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: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:33PM (1 child)
Very interesting and long story.
Iran's journey to nukes won't go nearly as well as North Korea's has. They have too many enemies, more access to the outside world (and Israeli assassins), and China and Russia won't protect Iran from U.S. strikes.
Obama may have scuttled counterproliferation efforts, but he had already trashed the program with Stuxnet. The Iran deal is intact but on shaky ground (kinda like Obamacare?).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Lester on Tuesday April 25 2017, @06:57PM
Iran is not after nukes. At least as first priority.
Iran has a problem, the only thing that can export is oil, and the trending is self-consuming more and more oil, so it is trying to move energy production to other sources instead of burning its only exportable commodity. Iran was obeying all the IAEA rules and let inspectors investigate everything. It was doing what any other country that enriches uranium does. Will they investigate how to build nukes and be ready to produce them? Sure. But its first priority now is nuclear energy and they are and were honoring all IAEA rules. It's not me who states this, it's Mossad [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:34PM (10 children)
A: You make it wildly profitable for them not to bomb you.
Profitable interaction is the only way to bring peace to this world.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:57PM
But if you make it too profitable, they'll engage in leisure bombings. Like bin Laden.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:42PM
Not if the profit is at your expense, you don't. Paying someone not to threaten you is no way to go through life or to run a nation.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Lester on Tuesday April 25 2017, @06:23PM
A: Being stronger than they. Or at least strong enough to deter them from bombing you.
That is why North Corea and Iran want nukes, to deter USA from bombing them. And that is why USA don't want them to have nukes, so USA can bomb them whenever USA's geostrategic agenda demands it, or just because USA's administration wants to divert attention from any domestic issue (like president caught with a intern [wikipedia.org]).
They will not bomb anybody (let alone bomb USA) the retaliation would be terrible for them. They have a strong instinct of survival and nuking anyone would be a political suicide, and probably a physical suicide as well. Think of it, USA and USSR have been without nuking one each other for years. Pakistan and India also.
Nukes are here to stay. We must live with it. It is a danger, but the knowledge is out there. The policy of "I'm entitled to have the bomb, but you aren't" can be maintained only by force, and even in that case you won't get many allies. Most countries only approved sanctions against Iran because of USA's pressure, the truth is that most countries were more interested in trading with Iran than in Iran's nuclear power.
(Score: 1, Troll) by KiloByte on Tuesday April 25 2017, @06:59PM (6 children)
Profitable interaction is the only way to bring peace to this world.
You're assuming they're thinking rationally. You're forgetting that their holy book commands them to murder all of us, with any truce allowed being strictly temporary.
Unlike the Bible which is not possible to follow without a massive deal of cherry-picking and doublethink, with contradictions even within the same chapter, the Koran is remarkably consistent. Thus, it is drastically harder for a honest person to ignore its demands if they worship it in the first place.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:16AM (5 children)
As a blasphemer of abolutely everything, I laugh at how Jesus and Mohammed are equated because they are simply "religious figureheads."
Nobody realizes that in the Bible, Jesus does not kill anyone, because they have not read it. Even the fucking Christians (who defend Muslims) do not know what is in their books.
Nobody realizes that in the fucking Koran, Mohammed has a child wife (who is herself a warlord) and that Mohammed himself is an extremely fucking violent person. Even the fucking Muslims (who defend themselves) do not know what is in their books.
Or, the more likely case is that they are lying. Taquiyya (sp?) is "not practiced in all sects" they say, but fail to acknowledge that ISIS has explicitly stated that they intend to re-create Mohammed's crusade against the pagans in the middle east, which is why they destroyed all of those priceless historic artifacts in the surrounding areas.
It is just hysterical.
(Score: 2) by infodragon on Wednesday April 26 2017, @11:54AM (4 children)
In the same line the only people, group of people, Jesus had anything "negative" to say about were the religious leaders at the time. Not all of them but every time Jesus is "coming down" on someone are the religious leaders. He even called them vipers, which is quite a descriptive analogy. A viper stays coiled, not moving and unnoticed until an opportune moment in which it strikes out leaving whomever poisoned. Take for instance the prostitute brought before him by the religious leaders. They stated she should be stoned because she was caught in the act; After making the statement "He who has not sinned cast the first stone," Jesus began writing in the dirt with his finger. It's not clear what he wrote but they all left but the prostitute. He sends her on her way with the admonition not to sin anymore.
The only time Jesus got violent was with the money changers at the temple. They had imposed a temple currency which had to be bought before an animal for sacrifice could be bought. They were manipulating the currency and effectively stealing from those coming to worship. However nobody died and it's clear from the bible that there was only property damage. They had turned his Father's house of worship into a den of thieves.
Compare that to most modern Christians who so quickly condemn the "flavor of the month" sin. Christ never did this publicly except for the religious leaders. Even though "Christianity" as a whole, nor in any significant part, is at war; they are still guilty of the same type of behavior; the only difference is the Christians who engage in this are not killing (except a minor few and it's not organized and consistently condemned by every Christian denomination.)
I'll leave you with this... Jesus said "Strait is the way and narrow is the gate; few there be that find it!" The Greek for few is a very tiny percentage. Jesus himself stated that most who call them selves Christian are not Christian. Later it's said "We will know them by their fruit." The results of peoples actions allow us to know, but we should NOT JUDGE!
Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:54PM (3 children)
"The results of peoples actions allow us to know, but we should NOT JUDGE!"
I understand your desire to have sympathy for murderers, but how many Christian truck/gun/knife/IED attacks have you heard of recently? A grand total of zero.
You can stand by while innocents are killed, and believe yourself virtuous for not passing judgement on the murderers. Presuming you are a beliver, your god will sort everyone out in the end - the unprovoked murderers, the defenders of the innocent, and the bystanders who said and did nothing to prevent evil.
(Score: 2) by infodragon on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:23PM (1 child)
I didn't clarify. The following is still very limited as I don't have the time to go into further detail.
Judgement in the context above is passing sentence in spiritual matters. A lot of meaning is lost in translation from Greek to English.
When Christ said "Judge not lest ye be judged" he was referring to a human judging spiritual consequences for another's sin. We are not to judge matters of spiritual consequence.
I have no problem judging the acts of a murder and condemning them to prison or death; if that's my responsibility (it is not, however I will turn them over to the authorities. In imminent threat I have no moral qualms about stopping a murder from their despicable acts by lethal force, if necessary) However, judgement or passing sentence for his actions in regards to his spiritual final destination is out of my hands and I have no place judging that!
For example if I were to tell a person committing (insert "sin" here) that they're going to hell for their sin, I am in the wrong. However if I am telling the person that what they are doing is wrong then I'm in a moral grey zone; context is extremely important. Jesus didn't address the prostitutes adultery, he just said go and sin no more.
Hope that helps and again my apologies for not clarifying that point.
Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday April 27 2017, @09:02PM
Point well taken. Thank you for the explanation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:31PM
You can definitely kill murderers without getting all 'judgey' about it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sulla on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:24PM (22 children)
Maybe I'm not a boomer so I can't understand, but I do not see a problem with Iran having the bomb. Right now Iran is a constrictor, they do not look all that powerful but when push comes to shove they will wear you down. Let them become a rattlesnake and they are less likely to be tread on. A nuclear Iran would be forced into the role of fighting terror because any randoms with a bomb will be blamed on Iran
regardless of whether or not they supplied it. Israel will be forced to accept a reality where MAD now includes them. Both powers would be put in check and it puts Israel and Iran at each other instead of being proxied between the US and Russia.
Iran is not some mad dog like NK is. Achmawhaterdijad was like Trump is now, a lot of smoke but not a lot of fire. They are smart enough to know what happens if they go too far, and they are unlikely to push it to that extent. An Iran that is forced to reign in terror will be a stabilizing force in the middle east. Will Iran support Syria attacking Israel if it could end in MAD? Will Israel attack Syria knowing it will end in MAD?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:44PM (2 children)
Regional proliferation is perhaps the biggest concern. If they build them, Saudi Arabia has suggested they'll also build to counter. Their neighbors then may want to join the club to protect themselves.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday April 25 2017, @07:02PM (1 child)
Then we stomp their fucking guts out.
Iran won't use nukes, they're actually pretty civilized. Who we should be worried about, is Pakistan. Those treacherous pieces of shit are even more violent and inbred than the Saudis.
Of course, I have the perfect solution to this problem.
* raises index finger, tilts chin downward, lowers index finger, tilts chin upward * To nuke the entire Middle-East, including Israel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:04AM
Funny, that's the same thing my car mechanic says. When things are more complicated than put car on blocks, change oil, he gets agitated. His geopoliitical solution to the middle east is exactly what you said. Great minds etc.
(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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:53PM
Saudi Arabia has said that they would get the bomb if Iran does. It's possible that Saudi Arabia's government may fall, leaving the bomb in the hands of somebody worse.
Next up might be Egypt (would need to accept loss of US aid) or, after shit gets repaired, possibly Iraq. Each time a country gets the bomb, their enemies become more inclined to do likewise. Do we really want this spreading across the world?
It's important to look beyond the current government. Governments change. Sometimes invasions are fast, with nuclear delivery mechanisms unable to work.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fnj on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:03PM
Those who fail to inform themselves of and recognize evil are simple dupes at best. The power structure in Iran is as nuts, around the bend, and warped with one track hatred as that in North Korea. And in both cases the masses are completely and utterly brainwashed. Pretty much identical to what happened in Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. In none of the cases do I hate the PEOPLE per se, but in all the cases they have sadly come to represent an implacable enemy driven by mindless hate.
Inform yourself of Ahmadinejad's exposition of his aims in his own words. Pay particular attention to the invective he spews for domestic consumption, not just what goes out diplomatically. He believes Israel should be eradicated from the face of the earth, and yearns for the day he might achieve the capability to do so.
MAD only works when all sides actually fear destruction. It doesn't work against raving lunatic Hitlers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:32PM (4 children)
You are a fool who buys into the insane notion that 'they are people just like us', that diversity doesn't really exist since everybody is exactly alike, you aren't religious and can't imagine that anyone else in $current_year -really- believes any of those old fairy tales.
Well they aren't like you, they don't think like you and they do believe they are commanded by Allah to force you to submit. Giving them atom bombs will get one of two scenarios.
1. The 'good' scenario, where there are just enough sane leaders in Iran to avoid the second scenario, is they extend the shield of their atom bombs over every Jihadi who swears allegiance and lets them operate without fear of open attack by nation states, openly operate camps, own territory, etc. Their actual armies can also operate openly to conquer their enemies.
For a recent example, look to Crimea, Russia is a tattered third rate power who Europe could easily muster a conventional army to smash to bits, even without the US, if they got out of hand. But Russia has the bomb so a military response was and is off the table. Putin and Russia are sane, so MAD does work to keep them within certain bounds since we too have the bomb. If Iran stayed within those same bounds, the benefit gained by having a few nukes would be worth many additional divisions.
2. The 'bad' scenario. They really are waiting for the Hidden Imam to come up out of that well and all that crazy crap. They believe it is their duty to bathe the world in fire and blood to prepare the way for the Mahdi. Drop a dozen attached to even short range rockets, preferably cruise missles, hope one makes it through Iron Dome. The Jews respond and drop their fusion bombs in response. Within a day they probably get their wish as everybody else gets dragged into the festivities.
And remember, once it is clear Iran is going to be permitted a nuke, -everybody- in the region will be arming up in response. How can we permit Iran a bomb and deny Saudi Arabia? Obama would, aid any foe, backstab any friend, but Trump ain't going to prevent it. Expect at least a half dozen powers in the region with nukes.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by https on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:16PM (2 children)
Does telling lies about a religion make you feel better about...anything? There's more than enough fodder to put the smackdown on Islam without making shit up.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:33PM (1 child)
He's not wrong if he's talking about the Wahhabis, who are Islam's version of the US's Christian Reconstructionists. And like our Theonomists, they are also in charge.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:51AM
World war 3, here we come..
or has it already started?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @11:45PM
[begin encoded message] SJW Special Task Force, Rouge Une, jmorris Squad: status report. jmorris lies sleeping dreaming of Armaggedon. We suspect emissions. Or at least leakage. Request crew replacements, Not everyone can be exposed to this much crazy for such a long period of time. jmorris Squad out. [end encoded message]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:30PM
Not just North Korea and Iran have entered the business of detaining other countries' citizens for political gain. The US has traded Iranians it detained for its own citizens. And it looks like the US is building up its accounts wrt Russia, witness the extradition requests when a person of interest sets foot in a tributary country.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by shortscreen on Tuesday April 25 2017, @09:12PM
When an Iranian talking head or tweet or youtube video is reported to say something about "death to America" or "the Great Satan" we are supposed to take this as proof that they are "crazy" and therefore a danger to everybody.
US politicians sing about bombing Iran. They brag about assasinating Iranian scientists and sabotaging their facilities. They impose sanctions. They bring death and destruction to neighboring countries. What is Iran supposed to think about this? That if they capitulate to foreign demands they won't end up as the next Iraq/Libya/Syria? Ridiculous.
What are the odds that TFS's counterproliferation investigations are actually legitimate and not just another witch hunt based on fabrications?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Sulla on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:36PM (4 children)
Scenario 1
(Base + (Earned*.5)) as put forth by TFA. This tells me that the tax rate is 50% and that the base is tax free under this system.
Scenario 2
(Base + (Earned*.8)) is my effective tax rate last year. This assumes that taxes are not changed when this goes into effect and base is tax free
Scenario 3
((Base + Earned).8) is the government giving you money to pay taxes on because the government doesn't know what they are doing
Scenario 4
Earned*.8
Assuming the national average is 51,272 (Mar 2017) and the person is single
Scenario 1: 42,625
Scenario 2: 58,006.6
Scenario 3: 54,608.8
Scenario 4: 41,017.6
So the change in tax rate is pretty significant between 1-3, but 1 is way more likely to be stable. 2 is less likely to piss off people who currently have jobs and money because they still make more than they used to and do not feel like their burden has gone up. Between 1 and 4 people will not really care if they are making the average or better because they end up with a little more and the general population is doing better because more people can get by.
If we bump that up to 70k for a single person
Scenario 1: 51,989
Scenario 4: 56,000
This is where the dissatisfaction will start to kick in. Not going to ever see a benefit from that 16,989 base and going to be stuck paying 30% more in taxes to cover a bunch of other people to make more money.
~~
Some unknowns, with single at 17k and married at 24k, I would divorce my wife and have her quit her job. Her part time job makes somewhere around that so for now there is no reason for her to work, for now. What about kids? Do kids count as single people or nothing? Maybe I did not get far enough down in TFA. I guess common law marriages would fix this maybe.
What about when inflation starts to get used to the idea of people having more money. Demand and supply will find a way to work themselves out, and in a world of scarcity it is never in the way that works out for the people.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:37PM (1 child)
I love when I am reading one article on my phone and try to reply on the desktop, and have the wrong topic open. Sorry all, mod offtopic.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Funny) by Hartree on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:09AM
I dunno, Sulla. I'm tempted to mod it up. It made more sense than many of the on topic replies to this article.
(Score: 1) by Roger Murdock on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:30AM (1 child)
Probably the most accurate comment so far.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:39AM
Not even very hard to be accurate: one just needs to use numbers (preferably, use those numbers properly).
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:11AM
Tell me something I don't already know.