Trusting Iranians...

[muttly]

If a President puts his signature on something, is it too much to expect COMPLIANCE( from him )with EVERYTHING he has agreed to?

 

[RLENT]

He hasn't signed the veto yet ... but it's coming.

In the meantime, please feel free to continue to imagine that historical moment ...

 

[muttly]

Lack of compliance...
[Bold emphasis added, but so much could have been emphasized in this little bit of an article snippet .]

.
While maddening, the Corker bill is not an abject congressional surrender to Obama and Tehran. It is aconditional surrender. It would grant Obama grudging congressional endorsement of the deal in the absence of a now unattainable veto-proof resolution of disapproval, but only if Obama fulfills certain basic terms. Obama has not complied with the most basic one: the mandate that he provide the complete Iran deal for Congress’s consideration. Therefore, notwithstanding Washington’s frenzied assumption that the 60-day period for a congressional vote is winding down, the clock has never actually started to run. Congress’s obligations under Corker have never been triggered; the Corker process is moot.

Obama has withheld from Congress the Iran deal’s key inspection and verification provisions. As is his wont, the president is engaged in a fraud.
As I have previously outlined,Obama has withheld from Congress the Iran deal’s key inspection and verification provisions. As is his wont, the president is engaged in a fraud. He and his underlings repeatedly promised the public that there would be aggressive inspections and that Iran would have to come clean about its prior nuclear work so we could have an accurate baseline to determine whether the mullahs cheat in the future. But Iran was never going to agree to such terms.

Our legacy-hunting ideologue of a president naturally capitulated on this point, but he also understood that if his capitulation were obvious — if the inspection and verification terms were revealed to be a joke — even Democrats might abandon him. So Obama and his factotum, Secretary of State John Kerry, snuck these terms into a “side deal” that is purported to be strictly between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Notwithstanding that they are the crux of the deal from the American perspective, Obama takes the position that these terms may not be revealed to Congress, a stance the IAEA has dutifully backed.

Sorry, Mr. President, too-clever-by-half won’t get it done this time — or at least it shouldn’t, as long as Republicans follow the law they wrote and Obama signed.

RELATED: Obama: Tougher on Congress than on Khamenei

The Corker legislation — formally known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 — is crystal clear. In its very first section, the act requires the president to transmit to Congress “the agreement. . . . including all related materials and annexes.” It is too late to do that now: the act dictates that it was to have been done “not later than five days after reaching the agreement” — meaning July 19, since the agreement was finalized on July 14.

Underscoring the mandate that all relevant understandings in the Iran deal — including, of course, the essential understandings — must be provided to lawmakers, the act explicitly spells out a definition of the “Agreement” in subsection (h)(1). Under it, this is what the administration was required to give Congress over six weeks ago in order to trigger the afore-described Corker review process:

The term ‘agreement’ means an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran . . . regardless of the form it takes, . . . includingany joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.

The act could not be more emphatic: To get the advantage of the favorable Corker formula that allows him to lift the anti-nuclear sanctions with only one-third congressional support, the president was required to supply Congress with every scintilla of information regarding verification. In particular, the act expressly demands disclosure of the terms pertinent to whether the IAEA is capable of executing aggressive inspections in Iran and has a plausible, enforceable plan to do so.

That is why, in conjunction with providing Congress the entire agreement, including any and all “side deals” between Iran and the IAEA, the act mandates that Secretary Kerry provide a “verification assessment report.” In it, the Obama administration must demonstrate not only how it (i) “will be able to verify that Iran is complying with its obligations and commitments” and (ii) will ensure the “adequacy of the safeguards and other control mechanisms” to ensure that Iran cannot “further any nuclear-related military or nuclear explosive purpose.” The administration must further explain:

the capacity and capability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to effectively implement the verification regime required by or related to the agreement, including whether the International Atomic Energy Agency will have sufficient access to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of covert nuclear-related activities and whether it has the required funding, manpower, and authority to undertake the verification regime required by or related to the agreement.

Nor is that all. In making this report, the administration is required to rebut a presumption, based on solid experience, that Iran will cheat. Specifically, it is to be presumed that the jihadist regime will “use all measures not expressly prohibited by the agreement to conceal activities that violate its obligations,” and that it will “alter or deviate from standard practices in order to impede efforts that verify that Iran is complying with those obligations and commitments.”

RELATED: The Iran Deal and Obama’s Fatally Misguided View of the World

Understand: It is indisputable that (a) the administration has not provided the Iran–IAEA side deal; (b) the IAEA is not up to the inspection task; (c) the Iranian regime is drastically restricting the IAEA’s access to suspect sites, even to the point of insisting that it will “self-inspect” by providing its own site samples rather than permitting IAEA physical seizures, a point on which Obama and the IAEA have remarkably acquiesced; and (d) Obama claims the Iranian regime can be trusted despite his deal’s laughably inadequate verification standards. To the contrary, the act dictates that (a) the administration must provide the side deal, (b) the IAEA must be capable of doing credible inspections; (c) the IAEA must be permitted by Iran to do credible inspections; and (d) the Iranian regime must not be trusted and will presumptively cheat.

 

[RLENT]

McCarthy is tilting at windmills ... as evidenced by Sen. Corker's comments re: Rep. Roskam's effort to implement that strategy ...

The administration cannot "supply" something they do not have a right to possess (by virtue of not being a party to said agreements - which are solely between the IAEA and Iran) and which they are not actually in possession of ...

Typically, these agreements - which exist between the IAEA and all countries the IAEA deals with - are confidential between the two parties involved (the IAEA and whatever country)

No amount of pained butt-hurt crying by the R's will alter that.

They ought to consider themselves luckily that Wendy was a tough enough negotiator to even get a look at them and so was able to brief on their contents in closed session.

 

[RLENT]

Stop Iran Rally organizers apparently claim some 25,000+ assorted Islamophobic knob lickers in attendance ...

The Daily Beast's Senior Trump Correspondent seems to be coming up with a slightly different number tho' ... and she has pics ... lol ...:

Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) | Twitter

 

[davekc]

Whole Iran deal sounds like a mess what little I know about it. Sounds like most in Congress are clueless as to what it actually is. But with that said, Pew is saying only 21 percent approve of it. Pause for thought with these secret side deals going on.Republicans don't even have the votes to get it to the floor. Embarrassing to say the least as there might not even be a vote. Crazy.

 

[Pilgrim]

Whole Iran deal sounds like a mess what little I know about it. Sounds like most in Congress are clueless as to what it actually is. But with that said, Pew is saying only 21 percent approve of it. Pause for thought with these secret side deals going on.Republicans don't even have the votes to get it to the floor. Embarrassing to say the least as there might not even be a vote. Crazy.

According the opinion voiced in the article previously linked by Muttly, Congress may not even have to vote - if only the GOP leaders can muster the cahones to stand up to our lawless POTUS and kill this joke of a deal.

The administration’s failure to comply with the Corker legislation’s conditions means Congress’s reciprocal obligation to review the agreement and enable Obama to lift sanctions — in the teeth of massive majority opposition — has never been triggered. It is not enough to say that Congress has no obligation to proceed with the Corker review process. It would, under the act, be impermissible for Congress to do so. This, by the way, is not just a straightforward legal fact; it is a matter of integrity.

