UN nuclear watchdog holds 'very productive' talks with Iran

[News_Editor]

VIENNA, AUSTRIA (BNO NEWS) -- The United Nations (UN) nuclear watchdog and an Iranian delegations held "very productive" talks this week on how to advance a long-stalled international investigation into suspected nuclear weapons research by Tehran, they said in a joint statement on Tuesday.

Addressing reporters following talks at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna on Monday and Tuesday, representatives from both sides described the talks as "very productive" during which Iran presented a "new proposal on practical measures," although no specific details were made public.

"Delegations of the Agency and the Islamic Republic of Iran had a very productive meeting covering past and present issues," both sides said in the joint statement. "Iran presented a new proposal on practical measures as a constructive contribution to strengthen cooperation and dialogue with a view to future resolution of all outstanding issues."

Iranian Ambassador Reza Najafi said it presented the unspecified proposal as a contribution to foster cooperation with the UN inspectors. "The agency and Iran discussed this proposal substantively," he told reporters. "I believe with the submission of this new proposal by Iran we have enabled to open a new chapter of cooperation. The ultimate goal would be resolution of all remaining issues."

Following the talks, both sides agreed to schedule a further meeting to be held on November 11 in the Iranian capital of Tehran.

International concerns regarding Iran's nuclear activities have been increasing for decades, but Iran's newly-elected president, Hassan Rouhani, is seeking to reduce tensions with the West. The Iranian government has repeatedly stated that its nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy, but many countries contend Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and may be close to obtain them.

(Copyright 2013 by BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. Info: [email protected].)

[midas]

But as usual as the rest of the world strives for a peaceful solution a small group of people continue to raise hell

Furious Israel confronts U.S., rejects proposed Iran nuclear deal

In a bitter outburst, Netanyahu denounced on Friday the contours of an Iranian agreement leaked to the media, once again putting himself in direct conflict with Washington.

"This is a very bad deal and Israel utterly rejects it," Netanyahu said as he headed into his third round of talks in just 48 hours with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/08/us-iran-nuclear-israel-idUSBRE9A709G20131108

[Scott]

I believe this OP is about the agreement between the UN Nuclear Watchdog agency and Iran, not about the US and Israel's disagreements over Iran.

[Mosha]

Saudis have told USA if Iran gets a bomb, so will we. Heck it's even been ordered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

[Scott]

An off-topic post about moderation has been deleted. Continue at your own peril. Here is the rule:

21) Not to discuss moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy. Members should not block contact with moderators or administrators. Doing so will result in suspension.

[simple1]

Saudis have told USA if Iran gets a bomb, so will we. Heck it's even been ordered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

Thanks for the heads up. Off topic but, US is facing ever increasing relationship challenges with KSA regards Iran. Interesting to read...

"In the late 1980s they (Saudis) secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China.These rockets, considered by many experts too inaccurate for use as conventional weapons, were deployed 20 years ago. This summer experts at defence publishers Jane's reported the completion of a new Saudi CSS-2 base with missile launch rails aligned with Israel and Iran"

[Chicog]

But as usual as the rest of the world strives for a peaceful solution a small group of people continue to raise hell

Furious Israel confronts U.S., rejects proposed Iran nuclear deal

In a bitter outburst, Netanyahu denounced on Friday the contours of an Iranian agreement leaked to the media, once again putting himself in direct conflict with Washington.

"This is a very bad deal and Israel utterly rejects it," Netanyahu said as he headed into his third round of talks in just 48 hours with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/08/us-iran-nuclear-israel-idUSBRE9A709G20131108

Under this administration, I think its clear that Israel's sabre-rattling no longer carries much weight, as evinced by the US leaking news of their attack on Syria.

America's overtures to Iran are causing much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the GCC.

I'd hazard a fair guess that Saudi isn't the only GCC state that has its missiles pointed squarely in the direction of Tehran.

[F430murci]

No nuclear deal between 6 world powers and Iran

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/09/21382581-no-nuclear-deal-between-6-world-powers-and-iran?lite

[Ulysses G.]

Not yet, but Obama has taken such a hit on the health care debacle that he is desperate for some kind of win and everyone knows it. That is when it is time to be more cautious than ever when dealing with untrustworthy countries like Iran.

[NeverSure]

Not yet, but Obama has taken such a hit on the health care debacle that he is desperate for some kind of win and everyone knows it. That is when it is time to be more cautious than ever when dealing with untrustworthy countries like Iran.

Spot on. And this newest debacle right on the heals of his international and very public loss of face over his proclamations that he would attack Syria. He really looks like a loser right now and that's intolerable to a narcissist.

Countries like Iran love "peace talks." Look how much time that tactic bought N. Korea. Look how much time it could buy Iran. Look how much time it's buying Syria.

And for anyone who thinks Israel wouldn't hit Iran, he's dreaming. Israel wasn't kidding when it said it wouldn't allow Iran to get a nuke. Just look at Israel's history. It doesn't mess around.

Stay tuned.

[Steely Dan]

Saudis have told USA if Iran gets a bomb, so will we. Heck it's even been ordered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

That should be no problem as the U.S and E.U would then order sanctions against Saudi Arabia whilst the rest of the world pisses it's pants laughing. Finally the entire middle east will go up in a giant mushroom cloud, for which Bush will get blamed.

[Chicog]

Well it seems those talks were a waste of time.

Rouhani says Iran will not abandon nuclear rights

AFP
Theran, November 10, 2013

First Published: 13:54 IST(10/11/2013)
Last Updated: 13:56 IST(10/11/2013

President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday Iran will not abandon its nuclear rights, including uranium enrichment, media reported a day after a fresh round of talks with world powers. "There are red lines that must not be crossed," Rouhani told the conservative-dominated parliament in remarks quoted by the ISNA news agency.
"The rights of the Iranian nation and our national interests are a red line. So are nuclear rights under the framework of international regulations, which include enrichment on Iranian soil," he said.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/rouhani-says-iran-will-not-abandon-nuclear-rights/article1-1149424.aspx

[simple1]

Well it seems those talks were a waste of time.

Rouhani says Iran will not abandon nuclear rights

AFP

Theran, November 10, 2013

First Published: 13:54 IST(10/11/2013)

Last Updated: 13:56 IST(10/11/2013

President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday Iran will not abandon its nuclear rights, including uranium enrichment, media reported a day after a fresh round of talks with world powers. "There are red lines that must not be crossed," Rouhani told the conservative-dominated parliament in remarks quoted by the ISNA news agency.

"The rights of the Iranian nation and our national interests are a red line. So are nuclear rights under the framework of international regulations, which include enrichment on Iranian soil," he said.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/rouhani-says-iran-will-not-abandon-nuclear-rights/article1-1149424.aspx

Still a few more months to reach an agreement. Final decision time for a physical response will come, if not before, when it is decided the Arak reactor is ready to have nuclear fuel inserted.

"Once the reactor at Arak is operational, as early as next year, it might be very hard to disable it through a military strike without risking the dispersal of nuclear material"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/world/iran-nuclear-talks.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0

"

[Ulysses G.]

Who would have thought that the French would be the ones to show some common sense?

No nuclear deal with Iran: 'Some differences' remain after France objects to terms http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/10/no-nuclear-deal-with-iran-some-differences-remain-after-france-objects-to-terms/

[Morch]

Who would have thought that the French would be the ones to show some common sense?

No nuclear deal with Iran: 'Some differences' remain after France objects to terms http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/10/no-nuclear-deal-with-iran-some-differences-remain-after-france-objects-to-terms/

Might have something to do with France's relationship with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

A lot of arms and oil Euros at stake.

[Ulysses G.]

Good. At least someone is not going to be fooled by a phony smile and telling people what they want to hear.

[Morch]

Not yet, but Obama has taken such a hit on the health care debacle that he is desperate for some kind of win and everyone knows it. That is when it is time to be more cautious than ever when dealing with untrustworthy countries like Iran.

Spot on. And this newest debacle right on the heals of his international and very public loss of face over his proclamations that he would attack Syria. He really looks like a loser right now and that's intolerable to a narcissist.

Countries like Iran love "peace talks." Look how much time that tactic bought N. Korea. Look how much time it could buy Iran. Look how much time it's buying Syria.

And for anyone who thinks Israel wouldn't hit Iran, he's dreaming. Israel wasn't kidding when it said it wouldn't allow Iran to get a nuke. Just look at Israel's history. It doesn't mess around.

Stay tuned.

I doubt Israel has the ability to carry out a significant conventional strike against Iran's nuclear sites. By "significant" I mean an effort that will destroy Iran's nuclear production/research or at least cripple it to a degree of not being a threat anymore. There is no question of sustained ongoing attacks, no second runs to hit missed targets. It did work out on other occasions, but with easier scenarios (Egypt 1967, Iraq, 1981, Syria 2007).

But yes....Israel sometimes carries out some surprising military operations. Given that, lets assume such a strike is carried out in a successful manner - what then? A few years respite? Eventually, someone will get the nukes.

As for the talks - Iran might be playing for time, or might be truly hit bad by the economic sanctions (probably both). Having these lengthy negotiations seems like the prescribed outcome after the USA went the sanctions way.

[Steely Dan]

Who would have thought that the French would be the ones to show some common sense?

No nuclear deal with Iran: 'Some differences' remain after France objects to terms http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/10/no-nuclear-deal-with-iran-some-differences-remain-after-france-objects-to-terms/

Might have something to do with France's relationship with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

A lot of arms and oil Euros at stake.

Maybe, but perhaps the French have at least considered the certainty that Saudi will acquire nuclear weapons the instant it believes Iran can't be stopped from getting one. This is indeed a far more reliable litmus test regarding stopping nuclear arms proliferation in the middle east than a hurried politically expedient non-deal, such as what we appear to have served up to us.

[midas]

Iran: Nuclear deal can be done says Hague

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24888429

[Chicog]

You do wonder why Iran doesn't just buy one from North Korea or better still Pakistan; it's not as if they don't need the money.

The end result will be the same.

[midas]

You do wonder why Iran doesn't just buy one from North Korea or better still Pakistan; it's not as if they don't need the money.

The end result will be the same.

They might even outsource the launch procedure itself to those two countries

https://midnightwatcher.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/dumb-question-of-the-day-is-iran-outsourcing-its-nuclear-program-to-north-korea/

[folium]

You do wonder why Iran doesn't just buy one from North Korea or better still Pakistan; it's not as if they don't need the money.

The end result will be the same.

There's about as much chance of Pakistan selling a nuke to Iran as a sale by israel to Iran!

[Morch]

Who would have thought that the French would be the ones to show some common sense?

No nuclear deal with Iran: 'Some differences' remain after France objects to terms http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/10/no-nuclear-deal-with-iran-some-differences-remain-after-france-objects-to-terms/

Might have something to do with France's relationship with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

A lot of arms and oil Euros at stake.

Maybe, but perhaps the French have at least considered the certainty that Saudi will acquire nuclear weapons the instant it believes Iran can't be stopped from getting one. This is indeed a far more reliable litmus test regarding stopping nuclear arms proliferation in the middle east than a hurried politically expedient non-deal, such as what we appear to have served up to us.

France sold nuclear reactors and materials to Israel and Iraq, and was always a major player in the region's arms race. Not exactly a classic anti-nuclear proliferation policy stance. Wonder how they would react if there was a Saudi offer to get it from then....

[folium]

Who would have thought that the French would be the ones to show some common sense?

No nuclear deal with Iran: 'Some differences' remain after France objects to terms http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/10/no-nuclear-deal-with-iran-some-differences-remain-after-france-objects-to-terms/

Might have something to do with France's relationship with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

A lot of arms and oil Euros at stake.

Maybe, but perhaps the French have at least considered the certainty that Saudi will acquire nuclear weapons the instant it believes Iran can't be stopped from getting one. This is indeed a far more reliable litmus test regarding stopping nuclear arms proliferation in the middle east than a hurried politically expedient non-deal, such as what we appear to have served up to us.

France sold nuclear reactors and materials to Israel and Iraq, and was always a major player in the region's arms race. Not exactly a classic anti-nuclear proliferation policy stance. Wonder how they would react if there was a Saudi offer to get it from then....

Well the dear French will just about sell anything to anybody, be it Mistral assault ships to the Russians or weapons to the Hutu government in Rwanda prior to the 1994 bloodbath....tres charmant.

[Mosha]

When the Saudis get the bomb, all we need then is for right wing christian dreams to come true. The temple on the mount gets built, and we have the perfect storm

[NeverSure]

Not yet, but Obama has taken such a hit on the health care debacle that he is desperate for some kind of win and everyone knows it. That is when it is time to be more cautious than ever when dealing with untrustworthy countries like Iran.

Spot on. And this newest debacle right on the heals of his international and very public loss of face over his proclamations that he would attack Syria. He really looks like a loser right now and that's intolerable to a narcissist.

Countries like Iran love "peace talks." Look how much time that tactic bought N. Korea. Look how much time it could buy Iran. Look how much time it's buying Syria.

And for anyone who thinks Israel wouldn't hit Iran, he's dreaming. Israel wasn't kidding when it said it wouldn't allow Iran to get a nuke. Just look at Israel's history. It doesn't mess around.

Stay tuned.

I doubt Israel has the ability to carry out a significant conventional strike against Iran's nuclear sites. By "significant" I mean an effort that will destroy Iran's nuclear production/research or at least cripple it to a degree of not being a threat anymore. There is no question of sustained ongoing attacks, no second runs to hit missed targets. It did work out on other occasions, but with easier scenarios (Egypt 1967, Iraq, 1981, Syria 2007).

But yes....Israel sometimes carries out some surprising military operations. Given that, lets assume such a strike is carried out in a successful manner - what then? A few years respite? Eventually, someone will get the nukes.

As for the talks - Iran might be playing for time, or might be truly hit bad by the economic sanctions (probably both). Having these lengthy negotiations seems like the prescribed outcome after the USA went the sanctions way.

Israel has the ability. They would of course like to have the US's help. They have US bunker busters, stealth airplanes... Most important, they have the will.

If nothing else, they have nukes and ICBM's and I promise they aren't going to let Iran keep its promise to "blow them off the map."

[Morch]

Not yet, but Obama has taken such a hit on the health care debacle that he is desperate for some kind of win and everyone knows it. That is when it is time to be more cautious than ever when dealing with untrustworthy countries like Iran.

Spot on. And this newest debacle right on the heals of his international and very public loss of face over his proclamations that he would attack Syria. He really looks like a loser right now and that's intolerable to a narcissist.

Countries like Iran love "peace talks." Look how much time that tactic bought N. Korea. Look how much time it could buy Iran. Look how much time it's buying Syria.

And for anyone who thinks Israel wouldn't hit Iran, he's dreaming. Israel wasn't kidding when it said it wouldn't allow Iran to get a nuke. Just look at Israel's history. It doesn't mess around.

Stay tuned.

I doubt Israel has the ability to carry out a significant conventional strike against Iran's nuclear sites. By "significant" I mean an effort that will destroy Iran's nuclear production/research or at least cripple it to a degree of not being a threat anymore. There is no question of sustained ongoing attacks, no second runs to hit missed targets. It did work out on other occasions, but with easier scenarios (Egypt 1967, Iraq, 1981, Syria 2007).

But yes....Israel sometimes carries out some surprising military operations. Given that, lets assume such a strike is carried out in a successful manner - what then? A few years respite? Eventually, someone will get the nukes.

As for the talks - Iran might be playing for time, or might be truly hit bad by the economic sanctions (probably both). Having these lengthy negotiations seems like the prescribed outcome after the USA went the sanctions way.

Israel has the ability. They would of course like to have the US's help. They have US bunker busters, stealth airplanes... Most important, they have the will.

If nothing else, they have nukes and ICBM's and I promise they aren't going to let Iran keep its promise to "blow them off the map."

Israel does not have the ability to carry out sustained attacks on Iran, Even the Israelis don't ever talk about something along these lines, more of a one time concentrated effort. They do have some bunker busters, true, but not the top end ones (which they couldn't use anyway, as they don't have the required aircraft to carry it). No stealth airplanes on the IAF.

As for the will to carry it out - public opinion and sentiment in Israel is rather divided on that one. There were numerous instances of deadlines and red lines and all manner of doomsday time tables - but no direct Israeli attack so far. If it was a straightforward matter, they would have gone for it long time ago (as they did in other cases).

Carrying out an attack is one thing, and it is even conceivable that it could happen, How successful (from an Israeli point of view) it could be and what will be the aftermath - is another matter.

Regarding the use of nukes - you'll note that I refereed to conventional attack, not a nuclear strike. That's a whole different ball game.

"I promise" ? - better move that finger from the red button, sir

[Chicog]

You do wonder why Iran doesn't just buy one from North Korea or better still Pakistan; it's not as if they don't need the money.

The end result will be the same.

There's about as much chance of Pakistan selling a nuke to Iran as a sale by israel to Iran!

Money talks mate in case you hadn't noticed.

[folium]

You do wonder why Iran doesn't just buy one from North Korea or better still Pakistan; it's not as if they don't need the money.

The end result will be the same.

There's about as much chance of Pakistan selling a nuke to Iran as a sale by israel to Iran!

Money talks mate in case you hadn't noticed.

You are quite right, Pakistan is lined up with Saudi rather than Iran not just because they are co-religionists but also for shed loads of cash. Who do you think funded Pakistan's nuclear programme in the first place?

[midas]

You do wonder why Iran doesn't just buy one from North Korea or better still Pakistan; it's not as if they don't need the money.

The end result will be the same.

There's about as much chance of Pakistan selling a nuke to Iran as a sale by israel to Iran!

Money talks mate in case you hadn't noticed.

You are quite right, Pakistan is lined up with Saudi rather than Iran not just because they are co-religionists but also for shed loads of cash. Who do you think funded Pakistan's nuclear programme in the first place?

But your sweeping blandishments are contradicted here ?

Pakistan admits Khan sold nuclear secrets to Iran

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2005/02/14/pakistan-admits-khan-sold-nuclear-secrets-iran

No, Pakistan Won’t Sell Saudi Arabia Nukes

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/08/14/no-pakistan-wont-sell-saudi-arabia-nukes/