Iran Fail- IAEA reports negative results.

[LunarRay]

Don't care. Don't want to waste a single $ on Iran.

A voice of reason...

Let them blow the whole area up as far as I'm concerned. Make it lifeless for a 1000 years too. If folks gotta die let it be them!

I think a lifeless middle east would provide a home for our gazillion tons of waste nuclear material... and a place to drop off a few of our out dated nuclear weapons... we could make it a game... everyone shoots their nukes at the Iranian Iraqi border and the one closest gets to proclaim victory and rebuild the area someday and claim it as their colony.... Victoria so to speak...

 

[JEDIYoda]

What you re doing well is to display a ridiculous supremacism
that consist to take peoples for mental slaves and idiots
that have no brain ...

Talk about extrapolating , yeah..

The US is obviously using terrorists methods as spreading
virus as stuxnet to sabotage Iran s industry , yet fearing
a return to the sender by Iran s services the US promptly
declared that they could use nuclear weapons against
any terrorist cyber attack against them...

Any wise Iranian politician can only conclude that this is
the prove that nuclear weapons are indeed needed to deter
such criminal and rogue states as the US or his master israel...

Your doing well following your pro-Islam, Pro Iranian bloviations.
Did I mention your anti - Israel.......lolol

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

There are indications from super sekrit anonymous sources that Iran *was* doing that, yes, but it really doesn't matter in the context of not having weapons grade material means no weapons. And it's not like the IAEA isn't acting outside its mandate in expressing "concerns" over such research, either- they're "concerned" because they have no legal basis to claim such is a violation of the NPT signed by Iran- otherwise, they'd claim Iran in violation of the treaty, an entirely different thing.

http://jurist.org/forum/2011/11/dan-joyner-iaea-report.php

The above is vigorous avoidance of the real question, Jhhnn. It's a simple question. If Iran has no desire to build nuclear weapons, as they continue to insist, why would they test nuclear triggers for such a weapon in the first place? All the protestations about legality are nothing more than your attempt to avoid answering that question. The answer is obvious. So many of us know it. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?

What you just offered merely confirms what I said- that the US & the IAEA would very much like to use that peripheral issue to deny Iran the right to enrich uranium for legit uses. Otherwise, they wouldn't continuously throw it up as a roadblock.

No weapons grade materials means no weapons, regardless of projected or real "intent" on the part of those enriching uranium. That's the rationale behind the NPT in the first place, and the reason for an ongoing IAEA inspection regimen in all signatory states who have nuclear tech.

Trust? the invocation of "trust" is just an attempt to deny legitimacy to that very basic concept. Of course the Iranians are not to be trusted- we don't have to do that because we have the IAEA on the job. From Iran's perspective, we're not to be trusted either when we make a deal, change it, and then demand that they abide by those changes, which is precisely what the Security Council & the IAEA are doing.

Iran was allegedly offered the right to enrich uranium for legit purposes and supposedly derailed that offer. Sorry, but it looks like Iran is indeed trying to buy as much time as possible to develop nuclear weapons and their latest move seems to prove that claim.

You're trying to save a sinking ship here. Every time Iran's ship springs a leak you run to stick a finger in it and claim there's nothing to see here. You only have so many fingers Jhhnn. Eventually you are going to run out of them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Iran was allegedly offered the right to enrich uranium for legit purposes and supposedly derailed that offer. Sorry, but it looks like Iran is indeed trying to buy as much time as possible to develop nuclear weapons and their latest move seems to prove that claim.

Hearsay, fuel grade enrichment dependent on what, exactly? We don't know.

Develop nuclear weapons w/ 20% enriched uranium? Really?

20% falls far short of practical weapon design, and the IAEA assures us that Iran is not creating HEU, something you admitted earlier. If they don't have HEU or fissionable plutonium, none of the rest of it matters except for use as an excuse to deny enrichment entirely.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Hearsay, fuel grade enrichment dependent on what, exactly? We don't know.

Develop nuclear weapons w/ 20% enriched uranium? Really?

20% falls far short of practical weapon design, and the IAEA assures us that Iran is not creating HEU, something you admitted earlier. If they don't have HEU or fissionable plutonium, none of the rest of it matters except for use as an excuse to deny enrichment entirely.

HEU is not the first piece of the puzzle, it is last. Iran has to have all of the other pieces in place first. If they can enrich uranium to 20% they can bring it much higher in a relatively short time.

And, once again, you dance around answering the question of why Iran would be testing nuclear triggers if they have no real intent of creating a nuclear weapon. That's the real question yet you continue to do the soft shoe every time it is brought up. It's no surpise though. You know the answer to that yet refuse to admit it. Remain in denial Jhhnn. It's what any apologist would do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You dumbed it down, alright, to the point where you ignore what you quote & beat on the drum of what you want to believe.

If Iran introduced new conditions, what are they? Did anybody else attempt to do the same?

I'm not the one having a problem reading. From the article.

"The agency team came to the meeting in a constructive spirit with the desire and intention of finalizing the paper," Nackaerts said of a draft agreement revised to address concerns Iran conveyed to Amano during a May 21 meeting in Tehran. "However, there has been no progress and, indeed, Iran raised issues that we have already discussed and added new ones. This is disappointing."

It's as if you trust the posturings of one side to be sincere & not the other, when the IAEA under Amano's guidance has done a huge amount of posturing of their own, toeing the US/Israeli line like their lives depended on it.

If the US & Israelis constructed Duqu, Stuxnet & Flame, what's to say that the documents they offered the IAEA aren't more of the same sort of "evidence" as the Niger uranium forgeries?

Perhaps you should read my sig too. The IAEA identified the forgeries as such. In fact the IAEA has a pretty good track record. To you not like them and that would be because they don't take Iran's word for granted. If they were the US lackeys they did a piss poor job with Bush. Then there is the 5+1 watching over this whole thing which includes China and Russia, the former at least you seem unconcerned about relating to Iran, but they've urged Iran cooperate. Are they now Israeli lap dogs as well?

But it's clear you aren't interested in Iran having nuclear power. It's something else isn't it? You want it on their terms and that means no agreement. No agreement means things get worse for the people of Iran. I wonder why you want that?

 

[Acanthus]

Nothing Iran does now or in the near future, even with nukes, ultimately matters in the United States.

China on the other hand...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nothing Iran does now or in the near future, even with nukes, ultimately matters in the United States.

China on the other hand...

I'll disagree with former. As long as oil plays such a critical role then what happens in the ME is an issue.

China? We have no real influence and the best we can do is try to reclaim some economic ground and get people working here instead of sending them money so we can buy cheap plastic crap from wallyworld.

 

[Jhhnn]

HEU is not the first piece of the puzzle, it is last. Iran has to have all of the other pieces in place first. If they can enrich uranium to 20% they can bring it much higher in a relatively short time.

Which is why it's important that the IAEA maintain vigilance at Iranian enrichment facilities. They guarantee discovery of diversion within 30 days, iirc.

And, once again, you dance around answering the question of why Iran would be testing nuclear triggers if they have no real intent of creating a nuclear weapon. That's the real question yet you continue to do the soft shoe every time it is brought up. It's no surpise though. You know the answer to that yet refuse to admit it. Remain in denial Jhhnn. It's what any apologist would do.

You act as if allegations from anonymous third parties wrt nuclear trigger research have been authenticated rather than merely alleged. Iran's intent in that regard is unknowable, and immaterial. Without HEU or fissionable plutonium, it's like trying to drink whiskey from a bottle of wine.

A variety of other nations possess that knowledge, obviously, and have refrained from the creation of weapons- but they all want to know how should the need to do so manifest itself. It's a prudent & reasonable base of knowledge from the national security perspective of any non-aligned advanced industrial nation. Wanting to know how isn't the same thing as wanting to do so, no matter how badly you want to insist that it is.

Breakout potential? Iran already has it, and continuous threats & sanctions aren't a very good way to convince them they don't need to exercise it. If our goal all along was to prevent them from achieving that, then we failed, and it's time to make a deal that cuts our losses.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If our goal all along was to prevent them from achieving that, then we failed, and it's time to make a deal that cuts our losses.

It seems they had a deal for what was needed. The one it seems they want is to get what they want, and that's HEU above what is required for nuclear power. Both sides have needs and concerns. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise the 5+1 are offering their needs, but Iran doesn't care about that. Now you can say we've failed, but in reality it hasn't even started if they continue to piss in 5+1's cereal, oh and the EU too. While you may love "The Mouse that Roared" concept, an intransigent Iranian leadership isn't going to win unless they are allowed to.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not the one having a problem reading. From the article.

Perhaps you should read my sig too. The IAEA identified the forgeries as such. In fact the IAEA has a pretty good track record. To you not like them and that would be because they don't take Iran's word for granted. If they were the US lackeys they did a piss poor job with Bush. Then there is the 5+1 watching over this whole thing which includes China and Russia, the former at least you seem unconcerned about relating to Iran, but they've urged Iran cooperate. Are they now Israeli lap dogs as well?

But it's clear you aren't interested in Iran having nuclear power. It's something else isn't it? You want it on their terms and that means no agreement. No agreement means things get worse for the people of Iran. I wonder why you want that?

Multiple strawmen. How quaint.

First off, leadership at the IAEA has changed. Amano accepts as evidence unpublished documentation they aren't allowed to possess, refuses to share them with Iran. El Baradei didn't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/22/nuclear-watchdog-iran-iaea

You misrepresent China's position in a very fundamental way-

Also Friday, Chinese President Hu Jintao met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Beijing, calling for Tehran to take a "flexible and pragmatic approach" to the nuclear negotiations, Xinhau reported.

Chinese President Jintao told Ahmadinejad his country is committed to overseeing a resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue through dialogue and cooperation, Xinhau reported.

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=273167

Your reference to what I want is entirely scurrilous, a strawman. I've expressed what I want rather clearly, so if you want to reference such, then quote me.

 

[Jhhnn]

It seems they had a deal for what was needed. The one it seems they want is to get what they want, and that's HEU above what is required for nuclear power. Both sides have needs and concerns. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise the 5+1 are offering their needs, but Iran doesn't care about that. Now you can say we've failed, but in reality it hasn't even started if they continue to piss in 5+1's cereal, oh and the EU too. While you may love "The Mouse that Roared" concept, an intransigent Iranian leadership isn't going to win unless they are allowed to.

Nested accusations & innuendo based on supposition. You seem to think you can read the minds of the Iranian leadership, then resort to the usual bluster.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nested accusations & innuendo based on supposition. You seem to think you can read the minds of the Iranian leadership, then resort to the usual bluster.

You continue to ignore whats reported and when you are confronted it's all on the IAEA. You completely ignore the solution on the table. Facts aren't strawmen. Iran did as I said, the reports back it up and you can't deny them. Well with strawmen perhaps. PS things aren't quite as cosy between Iran and China as they once were. Not long ago Iran wouldn't have backed out of contracts with China.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Which is why it's important that the IAEA maintain vigilance at Iranian enrichment facilities. They guarantee discovery of diversion within 30 days, iirc.

It obviously doesn't guarantee squat because all Iran has to do is give the IAEA the finger and do whatever they want to do, just as they have previously.

You act as if allegations from anonymous third parties wrt nuclear trigger research have been authenticated rather than merely alleged. Iran's intent in that regard is unknowable, and immaterial. Without HEU or fissionable plutonium, it's like trying to drink whiskey from a bottle of wine.

Iran won't allow the IAEA to authenticate the allegations one way or another. Instead they are busy cleaning up the site prior to allowing the IAEA the promised visit which is not an encouraging sign. It's rather damning, in fact.

A variety of other nations possess that knowledge, obviously, and have refrained from the creation of weapons- but they all want to know how should the need to do so manifest itself. It's a prudent & reasonable base of knowledge from the national security perspective of any non-aligned advanced industrial nation. Wanting to know how isn't the same thing as wanting to do so, no matter how badly you want to insist that it is.

Who are those other nations that possess such knowledge?

Breakout potential? Iran already has it, and continuous threats & sanctions aren't a very good way to convince them they don't need to exercise it. If our goal all along was to prevent them from achieving that, then we failed, and it's time to make a deal that cuts our losses.

We just tried to make a deal and Iran screwed the pooch on that deal. When they do such a thing it makes it look as if they aren't being forthright and upfront and really are stalling for time just as Israel claims. Surely Iran doesn't want to prove Israel right?

 

[Jhhnn]

It obviously doesn't guarantee squat because all Iran has to do is give the IAEA the finger and do whatever they want to do, just as they have previously.

Usual false attribution. Even you admit that Iran hasn't produced weapons grade material. If they really want nukes, they'll have to produce some, and the IAEA is there to tell us if they make the attempt.


It always comes back around to alleged "nuclear weapons related activities" from a decade ago, doesn't it? activities that never involved nuclear materials at all, right?

How does that affect the the IAEA's mandate to supervise the production & handling of nuclear materials under the NPT? Why is that so important, other than to obtain information to discredit Iran & block the verifiably legal aspects of their program?

How can the IAEA claim to want a deal when what they want to find is a way to prevent one?

As I've offered many times, none of it amounts to very small hill of beans in the absence of weapons grade material. It's just desperate distraction from the central issue, the fundamentally sound basis of the NPT in the first place- No weapons grade material, no weapons.

I suspect that Iran has snubbed the IAEA in retaliation for dishonest dealings of the past, and in recognition that the IAEA will ultimately do what the 5+1 tells them to do. There's no point in dealing with intermediaries when there's a meeting scheduled with the Principals in the near future, anyway.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Usual false attribution. Even you admit that Iran hasn't produced weapons grade material. If they really want nukes, they'll have to produce some, and the IAEA is there to tell us if they make the attempt.


It always comes back around to alleged "nuclear weapons related activities" from a decade ago, doesn't it? activities that never involved nuclear materials at all, right?

How does that affect the the IAEA's mandate to supervise the production & handling of nuclear materials under the NPT? Why is that so important, other than to obtain information to discredit Iran & block the verifiably legal aspects of their program?

How can the IAEA claim to want a deal when what they want to find is a way to prevent one?

As I've offered many times, none of it amounts to very small hill of beans in the absence of weapons grade material. It's just desperate distraction from the central issue, the fundamentally sound basis of the NPT in the first place- No weapons grade material, no weapons.

I suspect that Iran has snubbed the IAEA in retaliation for dishonest dealings of the past, and in recognition that the IAEA will ultimately do what the 5+1 tells them to do. There's no point in dealing with intermediaries when there's a meeting scheduled with the Principals in the near future, anyway.

What a bunch of apologistic crap. Whether or not Iran has produced weapon's grade uranium is neither here nor there. The simple fact is that that peg is already in the hole. The question is not if "Have they?" The question is, "Can they?" The answer is "Yes, they can." That capability is already in place. So we have to ask if Iran wants to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims the answer is no but when they are also allegedly testing nuclear triggers we have to ask why they would do such a thing when they say they don't want nuclear weapons.

To not ask that question would be turning a blind eye, something you seem more than willing to do. In fact, you are turning more than a blind eye. You would rather run interference for them and pretend they are completely up front and honest when that is not clear in any way, shape, or form.

Either Iran does or does not want nukes. If they don't, as they continually claim, then they should allow us to put any doubts aside and provide clear access to ally any concerns on the matter.

It's as simple as that.

 

[cliftonite]

How far are people willing to go in order to stop Iran? Full scale invasion ala Iraq?

 

[EagleKeeper]

How far are people willing to go in order to stop Iran? Full scale invasion ala Iraq?

Boots on the ground are not needed at this point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Boots on the ground are not needed at this point.

Indeed.

I'd say that having a full scale war would be counterproductive at many levels. You know first hand the capability of the US military and the options we have are far greater than ever. If force was applied it most likely would be highly targeted for the purpose of making Iranian operations less than pleasant. The goal is compliance, not destruction.

 

[Jhhnn]

Indeed.

I'd say that having a full scale war would be counterproductive at many levels. You know first hand the capability of the US military and the options we have are far greater than ever. If force was applied it most likely would be highly targeted for the purpose of making Iranian operations less than pleasant. The goal is compliance, not destruction.

As if Iran will just roll over & play dead, and as if their Fordow facility isn't extremely resistant to conventional attack.

Anybody remember that we still have troops in Afghanistan? That the shipping lanes in the Persian gulf pass thru Iran's territorial waters?

Iran doesn't have to fire a shot for the worldwide price of oil to explode. And if you think Iran is having trouble shipping oil because nobody will insure shipping to their ports, watch what happens when it's a war zone.

The consequences of any attack are utterly incalculable, and not likely to enjoy UN approval, at all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As if Iran will just roll over & play dead, and as if their Fordow facility isn't extremely resistant to conventional attack.

Anybody remember that we still have troops in Afghanistan? That the shipping lanes in the Persian gulf pass thru Iran's territorial waters?

Iran doesn't have to fire a shot for the worldwide price of oil to explode. And if you think Iran is having trouble shipping oil because nobody will insure shipping to their ports, watch what happens when it's a war zone.

The consequences of any attack are utterly incalculable, and not likely to enjoy UN approval, at all.

Of course they wouldn't play dead, but I remind you that if it moves we own it. That action won't be taken lightly but if it is contingencies will be planned for. We aren't handicapped with inepts these days. Iran might as well roll over and play dead.