Iran makes new nuclear threats that would reverse steps in pact

[Morch]

1 minute ago, jany123 said:

maybe I should have said “most logical”... or “best for the regions stability”... or “morally right”.. but I didn’t, so ok.

 

However... I did not say it was “simple”, but rather, the “simplest solution”. You appear to argue against the point, without providing an indication of what you would consider a simpler solution (which I’d be more than happy to kick around with you)... but as far as this thread goes, it’s still the simplest solution that I’ve seen suggested, even if it has to wait 18 months to be achieved.

 

as to your rest... the JCPOA doesn’t need renegotiating, it needs reinstating. That Iran refused to tie further demilitarization to the JCPOA, is fine... I’m not now suggesting that they could, would or should. What I said / suggested was that a new and separate deal could be negotiated... that would be a winning spin for the trump, wouldn’t it?...  “Peace in our time”, he could cry, whilst stepping from his plane. 

 

alternatively, the USA carrying thru and implementing secondary sanctions against its allies... well... there’s nothing whatsoever simple about that mess. The number of catastrophic permutations to that equation are frightening.

 

And... I thought the “redefined axis of evil” bit was funny.... I might continue to use that... I’m happy to see anyone describe MAGA as daft, and if contrary daftness is needed to encourage that sentiment, that’s cool...  so thanks for that

 

I'm not the one suggesting that there are simple solutions. Or simplest solutions. Whatever. I think it's a mess, and I thought it might be heading this way given how the treaty was passed in the USA, back when.

 

Considering Trump's volatile nature, it's kinda hard coming up with an acceptable, yet fail-proof "ladder". And adding Iran's hardliner ballgame, it ain't gonna get easier. The only hope here is that no side seriously wants a full blown war. And no, Bolton is not a "side", and (my guess) not even on the payroll for much longer. However, things will almost certainly need to get a bit more serious, for the "international crisis resolution" mode to kick in. Stepping away from the brink is sorta acceptable - responsibility in the face of this or that etc.

 

As for the rest - your positions are neither Iran's positions nor the Trump administration's. That's fine, but not all that relevant.

 

Call it re-negotiating the JCPOA or making a new agreement - Iran pretty much rejected either (at least as an opening position), and the Trump administration's view is that the JCPOA won't do. If the sides could be brought to the negotiation table, under whatever label, that would be great - but saying it won't bridge them differences.

 

The USA carrying on with the sanctions is indeed a mess, but if Iran carries on breaching the agreement, then eventually the Europeans will be hard pressed to stomach or explain things away. If that goes, then the international sanctions snap back again. Which pretty much makes the question of compliance with the USA sanctions moot. I think that might happen, and maybe serve as the background for the crisis drama everyone seems to be waiting for. In a way, it may also contribute to simplifying things - back to the two sides paradigm, rather than the current three-way (USA/Signatories/Iran). 

 

For those harping on Trump's reelection prospects - such an international front and cooperation, unhappy as it may be, could be well used in a campaign.

 

And yeah, figured you'd like a trolling slogan, Some posters are into such things. Saves the effort to think things through.

[emptypockets]

9 hours ago, rabas said:

It is  simple. A centrifuge does not care what percentage of U₂₃₅ gas goes in, 1% or 90%, it will enrich it. It also doesn't care what the Uranium will be used for, bomb, reactor, or political blackmail. If you want higher grade U₂₃₅, just run fewer in parallel and more in series. Maybe by just turning a valve. Not enough centrifuges? Store the effluent and recirculate, or in Iran's case, just take some out of storage.

 

I do not know about 3 months but it's clear Iran insists on maintaining a running factory fully capable of producing high grade bomb fuel whenever they decide to do so. If you don't trust me, here is the Federation of American Scientists on the subject. The FAS was started by scientists that worked on the original Atom bomb.