Read more at: Obama’s Iran Deal Is Still Far from Settled

 

[Turtle]

I do have to wonder what, exactly, about the deal is a joke. I keep seeing bi- and non-partisan people coming out in favor of it, but few partisan conservatives. Something like the Iran deal is by its very nature not a partisan issue (unless your alternative is either complete obliteration of every living soul on Iran, or in a military invasion and an occupation and control over every square inch of Iran). Sure, the argument of "You can't trust the Iranians" is a well-worn one, but we don't trust them with or without the deal, so that's hardly an argument against. The one thing the deal does do is put the United States in a stronger position to respond to Iran cheating on the deal than a congressional rejection would. If Iran cheats or reneges we will be in an even better position to double down on sanctions or, if necessary, use military force. So, if you or anyone else wouldn't mind, I'd love to read the specific objections to the details of the agreement. I've read the agreement, and the opinions both for and against. Most of the arguments against, again, from conservatives, tend to be nothing more than different ways of saying either "I hate Obama" or "I hate Muslims". So I am genuinely interested in what it is about this deal, specifically, that's no good.

 

[davekc]

I do have to wonder what, exactly, about the deal is a joke. I keep seeing bi- and non-partisan people coming out in favor of it, but few partisan conservatives. Something like the Iran deal is by its very nature not a partisan issue (unless your alternative is either complete obliteration of every living soul on Iran, or in a military invasion and an occupation and control over every square inch of Iran). Sure, the argument of "You can't trust the Iranians" is a well-worn one, but we don't trust them with or without the deal, so that's hardly an argument against. The one thing the deal does do is put the United States in a stronger position to respond to Iran cheating on the deal than a congressional rejection would. If Iran cheats or reneges we will be in an even better position to double down on sanctions or, if necessary, use military force. So, if you or anyone else wouldn't mind, I'd love to read the specific objections to the details of the agreement. I've read the agreement, and the opinions both for and against. Most of the arguments against, again, from conservatives, tend to be nothing more than different ways of saying either "I hate Obama" or "I hate Muslims". So I am genuinely interested in what it is about this deal, specifically, that's no good.

That is why I am not quite understanding all of it. The only objections I have heard is turning over frozen money, extended period of time after a appointment to review nuclear sites, and not including current hostages in this deal. No idea what these side deals are but they keep getting mentioned with no specifics so can't say if they are good or bad?

 

[RLENT]

Whole Iran deal sounds like a mess what little I know about it. Sounds like most in Congress are clueless as to what it actually is.

What things "sound like" and what things actually are, are often two very different things.

Having said that, I will say that on initial announcement of the deal, most of the Republicans (elected and otherwise) that I observed were quite clueless on the substance - as evidenced by their immediate reaction of opposition to the deal ... before even knowing it what it contained.

Instead what they did - with very few exceptions (Sen. Jeff Flake of AZ being one, Sen. Sasse being another) - was to employ false and misleading rhetoric in an effort to sway public opinion.

To their credit, these exceptions - plus almost, but not all, of Democratic congress critters - actually asked sincere questions to actually become informed about the agreement and what it contains ... as opposed to trying to be too cute by half with disingenuous questions meant to serve an ideological agenda.

I have personally watched at least three Senate hearings - Foreign Relations and Banking Comiittees - and at least one House hearing on the deal ... as well as several other NGO events that discussed/analyzed the deal, the latest one being the International Crisis Group's event yesterday on C-SPAN ...

And in the case of the Senate hearing, I have viewed them 2 - 3 times.

But with that said, Pew is saying only 21 percent approve of it.

If you are referring to the general public, that's really no surprise ... given that most of 'em are even less informed than Congress is ... which renders them pretty clueless.

Pause for thought with these secret side deals going on.

These "secret side deals" (2) are, according to my understanding, both less than a page long, and deal with the actual methodology of the IAEA's upcoming/ongoing work on previous PMD's (possible military dimensions) of Iran's nuclear program, and as such have little bearing on IAEA's verification program going forward.

That's according to the testimony of Wendy Sherman, the State Department's lead negotiator, who has actually seen draft copies of the preliminary proposals and provided feedback to the IAEA about they could strengthened.

Republicans don't even have the votes to get it to the floor. Embarrassing to say the least as there might not even be a vote. Crazy.

Never underestimate the power of the Republican circular firing squad to visit disaster on the party ...

 

[davekc]

Can't argue that. Only concern I see is why they aren't more forthcoming with whatever these side deals are. If they make sense then it would eliminate some of the confusion.

 

[RLENT]

That is why I am not quite understanding all of it. The only objections I have heard is turning over frozen money,

It's Iran's money ... and it's not unreasonable that they should expect it back - providing they show a good faith effort to comply with the terms of the deal.

extended period of time after a appointment to review nuclear sites,

IAEA has full access to all declared nuclear sites, 24/7/365 ... via actual human presence, and/or video/electronic monitoring ...

The also have access to suspected sites (under the auspices of the Additional Protocol of the NPT), although there is a mechanism for Iran to object, provide explanations, etc.

Previously (to the deal) Iran could object and deny access to such suspected sites ... from now to the end of eternity ...

Under the deal that process gets limited to a maximum of 24 days, at which point the other parties (P5+1) deciding against Iran can tell Iran they must comply - a constraint that no other NPT signatory is under.

Failure to comply = Iran is in material breach of their obligations under the agreement.

That decision is rendered on the basis of a simple majority vote - US plus European allies - which means neither Russia or China can stop it.

and not including current hostages in this deal.

Another matter for another day.

Of course, we'll probably have to address the little matter of the 19 Iranian "hostages" we are presently holding.

No idea what these side deals are but they keep getting mentioned with no specifics so can't say if they are good or bad?

Was covered in Wendy Sherman's open testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, and no doubt in much greater detail in her testimony in classified/closed session.

 

[davekc]

Ok. Not seeing a huge problem then considering no deal leaves things the same or worst shape. Except maybe the 100 billion that is frozen and some are making the case they will go build bombs with it. I don't think their economy could support it right now. They have some issues in that regard. Just look at the price of oil right now.

 

[skyraider]

As of this afternoon, the Iran deal may go on hold as the side deals the President did were not turned over to the Democrats for review, so .without them reading that data, it could be awhile as long as 60 days.

 

[Pilgrim]

Most of the arguments against, again, from conservatives, tend to be nothing more than different ways of saying either "I hate Obama" or "I hate Muslims". So I am genuinely interested in what it is about this deal, specifically, that's no good.

One can't help but wonder which conservative arguments you've read. Regardless, there are several basic points that make this a bad deal, not the least of which is the dismissal of the basic fact that the Iranian mullahocracy is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Where is any basis for trust and why would we want to structure a deal that allows them to develop nuclear weapons capability and the means to deliver them, all under the assumption that they can be trusted to comply with the terms of the "agreement" (which is really a treaty, but that's another subject for debate)?

There's also the small matter of the side deals that are part of the "agreement"; to this day we don't know what they are and Congress hasn't been given a chance to review them. As previously stated, this should put the whole thing on hold until all the details of this "agreement" are disclosed, analyzed and accepted or rejected by Congress. Specifically, that's no good because Congress should in no way approve this "pig in a poke" deal because Barack Hussein Obama says we should trust his judgement. The whole thing smacks of Chamberlain's "Peace For Our Time" deal with Hitler in Sept 1938.

Other specifics brought out in the following article, which offers explanations for each:

1. U.S. Nuclear Inspectors Are Banned From Inspecting Iran’s Nuclear Sites
2. Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal Lifts Economic Sanctions that Could Boost Iran’s Economy with $150 Billion in Revenue
3. The Obama Administration Admits That ‘We Should Expect’ Iran Will Spend Some of the $150 Billion in Revenues Obama’s Deal Gives Them On Their Military and Possibly Terrorism
4. On the Very Week Obama Brokered His Iran Nuclear Deal, Large Crowds Across Iran Could Be Heard Chanting “Death to America”—And Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Declared ‘Death to America’ Just Months Ago
5. Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal Does Not Require Iran to Release Any American Prisoners
6. Obama’s Deal Allows Russia and China to Supply Iran with Weapons
7. 77 Percent of Americans Oppose Obama’s Lifting of Sanctions Against Iran

7 Devastating Facts About Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal - Breitbart

Of particular interest is #6 which allows Russia and China to ship weapons (ballistic missiles) to Iran. It will be interesting to see if future US presidents will be willing to challenge these two suppliers. Also there's the likely arms race that will start up in the Middle East; Egypt and Saudi Arabia will likely be developing their own nuclear programs in addition to getting cozy with Pakistan and N. Korea to purchase their products.

