'Moment of truth' nears in Iran nuclear talks

[Ulysses G.]

What would motivate a state to NOT want the IAEA to step foot in it's lands?

Israel does not want to violate the the Eshkol-Comer memorandum of understanding with America and disclosing nuclear weapons to the IAEA would do so. Their agreements with the USA are much more important to them than ever fickle public opinion.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't think Iran is crying victim to anything other than unfair sanctions.

There is nothing "unfair" about the sanctions. They were warned of the consequences of violating the agreement that they signed not to develop nuclear weapons and they went away and did it anyway.

[arjunadawn]

I think you know very well what rogue element he's referring to; That nuclear armed country that refuses to sign up to nuclear treaties and is indeed a threat to Iran's safety.

Care to clarify how was Israel a threat to Iran's safety prior to Iran's going forward with ballistic missile and nuclear weapon

capability program? Was Pakistan, Sunni and nuclear capable, much nearer to Iran considered a threat?

Or, for that matter - how do other countries in the region view Iran achieving military nuclear capability?

SS was right in that I was being sarcastic. But it could hardly be argued that Israel's non disclosure requires a nuclear arms race. Had the desire or imperative to destroy every jew not been so deeply ingrained into the Persian psyche, religious exegesis, and political spectrum, Israel would never perceive Iran as an existential threat. Indeed, this "threat" be Iran is so great, so broad, that it threatens the sunni regimes in the neighborhood as well. My sarcasm was based on the self evident notion that Iran is a threat to everyone, projects that threat, and only the modern refuge or declaring "victim" status allows Iran to argue "self defense;" they are hardly a victim to any.

I can think of a much more notorious example of a state crying victim status to argue "self defence". In the past few months they've used that "self defence" to kill thousands of civilians. They use that "self defence" to collectively punish a people.

I don't think Iran is crying victim to anything other than unfair sanctions. It's outside commentators who are saying Iran needs a deterrent against a state that is nuclear armed and threatening.

As for non-disclosure...how do you feel about any country who has in it's possession such a devastating weapon, yet will not participate in the treaties that the international community require for safeguards? What would motivate a state to NOT want the IAEA to step foot in it's lands? (And one honest answer to that about the miserable Palestinians in Dimona afflicted with radiation sickness would be off topic, so don't go there.).

To what extend the Jews/Israeli's are afforded special considerations, I do not know. I believe their argument, were there to be a public one, would be based on the raging antisemtisim all around them and the desire to not disclose any military capability, no matter how obvious, for fear of showing a hand to a future threat. I believe this is their argument. I am unsure this is a valid argument any longer. In the community of nations, following the horrific actions of the US in WWII, are we to assert universal norms for nation state agents regarding WMD, there must be transparency and universal application, or else it is BS. It is beyond question that Israel's possession of WMD is seen as irritating by the Arabs. It is also beyond realistic to make that an argument for them to have the bomb as well, or even rationalize it.

Why? first, it is bad enough one does. Second, Israel's neighbors have repeatedly called for the destruction of the entire state including suggesting the use of WMD to secure that end. No, whether Israel has it or not this is not a predicate for others to have it. Israel having it, it should abide by international law, insofar as doing so never places Israeli weapons at the disposable of adversaries nor grants access by enemies for inspections.

[Morch]

Care to clarify how was Israel a threat to Iran's safety prior to Iran's going forward with ballistic missile and nuclear weapon

capability program? Was Pakistan, Sunni and nuclear capable, much nearer to Iran considered a threat?

Or, for that matter - how do other countries in the region view Iran achieving military nuclear capability?

It would be easier to clarify had not Israel kept it's nuclear achievements hidden for so long.

Anyway, what has "prior" got to do with it? Israel IS a threat now, and so now Iran is justified in having a deterrent. We are talking about now, aren't we?

Lets see....Israel did keep its nuclear program secret. True enough. In fact, it does not even officially acknowledge the issue

much. On the other hand, Israel also did not threat its neighbors (or Iran, for that matter) with use of these weapons. So, not

quite getting what the issue with keeping it secret got to do with things.

The "prior" got everything to do with it. Israel was never a threat to Iran, and never made threats toward Iran previously.

The well publicized Israeli debate regarding Iran came about after years of direct Iranian threats, and relevant military

build up (which was openly connected with threats toward Israel). Basically, Iran threatened Israel, Israel threatened back,

and now the claim is Iran needs a deterrent. There was no Israeli threat on Iran to merit any of this.

And to repeat another issue - Pakistan is much closer, had nuclear weapons, and is Sunni. Was it ever considered as a

threat by Iran? Were there fiery words and speeches advocating its destruction and making threats?

No, I'm sorry Morch, I will have to disagree with you here; "prior" has nothing to do with "now". The why's and wherefores do not change the current situation.

As you have said, Israel has made threats. Israel is nuclear armed. Iran is not. Iran needs a deterrent. MAD is the only way to ensure trigger-happy crackpots don't lose their cool. And there are crackpots on both sides.

I really see no reason to consider Pakistan. Did Pakistan make threats? Not that I'm aware of.

The borders of the countries may be closer but Israel is closer to Tehran than Islamabad, Lahore, or Karachi.

Edit: clumsy grammar. The major cities of Pakistan are further away from Tehran than Israel is from Tehran.

Oh, so on this issue things DO happen in a vacuum?

Maybe you ought to make a list of discussions meriting consideration of context, history (that irrelevant "prior" stuff) and which

do not. The "prior" is how one understands the "now". Or do you always figure out events and situation solely according to the

here and now?

Twisting my words will not make your argument stronger. My statement regarding Israel making threats was in context, and

not as you presented. So once again, Israel made counter-threats and they were considerably milder, and more specific if

compared to the ones originating from Iran. These counter threats were made in response to....ah, but that's not relevant according to your way of thinking, is it?

Iran was not threatened before it started issuing threats. The "need" for deterrence exists only because Iran threatened and

continues to threat.

The trigger-happy crackpots apparently had both delivery system and military nuclear capability for decades, yet there were

not even threats made on par with Iran's. Obviously, there were no actual use of said weapons. And yet, according to you -

"trigger-happy"....

Thank you for finally addressing Pakistan - no, Pakistan did not make any threats (same as Israel...read my post again).

Pakistan, however, steadily rejects Iran wish to acquire military nuclear capability, officially as it fears the development of

a nuclear arms race vs. Saudi Arabia.

[Seastallion]

Lets see....Israel did keep its nuclear program secret. True enough. In fact, it does not even officially acknowledge the issue

much. On the other hand, Israel also did not threat its neighbors (or Iran, for that matter) with use of these weapons. So, not

quite getting what the issue with keeping it secret got to do with things.

The "prior" got everything to do with it. Israel was never a threat to Iran, and never made threats toward Iran previously.

The well publicized Israeli debate regarding Iran came about after years of direct Iranian threats, and relevant military

build up (which was openly connected with threats toward Israel). Basically, Iran threatened Israel, Israel threatened back,

and now the claim is Iran needs a deterrent. There was no Israeli threat on Iran to merit any of this.

And to repeat another issue - Pakistan is much closer, had nuclear weapons, and is Sunni. Was it ever considered as a

threat by Iran? Were there fiery words and speeches advocating its destruction and making threats?

No, I'm sorry Morch, I will have to disagree with you here; "prior" has nothing to do with "now". The why's and wherefores do not change the current situation.

As you have said, Israel has made threats. Israel is nuclear armed. Iran is not. Iran needs a deterrent. MAD is the only way to ensure trigger-happy crackpots don't lose their cool. And there are crackpots on both sides.

I really see no reason to consider Pakistan. Did Pakistan make threats? Not that I'm aware of.

The borders of the countries may be closer but Israel is closer to Tehran than Islamabad, Lahore, or Karachi.

Edit: clumsy grammar. The major cities of Pakistan are further away from Tehran than Israel is from Tehran.

Oh, so on this issue things DO happen in a vacuum?

Maybe you ought to make a list of discussions meriting consideration of context, history (that irrelevant "prior" stuff) and which

do not. The "prior" is how one understands the "now". Or do you always figure out events and situation solely according to the

here and now?

Twisting my words will not make your argument stronger. My statement regarding Israel making threats was in context, and

not as you presented. So once again, Israel made counter-threats and they were considerably milder, and more specific if

compared to the ones originating from Iran. These counter threats were made in response to....ah, but that's not relevant according to your way of thinking, is it?

Iran was not threatened before it started issuing threats. The "need" for deterrence exists only because Iran threatened and

continues to threat.

The trigger-happy crackpots apparently had both delivery system and military nuclear capability for decades, yet there were

not even threats made on par with Iran's. Obviously, there were no actual use of said weapons. And yet, according to you -

"trigger-happy"....

Thank you for finally addressing Pakistan - no, Pakistan did not make any threats (same as Israel...read my post again).

Pakistan, however, steadily rejects Iran wish to acquire military nuclear capability, officially as it fears the development of

a nuclear arms race vs. Saudi Arabia.

Come come Morch. Who is twisting here? Of course the prior gives context to the now! But in the topic at hand, and my point, it is what the situation is now that matters.

The very state of Israel is a situation where we have to ignore the "prior" and look, in practicality, at the now. We have to accept that the state exists, and move on to a peace plan.

All nuclear-capable states don't want newcomers! That's a given, surely? So Pakistan again does not figure in this discussion. (I note you ignore my point about who is closer to whom, but never mind...this is not a point-scoring excersise, is it?)

[Morch]

Lets see....Israel did keep its nuclear program secret. True enough. In fact, it does not even officially acknowledge the issue

much. On the other hand, Israel also did not threat its neighbors (or Iran, for that matter) with use of these weapons. So, not

quite getting what the issue with keeping it secret got to do with things.

The "prior" got everything to do with it. Israel was never a threat to Iran, and never made threats toward Iran previously.

The well publicized Israeli debate regarding Iran came about after years of direct Iranian threats, and relevant military

build up (which was openly connected with threats toward Israel). Basically, Iran threatened Israel, Israel threatened back,

and now the claim is Iran needs a deterrent. There was no Israeli threat on Iran to merit any of this.

And to repeat another issue - Pakistan is much closer, had nuclear weapons, and is Sunni. Was it ever considered as a

threat by Iran? Were there fiery words and speeches advocating its destruction and making threats?

No, I'm sorry Morch, I will have to disagree with you here; "prior" has nothing to do with "now". The why's and wherefores do not change the current situation.

As you have said, Israel has made threats. Israel is nuclear armed. Iran is not. Iran needs a deterrent. MAD is the only way to ensure trigger-happy crackpots don't lose their cool. And there are crackpots on both sides.

I really see no reason to consider Pakistan. Did Pakistan make threats? Not that I'm aware of.

The borders of the countries may be closer but Israel is closer to Tehran than Islamabad, Lahore, or Karachi.

Edit: clumsy grammar. The major cities of Pakistan are further away from Tehran than Israel is from Tehran.

Oh, so on this issue things DO happen in a vacuum?

Maybe you ought to make a list of discussions meriting consideration of context, history (that irrelevant "prior" stuff) and which

do not. The "prior" is how one understands the "now". Or do you always figure out events and situation solely according to the

here and now?

Twisting my words will not make your argument stronger. My statement regarding Israel making threats was in context, and

not as you presented. So once again, Israel made counter-threats and they were considerably milder, and more specific if

compared to the ones originating from Iran. These counter threats were made in response to....ah, but that's not relevant according to your way of thinking, is it?

Iran was not threatened before it started issuing threats. The "need" for deterrence exists only because Iran threatened and

continues to threat.

The trigger-happy crackpots apparently had both delivery system and military nuclear capability for decades, yet there were

not even threats made on par with Iran's. Obviously, there were no actual use of said weapons. And yet, according to you -

"trigger-happy"....

Thank you for finally addressing Pakistan - no, Pakistan did not make any threats (same as Israel...read my post again).

Pakistan, however, steadily rejects Iran wish to acquire military nuclear capability, officially as it fears the development of

a nuclear arms race vs. Saudi Arabia.

Come come Morch. Who is twisting here? Of course the prior gives context to the now! But in the topic at hand, and my point, it is what the situation is now that matters.

The very state of Israel is a situation where we have to ignore the "prior" and look, in practicality, at the now. We have to accept that the state exists, and move on to a peace plan.

All nuclear-capable states don't want newcomers! That's a given, surely? So Pakistan again does not figure in this discussion. (I note you ignore my point about who is closer to whom, but never mind...this is not a point-scoring excersise, is it?)

If the "prior" is relevant, than Iran got no need for a deterrent. All it needs to do is stop making threats, announce that this

option is off the table and that it will continue aggression vs. Israel in conventional ways (meaning through Hezbollah and

Hamas). There was never a nuclear threat made on Iran, there was not even a conventional threat before Iran raised the

issue. This is important in as much as the basis for the claim "need for deterrent" is bogus.

As for addressing the current situation - a military strike on Iran (by anyone) is not very likely under existing conditions, and

not clear that it would generate the result wished for. Therefore its either Iran going nuclear capable or a deal is struck with

the best possible control measures in place.

A nuclear capable Iran is bad news for regional and world stability. Even disregarding Iran obvious meddling, support of

terrorist organizations, aggressive threats and religious stance - one need only consider the probable reaction by Saudi

Arabia ("we need a deterrent...."), or that Israel getting spooked by some Iranian action. That Israel got them, is not a good

enough reason to let them spread all over the place, especially not when considering the turbulent nature of the region.

A deal which will keep Iran's nuclear capability in check, is not a great option as far as neighbors go (with reasonable trust

issues vs. both Iran and control mechanisms). It will keep suspicions running high, and is far from certain to be effective.

It is a better option than a nuclear arms race, though.

Both Pakistan and Israel got military nuclear capability. Pakistan did not threat Iran with an attack. Israel did not threat Iran

with an attack. This was the situation for years. Then Iran threatens Israel. Israel counter-threats and walla - the need for a

deterrent arises. Do you seriously think this would have worked out differently if Iran was making threats vs. Pakistan?

Re the distance issue, just to keep tabs - 300 km difference is not a major factor when it comes to a ballistic missile strike,

having to cross the airspace of a few hostile countries and back is rather more complicated.

My position is that Israel having nuclear weapons is not a good thing, to say the least. I would be happier if none had them,

and so would probably most of the sane world. I also think that Israel could probably submit, partially or fully, to some forms

of inspection and control without putting too much at risk. That said - I am still baffled by how one country having them can

be used as a good enough reasoning for another country getting its own. Sort of counter-productive if one wishes a world

free of nuclear weapons. And yes, I do not think that there is a symmetry between the leaderships of both countries, in as

much as there are no constant calls for the destruction of the other from one of them.

[Scott]

This thread is about Iran, not Israel. Get back on topic, please.

[Morch]

U.S. Accuses Iran of Secretly Breaching U.N. Nuclear Sanctions

The United States has privately accused Iran of going on an international shopping spree to acquire components for a heavy-water reactor that American officials have long feared could be used in the production of nuclear weapons-grade plutonium.

A U.S. delegation informed a U.N. Security Council panel of experts monitoring Iranian sanctions in recent months that Iranian procurement agents have been increasing their efforts to illicitly obtain equipment for the IR-40 research reactor at the Arak nuclear complex.

The American allegations, which have never before been reported, come more than a year after the Iranian government pledged as part of an interim agreement with the United States and other big powers to scale back Iran’s most controversial nuclear-related activities, including the enrichment of high-grade uranium, in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. They stand in stark contrast to recent remarks by Secretary of State John Kerry, who has repeatedly credited Tehran with abiding by the terms of the November 2013 pact, which bound Tehran to suspend some of its work at Arak. “Iran has held up its end of the bargain,” Kerry said last month in Vienna as he announced a seven-month extension of the timetable for big-power talks.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/08/us-accuses-iran-of-secretly-breaking-un-nuclear-sanctions-exclusive/

No idea if this is true, of course, but then would also not expect Iran to sit idle even while negotiations are going on.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Morch