US policies being influenced by interests of foreign country

No prizes for guessing which one.

The 6 month period of the interim deal that was signed between Iran and the P5+1 is due to begin on January 20th.

If more sanctions are imposed the US will have broken it's side of the bargain, and Iran has been clear in stating that if that happens, there will be no deal.

A foreign country attempting to push the world's only super-power closer to starting another war should be of some cause for concern, particularly when the American people overwhelmingly oppose military action.

Will this policy ultimately be decided by the will of the American people, or by Israeli interests?

 

No prizes for selectively cherry-picking one country, either. Every country that has relations with the U.S. tries to influence our foreign policy to suit their own interests.

The Senate bill levies additional sanctions if Tehran violates the six-month interim deal or lets it expire without a comprehensive nuclear agreement. In which case, it will be Iran that will have broken its side of the bargain.

But don't worry - the obstructionist Senate majority leader isn't going to let the chamber vote on a bill that will possibly embarrass the president and/or force him to enforce new sanctions on Tehran if it does break its side of the bargain.

We're not likely to get concerned over the hysterics of people who over-state Israel's influence on American foreign policy.

What an utterly ridiculous question.

The sanctions will be decided by Congress and/or the president, and no sensible person takes Bernadette Meehan's disingenuousness seriously. The sanctions bill is a sanctions bill, not an authorization for the use of force.

Some people need to calm down and ratchet down their rhetoric...

 

Oh that's right. I forgot about AUKPAK, ACanadaPAC and all those other lobby groups that have histories of being heavily involved in US politics.

Did anyone argue that it is an authorisation for the use of force?

Please try to read what is there, rather than what is not there.

..and if at all possible, try to limit your responses to discussing the contents of posts.

 

This policy will be decided after a false flag operation culminating in the detonation of a nuclear device on American soil.

 

What you conveniently forgot were all the other countries that lobby our government in the hope of influencing U.S. policy. No prizes for selective cherry-picking.

Then why are you even talking about military action in the OP? Where in the Senate bill is there ANY mention of military action?

As for the disingenuousness of Obama and his underlings, they have a long history of resorting to fear-mongering to get their way, and that tactic hasn't been limited to foreign policy.

Clearly, I did read what is there, otherwise I wouldn't have commented on the disingenuousness of Ms. Meehan and others...

...and I did that, too. If at all possible, try to dispense with the gratuitous remarks.

As for Mr. Crocker's opinion, it is countered by an even larger number of foreign policy experts, and support for the sanctions bill, which will only come into effect if Tehran breaks its side of the deal, is reaching a veto-proof super-majority in the Senate.

Since everyone in Washington is apparently under the sway of foreign governments and their lobbyists in the U.S., which foreign country is pulling Harry Reid's strings?

 

If Congress decides it probably will NOT be the will of the American Man.

 

Right on!

Funny how Israel is mention but not: Saudi Arabia, Germany, Poland, Turkey, etc. I mean we are ready to go to war with China because of: Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and the Philippines...

 

American foreign policy is shaped by the interests of South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and anti-Castro Cubans.

 

And Canada and Mexico and China and the EU and Colombia and...

 

Among others, but that comes with being the hegemon. The nations bowing down are given privileges no matter their policies, and those who don't are our enemy. The art of sycophantia is alive and well here, not to mention the money given to lobbyists.

 

I saw this false flag detonation referred to in an opinion piece on Pravda.ru.
The guy claimed that some nucs had come up missing from some place in the (American)
midwest, which prompted the firing of the commander there.
I dismissed the whole piece as being typical of Pravda.
What would make it worth doing?

 

Well, of all the countries that manipulate our politics, Israel really does seem to have the most power of any single country. Saudi Arabia is probably number 2.

That being said, in the case of Israel, it's probably more of a case where we're manipulating them.

In effect, Israel is our proxy in the Middle East. They serve as our guard dog.

The manipulations against this agreement with Iran are probably more driven by Christian Zionists than by Israelis themselves.

 

will Ground Zero be your home town?

 

Well, if that was the plan, it would be rather "overkill" (pardon the pun).

It only took 4 plane crashes and two collapsed buildings to get the majority's support for invading 2 countries.

It would take considerably less than a nuclear explosion to get the public's support for invading Iran.

All you would need is maybe a Tim McVeigh style terror attack.

That being said, I'm not suggesting 9/11 was an inside job. I just think Bush capitalized on it completely.

 

I disagree, Iran is not Iraq of 1991.

They havent invaded anyone.

obama claimed Syria used chemical weapons, and obama still didnt have the moral authority to carry out the CIA operation in Syria.

 

Na, Itll be some place bigger with a much higher population, most likely a big city full of democrats.

Ive heard in the bay in south carolina, Charleston, or possibly detroit

 

Exactly.

Like all allies, no doubt the US and Israel act in each others interests, but again the US seems to act disproportionately in Israel's interests. Also, Israel has a history of acting against US interests, for example by occupying the Sinai and Golan Heights, which lead to the Yom Kippur war and the Arab oil embargo on the US.

Consider this clause in a bill the Senate is voting on today.

 

Iraq of 2003 wasn't Iraq of 1991 either.

That's not really what I'm getting at though. The public is easily manipulated by paranoia, and we've been paranoid of Iran ever since 1979.

 

whatever....

The invasion in 2003 was still justified by Saddam Husseins repeated violations of the surrender agreement he signed, after the 1991 war.

Iran is definitely a state sponsor of terror, just like Iraq was, but unlike Iraq, Iran has not invaded their neighbors...

 

We're a state sponsor of terror as well.

 

you "heard"?

from whom? Alex Jones?

lol!!!!

 

Of course, many people would argue that Saudi Arabia is number 1.

I wouldn't pin this on Christian Zionists, Serfin'. The Iranian government hasn't been forthright with the IAEA and the international community, thus it hasn't earned the trust of anyone in this country. The fact that many Democrats endorse these sanctions shows that the support for them transcends groups that typically vote Republican, like Christian Zionists.

 

I would argue that it shows that the Democrats are not nearly as liberal as is often assumed.

Half of the party is moderately conservative and beholden to warmongering interests.

 

I'm pleased with the direction of the discussions between Iran and the United States of America because it shows there is a willingness on the part of Iran to forge stronger ties with the west, and because Iran's President Hassan Rouhani has demonstrated the up and coming, changing attitudes in Iranian society.

Iran may not be ready to formalise these ties in our current discussions, this time, because of interference from Iran's revolutionary guard who are tasked with spreading Iran's Islamic Revolution and are radicalized and resistant to change in their society.

Israel has their own agenda, this is clear, for their own security in the short term because they want to protect themselves and their country from threats in the region, and they will attempt to plead their case before the United States Congress and stall the Iran-USA talks.

However, I have confidence that success of the Iranian - USA talks, either now or in the near future, will also be in the interests of Israel, and in that region of the Middle East, in the long term, because cool heads and calm minds are in everyone's best interest, and because such minds are more likely to pursue peace, improve the domestic conditions of their society, and not spread needless violence around the region and to some extent general discontent around the world.

 

I'm not sure what their degree of "liberality" has to do with Tehran's untrustworthiness...