Breakthrough? Iran Agrees to Suspend Nuke Program

[Onkel Neal]

Well, if this is as it seems, not bad, Obama. :Kaleun_Applaud:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/04/02/iran-nuclear-deal-reached.html

Iran and world powers led by the United States have agreed to suspend the country’s nuclear program. Overall, the deal will remove two-thirds of Iran’s capacity to build a nuclear bomb and allow observers to monitor the remaining capacity for 10 years. Iran will slash the number of its centrifuges (used to enrich uranium to weapons-grade quality) to 6,000 from 19,000. Of those 6,000 centrifuges, 5,000 will continue to enrich uranium of no more than 3.67 percent purity (not weapons-grade) for at least 15 years. Most of Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be diluted to that level or shipped abroad. The entire nuclear regime will be opened to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agreement would push Iran’s estimated “breakout” capacity to build a nuclear weapon to more than a year from two to three months.

Wouldn't it be nice to normalize relations with Iran, and get them to stop supporting extremists groups, as well as continually threatening Israel? Maybe this is a start.

Or, maybe I am being naive. Time will tell.

[GoldenRivet]

looks like we will be sending in some Hans Blix type to inspect wherever the Iranians allow them to look now.

[Aktungbby]

Well, if this is as it seems, not bad, Obama. :Kaleun_Applaud:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/04/02/iran-nuclear-deal-reached.html



Wouldn't it be nice to normalize relations with Iran, and get them to stop supporting extremists groups, as well as continually threatening Israel? Maybe this is a start.

Or, maybe I am being naive. Time will tell.
Strikes me that the horse is a bit out of the barn though as the Pakistani's have the bomb...and missiles; and we never fuss. Considering their own radical Islamic issues and that they hid Osama bin Laden a few blocks from their military academy for years till we invaded 'an ally' and dealt with it ourselves, we shouldn't sleep a wink.:o :/\\!!

[Nippelspanner]

Why exactly does 'Murica think it has the right to tell Iran what to do in their country on the other side of the world?
Did America get rid of all the doomsday boomers roaming the seas, or the lil toys the B2 might drop?
Any nuclear stuff of them gone?

No?

Why tell others to get rid of them/not acquire them in the first place.
Seriously, this is so hypocritical, it is beyond measure.

Oh right, I forgot.
They are the 'good guys'... and Iranians are the bad guys, all cool! :up:

[Oberon]

Eh, to be fair to the US, they are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and various arms reduction treaties with Russia. Some of which still exist...

[Nippelspanner]

Eh, to be fair to the US, they are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and various arms reduction treaties with Russia. Some of which still exist...
They can still eradicate mankind, together with all the other countries that have nukes.

So what do these cute treaties really do?
Nothing.

[Oberon]

They can still eradicate mankind, together with all the other countries that have nukes.

So what do these cute treaties really do?
Nothing.

Trouble is, like all disarmament, it's a stand-off. Actions can only be taken multilaterally rather than unilaterally.
We're facing a similar situation in the UK with Trident, there's more than a couple of calls to scrap our nuclear deterrent rather than renew or replace it.
It would save a lot of money, this is true, but the whole point of having that deterrent, and the point that France has it too, is to remind that whoever decides to drop a nuclear warhead on British soil would have to consider the likelihood of us returning the favour. It's not something that you can do if you don't have the means to retaliate.

[mapuc]

Maybe I'm asking the wrong question- can we prevent Iran from getting the bomb ?

I haven't really read the agreement in detail.

Markus

[Nippelspanner]

Trouble is, like all disarmament, it's a stand-off. Actions can only be taken multilaterally rather than unilaterally.
We're facing a similar situation in the UK with Trident, there's more than a couple of calls to scrap our nuclear deterrent rather than renew or replace it.
It would save a lot of money, this is true, but the whole point of having that deterrent, and the point that France has it too, is to remind that whoever decides to drop a nuclear warhead on British soil would have to consider the likelihood of us returning the favour. It's not something that you can do if you don't have the means to retaliate.
Because murdering the other country back would make such a difference...

[Oberon]

Because murdering the other country back would make such a difference...

Yes, that's the problem. It does make a difference. If someone could cripple their enemies and not face such a crippling attack themselves, don't you think that they would do it? If the Empire of Japan had possessed nuclear weapons and the ability to deploy them over the US mainland, do you really think that the US government would have authorised the dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy?

[Betonov]

I all honesty, the Iranians are idiots.
I stated before on this forum, I'll state it again. Iranian tourism is booming DESPITE them being the axis of evil and ''we wantz the A-bomb''.
Imagine them loosing that reputation.

[Nippelspanner]

I know, I know, I get it.
It just makes me... furious. Nukes I mean. :shifty:
Mankind is toying with this stuff like it's candy, being as irresponsible as one can be.
When I see documentaries about SSBNs I could puke when they talk with a pride-swollen chest, explaining how many times just one of these things could eradicate mankind.
Now isn't that cool...

War is bad enough with conventional weapons but nukes... they change everything. And they make me damn nervous - no matter in who's hands they are. People are people.

[Onkel Neal]

Why exactly does 'Murica think it has the right to tell Iran what to do in their country on the other side of the world?
Did America get rid of all the doomsday boomers roaming the seas, or the lil toys the B2 might drop?
Any nuclear stuff of them gone?

No?

Why tell others to get rid of them/not acquire them in the first place.
Seriously, this is so hypocritical, it is beyond measure.

Oh right, I forgot.
They are the 'good guys'... and Iranians are the bad guys, all cool! :up:

Well, yeah. We are the good guys. :O: Hypocrisy doesn't matter much when small groups of Islamic extremists have WMD. Be practical, man.

Yeah, nuclear weapons are worrisome, I'm with you on that. But, reality.

[Nippelspanner]

Well, yeah. We are the good guys. :O:Guess the Iranians say the same... and I can only, respectfully, disagree with you.

[Onkel Neal]

No problem, a lot of people share your opinion.

[Schroeder]

War is bad enough with conventional weapons but nukes... they change everything. And they make me damn nervous - no matter in who's hands they are. People are people.
And that's why no new country should get them. It's bad enough that a few countries have them already so let's try to not make more of them. The more countries have nukes the more likely it gets that one might get used. So I don't call it hypocrisy but common sense. The US can't just ditch their nukes as there is still Russia, China, Pakistan and perhaps North Korea. As nuclear exchanges have become less and less likely with the Russia and China the less stable countries are a real concern especially if they are dominated by an ideology that sees non believers a sub humans that either have to be converted, subjugated or exterminated. I trust the US to keep their nukes safe and away from nut jobs, I can't say the same for Pakistan.

[Oberon]

I know, I know, I get it.
It just makes me... furious. Nukes I mean. :shifty:
Mankind is toying with this stuff like it's candy, being as irresponsible as one can be.
When I see documentaries about SSBNs I could puke when they talk with a pride-swollen chest, explaining how many times just one of these things could eradicate mankind.
Now isn't that cool...

War is bad enough with conventional weapons but nukes... they change everything. And they make me damn nervous - no matter in who's hands they are. People are people.

Aye, although if it's any consolation I don't think a nuclear war would eradicate mankind. We're too spread out. Although it would really screw us up, I mean, set us way back into the dark ages, post-Roman era, that kind of stuff.
Hence why, as hypocritical as it seems, the big powers are doing their best to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, because the more countries have a nuclear weapon, the more likelihood there is of a nuclear able country being in a major war and the more likelihood there is of said country using nuclear weapons. Israel came very close in 1973, and there were countless near misses in the Cold War.
If we could put it all back, stop the expansion of the nuclear arms industry, then that's a start.

[Nippelspanner]

Guess I agree with a bitter taste in my mouth.
I can see how this is "right" but then again... its not.

Kind of the "lesser evil" option I assume.

[Oberon]

Guess I agree with a bitter taste in my mouth.
I can see how this is "right" but then again... its not.

Kind of the "lesser evil" option I assume.

Aye, Shades of Grey...and not the horrendous book/film reference fifty of them.

[Platapus]

Maybe I'm asking the wrong question- can we prevent Iran from getting the bomb ?

I haven't really read the agreement in detail.

Markus


To be honest, no. If, and that is a un-demonstrated if, Iran wishes to build nuclear weapons, there is little we can do to stop it.

I am reminded of the words of Plato

"Do not forbid, that which you can not prohibit."

What we do have is the Supreme Leader saying multiple times that Iran has no desire to make nuclear weapons. Of course this leaves open the loophole that many countries have that they may be "forced" to make nuclear weapons to deter a threat. Such is foreign relations.

[Torplexed]

If you outlaw nukes, only nukes will have outlaws.

Wait . . . that fails utterly. :/\\!!

I can't say I actively want any further countries to obtain a nuclear stockpile, but I'd be tentatively okay with any modern, secular Western style democracy obtaining them.

And if you have a robust nuclear power program and any means of weaponized delivery, you pretty much are a nuclear power. It's just a matter of loading the bullets into the gun. You could actually consider Japan, Canada, Italy, and possibly other countries Nuclear Powers from that point of view, in that they could have a reasonable nuclear offensive capability in a matter of weeks if so desired. Japan, for instance, could be a major nuclear power overnight given it's nuclear power production and advanced space program. (It's primary space launch vehicle is for all practical purposes a copy of the American Peacekeeper ICBM, and many people have speculated that it was adopted for the Japanese Space Program for just that reason.) However, given Japan's previous bad experience with nukes I could see where that politically could never happen.

For the record, I am in favor of nonproliferation, but the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and the bottle has been smashed to a million pieces. Absent the development of an even greater weapon of mass destruction, I don't see total disarmament coming any time soon.

[The Dark Wolf]

The Mid East has been a problem since God was a little boy. :wah:

[Dowly]

If you outlaw nukes, only nukes will have outlaws.
Why you hate America? :hmph:

[Torplexed]

Why you hate America? :hmph:

'cuz they invented disco and

http://i1.cpcache.com/product_zoom/287026898/disco_sucks_baseball_cap.jpg?height=250&width=250&padToSquare=true

[Dowly]

Pretty sure Hitler invented disco. :hmmm:

Source: This entirely accurate photograph:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G2gHmllgS-o/UOS0ZUzBbwI/AAAAAAAAEVE/EPVzIQLzVx8/s1600/hitler-dancing.gif

[Nippelspanner]

Can you please leave ze Führer out of zis?

[Torplexed]

Pretty sure Hitler invented disco. :hmmm:



Then we'll go with the back-up US atrocity.

Birthplace of Charlie Sheen! :wah:

http://i.imgur.com/GeXQlEI.gif

[Dowly]

Can you please leave ze Führer out of zis?
*Looks at the location*
NAZI!!1111

@Torplexed: Hey! I like Charlie Sheen!

[Torplexed]

@Torplexed: Hey! I like Charlie Sheen!

I'm a Valeria Golino fan myself. :) What was this thread about again?

http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/20110629/640/childhood_actors_from_classic_movies_that_are_all_ grown_up_640_109.jpg

[Dowly]

That accent.

http://i.imgur.com/bA0gQ.jpg

[Nippelspanner]

...this... can never be unseen. :huh:

[Torplexed]

Thread derailment now at Defcon One. Launch.

http://31.media.tumblr.com/efe72f0bcea44cc8aa4c5bfaeefd1168/tumblr_n2jz88TpAx1qa4kw5o1_500.gif

[Dowly]

Launch approved.

[Jeff-Groves]

If the deal included cutting back on the number of Iranian Cab drivers in the U.S.A.?

We got a good deal.
:D

[CaptainHaplo]

No agreement stops anyone from doing anything.

The Munich Agreement/Accord didn't stop Hitler, for example.
The Treaty of Fontainebleau didn't stop Napoleon, either.

Agreements are only effective if both sides follow through with their respective responsibilities per the terms agreed to.

In this case - the agreement has 3 glaring flaws that I have found so far.

1) Sanctions reduction are to begin quickly with European countries. However, the major players there have indicated they are unwilling to ease sanctions until Iran has consistently demonstrated it is abiding by its responsibilities. This creates the "well the other guy didn't follow the rules so...." scenario. Regardless of who is truly at fault, it sets the stage for the entire framework to fall apart.

2) The terms dictate that Iran provides access to its nuclear program for inspection. However, its wording is things like all activities/locations/centerfuges/etc. "that are known". There is no requirement (that I see so far - not done researching) for Iran to declare all of its nuclear program assets. As such, this means that any non-discovered asset could continue research/production without being a violation of the accord. Thus, this means that to succeed in keeping Iran from developing and building a nuke covertly, the various intel agencies of the world have to identify EVERY facet of the Iranian nuke program. If they can, great - but that is a very BIG if - and the consequences of failure are severe.

3) The agreement requires the Iranians to uphold their end of the bargain. Sadly, they do not have a stellar record of doing so, thus the integrity of the agreement is.... highly suspect.

Issues 1 and 2 could be resolved by future negotiations to correct these flaws. Issue 3 simply can not be "negotiated" away - time will tell if the Iranians will keep their word - or if they have agreed to something and lied because its ok for them to do so to non-muslims - the policy of taqiyya and kitman. (Quran 9:3, 40:28, 2:225, 66:2, 3:54, Bukhari 52:269, 49:857, 84:64-65, etc...)

Ultimately - this is likely to go down as another "peace in our time" moment when viewed through the lens of history.

[em2nought]

Maybe those Iranians would just be happy with a bit of Liebestraum, or is it the PLO that wants that? :rotfl2:

Me, I'd just settle for that right nipple that's showing in that derailment! Those are some firm assets!

[nikimcbee]

Thread derailment now at Defcon One. Launch.

http://31.media.tumblr.com/efe72f0bcea44cc8aa4c5bfaeefd1168/tumblr_n2jz88TpAx1qa4kw5o1_500.gif


I'm sorry, you guys were saying?

[Rhodes]

Possibly the funniest derailment of a thread here!:up:
http://i.imgur.com/mmHFj6d.jpg

[Oberon]

Launch approved.

Missile enabled!

https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/2tajd.gif?w=780

[Von Tonner]

And that's why no new country should get them. It's bad enough that a few countries have them already so let's try to not make more of them. The more countries have nukes the more likely it gets that one might get used. So I don't call it hypocrisy but common sense. The US can't just ditch their nukes as there is still Russia, China, Pakistan and perhaps North Korea.

What a number of people overlook is that while South Africa dismantled it's "ready to go" nuclear weaponry it still has the means of producing
"enough nuclear explosive to fuel half a dozen bombs".

Obama wants our govt to hand this over to the USA - he has even named the price the USA is willing to pay for it. Our government has given him the "finger" on his offer, claiming they make more money by keeping it. Never mind the leverage this could afford them down the road.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/us-unease-about-nuclear-weapons-fuel-takes-aim-at-a-south-african-vault/2015/03/13/b17389f6-2bc1-4515-962d-03c655d0e62d_story.html

[Jimbuna]

What a number of people overlook is that while South Africa dismantled it's "ready to go" nuclear weaponry it still has the means of producing
"enough nuclear explosive to fuel half a dozen bombs".

Obama wants our govt to hand this over to the USA - he has even named the price the USA is willing to pay for it. Our government has given him the "finger" on his offer, claiming they make more money by keeping it. Never mind the leverage this could afford them down the road.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/us-unease-about-nuclear-weapons-fuel-takes-aim-at-a-south-african-vault/2015/03/13/b17389f6-2bc1-4515-962d-03c655d0e62d_story.html

I agree on the factual details but I also believe the US is most concerned in the possibility terrorists could steal it rather than the fact South Africa would become a nuclear weapons country.

[Von Tonner]

Fully agree with you Jimbuna. SA has no intention of making up a bomb again. I understand Uncle Sam's concern - and there is some merit to them given that we cannot even protect our Rhinos from extinction from illiterates wielding AK47's.

My concern is from another angle. Is SA mature enough democratically speaking that when the present ruling liberation party loses at the polls - which it is on the road to doing - will it willingly hand over political power?

I would not want that stuff lying in a vault with it holding the keys if it chooses not to. And neither would the free world I would imagine.

However, it is a valuable asset to the country and I do think Obama needs to up his offer a tad or two :D

[mapuc]

According to Danish news US military was and is ready if...


http://time.com/3771077/iran-nuclear-program-bunker-buster/#3771077/iran-nuclear-program-bunker-buster/

The U.S. military has been getting ready to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities to smithereens even longer than Secretary of State John Kerry has been trying to negotiate them away. And while Thursday’s “framework” between Tehran and the U.S. and five other nations could lead to a peaceful accord this summer, the Pentagon is ready if it doesn’t

Markus

[Platapus]

According to Danish news US military was and is ready if...


http://time.com/3771077/iran-nuclear-program-bunker-buster/#3771077/iran-nuclear-program-bunker-buster/



Markus

Well to be honest, the US military has plans to bomb pretty much anything in the world. That's what the military is good at... planning just in case. Having a plan is good sense but does not mean actual intent.

[Bubblehead1980]

Naive to believe any deal made will be followed by Iran.Naive to believe it is okay for Iran to have any type of nuclear technology while they have wacko islamists running that nation. This is appeasement by an administration and it's President who has not a clue on the realities of the world.This is what happens when someone with strong muslim sympathies is elected, plain and simple.Repeat of the 30's with Hitler, except this time the wackos will have weapons capable of more destruction than Hitler could imagine.

I hope I am wrong but doubt it, pretty easy to see.Sadly, the seeds of the next big war are sewn and this may seal the deal.

[Bilge_Rat]

good article in Politico on the fantasy that the U.S. could get a better deal by waiting:


First, it is highly unlikely that even our allies in Europe would join us in further sanctions against Iran in the wake of a nuclear agreement they believe is sensible and positive. That is even truer for other countries—like India, Japan, South Korea and China—that were pulled into the existing sanctions regime quite unwillingly. The support of these countries for the oil sanctions in particular has been critical to the sanctions’ effectiveness. They will not willingly sign up for more.

Second, if a deal falls through, it is likely that the existing multilateral sanctions regime will begin to crumble. As noted, countries like India and South Korea, who don’t feel threatened by an Iran nuclear weapon, will be only too happy to find a pretext to break out of the sanctions—perhaps tentatively at first but in a rush as others do. It will be hard to argue the rationale for sanctions, which, from the perspective of nearly every nation, will have achieved their purpose—bringing Iran to the table to negotiate serious limitations on its nuclear program.

Indeed, the proponents of tougher sanctions to get a “better” deal have misunderstood the nature of the Iranian sanctions. The fact is that the United States does not own or control the multilateral sanctions regime. The effectiveness of the sanctions is based on how the international community views the perceived threat and therefore the legitimacy of coercive actions to stop it.

Third, those who seek a better deal through tougher sanctions argue that we don’t necessarily need international support. The United States could unilaterally enact sanctions that have extraterritorial reach, as we already have done with a number of Congressional measures since 2010. The proposition is that we will to some degree deny foreign companies access to the larger, more important American market, if they choose to do business with Iran.

However, the context has entirely changed since the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act was passed in 2010. New extraterritorial sanctions would be directed against an Iran that has reached an agreement on its nuclear program with major world powers. The rest of the world generally detests our assertion of authority involving foreign companies in foreign countries. Here, for example, we would seek to close the U.S. market to Germany’s BMW if they sold cars to Iran or Japan’s Sony if it sold in Iran. If Congress imposed sanctions in spite of a nuclear agreement reached with Iran by major powers, the international community—except for a few countries—would believe those sanctions to be illegitimate. In this context, it is hard to imagine the U.S. government moving ahead with major sanctions proceedings against many of our friends and allies.



http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2304159

The reality is that time is running out for any sort of deal.

President Obama did a great job putting together an international regime of sanctions to bring Iran to the table, but the sanctions have been falling apart for some time.