 

Centrifuges raise serious nuclear weapons proliferation concerns because exactly the same machines that are used to enrich uranium for a nuclear reactor can enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb. In general, a nuclear reactor needs a small degree of enrichment of a large amount of material and a bomb needs a large degree of enrichment of a small amount of material. Exactly the same centrifuges can do either job; the only change required is how they are piped together into a cascade. Moreover, a single typical large commercial nuclear power plant may have ten times more separative work than is needed to produce one uranium bomb per year, so even a modest commercial enrichment facility has a significant nuclear weapons production capability.

https://fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/fuelcycle/centrifuges/centrifuge.html

 

U235 gas?? Radon daughters is the gas given off by uranium as it decays.  Good luck with fugalling a gas. 

[emptypockets]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And what about Saudi Arabia and the suporting bad actors in Iraq, Syria, libya, Sudan, Yemen, Bahrain, Lebanon, and Egypt. You expect Iran just to do nothing against its enemies?

Give them all a nuclear device. 

From 1000 feet. 

Solve a lot of the world's problems on one hit. 

[AGLV0121]

19 hours ago, dexterm said:

it had an agreement that was working

 

Dictated under Iran's terms. Obama/Kerry team accepted the unacceptable. 24 days grace/notification period to inspect a site is long enough to hide any wrongdoing. It's twice the time needed for a full cleanup! This fact has passed under the radar. This is also they "in good faith" never - even now - objected to inspections. Of course!

Edited July 9, 2019 by AGLV0121

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, AGLV0121 said:

 

Dictated under Iran's terms. Obama/Kerry team accepted the unacceptable. 24 days grace/notification period to inspect a site is long enough to hide any wrongdoing. It's twice the time needed for a full cleanup! This fact has passed under the radar. This is also they "in good faith" never - even now - objected to inspections. Of course!

A deal that took 12 years of international negotiations and was working, reneged on by Trump without any idea what he was going to replace it with.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, AGLV0121 said:

 

Dictated under Iran's terms. Obama/Kerry team accepted the unacceptable. 24 days grace/notification period to inspect a site is long enough to hide any wrongdoing. It's twice the time needed for a full cleanup! This fact has passed under the radar. This is also they "in good faith" never - even now - objected to inspections. Of course!

 

No terms were "dictated" by Iran, other than in some posters' imagination. Negotiations are a give and take thing. Overall, the inspections regime laid on Iran is one of the strictest (if not the most) ever. If it doesn't live up to the fantasies or failed to totally subjugate Iran, well duh. And, of course, the agreement was not signed just by the USA - several other parties involved. Guess they all "overlooked" things, regardless of all these points being hashed and rehashed before, during and after negotiations.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

A deal that took 12 years of international negotiations and was working, reneged on by Trump without any idea what he was going to replace it with.

 

The JCPOA did not take 12 years to negotiate, unless one tries really hard to include events preceding it and misleadingly bundle them as one. That's a fine way of glossing over Iran's way of negotiating or failing to live up to commitments, though. Trump blundering into international affairs without having much of a clue is not a new phenomenon, nor is it unique to the situation vs. Iran.

[rabas]

11 hours ago, emptypockets said:

U235 gas?? Radon daughters is the gas given off by uranium as it decays.  Good luck with fugalling a gas. 

Lol, then you know the gaseous form used is UF₆, which easily 'fugits' due to artificial gravity applied to the gas.

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The JCPOA did not take 12 years to negotiate, unless one tries really hard to include events preceding it and misleadingly bundle them as one. That's a fine way of glossing over Iran's way of negotiating or failing to live up to commitments, though. Trump blundering into international affairs without having much of a clue is not a new phenomenon, nor is it unique to the situation vs. Iran.

"In May 2018, the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was designed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and had been agreed on after 12 years of exhaustive negotiations."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/07/iran-bullying-trump-negotiations

[Morch]

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

"In May 2018, the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was designed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and had been agreed on after 12 years of exhaustive negotiations."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/07/iran-bullying-trump-negotiations

 

You did notice you're quoting former member of Iran’s nuclear negotiating team, right? In case you did, thanks for making my point. While it may support Iran's narrative to lump things up that way, negotiations toward the JCPOA began end of 2013.  

[mike787]

Iran does NOT contribute to a world of peaceful coexistence and stability based of enrichment of uranium as stated by news.  Iran is hell bent on starting nuclear war, it appears.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, mike787 said:

Iran does NOT contribute to a world of peaceful coexistence and stability based of enrichment of uranium as stated by news.  Iran is hell bent on starting nuclear war, it appears.

 

How would Iran start a nuclear war without nuclear weapons? And to be clear, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, nor is it really close to developing, testing and manufacturing one.

 

[mike787]

42 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How would Iran start a nuclear war without nuclear weapons? And to be clear, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, nor is it really close to developing, testing and manufacturing one.

 

FACTS:

1. it cannot start a nuclear war today, it can start "a" war.

2. it is enriching Uranium beyond agreed internatioanl limits as stated by Iran GOV. 

3. Iran does not posses (known) nuclear weapons - YET! 

4. Based on actions, it wants nuclear weapons. HOW? see answer "2". 

5. Iran's government openly stated, It has begun enriching Uranium to nuclear capable levels (beyond current 4.5%)"...

 

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, mike787 said:

Iran does NOT contribute to a world of peaceful coexistence and stability based of enrichment of uranium as stated by news.  Iran is hell bent on starting nuclear war, it appears.

So how can the global community stop these pesky Iranians from starting a nuclear war or a nuclear arms race?

 

How about a treaty to ban nuclear enrichment for 15 years...let's give it a catchy name ..say JCPOA? Then towards the end of its life, negotiate an extension, and then another extension or even a new deal?

But if you really want to start a war, do what Trump did.... renege on that deal and bully others into doing likewise.

 

Trump has painted Iran into a corner piling on so many extra demands unrelated to nuclear enrichment that it amounts not to negotiations but total capitulation.

 

But he has also painted himself into a corner. He may actually get the war he yearns for to prove himself the tough guy after his bone spurs failure, but when the body bags start coming home, the voters will know who to blame for yet another foreign war and he will lose his re-election bid.

The Art of the Deal??

[Morch]

 

@mike787

 

You opined that Iran is "hell bent on starting nuclear war". 

Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, and the notion that it could develop such either within a short time frame or during a conventional war is nonsense.

 

Even the elevated levels of Uranium enrichment currently declared by the Iranian regime, are still a ways off from having what's required to develop and/or manufacture a weapon. Never mind issues of delivery.

 

I doubt Iran's regime is interested in an all out war under current conditions. And it is surely not seeking any nuclear war.

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, mike787 said:

Ok!  You're right, and I am VERY thrilled.  Thank you for educating myself and the rest of the world.  I'll make sure in the future if there is an issue with Iran I/we consult you first.  Take care.????

You're overthanking. Pretty much all the rest of the world interested in such things understands that if a nation doesn't possess nuclear weapons, then it's unlikely to be able to start a nuclear war.  Except an imaginary nuclear war, like the one you apparently are positing.

[meand]

On 7/9/2019 at 10:40 PM, Morch said:

 

And yet Europe, China, Russia and the USA (not to mention Iran's neighbors) feel very differently about it. Guess they are all less informed or less able to analyze things than yourself.

 

Iran getting nuclear weapons would mean its regional push will increase. This, in turn, can lead to other confrontations. If you think that's an imaginary scenario (as opposed to the bogus bit about "using" a nuke), guess you're just too invested in your hyperbolic anti-USA rhetoric.

 

And, of course, you're assuming Iran will have strict checks and balances with regard to nuclear weapons. Given how things are run in Iran, that's not a particularly viable proposition. Assuming rational reasoning is fine, ignoring Iran being a theocracy is not.

 

Maybe the problem is that many countries simply do not trust Iran as much as you do. If they did, they'd make a JCPOA without the strict inspections regime. Or accept Iran's NPT breaching excuses as valid.

They are not less informed. 

 

Le's simplify things. If you are a Tour de France competitor, ideally you want your competition to not be as able to run the course as you. It may be best to just focus on yourself, but world power does not work that way, unfortunately. And yes, in my estimation this id a perfectly valid analogy. A nation wants to be a "competitive force", and is full well capable of becoming one. Yet, they are hindered by other competitors who do not want the.... competition. 

 

You can talk all you want but that is exactly what is happening. How on earth could Iran haul off and use a nuke? That would be an immediate dead end. 

 

How can people not realize this?!

 

Also, having a group of countries who decide which countries are ok to have a nuke and which are not, is more likely to cause a nuclear war than Iran having a nuke is. 

Edited July 11, 2019 by meand

[meand]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@mike787

 

You opined that Iran is "hell bent on starting nuclear war". 

Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, and the notion that it could develop such either within a short time frame or during a conventional war is nonsense.

 

Even the elevated levels of Uranium enrichment currently declared by the Iranian regime, are still a ways off from having what's required to develop and/or manufacture a weapon. Never mind issues of delivery.

 

I doubt Iran's regime is interested in an all out war under current conditions. And it is surely not seeking any nuclear war.

It seems we agree as far as I can see. You have a strange way if arguing with people you seem to agree with. 

 

If iran had a nuke tomorrow, the sky would not fall. They would have more negotiating leverage and world political power in my estimation (as they probably would deserve if you ask me). 

 

But, that is it. It is so blatantly obvious why, in actuality, the world does not want Iran to have a nuke. It certainly is not because they would start a nuclear war. I would hope we could stipulate that. If we can't. Really?! 

 

But if we can, it all goes back to my assertion. The real goal is just to hold down competitors and enrich their own country based on those actions. 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, meand said:

They are not less informed. 

 

Le's simplify things. If you are a Tour de France competitor, ideally you want your competition to not be as able to run the course as you. It may be best to just focus on yourself, but world power does not work that way, unfortunately. And yes, in my estimation this id a perfectly valid analogy. A nation wants to be a "competitive force", and is full well capable of becoming one. Yet, they are hindered by other competitors who do not want the.... competition. 

 

You can talk all you want but that is exactly what is happening. How on earth could Iran haul off and use a nuke? That would be an immediate dead end. 

 

How can people not realize this?!

 

Also, having a group of countries who decide which countries are ok to have a nuke and which are not, is more likely to cause a nuclear war than Iran having a nuke is. 

 

No, let's not "simply" things. And while at it, let's avoid inane "analogies". Your "estimation" that it's "perfectly valid" doesn't make it so. And on the force of that nonsense you assert "that is exactly what is happening"? Try harder.

 

It is unlikely Iran will use a nuke if it had one. It is likely Iran would leverage the hell out of it, in a way most nuclear capable countries do not. If you think that's not an issue, alright then. Further, when it comes to checks and balances, not much of these about. Coupled with the often bellicose rhetoric and the religious zealotry on display, not a good mix. You wish to ignore or gloss over it? Go right ahead.

 

As for your last bit of nonsense, that's not quite how things work, and to date, no nuclear war. It would be far harder  to have a nuclear war without nuclear arms.

 

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, meand said:

It seems we agree as far as I can see. You have a strange way if arguing with people you seem to agree with. 

 

If iran had a nuke tomorrow, the sky would not fall. They would have more negotiating leverage and world political power in my estimation (as they probably would deserve if you ask me). 

 

But, that is it. It is so blatantly obvious why, in actuality, the world does not want Iran to have a nuke. It certainly is not because they would start a nuclear war. I would hope we could stipulate that. If we can't. Really?! 

 

But if we can, it all goes back to my assertion. The real goal is just to hold down competitors and enrich their own country based on those actions. 

 

It seems you're having comprehension issues, lamely trying to co-opt or hyper invested in pro-Iranian, anti-USA/Western rhetoric.

 

Positing things as Iran having a nuke implying an instant nuclear war is your thing. In reality, there a whole range of ways such an outcome can effect regional and global issues - without a "nuclear war" breaking. Whether Iran "deserves" more leverage is irrelevant, and so is your unsurprising take on that.

 

The general global view seems to be that having less nuclear weapons about is, overall, a safer way to  avoid nuclear wars. Obviously, you do not agree (or at least, subscribe to some all-or-nothing version). Using nuclear weapons as leverage is not something seen in a positive light as well. Again, you appear to take a different stance.

Edited July 12, 2019 by Morch