Bottom line is, this doesn't have anything to do with "hating Muslims"; it's about not trusting Obama and our sworn enemies.

 

[Turtle]

One can't help but wonder which conservative arguments you've read. Regardless, there are several basic points that make this a bad deal, not the least of which is the dismissal of the basic fact that the Iranian mullahocracy is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Where is any basis for trust and why would we want to structure a deal that allows them to develop nuclear weapons capability and the means to deliver them, all under the assumption that they can be trusted to comply with the terms of the "agreement" (which is really a treaty, but that's another subject for debate)?

Sooooo, I hate Muslims. Got it.

(You might have gotten that one past if you hadn't used "mullahocracy" as if it somehow mattered. Well, that and the fact that the deal doesn't, in fact, allow them to develop nuclear weapons capabilities nor the means to deliver them. Read the agreement. Or at least read something about it that isn't an article full of opinion.)

There's also the small matter of the side deals that are part of the "agreement"; to this day we don't know what they are and Congress hasn't been given a chance to review them. As previously stated, this should put the whole thing on hold until all the details of this "agreement" are disclosed, analyzed and accepted or rejected by Congress. Specifically, that's no good because Congress should in no way approve this "pig in a poke" deal because Barack Hussein Obama says we should trust his judgement. The whole thing smacks of Chamberlain's "Peace For Our Time" deal with Hitler in Sept 1938.

Aaaaand I hate Obama. Got it.

Other specifics brought out in the following article, which offers explanations for each:

I was hoping to get some honest, unbiased spin for reasons, but OK.
1. Misleading. Americans are not banned by the agreement, America simply doesn't have diplomatic relations with Iran, and as is standard with nearly all IAEA inspections, only IAEA members from nation-states with diplomatic relations with the country being inspected will be doing the inspections.

2. Not really much of an argument against the agreement. The sanctions were put in place to prevent Iran from being able to build nuclear weapons. As they dismantle their nuclear program, funds will become unfrozen. They don't just get a big check when the agreement is done.

3. Again, not much of an argument against the agreement. Iran would do that with or without the agreement.

4. Irrelevant to the agreement. Plus, "death to America" doesn't mean to the Iranians anything remotely close to what Breitbart and many Americans think it does. In any case, chants of "death to America" isn't really in the agreement at all one way or the other, so it's either an "I hate Muslims" argument, or an "I'm afraid of Iran" argument, neither of which is very compelling against the agreement.

5. So? One's really got nothing to do with the other. The agreement doesn't require Iran to stop killing homosexuals and force them to allow same-sex marriage, either. Why not? Well, because it's got nothing to do with the nuclear deal.

Of particular interest is #6 which allows Russia and China to ship weapons (ballistic missiles) to Iran. It will be interesting to see if future US presidents will be willing to challenge these two suppliers.

You haven't actually read much of any of the agreement, have you? I'm not sure how reliable your information is going to be on this deal if you limit yourself to believing only what you read at highly partisan sites like Breibart. The agreement doesn't in any way allow Russia and China to ship ballistic missiles to Iran, for at least 8 years, and then maybe not even.

6. “Weapons supplies will be possible” [under the new deal] after corresponding procedures, notification and verification via the United Nations Security Council." It's not an open market on weapons from China and Russia. For one thing, there's a ban on any weapons deals for 5 years, and from buying any missile technology for 8 years. The deal also squashes current sale of a missile defense system from Russia to Iran, because... missiles. And in any case the UN must approve any weapons sales to Iran, with members of the Security Council having veto power on any deal. This was something on which the Pentagon stood firm. They felt that allowing Iran to rearm quickly, before any confidence could be built that it was living up to the terms of the nuclear pact, was an insanely dangerous prospect given Tehran’s recent record of destabilizing military behavior in the region.

Also there's the likely arms race that will start up in the Middle East; Egypt and Saudi Arabia will likely be developing their own nuclear programs in addition to getting cozy with Pakistan and N. Korea to purchase their products.

Why would there "likely" an arms race in the Middle East, when Iran can't produce nuclear weapons?

Bottom line is, this doesn't have anything to do with "hating Muslims"; it's about not trusting Obama and our sworn enemies.

Yet the only arguments you're made are "I hate Muslims" and "I hate Obama" and didn't really address anything specific in the agreement other than button-pushing, twisted-spin opinions from Breitbart.

 

[RLENT]

Ok. Not seeing a huge problem then considering no deal leaves things the same or worst shape.

The clock for every bad thing that the R's are complaining will happen in 5/10/15/20 years starts tomorrow - if the deal is rejected.

IOW: It's NOW - not 5/10/15/20 years from now.

Except maybe the 100 billion that is frozen and some are making the case they will go build bombs with it. I don't think their economy could support it right now. They have some issues in that regard. Just look at the price of oil right now.

The testimony of Treas. Sec Jack Lew and Under-secretary Adam Szubin addressed and essentially confirmed this.

Lew estimates that the amount of monies that actually are "frozen" overseas to be around 56 billion and that not even all of that would be available for repatriation, because, as a practical manner, Iran needs that money as foreign reserves, to facilitate foreign commercial transactions.

Almost none of that is resident in the US, most of Iran's US assets having been released long ago - prior to Obama taking office.

Further, as you correctly point out, they have an economic situation on the domestic home front that they need to address ... assuming they don't want a repeat of the 2009 unrest. It's what their current government promised while campaigning and now they have to deliver.

I think it was Lew that said when queried that the estimate for Iran just to repair the basic infrastructure of their oil industry to get it functioning halfway decently was on the order of 200 to 300 billion dollars. Getting it to full capacity and/or modernizing it would take a lot more.

As a competent business man I'm sure you are well-aware of the wisdom of investing your resources where they will produce further resources and additional wealth.

The Iranians understand this quite well too ... they are, after all, Persians ...

 

[Pilgrim]

Sooooo, I hate Muslims. Got it.

No - you don't "got it". You're starting off by putting words in my mouth, stuff I didn't say. It's not a matter of "hating Muslims", it's a matter of not trusting Iranians; big difference.

Aaaaand I hate Obama. Got it.

Once again, that's what you said. It's a matter of not trusting Obama and his competence in foreign policy. See above.

You haven't actually read much of any of the agreement, have you? I'm not sure how reliable your information is going to be on this deal if you limit yourself to believing only what you read at highly partisan sites like Breibart. The agreement doesn't in any way allow Russia and China to ship ballistic missiles to Iran, for at least 8 years, and then maybe not even.

Actually I have, but the words in the agreement really don't mean much if one of the parties - Iran - isn't trustworthy. The entire counter-argument for those in favor of this agreement/treaty is based on the premise that Iran can be trusted to live up to their end of the bargain. Surely you're not that naive. The fact is that if Russia or China decide to start clandestinely shipping arms or missiles to Iran tomorrow, the US under Obama would do nothing about it except go whining to the UN Security Council to enforce the deal. Who among that group will act as enforcer if Iran decides to get weaponry from not only Russia or China, but perhaps N. Korea or Pakistan? Maybe Chile or Lithuania will send troops.

Does anyone seriously think Iran will ask permission from the UN or anyone else before conducting weapons deals after they get their money back? It's amazing how many people have such short memories of previous deals and treaties with the UN and the IAEA that Iran has proposed, agreed to and then reneged on, not to mention the "freeze" on nuclear development they supposedly implemented that never happened.

In May 2003, shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, elements of the Iranian government of Mohammad Khatami made a confidential proposal for a "Grand Bargain" through Swiss diplomatic channels. It offered full transparency of Iran's nuclear program and withdrawal of support for Hamas and Hezbollah, in exchange for security assurances from the United States and a normalization of diplomatic relations. The Bush Administration did not respond to the proposal, as senior U.S. officials doubted its authenticity. The proposal reportedly was widely blessed by the Iranian government, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei.[90][91][92]

France, Germany and the United Kingdom (the EU-3) undertook a diplomatic initiative with Iran to resolve questions about its nuclear program. On 21 October 2003, in Tehran, the Iranian government and EU-3 Foreign Ministers issued a statement known as the Tehran Declaration[93] in which Iran agreed to co-operate with the IAEA, to sign and implement an Additional Protocol as a voluntary, confidence-building measure, and to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities during the course of the negotiations. The EU-3 in return explicitly agreed to recognize Iran's nuclear rights and to discuss ways Iran could provide "satisfactory assurances" regarding its nuclear power program, after which Iran would gain easier access to modern technology. Iran signed an Additional Protocol on 18 December 2003, and agreed to act as if the protocol were in force, making the required reports to the IAEA and allowing the required access by IAEA inspectors, pending Iran's ratification of the Additional Protocol.

The IAEA reported 10 November 2003,[94] that "it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored."

Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why would there "likely" an arms race in the Middle East, when Iran can't produce nuclear weapons?

You can't be serious. The concern of Iran's neighbors has been in the news for years. We have no idea how close they are to producing nuclear weapons, and will continue to have no way of knowing. Given this uncertainty countries like Saudi Arabia aren't just standing by depending on the UN to keep Iran in line or waiting until they see a mushroom cloud over Israel.

Saudi Arabia May Go Nuclear Because of Obama’s Iran Deal
Saudi Arabia Considers Nuclear Weapons to Offset Iran

Yet the only argument you're made are "I hate Muslims" and I hate Obama" and didn't really address anything specific in the agreement other than button-pushing, twisted-spin opinions from Breitbart.

Wrong. It doesn't matter if my argument doesn't fit your template, and these lame put-downs of websites or sources you don't happen to agree with only confirms differences of opinions. My argument happens to be in sync with theirs - that Iran can't be trusted based on their past behavior - which is established fact. Hating somebody has nothing to do with it.

On a side note, the House suspended debate on the Iran deal this afternoon due to the continued refusal of the Obama administration to provide all the details of the agreement/treaty, including the side deals between the IAEA and Iran.

Right-wing uprising in House stalls votes on Iran deal

 

[RLENT]

As of this afternoon, the Iran deal may go on hold as the side deals the President did were not turned over to the Democrats for review, so .without them reading that data, it could be awhile as long as 60 days.

LOL ... where are you getting that spin from ?

Just to be clear, in case you are suffering from any delusions (of Congressional Grandeur):

Fact is, this is an executive agreement - if Congress fails to live up to what it said it was going to do (hold a vote on a non-binding resolution), then too bad for them.

IOW: ... No shashlik for you Congress ! ...

As practical matter, there is much that Obama on his own can do to implement the deal ... regardless of how Congress votes on the resolution presently before it ... although it is true that Congressional action will be needed at some point further up the road to fully implement the deal.

Of course, there's no guarantees about who will control Congress at that point either.

 

[RLENT]

No - you don't "got it". You're starting off by putting words in my mouth, stuff I didn't say. It's not a matter of "hating Muslims", it's a matter of not trusting Iranians; big difference.

Too late - you have a history ... and are already on record ...