26
   

Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2013 09:02 pm
@Olivier5,
Only the chance to make sure they don't develop the bomb.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2013 09:03 pm
@JTT,
If there is, I've no doubt you'll say it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2013 09:04 pm
@JTT,
How can the top gangster be a rogue?

You're tripping over your metaphors.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 26 Nov, 2013 09:35 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Olivier5 wrote:
What do we got to lose?

Only the chance to make sure they don't develop the bomb.

But actually, if this deal works, it represents the best possible chance of making sure they don't develop nuclear weapons.

"Having UN inspectors crawling all over their country dismantling anything related to illegal weapons" will be far more effective than "dropping bunker busters anywhere we suspect they may have a hidden underground facility".
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Nov, 2013 02:08 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
You're just disappointed not to see Iranian children go up in flames like Iraqi children.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Nov, 2013 02:09 am
@JTT,
The thought of peace horrifies you. You're no different from Finn, two sides to the same coin.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Nov, 2013 07:31 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
We're running short of options. Keeping millions of people under sanctions forever is both immoral and counterproductive as it tends to cement the boycotted regime.

Bombing Iran could backfire big time. It could ensure that they build the bomb rather than dissuade them. Iran is entitled to its security too, and only nukes would make sure their very powerful enemies don't ever attack them again. Every time a little chickenhawk in the senate or knesset rants about bombing Iran, it gives the Iranian mullah more objective reasons to build the bomb so as to ensure the security of their regime and people.

It could also be the start of the mother of all ME wars, between Iran, Syria and Iraq on the one hand and US, KSA and Israel on the other. A lot of **** could happen. Even Turkey's neutrality would not be a given if Israel or the US were to bomb Iran without an ironclad reason.

Listen to the IDF and Mossad top brass on this issue, not to irresponsible politicians like Bibi. He's the worst enemy of his people.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 10:29 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I guess you have an Uncle in the Mossad.


No, but I do have a 2005 report by the US Army's Strategic Studies Institute within which, Shlomo Brom, former Brigadier General in the IDF and current Reserch Associate at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies wrote:

"The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has formidable capabilities and enjoys unchallenged supremacy vis-à-vis the other Middle East air powers, but Israel has no aircraft carriers and it cannot use airbases in other Middle East states; therefore its operational capabilities are reduced when the targets are located far from its territory. Based on the past performance of the IAF, its order of battle that includes only F-15I and F-16C/D aircraft capable of long range strike, and the deployment of its aircraft, it is possible to determine that at long ranges (more then 600 km), the IAF is capable of a few surgical strikes, but it is not capable of a sustained air campaign against a full array of targets."

GETTING READY FOR A NUCLEAR-READY IRAN
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 10:32 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I'm sure you're hoping that this deal will break down...


The only sure thing about your assumption is its asininity.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 10:53 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I guess you have an Uncle in the Mossad.

No, but I do have a 2005 report by the US Army's Strategic Studies Institute within which, Shlomo Brom, former Brigadier General in the IDF and current Reserch Associate at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies wrote:

"The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has formidable capabilities and enjoys unchallenged supremacy vis-à-vis the other Middle East air powers, but Israel has no aircraft carriers and it cannot use airbases in other Middle East states; therefore its operational capabilities are reduced when the targets are located far from its territory. Based on the past performance of the IAF, its order of battle that includes only F-15I and F-16C/D aircraft capable of long range strike, and the deployment of its aircraft, it is possible to determine that at long ranges (more then 600 km), the IAF is capable of a few surgical strikes, but it is not capable of a sustained air campaign against a full array of targets."

GETTING READY FOR A NUCLEAR-READY IRAN

As if that meant Israel could not destroy Iran's illegal nuclear program?

Two enrichment bunkers, one heavy water reactor, one uranium conversion facility, and (perhaps) one medical isotope reactor makes a total of five targets for Israel to destroy. Throw in the Soviet-built power reactor just to be safe and that makes six.

Who cares if they will be able to wage a sustained air campaign? I'd expect them to just blow up Iran's illegal nuclear sites and then fly home.

When Israel destroyed Iraq's and Syria's illegal nuclear sites, was there any "sustained air campaign" involved?
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 12:44 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
When Israel destroyed Iraq's and Syria's illegal nuclear sites, was there any "sustained air campaign" involved?


Sustained air campaigns weren't necessary in those two missions.

They each had only one target, the Osirak reactor and a reactor in Dier ez-Zor, respectively.

Iran has multiple complexes spread throughout the country.

Read the report.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2013 02:57 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Iran has multiple complexes spread throughout the country.

There are six Iranian targets that Israel might want to destroy (I listed them previously). Only three are truly critical, though it would be highly desirable to get some of the others too.

Israel is more than capable of bombing six targets in Iran.
0 Replies
 
DBrogan
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 12:56 am
@oralloy,
And now it's been eight months and where have we gotten? Still negotiating, no conclusions.
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 03:49 am
@DBrogan,
We've got a civil atmosphere and negotiations are making progress, which is a lot more preferable to what was going on before.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 06:14 pm
Quote:
VIENNA (AP) -- With time for negotiations running short, the U.S and Iran are discussing a compromise that would let Iran keep much of its uranium-enriching technology but reduce its potential to make nuclear weapons, two diplomats tell The Associated Press.

Such a compromise could break the decade-long deadlock on attempts to limit Iranian activities that could be used to make such arms: Tehran refuses to meet U.S.-led demands for deep cuts in the number of centrifuges it uses to enrich uranium, a process that can create material for anything from chemotherapy to the core of an atomic bomb.

Experts warn that any reduction in centrifuge efficiency is reversible more quickly than a straight decrease in the number of machines, an argument that could be seized upon by powerful critics of the talks in the U.S. Congress.

The diplomats are familiar with the talks but spoke only on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss them. Ahead of a new round of negotiations this week, they said there is no guarantee that the proposal can be finessed into an agreement.

According to the diplomats, the proposal could leave running most of the nearly 10,000 centrifuges Iran is operating but reconfigure them to reduce the amount of enriched uranium they produce.

One of the diplomats said the deal could include other limitations to ensure that Tehran's program is kept in check.

For one, Iran would be allowed to store only a specific amount of uranium gas, which is fed into centrifuges for enrichment. The amount of gas would depend on the number of centrifuges it keeps.

Second, Iran would commit to shipping out most of the enriched uranium it produces, leaving it without enough to make a bomb. Iran denies any interest in nuclear weapons and says its program is for peaceful uses such as nuclear power and medical technology.

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said there is a range of discussions going on, focused on cutting off the different pathways for Iran to potentially arrive at a nuclear bomb.

"There are many pieces of the puzzle that need to be put together," Psaki told reporters. These include how many centrifuges Iran operates and how they operate, she said.

Iran offered last year to reduce the output of its centrifuges if it could keep most of them going. That was rejected back then by the U.S. and its five negotiating partners. But both sides are under increasing pressure ahead of two deadlines: to agree on main points by late March, and to reach a comprehensive deal by June 30.

The latest negotiations have been extended twice, strengthening skepticism from both hardliners in Iran and critics in U.S. Congress.

Failure this time could result in a push for new sanctions by influential U.S. legislators, a move that some Iranian officials warn would scuttle any future diplomatic attempts to end the standoff.

The talks increasingly have become a dialogue between Washington and Tehran. Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany are also at the table but recognize that the U.S and Iran stand to gain -- or lose -- the most.

Iran now has withstood a decade of diplomatic and economic pressure aimed at reducing its program. Washington demanded a year ago that Tehran reduce the number of operating centrifuges from nearly 10,000 to fewer than 2,000. That would increase the time it would need to make enough weapons-grade uranium from a few months to a year or more.

By November, when the talks were extended, diplomats said the U.S. and its partners were ready to accept as many as 4,500 but Iran had not significantly budged.

The possible compromise was revealed ahead of the next negotiating round on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference that starts Friday.

Centrifuges are set up in series -- called cascades -- to spin uranium gas to increasingly higher concentrations of enriched uranium. The diplomats said one possibility being discussed is changing their configuration to reduce the amount of enriched uranium produced at the tail end of each cascade.

Iran could try to re-pipe the cascades into their original setup. But that could take months, and such attempts would be quickly reported by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, which would monitor Iran's compliance with any deal.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c8404de5d8034115aaa1519157031819/ap-exclusive-us-iran-discussing-nuclear-talks-compromise
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 07:16 am
Iranians celebrate the nuclear deal
Courrier International, 04/03/2015 - 24:15
http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/vu-de-teheran-les-iraniens-fetent-laccord-sur-le-nucleaire

(Google translated from French)

After the signing of the agreement with the West over Tehran's nuclear program, Iranians celebrate what they see as a victory for their country.

Following the framework agreement between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany (Group 5 + 1) and Iran over its nuclear program, concluded on 2 April, the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, was greeted as a hero on his return to Tehran airport.

Following an appeal on social networks, hundreds of Iranians gathered at 6 am local time at Mehrabad airport, west of Tehran. Many videos show people doing the sign "V" for victory. Slogans such as "Long Live Dr. Zarif! Way to go [Iranian President Hassan] Rohani!" And "This is a proud day". "The people are happy with you! " was shouted while the chief diplomat' motorcade made its way through the crowd.

Another slogan, heavy with meaning, was also heard: "Kayhan! Israel! Condolences!" This makes explicit reference to the Iranian daily Kayhan ultra-conservative critic of the team of Iranian negotiators considered too weak against the West, and to Israel, the country most fiercely opposed to a compromise over Tehran's nuclear program.

Since the beginning of the last round of negotiations on the nuclear issue, in Lausanne, Iranians all over the world have closely followed every twist of the talks. The extension of the negotiations beyond the deadline, 31 March, was a source of concern among Iranians.

However, the announcement of the framework agreement and in particular that of the removal of international sanctions against Iran, that fell into the night of April 2, put an end to these concerns. Some residents of Tehran got out of their homes at night and partied in the streets of the capital.

oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 07:26 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Iranians celebrate what they see as a victory for their country.

A victory for humanity. I join them in celebration.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 07:26 am
@Olivier5,
This is a great day, and a defeat for the bigots and extremists on both sides of the divide.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 07:34 am
You know if the republicans refuse to lift the sanctions on the US side, we could end up being on the losing end of the stick if all the other countries lift the sanctions. I mean there is probably profits to made in dealing with Iran, isn't there?

On the deal signed, I am glad regardless of what the US republicans may eventually do.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2015 08:47 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

I mean there is probably profits to made in dealing with Iran, isn't there?


The real damage isn't economic. Obama summed it up well enough himself.

Quote:
Mr Obama hailed the framework as "historic". If the deal goes through in the summer, it will be a landmark foreign policy achievement. The deal with Iran - and his legacy - are at stake. First, though, he has to overcome resistance in Washington.

"If Congress kills this deal not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative," he said after the agreement was announced, "then it's the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32125391<br />
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2021 at 09:22:55