• 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 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
"Noting" is not the same as claiming a violation of the original agreement has occurred, although it's pretty spiffy for propaganda purposes. Claiming that diplomacy has "failed" is a stretch, considering that Iran apparently hasn't created nuclear weapons and that there is no war.
Riigghhht. Noting where Iran failed to comply with their obligations isn't highlighting a violation. Why it's nothing but propaganda. :rolleyes:

C'mon Jhhnn. You can do better than that lame sort of profuse apologism for Iran.

And it's already obvious that we're backing away from some of our demands, given that talks are occurring even as Iran is still enriching uranium...

Under the heading of possible areas of cooperation with Iran-



So we claim we won't even talk until they do what we want, but we're talking anyway... Go figure.
Would you rather we just bomb the crap out of them immediately without making any further attempt at diplomacy?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
As Chicken man asks, "Would you rather we just bomb the crap out of them immediately without making any further attempt at diplomacy?"

As again the question becomes who is "WE", and what makes "us" so sure 'WE" won't be on the Losing side of being blamed by the larger world?

Any idiot can start a fight, the question is who wins in the final end. Maybe the doctrine of Brevic and our own grinning psychopath who tried and failed to kill gabby Gifford.

If that same shoe fits, TLC, wear it proudly. As TLC, you seemingly fail to lack the wit, to realize that every past brainfart of grander seldom translates into a victory. World history is littered with examples to the contrary.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
As Chicken man asks, "Would you rather we just bomb the crap out of them immediately without making any further attempt at diplomacy?"

As again the question becomes who is "WE", and what makes "us" so sure 'WE" won't be on the Losing side of being blamed by the larger world?

Any idiot can start a fight, the question is who wins in the final end. Maybe the doctrine of Brevic and our own grinning psychopath who tried and failed to kill gabby Gifford.

If that same shoe fits, TLC, wear it proudly. As TLC, you seemingly fail to lack the wit, to realize that every past brainfart of grander seldom translates into a victory. World history is littered with examples to the contrary.
It appears that my question has completely gone over the head of P&N's resident sour fruit.

Who is "we?" We is whomever. Unlike you I don't entertain the outrageous arrogance of pretending to speak for the rest of the world purely based on my own opinion.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
Riigghhht. Noting where Iran failed to comply with their obligations isn't highlighting a violation. Why it's nothing but propaganda. :rolleyes:

C'mon Jhhnn. You can do better than that lame sort of profuse apologism for Iran.
If it were a part of their treaty obligations, it'd be a violation, but it's not, not part of their "obligations" at all. It's just what the IAEA wants, rather than an agreed upon aspect of their relationship with Iran. There is a difference, no matter how badly you want to deny it.


Would you rather we just bomb the crap out of them immediately without making any further attempt at diplomacy?
I'd rather that Iran adopt the additional protocols wrt their enrichment program, and that we & the Israelis quit threatening to bomb them even if they do. Putting preconditions on that just means it's less likely to happen.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
If it were a part of their treaty obligations, it'd be a violation, but it's not, not part of their "obligations" at all. It's just what the IAEA wants, rather than an agreed upon aspect of their relationship with Iran. There is a difference, no matter how badly you want to deny it.
Wrong. Iran violated the agreement, specifically articles 59 through 67.

I'd rather that Iran adopt the additional protocols wrt their enrichment program, and that we & the Israelis quit threatening to bomb them even if they do. Putting preconditions on that just means it's less likely to happen.
I'd rather Iran comply with the terms they agreed to and stop their public rhetoric about the destruction of Israel. It would go a long way to defusing the situation.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
Wrong. Iran violated the agreement, specifically articles 59 through 67.
Hogwash. Articles 59-67 deal with accountancy, and the IAEA has not alleged any discrepancies between input & product output.


I'd rather Iran comply with the terms they agreed to and stop their public rhetoric about the destruction of Israel. It would go a long way to defusing the situation.
A single remark from years ago is getting beaten to death, but you want them to stop the rhetoric, as if it's intensified in the meanwhile, when it hasn't, at all. The only intensification of rhetoric is coming from the Netanyahu govt, as posted in the other current thread.

I'm sure you'd rather have a pony, too, but you probably won't get one of those, either. It seems highly unlikely that Iran will cease enrichment under any circumstance short of war, or that our interests justify that, provided that Iranian enrichment is properly supervised by the IAEA. Their hardened facility at Fordow and stockpiles of 20% enriched uranium are their ace in the hole, their ability to breakout into weapons production under the proper provocation, and any attack on them would obviously be sufficient.

So we need an agreement that will give us the proper assurances & evidence of their non-production of weapons grade material, which the IAEA claims they can provide under the additional protocols. It's very much in our interests to make such an offer, regardless of past posturing or behavior on the part of any of the players. This is our opportunity to put the past behind us & to set a course towards safer & saner relations, if we're willing to take it.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,401
3,048
126
actually TLC is spot on when he makes observations about you!!

HGe also correctly coined another phrase -- You Jhhnn are an apologist for Iran...now thats spot on!!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Hogwash. Articles 59-67 deal with accountancy, and the IAEA has not alleged any discrepancies between input & product output.
When Iran enriches fuel to 20% it automatically changes input & output which changes accountancy and inventories, which is exactly what Articles 59 - 67 deal with.

A single remark from years ago is getting beaten to death, but you want them to stop the rhetoric, as if it's intensified in the meanwhile, when it hasn't, at all. The only intensification of rhetoric is coming from the Netanyahu govt, as posted in the other current thread.
There is far, far more than a single remark. I have posted some of them in another thread not too long ago.

I'm sure you'd rather have a pony, too, but you probably won't get one of those, either.
No, I don't want a pony and never have. Unsurprisingly, you are wrong once again in this thread. Congrats on batting 1000 so far.

It seems highly unlikely that Iran will cease enrichment under any circumstance short of war, or that our interests justify that, provided that Iranian enrichment is properly supervised by the IAEA. Their hardened facility at Fordow and stockpiles of 20% enriched uranium are their ace in the hole, their ability to breakout into weapons production under the proper provocation, and any attack on them would obviously be sufficient.

So we need an agreement that will give us the proper assurances & evidence of their non-production of weapons grade material, which the IAEA claims they can provide under the additional protocols. It's very much in our interests to make such an offer, regardless of past posturing or behavior on the part of any of the players. This is our opportunity to put the past behind us & to set a course towards safer & saner relations, if we're willing to take it.
You either don't want to comprehend, or refuse to accept, that the onus to make things right is completely on Iran and nobody else. They don't need to be accommodated. The IAEA doesn't need to renegotiate any terms. Iran needs to follow the terms they already agreed to.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
You either don't want to comprehend, or refuse to accept, that the onus to make things right is completely on Iran and nobody else. They don't need to be accommodated. The IAEA doesn't need to renegotiate any terms. Iran needs to follow the terms they already agreed to.
Circling back to the same assertions of blame, as if there isn't plenty to go around. Nowhere in any of the proposals yet offered is there any recognition of the right of Iran as a NPT member to enrich their own nuclear fuel, but such is obvious in the original NPT itself. Yet you put the onus entirely on Iran to follow the terms they agreed to, with enrichment being one of them. We want to deny them that right, regardless of any sort of safeguards, and that is the crux of the matter entirely.

Your bit about articles 59-67 is entirely specious. Of course enrichment of any kind changes the numbers. X input of raw uranium = Y output of enriched uranium (20% or whatever) + Z remainder of depleted uranium, and nobody has claimed that Iran's numbers don't match.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Circling back to the same assertions of blame, as if there isn't plenty to go around. Nowhere in any of the proposals yet offered is there any recognition of the right of Iran as a NPT member to enrich their own nuclear fuel, but such is obvious in the original NPT itself. Yet you put the onus entirely on Iran to follow the terms they agreed to, with enrichment being one of them. We want to deny them that right, regardless of any sort of safeguards, and that is the crux of the matter entirely.
The NPT already states that. However, as I already told you previously, the IAEA is a party to the UN Charter and, by treaty, has an obligation to uphold that charter. If the Security Council decides to have Iran suspend enrichment until they are determined to be in compliance, that's within their authority. iow, it's the SC making the demand, a determination that's made according to UN Charter, not NPT or IAEA mandates.

Your bit about articles 59-67 is entirely specious. Of course enrichment of any kind changes the numbers. X input of raw uranium = Y output of enriched uranium (20% or whatever) + Z remainder of depleted uranium, and nobody has claimed that Iran's numbers don't match.
So the IAEA has been given those numbers by Iran and has been allowed to verify them?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
The NPT already states that. However, as I already told you previously, the IAEA is a party to the UN Charter and, by treaty, has an obligation to uphold that charter. If the Security Council decides to have Iran suspend enrichment until they are determined to be in compliance, that's within their authority. iow, it's the SC making the demand, a determination that's made according to UN Charter, not NPT or IAEA mandates.


So the IAEA has been given those numbers by Iran and has been allowed to verify them?
Sounds great, except that, as you offer, the Security Council will likely never sanction military action against Iran, meaning that any action would have to be in violation of the Charter you claim we're trying to uphold. It cuts both ways, particularly wrt Israel, who is considered a pariah state among UN members, if not in the US. So we'd have to violate the charter to uphold it, one of those destroy the village to save it deals.

If Iran's numbers didn't hold up to IAEA scrutiny, they'd be screaming bloody murder, and we both know it, rather than voicing "concerns", their version of trolling.

I try to realize that there are two sides to every story, and also try to recognize when we're being propagandized to serve a hidden agenda, in this case, war with Iran. It's being puffed up as a "We don't have any choice!" song & dance, when that's far from true, when war serves the US not at all, but rather the aims of the Netanyahu govt entirely. They'll manipulate us into serving their interests over our own, if possible, and we'd be fools to allow it.

When an Israeli patriot like Meir Dagan offers that the Iranians are rational and his own govt is not, America needs to engage in some serious introspection, understand our own emotional natures, maintain vigilance against being goaded into a war we don't really want against another country that will never pose an existential threat to us or likely even Israel herself. Yet the Netanyahu govt acts as if they are, which is the nature of paranoid delusion.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Sounds great, except that, as you offer, the Security Council will likely never sanction military action against Iran, meaning that any action would have to be in violation of the Charter you claim we're trying to uphold. It cuts both ways, particularly wrt Israel, who is considered a pariah state among UN members, if not in the US. So we'd have to violate the charter to uphold it, one of those destroy the village to save it deals.
What I stated is that the US and Israel will take it further because the UN won't. Iran knows this and is playing a game with it, a game in which they ultimately have much more to lose in the long run.

If Iran's numbers didn't hold up to IAEA scrutiny, they'd be screaming bloody murder, and we both know it, rather than voicing "concerns", their version of trolling.

I try to realize that there are two sides to every story, and also try to recognize when we're being propagandized to serve a hidden agenda, in this case, war with Iran. It's being puffed up as a "We don't have any choice!" song & dance, when that's far from true, when war serves the US not at all, but rather the aims of the Netanyahu govt entirely. They'll manipulate us into serving their interests over our own, if possible, and we'd be fools to allow it.

When an Israeli patriot like Meir Dagan offers that the Iranians are rational and his own govt is not, America needs to engage in some serious introspection, understand our own emotional natures, maintain vigilance against being goaded into a war we don't really want against another country that will never pose an existential threat to us or likely even Israel herself. Yet the Netanyahu govt acts as if they are, which is the nature of paranoid delusion.
You have played the Meir Dagan card so many times already in P&N that it loses further meaning with each additional one.

Iran is the one who needs to be introspective and realize that they don't really want to goad Israel or the US into a war. Complying with the current requests would be in everyone's best interests.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
What I stated is that the US and Israel will take it further because the UN won't. Iran knows this and is playing a game with it, a game in which they ultimately have much more to lose in the long run.
So when we use the UN and the charter as a foil, it's fine, but we can just discard that when it suits our purposes. Got it.

You have played the Meir Dagan card so many times already in P&N that it loses further meaning with each additional one.

Iran is the one who needs to be introspective and realize that they don't really want to goad Israel or the US into a war. Complying with the current requests would be in everyone's best interests.
It's not just Dagan, but a growing chorus of other voices in Israel. And so long as Iran confines herself to production of fuel grade materials under IAEA supervision there is insufficient justification for military action by the US. Israeli action would be even worse, given that it would be a declaration of war against the countries between Israel & Iran, something very much against US interests. None of them would have the support of their people in enabling Israel.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,401
3,048
126
It's not just Dagan, but a growing chorus of other voices in Israel.
Now your talking as if you are Lemon laws brother......
Show me absolute proof that their is a movement in Israel that says Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons......

Where are those growing number of voices that you speak about....

Concerning Meir Dagan, even ex-directors of MOSSAD are entitled to their opinion.

Out of respect for the man -- I leave you this from the The Jerusalem Post -- Even without relating to these specific operations, anyone familiar with Dagan’s years in the Mossad up close can attest to the fact that reality has surpassed all imagination. The nature of covert operations is such that only failures receive exposure. Success is dependent on the enemy being unaware of the operation’s very existence. In briefly summing up Dagan’s tenure, I choose to characterize it by the fact that 99 percent of the operations he initiated and carried out will never become public knowledge, and that is the greatest proof of their quality.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
So when we use the UN and the charter as a foil, it's fine, but we can just discard that when it suits our purposes. Got it.
You seem to want to allow Iran to ignore the resolutions against it and make the UN renegotiate so apparently you are just fine with doing that very thing when it suits your purpose.

It's not just Dagan, but a growing chorus of other voices in Israel. And so long as Iran confines herself to production of fuel grade materials under IAEA supervision there is insufficient justification for military action by the US. Israeli action would be even worse, given that it would be a declaration of war against the countries between Israel & Iran, something very much against US interests. None of them would have the support of their people in enabling Israel.
You're waxing rhetorically poetic like Lemon law now. A "growing chorus of other voices?" K.

As long as Iran continues to act untrustworthy, it doesn't matter. As I've told you already, the onus to prove that trust is solely on Iran and they have not done that at this point.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
You seem to want to allow Iran to ignore the resolutions against it and make the UN renegotiate so apparently you are just fine with doing that very thing when it suits your purpose.


You're waxing rhetorically poetic like Lemon law now. A "growing chorus of other voices?" K.

As long as Iran continues to act untrustworthy, it doesn't matter. As I've told you already, the onus to prove that trust is solely on Iran and they have not done that at this point.
Iran can't prove a negative any more than Iraq could or that sensible people who reject conspiracy theory in general can either.

Not to mention that the onus of waging war is on the perpetrators, and that justification for anybody waging war on Iran is sadly lacking.

Your arguments, and those of other war advocates, are basically catch-22's designed to appear plausible rather than to actually solve the stated problem, the issue that Iran "might" create nuclear weapons at some point in the future, even though it's obvious they cannot if they never produce weapons grade material, which the IAEA assures us they are not.

I don't advocate trusting them at all, but rather inducing them to accept even greater IAEA oversight, providing stronger evidence of their stated peaceful intentions. We won't get that with the current approach, so we need to alter our demands to have it.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Iran can't prove a negative any more than Iraq could or that sensible people who reject conspiracy theory in general can either.
Oh please. Don't go around tossing out false claims. Iran doesn't have to prove a negative. They have to comply with the obligations given to them. Stop trying to make them into the victim. It's their own fault that they are in this situation in the first place.

Not to mention that the onus of waging war is on the perpetrators, and that justification for anybody waging war on Iran is sadly lacking.

Your arguments, and those of other war advocates, are basically catch-22's designed to appear plausible rather than to actually solve the stated problem, the issue that Iran "might" create nuclear weapons at some point in the future, even though it's obvious they cannot if they never produce weapons grade material, which the IAEA assures us they are not.

I don't advocate trusting them at all, but rather inducing them to accept even greater IAEA oversight, providing stronger evidence of their stated peaceful intentions. We won't get that with the current approach, so we need to alter our demands to have it.
I'm not advocating war. I am advocating that Iran comply with existing demands and not be allowed to effectively dictate how the IAEA/UN is going to deal with them on this issue, because that is exactly what they are doing right now.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
Oh please. Don't go around tossing out false claims. Iran doesn't have to prove a negative. They have to comply with the obligations given to them. Stop trying to make them into the victim. It's their own fault that they are in this situation in the first place.
They have to "prove" that they're not engaging in weapons research, which is impossible, given the ability of western intelligence services to trump up claims against them, to prevent resumption of enrichment should they choose to stop. Iraqi WMD's seemed perfectly plausible to many people at the time, too, but they didn't exist other than as a propaganda construct to support war.

I'm not advocating war. I am advocating that Iran comply with existing demands and not be allowed to effectively dictate how the IAEA/UN is going to deal with them on this issue, because that is exactly what they are doing right now.
Of course you're advocating war, because Iran obviously won't comply with our demands as they currently stand. If they stop enrichment, we'll do everything we can to prevent them from starting up again, regardless of the facts. If they do, we'll just have another excuse to claim they've broken their agreements. From their perspective, it's better to continue, to assert their right, rather than to even intimate that what they're doing lacks legitimacy.

We won't get what we want short of war, and the consequences of that are entirely incalculable, so we need to settle for something less, something that will provide the best possible means to verify that they're not producing weapons grade material.

The rest is just simulated rationality in support of a predetermined goal that doesn't match reality.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
They have to "prove" that they're not engaging in weapons research, which is impossible, given the ability of western intelligence services to trump up claims against them, to prevent resumption of enrichment should they choose to stop. Iraqi WMD's seemed perfectly plausible to many people at the time, too, but they didn't exist other than as a propaganda construct to support war.
The proof they have to provide is to open up specific areas for inspection so the IAEA can have confidence that Iran is no longer engaging in such research. Iran doesn't have to prove any negatives in that respect, they simply have to comply with specific requests and allow the inspectors and IAEA to do their job. If Iran has nothing to hide then what's the big problem?

Of course you're advocating war, because Iran obviously won't comply with our demands as they currently stand. If they stop enrichment, we'll do everything we can to prevent them from starting up again, regardless of the facts. If they do, we'll just have another excuse to claim they've broken their agreements. From their perspective, it's better to continue, to assert their right, rather than to even intimate that what they're doing lacks legitimacy.

We won't get what we want short of war, and the consequences of that are entirely incalculable, so we need to settle for something less, something that will provide the best possible means to verify that they're not producing weapons grade material.

The rest is just simulated rationality in support of a predetermined goal that doesn't match reality.
That's all pure paranoid speculation, Jhhnn.

Iran won't comply with the demands for one simple reason, they refuse to subjugate themselves on this issue. It's all about pride and ego; nothing more. It's an obstinately stupid reason for them to potentially to go to war.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
The proof they have to provide is to open up specific areas for inspection so the IAEA can have confidence that Iran is no longer engaging in such research. Iran doesn't have to prove any negatives in that respect, they simply have to comply with specific requests and allow the inspectors and IAEA to do their job. If Iran has nothing to hide then what's the big problem?
First they have to establish that it's their obligation to let the inspectors do that, which isn't part of the original agreement. It's what I think needs to happen, and we shouldn't let other demands & agendas thwart such an agreement, but we are.

That's all pure paranoid speculation, Jhhnn.

Iran won't comply with the demands for one simple reason, they refuse to subjugate themselves on this issue. It's all about pride and ego; nothing more. It's an obstinately stupid reason for them to potentially to go to war.
Our reasons are probably worse, TLC. Paranoid speculation? Their neighbor, Iraq, was invaded on false pretenses, Afghanistan was as well on the basis of demands they couldn't possibly meet, so their wariness is understandable, don't you think?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
First they have to establish that it's their obligation to let the inspectors do that, which isn't part of the original agreement. It's what I think needs to happen, and we shouldn't let other demands & agendas thwart such an agreement, but we are.
So you're saying that Iran should comply with the IAEA, but not the Security Council, with which the IAEA has a treaty to uphold their Charter?

You seem to love arguing legalities but only when they prop up your argument.

Our reasons are probably worse, TLC. Paranoid speculation? Their neighbor, Iraq, was invaded on false pretenses, Afghanistan was as well on the basis of demands they couldn't possibly meet, so their wariness is understandable, don't you think?
Right. Because, after Iraq and Afghanistan, the US public would support such a war and Obama would push for it as well?

Besides that, if any military action does happen against Iran it would be a precision airstrike to destroy one or more specific suspect facilities. There wouldn't be any sort of invasion. Iran would raise holy hell with the UN about it but they wouldn't go further either because any such action would ultimately be a losing proposition for them.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
So you're saying that Iran should comply with the IAEA, but not the Security Council, with which the IAEA has a treaty to uphold their Charter?

You seem to love arguing legalities but only when they prop up your argument.
Sigh. More circular reasoning. Iran's obligations are spelled out in the NPT, a *treaty* they entered into long ago, which is entirely different than what the Security council wants today. They're not bound by security council resolutions any more than Israel.


Right. Because, after Iraq and Afghanistan, the US public would support such a war and Obama would push for it as well?

Besides that, if any military action does happen against Iran it would be a precision airstrike to destroy one or more specific suspect facilities. There wouldn't be any sort of invasion. Iran would raise holy hell with the UN about it but they wouldn't go further either because any such action would ultimately be a losing proposition for them.
I think that the public might support a war in defense of Israel, and that there will be a war between them & Iran if the Israelis attack. The Netanyahu govt is the loose cannon in all of this.

After any attack, Iran will obviously send the IAEA packing, renounce the NPT. Clearly, IAEA supervision of nuclear facilities carries implicit protection against attack, and if it doesn't, there's no point in having them around, or in not making nuclear weapons, either.

Think it through- look past the end of your nose.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY