• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Israel 'satisfied' with Iran's rejection of West's demands

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
I have to love the TLC point of,"They are playing the same game that Saddam did. That game cost him his life. Hopefully the Mullahs and Mr. Dinnerjacket aren't as stupid in the long run."

The point is and remains, Saddam had no WMD and the IAEA and various international bodies were the parties in the wrong.

If the credibility of the IAEA has not been greatly reduced after its screw up with Saddam, it will be in the sewer if it gets it wrong again.
Saddam tried to pretend that he did. He made it a point to keep area off limits to the inspectors. The IAEA could only report what they learned; it was up to others to interpret the data that they collected.

Had Saddam not tried to play the shell game; then there would have been no questions.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
I have to love the TLC point of,"They are playing the same game that Saddam did. That game cost him his life. Hopefully the Mullahs and Mr. Dinnerjacket aren't as stupid in the long run."

The point is and remains, Saddam had no WMD and the IAEA and various international bodies were the parties in the wrong.

If the credibility of the IAEA has not been greatly reduced after its screw up with Saddam, it will be in the sewer if it gets it wrong again.
No doubt Saddam was thinking what a great victory it was to reduce the credibility of the IAEA during those last few moments that the rope around his neck was snapping taut.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
No doubt Saddam was thinking what a great victory it was to reduce the credibility of the IAEA during those last few moments that the rope around his neck was snapping taut.
He either doesn't know or doesn't want to, but you and I had a great go around about what I considered (and still do) incredible stupidity, the Iraq War. One thing that I never questioned was Saddam playing the IAEA for reasons that no one still understands. He bated others with that and while that was IMO a piss poor reason to bite it didn't do anyone any good. Iranian leadership? If they do the same and the result is that they have people die this is something which will count against them and them alone. But then again we have someone who invokes Godwin's Law in an irrational manner. Nothing new.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,752
13,873
136
The issue between Israel and the Palestinians has nothing to do with this thread and I don't really care about your personal opinion of Netanyahu.

Regarding Article III of the NPT, citing Fordow is a diversion. Iran refused the IAEA access to Parchin to investigate the allegations of Iran's research into high explosives research. If Iran has nothing to hide and isn't researching nuclear weapons then what's the problem? They should have immediately and gladly invited the IAEA to an inspection to quell any questions. They did not. Instead they refused to grant access and that refusal goes against the basic principles of Article III of the NPT.

They are playing the same game that Saddam did. That game cost him his life. Hopefully the Mullahs and Mr. Dinnerjacket aren't as stupid in the long run.
As I linked in an earlier thread, the IAEA mandate is to monitor Iranian production facilities, not to go on witch hunts over something they think may have occurred over a decade ago, seeking "evidence" that either never existed or that has been destroyed in the meanwhile. The IAEA has never contended that Parchin was any sort of production facility, ever. They're posturing & fearmongering, attempting to usurp authority they don't have.

All nations have something to hide wrt their military installations, and it seems entirely possible that the IAEA requests wrt Parchin were made on the basis that they knew Iran would refuse. When what you're asking for isn't really what you want, it's very important that the other side refuse the overture, providing the propaganda event you really wanted all along.

The whole comparison of Iran to Saddam's Iraq is much more apt than you realize. What we found of what was alleged to exist in Iraq was precisely nothing, now obfuscated under the meme of Saddam as the bad guy, and what we've gained vs what we've lost from that little Neocon military adventure certainly doesn't weigh in our favor.

If you thought that invading Iraq was a swell idea, then you'll really love attacking the Iranians.

If it weren't for the tail wagging the dog effect of Israeli radicals influencing our govt, we'd have figured this out years ago. The fact that the Netanyahu govt retains any credibility wrt the American public is a demonstration of masterful propaganda on their part and gullibility on ours. I can appreciate defending Israel, covering her back, but that's obviously conditional, and they don't seem to see it that way. They seem to think we should back any damned fool effort they might undertake, and would corner us into doing so if they could. What I can't see is attacking another nation to suit the whims of Israeli radicals, a nation that simply does not and never will pose an existential threat to this country or likely Israel, either, provided they're not attacked first.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Possibly if Iran would not go around making statements about planning on annihilating/destroying (insert other adjectives depending on interpretation) Israel, then Israel would not be so concerned.

If as you state, the US is the dog's tail; then tensions would not be so high.

Iran has ratcheted up the fear mongering and now nobody knows what to believe.

Every time someone states that Iran is misunderstood; give them another chance; the same BS gets spouted out of their government.

There outright support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah do not help reduce tensions.

They seem to be trying to set themselves up as a leader in the Muslim world by playing the bad guy; Islam against everyone else.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
As I linked in an earlier thread, the IAEA mandate is to monitor Iranian production facilities, not to go on witch hunts over something they think may have occurred over a decade ago, seeking "evidence" that either never existed or that has been destroyed in the meanwhile. The IAEA has never contended that Parchin was any sort of production facility, ever. They're posturing & fearmongering, attempting to usurp authority they don't have.

All nations have something to hide wrt their military installations, and it seems entirely possible that the IAEA requests wrt Parchin were made on the basis that they knew Iran would refuse. When what you're asking for isn't really what you want, it's very important that the other side refuse the overture, providing the propaganda event you really wanted all along.

The whole comparison of Iran to Saddam's Iraq is much more apt than you realize. What we found of what was alleged to exist in Iraq was precisely nothing, now obfuscated under the meme of Saddam as the bad guy, and what we've gained vs what we've lost from that little Neocon military adventure certainly doesn't weigh in our favor.

If you thought that invading Iraq was a swell idea, then you'll really love attacking the Iranians.

If it weren't for the tail wagging the dog effect of Israeli radicals influencing our govt, we'd have figured this out years ago. The fact that the Netanyahu govt retains any credibility wrt the American public is a demonstration of masterful propaganda on their part and gullibility on ours. I can appreciate defending Israel, covering her back, but that's obviously conditional, and they don't seem to see it that way. They seem to think we should back any damned fool effort they might undertake, and would corner us into doing so if they could. What I can't see is attacking another nation to suit the whims of Israeli radicals, a nation that simply does not and never will pose an existential threat to this country or likely Israel, either, provided they're not attacked first.
I assume you are taling about the following?

http://iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-9.pdf

If so, what you linked earlier does not back up your contention that the IAEA mandate only applies to production facilities. The NPT agrteement with Iran allows the IAEA to investigate possible military dimensions to nuclear programs that they suspect Iran may be exploring.

You also misrepresent the request concerning Parchin. Paragraph 41 of the link specifically states:



41. The Annex to the Director General&#8217;s November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. This information, which comes from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency&#8217;s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that: prior to the end of 2003 the activities took place under a structured programme; that some continued after 2003; and that some may still be ongoing.



You can go on ranting about obfuscations and typing out all sorts of hyperbolic bluster but it seems you are the one doing most of that yourself.

 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,752
13,873
136
Iran has ratcheted up the fear mongering and now nobody knows what to believe.
Iran? Get real. The fearmongering & innuendo from the US, Israel & the IAEA have been intense all along, and Iranian references to the demise of the state of Israel have been a lot more oblique than Israeli & American threats to bomb them.

Step back and take a look at yourselves, gentlemen- it'll give you a lot better perspective on the other guys.

Consider this. It is very, very highly unlikely that Iran has nukes at this point, and if they do, then all the raving is pointless. So let's forget all the recriminations & justifications of the past, focus on the future. Focus on the heart of the matter, the enrichment of uranium & the handling of reactor byproducts. Devise an inspection regime that will assure, with a very, very high degree of certainty, the non-production & non-diversion of weapons grade material. Offer that the Iranians can enrich their own nuclear fuel & operate their reactors under those conditions, see what happens.

Such an offer has never been made, and I think that it should be.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
The question in my mind is why Israel should have any say with the IAEA. Israel got their nukes on the sneak, never signed any nuclear treaties, and at least Iran is working with the IAEA.

Yet seemingly Israeli hysteria prevents the IAEA from doing their job in a fair and rational manner.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,752
13,873
136
I assume you are taling about the following?

http://iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-9.pdf

If so, what you linked earlier does not back up your contention that the IAEA mandate only applies to production facilities. The NPT agrteement with Iran allows the IAEA to investigate possible military dimensions to nuclear programs that they suspect Iran may be exploring.

You also misrepresent the request concerning Parchin. Paragraph 41 of the link specifically states:




You can go on ranting about obfuscations and typing out all sorts of hyperbolic bluster but it seems you are the one doing most of that yourself.

Heh. This link, TLC-

http://current.com/1eb12kc

While the IAEA has "concerns", it's not their job to investigate them, regardless of how badly they or you want to say that it is.

Parchin? Iraqi WMD's ring a bell? We got the same song & dance back then... maybe you could refresh everybody's memory of how the veracity of such claims played out?

From that, and from this as well, the image of various highly politicized & anonymous western intelligence agencies as gossipy old women embellishing each other's stories is hard to shake, wouldn't you agree?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The question in my mind is why Israel should have any say with the IAEA. Israel got their nukes on the sneak, never signed any nuclear treaties, and at least Iran is working with the IAEA.
Israel has no say in the IAEA and the IAEA has no say in Israel.

Yet seemingly Israeli hysteria prevents the IAEA from doing their job in a fair and rational manner.
How is Israel preventing the IAEA from accessing sites in Iran? I know you think Israel is amazingly powerful, but you think they control access to nuclear sites in Iran? 0_o
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Heh. This link, TLC-

http://current.com/1eb12kc

While the IAEA has "concerns", it's not their job to investigate them, regardless of how badly they or you want to say that it is.
Seems Mr. Joyner missed a section of the IAEA Statutes while formulating his argument:

Article III: Functions

5. To establish and administer safeguards designed to ensure that special fissionable and other materials, services, equipment, facilities, and information made available by the Agency or at its request or under its supervision or control are not used in such a way as to further any military purpose; and to apply safeguards, at the request of the parties, to any bilateral or multilateral arrangement, or at the request of a State, to any of that State's activities in the field of atomic energy
Seems like investigating those facilities are well within the purvue of the IAEA according to their own statutes.

Parchin? Iraqi WMD's ring a bell? We got the same song & dance back then... maybe you could refresh everybody's memory of how the veracity of such claims played out?
You're right. We got the same sort of song and dance from Saddam. He tried to interfere with and refuse inspections as well and look where that got him.

From that, and from this as well, the image of various highly politicized & anonymous western intelligence agencies as gossipy old women embellishing each other's stories is hard to shake, wouldn't you agree?
I don't think your own opinions are any less politically-fueled than anyone else so your statement comes off as a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,752
13,873
136
Seems like investigating those facilities are well within the purvue of the IAEA according to their own statutes.
Not at all, TLC. "Facilities" are defined as production facilities.

Politically-fueled? Yes, my statements are politically fueled. OTOH, I don't pretend to be imbued with any sort of authority or trustworthiness based on perceptions of my role in the world, unlike "intelligence agencies", which are often better labeled as propaganda organs. I just try to be reasonable, and I think that trying to avoid needless war is entirely reasonable.

I notice that you haven't addressed the central thrust of my argument, at all, that if we want Iran to be reasonable, to compromise, to forego nuclear weapons, then we need to be reasonable ourselves. Rather, you circle back around to the same sort of assertions, attributions and threats that have created the current situation.

If we don't think that the IAEA is capable of properly supervising Iran's nuclear fuel production facilities & reactors under the proper sort of arrangements, then we should abandon the use of them as a foil for other political purposes. If we do think they're capable, and I do, then we need to make a proposal allowing them to do just that. As it is, we're just beating the drums of war.

We've seen how well Neocon adventurism has served us in countries neighboring Iran, and there's no reason to think that more of the same won't yield similar results. If anything, Iran is a much more formidable adversary whose population is wildly approving of their nuclear program. Any attack will solidify support of the current regime, just as the Iraqi attack solidified support in the wake of their revolution.

Obviously, what the US really wants is regime change, and that's a helluva way to not get there.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Saddam tried to pretend that he did. He made it a point to keep area off limits to the inspectors. The IAEA could only report what they learned; it was up to others to interpret the data that they collected.

Had Saddam not tried to play the shell game; then there would have been no questions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As again EK understands nothing about the game Saddam was playing with GWB even if its well documented.

In Gulf War one in the run up to invading Iraq to force it to leave Kuwait in very early 1990, Saddam's ego could not have conceived exactly how much damage US and coalition air forces could do to military and mainly civilian infrastructure. And in the three month long Aerial bombards of Iraq, Saddam not only lost the bulk of his military tank forces, it also did irreparable damage to almost all civilian infrastructure. As Iraq lost most of its electrical grid, water infrastructure, medical facilities, not only in Baghdad, but almost in every population center in Iraq. Damage still not repaired to this day.

But still when coalition tanks started the ground invasion the Iraq army was a shell of its former self, and Saddam unconditionally surrender within a few days.

And that is when George H. Bush's excellent plan fell apart. Point granted, the coalition mission was only to expel Iraq from Kuwait, but still, IMHO, logic should have dictated that Saddam should be deposed as leader of Iraq. And instead GHB started peeing his pants at the prospect of being required to nation build in Iraq. And as a result Saddam got US help to stay as leader of Iraq. But per treaty terms he destroyed the WMD's he got with Rumsfeld's help. Later than was confirmed as Saddam son in laws who were put in charge of destroying WMD's defected to the West.

But still than left Saddam with a big problem, as he went from one of the strongest armies in the Mid-east to one of the weakest with no prospect to rebuild his army given the international sanction. As Saddam started to pee his pants that any neighbor that knew the truth, could invade Iraq and make short work of it. Especially Iran who had every reason to take its revenge of Iraq.

Which is why concocted his shell game to convince the world he had WMD's Even his top generals were fooled, they knew their units had no WMD's, but equally convinced other Saddam generals did.

And after the USA finally captured Saddam and held him incommunicado, a FBI agent that posed as his designated aide again confirmed that fact.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Not at all, TLC. "Facilities" are defined as production facilities.
Not really. Facilities are defined in the agreement as follows:


I. Facility means:
(a) A reactor, a critical facility, a conversion plant, a fabrication plant, a reprocessing plant, an isotope separation plant or a separate storage installation; or

(b) Any location where nuclear material in amounts greater than one effective kilogram is customarily used.


Politically-fueled? Yes, my statements are politically fueled. OTOH, I don't pretend to be imbued with any sort of authority or trustworthiness based on perceptions of my role in the world, unlike "intelligence agencies", which are often better labeled as propaganda organs. I just try to be reasonable, and I think that trying to avoid needless war is entirely reasonable.

I notice that you haven't addressed the central thrust of my argument, at all, that if we want Iran to be reasonable, to compromise, to forego nuclear weapons, then we need to be reasonable ourselves. Rather, you circle back around to the same sort of assertions, attributions and threats that have created the current situation.

If we don't think that the IAEA is capable of properly supervising Iran's nuclear fuel production facilities & reactors under the proper sort of arrangements, then we should abandon the use of them as a foil for other political purposes. If we do think they're capable, and I do, then we need to make a proposal allowing them to do just that. As it is, we're just beating the drums of war.

We've seen how well Neocon adventurism has served us in countries neighboring Iran, and there's no reason to think that more of the same won't yield similar results. If anything, Iran is a much more formidable adversary whose population is wildly approving of their nuclear program. Any attack will solidify support of the current regime, just as the Iraqi attack solidified support in the wake of their revolution.

Obviously, what the US really wants is regime change, and that's a helluva way to not get there.
My take on your suggestion for a 'do over' is that it completely undermines the entire UN process and sends the wrong message. What needs to happen is that Iran needs to follow through with the requests being made of it so verification can be made, trust can be built, and there will be no need for war or any attacks on its facilities.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Ok TLC, by your own definition, Parchin meets the definition of Iranian sites the IAEA has no business inspecting.

And as the IAEA turns such inspection information to Israel, and Israel in turn uses it to murder Iranian scientists ( a fact admitted by US intel ), Iran is understanding concerned about too broad IAEA inspection bounds.

Oh well, next step, the international community will meet in Instanbul. IMHO, hopefully Israel will not be allowed to participate.

As I stand foursquare for making the entire mid-east into a nuclear weapons free zone.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,525
42
86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As again EK understands nothing about the game Saddam was playing with GWB even if its well documented.

In Gulf War one in the run up to invading Iraq to force it to leave Kuwait in very early 1990, Saddam's ego could not have conceived exactly how much damage US and coalition air forces could do to military and mainly civilian infrastructure. And in the three month long Aerial bombards of Iraq, Saddam not only lost the bulk of his military tank forces, it also did irreparable damage to almost all civilian infrastructure. As Iraq lost most of its electrical grid, water infrastructure, medical facilities, not only in Baghdad, but almost in every population center in Iraq. Damage still not repaired to this day.

But still when coalition tanks started the ground invasion the Iraq army was a shell of its former self, and Saddam unconditionally surrender within a few days.

And that is when George H. Bush's excellent plan fell apart. Point granted, the coalition mission was only to expel Iraq from Kuwait, but still, IMHO, logic should have dictated that Saddam should be deposed as leader of Iraq. And instead GHB started peeing his pants at the prospect of being required to nation build in Iraq. And as a result Saddam got US help to stay as leader of Iraq. But per treaty terms he destroyed the WMD's he got with Rumsfeld's help. Later than was confirmed as Saddam son in laws who were put in charge of destroying WMD's defected to the West.

But still than left Saddam with a big problem, as he went from one of the strongest armies in the Mid-east to one of the weakest with no prospect to rebuild his army given the international sanction. As Saddam started to pee his pants that any neighbor that knew the truth, could invade Iraq and make short work of it. Especially Iran who had every reason to take its revenge of Iraq.

Which is why concocted his shell game to convince the world he had WMD's Even his top generals were fooled, they knew their units had no WMD's, but equally convinced other Saddam generals did.

And after the USA finally captured Saddam and held him incommunicado, a FBI agent that posed as his designated aide again confirmed that fact.
So....

what you're trying to say is our attack on Iran will be very short and very successful in dismantling Iran's infrastructure and military capabilities!

Thanks for the vote of confidence! :D



Honestly, while I don't know about your full assessment of the Middle East, I will say that the region is the most peaceful and least dangerous it has been in my lifetime.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,752
13,873
136
Not really. Facilities are defined in the agreement as follows:




My take on your suggestion for a 'do over' is that it completely undermines the entire UN process and sends the wrong message. What needs to happen is that Iran needs to follow through with the requests being made of it so verification can be made, trust can be built, and there will be no need for war or any attacks on its facilities.
So, uhh, obviously Parchin is not such a facility, at all, nor has the IAEA alleged it to be, correct? They have not claimed to have any information as to the existence of any nuclear material at that facility. Why, then, do they claim it's their job to go there, again?

The rest? The demands, not requests, being made on Iran are inconsistent. The US demands they stop enrichment entirely, while the IAEA demands they adopt additional protocols. Netanyahu's demands are even greater-

The demands of Iran must be clear: to take away the enriched material, halt the enrichment and dismantle the facility in Qom.
Obviously, Netanyahu intends that no offer the Iranians could accept ever be made. It's also obvious that the material he demands Iran to give up, produced under IAEA scrutiny, is not weapons grade, and never will be if IAEA supervision continues.

What I've offered does not conflict with what the IAEA says they want, at all- additional protocols, greater safeguards. And yet the US somehow manages to avoid making any proposal consistent with stated IAEA positions, and manages to give the impression that the official IAEA position is the same as our own & that of Israel, when it's not. The security council adopts the US position wrt Iranian enrichment, even as the official IAEA position remains unchanged. The whole of the UN never gets to say yea or nay, at all.

Under Amano's leadership and obvious US pressure, the IAEA plays along with the ruse, refusing to stay within its mandate, generating propaganda at every opportunity.

The apparent truth of the matter is that if Iran ceases enrichment temporarily, then the demand will escalate to permanent cessation, even though the NPT allows them to do so.

Your reference to "trust" is specious. We'll never trust the Iranians, nor they us. The real issues are supervision & confirmation that Iran is, indeed, producing only reactor grade materials, and that they're not diverting reactor byproducts to weapons production. If no weapons grade materials are produced, no weapons can exist, which was the stated intent of the NPT in the first place, to allow member states to enrich their own fuel with safeguards suitable to prevent the creation of weapons grade material.

I fail to see how what I've offered contradicts that, either.
 
Last edited:
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Ok TLC, by your own definition, Parchin meets the definition of Iranian sites the IAEA has no business inspecting.
Parchin does meet the definition if Iran was researching uranium deuteride triggers there, which is what was suspected and claimed.

And as the IAEA turns such inspection information to Israel, and Israel in turn uses it to murder Iranian scientists ( a fact admitted by US intel ), Iran is understanding concerned about too broad IAEA inspection bounds.
Please provide a link to this "fact."

Oh well, next step, the international community will meet in Instanbul. IMHO, hopefully Israel will not be allowed to participate.

As I stand foursquare for making the entire mid-east into a nuclear weapons free zone.
The only thing you appear to stand foursquare in is an over-the-top, deep-seated hatred of Israel that biases and skews practically everything you post regarding the subject.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
So....

what you're trying to say is our attack on Iran will be very short and very successful in dismantling Iran's infrastructure and military capabilities!

Thanks for the vote of confidence! :D



Honestly, while I don't know about your full assessment of the Middle East, I will say that the region is the most peaceful and least dangerous it has been in my lifetime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Au contrare Cubby, I said nothing of the kind, Iraq may have been militarily weak paper Tiger, Iran is made of far sterner stuff. And loaded with antitank weapons and 3x the population of Iraq.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
So, uhh, obviously Parchin is not such a facility, at all, nor has the IAEA alleged it to be, correct? They have not claimed to have any information as to the existence of any nuclear material at that facility. Why, then, do they claim it's their job to go there, again?
It's not so obvious. See my response to LL.

The rest? The demands, not requests, being made on Iran are inconsistent. The US demands they stop enrichment entirely, while the IAEA demands they adopt additional protocols. Netanyahu's demands are even greater-

Obviously, Netanyahu intends that no offer the Iranians could accept ever be made. It's also obvious that the material he demands Iran to give up, produced under IAEA scrutiny, is not weapons grade, and never will be if IAEA supervision continues.

What I've offered does not conflict with what the IAEA says they want, at all- additional protocols, greater safeguards. And yet the US somehow manages to avoid making any proposal consistent with stated IAEA positions, and manages to give the impression that the official IAEA position is the same as our own & that of Israel, when it's not. The security council adopts the US position wrt Iranian enrichment, even as the official IAEA position remains unchanged. The whole of the UN never gets to say yea or nay, at all.

Under Amano's leadership and obvious US pressure, the IAEA plays along with the ruse, refusing to stay within its mandate, generating propaganda at every opportunity.

The apparent truth of the matter is that if Iran ceases enrichment temporarily, then the demand will escalate to permanent cessation, even though the NPT allows them to do so.

Your reference to "trust" is specious. We'll never trust the Iranians, nor they us. The real issues are supervision & confirmation that Iran is, indeed, producing only reactor grade materials, and that they're not diverting reactor byproducts to weapons production. If no weapons grade materials are produced, no weapons can exist, which was the stated intent of the NPT in the first place, to allow member states to enrich their own fuel with safeguards suitable to prevent the creation of weapons grade material.

I fail to see how what I've offered contradicts that, either.
The trust I speak of is not any sort of implicit trust. That will never happen. The "trust" is building confidence that Iran is properly adhering to their duties under the NPT. The Iranians have been abusing that confidence for years.

Nor is it a 2-way deal. The IAEA doesn't have to prove anything to Iran. It's Iran that has everything to prove. When they go off and build nuclear enrichment sites and don't disclose those sites until later in the game (which, btw, goes against the NPT treaty despite your claims) it does not instill confidence or trust. It implies that Iran is being sneaky and a bit less than honest.

The onus is completely on Iran in this case. Stop trying to turn it around.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,556
3,090
126
Oh well, next step, the international community will meet in Instanbul. IMHO, hopefully Israel will not be allowed to participate.

As I stand foursquare for making the entire mid-east into a nuclear weapons free zone.
Of course you stand for making the entire middle east a nuclear free zone.....

If that were to happen eventually there would be no Israel....
As it stands now Israel supposedly has a nuclear deterrent.
Without that deterrent Israels enemies would IMO en masse get together into one super large attack force and attack Israel....

Of course you do not want Israel to have any sort of deterrent.......
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,752
13,873
136
It's not so obvious. See my response to LL.


The trust I speak of is not any sort of implicit trust. That will never happen. The "trust" is building confidence that Iran is properly adhering to their duties under the NPT. The Iranians have been abusing that confidence for years.

Nor is it a 2-way deal. The IAEA doesn't have to prove anything to Iran. It's Iran that has everything to prove. When they go off and build nuclear enrichment sites and don't disclose those sites until later in the game (which, btw, goes against the NPT treaty despite your claims) it does not instill confidence or trust. It implies that Iran is being sneaky and a bit less than honest.

The onus is completely on Iran in this case. Stop trying to turn it around.
You need to back up the attributions as to Iran violating the terms of the NPT in building sites. The NPT calls for such sites to be made known to the IAEA 6 months prior to the introduction of nuclear materials, not in advance of construction or during construction. Just because the Bush Admin scored a propaganda coup wrt Natanz, revealing its existence before Iran did so, doesn't mean that nuclear materials were introduced in violation of the NPT. There is a difference.

You also need to concede the point wrt Parchin, as well, given that you've successfully linked yourself into that corner.

As I've offered, this isn't about what the IAEA has claimed to want, but about what the US wants, which is an end to Iranian enrichment efforts under any and all circumstances, something not consistent with the provisions of the NPT, at all. OTOH, we have the Iranian position that they have the right to their own enrichment program under IAEA supervision, which is consistent with the NPT. We also have their offer of taking on an international business concern as partners to operate their enrichment facilities.

I doubt they'll back away from that, particularly considering the existence of their hardened facility at Fordow and their ability to widely disperse other components of nuclear activity.

If we want them to become hell-bent on creating nuclear weapons, I know how to do that- attack, and be prepared to keep on doing so for years to come. Be prepared to deal with other incalculable consequences, as well.

If we want them to refrain from creating nukes, it seems to me that the best way to accomplish that is by making the kind of proposal I offered earlier.

If we just need some sort of boogeyman, as the Bush Admin obviously did, then we can just maintain the current impasse, courting the risk of the Netanyahu govt getting really stupid, dragging us into a war we neither want nor need.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,556
3,090
126
You need to back up the attributions as to Iran violating the terms of the NPT in building sites. The NPT calls for such sites to be made known to the IAEA 6 months prior to the introduction of nuclear materials, not in advance of construction or during construction. Just because the Bush Admin scored a propaganda coup wrt Natanz, revealing its existence before Iran did so, doesn't mean that nuclear materials were introduced in violation of the NPT. There is a difference.

You also need to concede the point wrt Parchin, as well, given that you've successfully linked yourself into that corner.

As I've offered, this isn't about what the IAEA has claimed to want, but about what the US wants, which is an end to Iranian enrichment efforts under any and all circumstances, something not consistent with the provisions of the NPT, at all. OTOH, we have the Iranian position that they have the right to their own enrichment program under IAEA supervision, which is consistent with the NPT. We also have their offer of taking on an international business concern as partners to operate their enrichment facilities.

I doubt they'll back away from that, particularly considering the existence of their hardened facility at Fordow and their ability to widely disperse other components of nuclear activity.

If we want them to become hell-bent on creating nuclear weapons, I know how to do that- attack, and be prepared to keep on doing so for years to come. Be prepared to deal with other incalculable consequences, as well.

If we want them to refrain from creating nukes, it seems to me that the best way to accomplish that is by making the kind of proposal I offered earlier.

If we just need some sort of boogeyman, as the Bush Admin obviously did, then we can just maintain the current impasse, courting the risk of the Netanyahu govt getting really stupid, dragging us into a war we neither want nor need.
Talk about mis-information and double speak....you really took the time to type is gooofy gobbledy beloved patriot stuff???

What does tasteLikeChiken need to back up?? Nothing......
There is no sense trying to back up anything that you will taker out of context anyways......
So far TasteLikeChiken has supported his stance quite well.....

You on the other hand still believe there are inspectors as we speak in Iran....thats sad since it was proven to you that the IAEA has pulled all inspectors out....
Why are there no inspectors in Iran presently? Refer to TasteLikeChikens previous post --
The trust I speak of is not any sort of implicit trust. That will never happen. The "trust" is building confidence that Iran is properly adhering to their duties under the NPT. The Iranians have been abusing that confidence for years.

Nor is it a 2-way deal. The IAEA doesn't have to prove anything to Iran. It's Iran that has everything to prove. When they go off and build nuclear enrichment sites and don't disclose those sites until later in the game (which, btw, goes against the NPT treaty despite your claims) it does not instill confidence or trust. It implies that Iran is being sneaky and a bit less than honest.

The onus is completely on Iran in this case. Stop trying to turn it around.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY