Thoughtful piece by David Stockman, Reagan's former budget director, agreeing with the deal:

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/all-praise-to-barrack-obama-hes-giving-peace-a-chance/

"In that context, it only required one more giant lie to complete the demonization of the Iranian government. That is the utterly false claim that Iran is an aggressive would be hegemon that is a fount of terrorism and is dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel, among other treacherous purposes.

That giant lie was almost single-handedly fashioned by Bibi Netanyahu and his coterie of power-hungry henchman after the mid-1990s. Indeed, the false claim that Iran posses an “existential threat” to Israel is a product of the pure red meat domestic Israeli politics that have kept Bibi in power for much of the last two decades.

But the truth is Iran is no better or worse than any of the other major powers in the Middle East. In many ways it is far less of a threat to regional peace and stability than the military butchers who now run Egypt on $1.5 billion per year of US aid. And it is surely no worse than the corpulent tyrants who squander the massive oil resources of Saudi Arabia in pursuit of unspeakable opulence and decadence to the detriment of the 27 million citizens which are not part of the regime, and who one day may well reach the point of revolt. And when it comes to the support of terrorism, the Saudis have funded more jihadists and terrorists throughout the region than Iran ever even imagined."

Bet they had to look long and hard to come up with someone from the Regan Administration ( a budget director no less) who would support Barack Obamas appeasement foreign policy, which so far, has yielded both chaos in the Middle East, and millions of Muslim refugees streaming into Europe.

Guess we have to give Obama credit where credit is due. He will, in my opinion, be the straw that broke the camels back in the disintegration of the EU.

Note to the libertarian isolationists. This is why an isolationist foreign policy doesn't work. Problems in other parts of the world, eventually become your problems at home where they are a lot more expensive, and tougher to deal with.

"In many ways it is far less of a threat to regional peace and stability than the military butchers who now run Egypt on $1.5 billion per year of US aid."

I don't disagree about the butchers of Egypt, or Syria, or Gaza, or a dozen other Middle East hellholes one could name. However, the butchers of Egypt have neither the competence and will to pursue obtaining missiles and atomic weapons, nor do they have the resources or the complete control of their nation to do so. Iran has both. To claim that Iran doesn't want war, one has to ignore the numerous statements from Iran's leaders that say they do.

"This is why an isolationist foreign policy doesn't work. Problems in other parts of the world, eventually become your problems at home where they are a lot more expensive, and tougher to deal with."

I agree with that. You know what the real problem is? You know why the Iraq thing fell apart and the whole idea became so unpopular with a lot of Americans? The root of it is in the concept of limited war. It's too expensive; it contains too many weaknesses and self-contradictions, and it's unconvincing to the enemy. What I think will have to happen is, the next time America engages in war (and there will be a next time, sooner or later), the nation will have to commit itself to the notion of total war: nothing spared, no quarter given, and the war doesn't end until the enemy either surrenders unconditionally, or is wiped out. It will be ugly and brutal, but that's what has to be done. History shows that there's no other way to win a war.

Are you joking? This isn't about being lovey dovey with Iran, for the sake of peace and love this is about the last stable Muslim government in the region, and needing them a) to help contin Daesch and b) Not to go running into the open arms of Russia

? NicoleK. I must admit I don't grok any of what you wrote. The Iran deal does nothing to help contain ISIS or Russia.

Sigh, this asshole Obama keeps "projecting':

"But you don't win the debate by suggesting that the other person has bad motives."

You don't? He does it all the time!

And, a "Jewish Tradition"? Who the fuck, other than his blind supporters, does he think he is kidding?

I so cannot wait until he is out of the oval office. And even then I just hope he fades into obscurity. Better yet, let him retire to Hawaii and then let's give Hawaii independence.

a) to help contin Daesch and b) Not to go running into the open arms of Russia

My counters:

a) they have their own reasons to counter Daesch.
b) Putin is already firmly in their corner

They call for death to Great Satan (USA) and Little Satan (Israel). Now we're going unfreeze billions in assets that will go to fund global terrorism. You know who that benefits most? Assad in Syria, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But please, do tell me that I'm mistaken. Also, tell me that the House of Saud will not seek to purchase nukes from Pakistan, and/or acquire the capacity to build their own.

Because I really want to believe this deal will end in peace and harmony, not nuclear fire. But then again, it isn't negotiation when you give the other side everything they want, and you get nothing of tangible value.

That's called "giving away the store". So, yes, I do see this ending in nuclear fire. I hope I'm very, very wrong, but I don't think so.

Also: Stockman's a putz. I mean, obviously the Hebrews tricked the Arabs into invading their country three times in about 25 years...

Nicole, I sort of get where you're coming from regarding stability (don't forget Saudi Arabia). I'm not sure that "stability" is really achievable in the region in the current circumstances. The nightmare scenario, which is plausible, is that the current government of Iran is overthrown, or the country breaks up a la Syria when the current strongman dies, and their nukes wind up who knows where. In fact, an attempt to aid stability by backing off could backfire, because in the absence of a significant common enemy, the mullas will likely turn against each other.

As far as ISIS, it doesn't appear to me that Iran will oppose them. Rather, they will seek an accommodating, letting ISIS do their dirty work and figuring to deal with them later. And as for Russia, that's pretty much already happened. That's where most of the centrifuges came from.

And besides, appeasing a bully never works. It only emboldens them.

This should allay everyone's fears: Iran will ignore any UN imposed restrictions on their ballistic missile program.

What could possibly go wrong if they get to the point of being able to deliver hot, nuclear fire to any place on the planet in 35 minutes or less?

Cousin Dave, Iran does have two sticking points against ISIS: they're pressing Assad's regime, whom the Iranians are propping up, and they're pressing Iraq's Shia central government.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend is an old Arab proverb. I prefer my own white-male-privilege view: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.

Were I in a position to run statecraft, I would assist one against the other. And then switch sides to keep them at a balance of power. And let them bleed each other and keep them weakened and much less of a threat to anyone else.

Also, ISIS sees the Persians as apostates, and Arabs have no great love for Persians, so there's an awful lot of friction there. And the Persians would like to see the world-wide caliphate running thru Qom, Iran. Whoops.

And we know what fate apostates meet.

There is a LOT in Judaism that is about motivation. Did you drive the car on the Sabbath while thinking (and totally convinced) it was Tuesday? That's not the same, according to Jewish law, as if you knew it was the Sabbath and knew you weren't supposed to drive. One is an intentional infraction, the other not. This is just the example that comes to mind first, but there are others.

There are different rules put forth in the Torah for intentional and non-intentional homicide as well.

Motivation matters. A lot. It's not everything, but it is important.

Why the President thinks he can make a deal with the Assaholah -- er, I mean, Ayatollah -- that he would consider binding is beyond me. (Does anyone really think the President of Iran has any power?)

Why are we making deals with Iran about anything? They are not trustworthy and I'm sure they would consider reneging on any agreement to be a honorable thing.

This is just irritating to me. You cannot make deals with barbarians. The only thing these people understand is weapons being pointed at them. Negotiations are just not something they do. You don't bring tea and crumpets to a gunfight.

In order to enforce Allah's will, lying to the non-believers is encouraged and a sign of holiness. Any treaty with a Dhimmīi is non-binding.

"But you don't win the debate by suggesting that the other person has bad motives."

Unless the other person is a Republican or disagrees with you. Then, you malign his motives and accuse him of clinging to God and guns out of ignorance and fear; or suggest that his hard work didn't build his business, but the government-built road did.

==============================

Obama is taking a big (and I think naive) gamble that by inviting Iran into the community of nations, the bully will reform its past bad behavior and work with the rest of the world toward a peaceful end. By not questioning the Iranians' motivation, he's making big assumptions that they want to be an equal partner with the rest of the world and not a dominant player.

==============================

Posted this elsewhere, but is relevant here, too:

The Democrats now own the Iran deal.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/09/02/democrats-own-iran/

Bill Kristol suggests we invade Iran.

2006 rears its ugly head.

Any deal will be a deal broken. That's a given.

Obama does his "best traditions" bullshit with any crap he is selling. Someone must have polled the word traditions and said " the rubes will assume we are just doing what we have always done. It is A-OK! ". Use "best traditions" phrase constantly.

But really folks, let's thank Jimmeh Carter.

Obama is a pedant, the kind of guy who lectures someone about their own religion, job, or culture - just to prove he knows as much about it as a person who is immersed in it.

He thinks it makes him look worldly, however he usually gets enough wrong that he ends up looking like an idiot lecturing someone about their own religion, job, or culture.

Bill Kristol suggests we invade Iran. ~ Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 3, 2015 8:07 PM

We can't. Not in that part of the world.

Even if the Iranian people are begging us to come and liberate them, we can't be the ones to do it. As the Great Satan, we'll always be the outsiders, the invaders, even if we're liberating them from horrific oppression.

We found that out in Iraq. We were cheered for about a week and then the locals turned hostile.

We also found that out in Europe after World War II, but all we are taught in our history classes is the Marshall Plan and how Europe loved us for freeing them from the Nazis. Delusions.