The Iran Deal

[Squirrel]

Not sure what you mean by that.

It was the Chinese and the Russians who provided the IAEA with proof of Iranian weapons activities. The Swiss found the CHANGAI-I blueprints in an AK Khan associate's office in Geneva. Gaddaffi release his papers which included the CICH-4 blueprint from AQ Khan. So, we know AQ Khan had both sets of blueprints and he sold Gaddaffi the CICH-4 blueprint. We have the paper trail.

American intel has stated AQ Khan's activities and stated he sold the same package to Lybia, North Korea, and Iran. AQ Khan has always maintained what he did was under the orders of Islamabad. Pakistani Generals maintained that AQ Khan did this on his own, including CHANGAI-I blueprints.

Edit: Gotcha. It was not Chinese, Russian, or Pakistani intel. The Chinese and the Russians unknowingly sold Iran some dual use nuclear materials before they became suspicious of Iranian intent. They reported the sales to the IAEA and then scrutinized the intent.

AQ Khan is a Pakistani national who has been selling Pakistani nuclear secrets. Gaddaffi openned his books and showed a CICH-4 blueprint that he got from AQ Khan. We found the CHANGAI-I blueprints in an AQ Khan's office in Geneva or at least the Swiss did. The Pakistanis confirmed that AQ Khan has indeed sold it to Iran.

There is indeed a whole paper trail in Pakistan of centrifuges being sold and delivered to Iran.

Do you believe that the Russians and the Chinese would be so oblivious as to not realize what they were doing, only to turn around and tell the US "oh, yeah, we might have helped them with their nuclear program..." Or, is it at all possible that they may have exaggerated the situation?

[Officer of Engineers]

Do you believe that the Russians and the Chinese would be so oblivious as to not realize what they were doing, only to turn around and tell the US "oh, yeah, we might have helped them with their nuclear program..." Or, is it at all possible that they may have exaggerated the situation?

Here are the facts of the nulcear trade between these various countries

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/nuclear/

It was when China (which should be noted that they signed the NPT in 1992) and Russia came clean with their dealings with Iran that the IAEA had the evidence they needed to question Iran. It was their paperwork that convinced the IAEA of Iranian misdoings.

As far as China is concerned, anything before 1992, I would seriously believe they were trying to give the nuke to anyone and everyone. After all, they gave it to Pakistan. The CICH-4 was a Chinese blueprint they gave to AQ Khan. Amongst the paperwork that Gaddafi gave up were Chinese lecture notes to AQ Khan.

[MJH]

re: 24 days notice clause. First of all that's the max and invoking it would be a warning in itself. Second, as to the idea that the deal could have included a much shorter max time, you may
know" it-but it's a simple fact that our negotiators, the UK's and Germany's didn''t share your opinion.

[MJH]

Obviously ISIS is the biggest immediate threat. And the Republicans can't come up with a policy better than 'surrounding all of ISIS with US troops'-Donald Trumps addition to the file of dumb ideas. Trump's policies evaluated [Spam Deleted]

Moderators Edit: This is your only warning. Do not advertise your website here. Either argue the matter yourself or go elsewhere.

[Officer of Engineers]

Obviously ISIS is the biggest immediate threat. And the Republicans can't come up with a policy better than 'surrounding all of ISIS with US troops'-Donald Trumps addition to the file of dumb ideas. Trump's policies evaluated

First of all, professor, you can print what you want to say here rather to point to your advertise your blog with the same opinion.

2nd, I was UNPROFOR, I know how the suits can gum up and delay things up the ying-yang. So, yeah, the negotiators wearing suits don't agree with the people on the ground. What a freaking surprise. I know how to delay things for 72 hours right off the bat. Call on a Friday afternoon. It will be Monday before you get an answer and the answer is expect an answer by Friday, meaning the following Tuesday.

[MJH]

First of all, professor, you can print what you want to say here rather to point to your advertise your blog with the same opinion.

2nd, I was UNPROFOR, I know how the suits can gum up and delay things up the ying-yang. So, yeah, the negotiators wearing suits don't agree with the people on the ground. What a freaking surprise. I know how to delay things for 72 hours right off the bat. Call on a Friday afternoon. It will be Monday before you get an answer and the answer is expect an answer by Friday, meaning the following Tuesday.

One thing assumed by your argument, it appears to me, is that during any delay they can move the guts of their program--and presumably
our electronic surveillance won't pick that up. We might have some difficulties with identifying a disguised site, conceivably at least, but we'd hardly miss their movement of enough of the site that when the inspectors were to get in they wouldn't find evidence of the program. It all seems unlikely to me.

[MJH]

Sorry didn't know that was verboten. Is it preferable to make the long posts here?

[Officer of Engineers]

One thing assumed by your argument, it appears to me, is that during any delay they can move the guts of their program--and presumably
our electronic surveillance won't pick that up. We might have some difficulties with identifying a disguised site, conceivably at least, but we'd hardly miss their movement of enough of the site that when the inspectors were to get in they wouldn't find evidence of the program. It all seems unlikely to me.

You maybe a political science major but you suck at OPSEC. I have a serious question. Why 24 days? Why not 12? Why not 7? Why not 36? Why did the Iranians agree to 24?

Is it because that is EXACTLY how long they would need to carry out their contingency plans?

Do you seriously believe that the Iranians have nothing to hide and pick 24 days out of the blue?

And that is 24 days from official notice. What is official notice? The minister in charge gets it? Oh gee, he's on vacation.

[TopHatter]

Sorry didn't know that was verboten. Is it preferable to make the long posts here?

This message board is not your personal blog. If you're planning on copy-and-pasting material from it, don't.

If you sincerely want to debate the issues of the day, then by all means feel free.

[MJH]

I won't get into a personal debate with you over credentials, but I will over substance. Now I agree they tried to set delaying conditions in the event that the arbitration failed after a disputed inspection request. The issue for them may have been the keeping open the possibility of cheating. No one doubts that's possible with them. It also involves issues of face and sovereignty. Neither of us completely trusts the Iranians, especially The so called supreme leader. The issue was what we could have negotiated, and what the alternatives to what we got were. Two former directors of Mossad, btw, have come out cautiously for the deal, for most of the same reasons I have. There are tangible gains for us. And ou r negotiators insisted on an automatic reinstatement of the sanctions should they cheat on the agreement.

Now neither of us were in the rooms with the negotiators for the 5+1 countries over the past 9 years. But I'm sure you'll agree that Kerry and team well knew of the opposition to doing a deal from Netanyahu and the controlling Republicans in Congress. Ditto with the opposition parties in Germany and the UK, where Cameroon has his own bunch of problems. So it was in most if not all of the p5+1 countries to get the best deal possible. We got quite a bit as it turned out. And in Iran there are quite a few hard-liners who felt and are speaking to the idea that they gave up way too much. You have counterparts there. They did get this one important loop-hole. Meanwhile, inmo, you are not giving enough weight to the reformist and business factions in Iran--who have a real stake in the easing of tensions with the West. Again INMO, we got a lot in an imperfect, from our perspective, deal and no one has suggested serious alternative or that without the deal what the consequences for Iran's moving ahead with unimpeded nuclear development--that might well include weapons.

[MJH]

Cameron not Cameroon.

[MJH]

I read the link you gave me in that other thread. I didn't see anything that talked about posting replies on threads that were old-though you were right that I missed that it was an old thread. Whyever are they still open threads if I'm not to post in them??? Also I am most interested right now in discussing our strategy of insisting that all weaponry that we give to Iraq go through the ineffectual Shia government. Am I missing a current Iraq discussion forum?? Is it possible that the subject isn't of interest to the WA Boad?? How do I communicate these questions with you without posting it here on a reply to your post??

[TopHatter]

I read the link you gave me in that other thread. I didn't see anything that talked about posting replies on threads that were old-though you were right that I missed that it was an old thread. Whyever are they still open threads if I'm not to post in them??? Also I am most interested right now in discussing our strategy of insisting that all weaponry that we give to Iraq go through the ineffectual Shia government. Am I missing a current Iraq discussion forum?? Is it possible that the subject isn't of interest to the WA Boad?? How do I communicate these questions with you without posting it here on a reply to your post??

There were two threads I posted. Did you read them both?

Are you familiar with basic message boarding protocol?

Do you know what Personal Messaging is?

[Officer of Engineers]

I won't get into a personal debate with you over credentials, but I will over substance.

I am not impressed.

Now I agree they tried to set delaying conditions in the event that the arbitration failed after a disputed inspection request. The issue for them may have been the keeping open the possibility of cheating. No one doubts that's possible with them.

Oh for Pete sakes, possible? It is for damned certain. They keep the CHANGAI-I blueprints. They keep all their implosion research. They got cart blanche on missile research, more specifically re-entry vehicles. There's one and ONLY ONE REASON WHY THEY ASKED FOR A 24 DAY DELAY. They needed it. And I bet they can gum it even further by having the only guy with the authority to receive such a request away on holiday.

It also involves issues of face and sovereignty. Neither of us completely trusts the Iranians, especially The so called supreme leader. The issue was what we could have negotiated, and what the alternatives to what we got were. Two former directors of Mossad, btw, have come out cautiously for the deal, for most of the same reasons I have. There are tangible gains for us. And ou r negotiators insisted on an automatic reinstatement of the sanctions should they cheat on the agreement.

What automatic reinstatement of sanctions? China and Russia can say no, just like France, Russia, and China said no to the Iraq War. All Russia and China had to say is that they disagree that Iran cheated.

Now neither of us were in the rooms with the negotiators for the 5+1 countries over the past 9 years. But I'm sure you'll agree that Kerry and team well knew of the opposition to doing a deal from Netanyahu and the controlling Republicans in Congress.

You can skip that hookey baloney. I am Canadian. I have zero say or interest in American politics. And the P5+1 is a red herring. You and both know that the US had the final go-no-go in this. If the US wanted this deal, then there is nothing the other members can do to stop it. By the same token, China and Russia had tried for over a decade (and that is well into Bush's administration) to get a deal and the US said no.

Ditto with the opposition parties in Germany and the UK, where Cameroon has his own bunch of problems. So it was in most if not all of the p5+1 countries to get the best deal possible. We got quite a bit as it turned out. And in Iran there are quite a few hard-liners who felt and are speaking to the idea that they gave up way too much. You have counterparts there. They did get this one important loop-hole.

I don't freaking care! Iran signed on the dotted line about the NPT. At the very least, she should give up AQ Khan and the CHANGAI-I blueprints.

Meanwhile, inmo, you are not giving enough weight to the reformist and business factions in Iran--who have a real stake in the easing of tensions with the West.

Is Iran's signature on a treaty worth its weight in gold? If yes, then give up AQ Khan and CHANGAI-I. If not, then I would take all payments in cash on delivery, US dollars or EUROs would do fine.

Again INMO, we got a lot in an imperfect, from our perspective, deal and no one has suggested serious alternative or that without the deal what the consequences for Iran's moving ahead with unimpeded nuclear development--that might well include weapons.

You mean a nuclear test?

Let me ask you this? Do you just take politicians at their word or do you actually study the history of this damned thing? We didn't even know AQ Khan had CHANGAI-I until 2006. And it was 2 more years before we learned that AQ Khan passed them to Iran.

Do you even know what I'm talking about when I said CICH-4 and CHANGAI-I?

[Doktor]

I am just curious here. What prohibits the inspectors to send 365 teams. Yes, IRI can delay the first one for some time, but then? Airlift on Berlin comes to mind.