Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 246

Thread: The Iran Deal

  1. #61
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    As far as I'm aware, the agreement succeeded in halting the Nork's nuclear program until 2002 when it broke down due to seperate issues between the US and North Korea over sanctions regarding ballistic missile development.
    The NKs said we didn't deliver on our end of the bargin. Oil is supposed to have replaced their nuclear power plants but while we stopped the oil embargo, oil prices skyrocketted, making any such embargo lifting meaningless.

    Their view is that we manipulated oil prices (don't ask the Kims to be economic experts no matter what they claim) to continue sanctions while living up to the letter of the agreement.
    Chimo

  2. #62
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    That is called passing the buck to the next HNIC when Iran would become militarily and diplomatically stronger and really be ready to build the bomb.
    I would think that after years to inspect and scrutinize sites like Fordo and Natanz, it would be far easier to plan conventional means of taking them out. Admittedly the prospect of Iran buying systems like the S-300 isn't ideal, but NATO has had plenty of time to study such systems, and by that time US acquisitions of F-35s, Next Generation Jammers, and other systems should compensate.

    As far a diplomacy is concerned, Iran's interests in the region seem to be increasingly aligned with the West's. The US formerly had a good relationship with Iran, and I wouldn't be shocked to see things swing around that way once again. In which case Iran's motivation to acquire a bomb would be drastically reduced since they would no longer be living in constant paranoia of a western invasion.

    If the US can be in a position to play both sides of the Saudi - Iranian power struggle it will be much easier to manage.

  3. #63
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I would think that after years to inspect and scrutinize sites like Fordo and Natanz, it would be far easier to plan conventional means of taking them out. Admittedly the prospect of Iran buying systems like the S-300 isn't ideal, but NATO has had plenty of time to study such systems, and by that time US acquisitions of F-35s, Next Generation Jammers, and other systems should compensate.
    You're also giving them time to evaluate, devised, and plan a breakout strategy. In 15 years time, they announce they will withdraw from the NPT, just like North Korea did. What then?

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    As far a diplomacy is concerned, Iran's interests in the region seem to be increasingly aligned with the West's. The US formerly had a good relationship with Iran, and I wouldn't be shocked to see things swing around that way once again. In which case Iran's motivation to acquire a bomb would be drastically reduced since they would no longer be living in constant paranoia of a western invasion.
    Iran is a regional power with memories of being a world power. It's not fighting ISIS for ideology sakes. It's fighting to take lands away from ISIS. Sooner or later, they will come into conflict with Western interests, especially over control of oil. We will see eye to eye on somethings and reach for the gun on others.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    If the US can be in a position to play both sides of the Saudi - Iranian power struggle it will be much easier to manage.
    Same shit. Different bowl. Different day.
    Chimo

  4. #64
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The NKs said we didn't deliver on our end of the bargin. Oil is supposed to have replaced their nuclear power plants but while we stopped the oil embargo, oil prices skyrocketted, making any such embargo lifting meaningless.

    Their view is that we manipulated oil prices (don't ask the Kims to be economic experts no matter what they claim) to continue sanctions while living up to the letter of the agreement.
    So if oil prices dump when Iranian oil becomes available on the market they will do what? Their Ayatollah has already said that this changes nothing. I have to say having visited Iran a couple of times the people are really great but I wouldn't trust their regime with a fork.

  5. #65
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Wait until Iran explode her first nuke, then "the people are really great" will be dancing in the streets. There is plenty of ignorant popular support for an Iranian bomb. There are a few intellectually who fears it but none who would not rejoice at an Iranian made mushroom cloud.
    Chimo

  6. #66
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Iran is already messing with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Yemen, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The US is making deals with Iran and not making deals with Saudi Arabia.
    Compare Carters time with Khomeni and exporting the islamic revolution with today. That talk died down after Khomeni's passing.

    The US was ready to go the hog then, i see no reason they won't do so in the future. The interests remain the same.

    What you are asking for is a formality given past actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    The pro's for the West are fairly simple:fvck Russia.And that's about it short term.Long term,there will be somebody that can screw the Sunnis,who are nothing but trouble.
    western detente with Iran isn't against Russian interests.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Jul 15, at 15:23.

  7. #67
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,018
    Why?
    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. #68
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,509
    How does western detente with Iran fcuk russia ?

    See what the russian FM is saying soon after the deal...

    Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, lost no time in talking about the accord on Iran’s nuclear program. He was on television minutes after the deal was clinched, and even before the formal news conference had begun, announcing the landmark agreement to the audience back home and emphasizing the many potential benefits, strategic and economic, that it holds for Russia.

    The deal reopens the door for lucrative contracts to expand Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program, which Russia has been looking forward to for years. And it may neutralize a major reason the United States has offered for developing a missile defense system in Europe, a project that President Vladimir V. Putin and other Kremlin officials have said was a threat to Russian security.

    “We all probably remember how in April 2009, giving a speech in Prague, the U.S. president, Barack Obama, said that if Iran’s nuclear program is successfully regulated, then the aim of the European segment of the missile defense will be dropped,” Mr. Lavrov said straight into the cameras of state-controlled Russian television. “This is why today we drew the attention of our American colleagues to this fact. We will expect a reaction.”
    Putin is endorsing it, here they see eye to with the west..

    Mr. Lavrov’s lightning effort to capitalize on the deal underscored just how much Russia has invested in Iran’s returning to normal diplomatic relations.

    Mr. Putin himself issued a statement on Tuesday welcoming the deal, underlining Russia’s role and noting that his government would move ahead with its nuclear power agreements and with strengthening bilateral ties.

    Beyond the energy sector, Russia expects to make substantial sales of conventional weapons to Iran. In the late stages of negotiations, Mr. Lavrov made a hard, dramatic push for an immediate and complete lifting of an international arms embargo against Iran, apparently helping set the stage for a deal.

    In the end, a compromise was reached that will continue the embargo for five to eight years. Still, Mr. Lavrov suggested that Russia stood to benefit even sooner from renewed arms deals with Tehran because exceptions would be allowed under new notification and United Nations approval procedures.
    see what POTUS said

    Mr. Obama, in an interview Tuesday with Thomas L. Friedman, an op-ed columnist with The New York Times, praised Mr. Putin and Russia for helping to clinch the deal, even amid the tensions over Russia’s policies in Ukraine.

    “Russia was a help on this,” Mr. Obama said. “I’ll be honest with you. I was not sure given the strong differences we are having with Russia right now around Ukraine, whether this would sustain itself. Putin and the Russian government compartmentalized on this in a way that surprised me, and we would have not achieved this agreement had it not been for Russia’s willingness to stick with us and the other P5-plus members in insisting on a strong deal.”
    Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Jul 15, at 17:18.

  9. #69
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,199
    It's not every day that "The Onion" breaks the story first...

    Name:  3i57iG4.png
Views: 588
Size:  721.8 KB

  10. #70
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    It's not every day that "The Onion" breaks the story first...

    Name:  3i57iG4.png
Views: 588
Size:  721.8 KB
    Hahahahaha, that's great.

    Gee, it's almost like we've farmed out our foreign policy to some joker prankster.

  11. #71
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,339
    Even the US intelligence community admits the Iranian research into the bomb stopped in 2003. The deal with keep them from making one in that it limits the supply of 20% HEU to a very small stockpile that will rapidly dwindle as the IAEA takes over fueling the TRR. Since the Arak reactor cannot produce plutonium in militarily useful amounts HEU is the only route they have and they are now limited to 5% HEU.

    Iran is an energy producer but it its oil is expensive to produce and she uses a lot of it at home. Nuclear power will help Iran transition away from an oil based economy and will provide the electricity powering the devices that are importing ideas that will ultimately nuke the mullahs.

    When the US built the TRR we provided the Shah with 90% HEU, the Iranians converted it to 20% HEU.

    Iran is the only industrialized country within range of every single country with nuclear weapons that does not have nuclear weapons or a nuclear umbrella.

  12. #72
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    As much as it pains me, I agree 100%.

    Consider: the last time Iran invaded anybody it was still called Persia, 189 years ago this month. Given that the Russians had been attacking Persia for decades, it seems fairly justified.
    In correct, Iran counter-invaded Iraq, driving all the way to Basra's gates.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Even the US intelligence community admits the Iranian research into the bomb stopped in 2003.
    All that means is that they can't go further without a test.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The deal with keep them from making one in that it limits the supply of 20% HEU to a very small stockpile that will rapidly dwindle as the IAEA takes over fueling the TRR. Since the Arak reactor cannot produce plutonium in militarily useful amounts HEU is the only route they have and they are now limited to 5% HEU.
    The timeline to such execution is 15 years. 15 years to dismantle what took them 5 to build. I am not taking their assurances at face value.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Iran is an energy producer but it its oil is expensive to produce and she uses a lot of it at home. Nuclear power will help Iran transition away from an oil based economy and will provide the electricity powering the devices that are importing ideas that will ultimately nuke the mullahs.
    Have heard the same things before vis-a-vi the USSR and the CCP and both the Russians and the Chinese remained steadfast our opposition if not our enemies.

    Iran is seeking to become the regional/world power she thought herself to be. Such an Iran will never be total friends with the West.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    When the US built the TRR we provided the Shah with 90% HEU, the Iranians converted it to 20% HEU.
    The Shah did not buy a nuclear weapons factory, both CICH-4 and CHANGI-I blueprints from AQ Khan.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Iran is the only industrialized country within range of every single country with nuclear weapons that does not have nuclear weapons or a nuclear umbrella.
    I say the Ukraines fit that description very nicely.
    Chimo

  13. #73
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,802
    Have heard the same things before vis-a-vi the USSR and the CCP and both the Russians and the Chinese remained steadfast our opposition if not our enemies.
    it sure changed what they were comfortable with doing, though.

    both Mao and Stalin were comfortable with fighting the US, even if indirectly, and playing their various Cold War games despite miscalculation meaning global nuclear apocalypse.

    now the Russians don't dare drive on Kiev for fear of the economic backlash. China plays games in the South China Sea but notice she's not talking about nuclear war being a paper tiger.

    in any case we don't need Iran to be a total friend of the West, we just need Iran to not start a war or play nuclear footsie in the ME. even if Iran were to double her GDP overnight, it's not as if Tehran would have the ability to drive to Riyadh.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  14. #74
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Posts
    1,482
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    It's not every day that "The Onion" breaks the story first...

    Name:  3i57iG4.png
Views: 588
Size:  721.8 KB
    Someone thinks otherwise.
    US Pentagon chief not offering new weapons to Israel over Iran deal

  15. #75
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Posts
    1,482
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The deal with keep them from making one in that it limits the supply of 20%
    How will it keep them from assembling together other components needed for the bomb?
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Iran is an energy producer but it its oil is expensive to produce and she uses a lot of it at home.
    Uses a lot of it a home or not, she has $100bn of it in exports at least. Thats the equivalent of $4.5T to the US, I say thats an awful lot of export.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Nuclear power will help Iran transition away from an oil based economy and will provide the electricity powering the devices that are importing ideas that will ultimately nuke the mullahs.
    She doesn't need centrifuges for that. There is about 30 countries with nuclear programs, about 20 of them don't enrichment. Iran does not need the centrifuges.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Iran is the only industrialized country within range of every single country with nuclear weapons that does not have nuclear weapons or a nuclear umbrella.
    OOE has beat me to this one. There is a good list actually if you look at the map.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Biden giving Israel go-ahead to deal with Iran?
    By Traps in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12 Aug 15,, 00:52
  2. How Iran and al-Qaeda made a deal - Asia Times
    By 1980s in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11 Aug 15,, 22:55
  3. Russia, Iran May Sign Nuke Deal This Month
    By nickshepAK in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08 Aug 15,, 19:33
  4. Iran breaks gas deal
    By platinum786 in forum International Economy
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 02 Oct 05,, 03:45
  5. Indian Oil clinches $3bn Iran gas deal
    By Ray in forum International Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03 Nov 04,, 16:03

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
  •