call it whatever they like.

The so called snap back provision is a joke from the start. When BHO went to the UN and got the sanctions lifted, the horse was out of the proverbial barn. No Other country is going to re instate sanctions

 

[cigaretteman]

Nearly all the sanctions were put in place because of nuclear activities, not because of terrorism and human rights. Plus the US sanctions relating to terrorism and human rights will stay in place.

What do you mean they'll do it with our tax dollars?

Apparently some people have difficulty realizing that the only funds being made available to Iran by the deal are those that have belonged to them all along, and were frozen during the 1980s following the Revolution.

 

[22*43*51]

Nearly all the sanctions were put in place because of nuclear activities, not because of terrorism and human rights. Plus the US sanctions relating to terrorism and human rights will stay in place.

What do you mean they'll do it with our tax dollars?

You are incorrect in your first sentence.

This article is one of dozens that deal with your tax dollars question.

Dozens of states have passed laws forbidding state and local governments from doing business with companies invested in Iran, but one short paragraph in the nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama appears to shatter these efforts.

In 2006, as treasurer of Missouri, I decided to divest state funds—including in employee pensions—from any bank, company or financial institution doing business with a terrorist-sponsoring state. At that time the list included Iran, North Korea, Syria and Sudan. At least 30 other states have undertaken similar initiatives.

Remember that U.S. sanctions were initially imposed because Iran was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, so the law prohibited Americans from doing business there. Yet at that time American money was flowing into publicly traded companies that were flouting the sanctions. States’ efforts clearly helped stanch this flow of money. Why else would Iran specifically enumerate the lifting of these state laws in the recently negotiated agreement?

Paragraph 25 of the agreement (formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) reads: “If a law at the state or local level in the United States is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA, the United States will take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities, with a view to achieving such implementation. The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions under this JCPOA and to refrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy.”

Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Max Boot on why the Gulf Cooperation Council is publicly supporting the White House’s nuclear deal. Photo credit: Getty Images
.
We are left to wonder how the Obama administration intends to proceed against these sanctions at the state level. Federal law of course pre-empts state law, but does this agreement, which still lacks congressional approval, trump state laws and constitutions? What kind of consequences might the president suggest for state officials who continue to follow the divestment and sanctions programs duly enacted by their states?

The battle to enact sanctions was a long and difficult one at every level of government. In Missouri, opponents of divestment stonewalled requests for investment information, used scare tactics and called names. It was a constant grind over several years, mainly because pension-fund managers told people that divestment would decrease their returns. This same kind of opposition was encountered in other states, such as Florida, Indiana, California, Ohio and South Dakota, that followed Missouri’s lead.

The highly advertised “snapback” provision that puts sanctions back in place if Iran violates the agreement is a figment of Mr. Obama’s imagination. Once the sanctions are gone, they are not coming back.

No taxpayer wants his tax dollars to help those who have killed our soldiers, as Iran has. This agreement undermines the will of the people in the states that adopted these policies and will allow billions of dollars of taxpayer money to flow to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-and-obama-vs-the-states-1438730105

 

[gusto79]

You are incorrect in your first sentence.

This article is one of dozens that deal with your tax dollars question.

Dozens of states have passed laws forbidding state and local governments from doing business with companies invested in Iran, but one short paragraph in the nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama appears to shatter these efforts.

In 2006, as treasurer of Missouri, I decided to divest state funds—including in employee pensions—from any bank, company or financial institution doing business with a terrorist-sponsoring state. At that time the list included Iran, North Korea, Syria and Sudan. At least 30 other states have undertaken similar initiatives.

Remember that U.S. sanctions were initially imposed because Iran was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, so the law prohibited Americans from doing business there. Yet at that time American money was flowing into publicly traded companies that were flouting the sanctions. States’ efforts clearly helped stanch this flow of money. Why else would Iran specifically enumerate the lifting of these state laws in the recently negotiated agreement?

Paragraph 25 of the agreement (formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) reads: “If a law at the state or local level in the United States is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA, the United States will take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities, with a view to achieving such implementation. The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions under this JCPOA and to refrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy.”

Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Max Boot on why the Gulf Cooperation Council is publicly supporting the White House’s nuclear deal. Photo credit: Getty Images
.
We are left to wonder how the Obama administration intends to proceed against these sanctions at the state level. Federal law of course pre-empts state law, but does this agreement, which still lacks congressional approval, trump state laws and constitutions? What kind of consequences might the president suggest for state officials who continue to follow the divestment and sanctions programs duly enacted by their states?

The battle to enact sanctions was a long and difficult one at every level of government. In Missouri, opponents of divestment stonewalled requests for investment information, used scare tactics and called names. It was a constant grind over several years, mainly because pension-fund managers told people that divestment would decrease their returns. This same kind of opposition was encountered in other states, such as Florida, Indiana, California, Ohio and South Dakota, that followed Missouri’s lead.

The highly advertised “snapback” provision that puts sanctions back in place if Iran violates the agreement is a figment of Mr. Obama’s imagination. Once the sanctions are gone, they are not coming back.

No taxpayer wants his tax dollars to help those who have killed our soldiers, as Iran has. This agreement undermines the will of the people in the states that adopted these policies and will allow billions of dollars of taxpayer money to flow to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-and-obama-vs-the-states-1438730105

Would this deal even cover the Missouri law? The deal states:

The United States commits to cease the application of, and to seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, all nuclear-related sanctions[6] as specified in Sections 4.1-4.9 below, and to terminate Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622 and 13645, and Sections 5-7 and 15 of Executive Order 13628, in accordance with Annex V.[7]

The Missouri law isn't a nuclear-related sanction. And since it not nuclear related is it preventing the implementation of sanction lifting as specified by JCPOA (nuclear related sanctions) referred to in paragraph 25?

This is also in the agreement:

The sanctions that the United States will cease to apply, and subsequently terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, pursuant to its commitment under Section 4 are those directed towards non-U.S. persons. For the purposes of Sections 4 and 6-7 of this JCPOA, the term “non-U.S. person” means any individual or entity, excluding (i) any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organised under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States, and (ii) any entity owned or controlled by a U.S. person. For the purposes of (ii) of the preceding sentence, an entity is “owned or controlled” by a U.S. person if the U.S. person: (i) holds a 50 percent or greater equity interest by vote or value in the entity; (ii) holds a majority of seats on the board of directors of the entity; or (iii) otherwise controls the actions, policies, or personnel decisions of the entity. U.S. persons and U.S.-owned or -controlled foreign entities will continue to be generally prohibited from conducting transactions of the type permitted pursuant to this JCPOA, unless authorised to do so by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

Would these state sanctions be directed at non-US persons, or are they directed at US companies?

Regardless, it's a pretty roundabout way to say Iran is going to be doing this with our tax dollars. Usually when people say that, it means money directly from the government.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Why is is so often the case that when we hear what the Iranians actually said, it sounds reasonable?

 

[cigaretteman]

Why is is so often the case that when we hear what the Iranians actually said, it sounds reasonable?

Because it doesn't fit the story line of insane, irrational mullahs inexplicably promoting conflict in the mideast.

 

[22*43*51]

Because it doesn't fit the story line of insane, irrational mullahs inexplicably promoting conflict in the mideast.

About every day I link artical with direct quotes to Iranian leaders. A good one just yesterday.

If you want to close your eyes and ears that is up to you.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Because it doesn't fit the story line of insane, irrational mullahs inexplicably promoting conflict in the mideast.

Unfortunately true. And by tomorrow - if not later on in this thread - we'll have the usual suspects telling us what the Iranians believe and are trying to do, without any tether to reality.

 

[86Hawkeye]

As long as we can put them back in place if Iran violates, they can call it whatever they like.

Good luck getting the "partners" to go along with reapplying sanctions.

 

[naturalmwa]

Why is is so often the case that when we hear what the Iranians actually said, it sounds reasonable?

Persia pioneered reasonable under Darius.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Because it doesn't fit the story line of insane, irrational mullahs inexplicably promoting conflict in the mideast.

I love how you reply to your own posts. Brilliant.

 

[Nat Algren]

Of course the sanctions have to be lifted.

This whole thing was about restoring billions of dollars in revenue for Iran.

The sanctions were put in place by the West as punishment for open aggression towards the West, poor human rights, financing terrorists and researching a bomb.

Iran just waited everyone out.

They still show open aggression towards the West, support poor human rights, finance terrorists and are researching a bomb.

Now they'll just do all of that with our tax dollars.

Let's make a deal!

Israel has over 200 nukes and has refused to sign the Non-proliferation treaty. The U.S. has been in the ME causing all kinds of mayhem and has destabilized the whole continent for decades and you have the brass cajones to say Iran has aggressed against the West??? Iran is completely surrounded.