Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 127

Thread: US - Iran: Peace talks possible

  1. #46
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Better offer more than peanuts this time.


    James Acton explained this 'zone of immunity' business a lot better than what i've read so far.

    it's to do with Arak. Arak is a heavy water reactor. Heavy water reactors produce plutonium. You can't hit a heavy water reactor once it goes into production beause it will be an environmental catastrophe. So you have to hit it before it goes on line. Any concrete signs to get Arak ready will be apparent months earlier.

    All the iranians have to do is drag their feet on Arak and your Israeli attack gets put off..

    Only actors that matter here are US & Iran. Reconciling all the baggage since the late 70s.

    Am an advocate of better US-Iran relations as this would do a great deal to improve stability in the ME


    They already have. So what is america going to do ?

    Take advantage of a new situation or rehash the old & tired in which case we put this off for yet another decade with yet more bla bla.

    Obama has a lot on his plate. He does not care about re-election, but he cares about legacy. That's about the same constraint if not more.
    IMO, The bottom line is that Obama would not be the first US President to tell Iran piss off. Every US President since 1979 has done so. So the US has zero to loose but Iran does indeed have much to loose and I would attest to say that there is more then one way to stop the reactor and they know this to be true.

    Would the Israeli's see it that way? Who knows but one thing is for sure. The future US President has yet to emerge and you can bet if its within Obamas cabinet he will be looking to make US gains. Otherwise to the US public they are all lame ducks.

    The UK has already stated today in the Hague they are not budging one iotta without concrete evidence and IMO, I feel this is going to come without offering any consessions on sanctions.

    Theres plenty for them to talk about, but nothing is going to happen sanctions wise unless the Iranians start talking and make concrete progress on the nuclear issue.

    Obama and his cabinet would definately appear weak if they blinked first so chances are they are not going to and it will also have to do with the Israelis accepting the terms as well.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  2. #47
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Which was the time Khatami was in charge, a moderate and the best person to deal with.

    What did the west achieve with him ? nothing.

    The hardliners said Khatami was useless and Iran went hardline. The talks were stuck from 2005 onwards, no progress since other than loads of hot air.

    2005-2013 was enough time to see that direction was not working for the Iranians either. Recent elections produced a fair result, the hardliners lost.

    Now what is the west going to do about that ? are they going to play the same cards that got us no where up to 2005 or is there some fresh thinking here. Both sides have nothing to show for yet.

    Will american domestic politics trump national interests or not. That is the question.

    The clerics are going nowhere. Rouhani won't be ready to do anything till at least next summer, he's still new at the job.

    Rouhani was appointed by Khatami and Khatami was the nearest we have ever come to a deal. As I understand the events of that time we thought a deal had been done but the Iranians then insisted on the some insane exception (may have been the 'medical enrichment' issue). I have long been 'hawkish' on Iran on the basis of prevention is safer and less costly in lives and money but if they say they want to talk you must be seen to agree to talk. One should also step up watching what they're doing with the other hand. If the lessons of the Khatami era talks are anything to go by the Ayatollah will stop any deal - whether Rouhani wants one or not but the success of all 'magic tricks' to keep the audiences attention where you want it and do the trick where they are not looking. While there may genuinely be more hope increased vigilance is called for.

  3. #48
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    29 Mar 08
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And China and India and Pakistan, what's your point?

    And we listed that help. France but that was well before the NPT was even thought of.

    I want Iran to honour the NPT, ie give up her nukes or leave the NPT, and not use the NPT to get her nukes.
    What would happen to Iran if Iran decided to leave the NPT?

  4. #49
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    She and Israel will have a little rocket war.

  5. #50
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    She and Israel will have a little rocket war.
    Has Russia halt its S-300/400 deliveries to Iran?

  6. #51
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Has Russia halt its S-300/400 deliveries to Iran?
    I think its only the 300's and "supposedly" that is put on hold but a good chance they have atleast one-two sets atleast.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  7. #52
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    29 Mar 08
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    She and Israel will have a little rocket war.
    Is Israel that confident of her missile defense system?

    Or really is it US vs Iran if Iran pulls out of the NPT?

  8. #53
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by cdude View Post
    Is Israel that confident of her missile defense system?
    They test and improve it every day wrt Hezbollah. Which is closer.

    Or really is it US vs Iran if Iran pulls out of the NPT?
    The problem is they don't want out. For now.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  9. #54
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    29 Mar 08
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    They test and improve it every day wrt Hezbollah. Which is closer.


    The problem is they don't want out. For now.
    I know, it's based on a hypothetical question "what would happen if Iran decided to quit the NPT".

    I can tell the new president doesn't want to stir shit up

    Just today we have this Iran's Rouhani calls Holocaust crime against Jews - vagazette.com

  10. #55
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by cdude View Post
    I know, it's based on a hypothetical question "what would happen if Iran decided to quit the NPT".
    According to Article X of the NPT,

    "Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."

    Article X (the withdrawal clause) was modeled on the language of the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT). However, there is an additional requirement in the NPT which is bolded above. This implies that the withdrawal notification would be debated by the P-5 which would have 3 months to do so. The P-5 could accept the NPT withdrawal notice, refuse to accept it, or place conditions on withdrawal. Legal experts are of the opinion that the UN Security Council could invoke Article VII of the United Nations charter to enforce its decisions in this regard. To do so however, would require that all P-5 members agree on this course of action.

  11. #56
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Minskaya View Post
    According to Article X of the NPT,

    "Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."


    Article X (the withdrawal clause) was modeled on the language of the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT). However, there is an additional requirement in the NPT which is bolded above. This implies that the withdrawal notification would be debated by the P-5 which would have 3 months to do so. The P-5 could accept the NPT withdrawal notice, refuse to accept it, or place conditions on withdrawal. Legal experts are of the opinion that the UN Security Council could invoke Article VII of the United Nations charter to enforce its decisions in this regard. To do so however, would require that all P-5 members agree on this course of action.
    Nowhere it does say that the Security Council can reject the withdrawal. It clearly spells out that the country has the right to withdraw from NPT. North Korea did and the Security Council did diddly squat except do things that has been done before, i.e., hot air blown around.

  12. #57
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Nowhere it does say that the Security Council can reject the withdrawal. It clearly spells out that the country has the right to withdraw from NPT. North Korea did and the Security Council did diddly squat except do things that has been done before, i.e., hot air blown around.
    The important point of Article X is that it requires a withdrawing party to give notice and its reasons not only to treaty parties but also to the Security Council for a purpose, so that the Council can decide whether to take action to slow or prevent withdrawal if withdrawal could constitute a possible threat to international peace and security. In the case of North Korea, P-5 member China would not agree to impose SC sanctions against NK for withdrawal. Many legal experts consider Article X to be the overarching weakness of the NPT.

  13. #58
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by cdude View Post
    Fars (the official Iranian news agency) says that the CNN translation of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's comments to Christiane Amanpour were embellished and incorrect. An independent translation commissioned by the Wall Street Journal also says that Mr. Rouhani's comments were mistranslated by CNN.

    Fars: CNN Fabricates Iranian President's Remarks about Holocaust

  14. #59
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Everytime an Iranian president has something to say,there is a translation and interpretation debate.Perhaps I should learn Farsi

    What he said is basically the right thing to say.What the CNN says is the most interesting part.I sorta like it.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  15. #60
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    I think we have few peoples around here who understand Farsi.

    I'd like to learn to write in Farsi
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Afghanistan's Karzai: US in peace talks with Taliban
    By notorious_eagle in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19 Jun 11,, 01:46
  2. Why peace talks in Uganda keep hitting a stone wall
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20 May 08,, 17:41
  3. Israel, Syria in secret peace talks
    By troung in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 30 Jan 07,, 03:53
  4. Colombia rebels reject peace talks
    By Ironduke in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 21 Oct 04,, 19:53
  5. S Ossetia peace talks falter
    By Ironduke in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02 Jul 04,, 03:09

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •