Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 196

Thread: Geneva deal reached

  1. #106
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    This is what you call 'for the benefit' of the nuclear club. Few, if any, of the signatories of the NPT would agree with you. They signed precisely because they also wanted to suppress the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and they are the countries that insisted on pledges from members of the nuclear club to reduce and eventually eliminate their stockpiles of nukes. Thanks to the NPT there has been no proliferation among its members and stockpiles have been reduced.
    I want to add to your point here. China did not sign the NPT until the 1980s and China gave Pakistan her nuke. In turn, Pakistan gave Iran her nuke (there goes DEFCON5's claims of domestic Iranian brilliance). After China signed the NPT, it was China who turned Iran in on her heavy water requests that can only be used for weapons.

    China, outside the NPT, was a dangerous nuclear weapons proliferator. China, after signing the NPT, became a responsible power.

    The NPT is a success by any measure. With few exceptions (Saddam, Qaddafy, Iran, North Korea), the member states have lived up to the dream. The DEFCON5 ilk keep ignoring that the world has lost over 55,000 nuclear warheads from a high 60,000+. That's disarmament no matter which way you look at it.

  2. #107
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by harish123 View Post
    Something that I have never really been able to understand -

    - Iran and the US had a very cordial relationship during the Shah . Is Israel and KSA can cozy up, there is no reason why US/Israel cannot have normal relations with the current regime in Iran.
    - Outside of the US, the largest Jewish population is in Iran.
    - The US and Vietnam fought a war - however relations are now normal between them. Iran and the US have never fought a war. There was the hostage crisis but its now been more than 30 yrs post that event.
    - Al qaeda did not have Iran's support
    - At best, Iran has a military which cannot threaten the US and Israel .
    - Despite its efforts, it cannot be a nuke power.( Russia, India would also be alarmed not just the US and Israel)

    So the question is - why so much noise, why so many sanctions , why is it such a big deal in dealing with Iran?

    Apologies for the newbie question.

    It seems you're far behind on this issue. The noise and the sanctions are intended to convince Iran to drop its push for nuclear weapons.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  3. #108
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    China, outside the NPT, was a dangerous nuclear weapons proliferator. China, after signing the NPT, became a responsible power.
    What was their idea behind proliferation?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

  4. #109
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Mainly to be able to fight India (and hopefully the USSR) down to the last Pakistani.

  5. #110
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Differences in interpretation; Iran says right to enrich a 'red line'; not quite so, says Kerry.


    Tough road lies ahead after landmark Iran nuclear deal | Reuters

    Iranian Foreign Minister and chief negotiator Mohammad Javad Zarif flew home from Geneva to a welcoming crowd, a reflection of the relief felt by many Iranians exhausted by isolation and sanctions that have been particularly punishing in the last two years.

    Zarif said in an interview broadcast on state television that Iran would move quickly to start implementing the agreement and it was ready to begin talks on a final accord.

    "In the coming weeks - by the end of the Christian year - we will begin the program for the first phase. At the same time, we are prepared to begin negotiations for a final resolution as of tomorrow," Zarif said.

    Illustrating the delicate dance that looms, he and Kerry differed in their public descriptions of the part of the agreement regarding Iran's right to enrich uranium.

    Sunday's agreement said Iran and the major powers aimed to reach a final deal that would "involve a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters consistent with practical needs, with agreed limits on scope and level of enrichment activities."

    Before heading to Geneva, Zarif had a crucial meeting with Khamenei in the presence of Rouhani, a senior member of the Iranian delegation said.

    "The leader underlined the importance of respecting Iran's right to enrich uranium and that he was backing the delegation as long as they respected this red line," said the delegate.

    What emerged in the text on Sunday was wording that both sides could live with.

    Speaking on Iran's Press TV, Zarif said the deal was an opportunity for the West to restore trust with Iran, adding Tehran would expand cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to address what he called some concerns.

    "In the final step, the (uranium) enrichment process will be accepted and at the same time all the sanctions will be lifted," Zarif said.

    However, on the ABC News program "This Week," Kerry stressed that such a right would be limited and would come about as a result of future negotiations.

    He said that under the terms of the agreement, "there will be a negotiation over whether or not they could have a very limited, completely verifiable, extraordinarily constrained program, where they might have some medical research or other things they can do, but there is no inherent right to enrich..."
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  6. #111
    Contributor Aryajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Oct 08
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    663
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    Some interesting tidbits some of you may not have read about


    - also the Iranians are already pushing to expand relaxation of sanctions in small ways...haggling, so to speak

    - the copy of the interim agreement released publicly in Iran is different in some ways from the copy released in the US

    - the Iranian people have been celebrating the agreement reportedly as a big win for Iran, but quick polls say their elation has to do pocketbook issues--they see an end to the economic suffering brought on by sanctions.

    - Iranians in the street are said to want better relations with the US
    )
    JAD,

    The Iranians who are celebrating in the streets are mostly those who participated in 09/10 uprisings. They perceive this agreement as a big defeat to ayatollah. When Khomeini was forced to accept the UN resolution 598 for ceasefire he said "I drank the cup of poison" Iranians are saying this is khamanei's cup of poison. Also khomeini died few month after he made that statement.

    Hardliners are aggravated for the same reason. There is nothing in that agreement to celebrate about.

  7. #112
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Aryajet View Post
    JAD,

    The Iranians who are celebrating in the streets are mostly those who participated in 09/10 uprisings. They perceive this agreement as a big defeat to ayatollah. When Khomeini was forced to accept the UN resolution 598 for ceasefire he said "I drank the cup of poison" Iranians are saying this is khamanei's cup of poison. Also khomeini died few month after he made that statement.

    Hardliners are aggravated for the same reason. There is nothing in that agreement to celebrate about.
    And that's only good in the grand scheme of things.A triple victory for the West.A double victory for Iran.
    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

  8. #113
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Aryajet View Post
    JAD,

    The Iranians who are celebrating in the streets are mostly those who participated in 09/10 uprisings. They perceive this agreement as a big defeat to ayatollah. When Khomeini was forced to accept the UN resolution 598 for ceasefire he said "I drank the cup of poison" Iranians are saying this is khamanei's cup of poison. Also khomeini died few month after he made that statement.

    Hardliners are aggravated for the same reason. There is nothing in that agreement to celebrate about.

    I defer to your reading of the situation. You're closer to it. However, I expect a good many Iranians are happy that an end to austerity may be at hand. I wish no man death, but it would be nice if he retired to Qom to do a little reading and meditating. He put his people through a lot and has little to show for it.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  9. #114
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,910
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    Differences in interpretation; Iran says right to enrich a 'red line'; not quite so, says Kerry.
    Is it...so what does right to enrich actually mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    Sunday's agreement said Iran and the major powers aimed to reach a final deal that would "involve a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters consistent with practical needs, with agreed limits on scope and level of enrichment activities."
    That's in the text in my first post here.

    This means they can have an enrichment program whose definition will be defined at a later stage. Otherwise there would have been no agreement. Nothing to sell to the folks back at home.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    "The leader underlined the importance of respecting Iran's right to enrich uranium and that he was backing the delegation as long as they respected this red line," said the delegate.

    What emerged in the text on Sunday was wording that both sides could live with.

    "In the final step, the (uranium) enrichment process will be accepted and at the same time all the sanctions will be lifted," Zarif said.

    However, on the ABC News program "This Week," Kerry stressed that such a right would be limited and would come about as a result of future negotiations.

    He said that under the terms of the agreement, "there will be a negotiation over whether or not they could have a very limited, completely verifiable, extraordinarily constrained program, where they might have some medical research or other things they can do, but there is no inherent right to enrich..."
    They don't have a right to enrich as of the initial agreement, the terms are not spelled out but neither does it slam the door shut on it either.

    That they can have a limited (defintion?) program, meaning enough to produce their own low enriched fuel and little for medical purposes at 20% is something they have been demanding for a very long time. Which would be under stringent safeguards so nothing is getting diverted. That means the west is ok.

    Imagine the head banging that will occur over what the right number of centrifuges or enrichment facilities they can have. How many is too many and how many is enough.

    There is no problem here. Remains to be seen what is agreed to later in terms of enrichment but the p5+1 have agreed in principle that Iran can have an enrichment program.

    Celebrations (or distress ) of any kind are premature at this point, more like a breather. We have a start, which will hopefully not get squandered.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 26 Nov 13, at 23:34.

  10. #115
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Is it...so what does right to enrich actually mean.


    That's in the text in my first post here.

    This means they can have an enrichment program whose definition will be defined at a later stage. Otherwise there would have been no agreement. Nothing to sell to the folks back at home.


    They don't have a right to enrich as of the initial agreement, the terms are not spelled out but neither does it slam the door shut on it either.

    That they can have a limited (defintion?) program, meaning enough to produce their own low enriched fuel and little for medical purposes at 20% is something they have been demanding for a very long time. Which would be under stringent safeguards so nothing is getting diverted. That means the west is ok.

    Imagine the head banging that will occur over what the right number of centrifuges or enrichment facilities they can have. How many is too many and how many is enough.

    There is no problem here. Remains to be seen what is agreed to later in terms of enrichment but the p5+1 have agreed in principle that Iran can have an enrichment program.

    Celebrations (or distress ) of any kind are premature at this point, more like a breather. We have a start, which will hopefully not get squandered.

    DE:

    You should have been a bit more careful in attributing those quotes to me. They were from the Reuters.

    In any case, I do see a conflict.

    Zarif the lead Iranian negotiator said, "In the final step, the (uranium) enrichment process will be accepted and at the same time all the sanctions will be lifted."

    Kerry said on ABC "...there will be a negotiation over whether or not they could have a very limited, completely verifiable, extraordinarily constrained program, where they might have some medical research or other things they can do, but there is no inherent right to enrich..."

    There is a definite gulf between Zarif's "will be accepted" and Kerry's "there will be negotiations", particularly since Kerry said there is "no inherent right to enrich" and intimated that future refining will be constrained and verifiable at low-levels.

    Beyond the Ayatollah's red line that Iran must retain its enrichment program there is another red line, namely the least amount of enrichment capacity Iran is willing to live with.

    The P5+1 can yield little ground on capacity and not at all on monitoring, inspections and verification.
    Last edited by JAD_333; 27 Nov 13, at 01:30.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  11. #116
    Contributor Aryajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Oct 08
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    663
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    I defer to your reading of the situation. You're closer to it. However, I expect a good many Iranians are happy that an end to austerity may be at hand. I wish no man death, but it would be nice if he retired to Qom to do a little reading and meditating. He put his people through a lot and has little to show for it.
    JAD,

    Oh of course there is some genuine happiness, overwhelming majority of Iranians are not happy with the status que, they want better relation with west, some sanctions will be lifted specially on Auto Industry, Civil aviation and agriculture. But it was the leader who always demonized west in general and draw one "red line" after another blocking any compromise. Now he needs to bend over to a 90 degree posture. That is what Iranians mean by mentioning "The Cup of Poison"

    Look at this agreement! Exact same thing was drafted and offered by Javier Solana 10 years ago the plan got ridiculed and rejected by hardliners headed by ayatolla. 10 years of tension, billions spent on collecting 200 kilogram of 20% U, got the nation in brink of war, now they have to destroy half of the 200 kilogram and other half must be diluted to under 5% and still majority of crippling sanctions remain intact.

  12. #117
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,910
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    DE:

    You should have been a bit more careful in attributing those quotes to me. They were from the Reuters.
    Been doing it for a long time, the idea is a click on takes one directly to your post. At which point its apparent from whom and where those words came from. Now, you did not say those exact words but you sourced the article and we are brought straight to your post.

    Otherwise with empty quotes its not clear which post those quotes came from. Sometimes i find people quoting lines of articles from a post a thread page or two before and one has to search for the post where they came from and to whom the reply is to. At times I do this myself so its easier for people to see from where, whom or what i'm quoting came from. As a matter of habit i do this whether the post was just preceding mine or even page or two behind. Cannot tell when the thread will turn a page or whether ten other people posted before i completed mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    In any case, I do see a conflict.

    Zarif the lead Iranian negotiator said, "In the final step, the (uranium) enrichment process will be accepted and at the same time all the sanctions will be lifted."

    Kerry said on ABC "...there will be a negotiation over whether or not they could have a very limited, completely verifiable, extraordinarily constrained program, where they might have some medical research or other things they can do, but there is no inherent right to enrich..."

    There is a definite gulf between Zarif's "will be accepted" and Kerry's "there will be negotiations", particularly since Kerry said there is "no inherent right to enrich" and intimated that future refining will be constrained and verifiable at low-levels.
    Agree.

    there is no right to enrich right now. Right to enrich remains to be negotiated. Zarif is confident that this right 'will be accepted' pending negotiations. Zarif is making an assertion about something yet to happen in the future. He has to otherwise people will ask why are we doing this.

    Zarif has no problem with the english language. Apparently he also has a sense of humour.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    Beyond the Ayatollah's red line that Iran must retain its enrichment program there is another red line, namely the least amount of enrichment capacity Iran is willing to live with.
    The difference now is the west is expected to agree to limited enrichment whereas in the past it was a flat no.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    The P5+1 can yield little ground on capacity and not at all on monitoring, inspections and verification.
    This should not be a problem, again in principle. iran had already agreed to additional protocols in 2005 but pulled out when it became clear there would not be any right to enrichment allowed. The devil will be in the details but the broad outline does not appear problematic. This is my point.

    Unless the Iranians throw a spanner in the works there is also the ability of congress to restrict Obama's ability to waive or reduce sanctions if negotiations proceed in a positive way. This can be a spoiler as waivers act as inducements to other countries to stick with sanctions. There are going to be lots of twists & turns along the way.

    The one thing Congress must not do is start adding extra conditions to loosen sanctions like civil liberties, women/minority rights, activities in Iraq,Syria, Lebanon. 'Everything' must not be that wide or it would be tantamount to US declaring war on Iran.

    Such is the weakness of 'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'. Many ways to gum up the works.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Nov 13, at 12:10.

  13. #118
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Aryajet View Post

    Look at this agreement! Exact same thing was drafted and offered by Javier Solana 10 years ago the plan got ridiculed and rejected by hardliners headed by ayatolla. 10 years of tension, billions spent on collecting 200 kilogram of 20% U, got the nation in brink of war, now they have to destroy half of the 200 kilogram and other half must be diluted to under 5% and still majority of crippling sanctions remain intact.

    Why all the confusion?

    An Iranian Insider's View of the Geneva Deal
    'If the right to enrich is accepted, which it has been, then everything that we have wanted has been realized.'

    By
    Sohrab Ahmari
    connect
    Nov. 26, 2013 7:21 p.m. ET

    The Obama administration and Western diplomats were elated by an agreement, negotiated over the weekend, to temporarily limit some aspects of Iran's nuclear-weapons program. The elation was shared by Tehran's negotiating team, led by Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, whose beaming smile and social-media savvy have been fixtures of the talks in Geneva. When the deal was sealed early on Sunday, Mr. Zarif took to Twitter TWTR +1.79% to announce: "We have reached an agreement."

    But there is another Iran, where government officials are generally unsmiling and Twitter is banned. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps rule this land, not Mr. Zarif or his nominal boss, President Hasan Rouhani. It is in this Islamic Republic where the results of President Obama's nuclear diplomacy will be tested.

    No Iranian news outlet more closely reflects the views of the supreme leader and the country's hard-line establishment than the Kayhan newspaper. The editor of Kayhan— Hossein Shariatmadari currently holds the post—is directly appointed by Mr. Khamenei and is considered the leader's representative to Iranian media.

    On Sunday, I spoke on the phone with Payam Fazlinejad, a Kayhan writer and senior researcher and lieutenant of Mr. Shariatmadari's. The 32-year-old Mr. Fazlinejad is also a lecturer who addresses Islamic Republic elites on the ideological threats facing the regime—themes he has expounded on in such books as "Knights of the Cultural NATO" and "The Intellectuals' Secret Army." While he emphasized on the phone that his opinions don't necessarily represent those of his employer, Mr. Fazlinejad's views are typical of those held by a large and powerful element of the Tehran regime.

    Mr. Fazlinejad's reading of the Geneva agreement mixes triumphalism and hard-nosed skepticism. "We need to be able to have an accurate view of what occurred and then assess it against the positions of the supreme leader and his guidance," he says. "But as a general matter, if the right to enrich is accepted, which it has been, then everything that we have wanted has been realized."

    Last year, Mr. Shariatmadari, the editor of the newspaper, wrote that Iran has a right to enrich uranium up to 99%. The Obama administration insists that the Geneva agreement doesn't enshrine a right to enrich uranium. Yet the deal permits the Iranian regime to continue enriching uranium up to 5%—a level that can be quickly escalated to produce weapons-grade material. Mr. Fazlinejad views the Geneva 5% concession as great-power acquiescence to Tehran's enrichment program. "Now, the details—including the amount of enrichment and the specific enrichment locations and the technological shape of our enrichment program—are up to our technicians to determine," he says.

    Given that the Geneva deal is an interim, six-month arrangement, with a final agreement still to come, Mr. Fazlinejad suggests that Western leaders must "take into account that the supreme leader's support for the negotiations and agreement has been conditional and by no means absolute. The leader instructed us that if the rights of the Iranian nation and the principles of the revolution are respected and the negotiating team stands up to the overbearing demands of the United States and the global arrogance"—the regime's terms for the West generally—"then he would support their work." On the other hand, if the agreement denies Iran's absolute right to enrich, "then it is from our view essentially void."

    The Kayhan writer warns against perceiving any diplomatic agreement over Iran's nuclear program as a first step toward broader rapprochement between Washington and Tehran. "The nature of the opposition of the Islamic revolution with the regime of liberal democracy is fundamentally philosophical," Mr. Fazlinejad says. "It's an ideological difference. It is not a tactical enmity, or one that has to do with temporary interests, which can be shifted and the enmity thus done away with. . . . So in contrast to all the punditry of late in the international media, which says that these negotiations are a step toward peace between Iran and the United States—those who take this view are completely mistaken."

    Assistant books editor Sohrab Ahmari on Payam Fazlinejad, a well-connected Iranian who says the Geneva deal gave Tehran got everything it wanted. Photos: Getty Images

    Western leaders, Mr. Fazlinejad says, are also misreading the meaning of Mr. Rouhani's election in June and his foreign policy. Pointing to the Iranian president's recent visits with the families of Iran's "martyrs," Mr. Fazlinejad says: "Notice how hard Mr. Rouhani's government works to show itself to be loyal to the revolution's ideological principles." The new president "won't make the mistake of thinking he can either distance the Islamic Republic's leadership from its ideological principles or seek its ideological collapse."

    To drive home his point about the endgame of the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, Mr. Fazlinejad offers an analogy from the Islamic Republic's early history, citing the late Ayatollah Khomeini's statement regarding the 1987 United Nations Security Council Resolution 598, which paved the way for a cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq War.

    "In that message," Mr. Fazlinejad says, "the imam made it clear that our military war against the arrogance in the form of Iraq's regime is over. . . . But he advised the youth and the political activists to 'safeguard the revolutionary hatred and grievance in your hearts, look upon your enemies with fury and know that you will be victorious.' "

    Khomeini's statement, Mr. Fazlinejad says, "was a message of peace, signaling a permanent cease-fire. But at the same time it asserted the vitality of our struggle against the capitalist order. If anyone gets the sense from these negotiations, as [Foreign Minister] Mr. Zarif has, that we are getting closer to the West, he is as mistaken as Mr. Zarif." Sohrab Ahmari: An Iranian Insider's View of the Geneva Deal - WSJ.com
    And this: Confusion over nuclear deal as Iran protests White House statement | Fox News
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  14. #119
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,910
    From here

    But there is another Iran, where government officials are generally unsmiling and Twitter is banned. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps rule this land, not Mr. Zarif or his nominal boss, President Hasan Rouhani. It is in this Islamic Republic where the results of President Obama's nuclear diplomacy will be tested.
    Rouhani has a mandate of the Iranian people. He campaigned on a platform to end isolation, his rival and previous negoatiator Jalili campaigned on a platform of 'just say no'. Iranian people chose Rouhani. How much power Rouhani has is directly linked to how much progress is made at the talks. If no progress is made THEN the hardliners will start to make a noise. Right now, they are quiet which this article fails to admit.

    Another point to note is there wasn't that much rigging as expected in the recent Iranian presidential elections. It was a rather quiet affair that produced a fair result. So Ayatollah has agreed to the result of these elections, Rouhani's progress and credibility depends on his ability to get this deal through.

    Last year, Mr. Shariatmadari, the editor of the newspaper, wrote that Iran has a right to enrich uranium up to 99%. The Obama administration insists that the Geneva agreement doesn't enshrine a right to enrich uranium. Yet the deal permits the Iranian regime to continue enriching uranium up to 5%—a level that can be quickly escalated to produce weapons-grade material. Mr. Fazlinejad views the Geneva 5% concession as great-power acquiescence to Tehran's enrichment program. "Now, the details—including the amount of enrichment and the specific enrichment locations and the technological shape of our enrichment program—are up to our technicians to determine," he says.
    Iran afaict tell has never asked for 99% enrichment. Amhari is dreaming if he thinks 'right to enrich' means 99% (?).

    The underlined bit is a load of bunk. You cannot quickly go from 5% to weapons grade. Going from 5% to 20% involved 80% of the work. It's from 20% where you can go to weapons grade much faster. Well, the deal isn't going to allow 20% except in minor amounts for medical purposes.

    This article is basically echoing the iranian hardliner sentiment. Guess what, the hardliners are sidelined now and it is the Iranian moderates that are ascendant. Iranian hardliners don't matter now and if the deal progresses will matter even less if Iranian isolation starts to abate.

    Discussion about this topic is always dominated by hardline views of both sides, a path to nowhere. More people need to call this out.

    There is no confusion, this is just domestic politics on both sides trying to muddy the waters for their own partisan interests. Playing about with facts to confuse the layperson and basically curry favour to oppose any deal whatsoever.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Nov 13, at 13:01.

  15. #120
    New Member
    Join Date
    07 Dec 13
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    11
    hope Iran can not have nuclear power in the future. Although according to me he can not use it for any country in the region. Iran desires nuclear power to increase its deterrence against the powers in the region. But this balance of power should not change on the advantage of Iran.

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,, 19:43
  2. Iran @ Geneva
    By Minskaya in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 22 Nov 13,, 13:12
  3. New Deal on Bush tax cuts reached............
    By MIKEMUN in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 13 Dec 10,, 00:52
  4. Geneva Convention Turns 60
    By Merlin in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12 Aug 09,, 16:52
  5. US detainees to get Geneva rights
    By troung in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Jul 06,, 05:20

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
  •