Pattaya Police Raid Poker Gambling Ring, Arrest 9 Foreign Players

[webfact]

Khamenei says Iran will 'shred' nuclear deal if U.S. quits it

By Parisa Hafezi

 

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei attends a meeting with students in Tehran, Iran, October 18, 2017. Leader.ir/Handout via REUTERS

 

ANKARA (Reuters) - Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday Tehran would stick to its 2015 nuclear accord with world powers as long as the other signatories respected it, but would "shred" the deal if Washington pulled out, state TV reported.

 

Khamenei spoke five days after U.S. President Donald Trump adopted a harsh new approach to Iran by refusing to certify its compliance with the deal, reached under Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, and saying he might ultimately terminate it.

 

"I don't want to waste my time on answering the rants and whoppers of the brute (U.S.) president," Khamenei said in a speech to students in Tehran quoted by state television.

 

"Trump's stupidity should not distract us from America's deceitfulness ... If the U.S. tears up the deal, we will shred it ... Everyone should know that once again America will receive a slap in its mouth and will be defeated by Iranians."

 

Trump's move put Washington at odds with other parties to the accord - Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union - who say Washington cannot unilaterally cancel an international accord enshrined by a U.N. resolution.

 

Khamenei, who has the final say on Iran's state matters, welcomed European support but said it was not sufficient.

"European states stressed their backing for the deal and condemned Trump ... We welcomed this, but it is not enough to ask Trump not to rip up the agreement. Europe needs to stand against practical measures (taken) by America."

 

Under the deal, Iran agreed to curb its disputed uranium enrichment programme in return for relief from international sanctions that crippled its economy, and U.N. nuclear inspectors have repeatedly certified Tehran's compliance with the terms.

 

Trump accuses Iran of supporting terrorism and says the 2015 deal does not do enough to block its path to acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran says it does not seek nuclear arms and in turn blames the growth of militant groups such as Islamic State on the policies of the United States and its regional allies.

 

In decertifying the nuclear deal last week, Trump gave the U.S. Congress 60 days to decide whether to reimpose economic sanctions on Tehran that were lifted under the pact.

 

"DO NOT INTERFERE"

 

In a major shift in U.S. policy, Trump also said Washington will take a more confrontational approach to Iran over its ballistic missile programme and its support for extremist groups in the Middle East.

 

Tehran has repeatedly pledged to continue what it calls a defensive missile capability in defiance of Western criticism. The United States has said Iran's stance violates the 2015 deal in spirit as missiles could be tipped with nuclear weapons.

 

Tehran has said it seeks only civilian nuclear energy from its enrichment of uranium, and that the programme has nothing to do with missile development efforts.

 

EU foreign ministers on Monday urged U.S. lawmakers not to reimpose sanctions on Tehran but also discussed Iran's missile programme, which they want to see dismantled.

 

"They must avoid interfering in our defence programme ... We do not accept that Europe sings along with America's bullying and its unreasonable demands," Khamenei said.

 

"They (Europeans) ask why does Iran have missiles? Why do you have missiles yourselves? Why do you have nuclear weapons?"

 

The Trump administration has imposed new unilateral sanctions targeting Iran's missile activity. It has called on Tehran not to develop missiles capable of delivering nuclear bombs. Iran says it has no such plans.

 

Iran has one of the biggest ballistic missile programmes in the Middle East, viewing it as an essential precautionary defence against the United States and other adversaries, primarily Gulf Arab states and Israel.

 

“Americans are angry because the Islamic Republic of Iran has managed to thwart their plots in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and other countries in the region," Khamenei said.

 

Supporters of the deal fear Trump's decision to decertify the deal could eventually unravel it, causing more tension in the crisis-hit Middle East, where Shi'ite Iran is involved in a decades long proxy war with U.S. ally Sunni Saudi Arabia.

 

If the deal falls apart, Iran's anti-Western hardliners will gain authority in a backlash against pragmatic President Hassan Rouhani, who engineered the accord to help end Iran's political and economic isolation, analysts and insiders say.

 

(Writing by Parisa Hafezi; editing by Mark Heinrich)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-19

[Emster23]

Trump is his own axis of evil. He is desparate to get poll numbers up, and probably thinks a war with Iran will improve his ratings.

[farcanell]

Funnily enough... or more correctly... worryingly.... this sounds fair enough

[Happyman58]

Trump must be stupid because even the Iranian guy can see it.

[Grouse]

Something need to be done about Trump

 

I hope Kelly will "do the right thing"

 

 

[Morch]

 

I wonder if the agreement actually specifies provisions for some of the scenarios floated, and if so - what do the small letters say. The problem is that with so much partisanship and hyperbole, getting a factual read on this is not easy.

 

If the USA does, eventually, pull out of the agreement or unilaterally re-impose sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program, does it imply that the whole agreement is void? Does it completely unravel if one of the signatories withdraws?

 

Or, for that matter, how do additional provisions (such as were enacted in the USA) figure with regard to agreement's framework? This legislation isn't exactly news, so was it ignored up to now on the assumption that it wouldn't be acted upon?

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I wonder if the agreement actually specifies provisions for some of the scenarios floated, and if so - what do the small letters say. The problem is that with so much partisanship and hyperbole, getting a factual read on this is not easy.

 

If the USA does, eventually, pull out of the agreement or unilaterally re-impose sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program, does it imply that the whole agreement is void? Does it completely unravel if one of the signatories withdraws?

 

Or, for that matter, how do additional provisions (such as were enacted in the USA) figure with regard to agreement's framework? This legislation isn't exactly news, so was it ignored up to now on the assumption that it wouldn't be acted upon?

 

 

Well, according to this person who definitely does not approve of the agreement, the consequences would not be good, particularly for the USA.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/31/what-would-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-iran-nuclear-deal-look-like/

[William T]

Trumps policy. Cancel the agreement and if they don't do what i say;  "Bomb the bastards".

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

Something need to be done about Trump

I hope Kelly will "do the right thing"

What's the right thing?  .....duct tape him to the exec chair, then duct tape his mouth, ....but leave a little hole so an aide can stick a straw in there so dufus gets his daily dose of 4 liters of coca cola?

 

Khamenei sounds like no dummy, in contrast to the ding dong in the WH.  Get ready for Iran to join the nuke club.  Keep your fingers crossed, and hope the Iranian prez is not as hot-headed as ignoramus Trump Sr.

 

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, according to this person who definitely does not approve of the agreement, the consequences would not be good, particularly for the USA.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/31/what-would-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-iran-nuclear-deal-look-like/

 

That's just another opinion piece, regardless of who authored it. What I'm after is a clear and factual insight as to what the agreement actually says (or, rather, if it does) regarding one of the signatories withdrawing or introducing additional provisions. Not disagreeing that Trump's foreign policy (if it can be called that) is a mess, or that withdrawing from the agreement is a mistake.

[Grouse]

23 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

What's the right thing?  .....duct tape him to the exec chair, then duct tape his mouth, ....but leave a little hole so an aide can stick a straw in there so dufus gets his daily dose of 4 liters of coca cola?

 

Khamenei sounds like no dummy, in contrast to the ding dong in the WH.  Get ready for Iran to join the nuke club.  Keep your fingers crossed, and hope the Iranian prez is not as hot-headed as ignoramus Trump Sr.

 

 

 

Kelly's a marine. He knows. No need for a straw.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That's just another opinion piece, regardless of who authored it. What I'm after is a clear and factual insight as to what the agreement actually says (or, rather, if it does) regarding one of the signatories withdrawing or introducing additional provisions. Not disagreeing that Trump's foreign policy (if it can be called that) is a mess, or that withdrawing from the agreement is a mistake.

It's not just an opinion piece. Here's a little bit about the author: "William Tobey is a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs was most recently deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation at the National Nuclear Security Administration."

So I think it's a pretty safe assumption that he knows what he's talking about.  He does explicitly say that Iran would be free of all sanctions in the case of a US withdrawal except in the unlikely event that no member of the security council vetoes a US resolution to impose them.

"First, Iran would return to its past levels of uranium enrichment, or even greater ones — as it has threatened to do — free from all sanctions and in possession of the hundreds of billions of the dollars that were released to Tehran under the deal".

Of course it's possible that Iran won't return to enriching uranium but it's clear from the above paragraph that it would be free to do so without fear of sanctions. And that is the heart of the matter.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's not just an opinion piece. Here's a little bit about the author: "William Tobey is a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs was most recently deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation at the National Nuclear Security Administration."

So I think it's a pretty safe assumption that he knows what he's talking about.  He does explicitly say that Iran would be free of all sanctions in the case of a US withdrawal except in the unlikely event that no member of the security council vetoes a US resolution to impose them.

"First, Iran would return to its past levels of uranium enrichment, or even greater ones — as it has threatened to do — free from all sanctions and in possession of the hundreds of billions of the dollars that were released to Tehran under the deal".

Of course it's possible that Iran won't return to enriching uranium but it's clear from the above paragraph that it would be free to do so without fear of sanctions. And that is the heart of the matter.

 

Yeah, there's a lot of knowledgeable people commenting on the agreement and how Iran might react if this or that. What's missing from the discussion (at least for me) is a clear and factual reference as to whether the agreement covers such developments, and if so - what does it say. That you choose to treat the above as set in stone is all very well, but not what I was aiming at.

[ilostmypassword]

50 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, there's a lot of knowledgeable people commenting on the agreement and how Iran might react if this or that. What's missing from the discussion (at least for me) is a clear and factual reference as to whether the agreement covers such developments, and if so - what does it say. That you choose to treat the above as set in stone is all very well, but not what I was aiming at.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8958031/iran-nuclear-deal-full-text

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8958031/iran-nuclear-deal-full-text

 

No clue, then. Thanks.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

No clue, then. Thanks.

You wouldn't accept the word of someone who clearly is in a position to know, that being William Tobey, but you were looking to me for an answer? Anyway, I thought I'd do you a favor and send you a link to the text itself. Or is that not authoritative enough for you?  If I can rustle up a link to Jesus' pronouncements on the issue, I'll pass it along. 

[Morch]

21 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

You wouldn't accept the word of someone who clearly is in a position to know, that being William Tobey, but you were looking to me for an answer? Anyway, I thought I'd do you a favor and send you a link to the text itself. Or is that not authoritative enough for you?  If I can rustle up a link to Jesus' pronouncements on the issue, I'll pass it along. 

 

It's not about "accepting the word" of this or that pundit (and besides, there wasn't a direct reference to the questions posed) - but the lack of an official, or agreed upon statement as to if the agreement included provisions for certain situations (and if so, what exactly do these specify).

 

Quote

but you were looking to me for an answer?

 

I wasn't expecting a coherent, informed or relevant answer from you. More like the usual petty argument.

 

Quote

I thought I'd do you a favor

 

Spare me the disingenuous BS.

 

As for the link, it's widely available. Unlike some posters, I do not pretend to be a legal expert. If things were really as straightforward as claimed, it wouldn't be too hard referencing the relevant bits. As far as I'm aware, most comments dealing with the USA's possible withdrawal do not got there, at least not in detail. So far, it seems like most of what's said amounts to assessments, many of the painted by partisan leanings. That some of these assessments are made by knowledgeable people, and that they may prove to be correct was not the quite the issue I raised earlier in the topic.

[hstew]

So what, what this Khomeni dude spouts off about, NOTHING will change if US walks from the deal. Iran will continue with their nuclear proliferation much the same as N. Korea. It's all just "words", meaningless words at that. Iran is evil, NEVER to be trusted, so some meaningless paper nuclear deal is irrelevant to the big picture of these sneaky, deceptive low life rats in Iran

 

The only thing that might change is the US navy wiping out one of these iranian vessels that periodically buzz their destroyers and other US vessels traversing the Gulf. Then iran will spout off again and that's all that will become of it.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

 

 

I wasn't expecting a coherent, informed or relevant answer from you. More like the usual petty argument.

 

 

 

The usual snide assertion when you get caught out.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The usual snide assertion when you get caught out.

 

You have a warped understanding of what "caught out" means. May I suggest that it's actually the other way around?

 

Your posts serve to highlight my point - that there is no clear, official reference to what (if any) provisions are included in the agreement for certain situations.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

You have a warped understanding of what "caught out" means. May I suggest that it's actually the other way around?

 

Your posts serve to highlight my point - that there is no clear, official reference to what (if any) provisions are included in the agreement for certain situations.

 

There's plenty of evidence out there to show what the situation is. If you haven't the wit to construe it, nothing to be done.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

There's plenty of evidence out there to show what the situation is. If you haven't the wit to construe it, nothing to be done.

 

Your rudeness was expected, the go to option when you have nothing to contribute but can't leave it at that.

 

It has nothing to do with "evidence" or with "construing". I'm putting forth that there is no clear reference made, despite a whole lot of statements aired. One would thing that such a serious matter would be supported by something concrete rather by assertions. The lack of such a clear reference (from all sides involved) may be an indication that there are no provisions and that no one actually thought things would come to this when the agreement was signed. Another thing is that if these issues could not have been addressed prior to signing the agreement - because tackling them could have meant it wouldn't go through.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Your rudeness was expected, the go to option when you have nothing to contribute but can't leave it at that.

 

It has nothing to do with "evidence" or with "construing". I'm putting forth that there is no clear reference made, despite a whole lot of statements aired. One would thing that such a serious matter would be supported by something concrete rather by assertions. The lack of such a clear reference (from all sides involved) may be an indication that there are no provisions and that no one actually thought things would come to this when the agreement was signed. Another thing is that if these issues could not have been addressed prior to signing the agreement - because tackling them could have meant it wouldn't go through.

 

 

Is this your idea of politesse?

"I wasn't expecting a coherent, informed or relevant answer from you. More like the usual petty argument."

 

[vaultdweller0013]

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You have a warped understanding of what "caught out" means. May I suggest that it's actually the other way around?

 

Your posts serve to highlight my point - that there is no clear, official reference to what (if any) provisions are included in the agreement for certain situations.

That reference would be the deal itself.

 

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of how these sorts of high level international politics work. There is the actual text of the deal, but each country is fundamentally a sovereign state that can interpret or even choose not to follow what is written on their own whim. The is no official body that can enforce an interpretation without resorting to the barrel of the gun.

 

In this case, according to the treaty, the US could submit to the UN Security Council (UNSC) that Iran was not in compliance. Assuming the UNSC rejected the US claims and the US failed to accept this conclusion , this would trigger a vote on whether to continue to suspend the sanctions suspended as part of the deal. Note the phrasing of that is important, because the US could veto the proposal and the sanctions would then "snapback" into place.

 

This is where it moves away from being able to have hard facts to where it can only be hypothesized. The general consensus is that Iran would immediately ignore the deal and restart their nuclear program in full force. There would be little reason for Russia or China to get on board with the reimposition of sanctions, so even if they didn't overtly ignore them, they would probably find plenty of loopholes to continue to do business and the sanctions wouldn't have the same bite they had before the deal. The US would also have to deal with an annoyed EU and Japan who have business aspirations for Iran. Japan especially, since they are in competition with China in Asia and don't want to be left behind in terms of foreign investment in other countries. Its hard to say exactly what both would do, but it is doubtful they would toe the US line.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by vaultdweller0013
Smartphone keyboard....

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Is this your idea of politesse?

"I wasn't expecting a coherent, informed or relevant answer from you. More like the usual petty argument."

 

 

Just a realistic (if pessimistic, at that) take of what can be expected from exchanges with you on certain topics. Now, if you're quite done derailing this topic....

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

That reference would be the deal itself.

 

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of how these sorts of high level international politics work. There is the actual text of the deal, but each country is fundamentally a sovereign state that can interpret or even choose not to follow what is written on their own whim. The is no official body that can enforce an interpretation without resorting to the barrel of the gun.

 

In this case, according to the treaty, the US could submit to the UN Security Council (UNSC) that Iran was not in compliance. Assuming the UNSC rejected the US claims and the US failed to accept this conclusion , this would trigger a vote on whether to continue to suspend the sanctions suspended as part of the deal. Note the phrasing of that is important, because the US could veto the proposal and the sanctions would then "snapback" into place.

 

This is where it moves away from being able to have hard facts to where it can only be hypothesized. The general consensus is that Iran would immediately ignore the deal and restart their nuclear program in full force. There would be little reason for Russia or China to get on board with the reimposition of sanctions, so even if they didn't overtly ignore them, they would probably find plenty of loopholes to continue to do business and the sanctions wouldn't have the same bite they had before the deal. The US would also have to deal with an annoyed EU and Japan who have business aspirations for Iran. Japan especially, since they are in competition with China in Asia and don't want to be left behind in terms of foreign investment in other countries. Its hard to say exactly what both would do, but it is doubtful they would toe the US line.

 

 

 

I've actually touched on the issue of sovereignty under the agreement on at least one recent topic, probably more on that way earlier.

 

The various descriptions of mechanisms and procedures involved do not, to the best of my knowledge, address a scenario in which one of the signatories (other than Iran, that is) withdraws from the agreement. My issue is with statements which treat assertions pertaining to the implications of such a move as concrete facts. This tends to make discussions loaded.

 

I don't know that there is a "general consensus" that Iran will immediately restart it's nuclear program. I'd actually be surprised if they did. Such a move would be as likely to undermine their efforts at reviving their economy. For all their loathing of Trump, the European signatories are not particularly keen on a nuclear capable Iran, or on complicating their trade relations with the USA. The latter may hold, to a lesser degree, with regard to the PRC and Russia as well.

 

There is no realistic scenario in which the previous wide sanctions regime is brought back to life. But despite what some posters imagine, the USA imposing unilateral sanctions does go a long way when it comes to international trade. Whether or not countries fully conform with these, the effects could be hard on Iran. And on a side note, not a good thing IMO, as it may strengthen the more troublesome factions.

 

I've not arguing that Trump's "policy" on this is a good one. It obviously isn't, and even if it does achieve something, doubtful its cannot be achieved by less drastic means. So the comments on worsening relations with USA allies is wholly accepted.

 

[tonbridgebrit]

Iran are harmless, they're not a danger and threat to world peace.

This is being done, why ?  Trump knows that, unfortunately, roughly a third of Americans believe that Iran is a danger and threat to world peace. The scrapping of this deal is being done to re-confirm support from these voters. And also, because Obama created the deal, well, that's why it has to be scrapped.

[tonbridgebrit]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/15/britain-germany-committed-to-iran-nuclear-deal-theresa-mays-office-says.html


Oh, so Britain and the EU are going to carry on the nuclear deal with Iran, even if Washington does pull out ?

How about this ?  Washington pulls out, and puts up massive sanctions against Iran. At the same time, Europe and the rest of the world will carry on trade links with Iran, and all other links as well. Not one drop of Iranian oil will enter America. And if Iran wants American goods, well, it will be okay for British companies to import American goods, and then re-export to Iran.

This way, everybody is happy.

[Scott]

An off-topic, inflammatory post has been removed.   Continued posting in such style will earn suspensions.  

[Morch]

11 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Iran are harmless, they're not a danger and threat to world peace.

This is being done, why ?  Trump knows that, unfortunately, roughly a third of Americans believe that Iran is a danger and threat to world peace. The scrapping of this deal is being done to re-confirm support from these voters. And also, because Obama created the deal, well, that's why it

has to be scrapped.

 

Iran is not "harmless", and it is a threat to world peace. This is evident from the widely accepted sanctions which were in place for years, and the agreement signed toward curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions.