Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42

Thread: Iran @ Geneva

  1. #1
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608

    Iran @ Geneva

    Hopes rise for Iran nuclear accord soon
    November 9, 2013

    Western diplomats and Iran appear to be inching toward a breakthrough agreement that could slow the nation's suspected progress toward a nuclear bomb while easing some sanctions that have hobbled its economy. Top diplomats from the United States, France, Great Britain and Germany rushed to Geneva on Friday to see whether they could close the deal, which has emerged suddenly after years of frustrating stalemates and Western suspicions of Iranian cat-and-mouse games with international weapons inspectors. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov may join them on Saturday, Russia's state-run Ria Novosti news service reported. China's foreign minister is also headed to Geneva. "The negotiations have reached (a) critical, very sensitive situation, and it needs decisions at higher levels," Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told reporters in Geneva.

    Two senior U.S. administration officials said that, under the potential deal, Iran would agree:
    -- to stop enriching nuclear fuel to 20% purity;
    -- to render unusable most of its existing stockpile of such fuel;
    -- to agree not to use advanced IR-2 centrifuges, which can enrich nuclear fuel five times faster than older centrifuges;
    -- not to activate a plutonium reactor at Arak.
    In turn, the P5+1 would agree:
    -- to unfreeze some Iranian assets held in banks overseas;
    -- to consider easing sanctions banning trade in gold, precious metals and petrochemicals.
    Other sweeteners were also under consideration, they said.
    Source: CNN

    Perhaps some good news. Israeli PM Netanyahu strongly disagrees with such a deal. However, I believe that a phased mutual agreement with measurable benchmarks is vastly preferable to the dreary alternatives. In addition, such an agreement could possibly lead to broader discussion on other pressing ME problems such as Syria.

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Minskaya View Post
    Source: CNN

    Perhaps some good news. Israeli PM Netanyahu strongly disagrees with such a deal. However, I believe that a phased mutual agreement with measurable benchmarks is vastly preferable to the dreary alternatives. In addition, such an agreement could possibly lead to broader discussion on other pressing ME problems such as Syria.
    What's his rationale behind this strong disagreement? From what you posted, seems everyone else is keen to make this happen.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

  3. #3
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    What's his rationale behind this strong disagreement? From what you posted, seems everyone else is keen to make this happen.
    He seems to be of the mind that Iran is either playing for time and will continue with R&D covertly or Iran will seek semantic loopholes to tiptoe around benchmarks. He is, quite naturally, highly distrustful of the Tehran/Assad/Hezbollah axis.

  4. #4
    Regular SajeevJino's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Mar 13
    Location
    Chennai,TN
    Posts
    109
    Still there is no agreement to inspect their Nuke Plant

    How many time the world power Will be fooled by the Sheep

    'wolf in sheep's clothing'

  5. #5
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by SajeevJino View Post
    Still there is no agreement to inspect their Nuke Plant

    How many time the world power Will be fooled by the Sheep
    That will come in good time. At the moment they have to deal with sanctions.

    This is going to be quite drawn out. its a good start.

  6. #6

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,809
    "Trust but verify" is the only way to proceed. Netanyahu's concerns are entirely valid. Nothing suggests this Iranian rapproachment finds it's basis within any philosophical re-orientation. If correct, there's been no shift generated by rejecting pursuit of nuclear weapons. IMV, possession of nuclear weapons is critical to Iranian strategic ambitions. Dominance of the gulf region cannot come without driving the U.S. Navy away. This can only BEGIN with nuclear weapons mated to viable delivery systems and integrated into the overarching war-fighting strategy. Further, those weapons possess tremendous domestic and regional political prestige.

    Any shift by Iran from such a path must be viewed with great trepidation. Not that we must fear peace breaking out but the devil shall surely reside in the details.
    "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

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668

    Further, those weapons possess tremendous domestic and regional political prestige.
    What is prestige? Does NK has one? Does Pakistan, also, has one?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

  8. #8
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,062
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    "Trust but verify" is the only way to proceed. Netanyahu's concerns are entirely valid. Nothing suggests this Iranian rapproachment finds it's basis within any philosophical re-orientation. If correct, there's been no shift generated by rejecting pursuit of nuclear weapons. IMV, possession of nuclear weapons is critical to Iranian strategic ambitions. Dominance of the gulf region cannot come without driving the U.S. Navy away. This can only BEGIN with nuclear weapons mated to viable delivery systems and integrated into the overarching war-fighting strategy. Further, those weapons possess tremendous domestic and regional political prestige.

