International community to resume nuclear talks with Iran

[up-country_sinclair]

the regime in Tehran aren't that crazy to fire upon Israel the moment it has the capability.

They are ruled by a death cult that wants the 12th Mahdi (the anti-Christ to Christians) to be brought forth by causing complete chaos in the world. They are that crazy.

In an interview which aired in the United States just two days ago, the former head of the Mossad called the leadership in Iran as "rational".

The full quote: "The regime in Iran is a rational one".

Ex-Mossad Chief Meir Dagan

[Jingthing]

Yes he did, but he if you actually watch what he said, he also thinks Iran is an existential threat to Israel. He simply thinks there is more time to wait before attacking with the hope of course that it won't be necessary. He also thinks Iran MUST be stopped from getting the nuclear weapons.

[Ulysses G.]

There are plenty of people in Intelligence who do not agree with what is one guy's opinion on rational.

[myfriendu]

There are plenty of people in Intelligence who do not agree with what is one guy's opinion on rational.

and millions of people with intelligence,who know whats really going on.

even usa intelligence.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

[myfriendu]

There are plenty of people in Intelligence who do not agree with what is one guy's opinion on rational.

and millions of people with intelligence,who know whats really going on.

even usa intelligence.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

[Jingthing]

Israel has different red lines than you might. Yes, of course this is about Iran's push towards the CAPABILITY to build the nuclear weapons. Who said they are building them now? Nobody I know. And also of course developing their deep earth sites which will be harder and harder to get at.

[Ulysses G.]

They don't really know what is going on. That is the problem.

"To be sure, American analysts acknowledge that understanding the intentions of Iran’s leadership is extremely difficult, and that their assessments are based on limited information. David A. Kay, who was head of the C.I.A.’s team that searched for Iraq’s weapons programs after the United States invasion, was cautious about the quality of the intelligence underlying the current American assessment".

As Netenyahu said recently, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[Jingthing]

From Israel's point of view if almost there capability is reached and the sites are deep enough, that is existential threat enough from the Death to Israel crowd. It is indeed debatable how much time there is to hope to stop Iran from going there. I doubt anyone posting here knows the actual facts about that.

[up-country_sinclair]

There are plenty of people in Intelligence who do not agree with what is one guy's opinion on rational.

One guy?

Britain to Join Obama in Discouraging a Strike on Iran

Britain will add its voice to President Obama’s in discouraging an Israeli military strike on Iran when Prime Minister David Cameron begins a three-day visit here this week, a senior British diplomat said Monday.

“The prime minister is pretty clear that he does not think military action against Iran would be helpful,” the diplomat, Peter Westmacott, Britain’s recently appointed ambassador to the United States, told reporters. “We do not regard that as the right way forward in the months to come.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/world/middleeast/britain-to-join-obama-in-discouraging-israeli-strike-on-iran.html

Bravo, Brits!

[Jingthing]

Oh come on. This isn't a black and white debate. Of course there are good arguments against attacking NOW but that doesn't mean the threat automatically goes away. Bottom line is a nuclear Iran acceptable or not. Much of the world including the UK say NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[myfriendu]

its time to talk and everyone knows it,take the view from iran they dont want taking over and bombing.

have iran started any wars lately.

they want to live in peace and sell oil to who they want,even not in$ good old india are not backing down.

china russia also having none of it. http://digitaljournal.com/article/318404

[Ulysses G.]

There are plenty of people in Intelligence who do not agree with what is one guy's opinion on rational.

One guy?

Talk about spin. I see nothing saying that anyone else thinks that the government of Iran is rational. However, some folks want to hold off on a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities for a while to see if stronger sanctions will stop these maniacs.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[myfriendu]

Oh come on. This isn't a black and white debate. Of course there are good arguments against attacking NOW but that doesn't mean the threat automatically goes away. Bottom line is a nuclear Iran acceptable or not. Much of the world including the UK say NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they should have nukes if they want them,its ok for everyone else to have them so why not,usa is the only one to ever use one,so why not they dont have one,maybe wont want one build one.

iran dont invade anyone or start wars,because they think they have wmd,s

time to leave them alone.

peace and no more kids killed sounds better to me

Edited March 13, 2012 by myfriendu

[nong38]

I am not sure China would be wanting to get mixed up in any conflict they have too much to lose as they supply most of the worlds consumer goods right now and also hold a lot of the worlds debt, its not in their interests to go head to head with the west, that does not mean the west should take it as the green light for action.

As far as Russia is concerned, Putin has his ego to boost, eventually he will swing round to the west, again this is not any green light.

Much as I dislike what is going on in Iran, restraint must be shown, they have learnt from history and hidden and protected what they are doing, if it is what we think they are doing or not, a strike will exact a counter strike that could be somewhere we dont expect with consequences we cannot therefore conceive, too many factors to put together, patience is required.

A few more key figures to leave the scene perhaps, some infrastructure failures perhaps?

Edited March 13, 2012 by nong38

[Morch]

Ok, Russia & China will just sit back, the are preparing for war privately. Check on Google, there is lots of words from Putin on Iran etc, fair enough he may not be threatening war. Iran is close to Russia's border, at very least they will be severely angry with any attack, Putin even says that the consequences could be "unimaginable" what he means by this is anyone's guess, a sequence of events could transpire that leads up to a bigger conflict, all the ingredients are certainly there.

What I mean by illegal nukes, Israel has them in the 100's they are undeclared,not regulated or inspected by the IAEA, this makes them illegal under international law. Whilst Iran is being hounded for a perception of acquiring nukes, how many countries has Iran attacked in the past 30 years, how many has Israel attacked?

My wording of imminent WW3 maybe a bit over the top, I admit that. When an attack does proceed it will turn very ugly very quickly. No-one can guess the outcome, both China and Russia have lots invested in Iran.

You mention trade with the EU-US-China, agreed, very important to all concerned. When it comes to the Middle East and war, trade, like many other things will go out the window. Asia (including China) will be the worst affected from oil supply disruption, sure they'll just keep quiet about that.

My point is..An attack on Iran has to many variables, lots of things can go wrong, including the possibility of a wider conflict, even a world war, yes it can happen! its not worth the risk on the assumption Iran will fire at Israel the moment it get the bomb.

Lets go through that again: China and Russia are preparing for war privately - and yet you can find their plans on Google. Astonishing :-). Yes, they said consequences will be "catastrophic", "unimaginable", "severe" etc. - where is the war threat here? Aren't those the consequences of most military actions?

As far as I know they did not deploy more units to the south or seriously increase their naval presence in the Gulf, Things could always escalate, sure, but so far they haven't. Not every conflict means impeding global doom.

Israel did not sign the same treaties as Iran, so still not sure how their alleged stockpile is "illegal". Then again, by these standards the USA also got something to answer for, and probably most other members (there were a few enlightening posts about it recently). Another way to look at things is that for over 30 years (or as a long as they had the capability for) Israel never threatened to eradicate anyone etc. You do get that quite a bit from Iran in one form or another, and they're just on threshold..

Anyway, I do think this is rather more about oil than it is about Israel. A nuclear Iran, coupled with the attitudes displayed by its leadership, might not be the best scenario as far as many countries go, not just Israel.

Oil. Lets say oil supply from Iran to China is disrupted. One can imagine there will be a queue of other oil producing countries waiving their hands in hope of netting that one. I'll be much surprised if they don't have a backup supplier lined up. Could be somewhat more complicated if other Gulf countries are effected,

but one way or another - this isn't going to last long. Iran's ability to (1) withstand a sustained attack from US/NATO is overrated, (2) economically survive without oil income is questionable (3) maintain a state of disrupted oil supply is low.

Economy does not "go out the window" when wars break, especially not when oil producing countries are involved.

China and Russia will not keep quiet. They are actually being quite vocal. But when push comes to shove, they can do diddly squat about it without risking much more than they can gain.

[myfriendu]

I am not sure China would be wanting to get mixed up in any conflict they have too much to lose as they supply most of the worlds consumer goods right now and also hold a lot of the worlds debt, its not in their interests to go head to head with the west, that does not mean the west should take it as the green light for action.

As far as Russia is concerned, Putin has his ego to boost, eventually he will swing round to the west, again this is not any green light.

Much as I dislike what is going on in Iran, restraint must be shown, they have learnt from history and hidden and protected what they are doing, if it is what we think they are doing or not, a strike will exact a counter strike that could be somewhere we dont expect with consequences we cannot therefore conceive, too many factors to put together, patience is required.

A few more key figures to leave the scene perhaps, some infrastructure failures perhaps?

they are doing everything possible to insight iran,big bully tactics just shows how peaceful these people are they are bending over backwards in spite of all the problems and hoops they have too jump through.

if the shoe was on the other foot comes to mind, but wasted on the biased view coming out certain posters time and time again

[Ulysses G.]

they should have nukes if they want them,

If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

Anatole France

[myfriendu]

Ok, Russia & China will just sit back, the are preparing for war privately. Check on Google, there is lots of words from Putin on Iran etc, fair enough he may not be threatening war. Iran is close to Russia's border, at very least they will be severely angry with any attack, Putin even says that the consequences could be "unimaginable" what he means by this is anyone's guess, a sequence of events could transpire that leads up to a bigger conflict, all the ingredients are certainly there.

What I mean by illegal nukes, Israel has them in the 100's they are undeclared,not regulated or inspected by the IAEA, this makes them illegal under international law. Whilst Iran is being hounded for a perception of acquiring nukes, how many countries has Iran attacked in the past 30 years, how many has Israel attacked?

My wording of imminent WW3 maybe a bit over the top, I admit that. When an attack does proceed it will turn very ugly very quickly. No-one can guess the outcome, both China and Russia have lots invested in Iran.

You mention trade with the EU-US-China, agreed, very important to all concerned. When it comes to the Middle East and war, trade, like many other things will go out the window. Asia (including China) will be the worst affected from oil supply disruption, sure they'll just keep quiet about that.

My point is..An attack on Iran has to many variables, lots of things can go wrong, including the possibility of a wider conflict, even a world war, yes it can happen! its not worth the risk on the assumption Iran will fire at Israel the moment it get the bomb.

Lets go through that again: China and Russia are preparing for war privately - and yet you can find their plans on Google. Astonishing :-). Yes, they said consequences will be "catastrophic", "unimaginable", "severe" etc. - where is the war threat here? Aren't those the consequences of most military actions?

As far as I know they did not deploy more units to the south or seriously increase their naval presence in the Gulf, Things could always escalate, sure, but so far they haven't. Not every conflict means impeding global doom.

Israel did not sign the same treaties as Iran, so still not sure how their alleged stockpile is "illegal". Then again, by these standards the USA also got something to answer for, and probably most other members (there were a few enlightening posts about it recently). Another way to look at things is that for over 30 years (or as a long as they had the capability for) Israel never threatened to eradicate anyone etc. You do get that quite a bit from Iran in one form or another, and they're just on threshold..

Anyway, I do think this is rather more about oil than it is about Israel. A nuclear Iran, coupled with the attitudes displayed by its leadership, might not be the best scenario as far as many countries go, not just Israel.

Oil. Lets say oil supply from Iran to China is disrupted. One can imagine there will be a queue of other oil producing countries waiving their hands in hope of netting that one. I'll be much surprised if they don't have a backup supplier lined up. Could be somewhat more complicated if other Gulf countries are effected,

but one way or another - this isn't going to last long. Iran's ability to (1) withstand a sustained attack from US/NATO is overrated, (2) economically survive without oil income is questionable (3) maintain a state of disrupted oil supply is low.

Economy does not "go out the window" when wars break, especially not when oil producing countries are involved.

China and Russia will not keep quiet. They are actually being quite vocal. But when push comes to shove, they can do diddly squat about it without risking much more than they can gain.

maybe just fighting for free trade,nothing more

[myfriendu]

they should have nukes if they want them,

If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

Anatole France

expand on this,why not

[Jingthing]

its time to talk and everyone knows it,take the view from iran they dont want taking over and bombing.

have iran started any wars lately.

they want to live in peace and sell oil to who they want,even not in$ good old india are not backing down.

china russia also having none of it. http://digitaljourna.../article/318404

Iran is supporting proxies which have been attacking Israel for years now. Israel has every reason to keep aggressive Iran, dedicated to the end of the Jewish state, as weak as possible. Iran also has no relations with the USA. Maybe we can hope someday that will improve, but not with their current regime. Edited March 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Oh come on. This isn't a black and white debate. Of course there are good arguments against attacking NOW but that doesn't mean the threat automatically goes away. Bottom line is a nuclear Iran acceptable or not. Much of the world including the UK say NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they should have nukes if they want them,its ok for everyone else to have them so why not,usa is the only one to ever use one,so why not they dont have one,maybe wont want one build one.

iran dont invade anyone or start wars,because they think they have wmd,s

time to leave them alone.

peace and no more kids killed sounds better to me

It is NOT OK for all countries to have nuclear weapons. Iran gets them and then Saudi, Turkey, and Egypt will want them.

[myfriendu]

its time to talk and everyone knows it,take the view from iran they dont want taking over and bombing.

have iran started any wars lately.

they want to live in peace and sell oil to who they want,even not in$ good old india are not backing down.

china russia also having none of it. http://digitaljourna.../article/318404

Iran is supporting proxies which have been attacking Israel for years now. Israel has every reason to keep aggressive Iran, dedicated to the end of the Jewish state, as weak as possible. Iran also has no relations with the USA. Maybe we can hope someday that will improve, but not with their current regime.

like i said jing time to talk,and maybe not bulling might just do the trick

[Morch]

on March 20 the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in other currencies apart from the US dollar.

I predict things will be ratcheted up from then onwards

I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) this would be relevant for new contracts and deals, not existing ones.With the sanctions limiting Iran's oil selling options - what real effects would such a move have?

James Corbett, editor of independent news website “The Corbett Report,” thinks the oil embargo may even play to the country’s benefit.

“The further Iran is pushed into a corner, the more their position will straighten over time as they develop alternative routes out for their oil exports,” he said.

“As we have seen in recent days they [iran] have been scrambling to establish exchanges in other currencies including their local currencies, even asking India to trade in Japanese Yen,” Corbett pointed out, “So we could see really a fundamental shift in the entire dynamic of this energy export economy.”

http://rt.com/news/i...ctions-oil-419/

This article was published on 23.1.2012 - It does not detail if other countries (such as India) went along with Iran's wishes, and not clear if this applies to new deals or older ones. There's an assessment that overtime Iran will find new markets for the oil - but no actual details.

Seeing as this is and RT atricle quoting James Corbett, one can't expect too much, but still leaves my questions unanswered.

[Morch]

There are plenty of people in Intelligence who do not agree with what is one guy's opinion on rational.

What makes you think it's "one guy's opinion"?

The "one guy" in question was head of Mossad for 8 years, and he's not exactly famous for being a softy.

There are some huge corruption investigations going down in Iran currently (or at least, were said to start soon, depending on source) having to do with Ahmadinejad (and/or people close to him) stealing billions from state revenues. Somehow that doesn't quite fit with being a diehard death cult. Republican Guard is apparently up to the same thing, btw.

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted.

[Ulysses G.]

.

What makes you think it's "one guy's opinion"?

The "one guy" in question was head of Mossad for 8 years, and he's not exactly famous for being a softy.

It is still one man's opinion and plenty of those in the know think that he is wrong.

[Morch]

.

What makes you think it's "one guy's opinion"?

The "one guy" in question was head of Mossad for 8 years, and he's not exactly famous for being a softy.

It is still one man's opinion and plenty of those in the know think that he is wrong.

I still don't get it, sorry.

The "one guy" headed Israel's intel community for quite a while and was much appreciated as a pro.

The validity of what he says doesn't end a second after he is not in office.

Not holding the recent poll on those-in-the-know's-opinion on the matter :-).

Seriously, dropping propoganda talk (yes there's that on all sides) - who subscribes to the "death cult regime" point of view? I mean, yes...they are extermist Shi'a, and there is all that end of days kinda thing - but how much of that goes into their decision making?

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, all true about his qualifications, but plenty of other people with simular qualifications and experience disagree with him, so there is nothing to say that he is right and they are wrong. Betting that the leadership of Iran are going to make a "rational" choice could easily be a HUGE mistake for the whole world that would be impossible to take back.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

Betting that the leadership of Iran are going to make a "rational" choice could easily be a HUGE mistake for the whole world that would be impossible to take back.

So the alternative?

It is always funny to see those who claim that others are an existential threat & should be bombed 1st BEFORE they act.

This preemptive crap is just another word for unprovoked attack. They ...the attackers are in fact the existential threat to others.

By the very same token a very good case can be made against those that have Nukes (with no talks/inspections)...yet are threatening others?

This thread is about International Community talks with Iran about their Nuclear program.

To which they have submitted many times to inspections.

We cannot talk about it without bringing up the antagonistic behavior of Israel. Yet when has Israel ever talked to the International

Community about their nuclear programs?

Edited March 13, 2012 by flying

[Jingthing]

Betting that the leadership of Iran are going to make a "rational" choice could easily be a HUGE mistake for the whole world that would be impossible to take back.

So the alternative?

It is always funny to see those who claim that others are an existential threat & should be bombed 1st BEFORE they act.

This preemptive crap is just another word for unprovoked attack. They ...the attackers are in fact the existential threat to others.

By the very same token a very good case can be made against those that have Nukes (with no talks/inspections)...yet are threatening others?

This thread is about International Community talks with Iran about their Nuclear program.

To which they have submitted many times to inspections.

We cannot talk about it without bringing up the antagonistic behavior of Israel. Yet when has Israel ever talked to the International

Community about their nuclear programs?

Israel is not an existential threat to Iran. You certainly won't hear any Iranian leaders saying such an absurd thing either. There is no rhetoric from Israel to end Iran as a country and help non-Persians take it over from the Persians. It is no doubt true the Israel and most of the west would love to see the radical regime in Iran changed though, but that is hardly a threat to the existence of the nation state of Iran or it's nature as an Islamic republic.

As far as the inspections, they are most UNSATISFACTORY inspections indeed!

However, the IAEA chief noted, Iran may have also engaged in activities linked to the development of nuclear weapons. "There may be other facilities which are not declared, and we have the indication or information that Iran has engaged in activities relevant to the development of nuclear explosive devices."

http://www.haaretz.c...rogram-1.417283 Edited March 13, 2012 by Jingthing