I too have a degree in international relations, but I have a different point of view. Before making a deal one needs to look at the other party’s sincerity and honesty in negotiating. The only real way to do that is to look at past behavior. I find it naïve to think Iran will now change their behavior based on this…

I’m pretty sure there’s a solution somewhere between nuking them and giving them $150 billion in cash in exchange for some watered-down inspection agreement that any human with a brain knows will be a complete farce. (Your straw man skills need work.)

It seems like it’s the right time to post this:

The centrifuges aren’t going to be removed or destroyed, just unplugged, and there is no specification requiring them to deactivate their advanced centrifuges as opposed to their older ones — many of which are not operational anyway. And there is also no ban on their continued work on developing even more advanced…

If we had stayed and negotiated in 2003, Iran would have no nuclear program.

LOL!

You’re either incredibly dedicated or incredibly dishonest if you think the decision to keep Americans in or out of Iraq was anybody but Obama’s to make. Either way, no amount of proof is going to convince you otherwise - even 47 seperate clips of Obama himself saying it was him who did it.

The US and other countries (including Iran) have done the EXACT same things. The US spies on Israel and other allies (that’s the intelligence world). Stuxnet was co-developed with the US. Iran’s bombed it’s neighbor’s nuclear sites. Iran’s human right’s violations rival Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

“Willingness to fight”

How do you verify either reduction? At BEST you confirm the destruction of the delta in stockpile and centrifuges. A delta which you’re taking Iran’s word on.

So because they’re a sovereign nation, they could lie to the IAEA (not the most US-friendly body) and UN about their nuclear ambitions? Can’t imagine how those ambitions would, say, affect the sovereignty of other nations. Isn’t it a valued principle to stand for and demand non-proliferation? Why would you be…

You do know that the agreement that Boosh signed expired Dec 2011 and Obama had a chance to negotiate a new SOFA, right?

Bush set the ground work for the deal. Obama had a lot to do with the final form of the deal. He botched it. Obama stated in 2010 that there would be no troops left in Iraq because Iraq was stable and didn’t need the troops. Then he crossed his fingers and hoped the whole place didn’t fall apart before Nov 2012. Tell…

“Funny, ISIS wouldn’t be the problem it is if we didn’t decide that Iraq had to be invaded with no plan outside of toppling Saddam.”

Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear program in 1981, and destroyed Syria’s nuclear reactors in 2011. Seams like they fight their own wars. Besides, we should probably be glad two highly armed nations didn’t get into a war that would have destabilized an already unstable middle east. As long as Israel is making threats you…

Yah, it's like when Both sides of the house and senate agree with Obama, then you know you are fucked.

Yes Iran is a sovereign nation, which is why we use sanctions instead of troops to prevent their development of nuclear weapons. The world as a whole will not become MORE stable by Iran having nukes.

So the plan is to give Iran everything it wants, ask for basically nothing in return, and make it nearly impossible to stop their nuclear program should they decide to restart it a few years down the road, after they’ve built up their economy and conventional forces. Great deal!

When you can get Israel and the Gulf states to agree on something that should be a sign of how bad this deal is .

The release of funds that can be put to use by Iranian proxies is something we could have made a difference on, though. We totally let that slide because Americans are unable to see a conflict where there might be a possibility that more than one side is wrong. Yes, Iran is fighting ISIS through groups like Hezbollah…