Iran nuclear talks: 'Framework' deal agreed

[Ariamanesh]

Of course, but you've manage to support neither.

Of course!
He only manged to joking somehow!
He did his best at that!

[Border Patrol]

Of course, but you've manage to support neither.

A bit of googling is your friend.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/jul...-proliferation

[AqD]

I think this deal will result in a situation where a few years down the line, when a nuclear Iran is no longer in the public consciousness, and the West gets distracted by an economic crisis, some war, or some such, there is very little stopping Iran from simply shooing away the inspectors and rushing towards a bomb at record speed. At which point they're either stopped by military action, or build a bomb, whereupon a nuclear arms race might start up in the region.

Sanctions wouldn't stop them, but trade would. When you stop poking people and instead give them support and opportunity for prosperity, they stop being a hateful crazy looking to build the biggest nuke for self-protection. That's why you don't have to worry about France, India or China, with or without nukes.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Sanctions wouldn't stop them, but trade would. When you stop poking people and instead give them support and opportunity for prosperity, they stop being a hateful crazy looking to build the biggest nuke for self-protection. That's why you don't have to worry about France, India or China, with or without nukes.

Except Iran isn't a hateful crazy looking to build nukes out of spite. Those types of misanthropic, foaming at the mouth maniacs are actually quite a rarity, mostly because they don't tend to last long.
Iran is looking to make nuclear weapons to reinforce its regional hegemony over the middle east. This puts it into direct conflict with the Saudis, the Egyptians, and to the lesser extent the Israelis that are looking to maintain the status quo. Trade has nothing to do with it; Iran and the Sunni world's interests are fundamentally opposed, which incidentally also places Iran in conflict with the Sunni affiliated West. The root of the conflict is all but irreconcilable--the Shia-Sunni and Persian-Arab divides are both ancient and bitter.
The West could make the switch to backing Iran rather then backing the Sunnis, but it is very much a switch. Taking one side excludes you from the other, and the West has for the moment decided that the Sunni world is the better ally to have.

So basically, opening up to the West won't hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions, because those nukes aren't meant for the West, but for the Sunnis (which will in turn feel threatened by Iran's nuclear capabilities and make their own to compensate). Those nuclear ambitions could still cause the West great harm peripherally however. The middle east is a large populous region exporting a majority of the world's oil, housing a great deal of the world's trade, and home to a great many unstable regimes and terrorist organizations--not the type of place you want nuclear weapons floating around.

[Toho]

I dont understand why people are against that.
You cant stop this nuclear technology from reaching them (they WILL get them at some point) and they are not going to stop, besides they have a right to nuclear energy or are people disputing this?

Now about the deal, they are cutting the amount of centrifuges to around 6000, they agreed to hand over whatever they have over 3.5% and they need 90% to get it. They agreed to unprecedented inspections.
Do some people fear Iran would secretly build a bomb? Well if it turns out they fool the entire world (doubtful they can do it for long with the limited resources they have) all the sanctions come back and they become North Korea 2.0 so... whats the problem? They cant get a nuke without us finding out and even if they do they don't have a method of delivery.

What is the alternative? The sanctions were put into place to bring them to the table, well they did, everyone agrees this is a good deal. Its not perfect but its a good compromise.
The only other option left is military action. And good luck with that. If you think Iraq was bad... god help you.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I dont understand why people are against that.
You cant stop this nuclear technology from reaching them (they WILL get them at some point) and they are not going to stop, besides they have a right to nuclear energy or are people disputing this?

Now about the deal, they are cutting the amount of centrifuges to around 6000, they agreed to hand over whatever they have over 3.5% and they need 90% to get it. They agreed to unprecedented inspections.
Do some people fear Iran would secretly build a bomb? Well if it turns out they fool the entire world (doubtful they can do it for long with the limited resources they have) all the sanctions come back and they become North Korea 2.0 so... whats the problem? They cant get a nuke without us finding out and even if they do they don't have a method of delivery.

What is the alternative? The sanctions were put into place to bring them to the table, well they did, everyone agrees this is a good deal. Its not perfect but its a good compromise.
The only other option left is military action. And good luck with that. If you think Iraq was bad... god help you.

The problem is that last time the sanctions took years to prop up, which with some 6000 centrifuges on standby (plus whatever they keep in secret), is more then enough for Iran to get a couple of bombs up and running long before any sanctions kick into effect, meaning either kicking off a nuclear arms race, or going to war anyway, except they choose when and where.
They won't be turned into another North Korea afterwards and they know it; China and Russia aren't interested in isolating Iran, and there is no shortage of other nations who'll keep buying their oil under the table, nukes or no.

Military action is also perfectly feasible without a ground invasion. You're aiming to knock out the nuclear program, not replace the regime. All we really need is an American president that hasn't developed a reputation as a paper tiger. Even the legitimate threat of military action might have been able to score us acceptable terms. Unfortunately, when Obama threatens that all options are on the table, nobody on either side takes him seriously. Too much of a track record of backing down.
Which means that in a few years, when the West is nice and distracted, and the deal gets tossed out the window, either a new president will deal with it, or the whole thing deteriorates into a regional war when Israel or Saudi Arabia and friends take matters into their own hands. Still better then a nuclear arms race, mind you.

[Toho]

You do realize Iran also agreed to use Centrifuges that are basically so outdated that pretty much all western countries have abandoned? Lets just say (fact) the older ones are much slower. Like you have no idea how much more slower, a country like Belgium can have a bomb in 3 months if they wanted. Iran? they will always be 2 years away, perpetually.

The idea you are presenting is just fear for fears sake. You are making up scenarios that experts are saying is unrealistic. Also can you be any more general and generic in your response? "Long before", "more than enough", "get a COUPLE of bombs" give me your timeline. How fast will Iran be getting these bombs while the west stumbles around like an autistic drunkard? If you are going to claim things, be specific after all you are basically saying the IAEA is wrong.

Iran is buying at a loss and China and Russia are bankrupting them by imports that Iran can make themselves but they cant. Trust me when I say Iran is not really reveling in the idea of buy from Russia and China for longer than necessary. For you to suggest this as an alternative shows your ignorance in this area.

"Military action is also a perfectly feasible without ground invasion" I stopped reading right there. Nevermind even US is not sure if they can completely destroy their installations but Iran can always go further into the Alborz or Zagros mountains and basically building an un-bombable facility. But hey you are the Expert here right?
(sorry for writing, I am on my phone)

[Caligula's_Horse]

You do realize Iran also agreed to use Centrifuges that are basically so outdated that pretty much all western countries have abandoned? Lets just say (fact) the older ones are much slower. Like you have no idea how much more slower, a country like Belgium can have a bomb in 3 months if they wanted. Iran? they will always be 2 years away, perpetually.

The idea you are presenting is just fear for fears sake. You are making up scenarios that experts are saying is unrealistic. Also can you be any more general and generic in your response? "Long before", "more than enough", "get a COUPLE of bombs" give me your timeline. How fast will Iran be getting these bombs while the west stumbles around like an autistic drunkard? If you are going to claim things, be specific after all you are basically saying the IAEA is wrong.

Iran is buying at a loss and China and Russia are bankrupting them by imports that Iran can make themselves but they cant. Trust me when I say Iran is not really reveling in the idea of buy from Russia and China for longer than necessary. For you to suggest this as an alternative shows your ignorance in this area.

"Military action is also a perfectly feasible without ground invasion" I stopped reading right there. Nevermind even US is not sure if they can completely destroy their installations but Iran can always go further into the Alborz or Zagros mountains and basically building an un-bombable facility. But hey you are the Expert here right?
(sorry for writing, I am on my phone)

I can see I'm wasting my time here if you're just going to dismiss everything I'm saying out of hand. I don't know what experts you've been listening to, but they're obviously different from the ones I'm hearing. Probably has to do with the fact that half the experts you see in Western media are selected for their politics more then their skill.
And yes, I do think the IAEA is wrong. Worse, I think they're knowingly wrong. You never hear of experts smearing the truth for their own advancement? The UN and all of its daughter organizations are not objective bodies, even if they theoretically present themselves as such.

As for going in without a ground invasion, again, you're not trying to force a regime change or take any territory. Just leaving the nuclear program enough of a mess to set it back 10-15 years is plenty. If the Iranians want to bankrupt themselves digging out the side of mountains afterwards, let them have their fun; it'll delay them by years and years, which is exactly what a bombing campaign is aiming for. They still want a bomb after that, we'll deal with it then; no other choice really. More assurance then an agreement will give you, though, because it doesn't rely on the other side being truthful.
There's also the option of a naval blockade to force policy change. Nobody talks about it for whatever reason, but bread riots are really very influential when it comes to shaping government and its actions, something sanctions are apparently not that great at.

Again, the alternative is the Saudis and the Egyptians and who knows how many other middle eastern powers also turning nuclear. Best to deal with the arms race now that its still manageable (theoretically at least; its not really being managed at the moment).

[Roma_Victrix]

You do realize Iran also agreed to use Centrifuges that are basically so outdated that pretty much all western countries have abandoned? Lets just say (fact) the older ones are much slower. Like you have no idea how much more slower, a country like Belgium can have a bomb in 3 months if they wanted. Iran? they will always be 2 years away, perpetually.

The idea you are presenting is just fear for fears sake. You are making up scenarios that experts are saying is unrealistic. Also can you be any more general and generic in your response? "Long before", "more than enough", "get a COUPLE of bombs" give me your timeline. How fast will Iran be getting these bombs while the west stumbles around like an autistic drunkard? If you are going to claim things, be specific after all you are basically saying the IAEA is wrong.

Iran is buying at a loss and China and Russia are bankrupting them by imports that Iran can make themselves but they cant. Trust me when I say Iran is not really reveling in the idea of buy from Russia and China for longer than necessary. For you to suggest this as an alternative shows your ignorance in this area.

"Military action is also a perfectly feasible without ground invasion" I stopped reading right there. Nevermind even US is not sure if they can completely destroy their installations but Iran can always go further into the Alborz or Zagros mountains and basically building an un-bombable facility. But hey you are the Expert here right?
(sorry for writing, I am on my phone)

This post for the win.



Right now Republican action committees in the US are literally running ads with nuclear explosions in them to smear any Republican politician (like Rand Paul) who isn't 100% against this deal and in favor of a new war with Iran. Meanwhile in reality and in this present deal, the Iranians would only retain their oldest centrifuges that are useless for further uranium enrichment. The desperate fear tactics in the ads being run suggest the military industrial complex does not want to be upset by the denial of a new overseas adventure in the Middle East at tax-payer expense and American lives.

[PointOfViewGun]

A bit of googling is your friend.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/jul...-proliferation

Your link support neither. It has no statement that supports Iran taking actions that threaten to start a nuclear arms race. In fact, it points out that Saudi Arabia practically already owns a bomb which pretty much invalidates much of the nuclear arms idea in Middle East.

[sumskilz]

i can imagine the conversations between the Iranian negotiating team/president and Khamenei:
>"my supreme leader we have agreed to a deal with them, here are the technicalit- "
<"WHO CARES, ALL SANCTIONS MUST GO, DEATH TO AMERICA"

You're probably right, and yet...

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say for Iran on the deal, on Thursday ruled out any "extraordinary supervision measures" over nuclear activities and said military sites could not be inspected.

That appeared to contradict a U.S. "fact sheet" issued after last week's marathon talks in Switzerland which said the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "regular access to all Iran's nuclear activities" and to the supply chain that supports it, as well as a joint Iranian-European Union statement that said the IAEA would have expanded access in Iran...

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said it was crucial to come up with a mechanism for "anytime, anywhere" inspections that go beyond the IAEA's own special arrangements for short-notice inspections, known as the Additional Protocol.

The Additional Protocol was created in the 1990s, after the discovery of Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program and revelations that North Korea and Romania had separated plutonium, as a means of smoking out covert arms-related activities.

"It’s extremely difficult for Iran," said Albright, himself a former U.N. weapons inspector. "They don’t want it. They want to keep smuggling (nuclear-related dual-use items). They’re buying a lot of things, and they’re not going to want to stop."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0N11MN20150411

They agreed to unprecedented inspections.

They [the negotiators] probably did (at least with their words), but does it really matter if Khamenei isn't down with that?

[Toho]

I can see I'm wasting my time here if you're just going to dismiss everything I'm saying out of hand.

Because everything you are saying is generalized fantasies. Show me some evidence.

And yes, I do think the IAEA is wrong.

Are you a bigger experts than they are? Who are you? What are your credentials?

As for going in without a ground invasion, again, you're not trying to force a regime change or take any territory.

This ain't total war kid, the very notion this even entered your mind is ridiculous
.

Just leaving the nuclear program enough of a mess to set it back 10-15 years is plenty.

You are willing to fight an incredibly nationalistic country that accepts and its people gladly welcome millions dead than submit? Lol. Good luck.

If the Iranians want to bankrupt themselves digging out the side of mountains afterwards, let them have their fun; it'll delay them by years and years, which is exactly what a bombing campaign is aiming for. They still want a bomb after that, we'll deal with it then; no other choice really. More assurance then an agreement will give you, though, because it doesn't rely on the other side being truthful.

So your whole premise was to stop Iran to get a nuclear weapon and suddenly you dont care anymore? what? Oh I get it, this whole nuclear thing is just a pre-text for a war. That's all you want isn't it?
Man you are so good at destroying your own credibility. How do you do it?

There's also the option of a naval blockade to force policy change. Nobody talks about it for whatever reason, but bread riots are really very influential when it comes to shaping government and its actions, something sanctions are apparently not that great at.

The sanctions never stopped Iran and a blockade is an act of war. I doubt Russia or China will let them do it quietly, as for how many ships are needed to do such a thing at safe distance and the cost to the american people. Dear god... you do realize this not a video game right? You can't just clock a Naval Fleet stack and click on their port to form a blockade.
Also I am pretty sure there is NO precedent in recent history of a country like the US starving a country out. Thats just too ed up.

Again, the alternative is the Saudis and the Egyptians and who knows how many other middle eastern powers also turning nuclear. Best to deal with the arms race now that its still manageable (theoretically at least; its not really being managed at the moment).

Yes they will. At some point they will need nuclear energy or a powerful solar powered energy source.
Their current plans are not sustainable for the future.
Like I said this technology will be reached by Iran and them eventually, they will need it eventually.
Anyway I am tired of pandering to your 5 year old delusions. When you have something of use to tell me please try harder.

They [the negotiators] probably did (at least with their words), but does it really matter if Khamenei isn't down with that?

So you are just speculating at this point? Lets see what happens first.
The supreme leader has neither endorsed or opposed the deal and his only complaint is that the US might not do their end of the bargain.
Also, if you actually read what you said it says iran does not allow inspection of MILITARY sites, no country that I know of submits to international military inspection.

This is the same idiotic line as Bibbi saying for Iran to have the nuclear energy they must recognize israel. These are two separate issues.

This post for the win.

Right now Republican action committees in the US are literally running ads with nuclear explosions in them to smear any Republican politician (like Rand Paul) who isn't 100% against this deal and in favor of a new war with Iran. Meanwhile in reality and in this present deal, the Iranians would only retain their oldest centrifuges that are useless for further uranium enrichment. The desperate fear tactics in the ads being run suggest the military industrial complex does not want to be upset by the denial of a new overseas adventure in the Middle East at tax-payer expense and American lives.

I am telling you this now, I doubt even the republicans are stupid enough to start a war.
Iraq was a nightmare and they cant even afford it anymore... Iraq is a walk in the park compared to Iran besides you will making over 70 million people with 2/3 of them being of fighting age your enemy (deeply nationalistic). No the republicans are making noise for the 2016 presidential race, they need the votes of those retards of their ultra-right wing first to even have a shot first. When thats done you will hear a very different story about Iran when its them versus a Democrat debate.

Its just politics.

[sumskilz]

So you are just speculating at this point? Lets see what happens first.

Not really, except that I don't think it's likely that the "fact sheet" would have been released if the US negotiators didn't actually believe it was legit. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't actually try to make themselves look impotent.

The supreme leader has neither endorsed or opposed the deal and his only complaint is that the US might not do their end of the bargain.

He basically said that things in the "fact sheet" simply aren't going to happen. You're accepting the weasel words, but ignoring the explicit statements.

Also, if you actually read what you said it says iran does not allow inspection of MILITARY sites, no country that I know of submits to international military inspection.

Yeah, makes sense for them. Maybe they should just keep their weapon oriented nuclear activities in military sites. The inspection of one of their military sites was one of the main points in the framework, and if you had actually read about the framework...

Iran will be required to provide inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, access to all of its declared facilities so that the agency can ensure there is no potential for military-related developments. That includes access to Parchin, an Iranian military facility related to its nuclear program.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/02/po...-of-agreement/

So tell me again how what is actually in the framework is a separate issue from the framework. I must be "idiotic" to think they are the same. Yes, the IAEA would allegedly be free to inspect all Iranian nuclear facilities except the military ones. What's wrong with that?

EDIT: More from the same Reuters article...

Iran signed the Additional Protocol in 2003, a year after the existence of its Natanz enrichment site and Arak heavy-water production facility was revealed. Tehran began voluntarily implementing the protocol but never ratified it. It eventually stopped implementing it.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters in Washington on Wednesday that Iran had agreed that it would resume implementation of the Additional Protocol and would submit it for ratification.

But Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's former chief nuclear inspector who is now at Harvard University, said Additional Protocol inspections would likely not be enough for proper monitoring.

The Additional Protocol has limitations, experts say, such as not covering research by Iran that the IAEA is investigating and which Western countries believe was linked to weaponization.

Heinonen said there would have to be a new comprehensive Iranian declaration about its nuclear program that also includes information about Iranian cooperation with foreign states.

"You need some provision about nuclear cooperation with other countries given the stories about cooperation with North Korea," Heinonen said.

Jacqueline Shire, a non-proliferation expert and former member of the U.N. Security Council's Panel of Experts on Iran, said resolving questions about the so-called "possible military dimensions" of Iran's past nuclear activities was crucial but extremely difficult.

"Iran will have to engage with the IAEA on this in a way it has not, up to this point, been willing to," she said.

Heinonen, Albright and Shire said that failure to address the possible military dimensions could undermine confidence in any monitoring and inspection regime.

"If you leave PMD unresolved, then there could be many unknowns," Heinonen said.

[AqD]

and home to a great many unstable regimes and terrorist organizations--not the type of place you want nuclear weapons floating around.

Except Iran is NOT home to unstable regimes (except the royalty US backed) or terrorist organization (again except the royalty US backed).

Also Iran is a working democracy. It should have been picked as the western ally in the middle east along with Turkey. It is in every way more compatible with Western society than its prehistoric neighbors.

[Toho]

Not really, except that I don't think it's likely that the "fact sheet" would have been released if the US negotiators didn't actually believe it was legit. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't actually try to make themselves look impotent.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

He basically said that things in the "fact sheet" simply aren't going to happen. You're accepting the weasel words, but ignoring the explicit statements.

where did he "basically" say this and I am saying a lot of politicians say a lot of stupid , especially iranians, until they failed to do what the negotiators agreed to then there is no problem. Both countries can say whatever rhetoric they want but unless they explicit break the agreement there are no problems.

Yeah, makes sense for them. Maybe they should just keep their weapon oriented nuclear activities in military sites. The inspection of one of their military sites was one of the main points in the framework, and if you had actually read about the framework...

Thats just speculation and you really think they can 'sneak' them in? Unless Iran has an undisclosed uranian mine where inspecters will not be inspecting them like hawks and making sure when X is being mined then X is being accounted for in ABCD facilities. And no dont say they can just trick them, fine, even if they did they cant keep it for long and certainly not long enough for a weapon to be made. You are purely speculating here.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/02/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-main-points-of-agreement/

Thats a nuclear related military facility and if you know Iran pretty much every conceivable building is military related.
But they get to inspect it anyway. So whats the problem?
If Iran complies then hurray, if they dont sanctions come back and eventually military action if they are building a bomb.

[sumskilz]

Thats a nuclear related military facility and if you know Iran pretty much every conceivable building is military related.

So nothing can be inspected then. I can't believe you can take your own statement seriously here. I thought Iran's nuclear aspirations aren't military related.

But they get to inspect it anyway. So whats the problem?

Khamenei says they don't get to inspect it. Why do you believe what the US negotiators say Iran will allow over what their Sumpreme Leader says they will allow?

[Toho]

So nothing can be inspected then. I can't believe you can take your own statement seriously here. I thought Iran's nuclear aspirations aren't military related.

What? No... I am just stating that "a building related to military" is barely a red line because it is so common and the facilities that are considered military but related to nuclear technology will be inspected.
Don't put words in my mouth.

Khamenei says they don't get to inspect it. Why do you believe what the US negotiators say Iran will allow over what their Sumpreme Leader says they will allow?

Until they dont allow actual inspectors from actually inspecting anything I will wait and see before dropping bombs on them. How many stupid have US or Israeli officials said?
If they dont then sanctions come back, we lose nothing by waiting and seeing what happens. And before you say something idiotic like "they will get a bomb" even mossad does not think they are any closer to a bomb. Unlike Bibbi who thinks they are 1 year away from a bomb for the past 20 years.

[sumskilz]

Until they dont allow actual inspectors from actually inspecting anything I will wait and see before dropping bombs on them.

They don't allow inspection of Parchin now, and they have a lot to gain by dragging this fiasco out. As long as long as they are involved in negotiations, it puts the US in a position where it would look bad to up the pressure on them by any means. But hey, maybe they will be just lucky enough to get everything they want. They do appear to be pretty good at this game, even though they're playing from a disadvantageous position.

[AqD]

I don't see any inspector in Russia, US, or Pakistan or Israel. All four of them are far more aggressive militarily and have a very long history of questionable foreign interventions.

The entire nuclear inspection thing is just .

[Gaidin]

I don't see any inspector in Russia, US, or Pakistan or Israel. All four of them are far more aggressive militarily and have a very long history of questionable foreign interventions.

The entire nuclear inspection thing is just .

Inspectors for these treaties have been for site inspection for reactor types and prevention of weapons development.

What the US and Russia did for the weapons reduction treaty that the Senate was a dick about recently, I have no clue off the top of my head.