SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
When President Barack Obama announced the "one-time gesture" of releasing Iranian-born prisoners who "were not charged with terrorism or any violent offenses" last year, his administration presented the move as a modest trade-off for the greater good of the Iran nuclear agreement and Tehran's pledge to free five Americans.
[...] But Obama, the senior official and other administration representatives weren't telling the whole story on Jan. 17, 2016, in their highly choreographed rollout of the prisoner swap and simultaneous implementation of the six-party nuclear deal, according to a POLITICO investigation.
[...] The biggest fish, though, was Seyed Abolfazl Shahab Jamili, who had been charged with being part of a conspiracy that from 2005 to 2012 procured thousands of parts with nuclear applications for Iran via China. That included hundreds of U.S.-made sensors for the uranium enrichment centrifuges in Iran whose progress had prompted the nuclear deal talks in the first place.
When federal prosecutors and agents learned the true extent of the releases, many were shocked and angry. [...] Through action in some cases and inaction in others, the White House derailed its own much-touted National Counterproliferation Initiative at a time when it was making unprecedented headway in thwarting Iran's proliferation networks. In addition, the POLITICO investigation found that Justice and State Department officials denied or delayed requests from prosecutors and agents to lure some key Iranian fugitives to friendly countries so they could be arrested. Similarly, Justice and State, at times in consultation with the White House, slowed down efforts to extradite some suspects already in custody overseas, according to current and former officials and others involved in the counterproliferation effort.
And as far back as the fall of 2014, Obama administration officials began slow-walking some significant investigations and prosecutions of Iranian procurement networks operating in the U.S. These previously undisclosed findings are based on interviews with key participants at all levels of government and an extensive review of court records and other documents. "Clearly, there was an embargo on any Iranian cases," according to the former federal supervisor. "Of course it pissed people off, but it's more significant that these guys were freed, and that people were killed because of the actions of one of them," the supervisor added, in reference to [Amin] Ravan and the IED network.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:53PM (11 children)
Not necessarily too young but definitely too ill-informed about middle-eastern politics. If Iran gets The Bomb, they will use it. Most likely on Israel. Israel knows this and will not under any circumstances allow a nuclear Iran. The two attitudes reinforce each other into a feedback loop all but guaranteeing that is the only way things can turn out.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by justinb_76 on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:46PM
If Iran gets The Bomb, they will use it. Most likely on Israel.
and nothing of value would be lost - call me antisemitic all you want, wouldn't be the first time and probably won't be the last...
(Score: 2, Disagree) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday April 25 2017, @06:19PM (4 children)
Right...because we all know that the entire country is such a bunch of crazed jihadists that they're fine with having their entire country immediately turned into a piece of glass right??
This is the biggest crock of bullshit propaganda going on the Iran issue. Nuclear deterrents will work with Iran just as they have with everyone else since WWII.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:45PM (2 children)
Their leaders speak crazed jihadi like a boss. Nobody's fault but their own if they're believed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:01PM (1 child)
McCain and Hillary have made similar threats back to them. Remember John's little song? USA are hypocrites.
(Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:52PM
You obviously do not even understand what you're talking about. Hypocrisy would be threatening to destroy them simply because we believed them to be sub-human scum like they believe of the Jews. Promising to destroy them if they attack or even seriously threaten an ally is nothing even remotely approaching the same thing.
One is xenophobic, genocidal madness.
The other is defense of a friend from xenophobic, genocidal maniacs.
Learn to think.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:47AM
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2017-04-25 [schlockmercenary.com]
Says it all, really. MAD works until one party believes that destroying both sides is an improvement.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday April 25 2017, @07:05PM (1 child)
This is doubtful, because to launch is to ensure their own destruction. I am an authority on these matters because I played Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:44PM
I bow to your diplomatic experience then.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 25 2017, @11:49PM (2 children)
If Iran gets The Bomb, they will use it.
I have to disagree. Iran simply doesn't care that much about Israel in the first place. OTOH, Saudi Arabia exerts considerable control over Iran's ability to generate income from its oil resources and controls vastly more oil reserves (both directly and through its allies, Kuwait, UAE, Yemen, and Jordan) and whose principle defender is the US. Nuclear weapons will help with that foe even if they are never used on the battlefield.
My real concern about Iran and Israel is the same as Pakistan and India. The two countries aren't far apart. If there are any tensions that could lead to a nuclear war, then that makes war more likely than the US/USSR rivalry which were between countries separated by thousands of miles. They have very little time to determine whether a nuclear attack alert is real or not. That means a higher chance of accidentally starting a nuclear war through error.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:36AM (1 child)
US and USSR/Russia share direct borders in Alaska - Siberia ie Bering Strait. The nearest land (two ice lands) are only 3.8 km apart.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:49PM