Will Obama Strike a Deal with Iran?

So, Obama will recover his world credibility...by letting a rogue regime do what it likes, and ending a sanctions regime which he has strengthened and is proving to be effective at shutting down the Iranian economy.

Listen to yourself.

And just as Dinner Jacket had no real power and thus his cries of Holocaust denial and stuff were overrated, the same with the new guy and his charm offensive. Nothing is going to change for now.

 

I don't know, but I hope so.

 

I think that your OP is not an honest question, but rather an assault on the integrity of President Obama. In other words, an excuse to accuse the President of preparing to do something he hasn't done, and something there is no evidence he has any intention of doing. A cheap slam. You're better than that, thumbs.

 

Right. "Neville Chamberlain approach". Because we all know Chamberlain imposed sanctions on basically all facets of Iranian life which have been designed to shut down their economy, with positive effects so far. Just because Obama hasn't bombed Iran doesn't mean that he's appeasing them at all.

Furthermore, there's no reason to call Iran "monsters". It's pointless, overblown rhetoric. They're our enemies. The United States is right to oppose Iran and its nuclear program, irregardless of what the left thinks, but Iran isn't a monster. Just a problem.

 

Excellent post that nails it. Also Obama's credibility is pretty high right now. He got the Russians to cave in and take an active role in helping with Syria and their chemical weapons.

 

You don't actually believe that do you?

 

That's exactly what happened. It doesn't matter whether I believe that or not. The U.S. had been trying unsuccessfully for a long time to get Russia to play a role in curtailing Syria, and Russia wouldn't. Obama threatened military action, and Russia finally gave in and we have the current deal which has a chance of being more effective than military action.

 

haha, okay Franchise. If that helps you excuse Obama's failed leadership and bumbling foreign policy, so be it. I think the majority of people know Obama was saved, this pas not part of some grand strategic scenario he had played out in his mind. He made threats, was afraid to carry through with them, and Russia realized they could both protect their client and humiliate the United States at the same time. We obviously see things from a different perspective.

 

I think you are an old paranoid wingnut who hopes the president is a lying scialist so it will satisfy your dogma. seriously.

 

Yes, Russia humiliated the United States...by proposing a plan where their ally gives up chemical weapons.

Maybe it was a Russian proposal to jump on Kerry's gaffe, maybe it was Obama's master plan. My perspective, on this debate has been WHO CARES. We're getting a scenario where Assad may very well give up his chemical weapons, and that's what we want and what actually matters rather than some dick waving about who planned what.

And your evidence that Obama will take said weak approach, when he has been in the past pretty tough on Iran is....

 

I really despise people like you. I'm finally happy that we have a president who takes his time to make a decision on starting another armed conflict involving American troops. I used to be one of those pawns that you chicken hawks could give two ****s about besides slapping on a bumper sticker on the rear end of your truck that says "Support the troops". If you right wingers truly cared about the troops you would appreciate it when a president takes his time to weigh his options when American troops are at stake.

 

So Obama is somehow humiliated by Russia doing what the U.S. wanted Russia to do this whole time? That doesn't actually make any sense. Obama threatened military action, and Russia did what the U.S. Russia wanted to do. You can believe that somehow that's bad for Obama, but in the end it works out.

 

How has the president turned his back on israel. it is clear that the old cold war style of diplomacy is out dated. also obama's sanctions against iran have been credited for their recent wiillingness to open up to inspections

 

As long as we're talking history, Chamberlain's appeasement turned out to be bad policy, but there likely would have been war regardless. It could have come earlier and on more favorable terms for the Allies, but Hitler intended to fight.

As for the Iranian parallel, Iran's economy is growing weaker with time, not stronger. Iran isn't being allowed to expand as Germany had. So I don't think it's analagous. The x factor here is their ability to build a credible nuclear capability, but even with one they still don't occupy the same position of power that the Third Reich had.

I thought ultimately we wanted Assad out. We're implicitly shooting lower by settling on the removal of chemical weapons. If we came to no settlement and backed ourselves into a corner of bombing Syria, we could have potentially crippled their ability to use chemical weapons and tipped the scales in the civil war. That's not an outcome I especially want to see (us bombing again in the ME), but it will be hard to call it a diplomatic victory when the civil war ends and Putin's man is still in charge.