Iran criticized for accepting deal

Nonsense, Iran hasn't formally agreed to anything, they just announced they'll THINK about accepting the deal they already rejected in October. Wow, how many months has it been now, and only now they'll think about it? Even Russia is fed up with Iran, only China is suggesting to hold of the sanctions. Only when Iran calls up the head of the IAEA and formally accepts the deal can the "West" be expected to stop criticizing them - until then they should keep the coals close to Iran's feet.

And to be honest, it's a great deal, not sure why they need to think about it at all. Unless of course their motives aren't purely peaceful.
 
Glaucus said:
And to be honest, it's a great deal, ...
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha. You must lose a lot of money to Nigerians. :roflmao:

Give us most of your Uranium for a year and ... we promise to give it back ... yeah, we really do promise. :roflmao:
 
Laugh all you like, it's you that trusts Iranian claims that they intend to build all those centrifuges purely for peaceful purposes - but then you probably want Iran to build the bomb. Iran could ship out portions of uranium at a time you know, not all at once. It would probably still be faster and cheaper that way as they don't need to build more centrifuges or risk heavy sanctions or risk being bombed by Israel. Sitting on all the Uranium isn't gonna do you any good if you're economy tanks due to sanctions or your nuclear plants are a smoldering rubble. But then you are smarter then me...
 
Glaucus said:
Laugh all you like, it's you that trusts Iranian claims that they intend to build all those centrifuges purely for peaceful purposes - but then you probably want Iran to build the bomb.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter if Iran had a bomb in that they could not use it offensively. It would be suicide. A nuke would only be useful as a counterstrike threat and THAT is a danger to influence of currently nuclear powers like Israel who suddenly have lost their ability to threaten with impunity. That would be a good thing. There are certain schools of American thought that hold that having everyone armed makes for a freer world. MAD was a once popular theory.

However, so long as there remains no evidence of breach there can be no legal action against them. Even the sanctions are not legally based. So long as Iran abides by the NNPT as far as anyone can tell all actions against it for breach are groundless. They have the internationally granted right to enrich uranium for power.

Iran could ship out portions of uranium at a time you know, not all at once.
Click to expand...
That was a major sticking point in the October agreement. That is why it was rejected - because what you suggest was excluded from the agreement. Iran proposed, in a counter offer, that they could do as you say but the counter offer was deemed to be unacceptable by the western powers. The deal as it is looks like an attempt at confiscation. Iran receives no guarantees that it will be able to reclaim its uranium. It is given no Western security of value to hold as collateral.

If Ahmedinijad now says that it is acceptable then there are several possibilities:

a) he is just saying it but he is not the final arbiter.
b) he feels he has run the clock as long as he can and has no choice but to yield - much like Saddam who refused the inspectors access to his palace until he felt he could no longer do so then allowed the inspectors in. Of course, the US narrative to this day claims that he refused the inspectors access and that's why the war started. It is conveniently forgotten that he actually allowed the inspectors full reign before the war began.
c) Ahmedinijad doesn't particularly care about such a large amount of uranium being confiscated becase
i) he doesn't need it all.
ii) he has a large supply the west doesn't know about.

c ii could be giving the Western powers pause for thought. Then again it could be that c ii is a bluff.

It would probably still be faster and cheaper that way as they don't need to build more centrifuges or risk heavy sanctions or risk being bombed by Israel.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure that would be smart to depend on the good intentions of the West the way it is smart for the US for depend on oil that happens to be in other people's countries.
 
How would you feel about a deal like this:

Iran and the west swap low enriched uranium for high enriched processed uranium on an Iranian island. Would that seem like a reasonable idea?
 
Yes, I would find that acceptable. The question is, is it that simple? I think eventually both sides will make compromises to hammer out a deal. I think it's the most likely scenario. I've heard of other possibilities where Turkey, instead of Russia and France, enrich the Uranium. You're right, the West is playing this pretty tough, but I feel that Iran has done some things to make the West legitimately worried about Iran's intentions. I mean, when you're trying to convince people you have no intentions of building a bomb, test firing long range rockets just doesn't help your cause.
 
Glaucus said:
Yes, I would find that acceptable.
Click to expand...

Maybe you would, but the Western Powers didn't.

but I feel that Iran has done some things to make the West legitimately worried about Iran's intentions. I mean, when you're trying to convince people you have no intentions of building a bomb, test firing long range rockets just doesn't help your cause.
Click to expand...

The west is playing tough because they are playing the "we are pretending to use diplomacy" ploy again. You seem to forget that Iran has been in US cross-hairs for over 60 years now (having previously been in English cross-hairs). Even 10 years ago Dubya explicitly put Iran on the list of countries that needed going after. The US has been trying to heat up a war with Iran since 2004 but they have bungled their other wars so badly that the "allies" are harder to convince.

The "diplomacy" is the same though. Make a demand. Move the goal posts. Refuse counter offers. Blame the victim for not negotiating. Victim sees what's going on so raises hackles to try to look bigger.

You do remember how this game goes, right?

(Plus, of course, they have every right to arm themselves even if they weren't being threatened by the world's pre-eminent military).
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
The west is playing tough because they are playing the "we are pretending to use diplomacy" ploy again. You seem to forget that Iran has been in US cross-hairs for over 60 years now (having previously been in English cross-hairs). Even 10 years ago Dubya explicitly put Iran on the list of countries that needed going after. The US has been trying to heat up a war with Iran since 2004 but they have bungled their other wars so badly that the "allies" are harder to convince.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't think we're seeing a repeat of 2003 Iraq here. For starters, the concern about Iran is not strictly an American concern, both Russia and China do not want to see a nuclear Iran. Problem is Iran doesn't want to deal with any of them. Not only that, Saddam complied with UN resolutions but Iran is operating the Natanz reactor in violation of UN resolutions. Obama has offered talks but Iran refuses - and this is where deal details like how much and where the Uranium gets enriched takes place, not in statements made to the press. I see little reason to believe that the Western powers (including China and Russia) want anything more out of this then taking away Iran's capacity for nuclear weapons.

Now, Dubya may have had his sights on Iran, but I don't expect the US has any desire to attack Iran at all - although I do believe Israel may choose to force the issue for the Americans but that would be a huge mistake and I hope they realize that. Overall, I think the US and Israel want Iran to think a military option is very much on the table, but in reality I don't think it is as it's likely to make things much worse.

Anyway, here's an interesting article on the issue:
Should We Stop Worrying and Love the Iranian Bomb?
 
Glaucus said:
Anyway, here's an interesting article on the issue:
Should We Stop Worrying and Love the Iranian Bomb?
Click to expand...
Finally got to reading the article.

Main points:

Iranian nukes are bad because they would reduce the US ability to act with virtual impunity in the region.
Iranian nukes weaken US power in the region and strengthen Iranian power.
There isn't likely much we can do about it.

I pretty much agree with the article but don't see those things as problems. For whatever you may think about the revolution and it's current political repression, the state of Iran is still a lot more egalitarian than states like Saudi Arabia which the US supports and more tolerant of religious and ethnic differences than Israel, a state the US also supports. Given time and less outside threats they can become an even more egalitarian society. There is nothing like an outside threat for increasing draconian control from the top and sense of togetherness from below. Societies tighten up when you squeeze them.

Try slamming some planes into buildings to see the beneficial effects (from the leaderships point of view) that a crisis can have on a population.
 
Glaucus said:
Turns out the UN believes Iran has some Uranium enriched to 20% already. Not looking good right now for Iran.
Click to expand...

20% is good for ... reactors. Not nearly good enough for weapons. BTW, they did announce they were going to enrich to 20%. Their medical reactor needs minimum 17%.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
20% is good for ... reactors. Not nearly good enough for weapons. BTW, they did announce they were going to enrich to 20%. Their medical reactor needs minimum 17%.
Click to expand...
You're correct on that, but I think it was less then two weeks ago they said they would START enriching to 20%, now we see they're already there. Hmmm... By now I'm sure you know that it takes way longer to enrich from 3.5% to 20% then it takes to enrich from 20% to 90%? You're right, 20% isn't enough for a bomb, but every expert article I've read about it claims that getting to 20% is the bigger milestone, after that it's fairly straightforward (because you can get by with fewer centrifuges) and it could take as little as 6 months. If what the IAEA says is true, there's little reason to believe Iran couldn't build a bomb (even if it is a small one) by the end of the year.

Iran is playing a dangerous game here and if they continue to allow themselves to believe that they can easily fool everyone they're setting themselves up for a major catastrophe. Curious to see the whereabouts of the US carrier groups these days...
 
Glaucus said:
Curious to see the whereabouts of the US carrier groups these days...
Click to expand...

Don't know but I did hear about some Israeli vessels passed through Suez a week ago, heading for the Gulf. Not sure how common that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top