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

[arisaje]

Sorry Iran... you are a despotic Islamic nation and can't be trusted with any form of nuclear capability.

I say drop a few nukes on them now and send a clear message to the rest of the rogue nations out there, if you pursue this, you will be wiped out.

It worked in Japan.

Right...lets kill off a few million people who have zero relevance in the decision making regarding developing these weapons.

That would be just, wouldn't it?

Is "Iran" the people? The leadership? The real estate?

Was Japan developing nuclear weapons at the time?

Was Japan a rouge nation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iiv-6fMKyY

Was Japan developing nuclear technology?....yes the Japanese and Germans were working together to develop the nuclear bomb, however the materials were intercepted by the allies as it was being transferred between the 2 countries in a submarine....Historical fact.

Was Japan a rouge nation?....well they were hardly at peace with the world, torturing, murdering and raping 100'000's of civilians on their quest through Asia....Historical fact.

[sustento]

Sorry Iran... you are a despotic Islamic nation and can't be trusted with any form of nuclear capability.

I say drop a few nukes on them now and send a clear message to the rest of the rogue nations out there, if you pursue this, you will be wiped out.

It worked in Japan.

Right...lets kill off a few million people who have zero relevance in the decision making regarding developing these weapons.

That would be just, wouldn't it?

Is "Iran" the people? The leadership? The real estate?

Was Japan developing nuclear weapons at the time?

Was Japan a rouge nation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iiv-6fMKyY

Was Japan developing nuclear technology?....yes the Japanese and Germans were working together to develop the nuclear bomb, however the materials were intercepted by the allies as it was being transferred between the 2 countries in a submarine....Historical fact.

Links please. What's a 'rouge nation'?

[Morch]

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.

As you pointed out, "if" is an easy word to use. The less-than-cooperative attitude was not limited to the USA, though, Iran did a fair share of pissing off most of the relevant countries, not to mention its neighbors. Chalking it all up on the USA's tab is not a correct presentation.

It is not that bringing Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states into the issue "just muddies the waters" - they are a part of it. Going by the logic of engaging Iran in constructive dialogue rather than dictating policy, it would do well to consider positions and attitudes of neighboring countries as well. The old style Pan-Arabist view and leaders are mostly irrelevant right now, as far as Sunnis go. The new unifying force is more along Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS like movements. How far will that go - I really can't say, and it does get off the topic's scope.

It is anyone's guess regarding Iran's policy and capability when it comes to ISIS and Iraq. Would they go out of their way to restore Iraq? Would the prefer a split Iraq with the Shia part under their control? One thing is certain, they will not help out of the kindness of their heart and good neighborly feelings. As for what they can do about ISIS, again, don't thing there is a good answer for that. I don't believe they are a magic solution for Iraq's problems.

There is almost a certainty that Iran will retain some elements of its nuclear program, under any agreement. As far as I can understand the enrichment debate is fluff - most issues to do with limiting and monitoring can be sorted. Issues that seem a bit more worrisome have to do with the Arak facility (not the booze!), access to all facilities, disclosure on military aspects of the program and, as a somewhat related issue - Iran's ballistic missile arsenal. The enrichment thing seems like something that the sides just march out for the media, for posturing.

As for independent arbitrator - Turkey is a neighbor and has vested interests in the region (plus a dodgy leader), Brazil - no idea if they're up to it or what. I seriously doubt that a negotiator without any clout in the area will have much credibility, though. Far as I recall nothing came out of the previous negotiations so going back to that might be just more of the same.

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed. It is generally accepted, but not written into law, that quoting the first two or three sentences of an article and giving a link to the source is considered “fair use” and not a violation of copyright.

[khunken]

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.

As you pointed out, "if" is an easy word to use. The less-than-cooperative attitude was not limited to the USA, though, Iran did a fair share of pissing off most of the relevant countries, not to mention its neighbors. Chalking it all up on the USA's tab is not a correct presentation.

It is not that bringing Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states into the issue "just muddies the waters" - they are a part of it. Going by the logic of engaging Iran in constructive dialogue rather than dictating policy, it would do well to consider positions and attitudes of neighboring countries as well. The old style Pan-Arabist view and leaders are mostly irrelevant right now, as far as Sunnis go. The new unifying force is more along Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS like movements. How far will that go - I really can't say, and it does get off the topic's scope.

It is anyone's guess regarding Iran's policy and capability when it comes to ISIS and Iraq. Would they go out of their way to restore Iraq? Would the prefer a split Iraq with the Shia part under their control? One thing is certain, they will not help out of the kindness of their heart and good neighborly feelings. As for what they can do about ISIS, again, don't thing there is a good answer for that. I don't believe they are a magic solution for Iraq's problems.

There is almost a certainty that Iran will retain some elements of its nuclear program, under any agreement. As far as I can understand the enrichment debate is fluff - most issues to do with limiting and monitoring can be sorted. Issues that seem a bit more worrisome have to do with the Arak facility (not the booze!), access to all facilities, disclosure on military aspects of the program and, as a somewhat related issue - Iran's ballistic missile arsenal. The enrichment thing seems like something that the sides just march out for the media, for posturing.

As for independent arbitrator - Turkey is a neighbor and has vested interests in the region (plus a dodgy leader), Brazil - no idea if they're up to it or what. I seriously doubt that a negotiator without any clout in the area will have much credibility, though. Far as I recall nothing came out of the previous negotiations so going back to that might be just more of the same.

I'll take your points one at a time.

For sure Iran hasn't been cooperative but the US has been the main blockage to any agreement. It's the tail wagging the dog - the US doing whatever Israel wants. If Iran reads the US media's anti-Iran 'reporting' it's hardly surprising that Iran is aware that the 'mediator' is not really independent. More on that later.

As far as some of the regional countries are concerned (Saudi, Qatar & Bahrain in particular) the 'muddying' is their anti-Shia stance where they accuse Iran of fomenting uprisings of their Shia minority (Bahrain especially) without any proof. This anti-Shia attitude overrides any level-headed opinions on Iran as they are more worried by Arab Spring type of movements within their own borders than any worldly involvement.

Yes, the 'Arab nation' idea is now virtually dead. The Muslim Brotherhood are currently in no position to lead anywhere and the ISIS won't be tolerated for very long as it threatens the Emirates & Kingdoms as well as Iraq & Syria. The Sunni Arabs have no overall leadership and the Shias never had real leadership. Iran does have ambitions there but it already has a lot of power in Iraq which is the sum total of Arab Shia states.

I've no argument with your take on the 'real' issues in the negotiations. The access to Arak and any other real or supposed sites is a crucial issue which has to be balanced with IAEA access and the prevention of leaked security issues - a very difficult task. Yes, Iran should rightly retain all the elements needed to generate nuclear power. Iran's ballistic missile capability should not be a part of the negotiations (Israel notwithstanding).

I mentioned the talks some years ago between Iran, Turkey and Brazil purely as an example of negotiations between equals - and they were successful. Turkey since then has become less enamoured with Iran over the Syrian issue. The real negotiations should be between Iran and its neighbours - Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan & Azerbaijan & the UAE. Yes, somewhat difficult to get that lot around a table but they are the front-line states and should have at least advisory rights at the negotiations - by proxy if necessary.

The major problem with 'negotiations' in the Middle East is that there is rarely, if ever, an arbitrator given power to make suggestions for agreed solutions to polarised positions. It's almost always the powerful telling the powerless what's best for them - or else.

[Morch]

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.

As you pointed out, "if" is an easy word to use. The less-than-cooperative attitude was not limited to the USA, though, Iran did a fair share of pissing off most of the relevant countries, not to mention its neighbors. Chalking it all up on the USA's tab is not a correct presentation.

It is not that bringing Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states into the issue "just muddies the waters" - they are a part of it. Going by the logic of engaging Iran in constructive dialogue rather than dictating policy, it would do well to consider positions and attitudes of neighboring countries as well. The old style Pan-Arabist view and leaders are mostly irrelevant right now, as far as Sunnis go. The new unifying force is more along Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS like movements. How far will that go - I really can't say, and it does get off the topic's scope.

It is anyone's guess regarding Iran's policy and capability when it comes to ISIS and Iraq. Would they go out of their way to restore Iraq? Would the prefer a split Iraq with the Shia part under their control? One thing is certain, they will not help out of the kindness of their heart and good neighborly feelings. As for what they can do about ISIS, again, don't thing there is a good answer for that. I don't believe they are a magic solution for Iraq's problems.

There is almost a certainty that Iran will retain some elements of its nuclear program, under any agreement. As far as I can understand the enrichment debate is fluff - most issues to do with limiting and monitoring can be sorted. Issues that seem a bit more worrisome have to do with the Arak facility (not the booze!), access to all facilities, disclosure on military aspects of the program and, as a somewhat related issue - Iran's ballistic missile arsenal. The enrichment thing seems like something that the sides just march out for the media, for posturing.

As for independent arbitrator - Turkey is a neighbor and has vested interests in the region (plus a dodgy leader), Brazil - no idea if they're up to it or what. I seriously doubt that a negotiator without any clout in the area will have much credibility, though. Far as I recall nothing came out of the previous negotiations so going back to that might be just more of the same.

I'll take your points one at a time.

For sure Iran hasn't been cooperative but the US has been the main blockage to any agreement. It's the tail wagging the dog - the US doing whatever Israel wants. If Iran reads the US media's anti-Iran 'reporting' it's hardly surprising that Iran is aware that the 'mediator' is not really independent. More on that later.

As far as some of the regional countries are concerned (Saudi, Qatar & Bahrain in particular) the 'muddying' is their anti-Shia stance where they accuse Iran of fomenting uprisings of their Shia minority (Bahrain especially) without any proof. This anti-Shia attitude overrides any level-headed opinions on Iran as they are more worried by Arab Spring type of movements within their own borders than any worldly involvement.

Yes, the 'Arab nation' idea is now virtually dead. The Muslim Brotherhood are currently in no position to lead anywhere and the ISIS won't be tolerated for very long as it threatens the Emirates & Kingdoms as well as Iraq & Syria. The Sunni Arabs have no overall leadership and the Shias never had real leadership. Iran does have ambitions there but it already has a lot of power in Iraq which is the sum total of Arab Shia states.

I've no argument with your take on the 'real' issues in the negotiations. The access to Arak and any other real or supposed sites is a crucial issue which has to be balanced with IAEA access and the prevention of leaked security issues - a very difficult task. Yes, Iran should rightly retain all the elements needed to generate nuclear power. Iran's ballistic missile capability should not be a part of the negotiations (Israel notwithstanding).

I mentioned the talks some years ago between Iran, Turkey and Brazil purely as an example of negotiations between equals - and they were successful. Turkey since then has become less enamoured with Iran over the Syrian issue. The real negotiations should be between Iran and its neighbours - Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan & Azerbaijan & the UAE. Yes, somewhat difficult to get that lot around a table but they are the front-line states and should have at least advisory rights at the negotiations - by proxy if necessary.

The major problem with 'negotiations' in the Middle East is that there is rarely, if ever, an arbitrator given power to make suggestions for agreed solutions to polarised positions. It's almost always the powerful telling the powerless what's best for them - or else.

Again, wasn't referring specifically to attitudes and relationships as they are during this crisis, the animosity and distrust goes way before that - with both Iran and the USA having a part in it. Keeping on placing most of the responsibility with the USA - ok, guess I see it a more of a mutual issue. The Iranian press is pretty aggressive and hostile in its stance to the USA and the West, been like that for a while now. Cuts both ways.

