Iran's Supreme Leader vows no inspections

[Jaskalas]

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "No inspection of any military site or interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed."

How's that deal for Iranian nukes working out, Mr. President?
Do Democrats still believe anyone is stopping Iran from going nuclear?
Does anyone want to?

It's a wonder if the world will ever draw a line on nuclear proliferation. All we're trying to do is green light this one.

 

[fskimospy]

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "No inspection of any military site or interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed."

How's that deal for Iranian nukes working out, Mr. President?
Do Democrats still believe anyone is stopping Iran from going nuclear?
Does anyone want to?

It's a wonder if the world will ever draw a line on nuclear proliferation. All we're trying to do is green light this one.

Seems like it's working out just fine? If they refuse to allow any inspections at all then a deal won't happen.

Negotiating with them on limiting their nuclear program is the best, smartest solution to the problem. These kind of negotiations are actually the opposite. An attack on them would be green lighting their program as they would never give up until they were nuclear after that.

 

[Blackjack200]

How is this any different from those Senators saying that they wouldn't be bound by the deal? It's rhetoric. Iran wants this deal to get sanctions lifted. If they don't follow through, the sanctions are replaced.

Saying that the world is "green lighting" nuclear proliferation when they're doing everything they can to prevent it is cynical and disingenuous.

 

[Genx87]

If it doesnt work out, it doesnt work out. There is no alternative on the table for war. We blew our load in Iraq. The Hannity types will have to live with knowing Bush destroyed their chance at war with Iran.

 

[feralkid]

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "No inspection of any military site or interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed."

How's that deal for Iranian nukes working out, Mr. President?
Do Democrats still believe anyone is stopping Iran from going nuclear?
Does anyone want to?

It's a wonder if the world will ever draw a line on nuclear proliferation. All we're trying to do is green light this one.

Thank you for the warning, Mrs. Palin.

 

[Newell Steamer]

In order to prove to them they don't need to defend themselves with nukes, let's nuke them.

 

[Meghan54]

Thank you for the warning, Mrs. Palin.

Kinda demeaning to Palin......

 

[Jaskalas]

Seems like it's working out just fine? If they refuse to allow any inspections at all then a deal won't happen.

Is it your position that being lead about by the nose, under heavy restriction, is effective inspection? If we ask nicely, Iran might allow us on the public tour of not all, but a few facilities. Maybe you can even get the IAEA to sign off on such "inspections".

Negotiating with them on limiting their nuclear program is the best, smartest solution to the problem.

Accepting nuclear proliferation is not a solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation.

An attack on them would be green lighting their program as they would never give up until they were nuclear after that.

I agree, half measures are not acceptable here. But if we're going to pretend we don't need inspections, that we can "trust" Iranian nuclear proliferation then I'd rather we speak of it honestly and openly for what it is.

For the subject is an important one and covers more than just Iran. The past 20 years have seen Pakistan and North Korea go nuclear. Iran is poised to be next. Who follows? There is an ongoing quest in this world for nuclear proliferation and it has no stopping point. Where do we draw the line, when do we say no and back that up with military force?

I find that there's an honest question and debate whether Iran is the right time and place for that stance, but in accepting a nuclear Iran we must pause to ask: If not now, then when?

 

[tweaker2]

As mentioned by Blackjack200, you get the rhetoric targeted for domestic consumption to keep the radicals and nutjobs in their cages, whilst complying with the agreement in discrete ways that conform with the deal. Can't see what's so hard about that.

Like the Repubs in Congress playing their propagandistic concertos and commercials to their base for scamming votes from them, these Repub in Congress aren't the idiots they appear to be when they have to pander to their base via rectal bloviating. The reality of it all is they eventually have to face the facts and deal with it from that standpoint, but just in ways that appease their base while being "forced to make a deal with the evil muslim loving commies in the White House".

 

[chucky2]

Errr, who cares? The Leadership is going to do whatever it wants to do anyways, it's not like they're personally being impacted by sanctions in any meaningful way. If Iran (or any other country) wants nukes, as long as they have enough money and patience, they going to get them, unless someone actually physically stops them.

Since Israel can't really with Iran, unless they happen to get someone inside, if Iran wants nukes it's going to happen. Sanction away, it won't mean sh1t in the end...

 

[fskimospy]

Is it your position that being lead about by the nose, under heavy restriction, is effective inspection? If we ask nicely, Iran might allow us on the public tour of not all, but a few facilities. Maybe you can even get the IAEA to sign off on such "inspections".

Of course not. We have no idea what type of inspection regime will be included in any deal though, so why on earth would you think that that's how it would be?

Accepting nuclear proliferation is not a solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation.

Exactly, that's why we're trying to engage in this deal to stop nuclear proliferation. Anything other than the route we are going on means accepting nuclear proliferation, which we would rather not do.

I agree, half measures are not acceptable here. But if we're going to pretend we don't need inspections, that we can "trust" Iranian nuclear proliferation then I'd rather we speak of it honestly and openly for what it is.

Nobody has pretended we don't need inspections.

For the subject is an important one and covers more than just Iran. The past 20 years have seen Pakistan and North Korea go nuclear. Iran is poised to be next. Who follows? There is an ongoing quest in this world for nuclear proliferation and it has no stopping point. Where do we draw the line, when do we say no and back that up with military force?

I find that there's an honest question and debate whether Iran is the right time and place for that stance, but in accepting a nuclear Iran we must pause to ask: If not now, then when?

Can you list the countries that you are willing to attack and occupy in order to stop nuclear proliferation? I can: that list has zero entries on it. Not only would it be enormously costly, but it would be a direct incentive (like Iraq was) for other countries to speed up their proliferation activities as if you get the bomb before we invade you, you win.

We want to slow down or stop proliferation, not speed it up. That's another reason why military action is a bad idea.

 

[chucky2]

We would never have invaded Iran, we only do geographically easy countries now.

 

[Darwin333]

For the subject is an important one and covers more than just Iran. The past 20 years have seen Pakistan and North Korea go nuclear. Iran is poised to be next. Who follows? There is an ongoing quest in this world for nuclear proliferation and it has no stopping point. Where do we draw the line, when do we say no and back that up with military force?

I find that there's an honest question and debate whether Iran is the right time and place for that stance, but in accepting a nuclear Iran we must pause to ask: If not now, then when?

The problem is that the use of force only serves to prove their need of nukes. You'd damn near need ongoing occupation to curtail future development, at best military action slows their progress down and creates a longstanding enemy.

 

[blastingcap]

In order to prove to them they don't need to defend themselves with nukes, let's nuke them.

Seconded. I'm almost not joking. Fucking Iran... fucking stupid-ass Iran. They're going to ruin it for everyone if they continue their nuclear program. It would result in neighboring countries demanding nukes too, including the crazy Saudis.

Iran's leaders are somewhat rational and I am not too worried that they would try something stupid like nuking Israel. HOWEVER, Saudi Arabia is very fragile and when times get tougher, there WILL be a coup or civil war, at which point you can only hope that some crazy end-of-the-world Islamic fanatics don't take over the country and the nuclear arsenal.

If Iran doesn't want to live next to a nuclear Saudi Arabia and possibly get nuked by whatever comes after the collapse of the Saudi monarchy (along with everyone else), they will cease and desist NOW.

Unfortunately Iran doesn't seem to know or care what is in its best interest.

 

[ivwshane]

Hmm...the article I read tells a different story than the one the OP told.

The ayatollah said they won't agree to allowing inspectors inspect any site they think is suspicious or interviewing of their scientist, that's different than not allowing any inspections whatsoever.

And quite honestly I agree. We certainly wouldn't allow those terms if we were in their shoes.

So the negotiating is still on it seems.

 

[Jaskalas]

Can you list the countries that you are willing to attack and occupy in order to stop nuclear proliferation? I can: that list has zero entries on it. Not only would it be enormously costly, but it would be a direct incentive (like Iraq was) for other countries to speed up their proliferation activities as if you get the bomb before we invade you, you win.

We want to slow down or stop proliferation, not speed it up. That's another reason why military action is a bad idea.

So US policy should be as follows?

Yes to gun control.
No to nuke control.

​

I cannot say I agree with that policy. Who in their right mind could agree to that? Nuclear proliferation must be contained. At some point you get down to joe blow obtaining radioactive material and contaminating a city, which may or may not require an exclusion zone afterwards.

The more members of MAD, the more likely someone cashes in. The more likely nuclear winter becomes. Security from nukes must be paramount, it must be backed by force.

You can argue that Iran isn't the time nor place, but you just argued it should never be done. How do you justify such policy? How do you justify never stopping nuclear weapons?

 

[Jhhnn]

As mentioned by Blackjack200, you get the rhetoric targeted for domestic consumption to keep the radicals and nutjobs in their cages, whilst complying with the agreement in discrete ways that conform with the deal. Can't see what's so hard about that.

Like the Repubs in Congress playing their propagandistic concertos and commercials to their base for scamming votes from them, these Repub in Congress aren't the idiots they appear to be when they have to pander to their base via rectal bloviating. The reality of it all is they eventually have to face the facts and deal with it from that standpoint, but just in ways that appease their base while being "forced to make a deal with the evil muslim loving commies in the White House".

Well, yeh, but the rhetoric that keeps Iran's radicals & nutjobs in their cages makes our own try to break out of theirs. Iran probably has the same problem in reverse.

I have a great deal of trouble understanding the rationale of our own ravers. Yeh, sure I get Iran's paranoia, given that the world's only superpower has been breathing down their necks & howling regime change for nearly 40 years. What I don't get is how people in this country manage to be so afraid of them. Maybe that has to do with demonization & propaganda serving a Neocon agenda.

It's not like that agenda has served anybody but the Israelis & the Saudis.

 

[Nebor]

This guy has been thumbing his nose at us for 30 years. He's way overdue for a Bin Laden Labotomy, 5.56 style.

We're wasting time trying to negotiate with them. They have no intentions of giving up their nuclear ambitions. Every day we delay war is one day closer to them developing a nuclear bomb. Let's just get it over with. Even if we fuck it up Iraq style, we're in no danger of an ISIS-style rabble of Islamists developing a nuclear bomb.

 

[feralkid]

This guy has been thumbing his nose at us for 30 years. He's way overdue for a Bin Laden Labotomy, 5.56 style.

We're wasting time trying to negotiate with them. They have no intentions of giving up their nuclear ambitions. Every day we delay war is one day closer to them developing a nuclear bomb. Let's just get it over with. Even if we fuck it up Iraq style, we're in no danger of an ISIS-style rabble of Islamists developing a nuclear bomb.

Thank you for your opinion, Senator McCain.

 

[Nebor]

Thank you for your opinion, Senator McCain.

I'm not a McCain fan. That guys never met a war he didn't like.

I don't think the US should have gone to war in Syria, or Libya. And I don't think we should be back in Iraq. There are no US interests at play there. It's just a bunch of Muslims killing one another.

Iran has been consistently working against US interests for 30 years. They threaten our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

 

[cliftonite]

I'm not a McCain fan. That guys never met a war he didn't like.

I don't think the US should have gone to war in Syria, or Libya. And I don't think we should be back in Iraq. There are no US interests at play there. It's just a bunch of Muslims killing one another.

Iran has been consistently working against US interests for 30 years. They threaten our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

So what would the end game be if we were to carry out military action against Iran?

 

[Nebor]

So what would the end game be if we were to carry out military action against Iran?

Destroy their military
Decapitate their government
Cripple their infrastructure (transportation, power, water, etc.)
Destroy their entire nuclear program through whatever means necessary
Leave them a seething mob of Islamist hatred, fighting each other for control

That'd buy us at least 25 years and could be accomplished in a couple weeks.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not a McCain fan. That guys never met a war he didn't like.

I don't think the US should have gone to war in Syria, or Libya. And I don't think we should be back in Iraq. There are no US interests at play there. It's just a bunch of Muslims killing one another.

Iran has been consistently working against US interests for 30 years. They threaten our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

You merely confirm what I offer, above. Anything for our Saudi & Israeli pals, huh? What's a few $T, anyway? What's a few $T more to beat down the Iranian boogeyman, right?

What makes KSA so attractive? Sharia Law & religious police or the way they treat their women? Or maybe it's about the Royal Family being power players in international finance.

What about Israel? Is it to appease a stupid guilt trip over the Holocaust? Or is it the clever way they've lied to us for 40 years about "seeking peace" with the Palestinians?

 

[Jhhnn]

Destroy their military
Decapitate their government
Cripple their infrastructure (transportation, power, water, etc.)
Destroy their entire nuclear program through whatever means necessary
Leave them a seething mob of Islamist hatred, fighting each other for control

That'd buy us at least 25 years and could be accomplished in a couple weeks.

Mass murder on the pretext that they might create nuclear weapons someday? Really?

 

[cliftonite]

Mass murder on the pretext that they might create nuclear weapons someday? Really?

Insane.