Originally posted by zraver
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Geneva deal reached
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Firestorm View PostWhy is the "Shia Bomb" such a problem when the Sunnis already have the world's fastest growing arsenal?Last edited by zraver; 24 Nov 13,, 22:54.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostI think, even as much as I detest him that this is going to be Obama's master stroke and legacy. Not killing OBL, not obamacare, but rapprochement with Iran and lessening the risk of a Shia Islam-a-bomb and the Sunni response.
About Iran, relations snapped when a democrat was in power so a democrat is best suited to fix them.
It's early days though, very early still. Things can easily unravel back to square one
Comment
-
It sounds like this might be an ok deal if there is follow through to dismantle and destroy Iran's enrichment infrastructure. This would be a bad deal if not.
Obama's record on follow through, at present, is not admirable, to put it lightly.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostSir, she could have our most advanced designs and they would not do her any good without fissile material. Iran traded any real long term hopes for a bomb for 11 billion dollars worth of her money and assets being free from the sanctions. I think, even as much as I detest him that this is going to be Obama's master stroke and legacy. Not killing OBL, not obamacare, but rapprochement with Iran and lessening the risk of a Shia Islam-a-bomb and the Sunni response.
I am not a mind reader and I am not a game theory expert. However, Iran does not have an operational weapon and therefore that HEU was presently useless. To me, Iran created a large amount of HEU specifically to use it as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The uranium is absolutely useless, however, if you go after the weapons program and shut that down. On the other hand, they can always make more HEU if they really, really want to. They gave up something that is non-essential.
They are however, getting serious access to hard currency, from my understanding. And we are rolling back sanctions that, once rolled back, may be quite difficult to reimpose because it requires broad agreement among the P5.
I don't really know. I shrug at my shoulders at the deal. We'll see where we go in six months. Bombing them is always an option."The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck
Comment
-
Originally posted by Minskaya View PostAs I alluded to in other posts, the wild card...
New US sanctions would spell 'end of deal' to limit nuclear program: Iran foreign minister
24 November 2013
GENEVA - Iran will not honor the nuclear agreement it just signed with the United States and other world powers if Congress imposes new sanctions, Iran’s foreign minister told NBC News after the deal was announced. “If there are new sanctions, then there is no deal. It’s very clear. End of the deal. Because of the inability of one party to maintain their side of the bargain,” Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said during an exclusive interview with NBC News.
He's just reiterating what the agreement says, probably for home consumption.
- The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the
respective roles of the President and the
Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-re
lated sanctions.
But also, as you point out, he reiterated the position because the US Senate is due to vote soon on increased sanctions. I expect the Senate will either hold off, or vote for the sanctions to go into effect upon Iran's failure to come to an agreement within the 1 year timeframe specified in the agreement.To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThe deal does nothing to stop nuclear weapons research. It only stops nuclear materials from being used but no intrusion into their weapons program. Suspected weapons labs are still out of bounds.
But say that Iran ultimately agrees to abandon its weapons program, how can that be enforced, considering that R&D of that nature can take place in small spaces anywhere in the country?
What is the best guarantee of neutering their nuke building capability if not strict oversight of their fissionable stockpiles and fabricating facilities?To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Comment
-
Originally posted by GVChamp View PostThey are however, getting serious access to hard currency, from my understanding. And we are rolling back sanctions that, once rolled back, may be quite difficult to reimpose because it requires broad agreement among the P5.
The idea is cap for a cap, there won't be more sanctions for the next six months, if all goes well.Last edited by Double Edge; 25 Nov 13,, 16:42.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostAnd allow Iran technology to further refine her designs.
Iran signed away that reason. That is also history.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JAD_333 View PostWhat is the best guarantee of neutering their nuke building capability if not strict oversight of their fissionable stockpiles and fabricating facilities?
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostThe past is no reason, or a signed document is no reason for them to live under threat of a nuclear or sabotage their own future. They owe more than that to their people and their futureLast edited by Officer of Engineers; 25 Nov 13,, 15:44.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostSurrender of all documents and materials, including all fabs. The Ukraine, Georgia, all of Central Asia, South Africa, and Libya all did this and the IAEA is convinced that their programs are dead. The same cannot be said of Iran
What if Iran comes clean. The picture changes.
The real question is whether Iran can be deterred or influenced to do just that.
I suspect what the Iranian regime craves the most is legitimacy in the eyes of the world. They've never quite really achieved that on a worldwide basis. A deal and normalisation guarantees their longevity, something dissident Iranians are opposed to.
So their intransigent behaviour upto now is more their way of giving the world the bird until a compromise that allows them to gain face comes through.Last edited by Double Edge; 25 Nov 13,, 16:52.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostSurrender of all documents and materials, including all fabs. The Ukraine, Georgia, all of Central Asia, South Africa, and Libya all did this and the IAEA is convinced that their programs are dead. The same cannot be said of Iran.
The honour of a country is worth everything to her people. They owe it more to their own people to show that their word is their bond both to her commitments to the treaty she sign as well to their own people. Iran's word is worth a hell of a lot more than nukes. Something everybody forgets when they start talking about nukes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Defcon5 View PostI am sorry, that is a whole load of horse phuckey. The most important job of any government is to protect its people and its interest, not some 'honor' as decided by a western narrative, which is at best hypocritical in nature when they themselves have thousands of nukes, and intimidate the rest of the world with the same. Iranians security and interests are worth hell of a lot more than some word.
The NPT allows you an out. Don't like it? Sign yourself out.
Your position and those of you who argues for Iran to cheat on the NPT itself is complete horse puckey. If Iran does what you suggest she does, then we should declare war today. No, more than that, we are obligated to declare war today before she gets the nuke. While we may not win this war, I guarantee you that it would be the Iranian population would suffer a hell of a lot more than keeping nukes. We just pay higher costs for TVs and DVD players.Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 25 Nov 13,, 18:33.
Comment
-
Colonel, would the international reaction have been any different if Iran had not been a part of the NPT? Would Israel's reaction be any different? Most of the world leaders involved seem to be inherently opposed to the idea of an Iranian nuke. They aren't making your point, that it shouldn't be allowed merely because Iran is cheating on the NPT.
Comment
Comment