As for the USA being an inappropriate mediator - was the USA ever define as a mediator or arbitrator? Seems like they are exactly shooting for this role, and never did. More like they are one of the sides involved (which could be construed as either fronting for Israel or taking care of their own interests in the region, or both). Not playing the role of arbitrator/mediator means they are not obliged to be neutral in this - but really haven't followed all the niceties and definitions regarding all nations that are involved in the negotiations.

In the context of the Middle East, how are Turkey or Brazil perceived as "equal" to Iran? Brazil has zero leverage, and Turkey is nothing but involved in regional power plays. Were these negotiations indeed successful? Then how come this mess stays unsolved now? I do not think any of the parties involved are committed enough to reaching an accord without some form of stick waving in the background. No goodwill whatsoever. And before this is hijacked as a USA only reference - it is meant as all around.

[khunken]

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.

As you pointed out, "if" is an easy word to use. The less-than-cooperative attitude was not limited to the USA, though, Iran did a fair share of pissing off most of the relevant countries, not to mention its neighbors. Chalking it all up on the USA's tab is not a correct presentation.

It is not that bringing Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states into the issue "just muddies the waters" - they are a part of it. Going by the logic of engaging Iran in constructive dialogue rather than dictating policy, it would do well to consider positions and attitudes of neighboring countries as well. The old style Pan-Arabist view and leaders are mostly irrelevant right now, as far as Sunnis go. The new unifying force is more along Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS like movements. How far will that go - I really can't say, and it does get off the topic's scope.

It is anyone's guess regarding Iran's policy and capability when it comes to ISIS and Iraq. Would they go out of their way to restore Iraq? Would the prefer a split Iraq with the Shia part under their control? One thing is certain, they will not help out of the kindness of their heart and good neighborly feelings. As for what they can do about ISIS, again, don't thing there is a good answer for that. I don't believe they are a magic solution for Iraq's problems.

There is almost a certainty that Iran will retain some elements of its nuclear program, under any agreement. As far as I can understand the enrichment debate is fluff - most issues to do with limiting and monitoring can be sorted. Issues that seem a bit more worrisome have to do with the Arak facility (not the booze!), access to all facilities, disclosure on military aspects of the program and, as a somewhat related issue - Iran's ballistic missile arsenal. The enrichment thing seems like something that the sides just march out for the media, for posturing.

As for independent arbitrator - Turkey is a neighbor and has vested interests in the region (plus a dodgy leader), Brazil - no idea if they're up to it or what. I seriously doubt that a negotiator without any clout in the area will have much credibility, though. Far as I recall nothing came out of the previous negotiations so going back to that might be just more of the same.

I'll take your points one at a time.

For sure Iran hasn't been cooperative but the US has been the main blockage to any agreement. It's the tail wagging the dog - the US doing whatever Israel wants. If Iran reads the US media's anti-Iran 'reporting' it's hardly surprising that Iran is aware that the 'mediator' is not really independent. More on that later.

As far as some of the regional countries are concerned (Saudi, Qatar & Bahrain in particular) the 'muddying' is their anti-Shia stance where they accuse Iran of fomenting uprisings of their Shia minority (Bahrain especially) without any proof. This anti-Shia attitude overrides any level-headed opinions on Iran as they are more worried by Arab Spring type of movements within their own borders than any worldly involvement.

Yes, the 'Arab nation' idea is now virtually dead. The Muslim Brotherhood are currently in no position to lead anywhere and the ISIS won't be tolerated for very long as it threatens the Emirates & Kingdoms as well as Iraq & Syria. The Sunni Arabs have no overall leadership and the Shias never had real leadership. Iran does have ambitions there but it already has a lot of power in Iraq which is the sum total of Arab Shia states.

I've no argument with your take on the 'real' issues in the negotiations. The access to Arak and any other real or supposed sites is a crucial issue which has to be balanced with IAEA access and the prevention of leaked security issues - a very difficult task. Yes, Iran should rightly retain all the elements needed to generate nuclear power. Iran's ballistic missile capability should not be a part of the negotiations (Israel notwithstanding).

I mentioned the talks some years ago between Iran, Turkey and Brazil purely as an example of negotiations between equals - and they were successful. Turkey since then has become less enamoured with Iran over the Syrian issue. The real negotiations should be between Iran and its neighbours - Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan & Azerbaijan & the UAE. Yes, somewhat difficult to get that lot around a table but they are the front-line states and should have at least advisory rights at the negotiations - by proxy if necessary.

The major problem with 'negotiations' in the Middle East is that there is rarely, if ever, an arbitrator given power to make suggestions for agreed solutions to polarised positions. It's almost always the powerful telling the powerless what's best for them - or else.

Again, wasn't referring specifically to attitudes and relationships as they are during this crisis, the animosity and distrust goes

way before that - with both Iran and the USA having a part in it. Keeping on placing most of the responsibility with the USA -

ok, guess I see it a more of a mutual issue. The Iranian press is pretty aggressive and hostile in its stance to the USA and

the West, been like that for a while now. Cuts both ways.

As for the USA being an inappropriate mediator - was the USA ever define as a mediator or arbitrator? Seems like they are

exactly shooting for this role, and never did. More like they are one of the sides involved (which could be construed as either

fronting for Israel or taking care of their own interests in the region, or both). Not playing the role of arbitrator/mediator means

they are not obliged to be neutral in this - but really haven't followed all the niceties and definitions regarding all nations that

are involved in the negotiations.

In the context of the Middle East, how are Turkey or Brazil perceived as "equal" to Iran? Brazil has zero leverage, and Turkey

is nothing but involved in regional power plays. Were these negotiations indeed successful? Then how come this mess stays

unsolved now? I do not think any of the parties involved are committed enough to reaching an accord without some form of

stick waving in the background. No goodwill whatsoever. And before this is hijacked as a USA only reference - it is meant as

all around.

Can't follow the course of your argument in the first two paragraphs except for one point. While I don't read Farsi and the Iranian media but have no doubt that their tone is anti-US, it does not compare to the world-wide access of the US media. I nearly said popularity but can't include the likes of Fox 'news' in that category.

Brazil & Turkey are very much the equals of Iran in both power and development. Those talks were informal and did not have any recognition from the Iran-bashers.

You're probably right about a stick to beat the parties but, so far, only one side holds the stick.

[Morch]

As you pointed out, "if" is an easy word to use. The less-than-cooperative attitude was not limited to the USA, though, Iran did a fair share of pissing off most of the relevant countries, not to mention its neighbors. Chalking it all up on the USA's tab is not a correct presentation.

It is not that bringing Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states into the issue "just muddies the waters" - they are a part of it. Going by the logic of engaging Iran in constructive dialogue rather than dictating policy, it would do well to consider positions and attitudes of neighboring countries as well. The old style Pan-Arabist view and leaders are mostly irrelevant right now, as far as Sunnis go. The new unifying force is more along Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS like movements. How far will that go - I really can't say, and it does get off the topic's scope.

It is anyone's guess regarding Iran's policy and capability when it comes to ISIS and Iraq. Would they go out of their way to restore Iraq? Would the prefer a split Iraq with the Shia part under their control? One thing is certain, they will not help out of the kindness of their heart and good neighborly feelings. As for what they can do about ISIS, again, don't thing there is a good answer for that. I don't believe they are a magic solution for Iraq's problems.

There is almost a certainty that Iran will retain some elements of its nuclear program, under any agreement. As far as I can understand the enrichment debate is fluff - most issues to do with limiting and monitoring can be sorted. Issues that seem a bit more worrisome have to do with the Arak facility (not the booze!), access to all facilities, disclosure on military aspects of the program and, as a somewhat related issue - Iran's ballistic missile arsenal. The enrichment thing seems like something that the sides just march out for the media, for posturing.

As for independent arbitrator - Turkey is a neighbor and has vested interests in the region (plus a dodgy leader), Brazil - no idea if they're up to it or what. I seriously doubt that a negotiator without any clout in the area will have much credibility, though. Far as I recall nothing came out of the previous negotiations so going back to that might be just more of the same.

I'll take your points one at a time.

For sure Iran hasn't been cooperative but the US has been the main blockage to any agreement. It's the tail wagging the dog - the US doing whatever Israel wants. If Iran reads the US media's anti-Iran 'reporting' it's hardly surprising that Iran is aware that the 'mediator' is not really independent. More on that later.

As far as some of the regional countries are concerned (Saudi, Qatar & Bahrain in particular) the 'muddying' is their anti-Shia stance where they accuse Iran of fomenting uprisings of their Shia minority (Bahrain especially) without any proof. This anti-Shia attitude overrides any level-headed opinions on Iran as they are more worried by Arab Spring type of movements within their own borders than any worldly involvement.

Yes, the 'Arab nation' idea is now virtually dead. The Muslim Brotherhood are currently in no position to lead anywhere and the ISIS won't be tolerated for very long as it threatens the Emirates & Kingdoms as well as Iraq & Syria. The Sunni Arabs have no overall leadership and the Shias never had real leadership. Iran does have ambitions there but it already has a lot of power in Iraq which is the sum total of Arab Shia states.

I've no argument with your take on the 'real' issues in the negotiations. The access to Arak and any other real or supposed sites is a crucial issue which has to be balanced with IAEA access and the prevention of leaked security issues - a very difficult task. Yes, Iran should rightly retain all the elements needed to generate nuclear power. Iran's ballistic missile capability should not be a part of the negotiations (Israel notwithstanding).

I mentioned the talks some years ago between Iran, Turkey and Brazil purely as an example of negotiations between equals - and they were successful. Turkey since then has become less enamoured with Iran over the Syrian issue. The real negotiations should be between Iran and its neighbours - Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan & Azerbaijan & the UAE. Yes, somewhat difficult to get that lot around a table but they are the front-line states and should have at least advisory rights at the negotiations - by proxy if necessary.

The major problem with 'negotiations' in the Middle East is that there is rarely, if ever, an arbitrator given power to make suggestions for agreed solutions to polarised positions. It's almost always the powerful telling the powerless what's best for them - or else.

Again, wasn't referring specifically to attitudes and relationships as they are during this crisis, the animosity and distrust goes

way before that - with both Iran and the USA having a part in it. Keeping on placing most of the responsibility with the USA -

ok, guess I see it a more of a mutual issue. The Iranian press is pretty aggressive and hostile in its stance to the USA and

the West, been like that for a while now. Cuts both ways.

As for the USA being an inappropriate mediator - was the USA ever define as a mediator or arbitrator? Seems like they are

exactly shooting for this role, and never did. More like they are one of the sides involved (which could be construed as either

fronting for Israel or taking care of their own interests in the region, or both). Not playing the role of arbitrator/mediator means

they are not obliged to be neutral in this - but really haven't followed all the niceties and definitions regarding all nations that

are involved in the negotiations.

In the context of the Middle East, how are Turkey or Brazil perceived as "equal" to Iran? Brazil has zero leverage, and Turkey

is nothing but involved in regional power plays. Were these negotiations indeed successful? Then how come this mess stays

unsolved now? I do not think any of the parties involved are committed enough to reaching an accord without some form of

stick waving in the background. No goodwill whatsoever. And before this is hijacked as a USA only reference - it is meant as

all around.

Can't follow the course of your argument in the first two paragraphs except for one point. While I don't read Farsi and the Iranian media but have no doubt that their tone is anti-US, it does not compare to the world-wide access of the US media. I nearly said popularity but can't include the likes of Fox 'news' in that category.

Brazil & Turkey are very much the equals of Iran in both power and development. Those talks were informal and did not have any recognition from the Iran-bashers.

You're probably right about a stick to beat the parties but, so far, only one side holds the stick.

Not quite sure why the insistence on USA (or USA media) being more hostile toward Iran, then the other way around, or just saying they were both at it.

How does one measure the how "equal" countries are? Not quite sure that is much of an issue, but "power", at least, seems like a very loose term. Again, not aware that something actually came out of them talks - what does this have to do with Iran bashers?

Yeah, figured the stick bit will be hijacked - so no, Iran IS a pretty big stick as far as some of its neighbors go, and its location means its a big stick when it comes to gulf oil. Combined with its rhetoric and growing military arsenal - they do have their stick. Might not be as big as the USA, but then again, with Obama being the batter, might not be such a big difference.

[arisaje]

Sorry Iran... you are a despotic Islamic nation and can't be trusted with any form of nuclear capability.

I say drop a few nukes on them now and send a clear message to the rest of the rogue nations out there, if you pursue this, you will be wiped out.

It worked in Japan.

Right...lets kill off a few million people who have zero relevance in the decision making regarding developing these weapons.

That would be just, wouldn't it?

Is "Iran" the people? The leadership? The real estate?

Was Japan developing nuclear weapons at the time?

Was Japan a rouge nation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iiv-6fMKyY

Was Japan developing nuclear technology?....yes the Japanese and Germans were working together to develop the nuclear bomb, however the materials were intercepted by the allies as it was being transferred between the 2 countries in a submarine....Historical fact.

Links please. What's a 'rouge nation'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state

[Morch]

Right...lets kill off a few million people who have zero relevance in the decision making regarding developing these weapons.

That would be just, wouldn't it?

Is "Iran" the people? The leadership? The real estate?

Was Japan developing nuclear weapons at the time?

Was Japan a rouge nation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iiv-6fMKyY

Was Japan developing nuclear technology?....yes the Japanese and Germans were working together to develop the nuclear bomb, however the materials were intercepted by the allies as it was being transferred between the 2 countries in a submarine....Historical fact.

Links please. What's a 'rouge nation'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state

The article starts off with "Rogue state is a controversial term...."

[ABCer]

Khunken:

"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".

I sympathize with your inner pain. Since "Kuhe, Kirhe und Kinder" (Kitchen, Church and Children) policy has failed you are lamenting about the job not finished.

You are one of Oh,so many! posters who have never grasped the concept of Action-Reaction forces. Though equal in size they are opposite and applied to different objects.

Let's look at the problem at hand:

Israel - a tiny Nation (6 M) on a tiny piece of desert in a measly short time (less than 70 years) has recreated a great modern civilization with economic and military power far exceeding its neighbors.

All it wants is to be left alone and is begging for peace, despite the fact that it has won in three wars (despicable fact!)

All the other states surrounding Israel - a huge mob of comparatively large Nations (300 M) all predominantly Muslim, all prone to and proved to be the grounds for breeding extremism are economically inept, militarily inadequate and having failed to use their numerous vast resources in thousands of years to become anything than third rate worlds.

All they always wanted - to kill, to eradicate by any means possible that same Israel.

And a poster like you, with the name like yours talks about Israel and Iran in comparison! I would say 'Shame on you!'. But obviously you have no shame.

Edited October 29, 2014 by ABCer

[daveAustin]

Sorry Iran... you are a despotic Islamic nation and can't be trusted with any form of nuclear capability.

I say drop a few nukes on them now and send a clear message to the rest of the rogue nations out there, if you pursue this, you will be wiped out.

It worked in Japan.

Right...lets kill off a few million people who have zero relevance in the decision making regarding developing these weapons.

That would be just, wouldn't it?

No reason to kill millions, simply take out the processing plants with nuke-tipped bunker busters. They continue to stall and take the piss out of the rest of the world, all the while enriching to higher levels. Whether Israel deserve it or not, countries that threaten others' existence cannot be allowed nukes, period! Getting all PC and saying America, UK, France etc have them so why not Iran just makes you look a complete tit.

[Seastallion]

Sorry Iran... you are a despotic Islamic nation and can't be trusted with any form of nuclear capability.

I say drop a few nukes on them now and send a clear message to the rest of the rogue nations out there, if you pursue this, you will be wiped out.

It worked in Japan.

Right...lets kill off a few million people who have zero relevance in the decision making regarding developing these weapons.

That would be just, wouldn't it?

No reason to kill millions, simply take out the processing plants with nuke-tipped bunker busters. They continue to stall and take the piss out of the rest of the world, all the while enriching to higher levels. Whether Israel deserve it or not, countries that threaten others' existence cannot be allowed nukes, period! Getting all PC and saying America, UK, France etc have them so why not Iran just makes you look a complete tit.

No, it's called MAD, mutual assured destruction. If Iran has nukes, it makes the world a safer place because Israel will hesitate to do anything "preemptive" as it has hinted it will.

[mania]

Let's look at the problem at hand:

Israel - a tiny Nation

All it wants is to be left alone and is begging for peace

All the other states surrounding Israel

All they always wanted - to kill, to eradicate by any means possible that same Israel.

And a poster like you, with the name like yours talks about Israel and Iran in comparison! I would say 'Shame on you!'. But obviously you have no shame.

That is an interesting picture you paint

but what is the reality?

Does Israel really want peace or only peace on their terms regarding land grabs for housing etc?

Forget it that is not the crux of it

Lets look at Iran...the one in question. When is the last time Iran invaded a country?

Could it not be that Iran would also like nothing better than to be left alone?

Could it not be that Iran can see who gets left alone carries an equal sized stick as

those who are left alone? Seems possible to me

As for another post that stated Iran has no choice since they signed the NPT treaty well yes.... somewhat true...

but why is it allowed that Israel who refused to sign the treaty are left totally unchecked to build a nuclear arsenal to any size they choose?

Who made that rule up? Perhaps Iran should just withdraw from the NPT treaty same as others have done?

They would then be the same as Israel? Allowed to go unchecked?

How about those others (nuclear capable countries ) who signed the same NPT treaty but are long since in total violation of it themselves? Nothing is ever spoken about that?

As for shame....I would just say it is a shame that nuclear weapons exist period. Terrible things really.

Yet it is obvious having a big stick affords some countries certain freedoms, protection, safety from attack.

Yet others are not allowed the same insurance.You talk about countries surrounded by mobs.

Yet Iran is also surrounded & often threatened with do this or else...That is ok then?

Yes yes I know "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

[ABCer]

Wat Dee (quote #60)

"Hopefully Iran gets nukes asap. Would ease the negotiationswink.png"

I hope you are joking, Wat Dee. Because your glorified great country is not only of hostile religion to the Great Sassanid Empire, but also downwind of it!.

daveAustin (quote #74)

"No reason to kill millions, simply take out the processing plants..."

Once again? It was done before... Remember by which country? All the Major Powers will negotiate till they turn blue.

The little Giant will have to do the 'dirty' job for them. And they will be blaming it for the job well done. The World needs its scapegoat!

[Clutch]

Iran is legally bound by treaty to not have nukes. Israel is not. It is simple.

Or in simpler terms it's 'Do as I say and not as I do!!'

[Ulysses G.]

Wrong. It is live up to the commitment you have made and the treaty that you have signed - for a change.

[Clutch]

Wrong. It is live up to the commitment you have made and the treaty that you have signed - for a change.

You've reaffirmed my quote. Thankyou.

[Ulysses G.]

If you really believe that, you need to brush up on your reading and logic skills.

[Clutch]

'Do as I say and not as I do'? You mean...

[mania]

Marshall Islands Brings Nuclear States to Court for Violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

Not To suggest the US is the only one in violation but earlier this year was the first lawsuit filed that I had ever heard of.

Doubt anything will come of it though the article does point out that 44 years after the NPT was created how little it has achieved

including adherence to it by those that suggest it is others who do not honor the promise/treaty.

Too bad this option will never see the light of day...

“The nuclear club should be abolished and anybody who has a nuclear weapon is the enemy of mankind.” — George Shultz, former U.S. Secretary of State

Edited October 29, 2014 by mania

[Scott]

Off-topic post and replies deleted.

This is an old thread.

//Closed//