iran foreign minister tweets that BO White House is spinning nuclear agreement facts
 

"The solutions are good for all, as they stand. There is no need to spin using "fact sheets" so early on."

https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/583723860522115072

Just a week ago their Supreme Leader was chanting "Death to America" so obviously they are sincere.

It must be true then. From an Iranian government official on twitter.

Are you suggesting that the word of a top-level Iranian official isn't good and should never be trusted?

he just proved why this deal is beyond insane.


thanks Obama.

"Iran/P5+1 Statement: "The EU will TERMINATE the implementation of ALL nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions". How about this?"

https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/583732251667668992

the implication being that the fact there is not a fact.

And he can't even do that effectively any more or he is so full of himself that he no longer feels it is necessary since he has his phone and his pen as well as having neutered Congress. There are rumors flying that if whatever all the poobahs signed stays in force that Lurch will be nominated for the Nobel Prize, perhaps it should be renamed the Nobel POS Prize given their recent track record.

There should be a "DEATH TO IRAN" rally at the Washington Monument.

Give them a taste of their own medicine. Then some nut-case retired general can give a speech about the sneak invasion -- bet the Ayatollah shits his pants :1orglaugh

Both sides are trying to spin this to please their constituents. Obama is trying to claim that we can put all of our fears to rest and that the world will be safe from Nuclear threat from Iran, and Iran is trying to spin it as they "beat the US" and have sanctions lifted.

Our governments complicate things. Let's just make it simple - In the event a nuclear bomb goes off in the US or Europe, and we can trace any element of the bombing to Iran, we will nuke Tehran and kill millions of Iranians. Done.

i'm not at all surprised.

Except it's not that simple.

1) A nuclear bomb in the US or Europe would be globally catastrophic.

2) We would not want to nuke Tehran as we have too many loose allies in that region that would suffer the fallout, not to mention, the immediate retaliation by Tehran. What hurts more? Losing Paris and London (New York/DC) or Tehran and Mashhad.

Iran wins.

Nukes are not a backyard brawl with punch and counterpunch. There will be one or there will be total annihilation.

homer simpson just tweeted "it's hot i want my nuclear winter" :(

I would have to say what Iran wanted was the sanctions lifted, Obama wanted something he could say was a success.

Given that was traded a deserter for 5 terrorist generals without telling congress as per the law, I don't put much faith in Obama's negotiation skills...

Fortunately, there still is the option that Iran will not agree to any final agreement by June 30th, which I fully expect to happen with the sanctions going right back on.

We will see if the Iranians are negotiating in good faith and not just trying to buy more time for more advanced weapons grade plutonium enhancement.

Iran Missiles

Look at their ballistic missile ranges.

If Iran has a right to be a nuclear power they also have the right to be destroyed with nuclear weapons. Nuclear armed missile warfare is a zero sum game -- if you win you lose.

A nuclear bomb in the US or Europe would not be globally catastrophic. Japan has been nuked twice and the rest of the country survived, The US and Russia has dropped dozens of nuclear bombs and none of them have been "globally catastrophic". Chernobyl set off alarms in other countries and affected milk production in Europe and god only knows what else, but still wasn't globally catastrophic.

We aren't afraid that Iran is going to launch a 25 or 50 megaton bomb at us, but instead a small suitcase sized device. While it might make a large city uninhabitable, it wouldn't be globally catastrophic.

At the same time if the US decided to nuke Iran we could destroy a city without having a large impact outside of the country, although obviously it sure could have some effect and would be less than ideal.

You are assuming there would be no nuclear retaliation. Japan had no return nuclear attack potential in 1945.

The militaries of the USA and the European nuclear powers do have that retaliation potential and if attacked first they would probably use it. Then India, China, Pakistan, Israel might take sides. With Putin's finger on the Russian nuclear trigger the nukes could fly in multiple directions. North Korea would nuke someone just to look important. The end game to your thinking is -0- as maybe there are 500 million dead and casualties should an event escalate.

http://nucleargamble.org/wordpress/w...udy-Natanz.pdf

The prevailing winds are from the north-northeast 13 - 15 mi/hr (20-24 km/hr) at the site of Iran?s underground Uranium Enrichment Facility close to Tehran to the south-west. An attack of the Natanz facility would carry nuclear fallout in the direction of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

I would be more concerned of a dirty bomb going off in Tel Aviv. Israel has some ICBMs and a few hundred strategic short range and tactical nuclear weapons -- under catastrophic attack they would use them.

This could very easily escalate beyond the Middle East. The Ayatollah wants his messianic dream and the Armageddon prophecy of both Christians and Jews says there will be catastrophic event before the messiah's return or initial coming, respectively. Don't let religious nut cases create the possibility of nuclear massive death.

Happy Easter Obama and Kerry ...

Not spinning, Iran (Ayatollah Khamenei) called him upfront "a liar"