Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 42

Thread: Iran @ Geneva

  1. #16

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,826

    Double Edge Reply

    "...why does anybody care what he says...?"

    Seriously?

    I suspect when Netanyahu speaks, the U.S. government is, generally and specifically, listening. Very carefully so. So too others. Case it's not clear to you, the Prime Minister of Israel's POV is closely considered when it comes to matters of the middle east. Especially when it comes to discussions regarding Iran and nukes.

    Thanks for the history lesson but I don't recall asking. I know who said "trust but verify". Watched it in fact. Your point? Your definition of "oxymoron" notwithstanding, it took considerable trust by Reagan, Gorbachev and others to even initiate START 1 talks. Especially Gorbachev. Reality isn't quite as crystalline as Merriam-Webster's. Reagan's aphorism remains valid and relevant.

    "the US can counter by offering an umbrella. Suspect it already exists, announcing it will be a formality. So whatever potential advantages nukes bring to Iran are moot."

    Oh! Goodness. Done that easily, eh? Is that why our nuclear umbrella assured European stability in the seventies and eighties despite an overwhelming Soviet conventional arms advantage? Probably explains why we never re-armed conventionally.

    Iran holds a decisive assymetric advantage in the Persian gulf region if able to exploit it properly. Nuclear weapons provide IRAN with an umbrella of its own underwhich to promote assymetric warfare with a callous disregard to deniability.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post

    Iran holds a decisive assymetric advantage in the Persian gulf region if able to exploit it properly. Nuclear weapons provide IRAN with an umbrella of its own underwhich to promote assymetric warfare with a callous disregard to deniability.
    Could not have said it better.

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Iran isn't interested in deniability.On the contrary.
    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

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor DonBelt's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 08
    Location
    Taxachusetts, somewhere between Boston and Wista
    Posts
    1,066
    All that is necessary for Iran is that there is enough doubt in the minds of Western nations and their Gulf allies as to whether they could field and deliver a nuclear device in the immediate area for the concept of the umbrella to work. I don't know that it would even be necessary for them to test detonate one. You would have to calculate he risk of a military strike escalating before doing it. Is it worth the risk if Iran tries to close the straits to shipping? Probably. Is it worth it if Iran sends arm to Hizbollah and they fire rockets into Israel, or arm insurgents in Iraq or Bahrain? Maybe the risk isn't worth it then? This where the problem comes in with waiting until the last minute. Now we negotiate and their centrifuges are still running the whole time. Would have been better to make a decision early on- we won't tolerate a nuclear Iran or we will tolerate it. If the decision was won't- then strike as early as possible and don't mess around. If we are gonna accept it, then best to let our friends know early on so they can figure out how they are going to protect themselves.

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    "...prestige. To me it is a highest form of admiration..."

    This isn't about "admiration". This is about dominating the discussion in the Persian gulf on Iranian terms. Regional statesmen, diplomats and military leaders will likely bear a differing view from your's.
    You used the word, I read it by the book and try to figure what prestige?

    "...They get more admiration for standing tall in front of a global power for so long, if you ask me. They don't need a nuke for that."

    You won't be asked. Part of my point about P.R. versus real currency. This isn't about scoring points with regional/global populations.
    We both wont be asked. maybe you will, tho, at the elections
    So this is about negotiating something? Seems they are willing to sit and negotiate to go to 90's level before all this started. Where is the gain for them for starting all this? After all, they invented chess, can't be that bad of a players.

    Irrelevant in any case as Iran has evidently seen value in pursuing nuclear weapons. They certainly must have their reasons. I merely re-iterate some of those already generally known...and still valid.
    Either they are not determined or not as bright as many (including me) believe they are. Which one is it?

    Still, should you find merit in their posture you would need to either contend that Iran has not been pursuing nuclear weapons or, alternatively, believe possession of such in defiance of "...a global power..." admirable.
    They don't need nukes to be in defiance to a global power. They are like that since the Shah, and even more since his departure.

    To be clear, I never said I admire them for being stubborn and in defiance.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

  6. #21
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    The current talks have ended with no deal and discussion is to resume on 20 November. The sticking point seems to be enrichment levels. Iran claims uranium enrichment is its 'red-line' and will not sign an accord that caps enrichment levels. France says this is unacceptable and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told France-Inter Radio that his nation does not want to be part of a "con game."

    I agree with the French position. A ceiling of 20% enrichment is enough to satisfy Iran's 'peaceful pursuits' of nuclear energy... i.e. generating electricity, fueling a research reactor, producing medical isotopes. During the negotiation interrum, I expect Israel and Saudi Arabia to lobby the P5+1 governments to adopt the French position and demand a sensible cap on enrichment and a stringent verification regimen. The Iranians should also be made aware that failure to reach an amicable agreement soon will result in even harsher international sanctions. I wholeheartedly agree with the Israeli/Saudi position that Iran cannot be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons and extend a nuclear umbrella over Syria and Hezbollah.

  7. #22
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,203
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    "...why does anybody care what he says...?"

    Seriously?

    I suspect when Netanyahu speaks, the U.S. government is, generally and specifically, listening. Very carefully so. So too others. Case it's not clear to you, the Prime Minister of Israel's POV is closely considered when it comes to matters of the middle east. Especially when it comes to discussions regarding Iran and nukes.
    And how about the other way around. How open is Israel when the US speaks ? How much quid pro quo is there in this relationship.

    No, over the last couple of years I have wasted enough of my time going down Israeli PR ratholes whose sole purpose is to perpetuate the Israeli pov. Huh ? what. Since when do they get to set the tone. So spare us their propaganda. After years of their PR, people should be clued up enough to spot the Saudi version as well.

    The only reason Israeli views resonate in the US wrt to Iran, unlike abroad is the fall out that happened post '79. Ever since US foreign policy on Iran has been dictated by domestic politics and not national interests. Relations snapped when a democrat was in power, the republicans could not fix it. Perhaps another democrat can.

    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Thanks for the history lesson but I don't recall asking. I know who said "trust but verify". Watched it in fact. Your point? Your definition of "oxymoron" notwithstanding, it took considerable trust by Reagan, Gorbachev and others to even initiate START 1 talks. Especially Gorbachev. Reality isn't quite as crystalline as Merriam-Webster's. Reagan's aphorism remains valid and relevant.
    It's a meaningless expression. The trust built up once the verification came through. Put up and then it forms the basis for more positive movement.

    Why initiate start ? because it was apparent that the path followed at the time lead no where. Tens of thousands of nukes a piece did not lead to more security, they became redundant and a liability to possess and maintain. Very good reasons for both to sit down and talk reductions and then mean what they talked about. Trust wasn't the basis to begin the talks. It wasn't even necessary as each party was confident they could verify whatever the other said.

    So what are the very good reasons for the US & Iran to sit down and talk ?

    - Stability in the ME depends on the presence of the US in the region and the ability to talk to ALL parties concerned. Otherwise we're just going to see more distortions into the future.
    - Iran is an important player. One whose views have to be taken into account to ensure stability in the ME. They can already do a lot without nukes.

    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Iran holds a decisive assymetric advantage in the Persian gulf region if able to exploit it properly. Nuclear weapons provide IRAN with an umbrella of its own underwhich to promote assymetric warfare with a callous disregard to deniability.
    Iran cannot follow the path of NoK without a P5 sponsor. It took Iran 15 years to get Bushehr online. The Iranian pace of nuclear development seems rather sedentary given all the restrictions imposed over the years. Nuke development from their side stopped in 2003 which your NIE's have confirmed since.

    Not saying stop looking for evidence, saying nuclear weapons for Iran isn't profitable. They are already in a bind without these weapons. Interest from their side to begin talks isn't because things are bad now, but will become so a few years down the road which is how long it will take for a resolution to materialise. Time isn't on their side any more. the sanctions regime shows no signs of cracking, its held and one expects it to do so into the future.

    We've already wasted ten years, the hope is we don't lose another ten. These talks are going to be harder than in 2004, because now there are extra barriers in place requiring more concessions from Iran. I don't know how serious Iran is. I don't know whether their position has changed and if it has to what extent. I expect it has somewhat given the time constraints they are under. The Ayatollah saying nukes are un-islamic is already an out, allows to save face in the event of a resolution. Preparing the Iranian people in advance. Ayatollah thinks a solution is possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    "the US can counter by offering an umbrella. Suspect it already exists, announcing it will be a formality. So whatever potential advantages nukes bring to Iran are moot."

    Oh! Goodness. Done that easily, eh? Is that why our nuclear umbrella assured European stability in the seventies and eighties despite an overwhelming Soviet conventional arms advantage? Probably explains why we never re-armed conventionally.
    Oh! so what would you suggest kept the peace in Europe instead ?

  8. #23
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    No, over the last couple of years I have wasted enough of my time going down Israeli PR ratholes whose sole purpose is to perpetuate the Israeli pov. Huh ? what. Since when do they get to set the tone. So spare us their propaganda. After years of their PR, people should be clued up enough to spot the Saudi version as well.
    It goes hand-in-hand with regional conflict. Folks here have been bombarded with India/Pakistan propaganda ad nauseum. Another PR rat-hole.

  9. #24
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Minskaya View Post
    I wholeheartedly agree with the Israeli/Saudi position that Iran cannot be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons and extend a nuclear umbrella over Syria and Hezbollah.
    Captain,

    Initially, I get the point, then Rie and Sundarji whacked me over the head. Just how extending a nuke umbrella prevent Syrian and Hezbollah being conventionally whacked by the Israelis?

    Edit: Never mind, Captain, not every country can come up with a Rie or a Sundarji.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 10 Nov 13, at 19:42.

  10. #25
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Never mind, Captain, not every country can come up with a Rie or a Sundarji.
    Indeed. Very enlightening Colonel. I wish General Sundarji had lived long enough to complete all 105 tracts.

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    How any nukes can prevent Hezb dying in Syria and Syria itself becoming a ruin incapable of any serious action ?
    Nevertheless,the French proposal seems ok.The devil,however,is in the details.

    The end goal for this entire affair should be turning Iran from foe to friend.That is something that will ensure Western dominance over some very important real estate for a long tie to come.And more important,it will deny said real estate to potential competitors.Focusing on the Saudi interests is bothering with secondary interests.
    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

  12. #27
    Regular SajeevJino's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Mar 13
    Location
    Chennai,TN
    Posts
    109
    @Minskaya

    ma'am Found this in Facebook

    does really they Pushing Iran to this Deal


  13. #28
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by SajeevJino View Post
    @Minskaya

    ma'am Found this in Facebook

    does really they Pushing Iran to this Deal
    I don't think so. It was always an Iranian request to be able to continue to produce 20% enriched Uranium.

    In the mean time IAEA published this:

    IAEA, Iran Sign Joint Statement on Framework for Cooperation

    Excerpt:
    The IAEA agreed to continue to take into account Iran's security concerns including through the use of managed access and the protection of confidential information.

    As a first step, Iran and the IAEA agreed to the practical measures listed in the attached Annex. Iran will provide the access and information within three months from the date of this Statement. The IAEA will report to the Board of Governors on progress in the implementation of these measures.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

  14. #29
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,203
    Here we go...

    Some reports said the latest talks failed because France had wanted to place tight restrictions on the facility in Arak.

    However, US diplomats said the Iranian government's insistence on formal recognition of its "right" to enrich uranium had been the major obstacle
    That's the crux of it in a nutshell. The Iranians will not agree to give up their right to enrichment. The west will not agree and insists on maximalist positions.

    Is the west serious about talks here or not.

    Iran backed out of nuclear deal - John Kerry

    That the tone changed so quickly after a good start tells me there isn't much to see here

    Or is there ? Next meet is Nov 17.

    For Iran to agree to not enrich is to depend on external fuel in perpetuity. Once you give it up you can never get it back. What are the guarantees that Iran will be able to get fuel in the future ? They can be suspended at any time on any pretext.

    Iran's idea was agree not to exceed a certain level of enrichment (negotiable), to have international oversight over fuel supplies ensuring nothing got diverted whilst retaining the right to enrichment. This apparently isn't good enough.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 12 Nov 13, at 03:12.

  15. #30
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Minskaya View Post
    It goes hand-in-hand with regional conflict. Folks here have been bombarded with India/Pakistan propaganda ad nauseum. Another PR rat-hole.
    This was over the 'will israel attack iran' threads that were all the rage last year. The speculation on that was a time sink and lead no where.

    I missed OOE's posts on this years earlier and ended up chasing my tail for many weeks with nothing to show for.

    As far as one country's PR against another (which is what i'm referring to) surviving on this board. Heh, indian PR on Pakistan or China has consistently been shot down since day 1. The Indians don't see it, and it took me a while as well but others do and they are not quiet It's been good. If what is said gets accepted elsewhere there is more credibility than if it was written just for domestic consumption.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 12 Nov 13, at 03:59.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Shotguns and the Geneva Convention
    By Ironduke in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06 Aug 17,, 20:43
  2. Geneva Convention Turns 60
    By Merlin in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12 Aug 09,, 17:52
  3. US detainees to get Geneva rights
    By troung in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Jul 06,, 06:20
  4. 76th International Motor Show in Geneva
    By Jay in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08 Mar 06,, 05:21
  5. Rights groups flay Pak at UN session in Geneva
    By Jay in forum International Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30 Aug 05,, 13:05

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
  •