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

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,401
3,048
126
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.
The IAEA is not presently in Iran......sorry to burst your bubble....
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
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.
Not surprisingly, the UN disagrees with you:

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



2. The Security Council has affirmed that the steps required by the Board of Governors in its resolutions​
2 are binding on Iran.3 The relevant provisions of the aforementioned Security Council resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, and are mandatory, in accordance with the terms of those resolutions.4


Your failure to recognize that the IAEA and the Security Council work hand-in-hand with each other and your penchant to focus solely on the NPT, as if nothing else has meaning, is the real circular reasoning being employed in here.

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.
We've just been through nearly a decade of war and Afghanistan won't officially be over for another 2 years. People are focused on the economy right now and the last thing they want is another war.

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.
They've already given the IAEA the finger so it doesn't seem to matter whether the IAEA is there or not. Iran is going to do whatever it seems to want to do anyway. At least that's the message they have been sending.

Think it through- look past the end of your nose.
My nose is miles and miles long, Jhhnn. I use it to sniff out your BS. Works really well.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
Not surprisingly, the UN disagrees with you:

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



Your failure to recognize that the IAEA and the Security Council work hand-in-hand with each other and your penchant to focus solely on the NPT, as if nothing else has meaning, is the real circular reasoning being employed in here.


We've just been through nearly a decade of war and Afghanistan won't officially be over for another 2 years. People are focused on the economy right now and the last thing they want is another war.


They've already given the IAEA the finger so it doesn't seem to matter whether the IAEA is there or not. Iran is going to do whatever it seems to want to do anyway. At least that's the message they have been sending.


My nose is miles and miles long, Jhhnn. I use it to sniff out your BS. Works really well.
Heh. Of course the Security Council claims what they say is binding, and yet, by your own admission, they won't sanction enforcement, nor have they endorsed the latest US/EU sanctions, either.

Treaties are the international version of contracts based on mutual consent. Changing one means mutual consent, as well, which is apparently the part you refuse to recognize. The fact that Iran has allowed IAEA inspection of facilities where nuclear materials haven't even been alleged to have existed is a major concession on their part. Parchin is one of them, and the IAEA has been there twice, with the Iranians currently agreeing to another pass.

Of course the US is weary of pointless war, but that doesn't mean we won't defend our nasty little mid eastern dog, Israel, if it gets off the leash & bites somebody. It's already growling, lunging, snapping, pulling at that leash for all it's worth.

Iran gave the IAEA the finger? Really? You agree with Netanyahu that they're working feverishly to create HEU & nuclear weapons?

I don't think so, nor has the IAEA offered that they are, either.

Your desperation is showing when you offer that it doesn't matter if the IAEA is in Iran or not. It matters a lot, because their presence promotes peace, reduces the chances of miscalculation, injects some facts into a situation otherwise driven by propaganda.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Heh. Of course the Security Council claims what they say is binding, and yet, by your own admission, they won't sanction enforcement, nor have they endorsed the latest US/EU sanctions, either.

Treaties are the international version of contracts based on mutual consent. Changing one means mutual consent, as well, which is apparently the part you refuse to recognize. The fact that Iran has allowed IAEA inspection of facilities where nuclear materials haven't even been alleged to have existed is a major concession on their part. Parchin is one of them, and the IAEA has been there twice, with the Iranians currently agreeing to another pass.
Of course they won't sanction enforcement because the UN is toothless. That doesn't mean the resolutions aren't binding on Iran. Of course they are and you damn well know it.

And changing agreements is mutual? You mean like how Iran changed their agreement on providing design information to the IAEA in a decidedly non-mutual manner. And you even argued previously why they should be allowed to do so.

You want it both ways John, and ALWAYS in favor of Iran.

Of course the US is weary of pointless war, but that doesn't mean we won't defend our nasty little mid eastern dog, Israel, if it gets off the leash & bites somebody. It's already growling, lunging, snapping, pulling at that leash for all it's worth.
You sound like the dog here, and a very angry one at that. Does the Security Council taking your little pet Middle Eastern country to task upset you that much? You can't seem to spit out apologies fast enough for them and then blame it all on Israel.

Iran gave the IAEA the finger? Really? You agree with Netanyahu that they're working feverishly to create HEU & nuclear weapons?
wtf? What kind of non-sequitor is that? Iran has given the IAEA the finger. If they hadn't there wouldn't be a number of resolutions against Iran by the IAEA Board of Governors defining where Iran has failed to meet it's obligations.

I don't think so, nor has the IAEA offered that they are, either.
Nice strawman. I never claimed they were. You tried to shove those words in my mouth.

Your desperation is showing when you offer that it doesn't matter if the IAEA is in Iran or not. It matters a lot, because their presence promotes peace, reduces the chances of miscalculation, injects some facts into a situation otherwise driven by propaganda.
Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA. So right now it doesn't matter whether or not the IAEA is in Iran because Iran is doing whatever the fuck it wants to do.

I know it may be tough for you to grasp that somehwat abstract concept but that's why I made my statement in the first place. So stop allowing your vivid imagination about your political opposition in here to run amuk, and pull hard on the reigns of that word twisting horse of yours.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
Of course they won't sanction enforcement because the UN is toothless. That doesn't mean the resolutions aren't binding on Iran. Of course they are and you damn well know it.

And changing agreements is mutual? You mean like how Iran changed their agreement on providing design information to the IAEA in a decidedly non-mutual manner. And you even argued previously why they should be allowed to do so.

You want it both ways John, and ALWAYS in favor of Iran.


You sound like the dog here, and a very angry one at that. Does the Security Council taking your little pet Middle Eastern country to task upset you that much? You can't seem to spit out apologies fast enough for them and then blame it all on Israel.


wtf? What kind of non-sequitor is that? Iran has given the IAEA the finger. If they hadn't there wouldn't be a number of resolutions against Iran by the IAEA Board of Governors defining where Iran has failed to meet it's obligations.


Nice strawman. I never claimed they were. You tried to shove those words in my mouth.


Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA. So right now it doesn't matter whether or not the IAEA is in Iran because Iran is doing whatever the fuck it wants to do.

I know it may be tough for you to grasp that somehwat abstract concept but that's why I made my statement in the first place. So stop allowing your vivid imagination about your political opposition in here to run amuk, and pull hard on the reigns of that word twisting horse of yours.
Highly emotional fit of denial, TLC. Clearly, the discussion questions some of your core beliefs in ways that you won't do yourself. You really need to ask yourself why you accept every bit of anti-Iran propaganda as gospel. IIRC, you did much the same in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, and we all know how that turned out. What makes you think this is any different?

Your accusation that Iran is doing whatever they want is entirely baseless, because they are handling nuclear materials under IAEA supervision, regardless of all the peripheral issues that the IAEA or anybody else drags into it. The IAEA has never claimed otherwise, and such is the basis of the NPT signed by Iran long ago.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,401
3,048
126
Your accusation that Iran is doing whatever they want is entirely baseless, because they are handling nuclear materials under IAEA supervision, regardless of all the peripheral issues that the IAEA or anybody else drags into it.-- I am sorry the IAEA is not presently in Iran doing any sort opf monitoring or oversight!! The IAEA has never claimed otherwise, and such is the basis of the NPT signed by Iran long ago.
You never learn do you?? The IAEA is NOT presently in IRAN....sorry
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
Highly emotional fit of denial, TLC. Clearly, the discussion questions some of your core beliefs in ways that you won't do yourself. You really need to ask yourself why you accept every bit of anti-Iran propaganda as gospel. IIRC, you did much the same in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, and we all know how that turned out. What makes you think this is any different?

Your accusation that Iran is doing whatever they want is entirely baseless, because they are handling nuclear materials under IAEA supervision, regardless of all the peripheral issues that the IAEA or anybody else drags into it. The IAEA has never claimed otherwise, and such is the basis of the NPT signed by Iran long ago.
The IAEA has claimed otherwise.

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


27. The Agency is still awaiting a substantive response from Iran to Agency requests for further information in relation to announcements made by Iran concerning the construction of ten new uranium enrichment facilities, the sites for five of which, according to Iran, have been decided, and the construction of one of which was to have begun by the end of the last Iranian year (20 March 2011) or the start of this Iranian year.​
23,24 In August 2011, Dr Abbasi was reported as having said that Iran did not need to build new enrichment facilities during the next two years.25 Iran has not provided information, as requested by the Agency in its letter of 18 August 2010, in connection with its announcement on 7 February 2010 that it possessed laser enrichment technology.26 As a result of Iran’s lack of cooperation on those issues, the Agency is unable to verify and report fully on these matters.



31. Since its visit to the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP) on 17 August 2011, the Agency, in a letter to Iran dated 20 October 2011, requested further access to HWPP. The Agency has yet to receive a reply to that letter, and is again relying on satellite imagery to monitor the status of HWPP. Based on recent images, the HWPP appears to be in operation. To date, Iran has not provided the Agency access to the heavy water stored at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in order to take samples.
30



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


The above are violations of the NPT and the specific agreements related to the NPT. Iran is in violation of the NPT whether you want to admit it or not.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY