Agreement in Iran Nuclear talks

[BruceVC]

Obama show-boating, trying to leave a foreign policy legacy.

 

And leaving it for the next schmuck to clean-up. I know Dubya left him a boatload of crap to shovel, but this one has the potential to be even more toxic.

 

Hyperbole anyone? Your post is an egregious exaggeration my fine feathered friend 

 

Obama had to deal with a broken USA economy, 2 military  ground occupations and loads of global animosity. Obama will be handing over a recovered USA economy, no more military ground occupations, an aerial military campaign and less animosity. Bush trumped him by far 

[Monte Carlo]

[Maedhros]

Pretty interesting reading, about Iran's youth:

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b110ec2e-04b0-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3g3Uc3500

[Malcador]

So, what is the worst Iran can do with this ?

[Gromnir]

 

Obama show-boating, trying to leave a foreign policy legacy.

 

And leaving it for the next schmuck to clean-up. I know Dubya left him a boatload of crap to shovel, but this one has the potential to be even more toxic.

 

Hyperbole anyone? Your post is an egregious exaggeration my fine feathered friend 

 

Obama had to deal with a broken USA economy, 2 military  ground occupations and loads of global animosity. Obama will be handing over a recovered USA economy, no more military ground occupations, an aerial military campaign and less animosity. Bush trumped him by far 

 

your obama appreciation is genuine, yes?  the economy initial goes belly up 'cause o' a variety o' factors, including the failure o' other major economies. irresponsible and borderline fraudulent lending practices were, in our opinion, the most noteworthy mistake that contributed to the economic downfall and we can blame those failures on both republican and democrat Congresses over past +15 years. so, what did obama, as President, actual do to improve the economic situation? stimulus?  gonna have as many (more actual) economists arguing that stimulus helped not at all and actual contributed to duration o' the economic downturn.  so, what else?  the economy did what it does and, for the most part, fixed itself as legislators and businessmen reacted after the fact and with disturbing listlessness. obama didn't make the economic problems, but neither did his predecessor (can field compelling arguments that if any President is to blame, clinton would be the guy) and he sure as heck didn't fix anything.

 

other major domestic issues?  well, racial tensions is, perhaps ironic, higher now than when obama took office.  the thing is, obama's power to respond to such stuff is actual limited.  yeah, he could be more vocal and use his non-Constitutional power to set agendas by being the most visible member o' the Federal government to change the national dialogue. perhaps to our benefit, obama has embraced a kinda limited response philosophy throughout his tenure.  the President has been extreme cautious in handling race issues, which necessarily means that he has done very little. the root cause o' the racial tensions is economic in nature, and while obama weren't the 'cause o' the bad economy, he sure as hell shoulda' been aware that the economic downturn would hurt the poorest segments o' our nation.  

 

campaign promises regarding nsa spying on Americans? HA! 

 

obamacare? is honest far too early to say whether obamacare is success or failure. 

 

foreign affairs is where Presidents get far more impact, so is better to look at his legacy on foreign affairs-- accept that Presidents get far too much credit and blame for domestic issues.  china... obama specific made promises that he would take focus off the middle-east and make bolstering alliances with asian nations a major goal o' his Presidency.  so, how did that work out?  obama were promising to shut down guantanamo.  uh... well, am guessing you can say he kinda/sorta half-succeeded there.  the average european citizen sees obama as less threatening than former Presidents, but our actual relationship with european administrations has cooled in light o' the various spying scandals.  romney (not our favorite Presidential candidate) warned that russia were a genuine and emerging threat during a debate. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/20/flashback-obamas-debate-zinger-on-romneys-1980s-foreign-policy/

 

obama dealing with russia has been embarrassing.  

 

(as an aside, you can let video continue to hear some funny facts 'bout obamacare promises... depending on how it loads for you.)

 

the middle-east.  *groan* am in agreement that getting out o' iraq were good.  How we got out o' iraq led to predictable problems.   am not joking just how predictable given various military reports on the dangers o' an accelerated withdrawal from iraq... but honestly, am not gonna once again go into how obama's dedication to a hands-off approach has been a complete and utter failure.  

 

but at least the US is still liked by sub-saharan african nations... right?  no?  

 

...

 

sh!t

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps obama made numerous campaign promises to native americans before and after he were elected.  many/most indians (the current pc term) is members o' bia recognized tribes: domestic dependent nations.  is a legal fiction used to describe US relationship with native peoples, so is not genuine domestic or foreign affairs. in any event, the tribal law and order act as well as the indian health care improvement act has drawn as much criticism as acclaim, but am gonna concede that obama has done more than previous administrations, although not enough to actual improve conditions for most native peoples. the problems is too big to be handled without serious dedication and ther ain't no motivation for a President to fix indian problems.  

Edited July 16, 2015 by Gromnir

[Darkpriest]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/14/opinions/glaser-logan-iran-nuclear-deal-positive/index.html

 

Guys this is a big story, much more important than people may realize 

 

Anyway well done Kerry and all the other negotiators who spent months patiently getting to this point. I'll comment on this later but this outcome is much better than the suggested military option from some 

 

 

I guess the old saying of an enemy of my enemy is my "friend".

 

I would not be surprised that what allowed to make this deal is the very real support that Iran can give in fighting ISIS and US do not have to use their own ground troops for that then. Iran has its own issues with these ISIS guys and here is probably what allowed to make this deal. I am fairly sure that in near future we will see some kind of deal between Iran and Iraq for a military assistance and Iran's troops will be more active in the region.

 

This is probably a lesson US learned in these last years. The known regime is better than a web of terrorist cells to fight with. Further weakening of the Iran's regime could only lead to more powerful terrorist cells. You also have to remember that the leaders of regime are not retarded, they appear to be to a public, but they are damn good, pragmatic leaders and will change their narrative to whatever they need, as long as they suddenly will not openly claim that USA is the best friend in the world...

 

Another thing is, that Iran sooner or later will complete their researches, and now it is more about removing it from the Russian grasp of influences. It is a typical US geopolitics for decades. If you can't fight them - buy them.

[Rostere]

 

 

short term benefits to the iran deal is obvious. potential long term problems will be an issue for future administrations here and abroad.  isn't particular fair to those future folks, but such is life, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

What are you worried about? That Republicans if they win the election next year will change the negotiations terms...or something else ?

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-emerging-iran-nuclear-deal-raises-major-concerns-in-congress-and-beyond/2015/02/05/4b80fd92-abda-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/arab-states-fear-dangerous-iranian-nuclear-deal-will-shake-up-region/2015/07/14/96d68ff3-7fce-4bf5-9170-6bcc9dfe46aa_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-blasts-iran-deal-as-dark-day-in-history/2015/07/14/feba23ae-0018-403f-82f3-3cd54e87a23b_story.html

 

so, a number o' arab nations is concerned about an emboldened and enriched iran in the middle-east, and israel, the only dependable US ally in the middle-east (ever) is also concerned and angry. but hey, at least obama got guarantees that iran would not develop its nuclear capacity, right? no?  so, we got what amounts to a capitulation to demands by tehran while playing hardball with Congress? huh?  

 

but hey, before the next election, oil prices is likely to drop and a new market will be opened up for a multitude o' american businesses.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

But in this argument you are completely missing the most important part about the deal. This deal is an investment in the Iranian youth. Iranians are an educated people with a large diaspora in Western countries - coming to a diplomatic agreement with Iran makes it far more difficult for radical elements to indoctrinate the new generations, who will eventually rule the country. This is a long-term effort to change the political climate and undermine the arguments of the anti-American groups. Currently, they could tell their next generation that "Americans are a vile people, who bomb wedding parties from remote-controlled drones, support ethnic cleansing at the UN and hate us so much that they would rather go to war than let us have have nuclear power". Even a skeptical Iranian who looks this up on the Internet finds out that this is true. However, compared to for example North Korea, Iran is a very open country. They would never be able to indoctrinate their population if the US was not constantly giving them very good arguments.

 

People always generalize when talking about countries - "Iran" is not the enemy, the ultra-nationalists of the IRGC are, with the mullahs as their figurehead. Obama's Iran diplomacy is in effect equal to a slow an painful garrote for these movements. It will be the ultimate embarrassment, the final act which utterly discredits their world-view, when the US disengages from offensive military action in the ME and commences economic and cultural ties with Iran. I don't know how many Iranians you know and how informed you are of the situation, but urban Iran is a powder-keg with a lit fuse. When finally the mullahs can no longer claim a Western conspiracy against Muslims, their political relevance will fade into nothing. At that point, we want Iran to be as de-militarized as possible to avoid them lapsing back into a military dictatorship, and to achieve that, we must lower tensions. I'm not saying this will happen tomorrow, but look at how Communism ended in the Soviet Union.

 

 

 

The truth is that it is very hard to tell which parts of their nuclear program are civilian and which are not (if any). The international isolation of Iran only makes this worse. By securing this deal, we turn from a vicious circle of distrust towards a new beginning which will greatly empower a new generation of moderate Iranians, and indirectly Shia Iraqis and Lebanese, to renew their countries.

 

Let us remember that cultural isolation plays into the hands of those who would subjugate their own population. A more wealthy and educated Iranian society is going to be a much better stabilizing force in the region than an isolated Iran which we keep giving ammunition to tell their own population about the crimes of the "west". The instant this deal was sealed it gave a severe blow to the future of Iranian hard-liners, whose entire world view has been turned upside down.

 

They have been shouting for months that the US wants either war or for Iran to have no nuclear power. As the people of Tehran celebrate in the street, I'm sure they spend the evening in shameful contemplation at home.

 

It´s not that difficult honstely. The gap between operating a power plant and being able to construct a bomb are huge. Not to mention they have been observed in the past and the new contract gives access to every sight, including secure military bases. I would be, and i am, more worried about Israle who clearly has nuclear bombs (illegaly) and no one does anything about it, despite their history of expansion with military means. Iran? Iran has not fought in an agressive war for hunderts of years, i´m not worried.

 

Actually, it is probably easier to construct a primitive nuclear bomb than a functional nuclear power plant (assuming you already have the enriched materials). Everything depends on how good the American intelligence is, specifically in this case that they would know if Iran is hiding highly-enriched uranium somewhere.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

short term benefits to the iran deal is obvious. potential long term problems will be an issue for future administrations here and abroad.  isn't particular fair to those future folks, but such is life, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

What are you worried about? That Republicans if they win the election next year will change the negotiations terms...or something else ?

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-emerging-iran-nuclear-deal-raises-major-concerns-in-congress-and-beyond/2015/02/05/4b80fd92-abda-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/arab-states-fear-dangerous-iranian-nuclear-deal-will-shake-up-region/2015/07/14/96d68ff3-7fce-4bf5-9170-6bcc9dfe46aa_story.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-blasts-iran-deal-as-dark-day-in-history/2015/07/14/feba23ae-0018-403f-82f3-3cd54e87a23b_story.html

 

so, a number o' arab nations is concerned about an emboldened and enriched iran in the middle-east, and israel, the only dependable US ally in the middle-east (ever) is also concerned and angry. but hey, at least obama got guarantees that iran would not develop its nuclear capacity, right? no?  so, we got what amounts to a capitulation to demands by tehran while playing hardball with Congress? huh?  

 

but hey, before the next election, oil prices is likely to drop and a new market will be opened up for a multitude o' american businesses.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

But in this argument you are completely missing the most important part about the deal. This deal is an investment in the Iranian youth.

 

dear lord.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Rostere]

The British Conservatives are on board to commence constructive relations with Iran.

 

"Britain wants to open an embassy in Iran by the end of the year, he said, and Brits have to start traveling to Iran and having the person-to-person interactions that will bring Iran back into the world. Iranian students have to be welcome in the west, so we will get to know one another."

Edited July 16, 2015 by Rostere

[Monte Carlo]

The British Conservatives are on board to commence constructive relations with Iran.

 

"Britain wants to open an embassy in Iran by the end of the year, he said, and Brits have to start traveling to Iran and having the person-to-person interactions that will bring Iran back into the world. Iranian students have to be welcome in the west, so we will get to know one another."

 

So the British government is stoopid too? Point not found.

[kgambit]

 

Actually, it is probably easier to construct a primitive nuclear bomb than a functional nuclear power plant (assuming you already have the enriched materials). Everything depends on how good the American intelligence is, specifically in this case that they would know if Iran is hiding highly-enriched uranium somewhere.

 

 

It's also easier to create the necessary quantity of weapon grade uranium (~16 kg of 90% U-235) than it is to enrich all of the fuel necessary for a single reactor.  It's a total function of the energy required for purification and the number of units you have for the process.    By the time you've enriched to 4-5%, you already done around 2/3 of the work necessary.  Further enrichment is actually easier and simpler once you've met certain economies of scale and Iran's program has long since met those requirements. 

 

With 9000 units, Iran can produce enough fissile material for a single warhead (assumed to be ~16 kg of material) in around 2 months.  Their stockpiles are sufficient to produce ~8 warheads.  Introducing the newer IR-2m centrifuges will shorten that. 

 

Some current figures on Iranian supplies and enrichment requirements:

 

• Approximate amount of low-enriched uranium needed annually to fuel Iran’s sole civilian power reactor at Bushehr:

  21 metric tons

• Percent of this uranium Russia will supply under a ten-year fuel contract:

  100

• Number of years it would take the roughly 9,000 operating IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz to produce one year's worth of fuel for Bushehr:

  10.7

• Approximate number of separative work units (amount of enrichment work)  Iran would need to generate in order to produce one year's worth of fuel for Bushehr:

  100,000

• Number of IR-1 centrifuges Iran would need to operate in order to produce this level of work annually:

  128,000

 

Iranian Stockpiles

• Total amount of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) enriched to approximately 3.5 percent U-235 produced as of May 2015:

  14,937 kg

• Amount of this material ready for further enrichment (i.e., stored in gaseous form) as of May 2015:

  8,715 kg

• Amount theoretically needed to produce a bomb's worth of weapon-grade uranium metal:

  1,053 kg

 

Iranian Nuclear Breakout Times Under Different Scenarios

 

If Iran feeds its IR-centrifuges with natural uranium and operates:

• 9,000 centrifuges (the number now running):

  6.8 months 

• 6,104 centrifuges (the number allowed to be installed under the framework agreement):

  10.1 months

• 5,060 centrifuges (the number allowed to operate under the framework agreement):

  1 year

 

If Iran feeds its IR-1 centrifuges with low-enriched uranium and operates:

• 9,000 centrifuges:

  1.6 months 

• 6,104 centrifuges:

  2.4 months

• 5,060 centrifuges:

  2.9 months

These numbers are all based on Iran IR-1 centrifuges.  Their more advanced IR-2ms can enrich at 5 times the IR-1 rate.  The existence of more advanced IR-5 units is suspected but as yet undocumented.

 

The bottom line is that Iran's enrichment program is nowhere near sufficient to meet the requirements for peaceful use and depends totally on the deal with Russia to provide sufficient low-enriched U-235 supplies for civilian purposes.  Iran was never going to agree to anything less than 5000 centrifuges anyway if only to save face internally.  The current deal does nothing to lengthen the break-out time if Iran wishes to violate the agreement.   (1000 IR-2ms and 5000 IR-1s can produce enough fissile material for a weapon in 1.5 months). 

 

Edit 1:   This wasn't an attempt to cast a pall of doom over the conversation but simply to point out that the deal does squat to limit Iran's nuclear weapon program.

 

 

Rostere might be right about the long term.  The upside in this deal (and the only positive of it imo) lies solely with the chance that it can sway public opinion inside Iran and the moderates will eventually topple the hard liners from power.**    

 

Edit 2:  **Rostere, I wish I was as optimistic as you were but frankly, I'm skeptical both over the degree to which the moderates can exercise the power you think they have and whether it would even stand a chance of success.  

Edited July 16, 2015 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

I don't see the reason for scepticism. It's the Bibi redline* argument again but, if they've been two months (or six months, or a year) away from a bomb for years (decades) and if they want a bomb then why don't they have one? The only two answers are that they do want one, but it is harder than implied; or that they don't actually want one. As it is the sceptics try to have their cake and eat it too, the Iranians want one but are held back by... sanctions, [something] the brave defenders of freedom are doing, threat of violence or whatever else justifies their approach so, obviously, that approach has to continue. It is perhaps the classic self reinforcing circular argument where you start from the conclusion("Iran wants the bomb!") and work backwards from there.
 
Of course it is rather hilarious to see Bibi, head of a country that doesn't have IAEA inspections for its nuclear arsenal, throwing a foot stomping paddy about anything nuclear related.
 
*Contradicted in large part of course by those unrealistic and idealistic anti semite goons at, er, Mossad as well as by US intelligence.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Volourn]

"Britain wants to open an embassy in Iran by the end of the year, he said, and Brits have to start traveling to Iran and having the person-to-person interactions that will bring Iran back into the world. Iranian students have to be welcome in the west, so we will get to know one another."

 

I await the first British citizen who is arrested for breaking some disgusting religious law or accused of being spies. That will be fun.

 

Again, people are ignoring the simple fact. The average Iranian is not the issue. The government is. Why are people pretending that Iran is some reasonable country. They aren't.

[Gromnir]

estimates we seen reported, such as the 2012 RAND studies, suggest iran is at least 1 year away from development of nuclear weapons, and that they could not accomplish such a feat w/o the US discovering their efforts to do so. that being said, iran's efforts have not been directed at creating an actual weapon but rather to improve its "breakout options."  iran has been working towards shortening that 1 year timeline for weapon development, and improving the potential number of weapons that could be produced in addition to working on more mundane aspects such as delivery systems.

 

the more obvious way to look at the scenario is that the current sanctions and multi-national agreements to limit the iranian weapon program has worked thus far.  given iran's dishonesty regarding their nuclear program (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-02-25/iran-nuclear-talks-reflect-history-of-war-and-deceit  http://security.blogs.cnn.com/?s=parchin) reasonable folks is gonna be suspicious 'o iranian claims.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps found the rand linky  

 

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2012/RAND_MG1180.pdf

Edited July 16, 2015 by Gromnir

[Maedhros]

God some you guys are a bunch of sad scaremongers.

[Gromnir]

many fears expressed in the press do strike us as unfounded.  for instance, the notion that saudi arabia would respond to relaxing nuclear program limits on iran by developing a nuclear program o' their own strikes us as comical.  iran is hardly a world-striding technological juggernaut, but saudi arabia lags far behind iran.  who in saudi arabia would develop their program?  is not as if saudi arabia can import experts to develop a nuke program. short o' somehow buying nukes from other powers, we don't foresee saudi arabia as joining some kinda imagined middle-east arms proliferation race any time soon... am talking decades removed from even contemplating such a thing.  so yeah, there is a few bogeyman being created w/o much basis in reality.

 

regardless, if you thinks iran hasn't been working on developing nuclear weapons thus far, you are being naive.  again, working on nuke weapons includes the "breakout options" as discussed in the linked RAND report.  belief that iran will discontinue their efforts now that the coalition governments are committed to lifting sanctions and unfreezing accounts is laughable myopic.  other than direct military force, the coalition governments abandoned what little leverage they had to discourage iranian nuclear weapons development.  the kissinger & shultz article we linked above points out the myriad problems related to any kinda enforcement o' the terms o' this deal.

 

wth, the US couldn't even secure the release o' 3-4 "hostages," as part o' this deal.  

 

 

am wondering if john kerry had to assume the position to broker his deal.

 

regardless, if you ain't concerned, then you ain't been paying attention to the middle-east, and iran in particular.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"God some you guys are a bunch of sad scaremongers."
 

\Take your stupid god and shove him up the butt. I don't bow to no god but Ao. Better to be a 'scaremonger' than someone who wants to pretend that this deal helps anyone but the Iran religious fanatics in power. This does not help a single Iranian civilian who has no power.

 

But, hey, let us bash the US some more for intervering in the world even though that is exactly what Iran does. Then agin, you probably never cared when the Iranian gov't was mass murdering Iranian citizens. Why so much love for them?

[Zoraptor]

The Saudis would simply buy a bomb so they don't need the infrastructure. They largely bankrolled the Pakistani 'Islamic Bomb', after all, and for just that purpose. That's pretty well known, amongst people who pay attention to the middle east and Saudi Arabia in particular.

[Ganrich]

Parliment told Churchill he was a scaremonger every time he told them Germany would be a problem. Fact is, history has a few moments where progressives give despotic cultures, countries, or whatever the benefit of the doubt. Time and again it has lead to a confrontation down the line. This time it involves nuclear power. I doubt all of us will be here for a "next time.". However, against all historical evidence maybe it will work this time. I doubt it.

[Gromnir]

The Saudis would simply buy a bomb so they don't need the infrastructure. They largely bankrolled the Pakistani 'Islamic Bomb', after all, and for just that purpose. That's pretty well known, amongst people who pay attention to the middle east and Saudi Arabia in particular.

its pretty much a given that nobody in islamabad would be so reckless or stoopid as to sell nukes to the saudis, but hey, if you wanna help perpetuate such stuff, be our guest as it only increases the dangers, real and imagined, o' the iranian nuke threat. heck, the saudis couldn't even convince pakistan to join their air campaign against yemen and you see a real possibility o' purchasing nukes from the same source?  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Yes, yes, and because the US won't send troops into Lebanon to root out Hezbollah it means they won't supply Israel with arms. They're two completely separate issues. Pakistan doesn't want to get involved in Yemen because it's a clusterasterisk where the Saudi proxy president has no support at all with them supporting southern separatists and foreign intervention with ground forces- the Egyptian one in the 60s and the Saudi one a few years ago- ended disastrously; and they have a significant shia minority who they don't want any chance of fighting at the same time as the Taleban- and who Saudi wanted specifically excluded from any Pakistani forces sent. Mostly though, we're talking Pakistan here, they helped North Korea get their nuke so they're not going to baulk the country which mostly paid for their bomb if they offer more cash for some working samples if they were willing to help a destitute non islamic pariah.

 

Parliment told Churchill he was a scaremonger every time he told them Germany would be a problem. Fact is, history has a few moments where progressives give despotic cultures, countries, or whatever the benefit of the doubt. Time and again it has lead to a confrontation down the line. This time it involves nuclear power. I doubt all of us will be here for a "next time.". However, against all historical evidence maybe it will work this time. I doubt it.

 

Meh, the vast majority of times you have scaremongering the scaremongering is just that, scaremongering. People tend to forget all the times they're told the sky is falling when it doesn't actually fall, they just remember the occasional time it does.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

Yes, yes, and because the US won't send troops into Lebanon to root out Hezbollah it means they won't supply Israel with arms. 

 

saudis weren't asking for boots on the ground from pakistan... and we are not talking just arms but nukes.   bad analogy all the way around.  and yes, pakistan would definitely balk at actual selling nukes.  pakistan has adamantly denied that they actual helped north korea, though few believe their protests.  so in an actual analogous situation, with surreptitious aid, how many decades would it take for the saudis to generate their own plutonium as did the north koreans?  saudi arabia, as noted already and tacitly agreed to by even you, doesn't have the capacity to develop their own weapons even with aid.  going in circles. your analogies are... labored.

 

regardless, and again, the possibility o' a middle-east nuclear arms race, with pakistan actual selling nuclear weapons to saudi arabia, is one o' the least plausible nightmare scenarios being presented by the media.  if you wanna argue that such nonsense as pakistan volunteering to become a pariah state by selling nuclear weapons to saudi arabia is a legit concern, then you are actual supporting one o' the more frightening and least plausible arguments for rejecting the iran deal.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

sigh

 

Pakistan was asked to contribute soldiers to the Yemen campaign, according to their Defence Minister. Debated in the Pakistani parliament as well on that basis, that plus the request to exclude shia soldiers lead to their refusal to contribute.

 

KSA have bought CSS2 ballistic missiles from China, which are installed- and were designed specifically for carrying nuclear warheads.

 

They financed the Pakistani nuclear program. Many of those 'anonymous western sources' people love to quote when it's convenient (but ignore when inconvenient) say there is a deal fro nukes, as do unnamed Pakistani sources.

 

They sold nuclear secrets to North Korea, Libya and Iran- the Iranian IR1 is a direct copy of the P1, with P standing for... Pakistan, Dr Khan confessed to supplying DPRK and supplied evidence that it was governmentally sanctioned and Libyans gave Pakistan as a source for their nuclear program as well. You'd go a long way to find three more 'pariah' states to sell to, selling to Saudi would be small potatoes comparatively.

 

There's a lot more evidence for that than there is for Iran having an actual and active weapons program and ability to quickly produce a bomb like the scaremongers say, Iran has consistently said they aren't doing so as have Mossad and US Intelligence assessments plus they have a fatwa from The Ayatollah himself banning them. Saudi probably won't buy a bomb, but it is because Iran probably won't produce one.

[Rostere]

 

 

Actually, it is probably easier to construct a primitive nuclear bomb than a functional nuclear power plant (assuming you already have the enriched materials). Everything depends on how good the American intelligence is, specifically in this case that they would know if Iran is hiding highly-enriched uranium somewhere.

 

 

It's also easier to create the necessary quantity of weapon grade uranium (~16 kg of 90% U-235) than it is to enrich all of the fuel necessary for a single reactor.  It's a total function of the energy required for purification and the number of units you have for the process.    By the time you've enriched to 4-5%, you already done around 2/3 of the work necessary.  Further enrichment is actually easier and simpler once you've met certain economies of scale and Iran's program has long since met those requirements. 

 

With 9000 units, Iran can produce enough fissile material for a single warhead (assumed to be ~16 kg of material) in around 2 months.  Their stockpiles are sufficient to produce ~8 warheads.  Introducing the newer IR-2m centrifuges will shorten that. 

 

Some current figures on Iranian supplies and enrichment requirements:

 

• Approximate amount of low-enriched uranium needed annually to fuel Iran’s sole civilian power reactor at Bushehr:

  21 metric tons

• Percent of this uranium Russia will supply under a ten-year fuel contract:

  100

• Number of years it would take the roughly 9,000 operating IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz to produce one year's worth of fuel for Bushehr:

  10.7

• Approximate number of separative work units (amount of enrichment work)  Iran would need to generate in order to produce one year's worth of fuel for Bushehr:

  100,000

• Number of IR-1 centrifuges Iran would need to operate in order to produce this level of work annually:

  128,000

 

Iranian Stockpiles

• Total amount of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) enriched to approximately 3.5 percent U-235 produced as of May 2015:

  14,937 kg

• Amount of this material ready for further enrichment (i.e., stored in gaseous form) as of May 2015:

  8,715 kg

• Amount theoretically needed to produce a bomb's worth of weapon-grade uranium metal:

  1,053 kg

 

Iranian Nuclear Breakout Times Under Different Scenarios

 

If Iran feeds its IR-centrifuges with natural uranium and operates:

• 9,000 centrifuges (the number now running):

  6.8 months 

• 6,104 centrifuges (the number allowed to be installed under the framework agreement):

  10.1 months

• 5,060 centrifuges (the number allowed to operate under the framework agreement):

  1 year

 

If Iran feeds its IR-1 centrifuges with low-enriched uranium and operates:

• 9,000 centrifuges:

  1.6 months 

• 6,104 centrifuges:

  2.4 months

• 5,060 centrifuges:

  2.9 months

These numbers are all based on Iran IR-1 centrifuges.  Their more advanced IR-2ms can enrich at 5 times the IR-1 rate.  The existence of more advanced IR-5 units is suspected but as yet undocumented.

 

The bottom line is that Iran's enrichment program is nowhere near sufficient to meet the requirements for peaceful use and depends totally on the deal with Russia to provide sufficient low-enriched U-235 supplies for civilian purposes.  Iran was never going to agree to anything less than 5000 centrifuges anyway if only to save face internally.  The current deal does nothing to lengthen the break-out time if Iran wishes to violate the agreement.   (1000 IR-2ms and 5000 IR-1s can produce enough fissile material for a weapon in 1.5 months). 

 

Edit 1:   This wasn't an attempt to cast a pall of doom over the conversation but simply to point out that the deal does squat to limit Iran's nuclear weapon program.

 

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

 

 

Rostere might be right about the long term.  The upside in this deal (and the only positive of it imo) lies solely with the chance that it can sway public opinion inside Iran and the moderates will eventually topple the hard liners from power.**    

 

Edit 2:  **Rostere, I wish I was as optimistic as you were but frankly, I'm skeptical both over the degree to which the moderates can exercise the power you think they have and whether it would even stand a chance of success.

 

I am convinced I am right, but my analysis is also dependent on a lot of things not happening: a right-wing US president (currently looks unlikely but could change quickly), Israel attacking Hezbollah, another big act of terrorism similar to 9/11, a sudden change in leadership in another country in the region like SA, Turkey or Pakistan... These are things which could possibly change the political climate, break the deal, or both.

 

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.

 

What we want is for the political climate to continuously shift in a more reformist direction. The days of the clerical establishment are numbered, and this period truly constitutes an anomaly in Iranian history which was mostly brought about by the charisma of Khomeini to begin with. Please read more about the Iranian revolution if you are interested. The only question is whether democrats or the IRGC will seize power in Iran next. I would give the current establishment 20 years at most, if things continue in this direction.

[Gromnir]

why on earth post a link that shows that pakistan did indeed reject requests for military aid from the saudis?  sure, the saudis did ask for troops as well as airpower and ships, but the pakistanis offered NONE o' those things.  weren't as if they were forced to make an all-or-nothing choice.  the saudis, who did not commit to a land campaign, could not even get air power support from pakistan. again, did the saudis get air support from pakistan in their air campaign?  no? well, ok then.

 

*shrug*

 

"There's a lot more evidence for that than there is for Iran having an actual and active weapons program"

 

well, no, if you had read the links we offered, you would realize that iran having a nuke weapons program is a given.  iranian protests regarding sites such as fordow  http://www.nti.org/facilities/165/ is just as difficult to swallow as were pakistanian protests related to north korea. am not sure what your claims regarding china have to do with the current issue.  did we miss you now proposing a 3-way deal between saudi arabia, china and pakistan to get nukes?  but again, we already noted that surreptitiously selling tech is a whole different scenario than actual selling nukes or weapon-grade plutonium. saudi arabia, thankfully, can't do much with nuclear weapons tech.  they simple do not have the infrastructure and the personnel to do anything with the kinda tech that north korea likely received from pakistan.

 

and the fatwa stuff is actual kinda more complicated than you suggest

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/27/did-irans-supreme-leader-issue-a-fatwa-against-the-development-of-nuclear-weapons/

 

but all o' this is a matter o' us continuing to go in circles while you miss the point(s).  if we assume that pakistan actual would sell nuclear weapons to saudi arabia based on conjecture that ignores recent pakistani behavior regarding much less controversial conventional military support, that only increases the danger o' facilitating an iranian nuclear program.    

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 17, 2015 by Gromnir