China never really bought on to sanctions and was violating them behind the scenes. The EU is frustrated that Chinese companies have been taking over the Iranian Oil industry.

It was either do a deal now or lose the chance of any similar deal in the future.

What is the alternative then? Is the U.S. going to go to war with Iran to stop them from getting nuclear weapons?

[Bilge_Rat]

interesting...


The U.S. concern about Saudi Arabia’s reaction to the deal is reflected in the fact that even before speaking about it in the Rose Garden on Thursday or calling Netanyahu, Obama spoke with Saudi King Salman to discuss the outline being announced. He has also invited the leaders of Saudi Arabia and its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain — to a summit at Camp David this spring.



http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/saudi-arabia-iran-nuclear-deal-116694.html?hp=l3_4

I anyone surprised the first call Obama made was to the Saudis to see if they were onboard?

[Oberon]

A war against Iran? You might as well just give Daesh their caliphate. :haha: :har:

[Wolferz]

They'll shoot their eye out.:up::haha:

Not too much for the US to worry about now that the CHAMP program is being put back on track.
Cyber missile (EMP) warheads can be easily mounted in cruise missiles to take out their electronics if the need arises.

[Rockstar]

interesting...



http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/saudi-arabia-iran-nuclear-deal-116694.html?hp=l3_4

I anyone surprised the first call Obama made was to the Saudis to see if they were onboard?


Its a wise to call ahead before you send U.S. tankers to conduct in-flight refueling of their aircraft over Yemen. :D

[Aktungbby]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv040715dAPR20150407014513.jpg (http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/04/07/129359)[/URL][URL="http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/04/01/129229"]http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sbr040115dAPC20150402031325.jpg (http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/04/07/129343)

[Oberon]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/irannuclear_590_415.jpg

[Eichhörnchen]

Hey, shouldn't this be merged with Gargamel's model rocketry thread?

[Von Tonner]

What I am really looking forward to is, as everyone is expecting, the shrew of all shrews will be throwing her hat into the ring tomorrow for presidency.

And what will her take be on all of this.

[Eichhörnchen]

I was wondering whether anyone asked her yet what she thinks of Obama wooing Cuba, too?

[eddie]

Well, Iran will have better protection for their nuclear sites with the S-300 missile systems from Russia now that Putin has lifted the ban on selling them to the Iranians.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-lifts-ban-on-supplying-s-300-missiles-to-iran/ar-AAaVXzC

[Bilge_Rat]

so the Iran bill has sailed through committee and looks to have a veto proof majority. It looks like a major blow to the Iran deal, but as usual in Washington, the devil is in the details.


The compromise legislation gives Congress 30 days to review a final deal with Iran if it is submitted by July 10, half of the original 60-day review period and eliminates a requirement that the United States certify that Iran is not sponsoring terrorism against Americans.


Though it gives Congress an avenue to reject the lifting of legislative sanctions that will be a key part of any deal with Iran, it explicitly states that Congress does not have to approve the diplomatic deal struck by Iran, the United States and other world powers. It also requires reports on Iran’s human rights record.


But it does not require Tehran to recognize the state of Israel nor does it treat an Iran agreement like a treaty, disappointing Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who had floated those ideas but withheld offering them as amendments. And some Democrats said they will fight to ensure that those provisions don’t end up in the bill when it comes to the Senate floor.

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz3XTkEGhx4 (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/iran-bill-bipartisan-deal-bob-corker-116958.html#ixzz3XTkEGhx4)





The key point is the one I bolded, the bill states the agreement is not a "treaty", therefore under the Constitution it does not have to be ratified by the Senate. So any agreement reched by the Obama administration will be binding, the Senate cannot override it, all they can do is decide when U.S. sanctions can be lifted, but that becomes somewhat academic once U.N. sanctions are lifted and the rest of the world is trading with Iran.


Presumably that is why Obama has stated he will not veto the bill. Both sides are happy, the GOP can publicly claim they won and Obama can assure Iran and the other signatories that the Senate cannot reject the deal.

[Platapus]

If both sides compromise and are pissed, it is probably a good balance.