Iran declares it not going to 'kneel' as nuclear talks enter crisis

[simple1]

The rulers of Iran are no more untrustworthy than the rulers of Israel

A very foolish statement. You should ask the surrounding countries that adamantly do not want Iran to get nukes about that.

What surrounding countries should we ask? The only country close to them that I hear a peep out of is Israel and that is a nation of terrorists sanctioned by the western world.

For a start Saudi Arabia have gone on the public record they would commence acquiring nuclear weapons capability if Iran did so, not happy to say the least, regional enemies and all that stuff.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/nuclear-kingdom-saudi-arabias-atomic-ambitions

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

Edited July 10, 2014 by simple1

[Jingthing]

Yea there's only one middle eastern country allowed Nukes Isreal

So if people think it's bad for Israel to have nukes, the logical thing now is for every M.E. nation to have nukes? Because if/when Iran gets them, then the real games begin. Proliferation on steroids.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

By stopping uranium enrichment capacity completely.

So should Israel

Absurd response.

Has Israel threatened Iran's right to exist as a sovereign nation the way Iran has threatened Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation?

Basically, the powers that control Iran are not to be trusted with nukes or the capability of nukes. End of.

Even more absurd response.

Israel has threatened to attack many times and has the capability to do so with US assistance. Iran, apart from rhetoric, has no capability of attacking Israel. It only threatens Israel because Israel refuses to allow the Palestinians rule their own country.

The rulers of Iran are no more untrustworthy than the rulers of Israel which is now bombing Gaza and it's civilians to bits - again.

That's totally disingenuous. Iran is on record (note the many Death to Israel rallies) as actively working for Israel to not exist as a sovereign state, and yes Israel is a Zionist state.

[khunken]

So should Israel

Absurd response.

Has Israel threatened Iran's right to exist as a sovereign nation the way Iran has threatened Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation?

Basically, the powers that control Iran are not to be trusted with nukes or the capability of nukes. End of.

Even more absurd response.

Israel has threatened to attack many times and has the capability to do so with US assistance. Iran, apart from rhetoric, has no capability of attacking Israel. It only threatens Israel because Israel refuses to allow the Palestinians rule their own country.

The rulers of Iran are no more untrustworthy than the rulers of Israel which is now bombing Gaza and it's civilians to bits - again.

That's totally disingenuous. Iran is on record (note the many Death to Israel rallies) as actively working for Israel to not exist as a sovereign state, and yes Israel is a Zionist state.

No it's not disingenuous. What is ridiculous is somehow escalating rallies to the level of a real threat. If you really think that Iran's military power is in any way comparable to Israel's, you are just using Zionist propaganda.

The region is in a right mess currently and I'd have thought that Iran was needed to help sort out the ISIS in Iraq.

Edited July 10, 2014 by khunken

[japsportscarmad]

Perhaps Iran are stupid for saying what they believe in public, where other countries are more 'clever' and don't publicly say what they believe. Problem with threats to bomb nuclear facilities as they have intimated they will do is that all the bombed nuclear materials can enters the atmosphere. Furthermore, with ISIS in Iraq the US can't start a war with the Shia Iran. Can you all remember Rambo with the Mujademe fighting the Russians in the 80s very patriotic when they turned into Alqueda, sides change and Iran has oil lots of it. With Russia and China now trading oil and gas, oil has to come from somewhere and less will be coming out of Iraq. Also Isreal does itself no favours with the US when their security squads kick the shit out of a boy already down and not resisting who happens to be a US citizen even if he was throwing rocks (not proved) before he was still down and restrained

[Jingthing]

Iran actively supports Hamas yes?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[khunken]

Yea there's only one middle eastern country allowed Nukes Isreal

So if people think it's bad for Israel to have nukes, the logical thing now is for every M.E. nation to have nukes? Because if/when Iran gets them, then the real games begin. Proliferation on steroids.

I think most people would be far happier if none of them - including Israel - had nukes. I'd take it further and include all countries including the hypocritical nuclear powers.

[khunken]

Iran actively supports Hamas yes?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Not any more. Hamas, a Sunni organisation, switched to Qatar, also Sunni. That's not to say that Iran may well be still supplying them with rockets - virtual peashooters compared with the weapons the US supplies to Israel.

[Ulysses G.]

Perhaps Iran are stupid for saying what they believe in public

When it is about their intention to destroy another sovereign country, that is a real understatement and certainly not a country that anyone wants to have nukes. Of course there is also the treaty that they signed that expressly forbids them from doing so.

[Chicog]

The rulers of Iran are no more untrustworthy than the rulers of Israel

A very foolish statement. You should ask the surrounding countries that adamantly do not want Iran to get nukes about that.

What surrounding countries should we ask? The only country close to them that I hear a peep out of is Israel and that is a nation of terrorists sanctioned by the western world.

You should listen to your peeps better, and pay particular heed to Saudi's "Cut the head off the snake" comment exposed by Wikileaks.

[rebeli]

By stopping uranium enrichment capacity completely.

So should Israel

Absurd response.

Has Israel threatened Iran's right to exist as a sovereign nation the way Iran has threatened Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation?

Basically, the powers that control Iran are not to be trusted with nukes or the capability of nukes. End of.

There are many countries with nuclear weapons but there is only one country that has ever used them. Can we trust them?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

No choice.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Morch]

By stopping uranium enrichment capacity completely.

So should Israel

Absurd response.

Has Israel threatened Iran's right to exist as a sovereign nation the way Iran has threatened Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation?

Basically, the powers that control Iran are not to be trusted with nukes or the capability of nukes. End of.

Even more absurd response.

Israel has threatened to attack many times and has the capability to do so with US assistance. Iran, apart from rhetoric, has no capability of attacking Israel. It only threatens Israel because Israel refuses to allow the Palestinians rule their own country.

The rulers of Iran are no more untrustworthy than the rulers of Israel which is now bombing Gaza and it's civilians to bits - again.

Iran is reported as having missiles capable of reaching Israel.

Whether Iran has the capability to integrate a nuclear warhead for such a missile is unknown. So far it is estimated that they

are not quite there yet.

Israel's ability to intercept such missiles is not yet operational.

I think that a lot of things said now are posturing. on all sides. Everyone's got a home crows to please and opposition to

contend with.

Israel threatened to attack Iran in response to threats by Iran, not the other way around. Also notice that while Iran threats

were regarding indiscriminate destruction, Israel's were generally focused on targets relating to Iran's nuclear program.

Attacking Israel is pretty sure to hurt the Palestinians as well, area is rather smallish when talking about long range attacks

and more so when referring to nuclear weapons.

As for the Gaza thing, feel free to hop over to the lively topic going on and spread your misconceptions there.

[Morch]

Iran actively supports Hamas yes?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Not any more. Hamas, a Sunni organisation, switched to Qatar, also Sunni. That's not to say that Iran may well be still supplying them with rockets - virtual peashooters compared with the weapons the US supplies to Israel.

Oh yes, all that money from Qatar.- stuck in the pipes it seems:

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=708521

And as for Iran actively supporting Hamas:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/middleeast/israel-says-it-seized-iranian-shipment-of-rockets-headed-for-gaza.html

[khunken]

So should Israel

Absurd response.

Has Israel threatened Iran's right to exist as a sovereign nation the way Iran has threatened Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation?

Basically, the powers that control Iran are not to be trusted with nukes or the capability of nukes. End of.

Even more absurd response.

Israel has threatened to attack many times and has the capability to do so with US assistance. Iran, apart from rhetoric, has no capability of attacking Israel. It only threatens Israel because Israel refuses to allow the Palestinians rule their own country.

The rulers of Iran are no more untrustworthy than the rulers of Israel which is now bombing Gaza and it's civilians to bits - again.

Iran is reported as having missiles capable of reaching Israel.

Whether Iran has the capability to integrate a nuclear warhead for such a missile is unknown. So far it is estimated that they

are not quite there yet.

Israel's ability to intercept such missiles is not yet operational.

I think that a lot of things said now are posturing. on all sides. Everyone's got a home crows to please and opposition to

contend with.

Israel threatened to attack Iran in response to threats by Iran, not the other way around. Also notice that while Iran threats

were regarding indiscriminate destruction, Israel's were generally focused on targets relating to Iran's nuclear program.

Attacking Israel is pretty sure to hurt the Palestinians as well, area is rather smallish when talking about long range attacks

and more so when referring to nuclear weapons.

As for the Gaza thing, feel free to hop over to the lively topic going on and spread your misconceptions there.

Some complete distortions there.

Israel did not threaten Iran because of Iran's rhetorical threats. It was all about destroying Iran's supposed nuclear weapons capability. Also it is not 'unknown' that Iran's capability of attaching a nuclear weapon to a missile is not possible. It is known that Iran currently does not possess a nuclear weapon - no credible source has said that it does.

You're right that Iran would be crazy to fire a nuclear missile at Israel and they've never suggested that they would. You're also right about the posturing as, even though they won't admit it, Iran is needed to help remove the ISIS in Iraq.

Yes, the Gaza bombing mark III is disgusting.

BTW That Iran continues to supply Hamas with rockets is probably true. It's the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' type of support as Sunni Hamas fell out with Shia Iran over the sectarian war in Syria.

Edited July 10, 2014 by khunken

[Ulysses G.]

Some complete distortions there.

Israel did not threaten Iran because of Iran's rhetorical threats. It was all about destroying Iran's supposed nuclear weapons capability.

Talking about distortions, it was a combination of both threats. For some strange reason, Israel does not want a country that keeps calling for its destruction and is legally forbidden from developing nuclear weapons, to do so.

[khunken]

Some complete distortions there.

Israel did not threaten Iran because of Iran's rhetorical threats. It was all about destroying Iran's supposed nuclear weapons capability.

Talking about distortions, it was a combination of both threats. For some strange reason, Israel does not want a country that keeps calling for its destruction and is legally forbidden from developing nuclear weapons, to do so.

The real distortion is using a rhetorical threat (I'll kill you if you tell on me - type of 'threat) if they did, and the distant future 'threat' of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. They haven't got one, are unlikely to develop one and the UN & IAEA are the organisations set up to prevent it.

Pity that Israel, with US assistance, can never abide by UN resolutions.

[Ulysses G.]

They haven't got one, are unlikely to develop one

Only if the International community makes damn sure that they don't. Otherwise, they will, if they can get away with it.

[Morch]

Even more absurd response.

Israel has threatened to attack many times and has the capability to do so with US assistance. Iran, apart from rhetoric, has no capability of attacking Israel. It only threatens Israel because Israel refuses to allow the Palestinians rule their own country.

The rulers of Iran are no more untrustworthy than the rulers of Israel which is now bombing Gaza and it's civilians to bits - again.

Iran is reported as having missiles capable of reaching Israel.

Whether Iran has the capability to integrate a nuclear warhead for such a missile is unknown. So far it is estimated that they

are not quite there yet.

Israel's ability to intercept such missiles is not yet operational.

I think that a lot of things said now are posturing. on all sides. Everyone's got a home crows to please and opposition to

contend with.

Israel threatened to attack Iran in response to threats by Iran, not the other way around. Also notice that while Iran threats

were regarding indiscriminate destruction, Israel's were generally focused on targets relating to Iran's nuclear program.

Attacking Israel is pretty sure to hurt the Palestinians as well, area is rather smallish when talking about long range attacks

and more so when referring to nuclear weapons.

As for the Gaza thing, feel free to hop over to the lively topic going on and spread your misconceptions there.

Some complete distortions there.

Israel did not threaten Iran because of Iran's rhetorical threats. It was all about destroying Iran's supposed nuclear weapons capability. Also it is not 'unknown' that Iran's capability of attaching a nuclear weapon to a missile is not possible. It is known that Iran currently does not possess a nuclear weapon - no credible source has said that it does.

You're right that Iran would be crazy to fire a nuclear missile at Israel and they've never suggested that they would. You're also right about the posturing as, even though they won't admit it, Iran is needed to help remove the ISIS in Iraq.

Yes, the Gaza bombing mark III is disgusting.

BTW That Iran continues to supply Hamas with rockets is probably true. It's the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' type of support as Sunni Hamas fell out with Shia Iran over the sectarian war in Syria.

Israeli public talk (and threats) about a possible attack against Iran came after Iran escalated its own threats against Israel. This was done in conjunction with showcasing Iran's missile capabilities. Had there been no public threats from Iran, it is most likely Israel would have kept quiet as well. Not sure what's your beef with the "unknown" thing - I was not talking about the capability to manufacture a nuclear weapon. In all probability they do not have a nuclear weapon yet, true. What I was referring to is their capability to place a nuclear weapon in a warhead of a missile (that's a pretty crude phrasing - but trying to be clear here), which is quite another feat. Having a nuclear device without the means to deliver it to its target is a less threatening proposition.

While Iran never said anything direct on nuclear weapons there were more than one instance alluding to a sea of flames, erasing Israel off the map and that sort of big talk. If it wasn't for the missiles I do not think that Israel would have been bothered much. The nuclear program and missiles combo, that's another ball game.

As for posturing - Iran got a few factions of its own running circles around each other, some are hardliners, some less, some side with confrontation, some like to go round the back. They have their domestic issues and politics same as everyone else (and they would love for someone else to kick ISIS for them too). The USA got Obama needing at least something that didn't go south with foreign policy, a public and a military not keen no opening a new front, ISIS and Ukraine. The EU wants to stay relevant and score points with everyone, big contracts either way (probably more to it but breaks down to different nations interests). Israeli PM needs to keep up his scaremongering, or people will really start making a fuss over the economy. Iran is his "But Suthep..." for almost anything.

Like I said, hop over to the Gaza topic, we need so fresh voices - down to arguing about wikipedia with UG....

[khunken]

They haven't got one, are unlikely to develop one

Only if the International community makes damn sure that they don't. Otherwise, they will, if they can get away with it.

I agree with your first sentence and it only can be done with Iran's cooperation (not humiliation).

Your second sentence is your opinion which I disagree with as Iran has made it clear for some time that they don't intend to develop one - only the know-how in case they are attacked in future which would make Syria look like a family squabble in comparison.

[shariq607]

So should we believe the same Israeli government and the same Israeli Pm who once said the same thing about the Iraqi nuclear problem and its threat to the entire world and now doing the same exact thing with Iran.

sounds familiar?

[Morch]

Some complete distortions there.

Israel did not threaten Iran because of Iran's rhetorical threats. It was all about destroying Iran's supposed nuclear weapons capability.

Talking about distortions, it was a combination of both threats. For some strange reason, Israel does not want a country that keeps calling for its destruction and is legally forbidden from developing nuclear weapons, to do so.

The real distortion is using a rhetorical threat (I'll kill you if you tell on me - type of 'threat) if they did, and the distant future 'threat' of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. They haven't got one, are unlikely to develop one and the UN & IAEA are the organisations set up to prevent it.

Pity that Israel, with US assistance, can never abide by UN resolutions.

Israel got no reason to trust the UN etc. to deal with or monitor Iran's nuclear program. Not that they did such a great job elsewhere (yes, that includes Israel).

As for distant future, that's quite an assumption there - if there were no sanctions, no tragic accidents and no malware afflictions, no making the program an issue - things could have been different right now. Seems like most sources are saying Iran is not that far from the possibility of producing a weapon as it is.

[Morch]

So should we believe the same Israeli government and the same Israeli Pm who once said the same thing about the Iraqi nuclear problem and its threat to the entire world and now doing the same exact thing with Iran.

sounds familiar?

I keep waiting for a pause and Jon Stewart commentary....

[rebeli]

The biggest problem is the ego of the USA they think everything is better there and try to bully the rest of the world. Instead of seeking cooperation they seek the conflict.

You see it all over the world. And i think most countries are fed up with it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Chicog]

By stopping uranium enrichment capacity completely.

So should Israel

Absurd response.

Has Israel threatened Iran's right to exist as a sovereign nation the way Iran has threatened Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation?

Basically, the powers that control Iran are not to be trusted with nukes or the capability of nukes. End of.

There are many countries with nuclear weapons but there is only one country that has ever used them. Can we trust them?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I presume you mean "in anger".

By the way Netenyahu knows exactly when they will have a bomb. Look, he's got the picture to prove it.

Maybe that show filled Rolf Harris' slot.

[MJP]

The biggest problem is the ego of the USA they think everything is better there and try to bully the rest of the world. Instead of seeking cooperation they seek the conflict.

You see it all over the world. And i think most countries are fed up with it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[khunken]

Some complete distortions there.

Israel did not threaten Iran because of Iran's rhetorical threats. It was all about destroying Iran's supposed nuclear weapons capability.

Talking about distortions, it was a combination of both threats. For some strange reason, Israel does not want a country that keeps calling for its destruction and is legally forbidden from developing nuclear weapons, to do so.

The real distortion is using a rhetorical threat (I'll kill you if you tell on me - type of 'threat) if they did, and the distant future 'threat' of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. They haven't got one, are unlikely to develop one and the UN & IAEA are the organisations set up to prevent it.

Pity that Israel, with US assistance, can never abide by UN resolutions.

Israel got no reason to trust the UN etc. to deal with or monitor Iran's nuclear program. Not that they did such a great job elsewhere (yes, that includes Israel).

As for distant future, that's quite an assumption there - if there were no sanctions, no tragic accidents and no malware afflictions, no making the program an issue - things could have been different right now. Seems like most sources are saying Iran is not that far from the possibility of producing a weapon as it is.

Neither has Iran reason to trust the UN or IAEA. The first is used to hit Iran but the US's veto protects Israel. The second should be the real monitoring agency but when some of it's members pass information on Iran's nuclear sites to Israel via the US (or directly), it doesn't help it's independence.

Yes all the 'ifs' could have made things different but that's just speculation and 'not that far' is also a matter of speculation. Here's another 'if':

If the western countries had formed a cooperative stance with Iran, instead of a finger-pointing and arrogant attitude, the whole issue may well have been resolved by now. The 'talking down' just gets on Iran's nerves as it would on mine in the same circumstances.

[Morch]

Talking about distortions, it was a combination of both threats. For some strange reason, Israel does not want a country that keeps calling for its destruction and is legally forbidden from developing nuclear weapons, to do so.

The real distortion is using a rhetorical threat (I'll kill you if you tell on me - type of 'threat) if they did, and the distant future 'threat' of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. They haven't got one, are unlikely to develop one and the UN & IAEA are the organisations set up to prevent it.

Pity that Israel, with US assistance, can never abide by UN resolutions.

Israel got no reason to trust the UN etc. to deal with or monitor Iran's nuclear program. Not that they did such a great job elsewhere (yes, that includes Israel).

As for distant future, that's quite an assumption there - if there were no sanctions, no tragic accidents and no malware afflictions, no making the program an issue - things could have been different right now. Seems like most sources are saying Iran is not that far from the possibility of producing a weapon as it is.

Neither has Iran reason to trust the UN or IAEA. The first is used to hit Iran but the US's veto protects Israel. The second should be the real monitoring agency but when some of it's members pass information on Iran's nuclear sites to Israel via the US (or directly), it doesn't help it's independence.

Yes all the 'ifs' could have made things different but that's just speculation and 'not that far' is also a matter of speculation. Here's another 'if':

If the western countries had formed a cooperative stance with Iran, instead of a finger-pointing and arrogant attitude, the whole issue may well have been resolved by now. The 'talking down' just gets on Iran's nerves as it would on mine in the same circumstances.

The "not that far" could be speculation. The "distant future" could be delusion.

I am not sure that there was ever a good chance of creating a cooperative stance earlier. Iran's stance vs. the West is not a new thing (yes, it goes both ways), and predates the nuclear issue. While Israel gets the attentions, I do think a lot of the behind the scenes pressure is applied by Saudi Arabia (and to a lesser degree some of the Gulf countries). Turkey is quite interesting on this - they shouldn't be thrilled with Iran's nuclear program for a few reasons (security and regional dominance are two of the main ones) but do not seem to make much waves about it as well.

Wasn't thinking about the UN and IAEA just as related to this - India, Pakistan, North Korea... Maybe not a great track record. Then again, if it wasn't for some effort things would perhaps been worse.

[khunken]

The real distortion is using a rhetorical threat (I'll kill you if you tell on me - type of 'threat) if they did, and the distant future 'threat' of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. They haven't got one, are unlikely to develop one and the UN & IAEA are the organisations set up to prevent it.

Pity that Israel, with US assistance, can never abide by UN resolutions.

Israel got no reason to trust the UN etc. to deal with or monitor Iran's nuclear program. Not that they did such a great job elsewhere (yes, that includes Israel).

As for distant future, that's quite an assumption there - if there were no sanctions, no tragic accidents and no malware afflictions, no making the program an issue - things could have been different right now. Seems like most sources are saying Iran is not that far from the possibility of producing a weapon as it is.

Neither has Iran reason to trust the UN or IAEA. The first is used to hit Iran but the US's veto protects Israel. The second should be the real monitoring agency but when some of it's members pass information on Iran's nuclear sites to Israel via the US (or directly), it doesn't help it's independence.

Yes all the 'ifs' could have made things different but that's just speculation and 'not that far' is also a matter of speculation. Here's another 'if':

If the western countries had formed a cooperative stance with Iran, instead of a finger-pointing and arrogant attitude, the whole issue may well have been resolved by now. The 'talking down' just gets on Iran's nerves as it would on mine in the same circumstances.

The "not that far" could be speculation. The "distant future" could be delusion.

I am not sure that there was ever a good chance of creating a cooperative stance earlier. Iran's stance vs. the West

is not a new thing (yes, it goes both ways), and predates the nuclear issue. While Israel gets the attentions, I do think

a lot of the behind the scenes pressure is applied by Saudi Arabia (and to a lesser degree some of the Gulf countries).

Turkey is quite interesting on this - they shouldn't be thrilled with Iran's nuclear program for a few reasons (security and

regional dominance are two of the main ones) but do not seem to make much waves about it as well.

Wasn't thinking about the UN and IAEA just as related to this - India, Pakistan, North Korea... Maybe not a great track

record. Then again, if it wasn't for some effort things would perhaps been worse.

Well if the effort had been more cooperative (as I've said) it could have been better. You're right that the less cooperative attitude of the US, in particular, pre-dates the nuclear issue.

Bringing Saudi, Turkey and the gulf states into the issue just muddies the waters. The power play between Sunni & Shia states also goes back to who is the 'leader ' of the Arabs. Saddam, Mubarak (& his predecessor), Hussein (of Jordan) and Assad's father all wanted to be the ruler of the 'Arab nation'. Iran is a relative newcomer in that scenario and does want to be a leader of the Shias, even though it is not an Arab state.

The point is that no one wants Iran to possess nuclear weapons. The Arab states are not happy with Israel being sole possessor (as well as the Palestine issue) and are also supportive of hitting Iran for anti-Shia reasons mainly but also using the nuclear excuse too. Remember that Saudi, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE all have Shia minorities that are too often subject to serious human rights violations (Bahrain in particular).

Now we have the ISIS in Iraq that the Sunni states are in two minds about supporting. Iran has the power to help Iraq overcome that problem - if it is allowed to.

IMO the time has come for the western powers to make a serious effort to resolve the Iran nuclear issue. Iran should be allowed to use it's centrifuges to enrich uranium to a percentage under weapon capability - under IAEA supervision. It should not be forced to buy enriched uranium from other countries. That would be the necessary breakthrough to resolve the issue. Sanctions could be gradually removed with IAEA reports of compliance.

BTW just as the Israel-Palestine problem really needs an independent arbitrator, so would the Iranian nuclear issue benefit from the same. It should not be forgotten that Brazil & Turkey did just that a few years ago - negotiating with Iran on a level playing field.

[Wat dee]

By stopping uranium enrichment capacity completely.

So should Israel

Absurd response.

Has Israel threatened Iran's right to exist as a sovereign nation the way Iran has threatened Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation?

Basically, the powers that control Iran are not to be trusted with nukes or the capability of nukes. End of.

Hopefully Iran gets nukes asap. Would ease the negotiations