Iran nuclear talks: 'Framework' deal agreed

[Vanoi]

You can only prevent people getting nukes for so long. Its going to fail unfortunately eventually and hopefully Iran isn't the one to do it.

[Gertrudius]

Agreements like the one reached are only a nominal stall. My main fear is that any chances (whatever they may be) for long term success will be undermined by GCC countries trying to provoke the continued isolation of Iran.

[Ariamanesh]

Agreements like the one reached are only a nominal stall. My main fear is that any chances (whatever they may be) for long term success will be undermined by GCC countries trying to provoke the continued isolation of Iran.

I am as well.History proved that they are not reliable and the fact is most of them don't want Iran to have even the simplest knowledge of any kind of science!
I can't believe them to put aside their 37 years old distrust and treason and do stay on their vows just for good of the world.
History also proved they just care about their goals not the others.

[Roma_Victrix]

Interesting caveat to all of this: the Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons years ago. Apparently the six powers, including the US, weren't convinced.

[Condottiere 40K]

38436
Shiites are allowed to lie to anyone who is or can be a threat to them.

[conon394]

the fact is most of them don't want Iran to have even the simplest knowledge of any kind of science!

Sorry I missed that provision outside of a rant care point that memo out to me?

------------------

@Vanoi

You can only prevent people getting nukes for so long. Its going to fail unfortunately eventually and hopefully Iran isn't the one to do it

Really why - I mean outside of the general goal of non proliferation of nuclear weapons why should the US even care? At least Iran stable and comparatively well run . In all fairness they could easily argue any place that lets Pakistan have nuclear weapons can hardly criticize Iran for wanting them.

[Heathen Hammer]

You can only prevent people getting nukes for so long. Its going to fail unfortunately eventually and hopefully Iran isn't the one to do it.

Actually if Iran had nukes it would help contain US, Israel and Gulf countries, which is necessary to maintain at least a certain form of stability in the region.

[Vanoi]

Actually if Iran had nukes it would help contain US, Israel and Gulf countries, which is necessary to maintain at least a certain form of stability in the region.

Saudis already said they would develop nukes too in response to Iran and i am sure turkey and Egypt would follow. A nuclear arms race isn't stability. I don't want Islamic governments i control of nuclear weapons, and we already ed up letting Pakistan have theirs.

Really why - I mean outside of the general goal of non proliferation of nuclear weapons why should the US even care? At least Iran stable and comparatively well run . In all fairness they could easily argue any place that lets Pakistan have nuclear weapons can hardly criticize Iran for wanting them.

Iran gets them, the Saudis want them. the Saudis get them, The Turks and Egyptians want them.

[Mary The Quene]

Either everbody has the right to get them or nobody should get them.

Thats only fair.

[Vanoi]

Either everbody has the right to get them or nobody should get them.

Thats only fair.

Sorry, do you think Russia is going to give up their nukes? China? India? Israel? America? France? Anyone?

The idea the world has to be "fair" and let everyone have them sounds like an argument between 5-year olds on why they don't get to have the same toy others have.

Its goes along with this absurd belief that nukes are only deterrents, and that no one would ever attempt to use them. Letting everyone have nuclear weapons only increases the chances they will be used again.

We already have a crazy dictator in Asia with nukes who likes to threaten to use them constantly on its Southern neighbor.

The world needs less nuclear weapons, not more.

[Abdülmecid I]

I'm not disagreeing with your final sentence, but, as you said, that's not feasible. Your "more nukes more chances for a nuclear holocaust" argument is just an overly simplistic and false equation. The number of nuclear powers is not the only factor that determines the possibility of a disaster, which is more influenced, imo, by the strategic situation, a strategic balance between the nuclear powers.

[Ariamanesh]

The idea the world has to be "fair" and let everyone have them sounds like an argument between 5-year olds on why they don't get to have the same toy others have.

And the idea that i am the only one who can have that toy because i have a bigger brother that will beat you if you argue about it sounds like an argument between 50 years olds yes?!

The world needs less nuclear weapons, not more.

I am sorry i can not understand your point!
Then if world needs lesser nukes why your beloved countries like France and England and America started to research and build new versions of their nukes?!

[Vanoi]

I'm not disagreeing with your final sentence, but, as you said, that's not feasible. Your "more nukes more chances for a nuclear holocaust" argument is just an overly simplistic and false equation.

Its not a false equation. More nations having these weapons will mean more opportunities for them to be used. I also didn't claim a nuclear holocaust would happen, only that they would be used again.

The number of nuclear powers is not the only factor that determines the possibility of a disaster, which is more influenced, imo, by the strategic situation, a strategic balance between the nuclear powers.

The number of nuclear powers is the most major factor. Strategic balance is an utter lie. The concept of "well they have nukes and so do we so we are "balanced" and we won't use them against each other" goes against the reality of the Cold War where the Soviets and Americans had extensive plans in case of a war to use hundreds upon hundreds of nuclear weapons.

Do you forget the originally purpose of these weapons and the fact they have been used before?

And the idea that i am the only one who can have that toy because i have a bigger brother that will beat you if you argue about it sounds like an argument between 50 years olds yes?!

Israel never signed the NPT, Iran did. Israel has them because they have them and no one can take them away. Does this mean Iran should get some too? No.

I am sorry i can not understand your point!
Then if world needs lesser nukes why your beloved countries like France and England and America started to research and build new versions of their nukes?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strate...uctions_Treaty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START

America is still adhering to the treaties and actively reducing its nuclear stockpile so complain all you want, the US and Russia are doing more than anybody in the world to reduce the number of nuclear weapons they have.

The only new versions the US is building is guidance systems. The US is not constructing anymore nuclear weapons but modifying they ones they have.

I'm not French or English so dump lump me in with them like all the Middle East tends to do for some reason.

[Abdülmecid I]

Of course, they had plans, they should have been prepared in case of an emergency. The important thing is that they never used them and actually they never declared war to each other. The Cold War might have been much less colder if only one side possessed nuclear weapons.

[Vanoi]

Of course, they had plans, they should have been prepared in case of an emergency. The important thing is that they never used them and actually they never declared war to each other. The Cold War might have been much less colder if only one side possessed nuclear weapons.

By luck. I don't think i have to explain to you the numerous times where Russia and the US nearly did declare war and launch nuclear weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Its because of people like him, we aren't dead.

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (Russian: Станисла́в Евгра́фович Петро́в; born c. 1939) is a retired lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces. On September 26, 1983, he was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile was being launched from the United States. Petrov judged the report to be a false alarm,^[1] and his decision is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in large-scale nuclear war. Investigation later confirmed that the satellite warning system had indeed malfunctioned.^[2]

[Ariamanesh]

Israel never signed the NPT, Iran did. Israel has them because they have them and no one can take them away. Does this mean Iran should get some too? No.

So
1)Iran signed NPT and several times said that is not after these nukes
2)Israel didn't signed NPT and has built several nukes since its creation
And we have Iran that should be sanctioned to death and we have Israel that should be free and safe.
Also we have Saudi Arabia that if somehow iran could get Nuke nobody should deny her from getting her hands on nukes but iran should be denied

[Vanoi]

So
1)Iran signed NPT and several times said that is not after these nukes
2)Israel didn't signed NPT and has built several nukes since its creation
And we have Iran that should be sanctioned to death and we have Israel that should be free and safe.
Also we have Saudi Arabia that if somehow iran could get Nuke nobody should deny her from getting her hands on nukes but iran should be denied

Sanctions don't make countries give up nukes, North Korea should be a clear example of that. No one here has advocated Saudi Arabia should get nukes just that they would try if Iran did get theirs.

I think your just a bit mad your argument just boils down to its not fair. sorry, Iran can withdraw from the NPT and develop nukes if it wants too, but its gonna piss off a couple of countries.

[Condottiere 40K]

47082
The cat's out of the bag; I recall college thesis in the late seventies being classified by successfully describing how to manufacture a working atomic bomb with available materials.

That doesn't mean that the number of nuclear warheads shouldn't be kept minimized.

[Caduet]

Yeah, it's a good article. Although probably too on-topic to interest anyone. The situation is definitely a lot more like the deal with North Korea than the deal with Libya.

Yea I'm sure after seeing what happened to Libya not too long after that deal, iran would be very eager to comply with a similar agreement.

also

like North Korea, Iran is a big country

great article. this guy has a real good grasp on reality

[sumskilz]

Yea I'm sure after seeing what happened to Libya not too long after that deal, iran would be very eager to comply with a similar agreement.

Naturally they would want the deterrence from external intervention Gaddafi didn't have while suppressing internal dissent, which is just one of the many reason they didn't agree to a deal that would completely stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons.

Evidently the deal is projected to have the same positive outcomes as the North Korea deal:

Clinton: This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.
Obama: …Iran will never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon.

Clinton: It does not rely on trust.
Obama: So this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification.

Clinton: Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Obama: …what we’re going to be doing is setting up a mechanism whereby, yes, I.A.E.A. (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors can go anyplace.

Clinton: Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.
Obama: …a deal to stop the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and roll it back in key areas.

Clinton: This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
Obama: This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.

Clinton: …we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer.
Obama: …if this framework leads to a final, comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies, and our world safer.

Clinton: The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals.
Obama: In return for Iran’s actions, the international community has agreed to provide Iran with relief from certain sanctions — our own sanctions, and international sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council.

Clinton: These offices will ease North Korea’s isolation.
Obama: …if Iran complies with its international obligations, then it can fully rejoin the community of nations…

Clinton: This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world.
Obama: And it is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives … we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies.

Clinton: It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.
Obama: …there was an appetite among the Iranian people for a rejoining with the international community.

Clinton: And the United States has an unshakable commitment to protect our ally and our fellow democracy South Korea.
Obama: …a very clear message to the Iranians and to the entire region that if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there.

Clinton: We will continue to work closely with our allies and with the Congress as our relationship with North Korea develops.
Obama: But I say that hoping that we can conclude this diplomatic arrangement — and that it ushers a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations — and, just as importantly, over time, a new era in Iranian relations with its neighbors.

Sources: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/in...orth+korea&st1
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...nuclear-weapon
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/op...view.html?_r=0