    Any shift by Iran from such a path must be viewed with great trepidation. Not that we must fear peace breaking out but the devil shall surely reside in the details.
    Sir,I beg to disagree to some extent.If influence means nukes,then nobody but a few nations carry any influence.That obviously is not the case.Also the Iranians don't need to chase USN out of the Gulf.They only need to deter it.And they can try to do that with non-nuclear means.USN out of the Gulf has the same effect on Iranian shipping as USN in.So while they might like a Gulf without US ships,they can live with them as well.
    From their perspective,a credible threat to shipping is the best they can achieve,and it's a double edged sword.
    It's easier to remove USN bases in the gulf than fighting it.But even that isn't a goal,but a result of a broader effort to change the alliances in the region.
    They don't need nukes to try subversion and they don't need nukes if we don't try to do them an Iraq.

    They may be speaking the truth to a point.But not due to new found honesty,but to promote their 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

  9. #9

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,809
    "What is prestige?"

    What it isn't would be the P.R. generated-good, bad or indifferent-among the region's populace.

    What that prestige would connote is real currency in the backroom discussions held by various regional leaderships. Newly-empowered, absent a known and tested PRP (Personnel Reliability Program) and release procedures, you've quite a wild card bearing very special and focused consideration.

    Nevermind that topical allusions to other nations (N.K., Pakistan) don't appear to consider the political or geographic distinctions. Consider N.K.- a peninsular country surrounded by China, Russia, S. Korea and Japan with the U.S. another "interested" party. That's a formidable array of interests aligned to keeping N.K. ambitions thoroughly in check. It's in everybody's interest and both behavior and words from all concerned generally reflect as much. Not so in the middle east. Both the political dynamics and geography are compellingly different.

    Integrated and tested nuclear weapons possessed by Iran are a game-changer on too many levels. From the direct challenge it represents to the U.S. Navy to the stark implications for the NPT it is not to be diminished. The world's actions to date suggest that Iran's possession carries negative implications for the rest of us.

    You wouldn't be suggesting otherwise, would you?
    Last edited by S2; 09 Nov 13, at 20:14.
    "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

  10. #10

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,809

    Mihais Reply

    "...If influence means nukes,then nobody but a few nations carry any influence..."

    I'd argue that if influence isn't immeasurably enhanced where it matters most then those possessing nuclear weapons would cease doing so.

    EDIT:

    "...USN out of the Gulf has the same effect on Iranian shipping as USN in..."

    Perhaps but irrelevant. The presence of the U.S. Navy in the gulf is to guarantee the unfettered access by global energy concerns to gulf oil. That access, in the view of the U.S. government, must remain unimpeded.
    Last edited by S2; 09 Nov 13, at 20:20.
    "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

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,062
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    "...If influence means nukes,then nobody but a few nations carry any influence..."

    I'd argue that if influence isn't immeasurably enhanced where it matters most then those possessing nuclear weapons would cease doing so.

    EDIT:

    "...USN out of the Gulf has the same effect on Iranian shipping as USN in..."

    Perhaps but irrelevant. The presence of the U.S. Navy in the gulf is to guarantee the unfettered access by global energy concerns to gulf oil. That access, in the view of the U.S. government, must remain unimpeded.
    Sir,there are always two to tango.Iran won't nuke tankers.But it's submarines can sink them.Unless the US Gov. wants to attack and destroy Iran,it will have to live with the possibility of an Iranian interdiction of the oil supplies.USN even today can't guarantee anything.It enhances the chances and raises the bar for any aggresion.

    If Iran manages to create a Shiastan,USN presence becomes moot.
    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. #12
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    "What is prestige?"

    What it isn't would be the P.R. generated-good, bad or indifferent-among the region's populace.
    If I had to guess, the attitude of the region's populace wont change, will just polarize more.
    It might also help every party to enter the talks with cooler, saner heads.

    What that prestige would connote is real currency in the backroom discussions held by various regional leaderships. Newly-empowered, absent a known and tested PRP (Personnel Reliability Program) and release procedures, you've quite a wild card bearing very special and focused consideration.
    I think I start to follow you here. We have a different understanding of the used word - prestige. To me it is a highest form of admiration, if I read you well, for you it is a bargaining chip under the table.

    Nevermind that topical allusions to other nations (N.K., Pakistan) don't appear to consider the political or geographic distinctions. Consider N.K.- a peninsular country surrounded by China, Russia, S. Korea and Japan with the U.S. another "interested" party. That's a formidable array of interests aligned to keeping N.K. ambitions thoroughly in check. It's in everybody's interest and both behavior and words from all concerned generally reflect as much. Not so in the middle east. Both the political dynamics and geography are compellingly different.
    Since we are to NK, the country was FUBAR in the 60s, the same players are still around, the only difference is, there is no "warm war", someone else is still pulling the strings for the NK elite. On top of it, SK population reached a 'we don't give a ****' level.

    Integrated and tested nuclear weapons possessed by Iran are a game-changer on too many levels. From the direct challenge it represents to the U.S. Navy to the stark implications for the NPT it is not to be diminished. The world's actions to date suggest that Iran's possession carries negative implications for the rest of us.

    You wouldn't be suggesting otherwise, would you?
    I don't see it as a good sign if they acquire a nuclear capability. The list is long enough and thank God those former Soviet republics were pushed to decide they don't want the heritage from the former union.

    I was only keen to understand where is the Iranian 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.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

  13. #13

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,809
    "...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.

    "...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. 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.

    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.
    "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

  14. #14

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,809

    Mihais Reply

    "...it's submarines can sink them..."

    Anybody can be sucker-punched. Unless Iran is prepared to stand behind its actions and, further, sustain them they won't win because, like it or not, that'd be war and all its consequences for all concerned. We've calculated those concerns reside more deeply there than here...for now. And intend keeping it that way for the foreseeable future.

    "...Unless the US Gov. wants to attack and destroy Iran,it will have to live with the possibility of an Iranian interdiction of the oil supplies..."

    Ummm...that's EXACTLY what the U.S. government would want to do should Iran actively interdict oil.

    "...USN even today can't guarantee anything.It enhances the chances and raises the bar for any aggresion..."

    Right. My apology. No combat action entered is ever "guaranteed". I'll very safely contend, however, that active interdiction of gulf oil by Iranian submarines would absolutely guarantee U.S. Navy combat operations to reverse such. Your opinion of the U.S. Navy's abilities to do so might be subject to dispute. I'd only suggest those abilities and resources are considerable and known to our potential enemies.

    "...If Iran manages to create a Shiastan,USN presence becomes moot."

    Until Iran manages to create a Shiastan, USN presence remains the ultimate arbiter of gulf activities. Not Iran.
    "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

  15. #15
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    "Trust but verify" is the only way to proceed.
    Trust but verify is an oxymoron started by Reagan. If you trust why do you need to verify and if you need to verify then where is the trust.

    How about steps taken should be transparent, verifiable and acceptable to both parties. That's what happened during the cold war and resulted in dramatic nuke reductions. There was never any trust and it was all verifiable. Why does anyone think dealing with Iran is going to be any different.

    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Netanyahu's concerns are entirely valid.
    Isn't a party to these talks, so why does anybody care what he says. Same applies to Saudis.

    This is betwen the sextet & iran. Specifically its between the US & Iran. Those are the only two parties that matter in these talks. It's between these two that the meeting of minds needs to occur.

    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Nothing suggests this Iranian rapproachment finds it's basis within any philosophical re-orientation. If correct, there's been no shift generated by rejecting pursuit of nuclear weapons. IMV, possession of nuclear weapons is critical to Iranian strategic ambitions. Dominance of the gulf region cannot come without driving the U.S. Navy away. This can only BEGIN with nuclear weapons mated to viable delivery systems and integrated into the overarching war-fighting strategy. Further, those weapons possess tremendous domestic and regional political prestige.
    And 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. This is not as intractable a problem as you make it out to be. Nuclear iran isn't an answer. Nobody wants to hear about nukes in the ME.

    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Any shift by Iran from such a path must be viewed with great trepidation. Not that we must fear peace breaking out but the devil shall surely reside in the details.
    Let's see how things go. That the talks have begun on a positive note indicates the Ayatollah is in favour. How serious is Iran is an open question. Will the Ayatollah make the necessary accommodations (drink poison like Khomeni) and will the sextet agree without demanding the sky remains to be seen. A lot of hard work lies ahead. i's to be dotted and t's crossed. I'm not prejudging anything at this early stage.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Geneva Convention Turns 60
    By Merlin in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12 Aug 09,, 16:52
  2. Shotguns and the Geneva Convention
    By Ironduke in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 20 May 09,, 22:03
  3. US detainees to get Geneva rights
    By troung in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Jul 06,, 05:20
  4. 76th International Motor Show in Geneva
    By Jay in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08 Mar 06,, 04:21
  5. Rights groups flay Pak at UN session in Geneva
    By Jay in forum International Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30 Aug 05,, 12:05

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
  •