Agreement in Iran Nuclear talks

[Zoraptor]

Meh, arguing with you is pointless, you always work back from your conclusion to the evidence rather than the other way around. You'll just end up admitting you don't know what the Mercalli scale is or claiming Russia would be bankrupt in 6-12 months (already past the six months...) again. Fact- and it is fact- remains that Pakistan happily sold tech to pretty much anyone including their theoretical enemies in Iran plus North Korea and Libya, yet you'd have it be that they wouldn't sell to their friends and financiers because... handwaving.
 

By the way, the moderates are the ones who are already in power and it is they who have been pushing this deal. They "toppled" the hard-liners when Ahmadinejad fell. The sole remaining hard-liner is the Ayatollah. Also remember we had a moderate leader in power during the start of the Bush years which gave a far "better" offer on nuclear energy - although obviously that was not the correct time for a deal with Iran.

While I broadly agree with you that isn't really how the Iranian system works. The Guardian Council, which vets presidential candidates, is largely appointed by Khamenei, and Khamenei is still effectively above the president in the pecking order. The GC could readily have rejected Rouhani had they wanted to and only approved conservative candidates or approved multiple reformists to split the vote- eg in 2009 there were two reformists and two conservatives; while in 2013 there were 4 conservatives vs Rouhani; they'd practically guaranteed Rouhani would at least make a run off vote with that split.

 

The most sensible interpretation was that Khamenei was fine with Rouhani winning and that he was likely even his favoured candidate; he's a reformer, but a pretty 'safe' one so far as the Islamic Revolution is concerned. The appearance of Rouhani being a 'maverick' 'reformer' however is very useful when it comes to negotiating with the west- contrast with the views on Ahmedinejad- and increases impetus on the west to make an agreement since one of the reasons the moderate Khatami was succeeded by Ahmeninejad in 2005 was because he couldn't deliver on his promises. In effect Rouhani is an excellent compromise and pragmatic choice between conservatism and reform, acceptable to both the Ayatollah and to western negotiators.

[Gromnir]

is hardly handwaving

 

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/06-Jun-2015/no-one-is-getting-our-nukes-not-even-saudis

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/saudi-arabias-nuclear-bluff/2015/06/11/9ce1f4f8-1074-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html

 

 

but your deflections, mischaracterizations and flat-out irrational and self-defeating response is... tedious.  again, a pakistan that would actual sell nukes makes the deal less appealing to the US and other coalition governments.  am waiting for you to realize that the suggestion that pakistan would sell nukes to the saudis is one o' those scaremongering tales you is s'posed opposed to perpetuating.

 

is genuine bizarre trying to discuss rational with you.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[kgambit]

 

That is interesting, can you quote a source for that information?

 

 

LOL  Of course I can. 

 

Most of the information comes from a  link that in turn references information from the following May 29, 2015 IAEA report: 

 

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran

 

Item 8(e) of the provisional agenda

(GOV/2015/31 and Mod.1)

 

 

Date: 29 May 2015

Report by the Director General

 

I've sent you the original link, a supporting link and a link to the IAEA report in PDF form in a pm.  Enjoy.    

The original link provides sources for all of the numbers quoted. 

 

Edit 1:  If for some reason you can not reference the IAEA report, let me know,  I have a downloaded copy I can email.  

 

Edit 2:  The original link also goes into a lot more detail about the timeline of Iran's program with respect to the number of IR-1s available and in use. 

Edited July 18, 2015 by kgambit

[Rostere]

Read here about what one of the few Americans who visited Iran had to say about the deal. Perspectives like these are crucial for understanding which effects this agreement will have upon the social and political climate inside Iran.

[BruceVC]

Read here about what one of the few Americans who visited Iran had to say about the deal. Perspectives like these are crucial for understanding which effects this agreement will have upon the social and political climate inside Iran.

 

This is a very good article because it accurately highlights the plight and views of moderate Iranians. And its the moderate Iranians that these negotiations and future with the West resonate the most with. The best part of the article is at the end IMO

 

" I am so, so happy,” she wrote me. “Thank you President Obama. You stopped a war. . . . I hope your people understand it and appreciate it as we do. . . . Now we are a part of the world. " 

 

 

For me most of us want the same thing as members of humanity. We want peace and a prosperous future for our families. So these negotiations are part of those objectives. Yes I can understand the risks and concerns  but I still am firmly convinced this is the right decision considering the geo-political reality of the region and what continued sanctions and or a military campaign against Iran would mean 

 

To aptly quote John Donne 

 

 "Each man's death diminishes me,

For I am involved in mankind.

Therefore, send not to know

For whom the bell tolls,

It tolls for thee " 

 

[Monte Carlo]

I say we nuke the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure.

[Ganrich]

I say we nuke the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure.

One of my favorite movies.

[Gromnir]

the optimistic op-ed pieces regarding iran were even more plentiful in 2009.  how did that work out?

 

in any event, we would love to be as positive as rostere, but history , particular the history o' the region, tells us that simple cave and give iran what they want is dangerous.  iran has been working on breakout options for developing nuclear weapons for some time.  this deal advances iran's breakout options while reducing capacity o' the west to use meaningful non-military options to alter iran behaviors.  heck, the west don't even have viable inspection options to guarantee that oran is holding up their end o' the deal.

 

israel, saudi arabia, egypt and other middle-eastern nations is less friendly to the US now than they has been in decades.  numerous middle-eastern nations hate this deal for a variety o' reasons, so it don't appear to be buying stability to a volatile part o' the world and it sure ain't buying back the goodwill we has lost with our allies.  nevertheless, in spite o' the fact that secular AND non-secular leaders o' iran were calling for "death to america" as early as this year, at least some folks on the streets o' tehran is more pro US than at any time since, well, 2009.  trying to see genuine positives other than naive hope.

 

am actual in favor o' negotiating with iran, and the west had to give'em something.  unfortunately, the west simple rolled over and caved to iranian demands.  is shocking that iran would be happy 'bout that?  

 

 

Meh, arguing with you is pointless, you always work back from your conclusion to the evidence rather than the other way around... claiming Russia would be bankrupt in 6-12 months (already past the six months...) 

 didn't even notice.  

 

lordy

 

still with the outright lies.  Gromnir posted quotes from imf and harvard economists who stated that russia's economy could collapse as early as 6-12 months if nothing changed, and we posted as a rebuttal to your ridiculous assertion that russia's enormous currency reserves (which has been significantly depleted and continues to dwindle) made western sanctions a laughable proposition.  sanctions hurt.  even kurdin admits the hurt.  forthcoming glut o' iranian oil will make the hurt even more noticeable.

 

sheesh

 

missing forest for trees in yet another thread.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[obyknven]

 

[Zoraptor]

lol wut? When you claimed I said sanctions had no effect and provided no evidence of it despite numerous requests to do so- indeed, your attempts to show it showed completely the reverse, misquoted your experts via linking to recursive blogs hoping I wouldn't read the original paywalled source, changed what you were arguing half way through and disowned your original sources as not being what you 'really' thought but just put there for discussion (actual lol when you pulled that out), claimed food prices were rising massively in Russia due to the counter sanctions when they were less than expected from the value drop of the rouble on exports etc etc. It's like when you thought earthquake effect was measured by Richter scale not Mercalli, you still thought you were right despite not even having the most basic of groundings in the subject. That's why I don't feel the need to engage with you because you're not in any way connected to reality. Unfortunately I'm kind of obligated to occasionally correct your more egregious 'facts', so others don't take your ramblings seriously and don't end up making themselves look silly repeating them.

 

If you want to reiterate this then do so in six months time, then we can see how your claims stood up. You won't though, precisely because you know they won't stand up, and you'd end up having a weasel avatar for a year.

 

numerous middle-eastern nations hate this deal for a variety o' reasons

 

And to illustrate further how you work back from your conclusion rather than forward to it: numerous middle eastern countries means... two; Saudi Arabia and Israel, hate this deal. The governments of Turkey, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan (not technically ME, but an Iranian neighbour), Jordan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Lebanon have all welcomed it, to one degree or the other while Kuwait, Bahrain and Yemen haven't commented so far as I can find. So, numerous nations = two, but the two that happen to support your position.

[Gromnir]

lol wut? When you claimed I said sanctions had no effect and provided no evidence of it despite numerous requests to do so- indeed, your attempts to show it showed completely the reverse, misquoted your experts via linking to recursive blogs hoping I wouldn't read the original paywalled source, changed what you were arguing half way through and disowned your original sources as not being what you 'really' thought but just put there for discussion (actual lol when you pulled that out), claimed food prices were rising massively in Russia due to the counter sanctions when they were less than expected from the value drop of the rouble on exports etc etc. It's like when you thought earthquake effect was measured by Richter scale not Mercalli, you still thought you were right despite not even having the most basic of groundings in the subject. That's why I don't feel the need to engage with you because you're not in any way connected to reality. Unfortunately I'm kind of obligated to occasionally correct your more egregious 'facts', so others don't take your ramblings seriously and don't end up making themselves look silly repeating them.

 

If you want to reiterate this then do so in six months time, then we can see how your claims stood up. You won't though, precisely because you know they won't stand up, and you'd end up having a weasel avatar for a year.

 

numerous middle-eastern nations hate this deal for a variety o' reasons

 

And to illustrate further how you work back from your conclusion rather than forward to it: numerous middle eastern countries means... two; Saudi Arabia and Israel, hate this deal. The governments of Turkey, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan (not technically ME, but an Iranian neighbour), Jordan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Lebanon have all welcomed it, to one degree or the other while Kuwait, Bahrain and Yemen haven't commented so far as I can find. So, numerous nations = two, but the two that happen to support your position.

so, outright lies, eh?  we showed multiple times how your nonsense o' presenting russia's (dwindling) currency reserves were hardly making sanctions and the russain economic crisis a matter o' laughable concern.  and again, the 6-12 months were always a worst-case scenario offered by economists we linked to rebut the notion that the matter were joke-worthy.  the specific 6-12 months figure were never essential.  am not sure why we are surprised.   your claims o' paysite shenanigans were mostly linked to kurdin, by which time you had complete gone off the reservation.  kurdin, a russian economist of much repute, specific noted that western sanctions were hurting and would continue to hurt russia. is difficult dealing with you.  russia did not simple shrug off sanctions.  you made classic correlation v. causation mistakes regarding oil impact and you complete ignored contradictory info from sites you linked to.  hell, you even misread the darn bloomberg graph you offered. 

 

*shrug*

 

as for middle-eastern nations opposed to the deal, 'course Gromnir is most concerned with US allies.  saudi arabia and israel is foremost o' opponents and is the ones who most hate the deal, but egypt has expressed concerns and while the uae has sent congratulations to iran, they also have shown concern over an arms race issue in the middle east.  syria? well, am actual concerned more with syrian rebels as getting assad outta power is better for the west and the US.  

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/08/iraq-iran-nuclear-kerry-dempsey-/24602807/

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-parries-questions-on-iran-deal-from-arabs-as-well-as-israelis-1424475437

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Egypt has 'expressed concerns', lol or if prefer, lol. UAE was pretty much entirely positive. Even the Saudis weren't entirely negative. So, two countries are 'numerous', exactly as I said.

 

Stop reading Murdoch rags, they're politicised rubbish. And that USAToday article is once-over-lightly drivel that only actually says that Saudi doesn't like it, the rest is unsourced speculation based on, apparently, religious identity which would see Bahrain applauding the agreement from the rooftops and ignores the three gulf countries that have welcomed it not being majority shia. Well, unless you count ibadis as shia, most seem to count Yemeni zaydis as shia...

Edited July 20, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

ah, the mindless criticism o' wsj as a source.  

 

but heck, congrats on the deflection.  is so far away from your initial nuttery regarding the absence o' reasonable fears regarding the iranian nuke weapon program and claims of "scaremongering."

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Shrug. You've had plenty of opportunity but could only provide two countries that didn't like it while weaseling those two as being 'numerous' and linking to blogs and the like for validation. If only two countries in the world don't like something, well, a concentrated assault on that something by a bunch of conservatives giving sky-is-falling analyses is scaremongering.

 

Facts are that only Saudi and Israel oppose it, both Mossad and US intelligence say that Iran is not seeking a bomb, and the scaremongering is coming from a very specific group only: Israel fans like you, or Saudi fans beneficiaries. There's room for legitimate concern about Iranian conduct in foreign affairs- as there is for every country in existence- but very little related to this deal. The stuff that people object to Iran doing it's already doing, isn't related to the nuclear issue and is not being effected by sanctions anyway.

 

As for the wsj, it's close to The Sun for stock brokers at this point when it comes to its opinion pieces.

[Gromnir]

Shrug. You've had plenty of opportunity but could only provide two countries that didn't like it while weaseling those two as being 'numerous' and linking to blogs and the like for validation. If only two countries in the world don't like something, well, a concentrated assault on that something by a bunch of conservatives giving sky-is-falling analyses is scaremongering.

 

Facts are that only Saudi and Israel oppose it, both Mossad and US intelligence say that Iran is not seeking a bomb, and the scaremongering is coming from a very specific group only: Israel fans like you, or Saudi fans beneficiaries. There's room for legitimate concern about Iranian conduct in foreign affairs- as there is for every country in existence- but very little related to this deal. The stuff that people object to Iran doing it's already doing, isn't related to the nuclear issue and is not being effected by sanctions anyway.

 

As for the wsj, it's close to The Sun for stock brokers at this point when it comes to its opinion pieces.

is more lies?  again, yes, the warhead development is not progressing.  you can have a nuclear weapon program wherein you ain't actual constructing the warhead.  US  sources were clear that fordow were a facility for developing nuclear weapons... scroll back up and read the linked.  the rand piece were stressing the breakout options approach o' the iranian nuclear weapons program.  according to rand, both tehran and the US believe that US intelligence would discover actual construction o' a nuclear weapon, so iran is doing everything short o' that.  develop delivery systems and increase capacity to make multiple weapons.  shorten time it would take to produce the weapons.  furthermore, even the iaea has observed that there is compelling evidence that iran's nuclear program has clandestine nuclear purposes.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057796/UN-Compelling-proof-Iran-building-nuclear-warheads.html

 

it takes a special level o' obtuseness to continue pretending that iran has not been pursuing nuclear weapons development.

 

and while a variety o' foreign leaders attempt to save face by applauding the deal in public, (although as we noted, egypt and uae is sending mixed signals, even if you don't like usa today and wsj sources)

 

http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/05/18/a-global-no-to-a-nuclear-armed-iran/

 

but yes, your selective ostrich routine is familiar.

 

use al jazerra for your source on mosad?  and you can actual try and complain 'bout wsj?  

 

HA!

 

investors is less concerned with politics than is most, and the pieces offered is as often as not, articles related to foreign investment.  but hey, go to a rag that is funded by qatar. heck, its links to the muslim brotherhood caused numerous defections as recent as 2013.

 

*shrug*

 

some things never change.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Right, so now the Iranians have a 'nuclear weapons program' where they aren't making any nuclear weapons... Or, as it is otherwise known; not a nuclear weapons program. Except, of course, in the paranoid delusional world of special pleading, where anything is possible. And everybody would be complaining really, trust you on that they're just trying to 'save face' (from what exactly, plus of course the logical corollary is that Saudi and Israel are losing face with their complaints) and Egypt and UAE complained despite you giving no actual evidence of such. Par for the course.

 

Dual use is dual use, and dual use is legitimate use, the IAEA is absolutely explicit about that. Ironically, that position is held in large part due to the US lobbying for it to be that way- pule all you want, but places like Brazil and Japan would be under sanctions if it weren't. All the rest is wailing and gnashing of teeth about how you totally don't like and don't trust Iran so special rules have to apply because the sky will fall otherwise.

 

Particularly amusing, shifting from wsj to the Daily Fail, at best a sideways movement in quality- particularly lol as it appears you only read the headline for it and I've read the report it was talking about :smug: As is the Fail's wont, it makes a sensational headline and never backs it up in the body, quoting anonymous sources about Iranian research which is actually from 2003, well before the (2007, 2012) US and Israeli reports saying they weren't developing nukes. If you were Bruce I'd suspect you'd done it deliberately. Apart from that, quoting a 2012 study to show international disapproval of a 2015 agreement that didn't exist then and prevents Iran from making nukes is utterly ridiculous, specious and... pretty typical of your slapdash approach to both logic and statistics, throwing anything no matter how outdated or irrelevant at an argument. It's the same issue with the Rand article too, using an out of date study that cannot take the 2015 agreement into account to try and denigrate that 2015 agreement is at very very best a circular approach.

 

And, the source on the Mossad stuff is a leak from them via RSA intelligence. It's been verified, much as it may pain you, including by Israeli sources contacted by Israeli media.

[Ineth]

Right, so now the Iranians have a 'nuclear weapons program' where they aren't making any nuclear weapons... Or, as it is otherwise known; not a nuclear weapons program.

 

Are you really that obtuse, or do you simply not want to understand what Gromnir wrote?

 

Constructing the actual warheads is just one part of a nuclear weapons program. Much of it is building up infrastructure, technology, human capital to be able to construct the warheads (and put them straight into missiles without delays).

 

So yes, you can have a nuclear weapons program that prepares and optimises everything else first, and saves the warhead construction for last, so that - with everything optimized - it can be done much quicker.

 

That's what the "Iran is x years/months away from nuclear weapons" reports from Western intelligence services mean: If Iran were to start the warhead construction now (which they aren't, yet) how long would it take them to finish?

 

The more they prepare and optimize the infrastructure, the shorter that time becomes - at some point it may become so short that they can go ahead and do it without anyone being able to stop them anymore, and at that point they probably will do it. (Or why else go through all that trouble?)

[BruceVC]

 

Right, so now the Iranians have a 'nuclear weapons program' where they aren't making any nuclear weapons... Or, as it is otherwise known; not a nuclear weapons program.

 

Are you really that obtuse, or do you simply not want to understand what Gromnir wrote?

 

Constructing the actual warheads is just one part of a nuclear weapons program. Much of it is building up infrastructure, technology, human capital to be able to construct the warheads (and put them straight into missiles without delays).

 

So yes, you can have a nuclear weapons program that prepares and optimises everything else first, and saves the warhead construction for last, so that - with everything optimized - it can be done much quicker.

 

That's what the "Iran is x years/months away from nuclear weapons" reports from Western intelligence services mean: If Iran were to start the warhead construction now (which they aren't, yet) how long would it take them to finish?

 

The more they prepare and optimize the infrastructure, the shorter that time becomes - at some point it may become so short that they can go ahead and do it without anyone being able to stop them anymore, and at that point they probably will do it. (Or why else go through all that trouble?)

 

 

You make some relevant  points as usual but I watched a very good interview with John Kerry about the perceived success of these negotiations where he addresses criticism about " how soon Iran could make develop a nuclear bomb and the West being able to monitor this progress" 

 

Currently the West has no inspectors operating within Iran, as in none ..zero. And this is due to the bad faith that existed and state of the negotiations 

 

But now we have an agreement where inspectors can and will operate within Iran. Surly you can agree this is much better than the previous reality of the situation where the West had no real visibility within Iran and there nuclear program?

[Rostere]

 

Right, so now the Iranians have a 'nuclear weapons program' where they aren't making any nuclear weapons... Or, as it is otherwise known; not a nuclear weapons program.

 

Are you really that obtuse, or do you simply not want to understand what Gromnir wrote?

 

Constructing the actual warheads is just one part of a nuclear weapons program. Much of it is building up infrastructure, technology, human capital to be able to construct the warheads (and put them straight into missiles without delays).

 

So yes, you can have a nuclear weapons program that prepares and optimises everything else first, and saves the warhead construction for last, so that - with everything optimized - it can be done much quicker.

 

That's what the "Iran is x years/months away from nuclear weapons" reports from Western intelligence services mean: If Iran were to start the warhead construction now (which they aren't, yet) how long would it take them to finish?

 

The more they prepare and optimize the infrastructure, the shorter that time becomes - at some point it may become so short that they can go ahead and do it without anyone being able to stop them anymore, and at that point they probably will do it. (Or why else go through all that trouble?)

 

I think it is you who have missed the point about the nuclear program. The point is that a lot the Iranians do is indiscernible from what you would in a civil nuclear program. The reason they have much of the infrastructure themselves is largely in because they were frozen out of the global market in the first place. You cannot for any moral reason prevent a country from having a civilian nuclear programme.

 

North Korea proves the point that sanctions have no impact on whether they actually could get nukes. Israel, Pakistan and India also obtained nuclear weapons without the aid of any other major power. It is not so hard to get nukes and if they want to they will get those anyway, the question is whether or not they will be under sanctions because people believe they have military intentions, when this is inherently unclear. I'm absolutely not saying I know they do not have a military nuclear program, I am saying that we can't know, if we do not have records of the Iranian army talking about it. The US and Israel have been spying on Iran all this time and they still do not have any official evidence of a military nuclear programme. Do you not think that if there was any incriminating evidence, that that evidence had been brought forth at this point?

 

Sanctions had been more relevant if Iran were a credible threat to any of their neighbours, but they aren't. The only place Iran looks both likely and able to attack is the Islamic State. The benefits of trade outweigh the disadvantages. The only significant effect of an embargo is that that the Iranians get yet one more thing to blame on the US.

[Zoraptor]

 

Right, so now the Iranians have a 'nuclear weapons program' where they aren't making any nuclear weapons... Or, as it is otherwise known; not a nuclear weapons program.

 

Are you really that obtuse, or do you simply not want to understand what Gromnir wrote?

 

 

Dunno, you've given a pretty good impression of not understanding what I wrote, at least after the first couple of lines.

 

Basically, Rostere's first paragraph is correct. Perhaps I should have explained what dual use is rather than presuming that people would understand, but I did presume that anyone commenting would have some background on the subject. Dual use technologies are stuff that have a definite civilian use, and a possible military use. Under the rules of the IAEA these technologies are legitimate because they have that civilian use, the only illegitimate stuff is stuff that has only a military use. Dual use technologies cannot be part of a weapons program by definition of the IAEA, in other words, only the parts that have solely a military use can. So long as Iran sticks to dual use stuff it does not have a weapons program, by definition. It was designed that way for several reasons including commercial ones, but mostly because it makes basic logical sense. Even low enriched uranium has a potential radiological military use in a dirty bomb or as a precursor to high enriched uranium, after all, define that as a military use and everyone with a reactor or nuclear industry is infringing.

 

So, fundamentally, all countries have a right to nuclear energy and civilian technologies under the auspices of the IAEA (well, for those signing the NPT)- not just ones we trust and like. Any other approach is circularised special pleading- these people want legitimate nuclear technologies to actually make bombs and our proof is that they want nuclear technology. Plus we don't like them.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

 

 

Right, so now the Iranians have a 'nuclear weapons program' where they aren't making any nuclear weapons... Or, as it is otherwise known; not a nuclear weapons program.

 

Are you really that obtuse, or do you simply not want to understand what Gromnir wrote?

 

Constructing the actual warheads is just one part of a nuclear weapons program. Much of it is building up infrastructure, technology, human capital to be able to construct the warheads (and put them straight into missiles without delays).

 

So yes, you can have a nuclear weapons program that prepares and optimises everything else first, and saves the warhead construction for last, so that - with everything optimized - it can be done much quicker.

 

That's what the "Iran is x years/months away from nuclear weapons" reports from Western intelligence services mean: If Iran were to start the warhead construction now (which they aren't, yet) how long would it take them to finish?

 

The more they prepare and optimize the infrastructure, the shorter that time becomes - at some point it may become so short that they can go ahead and do it without anyone being able to stop them anymore, and at that point they probably will do it. (Or why else go through all that trouble?)

 

I think it is you who have missed the point about the nuclear program. The point is that a lot the Iranians do is indiscernible from what you would in a civil nuclear program. The reason they have much of the infrastructure themselves is largely in because they were frozen out of the global market in the first place. You cannot for any moral reason prevent a country from having a civilian nuclear programme.

 

 

 

 

well, you can be moral justified in stopping the civilian use if they is using such to hide what is obvious a nuclear weapon's program.  sure, some o' what the iranians is doing is indistinguishable from what would be a peaceful nuclear energy program, but a considerable amount o' what they is doing ain't.  please, you gotta be ridiculous obtuse to believe that iranian activities at fordow and parchin (y'know, where were that explosion followed by the paving over once investigators asked for access) and elsewhere is peaceful.  and yes, if one bent over backwards and went full ostrich mode like zor, you could explain away the heavy-water facilities as being peaceful, but they make far more sense in the context o' weapon construction.  

 

as kgambit's iaea numbers show, the iranian efforts actual make far more sense when viewed as pursuing weapons as 'posed to peaceful use.  heck, the iaea has noted that some o' the "spherical geometries" studies being conducted is baffling to the iaea unless looked at in context of weapons development.

 

am understanding that the current (previous) efforts to prevent iranian nuke weapons development has reached a point o' serious diminishing returns.  the iranians is already having pushed their breakout options such that continuing sanctions is having limited impact.  fine.  argue that continued efforts is pointless and while we disagree, we is at least conceding that iran weapons development is so far along that efforts other than sanctions were needed.  military?  clear not an option at this time. nevertheless, the economic stick were not having the desired impact, so it made sense to try the carrot instead, yes?  fine.  am agreeing a change in policy were needed, but trying to pretend that the iranians were not pursuing nuclear weapons development is require a level o' childish naivete or willful obtuseness that is detracting from your arguments rather than bolstering.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[Darkpriest]

Well considering that Iran is a pretty big country I see an economic reason to have a different power plant than mass oil burning powerplants... i am more worried about their ability to run such a place safely... and it would also paint itself in a big red color as a target for extremist groups.

[Zoraptor]

US sanctions prevented them from pursuing hydrocarbon extraction and refining efficiently, nuclear is an alternative source that is not subject to sanctions as the Russians don't give a flying asterisk and will happily sell their civil tech to Iran whatever the US says.
 

parchin (y'know, where were that explosion followed by the paving over once investigators asked for access) and elsewhere is peaceful.

 

Finally, there is no evidence of nuclear weapon related activities at this specific site [in Parchin], as previously reported by other sources. These reports may have confused this site with another site at the Parchin military complex where alleged high explosive nuclear weapon related activities occurred prior to 2004.

 

[pdf link added editorially, page 3 is most relevant as it shows how far apart the two areas are]

 

Specifically, the area the explosion occurred in was dedicated to rocket research. And the paving preceded the explosion (in 2013, explosion was Oct 2014; and was in a different area too) rather than followed it.

 

And no, it's not that ISIS.

[Gromnir]

ISIS? the ISIS that reported that iran's nuclear program, "Threatens international peace and security, undermines the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT], and threatens to spur proliferation elsewhere in the region"?  that ISIS? oh, and you didn't bother reading the footnotes, eh?  you still got other pacharin problem to deal with.

 

which brings us to the obvious: why not allow inspectors to confirm?  iaea is concerned as is others.  so why not allow inspectors?  your link shows that there is no evidence that the explosion had anything to do with a nuke development, but then why be paving over and disallow o' inspections?

 

"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has asked to visit this site based upon information it received from member states and its interviews with a former Soviet nuclear weapons expert linked to this site.1 Iran has so far refused to allow the visit and in the meantime undertaken extensive building and site modifications that complicate the IAEA’s verification responsibilities under the Iran/IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreement."

 

oh, and use ISIS is, much like your protest that pakistan could sell the saudis a bomb off-the-shelf, is hurting you.

 

"Iran regularly denies the IAEA access to military sites, such as Parchin, a facility where high-explosive experiments linked to nuclear triggers may well have occurred. Iran continues to refuse IAEA requests to interview key individuals, such as Mohsen Fakrizadeh, the suspected military head of the Iranian nuclear-weapons program in the early 2000s and perhaps today, and Sayyed Abbas Shahmoradi-Zavareh, the former head of the Physics Research Center alleged by the IAEA be the central location in the 1990s of Iran's militarized nuclear research." david allbright, president of ISIS

 

other zingers from same source:

 

"The primary goal of a comprehensive solution is to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is indeed peaceful,

against a background of two decades of Iran deceiving the IAEA about its nuclear programs,

including military nuclear programs. This long history of deception and violations places

additional burdens on achieving a verifiable long term agreement, including the need for any

agreement to last for about 20 years. "

 

"At this point in time, it is not certain that Iran would rely entirely on the covert pathway option

for fear of getting caught again as it did in building the formerly secret Fordow facility, and long

before it has enough weapon-grade uranium or separated plutonium for nuclear weapons. The

revelation about the Qom enrichment plant was highly damaging to Iran’s international

credibility."

 

"Iran poses by far the most important and immediate Middle East nuclear proliferation

challenge for the United States and the international community. Iran’s advancing

nuclear program violates U.N. Security Council resolutions, threatens international

peace and security, undermines the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and threatens

to spur proliferation elsewhere in the region."

 

"Addressing the IAEA’s concerns about the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programs is

fundamental to any long-term agreement. Although much of the debate about an agreement with

Iran rightly focuses on Tehran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium production capabilities, an

agreement that side steps the military issues would risk being unverifiable. Moreover, the world

would not be so concerned if Iran had never conducted weaponization activities aimed at

building a nuclear weapon. After all, Japan has enrichment activities but this program is not

regarded with suspicion. Trust in Iran’s intentions, resting on solid verification procedures, is

critical to a serious agreement."

 

"We recommend that the United States and its allies impose maximal sanctions pressure

on Iran prior to Iran’s reaching the critical capability to produce enough weapongrade

uranium (or sufficient separated plutonium) for one or more bombs before the

production of such an amount can reasonably be expected to be detected by the IAEA or

Western intelligence services. "

 

"Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei often declares that nuclear weapons violate Islamic

strictures. His denials are not credible."

 

"Thus, there is widespread evidence and agreement that Iran has worked on developing nuclear

weapons and that some of those activities may have continued to today." 

 

http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/update-on-ir-5-centrifuge-issue-taking-stock/8

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11288503/US-should-stop-Iran-buying-material-for-Arak-nuclear-plant.html

 

http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/ISIS-estimates-Iran-could-build-a-nuclear-bomb-within-a-month-329718

 

you do know how to pick'em.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 22, 2015 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

I certainly do know how to pick them- I don't want you weaseling out by claiming bias as you tried with Mossad saying Iran had no active weapons program, after all. As it is your assertion with respect to the explosion and sealing is now utterly debunked, by a source you like, which establishes inaccuracy and scaremongering from you and your sources pretty conclusively. Frankly, a source that says Iran can build a bomb in a month, in 2013, 22 months ago rather helps me rather than hinders me, since they haven't built a bomb in that timeframe but instead agreed to limit their nuclear programme.

 

The accusations wrt to Parchin were from 2000-3, and never substantiated hence why ISIS say may have occurred, indeed you're circularising again and using a simple accusation as being proof that the accusation is correct. Understandable, all opponents and all scaremongers in general do that, including in that report (that may mysteriously morphs into 'has' half way through, after all). The IAEA visited in 2005, most of the information about Karchin came from exile groups who had such a great record in Iraq contemporaneously, why it's not like we had mobile weapons labs made up by someone to please his CIA handlers or anything. Mainly though it's the classic argumentation technique on insisting that a negative be proved when it's the reverse that needs proving, nobody can prove that Iran never had a weapons program as it's fundamentally impossible to prove such a thing, so you'll use that lack of proof as evidence that they had one- it's the 'when did you stop beating your wife, if you ever did stop?' technique where you start from a conclusion of guilt and work back from there.

 

So, such zingers, saying that Iran may have had a weapons program in 2000-3, how several posts ago, plus abject scaremongering about Iran being able to produce a bomb in a month in 2013. Shame one is postdated thoroughly by those pesky intelligence assessments from Mossad (2012) and the US (2007, 2012) saying they don't have a weapons program and both are- crucially, and which you steadfastly refuse to actually address- by the 2015 agreement.

 

What you really need to do is show how the 2015 agreement fails to address concerns, not reiterate 12 year old accusations that have never been substantiated.