Upcoming Iranian Nuclear talks.

Jaafa · 08-04-2012 5:22pm #1

So another round of P5+1 talks seem to be set for Friday in Istanbul, although some confusion remains over the venue.

In any case western powers have already declared their demands for the talks, these include:

Getting Iran to suspend high-level uranium enrichment and close a nuclear facility built deep under a mountain near the holy city of Qom are "near-term priorities" for the United States and its allies, a senior U.S. official said on Sunday.

The New York Times said the United States and other Western nations planned to demand Iran immediately close and ultimately dismantle the Fordow facility and also would call for a halt in the production of 20-percent enriched uranium.

In return Iran would likely get an easing of sanctions. I hope the talks are successful and we can finally bring an end to this stand off.

A theoretical question for you now. Seeing as any possible Iranian nuclear weapons program would be run in order to counter Israels own program, what do you think would happen if Iran offered to completely and totally halt all nuclear activities in exchange for Israel to publicly declare its program and also halt it's activities/ bring them under IAEA monitoring?

An unlikely and possibly impossible solution but is it a fair one?

Sunnyisland · 08-04-2012 6:00pm

Jaafa wrote: »

So another round of P5+1 talks seem to be set for Friday in Istanbul, although some confusion remains over the venue.

In any case western powers have already declared their demands for the talks, these include:

In return Iran would likely get an easing of sanctions. I hope the talks are successful and we can finally bring an end to this stand off.

A theoretical question for you now. Seeing as any possible Iranian nuclear weapons program would be run in order to counter Israels own program, what do you think would happen if Iran offered to completely and totally halt all nuclear activities in exchange for Israel to publicly declare its program and also halt it's activities/ bring them under IAEA monitoring?

An unlikely and possibly impossible solution but is it a fair one?

Yes would agree with that.

SamHarris · 08-04-2012 6:02pm

'Fair' is far too vacuos a term, especially when dealing with the potential destruction of a nuclear weapon.

Not going to happen, a very basic concept of international affairs is that your do not reward behaviour like Iran exhibited in the last few years - you encourage it elsewhere and there is little or nothing to stop them starting again and demanding something else. Hence why the sanctions, it gives you a 'carrot' which is basically getting rid of the stick.

If your asking would it please alot of left wingers in the West, and make Iran save face - probably. Is it a good idea beyond that? Most definitly not.

Chuck Stone · 09-04-2012 2:29am

SamHarris wrote: »

Not going to happen, a very basic concept of international affairs is that your do not reward behaviour like Iran exhibited in the last few years.

Behaviour like the below?

Iran signs nuclear fuel-swap deal with Turkey

The Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, who spent 18 hours hammering out the deal with his Brazilian and Iranian counterparts, said there was now no need for more sanctions against Iran.

"The swap deal shows that Tehran wants to open a constructive path... there is no more ground for new sanctions and pressures," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8685846.stm

Or perhaps this?

Washington 'snubbed Iran offer'

Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme. Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled.

"We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.

"But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6274147.stm

Perhaps if this type of behaviour was not ignored and dismissed then the behaviour that Iran has engaged in in the last few years would not have happened.

You're starting the narrative where it suits your agenda.

dlofnep · 09-04-2012 2:32am

Jaafa wrote: »

A theoretical question for you now. Seeing as any possible Iranian nuclear weapons program would be run in order to counter Israels own program, what do you think would happen if Iran offered to completely and totally halt all nuclear activities in exchange for Israel to publicly declare its program and also halt it's activities/ bring them under IAEA monitoring?

It would be a start, but I'd suggest for it to go that one step further, and for Israel to become completely nuclear-free.

Jaafa · 09-04-2012 11:56am

dlofnep wrote: »

It would be a start, but I'd suggest for it to go that one step further, and for Israel to become completely nuclear-free.

Obviously that would be the eventually aim. A long long way down the road I'd say.

Jaafa · 09-04-2012 12:47pm

Second round of the talks will be held in Baghdad. Good to see some compromises by both sides already.

Border-Rat · 09-04-2012 3:44pm

SamHarris wrote: »

'Fair' is far too vacuos a term, especially when dealing with the potential destruction of a nuclear weapon.

Not going to happen, a very basic concept of international affairs is that your do not reward behaviour like Iran exhibited in the last few years - you encourage it elsewhere and there is little or nothing to stop them starting again and demanding something else. Hence why the sanctions, it gives you a 'carrot' which is basically getting rid of the stick.

If your asking would it please alot of left wingers in the West, and make Iran save face - probably. Is it a good idea beyond that? Most definitly not.

What are you talking about, 'left wingers in the West'? Don't attempt to lay claim to the right with your centrist views. The far-right in Europe is supportive of Iran and its regime.

SamHarris · 09-04-2012 8:26pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

What are you talking about, 'left wingers in the West'? Don't attempt to lay claim to the right with your centrist views. The far-right in Europe is supportive of Iran and its regime.

It is? I dont care.

You deny a systemic dislike of Israel amoungst leftist organistations? Seems pretty clear to me.

SamHarris · 09-04-2012 8:34pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Behaviour like the below?

Or perhaps this?

That entire incident has been thourougly explained thouroughly through its scientific facility ie the amount of fuel they were offering was enough to prevent a bomb earlier, but not at the point of offering. Nor is it the main point of contention with the Iranian nuclear program. They want full inspections to all facilities by the IAEA. Its irrelevant to your arugment regarldess and is made more so through its actions before and since.

To make it simple for you - behaviour like flaunting international law and not allowing the full inspecetions granted to the IAEA under the treaty. I think thats pretty clear.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Perhaps if this type of behaviour was not ignored and dismissed then the behaviour that Iran has engaged in in the last few years would not have happened.

You're starting the narrative where it suits your agenda.

Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. It would still be rewarding behaviour that must not be rewarded. That is all.

Deal with the point actually made and stop with the 'well I blame Israel for its behaviour' what-about-ery.

dlofnep · 09-04-2012 8:37pm

SamHarris wrote: »

You deny a systemic dislike of Israel amoungst leftist organistations? Seems pretty clear to me.

All of which is valid and with merit. What's your point? Israel brings all criticism it receives on itself by refusing to play ball, and being more stubborn than a fascist taxi driver.

SamHarris · 09-04-2012 8:45pm

dlofnep wrote: »

All of which is valid and with merit. What's your point? Israel brings all criticism it receives on itself by refusing to play ball, and being more stubborn than a fascist taxi driver.

Which makes my claim about it making the left wing happy valid :rolleyes:. Thank you for agreeing with me in a round about way.

SMASH THE UNIONS · 09-04-2012 10:29pm

dlofnep wrote: »

All of which is valid and with merit. What's your point? Israel brings all criticism it receives on itself by refusing to play ball, and being more stubborn than a fascist taxi driver.

Israel is a fascist state? :pac:
And I suppose the Islamic states of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc are all beacons of democracy and human rights. Turn off the blinkers, lad. The typical Irish lefty is so blinded by faux outrage that in their warped mind they see despots like Ahmadinejad with his nuclear program as the good guys, while they rant and rave about Israel on online forums (usually using a laptop with Israeli microchips). Do you see how bizarre this looks to a normal person?

Israel doesn't stone women to death for walking outside without a hijab. Nor does it execute teenagers for having emo style haircuts. Nor does it hang homosexuals as a spectator sport for the public. I could go on but I'm sure you're aware of these facts already.

Here is some friendly advice: Stop reading the hate propaganda, turn off the laptop, and go outside. You may even engage in conversation with a Jewish person. They are intelligent, friendly people. Despite what you may believe, they don't have horns. Good chap.

southsiderosie · 09-04-2012 10:45pm

MOD NOTE:

Folks in this thread need to calm down. Less of name-calling and aggressive posting please.

K-9 · 09-04-2012 10:57pm

Please stick to the topic and avoid the personal posts

Chuck Stone · 09-04-2012 11:35pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. It would still be rewarding behaviour that must not be rewarded.

What does that even mean? Are you saying the only way to deal with states that US interests deems 'out-of-line' is by threatening them with sanctions and ultimately wide scale destruction?

Don't you think that neocon, chicken-hawk, 'strategy' has cost the people of the US enough already in blood and treasure?

cyberhog · 10-04-2012 2:24am

Let's see, the US plan to demand Iran immediately close Fordow and halt the production of 20-percent enriched uranium. While Iran has already made it very clear that it will not negotiate on those two issues.

"We see no justification for such a request from the P5+1," the head of Iran's atomic energy organisation, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, told the Iranian student news agency.

So I think it's safe to say the talks will be a complete waste of time.

SamHarris · 10-04-2012 7:46am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What does that even mean? Are you saying the only way to deal with states that US interests deems 'out-of-line' is by threatening them with sanctions and ultimately wide scale destruction?

Don't you think that neocon, chicken-hawk, 'strategy' has cost the people of the US enough already in blood and treasure?

We'll ignore the fact the entire internationaly system recognises that what they are doing is 'out-of-line'.

Yes thats exactly what it means :rolleyes: Is parody the only defence you have for your opinions? I cant count how many times Ive been instantly subscribed to any number of positions and points of view because I took a given position in one argument. Is it so beyond the pale that I have opinions formed through rational thought on each matter, rather than a fixed ideology that informs every one of my opinions?

Or it could mean that it is blatantly a stupid idea to give a state things they would not already have had for doing something oustide the norms of international community, particularly this and particularly for what can easily be temporary changes to their program.

If you cannot see why this is a bad idea then its clear your postition on Israel and 'neocon' US administrations colour your opinion about this matter far too much for you to have a reasoned idea of what should and shouldnt be done.

Given your past history includes you challenging statistical facts concerning the US, for no other reason than it makes it look rescource rich (as childish as that sounds) this hardly comes as a surprise.

Rewarding the ending of behaviour that should not have happened to begin with, and that you sure as hell dont want other people to do is blatantly a crap idea.

Why, exactly, would it be a good thing in this context? Given that the bad thing is encouraging pursuit of nuclear weapons in other states, and the same state again if needs be, Im sure you have quite the answer for this.

That peoples views concerning the Middle East are so filtered through the state of Israel that they would gladly encourage its, and other regions nuclearistion just to see it taken down a peg is terribly sad. And its basically what every discussion in the Middle East breaks down to on this forums recently.

Given the people that think this is a good idea, I can tell allready I would be arguing aganist a very different group if the situations were reversed.

Chuck Stone · 10-04-2012 3:31pm

SamHarris wrote: »

We'll ignore the fact the entire internationaly system recognises that what they are doing is 'out-of-line'.

Who or what is the international system?

I cant count how many times Ive been instantly subscribed to any number of positions and points of view because I took a given position in one argument. Is it so beyond the pale that I have opinions formed through rational thought on each matter, rather than a fixed ideology that informs every one of my opinions?

What? Lots of words ^^^ with very little substance.

Or it could mean that it is blatantly a stupid idea to give a state things they would not already have had for doing something oustide the norms of international community, particularly this and particularly for what can easily be temporary changes to their program.

By 'give things' you mean 'not attack'.

If you cannot see why this is a bad idea then its clear your postition on Israel and 'neocon' US administrations colour your opinion about this matter far too much for you to have a reasoned idea of what should and shouldnt be done.

The failure of Neocon administrations speaks for itself and is patently obvious.

Rewarding the ending of behaviour that should not have happened to begin with, and that you sure as hell dont want other people to do is blatantly a crap idea.

Again you begin the narrative where it suits you. 1953 overthrowing of Iranian democratic government. Support and supply of arms to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war. Ignoring opportunities to de-escalate tensions and normalise relations (as above).

Why, exactly, would it be a good thing in this context? Given that the bad thing is encouraging pursuit of nuclear weapons in other states, and the same state again if needs be, Im sure you have quite the answer for this.

Again you ignore the reasons and begin the narrative where it suits you. Iran has already had its democracy overthrown for having the audacity to attempt to use its own resources to better the people of Iran. Is it any wonder that the Iranian regime is seeking nuclear capability (if indeed it is at all) with the history of western aggression and disregard for Iranian aspirations to control its own destiny.

That peoples views concerning the Middle East are so filtered through the state of Israel that they would gladly encourage its, and other regions nuclearistion just to see it taken down a peg is terribly sad.

I'm pretty sure most rational people would rather there were no nuclear weapons in the M.E. rather than more. Israel having nuclear weapons aggravates the situation and contributes to the inter-state nuclear brinkmanship.

SamHarris · 10-04-2012 4:30pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Who or what is the international system?

The UN and international statutes.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What? Lots of words ^^^ with very little substance.

Merely pointing out that seeking to fit my opinion about Iran not being payed protection money into a wider ideology is pointless in my case, I do not have one.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

By 'give things' you mean 'not attack'.

No I mean making concessions on the international stage that you would not make had they not started a nuclear program and broken international law to begin with.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The failure of Neocon administrations speaks for itself and is patently obvious.

Irrelevant to what I said. Your personal dislike of them and Israel is the only thing informing your opinion on this, not reasoned thought.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Again you begin the narrative where it suits you. 1953 overthrowing of Iranian democratic government. Support and supply of arms to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war. Ignoring opportunities to de-escalate tensions and normalise relations (as above).

It is irrelevant if you see the Iranian regime as victims. Are you proposing that people feel sorry for them and therefore let them have nuclear weapons? I think youll find your last 2 points have little substance. Look up who actually supplied weapons, the US and Israel do not feature heavily.

The last has been dealt with convincingly and repeatedly throughout the media if you could be bothered looking up an opinion that does not immediatly validate your own.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Again you ignore the reasons and begin the narrative where it suits you. Iran has already had its democracy overthrown for having the audacity to attempt to use its own resources to better the people of Iran. Is it any wonder that the Iranian regime is seeking nuclear capability (if indeed it is at all) with the history of western aggression and disregard for Iranian aspirations to control its own destiny.

No, your letting your narrative get in the way of the actual issue - nuclearisation of Iran is a universally bad thing. It does not become a 'good' thing because it annoys Israel or the US...

So your argument so far boils down to, you deem Iran has been through enough to earn itself the right to nuclear weapons, therefore they should have them? Powerful stuff.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm pretty sure most rational people would rather there were no nuclear weapons in the M.E. rather than more. Israel having nuclear weapons aggravates the situation and contributes to the inter-state nuclear brinkmanship.

It may well contribute, that hardly deals with the point that rewarding people for seeking a nuclear weapon is not something that should even be considered.

A bunch of red herrings and straw men - nothing dealt with the actual issues. Hardly a surprise, but a waste of my time.

Ill make it easy for you

- Why is my point about rewarding those who purposely and repeatedly breach the treaty not valid?

-Do you have any real positives to blank out this one enormous negative? I have plenty others, but you are yet to deal with this or even give a positive beyond that its a nicer thing to do than sanction...

Keep in mind that maintaining Iran is a "special case" because it has such a long history of being wronged (and wronging others, but then that can be ignored Im sure) is not exactly the pinnacle of intelectual or reasoned argument.

Also keep in mind proportion and scale - rewarding breaches has obvious and massive global ramifications so make your rebuttal powerful and far reaching. Its just not good enough that you and others are annoyed by Israel.

Chuck Stone · 10-04-2012 7:51pm

SamHarris wrote: »

The UN and international statutes.

The same UN that the US et al ignored when they went to war against Iraq in 2003? The same UN that the the US shields the state of Israel from regularly. Such hypocrisy.

The US and co like to throw about terms such as 'the will of international community' and other such faux displays of global unity. You will note that the non-aligned movement (which makes up the majority of the states on the planet) often do not subscribe to what the US describes as breaches of international norms.

The Non-Aligned Movement which consists of 118 countries from the 193 United Nations member states, endorsed Iran's right to enrich uranium for civil nuclear energy.

Source

When nations such as the US make demands of other countries under the threat of war the burden of proof that the risk is real and all alternatives have been exhausted falls with those who initiate the use of military force.

Merely pointing out that seeking to fit my opinion about Iran not being payed protection money into a wider ideology is pointless in my case, I do not have one.

What?

No I mean making concessions on the international stage that you would not make had they not started a nuclear program and broken international law to begin with.

Again you are wilfully ignoring the context of western aggression against Iran and a long history of meddling, to put it mildly, in the M.E. in general.

Your personal dislike of them and Israel is the only thing informing your opinion on this, not reasoned thought.

I have no personal dislike against the people of the US or Israel so you can quit with your misrepresentation right there. The wars in Iraq and Afgh have been a disaster for the US in terms of blood, treasure and standing on the international stage. I am sympathetic to the people of Israel and would love to see them live in security and peace. I find the treatment of the Palestinians abhorrent and I believe Israeli aggression against its neighbours has gone too far but that does not make me anti-Israel by any rational person's standards.

It is irrelevant if you see the Iranian regime as victims.

The Iranian regime is nasty and brutish. What idiot would think otherwise?

Are you proposing that people feel sorry for them and therefore let them have nuclear weapons?

No, your letting your narrative get in the way of the actual issue - nuclearisation of Iran is a universally bad thing. It does not become a 'good' thing because it annoys Israel or the US...

Now this ^^ just cannot be taken seriously. The narrative is the narrative. You do not get to choose the chronological parameters of the debate about the history of Iran and the west.

So your argument so far boils down to, you deem Iran has been through enough to earn itself the right to nuclear weapons, therefore they should have them?

No. I believe that nuclear proliferation is bad. Focussing on Iran's nuclear ambitions while ignoring the historical context of western aggression, Israeli nukes, is tunnel vision and intellectually lazy.

Ill make it easy for you

You haven't and I don't think you can. Of all the people I have debated with on this forum I find your use of language the most difficult to decipher. Lots of words with very little substance. I have to read what you have written about 3 times before I can make head-or-tail of it and much of it still remains obtuse.

RichieC · 10-04-2012 8:01pm

These talks will just be a list of demands they know Iran will not concede too giving them more "smoking gun" to proceed with the war they desperately want.

What kind of bomb uses 20% enriched uranium anyway? Is it basically "stop researching this, you have no right to that knowledge"

Iran has a research reactor which generally use 20%+ enriched uranium. The US are basically telling Iran they do not have the right to conduct a broad spectrum of research which utilise such reactors.

cyberhog · 13-04-2012 7:20am

RichieC wrote: »

The US are basically telling Iran they do not have the right to conduct a broad spectrum of research which utilise such reactors.

The US is pissing in the wind.

The head of the Iranian parliament's influential foreign policy committee, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said Tehran's negotiators are open to proposals but described the overall issue of uranium enrichment as "nonnegotiable."

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=235&sid=19285990

The Israeli · 13-04-2012 9:10pm

An answer to the first post of the OP:

On paper, and on paper alone it looks fair, but if you look at it:

Israel has never threatened to extinguish any nation, but Iran had. It has clearly threatened and threatens Israel. It calls it a spreading cancer, it encourages groups who to call Israeli extermination and so.

Taking that into account Israel holds (that's what is said) nuclear weapons to balance and determine countries like Iran from going too wild.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran may give their threats a serious boost and you don't want to test a madman (Ajmadinijad and his fellows) if he is serious or just playing around.
Also, you don't want to lose your current advantage (The Israeli nuclear weapons) if they exist.
Israel is a responsible country. If it wasn't what is happening now in Syria would be nothing compared to what Israel could do, if it were dark, not democratic and a western like state.
Be fearful regarding weapons in Northern Korea, the weak Pakistan.
Leave Israel out of it. It has a full control on it's capabilities unlike Pakistan, and doesn't threaten its neighbors unlike Northern Korea and Iran.

OP you called this thread: "Upcoming Iranian Nuclear Talks", but I see that your aim was to bash Israel again. You should edit your title.

Jaafa · 13-04-2012 9:20pm

The Israeli wrote: »

An answer to the first post of the OP:

On paper, and on paper alone it looks fair, but if you look at it:

Israel has never threatened to extinguish any nation, but Iran had. It has clearly threatened and threatens Israel. It calls it a spreading cancer, it encourages groups who to call Israeli extermination and so.

Taking that into account Israel holds (that's what is said) nuclear weapons to balance and determine countries like Iran from going too wild.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran may give their threats a serious boost and you don't want to test a madman (Ajmadinijad and his fellows) if he is serious or just playing around.
Also, you don't want to lose your current advantage (The Israeli nuclear weapons) if they exist.
Israel is a responsible country. If it wasn't what is happening now in Syria would be nothing compared to what Israel could do, if it were dark, not democratic and a western like state.
Be fearful regarding weapons in Northern Korea, the weak Pakistan.
Leave Israel out of it. It has a full control on it's capabilities unlike Pakistan, and doesn't threaten its neighbors unlike Northern Korea and Iran.

Chief of Staff of the Israeli army Halutz said at the very beginning of the (2006)war, “if the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years.” “Nothing is safe in Lebanon, it’s as simple as that.”

That's a nice little bubble you have there.

OP you called this thread: "Upcoming Iranian Nuclear Talks", but I see that your aim was to bash Israel again. You should edit your title.

Your heavy bias is evident, so I'll ignore your baseless insult this time.

The Israeli · 13-04-2012 9:39pm

Jaafa wrote: »

Chief of Staff of the Israeli army Halutz said at the very beginning of the (2006)war, “if the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years.” “Nothing is safe in Lebanon, it’s as simple as that.”

Pff.. and you call it a threat on the Lebanese existence?
It was a response made out of pain and anger after Israeli soldiers had been attacked, killed and kidnapped.

Your heavy bias is evident, so I'll ignore your baseless insult this time.

también, mí amigo. también.

Chuck Stone · 13-04-2012 9:48pm

The Israeli wrote: »

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran may give their threats a serious boost and you don't want to test a madman (Ajmadinijad and his fellows) if he is serious or just playing around.

some Israeli officials have privately and publicly rejected such a characterization of Iran's program. According to The Economist, "most of those Israeli experts willing to talk rate the chances of an Iranian nuclear attack as low. Despite Mr Ahmadinejad, most consider Iran to be a rational state actor susceptible to deterrence."

"Bombs away, The Economist, July 17, 2007". The Economist. 19 July 2007.

.

Jaafa · 13-04-2012 10:19pm

The Israeli wrote: »

Pff.. and you call it a threat on the Lebanese existence?
It was a response made out of pain and anger after Israeli soldiers had been attacked, killed and kidnapped.

también, mí amigo. también.

Your right, threatening to turn back a nations clock 20 years is nothing. Justifiable in fact.

Let's just leave it at that, before the thread goes more off topic.

The Israeli · 13-04-2012 10:39pm

Jaafa wrote: »

Your right, threatening to turn back a nations clock 20 years is nothing. Justifiable in fact.

Let's just leave it at that, before the thread goes more off topic.

I think that you are the only one who takes it seriously (or just picture it that way) judging by the Israeli's warfare.. Not to remind you, that above Halutz there was the government.

Also, taking Lebanon 20 years backwards means "destroying it's infrastructure".
Exterminating Israel, means, well it simply means exterminating Israel.. Viva la little difference.
Also, I bet that many Christian Lebanese miss the country they had 20 years ago.

How can it get off topic if it's already off topic from the start? :pac:
There is a very little correlation between the thread's title and the actual meaning of your post which issss Israel and why it shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Jaafa · 14-04-2012 11:54am

First round of talks have just finished up. No word yet if any success was had.

SamHarris · 14-04-2012 12:57pm

RichieC wrote: »

These talks will just be a list of demands they know Iran will not concede too giving them more "smoking gun" to proceed with the war they desperately want.

What kind of bomb uses 20% enriched uranium anyway? Is it basically "stop researching this, you have no right to that knowledge"

Iran has a research reactor which generally use 20%+ enriched uranium. The US are basically telling Iran they do not have the right to conduct a broad spectrum of research which utilise such reactors.

:rolleyes: clearly the fear is its another step on the road to a nuclear weapon. It means it is able to aquire nuclear weapons 50% faster. You honestly cant see how this would be an issue? Then your completly unable to judge a situation, or the feelings of those involved.

You ignore (or are unaware, wouldnt suprise me) that it is allowed under the IAEA treaty, if the country involved are properly monitored. If the country is not monitored, it is entirelly logical that a step on the nuclear weapon road is not supplied to the country.

The offer of medical and scientific isotopes has been on the table since day one. Please inform yourself better before posting.

Ill link you an article to an actual, informed scource that will give you the science behind it, and what exactly they are researching.

Iranian researchers have also been testing high explosives on tungsten, a dense metal that can serve as a surrogate for uranium. Such studies would be needed if they wanted to compress uranium to the critical mass needed for a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. And they have been looking at devices that, when compressed rapidly, produce bursts of neutrons that could trigger a nuclear chain reaction. The mass and shape of the materials tested seem to be designed to fit atop the Shahab-3, a medium-range ballistic missile developed by Iran.

http://www.nature.com/news/iran-s-nuclear-plan-revealed-1.9356

The idea that people then shrug their shoulders at further enrichment, and if they dont are mearly saying "stop researching this, you have no right to that knowledge" is childish at best.

If you have evidence for all your claims, or at least show how your claims are the logical conclusion of evidence based reasoning, please be my guest and show everyone. Too many people here value their own, clearly biased and uninformed, opinion too highly.

Regardless, it is yet another red herring and I wont engage with it any more here, it is irrelevant if you believe what you believe. It adds nothing to the discussion, if you want to say something that actually does be my guest.

SamHarris · 14-04-2012 1:31pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The same UN that the US et al ignored when they went to war against Iraq in 2003? The same UN that the the US shields the state of Israel from regularly. Such hypocrisy.

The US and co like to throw about terms such as 'the will of international community' and other such faux displays of global unity. You will note that the non-aligned movement (which makes up the majority of the states on the planet) often do not subscribe to what the US describes as breaches of international norms.

Finally we get to the heart of your argument!

You dont think Iran should have to listen or abide by international rules because others ignore it. I disagree. I think the mission of preventing more people having nuclear weapons is far more important than people complaining about things being unfair.

The international community disagrees, so its a moot point on your part.

Something you will just have to deal with no doubt.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When nations such as the US make demands of other countries under the threat of war the burden of proof that the risk is real and all alternatives have been exhausted falls with those who initiate the use of military force.

Whatever, you can bring that up when it comes to it.

The burden of proof rests with Iran to give the evidence required to lift the sanctions, it is entirelly easy for them to do so - if of course they are not seeking nuclear weapons.

Why does that have anything to do with it being a good idea to push another country, a non signatory of the relevant treaty, to do something on nothing more than basically the threat of continued Iranian enrichment/ un co operation, and the consuences of doing so?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Again you are wilfully ignoring the context of western aggression against Iran and a long history of meddling, to put it mildly, in the M.E. in general.

Stop using it as a defence for a nations push for nuclear weapons, or their continuing threats to foreign states. You might feel it is the sole cause for their actions, again it is irrelevant. THAT is why I "Willfully ignore" your caricature of history.

Why are you so convinced you own emotional position towards history and international relations is or should be a powerful argument for people acting or not acting a particular way, or for a particular international response to be appropriate?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I have no personal dislike against the people of the US or Israel so you can quit with your misrepresentation right there. The wars in Iraq and Afgh have been a disaster for the US in terms of blood, treasure and standing on the international stage. I am sympathetic to the people of Israel and would love to see them live in security and peace. I find the treatment of the Palestinians abhorrent and I believe Israeli aggression against its neighbours has gone too far but that does not make me anti-Israel by any rational person's standards.

Not what I said, all irrelevant except that you deem it fair to ignore the real fears of those countries because of their history with the state seeking to aquire weapons that would almost certainly be pointed at them.

You cant see how your opinion that Iran is acting rationally doesnt even come into the equation in how they react to it?

Completly disagree on Afghanistan, though I dont think anyone should have bothered trying to create a working democratic state in the region, THAT was a failure and a waste of lives. Anyway, its a complete red herring.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Now this ^^ just cannot be taken seriously. The narrative is the narrative. You do not get to choose the chronological parameters of the debate about the history of Iran and the west.

And you do not get to choose what nation should abide by certain rules, or how it is "fair" for nations to act based on it.

That you deem it necesarry to toss them a bone, regardless of the damage done (or more importanly what it could do) in the region and the world, because you think they were treated badly fifty years ago is, I think youll agree, a sh*t argument.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No. I believe that nuclear proliferation is bad. Focussing on Iran's nuclear ambitions while ignoring the historical context of western aggression, Israeli nukes, is tunnel vision and intellectually lazy.

To ignore Iranian aggression deliberatly to create your own one sided narrative is dishonest, and further, dangerous if it ever was used by anyone that made policy.

I know all about it, and dont see how or why it would mean the US or the West would not deal with Iran in exactly the fashion they are, much less forcing Israel to do something lest Iran pull the trigger.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You haven't and I don't think you can. Of all the people I have debated with on this forum I find your use of language the most difficult to decipher. Lots of words with very little substance. I have to read what you have written about 3 times before I can make head-or-tail of it and much of it still remains obtuse.

I find your analysis of international politics and history one sided and motivated by partisanship, your constant red herrings irritating, your inability to fact check (often over an embrassing number of posts) and your inability to address the actual issues tiring, but I like to make an effort.

To put it bluntly, I dont care - Ive done well enough in college and do well enough now to know my writing style makes perfect sense at the levels that matter.

Your yet to actually address the point made, or even give one reason why this is a good idea beyond its ability to allow Iran to save face. Making The Guardian readers nod sagely is not a good reason, Im afraid.

Try and imagine the idea like a snooker ball, you just hit the white with forcing Israel to be more open, on the threat of Irans continuing program. Now tell me which balls will move, and which exactly will be good for everyone, or anyone besides Iran.

Mr.Micro · 14-04-2012 1:44pm

Jaafa wrote: »

First round of talks have just finished up. No word yet if any success was had.

Dialogue is a plus at least, hopefully it may lead to a resolution of some sort.

old_aussie · 14-04-2012 2:05pm

RichieC wrote: »

What kind of bomb uses 20% enriched uranium anyway? .

The most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5%

For a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable), in theory even lower enrichment is sufficient for bomb making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

RichieC · 14-04-2012 2:44pm

old_aussie wrote: »

The most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5%

For a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable), in theory even lower enrichment is sufficient for bomb making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

Did you completely ignore where I said research reactors generally use 20%+?

yep.

Jaafa · 14-04-2012 7:52pm

Talks are being described as being 'encouraging', by all sides, despite Iran rejecting one on one talks with the US for now. They have however issued a new religious decree banning the production of nuclear weapons.

Next round of talks will be held on May 23 in Baghdad.

Chuck Stone · 14-04-2012 9:30pm

SamHarris wrote: »

You dont think Iran should have to listen or abide by international rules because others ignore it.

When those who make the international rules heed them selectively themselves then they lose credibility.

I disagree. I think the mission of preventing more people having nuclear weapons is far more important than people complaining about things being unfair.

It's unfairness that has led to this impasse. Again you're being selective in you analysis of the situation. You're ignoring a history of western aggression and ignoring of opportunities to de-escalate tensions.

The international community disagrees, so its a moot point on your part.

The international community is a pretty meaningless woolly term (something you seem fond of as is evidenced in your posts).

This is the second time I have posted the below. Perhaps you had trouble with your reading comprehension the first time so I'll post it again for your attention.

An example of the term (international community) used by some western leaders is when denouncing Iran, for its nuclear ambitions of suspected nuclear proliferation, by stating that "Iran is defying the will of the international community by continuing uranium enrichment". The Non-Aligned Movement which consists of 118 countries from the 193 United Nations member states, endorsed Iran's right to enrich uranium for civil nuclear energy.

Above shows that when the US an co use the term international community they mean US interests rather than some sort of global consensus.

Why does that have anything to do with it being a good idea to push another country, a non signatory of the relevant treaty, to do something on nothing more than basically the threat of continued Iranian enrichment/ un co operation, and the consuences of doing so?

What?

Stop using it as a defence for a nations push for nuclear weapons, or their continuing threats to foreign states.

Where is your evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon?

You might feel it is the sole cause for their actions, again it is irrelevant. THAT is why I "Willfully ignore" your caricature of history.

You ignore the history because it shows up recent aggressive policies for what they have been - a complete failure.

Why are you so convinced you own emotional position towards history and international relations is or should be a powerful argument for people acting or not acting a particular way, or for a particular international response to be appropriate?

What?

Not what I said, all irrelevant except that you deem it fair to ignore the real fears of those countries because of their history with the state seeking to aquire weapons that would almost certainly be pointed at them.

Where is your evidence that Iran is seeking to acquire a (nuclear?) weapon?

You cant see how your opinion that Iran is acting rationally doesnt even come into the equation in how they react to it?

What? Who is they?

That you deem it necesarry to toss them a bone, regardless of the damage done (or more importanly what it could do) in the region and the world, because you think they were treated badly fifty years ago is, I think youll agree, a sh*t argument.

How about if the US started with apologising to Iran for its meddling in Iranian affairs down through the years and how about accepting the peaceful overtures that Iran has been making that have been ignored (see above)?

To ignore Iranian aggression deliberatly to create your own one sided narrative is dishonest

What Iranian aggression?

Your yet to actually address the point made, or even give one reason why this is a good idea beyond its ability to allow Iran to save face.

What point and what idea?

Try and imagine the idea like a snooker ball, you just hit the white with forcing Israel to be more open, on the threat of Irans continuing program. Now tell me which balls will move, and which exactly will be good for everyone, or anyone besides Iran.

I have no clue what you're trying to say here - this is just another example of your obtuseness.

cyberhog · 15-04-2012 6:16am

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Dialogue is a plus at least, hopefully it may lead to a resolution of some sort.

Let's not kid ourselves. They had talks about having more talks. Lather, rinse, repeat. The problem is the P5+1 are hung up on an alleged nuclear-weapons program but as far as Iran is concerned there is nothing to resolve.

"What we are here to do is to find ways in which we can build confidence between us and ways in which we can demonstrate that Iran is moving away from a nuclear-weapons program," Mrs. Ashton said before entering the talks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303624004577341732619889346.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The P5+1 want to find a way to demonstrate Iran is "moving away" from an alleged nuclear-weapons program? That is clearly an irrational negotiating position and makes it very unlikely these talks will yield any major breakthrough.

Chuck Stone · 22-04-2012 5:08am

The US and Iran Are Talking: Why Is the New York Times Peddling Iran Islamophobia?

At long last, the United States and Iran are engaged in serious talks about Iran's nuclear program. But instead of celebrating the fact that President Obama is keeping his promise to the people who voted for him to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran, the New York Times has suggested to its readers that Iran's Supreme Leader is uniquely and intrinsically untrustworthy when he says that Iran will never pursue a nuclear weapon. Why? Because, according to the Times, Iran's leaders are Shiites, and Shiites have a religious doctrine called "taqiyya," which allows them to lie.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/19-11

I really hope something comes of these talks in spite of the doomsayers in the fawning corporate media.

wes · 22-04-2012 11:29am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I really hope something comes of these talks in spite of the doomsayers in the fawning corporate media.

The New York times are really showing a great deal of bigotry imho. Taqiya was used by Shia's. when they were a minority in Sunni dominated Muslim countries, to lie and say they were Sunni, so they wouldn't be killed, when Shia's were persecuted for there beliefs.

Pretty nasty for the New York times to resort to lies about what that is, and imho it ruins there credibility, when they resort to bigotry and lies. A lot of the US media in the past were pretty unquestioning cheer leaders for the Iraq war for the Bush admin, and in this case we see the US media cheer leading another way, against the current admin. IMHO, the US media has lost a lot of credibility due to there war mongering.

Jaafa · 25-04-2012 4:01pm

Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz stated today that he does not believe Iran will try acquire a nuke.

If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people.

I always though that the military men in countries tend to have more sense than the politicians. Perhaps some small reason to be optimistic.

WakeUp · 26-04-2012 2:20am

Jaafa wrote: »

Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz stated today that he does not believe Iran will try acquire a nuke.

I always though that the military men in countries tend to have more sense than the politicians. Perhaps some small reason to be optimistic.

I would agree with that statement in many instances unfortunately they don't make the decisions to go to war they follow orders. And if they don't follow orders or get in line they are replaced with someone who will. The Israeli leadership in my opinion specifically Netanyahu and Barrak, I think they are insane both of them. Even contemplating attacking Iran causing multiple nuclear disasters in that country the region the world is insane let alone following through and attacking. And all the other consequence that will follow.

General Gantz may have stated his beliefs but throughout that interview he is still talking war. The Israelis are talking war so are the US. History shows us that when these nations start talking war the majority of the time they go to war, I think there is an extremely high chance that Iran will be attacked soon I dont think its if but when. And its insane. The Israelis and anyone else who believe this attack will be "limited" short, low in casualties and will somehow make the Israeli nation a "safer" place to live - absurd logic - are/is delusional and away with the fairies.

Israeli arrogance will be the destruction of that nation as we know it perhaps large parts of the world. They have clearly, arrogantly even underestimated Iranian resolve and the consequence to the wider world.
Iran has a proven ability to withstand and recover from an initial assault then sustain a prolonged multi-front defensive war. They will have the majority of the Muslem world at their back and the political backing of China and Russia. And that is just scratching the surface of Israeli mis-calculations underestimations and sheer bloody arrogance.

By following developments within the IDF and Israeli government and indeed other politicians who are ready to support an attack, Ive come to the conclusion most of them have lost the plot and are infact mad for even contemplating such action. These "talks" never stood a chance as the Iranians from the offset were issued with a list of demands they would never agree to. The nations issuing these demands know this full well. Pointless, one final attempt at gunboat diplomacy by the West nothing more. Next step is war.

golden lane · 26-04-2012 2:35am

there is no other nation on earth that is surrounded by enemies, that are bent on the elimation of that state...that stayte is israel......

if you expect normal behaviour from a state like that......your dream will never come true......

israel are backed up by the usa..........

that is the way it is.......what should be is irrevelant......that is talk, and talk is not always reality.......

from an israeli point of view......they are in danger, and by the laws of self preservation..will attack if they feel they need to....who is right and wrong,...only matters to people who like discussing things.....

Jaafa · 26-04-2012 9:59am

WakeUp wrote: »

I would agree with that statement in many instances unfortunately they don't make the decisions to go to war they follow orders. And if they don't follow orders or get in line they are replaced with someone who will. The Israeli leadership in my opinion specifically Netanyahu and Barrak, I think they are insane both of them. Even contemplating attacking Iran causing multiple nuclear disasters in that country the region the world is insane let alone following through and attacking. And all the other consequence that will follow.

General Gantz may have stated his beliefs but throughout that interview he is still talking war. The Israelis are talking war so are the US. History shows us that when these nations start talking war the majority of the time they go to war, I think there is an extremely high chance that Iran will be attacked soon I dont think its if but when. And its insane. The Israelis and anyone else who believe this attack will be "limited" short, low in casualties and will somehow make the Israeli nation a "safer" place to live - absurd logic - are/is delusional and away with the fairies.

Israeli arrogance will be the destruction of that nation as we know it perhaps large parts of the world. They have clearly, arrogantly even underestimated Iranian resolve and the consequence to the wider world.
Iran has a proven ability to withstand and recover from an initial assault then sustain a prolonged multi-front defensive war. They will have the majority of the Muslem world at their back and the political backing of China and Russia. And that is just scratching the surface of Israeli mis-calculations underestimations and sheer bloody arrogance.

By following developments within the IDF and Israeli government and indeed other politicians who are ready to support an attack, Ive come to the conclusion most of them have lost the plot and are infact mad for even contemplating such action. These "talks" never stood a chance as the Iranians from the offset were issued with a list of demands they would never agree to. The nations issuing these demands know this full well. Pointless, one final attempt at gunboat diplomacy by the West nothing more. Next step is war.

The war talk from Israel and the US has been extensive, far more I would say than even before Iraq or Afghanistan. Personally I think its a bluff, I don't think they'll launch strikes, Israel alone does not have the capabilities, and even the US can't pull it off without massive repercussions at a time when they really really can't afford it. If war is coming its still a long long way off IMO. There is simply no situation imaginable where it could work out in their favor.

The US and Israel are bluffing and Iran is calling it.

Eggy Baby! · 27-04-2012 12:51am

tbh both Israel and Iran should rollback any nukes they currently have and put all nuclear material very, very far underground (Israel might put it in Palestine however)

troposphere · 27-04-2012 5:04am

Jaafa wrote: »

The war talk from Israel and the US has been extensive, far more I would say than even before Iraq or Afghanistan.

I think the talk from the US government and media is much different to Iraq. I really don't understand how you could even compare them to each other.

KyussBishop · 28-04-2012 12:56am

Good article outlaying Iran's probable aims with uranium enrichment:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012422833676280.html

Jaafa · 23-05-2012 4:59pm

Talks being held again today in Baghdad.
This comes after Iran held separate talks with the IAEA which will soon lead to a deal for resuming inspections at the parchin military site being signed according to Amano .
Despite all this Israel continues to state military options are still being considered.

The Israeli · 23-05-2012 6:44pm

Jaafa wrote: »

Talks being held again today in Baghdad.
This comes after Iran held separate talks with the IAEA which will soon lead to a deal for resuming inspections at the parchin military site being signed according to Amano .
Despite all this Israel continues to state military options are still being considered.

It's ok news, but we shouldn't be gullible too:

from http://news.yahoo.com/iaea-iran-soon-sign-nuclear-accord-amano-083510553.html

One Western diplomat told AFP there had been "no breakthrough" in Amano's visit. Another said the trip appeared disappointing but that they were waiting for a "clearer picture" at meetings in Vienna later on Tuesday.

"This is only a promise, and Iran has made many, many promises in the past," said a third, adding that Tehran was possibly trying to appear cooperative ahead of Wednesday's meeting in Baghdad.

and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9253558/Iran-suspected-of-clean-up-operation-at-nuclear-site.html

Parchin, the nuclear site that is gonna be inspected and that has raised suppositions of being cleaned earlier this year.

Let's wait and see what all this brings before we open champagnes.

cyberhog · 24-05-2012 2:30am

The Israeli wrote: »

Let's wait and see what all this brings before we open champagnes.

Who's opening champagne?

I think you should pay more attention to what Amano said instead of relying on quotes from shadowy unnamed "Western diplomats" who only want to foster disbelief.

wes · 24-05-2012 11:31am

The Israeli wrote: »

Parchin, the nuclear site that is gonna be inspected and that has raised suppositions of being cleaned earlier this year.

Its not a nuclear sites. Its a military base. Which are exempt from inspections under the NPT, due to US and Russian insistence. The fact that Iran is allowing any such inspection is a compromise on there part. Why people insist on trying to make out that Iran is totally uncompromising is beyond me. Also, misrepresenting what the site is, also doesn't help things.

Also, the fact that Iran is willing to talk about giving up 19.75% enrichment (not for the first time either, the Turkey and Brazil deal that the US helped scrap was an earlier attempt at this), which btw they have a right to do so under the NPT is another sign of compromise on there side.

I am not saying things will definetly work out, but at least there is a chance.

Having said all that, I do find Western demands beyond the NPT to be disturbing. If the NPT is not fit for purpose then it should be scrapped. If it is fit for purpose, then they Wests demands should not go beyond what is in the NPT.

Upcoming Iranian Nuclear talks.

Comments