Republicans should listen to Israel's spies on the Iran nuclear deal

Nice to see you've stopped claiming he won 79 seats. On to the next questionable assertion.

I wasn't aware that Dutch & Danish governments were in the habit of ending the counting of votes with something like 40% of the seats in the legislature uncounted and thus not seated in the legislature. I also wasn't aware of their PMs subsequently ruling by decree after doing this. Can you offer any examples of elections where this happened?

In fact, can you offer an example from a single functioning democracy where the election was stopped with close to 40% of the seats uncounted and a government formed based on those results? I can wait.

Of course, if you can't find any examples then we are back to 'not democratically elected'. I await your examples.

 

The source you quote grossly misrepresents the position of the Israeli intelligence community.

Some of the sources linked in the article are behind paywalls, but those that aren't don't substantiate the allegations. It takes a high dose of self-delusion to happily rant about top Israeli spies praising the deal, while ignoring any evidence to the contrary from the same source (the Jerusalem Post), like an article about IDF preparing for possible covert Iranian nuclear production following the fabled deal.

The MSN contributor doesn't understand his own sources. Shabtai Shavit, for instance, didn't hail the deal at all - he clearly stated it only offers a delay, not a solution - being opposed to Netanyahu's public demeanor, but agreeing to the basic rationale for the opposition.

It's just a lousy opinion piece.

 

"Admiral (res.) Ami Ayalon said Tuesday in an interview with The Daily Beast that "when it comes to Iran's nuclear capability, this [deal] is the best option."
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/i...ef-iran-deal-is-best-option-for-israel-409667

"On Sunday, another voice in support of the deal was Shabtai Shavit, the former head of Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad. He said that the nuclear deal struck between Iran and Western powers offers Jerusalem an opening to join “a new Middle Eastern order.”
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/i...ef-iran-deal-is-best-option-for-israel-409667

"Shabtai Shavit, Mossad's director from 1989 to 1996, hailed the agreement as an opportunity for Israel to join "a new Middle Eastern order." According to Shavit, the "agreement bought us 15 years, in which all kinds of things could happen. Now, with Trump having withdrawn from the agreement, the Iranians have enough enriched uranium for at least one bomb."

Efraim Halevy, who led Mossad from 1998 to 2002, declared that the Obama administration "scored a great success" with the Iran nuclear deal, applauding the agreement's "rigorous monitoring system." In Halevy's words, the deal "blocks the road to Iranian nuclear military capabilities for at least a decade."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-the-iran-nuclear-deal/ar-BB1ePLM5?li=BBnbfcL

HALEVY: I think the United States scored a great success in creating this international coalition to face down the nuclear threat which threatens the world at large. The president put together a coalition of the five-plus-one, of all the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.
https://text.npr.org/427990359

Ex-IDF generals, top Mossad officials urge Biden's return to Iran deal

Former senior defense officials express support for Biden's position not to lift Iran sanctions unless it returns to 2015 deal
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/e...icials-on-biden-to-return-to-iran-deal-659805

Cami Gillon " The Iran Nuclear Deal Has Been a Blessing for Israel

Two years on from the signing of the agreement to curtail Tehran’s nuclear program, Israel and the region are safer than ever from the threat of mullahs with a bomb."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/13/the-iran-nuclear-deal-has-been-a-blessing-for-israel-jcpoa/

There is someone delusional but it's not the writer of the OP

 

sigh....

The biggest party in The Netherlands (you made me look) got 33 seats out of 150. In Denmark it's 48 seats out of 175. You fail to understand that unlike in the US where the people directly vote in their president, that it doesn't work like that in a heck of a lot of countries. In loads of countries, the people vote on parties (not a person) so their politicians win a "seat". And the politicians who got a seat determine who is going to be prime minister at their own pleasure.

And so in Iran, at 79 seats taken = a majority, they voted in their prime minister. And it happened to be the guy who was the head of a party getting just 30 seats out of them 79. So what. The prime minister doesn't even need to be freaking aligned to any political party. The politicians in Italy voted in Draghi to be their prime minister. Draghi was the head of the federal reserve of the EU. He was a civil servant all his life and he has never been part of any political party ever.

And than the Iranian party with 30 seats ruled by a system called minority rule. I already explained that previously that a minority can rule by the discretion of the opposition voting in favor of that minority to achieve a majority. It seems you think that the biggest party gets to rule. That's not how it goes down in Belgium, where the winner of the elections doesn't get a say in anything, since the politicians from 7 different political parties having enough seats in the government to outvote everybody. This is indeed nothing like how it goes down in the US, but it is democracy.

You only point out that some seats were left vacant. Yeah true. So what when enough politicians having seats got a majority.

 

Your source, which is an article written 6 years ago, says nothing about what the Iranian intelligence thinks about the deal, and it actually doesn't even say anything about the deal itself. It only says Israel should prepare for potential covert nuclear program, which merely states the obvious.

 

'Some seats were left vacant'. I think you mean 'the government stopped 57 members out of 136 from taking their seats. So its OK for a government to call off an election the moment a majority of seats in the Legislature have been counted? With around 40% of the seats stil lto be counted. Really??? Dear me you are desperate.

As you appear to have forgotten my original question I'll re-state it. If you can't provide examples then I think we can safely assume that you are effectively conceding that Mossedegh stole the 1952 election, even if you will never actually admit it.

Oh, and I'm not American. I do have a VERY clear understanding of how different democratic systems work and I live in a place where minority governments have happened numerous times. None of those systems allow a government to call off an election half way through counting and declare itself the legitimate government based on those results.

 

You're now going anal about if .. IF... it's right or wrong, and not if the prime minister was voted in by majority, which he had. I only care about the last part, and that the US intervened before the 1952 elections till today keeps harassing Iran.

79 politicians out of 136 voted in a favor of 1 man being their prime minister. That 57 sears remained empty doesn't change the fact a majorly was achieved and so nothing was stolen.
And it doesn't seem you get it.

 

Where did you get the 79 figure? Got a source for that?

 

You conveniently left out the "lone voice of support" part in the article, which contradicts the assertions in the OP.

The JPost article clearly states that Ayalon wasn't happy with the Obama's administration approach, by the way.

Bottom line: Ayalon only supported the deal because it gave Israel more time to prepare - that's quite obvious from your source - not because he liked the deal itself.

Again, Shavit didn't say that the deal itself was good, let alone "hail" the deal. Like Ayalon, he hoped that the deal will buy Israel more time to prepare, and that it will bring the Arab states, threatened by Iranian hegemonic ambitions and disillusioned by American flip-flops, closer to Israel (which really happened).

The "great success" Halevy was talking about was not the deal itself, but the fact that Obama had been able to form such a broad coalition to force Iran into a deal. So no, Halevy doesn't hail the deal either, he clearly said he expects Iran to cheat. Sometimes the sources don't say what the journalist claim they say.

Here:

https://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990359/ex-mossad-chief-supports-iran-nuclear-deal

And, like the above mentioned former intelligence officials, Halevy supports the deal because it buys Israel more time to prepare, not because it's a good deal. It's all in the NPR interview.

I see no hailing of the deal there, only support for what seems like the less damaging option.

Behind a paywall, can't read it.

I think you meant the writer of the article linked in the OP, not the writer of the OP who is a member of this forum.

I guess only someone familiar with Middle Eastern realities is able to understand the difference between "hailing the deal" and "exploiting opportunities offered by a shaky deal". Nowhere in the Israeli sources is the deal hailed or praised, but the foreign journalists using those sources have somehow managed to twist and turn the meaning of sentences. Opposition of senior defense officials to Netanyahu's approach is not an endorsement of the deal in any conceivable way, not to mention "praise" or "hailing". Hopes for favorable changes in the region, creation of an Arab-Israeli coalition against Iran, or development of better means of defense against Iranian expansionism, are not support for and praising of the deal in any conceivable way. Again, exploiting a situation we did not create is not the same as enjoying and praising the situation itself.

 

Well...I very much doubt that army leaders don't cooperate with intelligence agencies.

 

79 people were voted into having seats. The party of the minister president got 30 something, the bigger half went to an other party, the royalists. I posted before that the highest royal gave his blessing months after the election. And so the minister president with his party ruled with a minority rule with the royalists being the random other party voting in favor. You said you understood minority rule, but I think you do not. Apart from having so many seats vacant due to a weird stop the vote thing, they still got a majority filled and the prime minister own party could do nothing with the other party since they only had 30 something out of the 79 voting.

So that leaves the US mingling around in their elections from the start. Not liking the outcome of it. And so made a coup happen for them. The US really started the conflict there, and refuses to stop. It's just perverted.

While Netanyahu wouldn't be voted in so much, without his pillar of uncompromising security theme again Iran, and the Palestine who he keeps stealing land from. That just adds to the idea's in the US about Iran while 10% of the people living in the West Bank on land ethnically cleansed for them are American citizens.

 

[QUOTE="Pisa, post: 1072527384, member: 70897"

Again, Shavit didn't say that the deal itself was good, let alone "hail" the deal. Like Ayalon, he hoped that the deal will buy Israel more time to prepare, and that it will bring the Arab states, threatened by Iranian hegemonic ambitions and disillusioned by American flip-flops, closer to Israel (which really happened).
[/QUOTE]

I think there is some confusion here - Israel is the one threatening Iran - and who has hegemonic ambitions. Iran has not attacked/made war on any nation since at least WW2.

Iran has however had to defend itself from the attacks of others.

Obama didn't put together any coalition - was the "coalition" - rest of the Security Council and Germany - that brought Obama on board.

Russia/China - and interestingly the EU - wanted the Sanctions lifted - and it is the EU that is the big wildcard in this Geopolitical position on the chessboard.

The EU was very unhappy when Mr. T pulled out of the deal - and made no bones about it. Then Mr.T introduced "Unilateral" Sanctions.

"Unilateral" being the operative word = the EU was not in agreement .. Sanctions are useless if the other nations are not onboard .. and why these sanctions were so effective when the "Coalition" was onboard - so Mr. T was in danger of looking like a Paper Tiger.

Trump then made the very bold but, very risky move of using force to get the nations to comply .. threatening those that would violate the sanctions with the so called "Economic Nuclear Option" - threatening to block a violating nations corps/banks out of the international system of payment .. which we were given "the privilege" of running .. the US dollar being the "SOLE" world reserve currency. "SOLE" being the important word.

The bold move backfired and has turned out to be a massive blunder. Especially given Mr.T decided to declare economic war on the world - at the same time as having a Trade War with China - our biggest rival on the board - one in which we desperately need our allies on board.

The world went wild - Leaders using the strongest language - not in private, but in public "usurping our sovereignty"

Oh sure - the nations of the world by en large complied - but not willingly - and have been exerting payback ever since .. every time the US turns around .. we get "FU"

Nordstream FU
Italy - Belt and Road FU
Huawei 5G- FU
India/Turkey S-400 FU

and yes .. the world is now working double time to rescind the privilege granted to the US - and come up with a legitimate competitor to the US System of international payments .. and China is now openly violating the Iran Sanctions - and we are reduced to a Paper Tiger.

Here:

https://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990359/ex-mossad-chief-supports-iran-nuclear-deal

And, like the above mentioned former intelligence officials, Halevy supports the deal because it buys Israel more time to prepare, not because it's a good deal. It's all in the NPR interview.



I see no hailing of the deal there, only support for what seems like the less damaging option.



Behind a paywall, can't read it.



I think you meant the writer of the article linked in the OP, not the writer of the OP who is a member of this forum.

I guess only someone familiar with Middle Eastern realities is able to understand the difference between "hailing the deal" and "exploiting opportunities offered by a shaky deal". Nowhere in the Israeli sources is the deal hailed or praised, but the foreign journalists using those sources have somehow managed to twist and turn the meaning of sentences. Opposition of senior defense officials to Netanyahu's approach is not an endorsement of the deal in any conceivable way, not to mention "praise" or "hailing". Hopes for favorable changes in the region, creation of an Arab-Israeli coalition against Iran, or development of better means of defense against Iranian expansionism, are not support for and praising of the deal in any conceivable way. Again, exploiting a situation we did not create is not the same as enjoying and praising the situation itself.

 

@Giftedone
Hi, could you quickly reformat/edit or rewite your post if timed out as Pisa's comments are appearing as if said by you which will confuse others

 

ahhh .. too late .. I completely bastardized the quote function .. will write another.

 

LOL You think that the following comments are not the Israeli intelligence thinking it was a good deal that benefited Israel.
"when it comes to Iran's nuclear capability, this [deal] is the best option."

"agreement bought us 15 years, in which all kinds of things could happen. Now, with Trump having withdrawn from the agreement, the Iranians have enough enriched uranium for at least one bomb."

the Obama administration "scored a great success" with the Iran nuclear deal, applauding the agreement's "rigorous monitoring system."

Former senior defense officials express support for Biden's position not to lift Iran sanctions unless it returns to 2015 deal

"Two years on from the signing of the agreement to curtail Tehran’s nuclear program, Israel and the region are safer than ever from the threat of mullahs with a bomb."

 

Apologies for the first attempt at response

I think there is some confusion here - Israel is the one threatening Iran - and who has hegemonic ambitions. Iran has not attacked/made war on any nation since at least WW2.
ran has however had to defend itself from the attacks of others.

Obama didn't put together any coalition - was the "coalition" - rest of the Security Council and Germany - that brought Obama on board.

Russia/China - and interestingly the EU - wanted the Sanctions lifted - and it is the EU that is the big wildcard in this Geopolitical position on the chessboard.

The EU was very unhappy when Mr. T pulled out of the deal - and made no bones about it. Then Mr.T introduced "Unilateral" Sanctions.

"Unilateral" being the operative word = the EU was not in agreement .. Sanctions are useless if the other nations are not onboard .. and why these sanctions were so effective when the "Coalition" was onboard - so Mr. T was in danger of looking like a Paper Tiger.

Trump then made the very bold but, very risky move of using force to get the nations to comply .. threatening those that would violate the sanctions with the so called "Economic Nuclear Option" - threatening to block a violating nations corps/banks out of the international system of payment .. which we were given "the privilege" of running .. the US dollar being the "SOLE" world reserve currency. "SOLE" being the important word.

The bold move backfired and has turned out to be a massive blunder. Especially given Mr.T decided to declare economic war on the world - at the same time as having a Trade War with China - our biggest rival on the board - one in which we desperately need our allies on board.

The world went wild - Leaders using the strongest language - not in private, but in public "usurping our sovereignty"

Oh sure - the nations of the world by en large complied - but not willingly - and have been exerting payback ever since .. every time the US turns around .. we get "FU"

Nordstream FU
Italy - Belt and Road FU
Huawei 5G- FU
India/Turkey S-400 FU

and yes .. the world is now working double time to rescind the privilege granted to the US - and come up with a legitimate competitor to the US System of international payments .. and China is now openly violating the Iran Sanctions - and we are reduced to a Paper Tiger.

 

Do you have a source for the claim that all 79 voted for Mossedegh? You claimed this last time but offered no evidence.

There was nothing 'weird' about the vote stopping. It was done deliberately to stop people opposed to Mossedegh getting elected.

If Mossedegh got less than half the votes in the 136 seat Legislature would you accept that he was not a legitimate PM?

 

Are you on the East Coast? If not then your thread should be deleted. Who do you think gets hit first when Iran pushes the button? Will you be giving us east coasters your "thoughts and prayers" when they incinerate us?

 

The hint is:
1) there were 2 parties, not Mossedegh but the royalists had far more seats
2) It says on wikipedia that Mossedegh received royal approval.

Dude, pay attention! 79 seats got filled and Mossedegh's party received 30 ... he already had less than half the votes! lol


You show you still do not understand any of this. So here is my last attempt.
The thing in the US is, land doesn't vote who is president, but the people.
In Iran (and a lot of other countries) it's: land doesn't vote, people vote in politicians in seats, and politicians in seats vote in any random idiot to be their PM as they please. Italy got a non politically aligned civil servant as PM. The people in seats have ALL the power. No person can just claim to have won the elections and be a PM, the people in seats do that. The Italians could have voted Mossedegh to be their PM, if he was alive and had an Italian citizenship. Now read this a couple of times.

 

OK, so you are basing this all on a WIkipedia article with more holes in it than a fishing net. As I suspected. Good to know.

Hint: never bring a Wiki argument to a history fight. More when I have time.

You are the one not paying attention. You are basing you claim of legitimacy on the idea that Mossedegh could rely on more than half the votes in the Majlis - 68 - whether from his party or another. So presumably if he could not get 68 votes then he could not be made PM legally or legally pass laws, and if there was not a quorum of 79 present then anything he did was not legitimate. Would you agree with that?

I live in a nation where politicians are elected to seats & they choose the PM, so I understand how it works perfectly. I have voted in elections using that system several dozen times and I know people who administer elections. Now, read that a couple of times.

In 120 years of elections in my nation at State and Federal level - that equates to hundreds of election - not once has the election been called off with 40% of the seats uncounted and a government seated based on the incomplete results. In fact, nothing even a tiny bit close to tha thas ever happened. Can you find me a SINGLE functioning democracy there that happens? Just start with one.

 

Go cry me a river I am able to source it, and you can't debunk a thing.
I'm also not interested in your unfounded opinion that wiki is not reliable.

68?? Mossedegh's party had 30, Royalists had 49. Together is a majority of 79 over the 136 seats of which 57 were vacant. Mossedegh's party on itself could do nothing without those 49 other seats of the royalists since they had just 30.

I recall democratic nations still banning certain extreme far left and extreme far right political parties... and let the elections go without them. In these elections we got a free western democracy directly interfering with those elections, and when unhappy about the outcome organize a coup against a government who did have a majority.

 

Wiki is notoriously unreilable. A decent starting place but a poor source. If you are relying on it you are uninformed.

I've read the Wiki page so I don't need you to repeat it to me. Just answer the question - did he need 68 votes for his government or any legislation he passed to be legitimate? Yes or No?

Didn't think you'd be able to find an example. There is a reason for that - functioning democracies don't call off elections wiht 40% of the seats uncounted and then constiitute a government based on those results. Thank you for essentially admitting that Mossadegh was not running a democracy after the 1952 elections.

 

I already stated that I am not interested in your unfounded opinion that wiki is not reliable.

Yes... and? 79 were there to give that majority. His own party had less than half of that 79. You were wrong to originally claimed he ruled with just 30 seats out of 79 seats. That would have been impossible and so never happened.

Since there were 79 votes going out while there were just 68 needed for a majority. He did have enough votes. That is essentially running a democracy. While functional democracies even banned parties from participating so they get more votes to govern with a majority. I notice you're just ignoring that out of convenience.

 

.

Edomite-"jews" are warmongers.