Khamenei withholds verdict on nuclear deal, vows anti-US policies

[bananas]

Source: Reuters

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei withheld his verdict on Iran's nuclear deal on Saturday but in a fiery address vowed enduring opposition to the US and its Middle East policies, saying Washington sought Iran's 'surrender'.

In a speech at a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel", Khamenei said he wanted politicians to examine the agreement to ensure national interests were preserved, as Iran would not allow the disruption of its revolutionary principles or defensive abilities.

An arch-conservative with the last word on high matters of state, Khamenei repeatedly used the phrase "whether this text is approved or not", implying the accord has yet to win definitive backing from Iran's factionalised political establishment.

<snip>

His remarks did not shed further light on Iran's procedures for ratifying the accord, which are not known in any detail. Zarif will brief parliament on July 21, Iranian media have said, and the agreement will also be examined the National Security Council, the country's highest security body.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.gulf-times.com/Region/216/details/447744/Khamenei-withholds-verdict-on-nuclear-deal%2c-vows-anti-US-policies

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Sounds like our congress.

[6chars]

2. i am sure you think so

[leveymg]

3. Sounds just like Hillary - regardless of treaty, confrontation with Iran will continue

and she'll lead the charge. Looks like Hillary sees eye-to-eye with extremists on more endless war in the Mideast. Same as it ever was.

HRC actually said regardless of the nuclear talks, she would lead a new coalition against Iran: vid

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2015/07/hillary-clintons-full-remarks-on-iran-deal.html?ml=tl_8_b

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT:

And secondly,this does put a Lid on the nuclear program but we still have a lot of concern about the bad behavior and the actions by Iran,which remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism,which does go after and undermine governments in the region,that poses an existential threat to Israel,that unfairly,unlawfully confines and tries Americans on trumped up charges.

That bad behavior is something we have to address.

Having been part of building the coalition that brought us to the point of this agreement, I think we will have to immediately upon completion of this agreement and its rigorous enforcement look to see how we build a coalition to try to prevent and undermine Iran's bad behaviors in other arenas.

I will be talking as soon as I leave you with the other Secretaries of State and other national security advisors to get more details.

But as I say, I think this is an important step that puts the lid on Iran's nuclear programs and it will enable us then to turn our attention as it must to doing what we can with other partners in the region and beyond to try to prevent and contain Iran's other bad actions.

In the latter part of her address, as we see (linked above), she says she's "immediately" going to form a coalition to sanction "bad" Iran for being a regional rival that Israel and the Sunni states don't like. In her speech, she said "bad" and "Iran" in the same sentence over and over again. For emphasis.

In other words, she now says disarming Iran's nuclear program is just step one in President Hillary Clinton's plan to eliminate Iran as a regional power - "the world's greatest terrorist threat, an existential threat to Israel, does bad things within Sunni Arabia, blah, blah." Bottom line, HRC adds further confirmation she'll push like hell to be at war with Iran within a year of her Inauguration.

Listen to what she's saying. She isn't playing 8-D chess. She's a committed neocon who wants further conflict with Iran regardless of the outcome of nuclear talks.

[Mosby]

6. if clinton wins the nomination will you vote for her?

Will you vote for a "committed neocon" and warmonger?

[leveymg]

7. If she's as dangerous as my gut tells me she is, the question is, will I ever vote again?

In the meantime, enjoy "peace".

[hedda_foil]

11. Oh Christ, Hillary.

Sure, lady. Let's make sure the rest of the M.E. blows up. That's just what we and the rest of the world needs. Throw everybody into a blender and press "beat." That'll work just swell.

[Herman4747]

4. Khamenei needs to retire

Iran and the world would be so much better

[karynnj]

5. You searched long and hard to find a source that frames it that way?

Most accounts - including Haaretz and the NYT - frame it as he is balancing between the hardliners and those wanting the deal in Iran and noting that the important thing is that he is NOT condemning it and, in fact, it positioning it as something good for Iran.

Here is the New York Times - title -Ayatollah Khamaneni, Backing Iran negotiators, endorsing nuclear deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/world/middleeast/ayatollah-ali-khamenei-of-iran-backs-negotiators-and-doesnt-criticize-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0

As to remaining anti US and anti Israel, note that this completely parallels everything said by Obama. He made a strong case for the deal, but consistently has said that Iran is still a bad actor. In fact, at the end of June, as the deal was finalized, Iran was included in BOTH the human rights and the terrorism State Department reports.

You have consistently looked for the negative on the negotiations. You happily posted the RW/Israeli/etc claims that there really was no agreement after the framework was put out and Iran tried to spin some things internally. You joined those of questioned whether there really was an agreement. In fact, on virtually every issue, the final deal is pretty much where Kerry said it would be in April.

What I don't get is why you seem to want this to fail.

DU grew enormously in response to the run up to the Iraq War. Even under Obama, DU was intensely active when there was a possibility of a limited military response to Syria's use of chemical weapons. (avoided by getting Syria to accept the "natural consequence" (to use the Montessori term) of having to turn over all their chemical weapons to the US and destroy the facilities that made them)

Yet now, I see very little energy on DU to back Obama in making what would be a catastrophic war less likely. Don't believe everything Netanyahu tells you.

[leveymg]

8. Yes, yours is the conventional framing. But, I can't help but feel that Congress will sink this,

and if they don't, the next Administration will.

I sure hope I'm wrong.

[karynnj]

9. I don't think Congress will sink it

I suspect that the Obama team has more support that they have not shown. The only reason this is a tough decision is Israel and politics.

The decision is really this deal or no deal. Once reasonable people get it down to that, the decision is under which circumstances is the world .... and Israel safer? I think there are enough sane Democrats to avoid a veto being over written.

As to the next president, she or he CAN NOT roll back the process. This is an international deal. If Iran is complying, there is nothing beyond putting US Sanctions unilaterally back in place - a move that will anger US businesses and the world. If Iran is NOT complying, why would that President want to end an agreement that is snapping back tougher international sanctions?

[leveymg]

10. Oh, Cassus Belli can be manufactured even if difficult to capture in the wild. Remember Iraq, twice?

That was sold with mere babies in incubator and Amb. Gilespie's lure to Sadham, "We don't care about intra-Arab matters." Remember? Iraq II was a much harder sell - they had to screw over the CIA Counter-Proliferation Branch to sell that one.

We came about 12 hours from bombing Damascus, until someone pointed out that there were tapes of the Syrian Defense Minister screaming on the phone to local rocket forces commander that night, "What the --- is going on? Who the --- ordered this?" (or, whatever the ---- that is in Syrian dialect Arabic.) John was involved in that, and he wasn't the one who talked the President out of ordering the go-code.

This will have to be done with significantly greater attention to legality next time. That is what this seems - the legality phase, only the beginning of the end.