Historic US-Iran nuclear deal could be taking shape

[Chicog]

Wow apparently it's Iran that's been killing US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what Assad is doing in Syria means that IS doesn't even get a mention.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Chicog

[Chicog]

Not unexpectedly he's trying to put Iran on a par with IS now.

[Chicog]

:looksatwatch:

[Chicog]

Yep, cliche after cliche.

Pretty predictable, but at least he heeded Kerry's warning.

[BKKBobby]

Wow apparently it's Iran that's been killing US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what Assad is doing in Syria means that IS doesn't even get a mention.

Makes me remember when the US claimed that improvised explosive devices that were used by sunni muslim terrorists (serious enemies of Iran) in Iraq had some kind of made in Iran stamps or some such.

Same kind of silly claims only believed by ignorant people.

Edited March 4, 2015 by BKKBobby

[chuckd]

Wow apparently it's Iran that's been killing US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what Assad is doing in Syria means that IS doesn't even get a mention.

Makes me remember when the US claimed that improvised explosive devices that were used by sunni muslim terrorists (serious enemies of Iran) in Iraq had some kind of made in Iran stamps or some such.

Same kind of silly claims only believed by ignorant people.

Please provide proof the "Sunni Muslim terrorists" were, in fact Sunni. Shiites were also planting IEDs.

Another shot in the dark?

[Steely Dan]

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

The demand that no deal is better than what is invariably called a "bad" deal means any deal is a bad deal so there should be no deal whatsoever.

Is there such a thing as a good deal? And why is any or every possible nuclear deal with Iran a "bad" deal ?

Sanctions will not stop Irans nuclear program.

Only option if theres no deal is military action against Iran.

Then I would like to ask people that advocate military action this question:

What will happen after Irans nuclear facilities gets bombed?

Iran is not afraid of nuclear weapons. It will not be a deterrent cause they know nuclear weapons wont be used in a way as to kill people or destroy cities.

Indeed and there is a central point about superpower and mega-state total war in the 21st century that needs to be stated openly. The reference is to countries such as the US, Russia, China and Iran if Iran might at some point sooner or later produce nuclear weapons (apart from whether or not there is an agreement).

No state with nuclear weapons wants to initiate use of them even in the most dire of circumstances. Retaliation is another matter as it by definition is not first use.

The initiator of a World War III does not want to inherit a nation or a continent of radiated and glazed over rubble, which is what they'd get if they initiated a nuclear war. Never mind the sanity of it, look at the gaming of it at the Pentagon and in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran.

Initiator of a WWIII wants to kill people but not destroy infrastructure that can be used immediately after conquest. Which is why the CCP Boyz in Beijing are developing genetic biological warfare. It is genetically possible to develop biological agents that affect people of a certain race or ethnicity only. It is far from perfect and still being developed and refined, but it has a definite efficacy.

Chemicals are not discrete but biological agents get very discreet. The trick is simply to commit enough unlimited budget and resources to make it work, eventually, sooner or later. Beijing has made this commitment.

The CCP Boyz in Beijing figure if they can manage and control the killing of 250 million Americans by genetic biological warfare, they can leave the infrastructure throughout the vast country intact while reducing the population to the point it could not resist assault and attack. That would occur after the Chinese military would incapacitate US satellite and cyber war capabilities...a high tech power outage which could be done by any number of means.

Russia and the US on the other hand give a low priority to biological (or chemical) warfare. The US is bound by a biological and chemical warfare treaty and would suffer greatly if it were producing such agents and were somehow Snowdened to the world on such a policy or doctrine. Russia sees no point to it.

The US and Russia instead do rely on cyber warfare and the US relies on cyber warfare and satellite hi-tech warfare. Beijing knows that during the invasion of Iraq the US used more than 80% of all US satellites in space to include those owned privately, the latter being commandeered instantly without appeal or recourse, on the basis of national security statutes. That confirmed to Beijing the US hi-tech cyber and satellite war strategy and doctrine.

The Russian invasion of Georgia confirmed to everyone Moscow's cyber warfare strategy and doctrine which is formidable. Russia's plans are to win its all out war using its very hi-tech and highly developed cyber capabilities to clear the way for heavy ground forces and powerful air forces.

The US is well aware of Beijing's focused knockout strategy against US high tech warfare capabilities, so the Pentagon has developed the doctrine of withstanding a knockout cyber attack against its highly sophisticated capabilities on land, sea, in the air, in cyberspace, and for its satellites in earth orbit. After withstanding a first electro-magnetic and hi-tech cyber assault and missile blows against its military capabilities, the US would then launch an integrated and devastatingly sophisticated "star wars" counterattack. Neither side would go nuclear however.

The point being none of the existing three big state nuclear actors -- the US, Russia, China -- ever plan to use their nuclear arsenal except possibly all or more likely in part as a retaliatory strike force.

So regardless of whether Iran might at some point develop ten nuclear weapons or 200+ of them, civilian and military policy makers together among the major powers and of course in Israel would need to determine how the ayatollahs might think of an all out war (and a lower intensity use of a nuclear weapon). Would the ayatollahs regard a nuclear arsenal as their first strike preference and in fact doctrine? Or would Iran take one of the other approaches used variously by China, or Russia, or the US? Or something else yet again that might be uniquely Persian in its nature?

The doctrine of using nuclear weapons as a first strike offensive line of deterrence and defense is actually so very Cold War, so un-21st century.

The Iranian twelvers are equally so un-21st century and one bomb is all it would take to obliterate a Country the size of Israel.

[BKKBobby]

Wow apparently it's Iran that's been killing US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what Assad is doing in Syria means that IS doesn't even get a mention.

Makes me remember when the US claimed that improvised explosive devices that were used by sunni muslim terrorists (serious enemies of Iran) in Iraq had some kind of made in Iran stamps or some such.

Same kind of silly claims only believed by ignorant people.

Please provide proof the "Sunni Muslim terrorists" were, in fact Sunni. Shiites were also planting IEDs.

Another shot in the dark?

You were fighting the sunnis in Iraq. The shias wanted your help which you provided. You were successfull in making them the new leadership in Iraq. Iran is also grateful for your help. Edited March 4, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Chicog]

You were fighting the sunnis in Iraq. The shias wanted your help which you provided. You were successfull in making them the new leadership in Iraq. Iran is also grateful for your help.

Iraq is a predominantly Shi'a country. Saddam just kept them corralled while he was in power.

(Added: Islam 99% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christianity 0.8%, Mandaeism and other less than 1%.)

The logical progression of "democracy" would be to make it a majority Shi'a led government, which is what happened when Bush Jr. deposed Saddam.

However, the Sunni didn't like that, and didn't like the fact that Bush gave the Shi'a complete control of the country's police and military..

The Shi'a took the opportunity to exact some revenge.

The Sunni got very angry.

And thus ISIL was borne, the granddaddy of IS.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Chicog

[BKKBobby]

You were fighting the sunnis in Iraq. The shias wanted your help which you provided. You were successfull in making them the new leadership in Iraq. Iran is also grateful for your help.

Iraq is a predominantly Shi'a country. Saddam just kept them corralled while he was in power.

(Added: Islam 99% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christianity 0.8%, Mandaeism and other less than 1%.)

The logical progression of "democracy" would be to make it a majority Shi'a led government, which is what happened when Bush Jr. deposed Saddam.

However, the Sunni didn't like that, and didn't like the fact that Bush gave the Shi'a complete control of the country's police and military..

The Shi'a took the opportunity to exact some revenge.

The Sunni got very angry.

And thus ISIL was borne, the granddaddy of IS.

But your last sentence im not sure about. Didnt IS(something) start with the freedom fighters/rebels/terrorists/whatever that fought against Assad-Syria? (I know Assad belong to a sub-sect of Shia islam) Edited March 4, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Chicog]

No it started in Iraq in 2006.

[Publicus]

The demand that no deal is better than what is invariably called a "bad" deal means any deal is a bad deal so there should be no deal whatsoever.

Is there such a thing as a good deal? And why is any or every possible nuclear deal with Iran a "bad" deal ?

Sanctions will not stop Irans nuclear program.

Only option if theres no deal is military action against Iran.

Then I would like to ask people that advocate military action this question:

What will happen after Irans nuclear facilities gets bombed?

Iran is not afraid of nuclear weapons. It will not be a deterrent cause they know nuclear weapons wont be used in a way as to kill people or destroy cities.

Indeed and there is a central point about superpower and mega-state total war in the 21st century that needs to be stated openly. The reference is to countries such as the US, Russia, China and Iran if Iran might at some point sooner or later produce nuclear weapons (apart from whether or not there is an agreement).

No state with nuclear weapons wants to initiate use of them even in the most dire of circumstances. Retaliation is another matter as it by definition is not first use.

The initiator of a World War III does not want to inherit a nation or a continent of radiated and glazed over rubble, which is what they'd get if they initiated a nuclear war. Never mind the sanity of it, look at the gaming of it at the Pentagon and in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran.

Initiator of a WWIII wants to kill people but not destroy infrastructure that can be used immediately after conquest. Which is why the CCP Boyz in Beijing are developing genetic biological warfare. It is genetically possible to develop biological agents that affect people of a certain race or ethnicity only. It is far from perfect and still being developed and refined, but it has a definite efficacy.

Chemicals are not discrete but biological agents get very discreet. The trick is simply to commit enough unlimited budget and resources to make it work, eventually, sooner or later. Beijing has made this commitment.

The CCP Boyz in Beijing figure if they can manage and control the killing of 250 million Americans by genetic biological warfare, they can leave the infrastructure throughout the vast country intact while reducing the population to the point it could not resist assault and attack. That would occur after the Chinese military would incapacitate US satellite and cyber war capabilities...a high tech power outage which could be done by any number of means.

Russia and the US on the other hand give a low priority to biological (or chemical) warfare. The US is bound by a biological and chemical warfare treaty and would suffer greatly if it were producing such agents and were somehow Snowdened to the world on such a policy or doctrine. Russia sees no point to it.

The US and Russia instead do rely on cyber warfare and the US relies on cyber warfare and satellite hi-tech warfare. Beijing knows that during the invasion of Iraq the US used more than 80% of all US satellites in space to include those owned privately, the latter being commandeered instantly without appeal or recourse, on the basis of national security statutes. That confirmed to Beijing the US hi-tech cyber and satellite war strategy and doctrine.

The Russian invasion of Georgia confirmed to everyone Moscow's cyber warfare strategy and doctrine which is formidable. Russia's plans are to win its all out war using its very hi-tech and highly developed cyber capabilities to clear the way for heavy ground forces and powerful air forces.

The US is well aware of Beijing's focused knockout strategy against US high tech warfare capabilities, so the Pentagon has developed the doctrine of withstanding a knockout cyber attack against its highly sophisticated capabilities on land, sea, in the air, in cyberspace, and for its satellites in earth orbit. After withstanding a first electro-magnetic and hi-tech cyber assault and missile blows against its military capabilities, the US would then launch an integrated and devastatingly sophisticated "star wars" counterattack. Neither side would go nuclear however.

The point being none of the existing three big state nuclear actors -- the US, Russia, China -- ever plan to use their nuclear arsenal except possibly all or more likely in part as a retaliatory strike force.

So regardless of whether Iran might at some point develop ten nuclear weapons or 200+ of them, civilian and military policy makers together among the major powers and of course in Israel would need to determine how the ayatollahs might think of an all out war (and a lower intensity use of a nuclear weapon). Would the ayatollahs regard a nuclear arsenal as their first strike preference and in fact doctrine? Or would Iran take one of the other approaches used variously by China, or Russia, or the US? Or something else yet again that might be uniquely Persian in its nature?

The doctrine of using nuclear weapons as a first strike offensive line of deterrence and defense is actually so very Cold War, so un-21st century.

The Iranian twelvers are equally so un-21st century and one bomb is all it would take to obliterate a Country the size of Israel.

One bomb from Pakistan on India would be rather destructive too, as would one bomb from North Korea on the South or on Japan....as would one bomb from Israel on Iran.

These Dooms Day Diary notations or extended notes to the self of apocalypse scribes who somehow see one group of rigid ideologue extremists as having more ants in the pants for deployment of nuclear bombs than another group of menacing dictators are engaged in overdrive, or should I say warp drive.

There are a good number of mullahs and ayatollahs that are crazy but they are not stupid. These guys are not going to blow up themselves or their countries. The approach of all of these imams is to develop a corps of stupid suckers to strap on explosives then go out and blow themselves to bits in the name of Allah and 72 virgins. The imams are no fools so be attentive that they don't pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

The imams of radical jihad have already succeeded in striking fear in enough insecure right wingers throughout the West to have the wimp rightists cowering in terror before the whole of Islam itself, never mind just the mullahs and the grizzly looking losers with black hoods over their pimple heads.

The frightened right of Western society and civilization are the best propagandists the mullahs could ever imagine recruiting and manipulating Godfather style whilst the rightists they indirectly direct have no clue of it all.

[snarky66]

"Historic Deal" where obama folds like a pup tent in a hurricane. World leaders like Putin roll this rube on a daily basis.

[Publicus]

"Historic Deal" where obama folds like a pup tent in a hurricane. World leaders like Putin roll this rube on a daily basis.

Russia is a member of the P5+1 UN negotiators and Putin fully supports the P5+1 negotiators working to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons. Putin is following the lead of Prez Obama in these respects. Putin is being a good boy on this one, since 2008 to the present. Vlad can be a good boy when Vlad wants to be a good boy.

[Chicog]

"Historic Deal" where obama folds like a pup tent in a hurricane. World leaders like Putin roll this rube on a daily basis.

Russia is a member of the P5+1 UN negotiators and Putin fully supports the P5+1 negotiators working to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons. Putin is following the lead of Prez Obama in these respects. Putin is being a good boy on this one, since 2008 to the present. Vlad can be a good boy when Vlad wants to be a good boy.

I thought we'd already explained what the "P" stood for.

[Publicus]

Indeed, the Russian P5+1 chief negotiator is quite the up and coming smooth talker who many hope might be able to get the US and Russia to have a mind meld over Ukraine once the Iran nuclear issues are settled...

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, who daily oversees relations between Moscow and the United States, last week provided interesting insight on issues such as Iran and Afghanistan and arms control in an appearance at the Nixon Center in Washington.

Discussing the "reset" with the Obama administration, Ryabkov said, "We think that this administration . . . has been very frank with us about its own views," even when talking about Russian domestic activities.

"We are not avoiding any hard talk on these matters and . . . despite these and other differences, we are well-placed to manage it [so] that these differences do not constitute an obstacle in our relationship."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105212.html

....

P5+1 united in attempts to broker a deal with Iran: Kerry

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Tuesday expressed confidence that Iran and the P5+1 countries -- Britain, France, China, Russia, and the United States plus Germany – would finally hammer out a comprehensive deal on Tehran’s nuclear program by July 1.

The deputy foreign minister said in Geneva that tangible progress was being made after US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif held two-day talks in the Swiss city.

"We are satisfied to see every new meeting achieve further progress," Ryabkov added. "There is a growing confidence that an agreement will be reached by the assigned deadline -- in other words, June 30," Russia’s senior negotiator said.

China calls on Iran, P5+1 not to miss historical chance for clinching a deal

China on Wednesday expressed hope that Iran and the six world powers – known as the P5+1 – will not miss the historical chance for reaching a deal.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told a press conference that the current situation of negotiations is ideal and Beijing is hopeful that both sides will recognize the sensitivity of the issue and seize the opportunity for clinching a deal.
Underling that China is ready to play a constructive role in the ongoing negotiations, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson noted that nuclear talks have entered a key stage.
Iran, the US and the deputy EU foreign policy chief started a fresh round of negotiations on Sunday. Negotiations will proceed as the representatives of other members of the P5+1 are scheduled to join the talks on Thursday.

[chuckd]

"Discussing the "reset" with the Obama administration, Ryabkov said, "We think that this administration . . . has been very frank with us about its own views," even when talking about Russian domestic activities."

It seems the "reset" button really took off after the 2012 election.

[JDGRUEN]

Wow apparently it's Iran that's been killing US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what Assad is doing in Syria means that IS doesn't even get a mention.

Makes me remember when the US claimed that improvised explosive devices that were used by sunni muslim terrorists (serious enemies of Iran) in Iraq had some kind of made in Iran stamps or some such.

Same kind of silly claims only believed by ignorant people.

Please provide proof the "Sunni Muslim terrorists" were, in fact Sunni. Shiites were also planting IEDs.

Another shot in the dark?

You were fighting the sunnis in Iraq. The shias wanted your help which you provided. You were successfull in making them the new leadership in Iraq. Iran is also grateful for your help.

Who is You - Your and You in your question? Is this some new form of the English language assigning U.S. Government responsibility to a person not employed by the U.S. Government? Or is it that you just do not know proper English language phraseology and assignment of proper nouns to Departments of the U.S. Government with the responsibility that I think you may be speaking of... ?

[BKKBobby]

Wow apparently it's Iran that's been killing US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what Assad is doing in Syria means that IS doesn't even get a mention.

Makes me remember when the US claimed that improvised explosive devices that were used by sunni muslim terrorists (serious enemies of Iran) in Iraq had some kind of made in Iran stamps or some such.

Same kind of silly claims only believed by ignorant people.

Please provide proof the "Sunni Muslim terrorists" were, in fact Sunni. Shiites were also planting IEDs.

Another shot in the dark?

You were fighting the sunnis in Iraq. The shias wanted your help which you provided. You were successfull in making them the new leadership in Iraq. Iran is also grateful for your help.

Who is You - Your and You in your question? Is this some new form of the English language assigning U.S. Government responsibility to a person not employed by the U.S. Government? Or is it that you just do not know proper English language phraseology and assignment of proper nouns to Departments of the U.S. Government with the responsibility that I think you may be speaking of... ?

My native language isnt english.

But it isnt an excuse in this case.

It was wrong of me.

My mistake.

I should have refered to Bush Jr and his military venture in Iraq.

Edited March 5, 2015 by BKKBobby