Netanyahu and Bolton discussions focus on Iran nuclear programme

[webfact]

Netanyahu and Bolton discussions focus on Iran nuclear programme

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton attends a news conference in Moscow, Russia June 27, 2018. REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin/File Photo

 

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - White House national security adviser John Bolton arrived in Israel on Sunday on the first leg of an overseas trip, and met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with Iran the focus of talks.

 

Bolton is one of the U.S. administration's leading hawks in dealing with Iran's nuclear programme. He was meeting Netanyahu at a working dinner at the Israeli leader's residence in Jerusalem. The two are set for further discussions on Monday.

 

"We've got great challenges for Israel, for the United States, for the whole world - the Iran nuclear weapons programme and ballistic missile programmes are right at the top of the list," Bolton said.

 

In his welcoming remarks, Netanyahu said the two would discuss how "to continue to roll back Iran's aggression in the region and to make sure that they never have a nuclear weapon".

 

Bolton will meet Russian officials in Geneva later in the week as a follow-up to the summit meeting that President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin had in Helsinki last month, the White House said. He will also visit Ukraine.

 

Bolton told ABC News in an interview earlier that the United States, Israel and Russia shared the objective of removing Iranian and Iranian-led forces from Syria, and ending Iran's backing of the Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas.

 

(Writing by Ori Lewis; editing by David Evans)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-08-20

[pegman]

No good can come out of those two meeting.

[billd766]

No mention of Israeli nuclear weapons then or Israeli aggression in the region. Nothing mentioned about SA aggression in Yemen supported by both countries.

 

No mention of US aggression in Syria either.

 

Business as usual.

[blazes]

Expect a cosy little nuke aimed at Iran in a few weeks' time....

[billd766]

30 minutes ago, blazes said:

Expect a cosy little nuke aimed at Iran in a few weeks' time....

 

And which country would be stupid enough to do that?

[blazes]

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

And which country would be stupid enough to do that?

Just use your imagination and, like a good detective, ask who, of the nuclear nations, has the most  motive for taking out Iran's nuclear developments.

[alanrchase]

I suppose some sort of treaty  between Iran and several other countries where Iran agrees to suspend it's nuclear ambitions for a given period of time and let inspectors verify that they have might work. Oh, wait.......

[DaddyWarbucks]

22 minutes ago, blazes said:

Just use your imagination and, like a good detective, ask who, of the nuclear nations, has the most  motive for taking out Iran's nuclear developments.

Spot on.

The question famously posed by Cicero, cui bono, applies here as it does to most of the armed conflicts in the Middle East since 9/11.

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

"We've got great challenges for Israel, for the United States, for the whole world - the Iran nuclear weapons programme and ballistic missile programmes are right at the top of the list,"

Yes, it's a great challenge when Trump takes a nonissue (the Iran nuclear weapons programmes) and puts it at the top of the list of issues. This follows Trumps strategy of creating an issue to which only he can resolve.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, blazes said:

Expect a cosy little nuke aimed at Iran in a few weeks' time....

 

Expect inane comments.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

Spot on.

The question famously posed by Cicero, cui bono, applies here as it does to most of the armed conflicts in the Middle East since 9/11.

 

Nonsense. See previous post.

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Yes, it's a great challenge when Trump takes a nonissue (the Iran nuclear weapons programmes) and puts it at the top of the list of issues. This follows Trumps strategy of creating an issue to which only he can resolve.

 

A non-issue which mandated a rather lengthy sanctions regime, and resulted in a rather comprehensive inspections regime. Trump doing away with that doesn't make Iran's nuclear ambitions into a non-issue.

[JulesMad]

Of course, this exclusive club of nuke-countries does not want Iran among them...

However, if usa and Israel give up their nukes, I am sure Iran will stop their nuke program as well ?
Yes, I know THAT is never gonna happen...

 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

A non-issue which mandated a rather lengthy sanctions regime, and resulted in a rather comprehensive inspections regime. Trump doing away with that doesn't make Iran's nuclear ambitions into a non-issue.

It was a nonissue made so by a "mandated a rather lengthy sanctions regime, and resulted in a rather comprehensive inspections regime." My point is that Trump undid that nonissue to make it immediately a major issue versus the 10-year obligation under the nuclear agreement.

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, JulesMad said:

Of course, this exclusive club of nuke-countries does not want Iran among them...

However, if usa and Israel give up their nukes, I am sure Iran will stop their nuke program as well ?
Yes, I know THAT is never gonna happen...

 

 

Keep them simplistic nonsense comments coming. Because sure - only the US and Israel got nuclear arms. And these are only relevant in the context of Iran. If you haven't got a clue as to why Iran was placed under sanctions and the following inspections regime, perhaps its time to do some reading.

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

It was a nonissue made so by a "mandated a rather lengthy sanctions regime, and resulted in a rather comprehensive inspections regime." My point is that Trump undid that nonissue to make it immediately a major issue versus the 10-year obligation under the nuclear agreement.

 

Is was never a non-issue. The sanctions and inspections regime did not make it a non-issue. The inspections regime was in place because it was (and is) an issue. Judging the inspections regime a full success (thus allowing the non-issue comment) can not be supported. The inspections regime was (or rather, is) an ongoing thing, and a relatively new effort, at that.

 

I get the point you're trying to make, I just think that you went over the top there.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Keep them simplistic nonsense comments coming. Because sure - only the US and Israel got nuclear arms. And these are only relevant in the context of Iran. If you haven't got a clue as to why Iran was placed under sanctions and the following inspections regime, perhaps its time to do some reading.

 

So why wasn't Israel put under sanctions for having nuclear weapons in the first place?

 

Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons to protect itself against Israel?

 

After all N Korea has them for self defence against the USA. 

 

The USA, Russia, China, India and Pakistan also have them but nobody complains about them.

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Is was never a non-issue. The sanctions and inspections regime did not make it a non-issue. The inspections regime was in place because it was (and is) an issue. Judging the inspections regime a full success (thus allowing the non-issue comment) can not be supported. The inspections regime was (or rather, is) an ongoing thing, and a relatively new effort, at that.

 

I get the point you're trying to make, I just think that you went over the top there.

My last comment.

The Trump administration said in April and July 2017 that it had certified to Congress that Iran is still complying with the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/17/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-240641

The next year he refused to certify not because Iran was out of compliance but because he objected to Iran's ballistic missile program. Trump linked the issue of Iran's ballistic missile program to a non-issue; thus, creating two issues from one issue. https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/12/16447436/trump-iran-deal-decertify-inara

[Morch]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

So why wasn't Israel put under sanctions for having nuclear weapons in the first place?

 

Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons to protect itself against Israel?

 

After all N Korea has them for self defence against the USA. 

 

The USA, Russia, China, India and Pakistan also have them but nobody complains about them.

 

Iran is an NPT signatory and was found to be in breach of its commitments and obligations. Hence sanctions, hence inspections regime. Israel is not an NPT signatory, hence not on the receiving end of its provisions for such cases.

 

The rest of your post if drivel, and that's being charitable. What it comes down to is that further nuclear proliferation is alright, provided it panders to your political views.

 

Current agreements are more about limiting proliferation, not abolishing nuclear weapons altogether. It's what grown ups call pragmatism, or realism. Look it up. But, of course, much easier to go for some nonsense such as if X got nukes, so should Y. In essence, the NPT etc. is more like saying X having nukes is not great, but X and Y having them is worse. 

 

Taking action against countries which already possess nuclear military capabilities is complicated, and dangerous. If one was to follow your "reasoning", we'd have a planet full of righteous nations armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Good luck with that. 

 

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

My last comment.

The Trump administration said in April and July 2017 that it had certified to Congress that Iran is still complying with the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/17/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-240641

The next year he refused to certify not because Iran was out of compliance but because he objected to Iran's ballistic missile program. Trump linked the issue of Iran's ballistic missile program to a non-issue; thus, creating two issues from one issue. https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/12/16447436/trump-iran-deal-decertify-inara

 

Nothing in what you posted above actually makes Iran's nuclear program and ambitions into a non-issue. If it was a non-issue, there wouldn't be an inspections regime. Declaring the inspections regime did not permanently erase Iran's nuclear program and capabilities. That Iran was deemed to be in compliance doesn't imply a non-issue in any way. You're grasping at straws.

 

Trump's moves can certainly be criticized, and as posted on past topics, if Iran's other activities were an issue - there were probably better ways of dealing with them without reneging on the Iran Deal.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.   Also, a post in German was removed.   Only English is permitted.  

 

[Ron19]

A post editing a quote by another member in such a way that it puts it out of context.

Then a flame comment is added in reply to that post. The post has now been removed.

.

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[billd766]

18 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Iran is an NPT signatory and was found to be in breach of its commitments and obligations. Hence sanctions, hence inspections regime. Israel is not an NPT signatory, hence not on the receiving end of its provisions for such cases.

 

The rest of your post if drivel, and that's being charitable. What it comes down to is that further nuclear proliferation is alright, provided it panders to your political views.

 

Current agreements are more about limiting proliferation, not abolishing nuclear weapons altogether. It's what grown ups call pragmatism, or realism. Look it up. But, of course, much easier to go for some nonsense such as if X got nukes, so should Y. In essence, the NPT etc. is more like saying X having nukes is not great, but X and Y having them is worse. 

 

Taking action against countries which already possess nuclear military capabilities is complicated, and dangerous. If one was to follow your "reasoning", we'd have a planet full of righteous nations armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Good luck with that. 

 

 

What it boils down to is that you support Israel right or wrong and they can never do wrong in your eyes. Israel should be forced to sign the NPT and if not it should be declared a pariah state. That the USA does nothing about Israels' nuclear weapons is a disgrace.

 

I appreciate that you and I and probably many others have differing opinions about Israel and long may it be so but please refrain from describing my post as drivel and any other posts that have a different view to yours.

 

We ALL have the right to our opinion but to rubbish other posts because they don't agree with you proves at least to me that in some circumstances your posts are drivel to me.

 

I try to keep a civil tongue in my fingers and not insult other posters.

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

What it boils down to is that you support Israel right or wrong and they can never do wrong in your eyes. Israel should be forced to sign the NPT and if not it should be declared a pariah state. That the USA does nothing about Israels' nuclear weapons is a disgrace.

 

I appreciate that you and I and probably many others have differing opinions about Israel and long may it be so but please refrain from describing my post as drivel and any other posts that have a different view to yours.

 

We ALL have the right to our opinion but to rubbish other posts because they don't agree with you proves at least to me that in some circumstances your posts are drivel to me.

 

I try to keep a civil tongue in my fingers and not insult other posters.

 

What it boils down to is that you make yet another off-mark assertion regarding my positions. If you would bother actually reading my posts, they do include criticism of Israel - if not the mindless, vehement sort many here favor. I am not, for example, a cheerleader for Israel's (or any country, for that matter) having nukes. My take on this is more to do with what's realistically attainable at the present vs. what's not.

 

Forcing nuclear capable countries to do anything is rather difficult. And the case could be made that Israel is not the only non-NPT party out there. Regardless, what you prescribe as "should" is immaterial in the context of what is. That would be Iran signing the NPT and then breaching commitments and terms. Spin away.

 

Your wishes regarding Israel being "declared a pariah state" (as if there was some universally acceptable way of doing such) are dully noted. Same old fare. Notably, you (and others) do not seem to feel all that strongly about other members of the nuclear club.

 

My take on your posts as drivel is not because I do not agree with your opinions, but more to do with the reasoning (or lack of) on offer.

[baboon]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

What it boils down to is that you support Israel right or wrong and they can never do wrong in your eyes. Israel should be forced to sign the NPT and if not it should be declared a pariah state. That the USA does nothing about Israels' nuclear weapons is a disgrace.

 

I appreciate that you and I and probably many others have differing opinions about Israel and long may it be so but please refrain from describing my post as drivel and any other posts that have a different view to yours.

 

We ALL have the right to our opinion but to rubbish other posts because they don't agree with you proves at least to me that in some circumstances your posts are drivel to me.

 

I try to keep a civil tongue in my fingers and not insult other posters.

Bill, do yourself a favour and either make use of the 'Ignore' facility or scroll past like most others do.

And remember this is Thaivisa where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. I think you get my drift...

[billd766]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

Bill, do yourself a favour and either make use of the 'Ignore' facility or scroll past like most others do.

And remember this is Thaivisa where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. I think you get my drift...

 

Thanks. Some of his posts are OK but others.......

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.