Home | About | Donate

Diplomacy Wins: Senate Dems Block Attempt to Derail Iran Nuclear Deal


Diplomacy Wins: Senate Dems Block Attempt to Derail Iran Nuclear Deal

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

In a major victory for diplomacy, peace, and President Barack Obama, Senate Democrats blocked an attempt to derail the nuclear agreement between Iran, the United States, and five other world powers.

In a vote of 58-42, the Democratic and independent senators backing the deal stopped Republicans from reaching the 60-vote threshold needed to advance a resolution to reject the six-nation nuclear accord.


I was greatly pleased to see that the Iran deal would go through. I believe in diplomacy, and we need to find some way to stop the endless wars we have. Maybe this is one small step toward this ideal.


Now let us all try to work together to make this agreement a successful one. The real work is still ahead. Wars are always easier to start than peace.


Very good to hear.

Bad thing is that now that there's a deal, there is the possibility of lying about who's violating what.

Would you like to bet on who accuses Iran of Cheating first?


Diedre needs to read Robert Parry's article "How Neocons have Destabilized Europe" and realize that this "deal" is a big charade--the current regime (and especaily the Republican Guardswho are thweir muscle) is going down, whether at the hand of Barry, Hillary, or JEB!--the "leadership in the US is in lockstep conformity on that issue.



Does anyone know if the Supreme Leader of Iran has signed off on this deal?


The Iran deal has nothing to do with peace. Iran has not started any wars in decades. The deal has to do with the US and the West having more control over Iran than Russia and China. There are plenty of nukes floating around the world. Iran did not even have one. Even if they would have gotten ONE nuke what difference would it have made? They are not as suicidal than to launch that one nuke on Israel or the US, knowing that they would be flattened back to the stone age.


The Iran Deal assumes we have some respect for law within what is now U$INC who earn massive money off wars of choice. Republicans will continue their revolution away from democracy and into their chosen ideology of some kind of Christian fascism always marching off to war.


BINGO! " The Iran deal has nothing to do with peace."

Let me ask: When has Amerika really wanted peace except on its hegemonic and deceitful terms? This latest canard is just more BS for the sheeple, that this is about peace with Iran and is being done for altruistic reasons when AMERIKA'S FOREIGN POLICY HAS NEVER BEEN IMPLEMENTED FOR UNSELFISH REASONS!

Just like WMD's in Iraq, when the real WMD was that our US thug Saddam became the US nemesis and was threatening the petro-dollar. That is what this de'tente with Iran is really all about.


If the "Deal "is such a good one----why is it not open to all to read?

Diplomacy is always better than War. No question of that. But the reality is that the diplomacy of the "Great Compromiser" has shown faults and benefits -- the benefits went to the other side., the faults to us.

Iran and Iraq had a war which went on for years--the U.S. supported Iraq.--less than 20 years ago.


Bravo. Well spoken, in my view.


"the death threats that continue to emanate from these Islamofascists"

What threats, to whom, from whom?

Consider this, from Shalom L. Goldman, the Pardon Tillinghast Professor of Religion at Middlebury College:

"What persuaded most Democrats to back the Iran deal, despite the well-funded campaigns against it?

According to the New York Times account, it seems that the testimony of two senior Israeli intelligence experts, who supported the agreement with Iran, played a key role.
Like many other security experts in Israel they assured those members of congress who would listen that Israel’s security would not be endangered if the deal went through. There were enough safeguards, they felt, built into the the agreement."



He has.

Quite publicly.


"the reality is that the diplomacy of the "Great Compromiser" has shown faults and benefits -- the benefits went to the other side., the faults to us'

What are the faults and benefits; which of the faults went "to us"; and how do you know this to be the case?