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

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
As for me, as a keyboard commando on P&N, having thick skin is requirement. After all, universal adoration on P&N may be desirable politically correct outcome, but my goal is and remains to be proved correct in the end. And when that end usually remains not instantaneous, see the part about having a thick skin.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
From that same pdf
Again, so what?

Iran's obligations under the NPT are to enrich uranium & handle nuclear materials only under IAEA supervision, and to refrain from the manufacture of nuclear weapons grade materials & nuclear weapons themselves. The rest of the "issues" are a smokescreen, designed to pressure Iran into ceasing enrichment entirely, which is what the US & Israel want, and threaten military action if Iran doesn't comply.

If no weapons grade materials are produced, then no weapons can possibly exist, which is the general extent of the IAEA mandate in Iran, to see that such doesn't happen, and they claim that it has not.

Iran's new underground facility at Fordow changes the situation drastically, because their potential to breakout into creation of nuclear weapons is limited only by their own desires. Only nuclear attack or invasion changes that. So we need to back away from our threat posture and make a deal that will further enhance IAEA capabilities in Iran & their desire to cooperate.

That's reality, and Israeli airstrikes would only change that for the worse.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Again, so what?

Iran's obligations under the NPT are to enrich uranium & handle nuclear materials only under IAEA supervision, and to refrain from the manufacture of nuclear weapons grade materials & nuclear weapons themselves. The rest of the "issues" are a smokescreen, designed to pressure Iran into ceasing enrichment entirely, which is what the US & Israel want, and threaten military action if Iran doesn't comply.

If no weapons grade materials are produced, then no weapons can possibly exist, which is the general extent of the IAEA mandate in Iran, to see that such doesn't happen, and they claim that it has not.

Iran's new underground facility at Fordow changes the situation drastically, because their potential to breakout into creation of nuclear weapons is limited only by their own desires. Only nuclear attack or invasion changes that. So we need to back away from our threat posture and make a deal that will further enhance IAEA capabilities in Iran & their desire to cooperate.

That's reality, and Israeli airstrikes would only change that for the worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Jhhnn makes a semi-valid point, it would be Iranian stupidity in the extreme to ever attempt to become a nuclear weapons power by enriching U235 to the required 95% level.
At the rate, it would take Iran a dozen years or so to produce one U235 bomb and another 12 years to add a second bomb.

When the fast way for any country to become a nuclear weapons power is to build breeder reactors that produce plutonium in large quantities from spent fuel rods. Since a breeder reactor requires U235 levels of 30% or better and built with special designs, no existing Iranian reactor is a breeder type. And if Iran is willing to turn over spent fuel rods and refrain from building breeder reactors, Iran will never become a nuclear weapons threat.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Jhhnn makes a semi-valid point, it would be Iranian stupidity in the extreme to ever attempt to become a nuclear weapons power by enriching U235 to the required 95% level.
At the rate, it would take Iran a dozen years or so to produce one U235 bomb and another 12 years to add a second bomb.

When the fast way for any country to become a nuclear weapons power is to build breeder reactors that produce plutonium in large quantities from spent fuel rods. Since a breeder reactor requires U235 levels of 30% or better and built with special designs, no existing Iranian reactor is a breeder type. And if Iran is willing to turn over spent fuel rods and refrain from building breeder reactors, Iran will never become a nuclear weapons threat.
I don't think that's entirely accurate, LL, considering that both Israel & the US seem to think that Fordow is a game changer. I really don't pretend to understand nuclear technology much beyond an educated layman's level, but a variety of sources seem to think that it'd take a lot less time than that. None of which really matters if the IAEA keeps on doing their job in Iran, and particularly if an agreement wrt additional protocols can be reached & enforced. No weapons grade materials produced means no weapons can be produced.

I'm confident we can agree on that, as can any reasonable person regardless of their nationality or ideology.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
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 keep making the claim about "6 months" yet haven't backed it up. But to prove you wrong:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf


DESIGN INFORMATION
General provisions
Article 42
Pursuant to Article 8, design information in respect of existing facilities shall be provided to the Agency during the discussion of the Subsidiary Arrangements. The time limits for the provision of design information in respect of the new facilities shall be specified in the Subsidiary Arrangements and such information shall be provided as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced into a new
facility.

6 months? Don't see where it says that at all.

Edit: Per a modified agreement:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf


46. The modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement
provides for the submission to the Agency of design information for new facilities as soon as the decision
to construct, or to authorize construction of, a new facility has been taken, whichever is the earlier. The
modified Code 3.1 also provides for the submission of fuller design information as the design is developed
early in the project definition, preliminary design, construction and commissioning phases. Iran remains
the only State with significant nuclear activities in which the Agency is implementing a comprehensive
safeguards agreement but which is not implementing the provisions of the modified Code 3.1.​
36 The
Agency is still awaiting receipt from Iran of updated design information for the IR-40 Reactor, and further
information pursuant to statements it has made concerning the planned construction of new uranium
enrichment facilities and the design of a reactor similar to TRR.
37

47. As reported previously, Iran’s response to Agency requests for Iran to confirm or provide further
information regarding its statements concerning its intention to construct new nuclear facilities is that it
would provide the Agency with the required information in “due time” rather than as required by the​
modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to its Safeguards Agreement.
38


Looks like that puts your "6 months" claim to bed, Jhhnn.

You also need to concede the point wrt Parchin, as well, given that you've successfully linked yourself into that corner.
If Parchin was used to test nuclear triggers, as the government of Iran itself admitted, that would mean they used nuclear matierals to do so and that would place it under the purview of the IAEA. So, no, I don't need to concede any point whatsoever.

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.
Frankly, I don't care about your paranoid opinions about how the IAEA is allegedly the puppet of the USA.

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.
Iran had the chance to do their own enrichment in the past. The problem was their failure to comply with the IAEA mandates. Now you are claiming that if they are allowed to enrich their own nuclear fuel, that will suddenly cause them to become fully compliant and avoid all issues? Sorry, but I don't see the logic in that.
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
We can take two TLC quotes,

(1) "Frankly, I don't care about your paranoid opinions about how the IAEA is allegedly the puppet of the USA."

In short TLC, you don't debate rationally or even bother to demonstrate an alternate viewpoint is false, you appoint YOURSELF Judge, jury and executioner of right v wrong.

(2) "Iran had the chance to do their own enrichment in the past. The problem was their failure to comply with the IAEA mandates. Now you are claiming that if they are allowed to enrich their own nuclear fuel, that will suddenly cause them to become fully compliant and avoid all issues? Sorry, but I don't see the logic in that."

First of all, I don't believe Jhhnn ever claimed that if Iran kept enriching Uranium to the 20% level, it would legitimize their program. Then you cite a 1974 agreement between the IAEA and the Shah of Iran no longer valid to day, so i have to say, TLC, I see no logic in your position.

But then we have to go back to the Non Nuclear weapons treaty that Iran is a signatory of, that states "ALL" nations can use nuclear power to generate electricity. And as authorities like Pinetta, SEC of State Clinton, and even Israeli authorities state, there is absolutely no proof that Iran intends to build nuclear weapons. And even if that is Iran's intent, Iran could not possibly complete such a bomb for 2.5 years. But if Iran wants to electrify their own country using nuclear power, they will need to enrich vast quantities of Uranium to the 20% level. And also build a large number of nuclear reactors. And so far is legally proceeding. Or alternately, Iran can simply legally with draw from any agreements with the IAEA. And in doing so, become just as legitimate as Israel.

In other words TLC, your Paranoia and Israel's paranoia need a level of proof simply lacking. Your argument on that point is remarkably similar to a birther.

As for Iran burying their nuclear sites, they learned from the lesson of Iraq. And had it confirmed in Syria.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
In short TLC, you don't debate rationally or even bother to demonstrate an alternate viewpoint is false, you appoint YOURSELF Judge, jury and executioner of right v wrong.
Rational debate doesn't involve unsubstantiated, paranoid claims. Maybe in your own little fantasyland of debate it does though since you make such claims so frequently.


First of all, I don't believe Jhhnn ever claimed that if Iran kept enriching Uranium to the 20% level, it would legitimize their program. Then you cite a 1974 agreement between the IAEA and the Shah of Iran no longer valid to day, so i have to say, TLC, I see no logic in your position.
You don't see logic because you're an ignorant fool, like usual. The agreement is the original NPT treaty that Iran signed. Iran is still a party to the agreement to this very day and it is still valid. Who signed it doesn't make one iota of difference.

But then we have to go back to the Non Nuclear weapons treaty that Iran is a signatory of, that states "ALL" nations can use nuclear power to generate electricity. And as authorities like Pinetta, SEC of State Clinton, and even Israeli authorities state, there is absolutely no proof that Iran intends to build nuclear weapons. And even if that is Iran's intent, Iran could not possibly complete such a bomb for 2.5 years. But if Iran wants to electrify their own country using nuclear power, they will need to enrich vast quantities of Uranium to the 20% level. And also build a large number of nuclear reactors. And so far is legally proceeding. Or alternately, Iran can simply legally with draw from any agreements with the IAEA. And in doing so, become just as legitimate as Israel.

In other words TLC, your Paranoia and Israel's paranoia need a level of proof simply lacking. Your argument on that point is remarkably similar to a birther.

As for Iran burying their nuclear sites, they learned from the lesson of Iraq. And had it confirmed in Syria.
If Iran wants to abide by the NPT they have to do so fully and openly, something they have not done in the past. If they do not abide by that agreement the IAEA can take their case to the Security Council and resolutions can be passed that limits what Iran can do until such time as Iran is deemed compliant with the treaty they signed on with. It's that simple and all your inane catterwauling about what ALL nations are allowed to do doesn't mean squat.

btw, in the future you might want to allow Jhhnn to craft his own responses to my replies to him. I imagine he winces a bit every time he sees you have jumped in with both feet, subsequently making a resounding thud, because you generally don't know what the hell you're talking about.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Well TLC, I find no evidence that you know what you are talking about either, so I will content myself with being proved right in the end. TLC, you can beat your own chest and contend you are infallible, you always do, while ignoring the fact that the world is slowly changing mostly in the directions I have predicted.

Only Time will tell TLC, and the international decisions will not be made because of you or me.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Well TLC, I find no evidence that you know what you are talking about either, so I will content myself with being proved right in the end. TLC, you can beat your own chest and contend you are infallible, you always do, while ignoring the fact that the world is slowly changing mostly in the directions I have predicted.

Only Time will tell TLC, and the international decisions will not be made because of you or me.
'Only time will blah, blah, blah.'

More blovaitions about how the world is slowly changing, just as you have predicted, all while you accuse others of chest beating. lol @ the irony and arrogance all rolled into one fruity little package that calls itself Lemon law.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
You keep making the claim about "6 months" yet haven't backed it up. But to prove you wrong:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf


6 months? Don't see where it says that at all.

Edit: Per a modified agreement:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf


[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Looks like that puts your "6 months" claim to bed, Jhhnn.
Not really. The six month proviso is referenced here-

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/29/us-nuclear-iran-plant-sb-idUSTRE58S16K20090929

So there's some dispute I hadn't been aware of, but Iran did not sign on to the 1992 protocol until after the natanz plant was built.

http://publicintelligence.net/iran-nuclear-site-natanz-uranium-enrichment-site/


If Parchin was used to test nuclear triggers, as the government of Iran itself admitted, that would mean they used nuclear matierals to do so and that would place it under the purview of the IAEA. So, no, I don't need to concede any point whatsoever.
Nuclear triggers references the high explosive devices used to create an implosion setting off a fission reaction, and would obviously not contain fissionable materials in a research setting, but only in an actual nuclear explosion. Your claim is specious & inaccurate, not supported by any IAEA claim ever made. The agreement you reference makes no mention whatsoever to "nuclear weapons related activities", at all, but rather strictly to the steps involved in the acquisition & handling of nuclear materials themselves. That is the extent of the current IAEA mandate in Iran. They've made no such admission, anyway.
Frankly, I don't care about your paranoid opinions about how the IAEA is allegedly the puppet of the USA.


Iran had the chance to do their own enrichment in the past. The problem was their failure to comply with the IAEA mandates. Now you are claiming that if they are allowed to enrich their own nuclear fuel, that will suddenly cause them to become fully compliant and avoid all issues? Sorry, but I don't see the logic in that.
Mere assertion on your part. You offer no sources in reference to the "chance", merely claim it existed. Nor has the IAEA claimed Iran to be in violation of any actual agreement, but rather accused them of activities outside of existing agreements. There is a difference, whether you choose to recognize it or not. Where there is no law, there can be no crime.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Not really. The six month proviso is referenced here-

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/29/us-nuclear-iran-plant-sb-idUSTRE58S16K20090929

So there's some dispute I hadn't been aware of, but Iran did not sign on to the 1992 protocol until after the natanz plant was built.
I have referenced actual UN documents to back up my claim. You are relying on a single sentence in a news article that provides no citation whatsoever for that claim. That's not to mention that it directly contradicts the information I have already linked regarding the IAEA/Iran agreements.

You will have to do better than that if you want to prove your case, Jhhnn.

Nuclear triggers references the high explosive devices used to create an implosion setting off a fission reaction, and would obviously not contain fissionable materials in a research setting, but only in an actual nuclear explosion. Your claim is specious & inaccurate, not supported by any IAEA claim ever made. The agreement you reference makes no mention whatsoever to "nuclear weapons related activities", at all, but rather strictly to the steps involved in the acquisition & handling of nuclear materials themselves. That is the extent of the current IAEA mandate in Iran. They've made no such admission, anyway.
Are you just ignoring the recent resolutions and pretending they don't exist?

Part of the IAEA mandate as well, despite all of your smoke and mirrors huffing and puffing, is to prevent Iran from using nuclear materials for military purposes. It's not simply limited to acquisition & handling. A read of the agreement, which I have already linked, verifies that. So stop with this lame claim that the IAEA is overstepping their bounds. They are not.

Mere assertion on your part. You offer no sources in reference to the "chance", merely claim it existed. Nor has the IAEA claimed Iran to be in violation of any actual agreement, but rather accused them of activities outside of existing agreements. There is a difference, whether you choose to recognize it or not. Where there is no law, there can be no crime.
Security Council Resolution after Resolution have taken Iran to task for not complying with IAEA mandates. You can refuse to believe that but your refusal doesn't change the facts.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
I have referenced actual UN documents to back up my claim. You are relying on a single sentence in a news article that provides no citation whatsoever for that claim. That's not to mention that it directly contradicts the information I have already linked regarding the IAEA/Iran agreements.

You will have to do better than that if you want to prove your case, Jhhnn.


Are you just ignoring the recent resolutions and pretending they don't exist?

Part of the IAEA mandate as well, despite all of your smoke and mirrors huffing and puffing, is to prevent Iran from using nuclear materials for military purposes. It's not simply limited to acquisition & handling. A read of the agreement, which I have already linked, verifies that. So stop with this lame claim that the IAEA is overstepping their bounds. They are not.


Security Council Resolution after Resolution have taken Iran to task for not complying with IAEA mandates. You can refuse to believe that but your refusal doesn't change the facts.
A read of the signed agreement reveals no such thing, TLC, and we both know it. Cite the treaty article prohibiting the kind of research that the IAEA has alleged. It doesn't exist.

What the IAEA wants & what Iran has agreed to in a legal sense are entirely different matters, particularly since the Iranian parliament hasn't authorized any subsequent agreements at all. It's like the executive branch of the US govt signing a treaty not subsequently affirmed by the Senate not having the force of law, and a lot of other non-binding international agreements.

Professor Joyner explains-

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2010/03/qom-enrichment-facility-was-iran.php

All of which brings us back around to reality.

Iran already possesses the capability to breakout into nuclear weapons production should they choose to do so. Attacking them will only insure they take that path, and nothing short of nuclear weapons or invasion can realistically stop them from doing so after they've been attacked. Israel lacks the might for it, plain and simple, and US interests fall short of the threshold required for such an adventure, particularly in light of the events of the last dozen years.

So we need to make a deal, or at least offer one, that will allow for Iranian enrichment with maximum safeguards against the production of weapons grade material. Short of war, and the incalculable consequences associated with it, that's the best we'll get.

Other approaches merely allow for the Netanyahu govt to drag us into a war we don't need or want, basically allowing them to dictate US policy. Their obvious contempt for us would be well deserved if we allowed that to happen.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Iran is not interested in any deals.

They feel they can decide what van and will be inspected. Sanctions SA a result of that attitude are being applied. Iran had acknowledged tbat hit has SN impact, yet they state they can go it alone for next 3+ years

So what are concessions benefiting Iran. Makes them look weak
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
Iran is not interested in any deals.

They feel they can decide what van and will be inspected. Sanctions SA a result of that attitude are being applied. Iran had acknowledged tbat hit has SN impact, yet they state they can go it alone for next 3+ years

So what are concessions benefiting Iran. Makes them look weak
How can that be said when no such deal has ever been offered?

All the current bluster revolves around alleged "nuclear weapons related activity" which isn't the point of the NPT or the work of the IAEA in Iran or anywhere else. That's where IAEA inspections of nuclear facilities cuts through the crap. If no weapons grade materials are produced, then no weapons can exist.

The rest of it is just the same rationale that led us to the invasion of Iraq.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
A year ago, Russia was offering to process material for Iran.

Iran said NO!
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Gotta love the consistent EK position, as he states, "Iran is not interested in any deals."

When the evidence is before our very eyes, the Iran laid out such a very attractive deal in the very recent Istanbul meeting.

As EK, endlessly States the Palestinian are also not interesting in negotiating either when its almost certainly more true of Netanyuhu.

Pray tell us EK, what makes you such an expert on the thinking of the leaders of nations you don't like? Or is it merely nothing more than your knee jerk opinion? (also known as propaganda )
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
A year ago, Russia was offering to process material for Iran.

Iran said NO!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its my understanding that what you said is only partly true, Russia did indeed make that offer, but it extended to only enough lowly enriched Uranium to power one peace time nuclear reactor. While Iranian peacetime nuclear power plans will require vast quantities of lowly enriched U235 to power many many peacetime nuclear reactors.

So its understandable why Iran said no. And why should we, in the West, want Iran to become dependent on Russia?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
it was a starting point to solve the issue.
It was refused outright.

Not by the West, but by Iran
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Gotta love the consistent EK position, as he states, "Iran is not interested in any deals."

When the evidence is before our very eyes, the Iran laid out such a very attractive deal in the very recent Istanbul meeting.

As EK, endlessly States the Palestinian are also not interesting in negotiating either when its almost certainly more true of Netanyuhu.

Pray tell us EK, what makes you such an expert on the thinking of the leaders of nations you don't like? Or is it merely nothing more than your knee jerk opinion? (also known as propaganda )
I have you as an example as an "expert".

Iran's position - "You can look anywhere we allow you to."
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
They have every right to be free of politics;

However, they chose to accept oversight of the IAEA.

They did not claim the right to pick and chose what rules they wanted.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY