Officials: Iran nuke talks solving some issues, not others

[webfact]

Officials: Iran nuke talks solving some issues, not others
By GEORGE JAHN and MATTHEW LEE

LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Iran is considering demands for further cuts to its uranium enrichment program but is pushing back on how long it must limit technology it could use to make atomic arms, Western officials involved in the nuclear talks said Sunday.

Iran's potential movement on enrichment reflected the intense pressure to close a deal. But substantial differences between the sides may prove too difficult to bridge before Tuesday's deadline for a preliminary agreement, which is meant to set the stage for a further round of negotiations toward a comprehensive deal in June.

The goal is a long-term curb on Iran's nuclear activities. In return, Tehran would gain relief from the burden of global economic penalties.

Foreign ministers and other representatives of Iran and the six powers in the talks have said there is a chance of succeeding by the deadline despite significant obstacles.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said it was up to Iran to make that happen.

By accepting the restrictions, the Iranians would "live up to their rhetoric that they are not trying to acquire a nuclear weapon," he said in Washington on ABC's "This Week."

From Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu renewed strong criticism of what he brands a bad deal. He is at the forefront of accusations that Iran helped the recent Shiite rebel advance in Yemen, and Netanyahu linked Iran's alleged proxy grab for influence in the Middle East with what he sees as victory by Tehran at the negotiations in the Swiss city of Lausanne.

"The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous for humanity and must be stopped," he said.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, heading a delegation of American senators visiting Israel, said the lawmakers supported legislation to require Congress to approve any agreement on Iran's nuclear program, or to increase penalties against Iran if no deal is reached.

The officials in Lausanne said the sides were advancing on limits to aspects of Iran's uranium enrichment program, which can be used to make the core of a nuclear warhead.

Over the past weeks, Iran has moved from demanding that it be allowed to keep nearly 10,000 centrifuges enriching uranium, to agreeing to 6,000.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the talks, said Tehran now may be ready to accept even fewer.

Tehran is ready to ship to Russia all the enriched uranium it produces, the officials said, describing a change from previous demands that Iran be permitted to keep a small amount in stock.

One official cautioned that Iran previously had agreed to this, only to change its mind. Also, Iran's official IRNA news agency on Sunday cited an unidentified Iranian negotiator as denying such an agreement had been reached.

Uranium enrichment has been the chief concern in over more than a decade of international attempts to cap Iran's nuclear programs.

Tehran says it wants to enrich only for energy, science, industry and medicine. But many countries fear Iran could use the technology to make weapons-grade uranium.

The United States and its allies want a deal that extends the time Iran would need to make a nuclear weapon from the present two months to three months to at least a year.

The officials said a main dispute involves the length of an agreement. Iran, they said, wants a total lifting of all caps on its activities after 10 years, while the U.S. and others at the talks — Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — insist on progressive removal after a decade.

A senior U.S. official characterized the issue as lack of agreement on what happens in years 11 to 15. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in line with State Department rules on briefing about the closed-door talks.

Limits on Iran's research and development of centrifuges also were unresolved, the Western officials said.

Tehran has created a prototype centrifuge that it says enriches uranium 16 times faster than its present mainstay model. The U.S. and its partners want to constrain research that would increase greatly the speed of making enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb, once limits on Iran's programs are lifted.

One official said Russia opposed the U.S. position that any U.N. penalties lifted in the course of a deal should be reimposed quickly if Tehran reneged on any commitments.

Both Western officials Iran was resisting attempts to make inspections and other ways of verification as intrusive as possible.

There was tentative agreement on turning a nearly-finished reactor into a model that gives off less plutonium waste than originally envisaged. Plutonium, like enriched uranium, is a path to nuclear weapons.

Iran and the U.S. were discussing letting Iran run centrifuges at an underground bunker that has been used to enrich uranium. The machines would produce isotopes for peaceful applications, the officials said.

With the Tuesday deadline approaching and problems remaining, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry canceled plans Sunday to return to the United States for an event honoring the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, his German counterpart, scratched planned trips to Kazakhstan.

Kerry has been in discussions with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif since Thursday.
____

Associated Press writer Aron Heller in Jerusalem contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-30

[Publicus]

From the OP:

"The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous for humanity and must be stopped," he said.

Netanyahu is the new George W. Bush and his Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, John McCain, Tom Terrible Cotton all joined at the hip and hobbling along together raging as one.

When Netanyahu says Lausanne he's taking about the United Nations Security Council six principal members negotiating with Iran as being "dangerous for humanity and must be stopped."

Now when I think Netanyahu, I think Dick Cheney.

[sdanielmcev]

Iran needs to get this done before Obama's become a serious lame duck. The Senate is already unanimous in opposing this 'agreement.' Iran has known for quite some time that the Democrats have no spine when it comes to international affairs.

[Daniel Ingalls]

..........no we will not use nukes on Israel. Our nuclear reactors are strictly for peaceful purposes......If you believe that, then

I got some land in Florida under 3 feet of water for sale....

[Chicog]

Iran needs to get this done before Obama's become a serious lame duck. The Senate is already unanimous in opposing this 'agreement.'

But as has been pointed out numerous times, the Senate do not have a say in Executive agreements, so all they can really do is write embarrassingly stupid letters and make themselves look foolish.

[BKKBobby]

Of course Iran wont use nukes. Iran most likely would want to join the "I have nukes"-club if they could have gotten away with it. But these islamic hardliners are more rational than the funny hat and robe makes you believe. They want to have the power and rule The Islamic Republic of Iran. When they die they would like family members, relatives and friends to continue having a grip on the power. Using one single nuke on Israel would be the end of dictating how citizens of Iran should live and what they should or should not do, it would be the end of acting as a powerful regional player, end of having the status as leaders in your country, everything they want will be lost. The hardliners in Tehran dont want nuclear armaggedon. If you heard that they would consider using a nuclear weapon on a enemy then you just heard a myth or propaganda.

Edited March 30, 2015 by BKKBobby

[chuckd]

Of course Iran wont use nukes. Iran most likely would want to join the "I have nukes"-club if they could have gotten away with it. But these islamic hardliners are more rational than the funny hat and robe makes you believe. They want to have the power and rule The Islamic Republic of Iran. When they die they would like family members, relatives and friends to continue having a grip on the power. Using one single nuke on Israel would be the end of dictating how citizens of Iran should live and what they should or should not do, it would be the end of acting as a powerful regional player, end of having the status as leaders in your country, everything they want will be lost. The hardliners in Tehran dont want nuclear armaggedon. If you heard that they would consider using a nuclear weapon on a enemy then you just heard a myth or propaganda.

Did you learn all these rather astonishing "facts" from your visits to the two Middle East countries?

If not, you might want to post a link to it so we can all get up to speed.

PS: Which two countries have you visited?

[BKKBobby]

Of course Iran wont use nukes. Iran most likely would want to join the "I have nukes"-club if they could have gotten away with it. But these islamic hardliners are more rational than the funny hat and robe makes you believe. They want to have the power and rule The Islamic Republic of Iran. When they die they would like family members, relatives and friends to continue having a grip on the power. Using one single nuke on Israel would be the end of dictating how citizens of Iran should live and what they should or should not do, it would be the end of acting as a powerful regional player, end of having the status as leaders in your country, everything they want will be lost. The hardliners in Tehran dont want nuclear armaggedon. If you heard that they would consider using a nuclear weapon on a enemy then you just heard a myth or propaganda.

Did you learn all these rather astonishing "facts" from your visits to the two Middle East countries?

If not, you might want to post a link to it so we can all get up to speed.

PS: Which two countries have you visited?

Morrocco and Egypt. Arab countries but not in The Middle East.

Its just my opinion, nothing else. I read books, papers and watch documentaries. The information gets accumulated thru the years. I process the information and use my reasoning skills.

How can I provide you with links and references to books and documentaries Ive watched thru the years?

I dont do link and poll wars.

Just fighting one another with links and polls and attacking the links and polls validity.

I like arjundadawns way of posting. Hes highly intelligent, eloquent and use intellect when posting, and he uses accumulated information. Sometimes he use links sometimes he writes a long intellectual piece without pointing to any online link or book.

Even though I disagree with very much of his posts.

You can disagree with my way of discussing.

Im not going to argue with you. My response to one of your posts got me suspended during the weekend.

Edited March 30, 2015 by BKKBobby

[arjunadawn]

Of course Iran wont use nukes. Iran most likely would want to join the "I have nukes"-club if they could have gotten away with it. But these islamic hardliners are more rational than the funny hat and robe makes you believe. They want to have the power and rule The Islamic Republic of Iran. When they die they would like family members, relatives and friends to continue having a grip on the power. Using one single nuke on Israel would be the end of dictating how citizens of Iran should live and what they should or should not do, it would be the end of acting as a powerful regional player, end of having the status as leaders in your country, everything they want will be lost. The hardliners in Tehran dont want nuclear armaggedon. If you heard that they would consider using a nuclear weapon on a enemy then you just heard a myth or propaganda.

It is a categorical error to apply to Iran/Islam values, mores, and diplomatic etiquette that is Western; it is also unwise. There is nothing in Iranian rhetoric which supports Iran would not be a threat with a nuclear weapon. There is nothing in Iranian shia projection directly or by proxies that suggest Iran would not be a threat if possessing nuclear weapons. Possessing a nuclear weapon is not only a nuclear threat it is a strategic threat enabling expansionist conventional war while possessing a nuclear deterrent. So, the reductionist notion that Iran having the bomb means using the bomb is at least implausible as it is not the only means of using nuclear power strategically. Nevertheless, as noted above, Iran does still pose a direct threat to using the bomb directly or as a nuclear fulcrum leveraging conventional forces.

Your other observations seem kinda universal; yes, they want power, want to basically stay alive, realize Israel could nuke them, etc. If I heard they would consider using a nuclear weapon I heard only a myth would be ideal. Regrettably, Iran has no track record upon which to suppose that myth is true. Lastly, in either shia or sunni islam there is simply no higher calling then the furtherance of islam, in whatever manner the perceiver deems that best to be represented. What you call the hardliners in Iran actually do want confrontation, but as I suggested, mere possession of a nuclear weapon would better enable it to leverage terrible destruction with conventional forces. Few want to field an army against someone with a nuclear weapon. Besides, Iran would still continue using proxies as they have been so successful.

(Note: The majority of shia in Iran are Twelvers; it would be wrong to call such people hardliners- they are much further to the right and have as their core tenet the notion that the return of the Mahdi is not simply on Al Lah's time but the devote can usher in the period through various acts of war.)

I prefer the link I attach next were from a different site but as I read through the myths and facts sections I found little (on the topic above) that I disagreed with, and it is well presented. This is a very astute evaluation regarding Iran, nukes, and the relations of others in the ME to Iran and nukes.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFiran.html

[arjunadawn]

Of course Iran wont use nukes. Iran most likely would want to join the "I have nukes"-club if they could have gotten away with it. But these islamic hardliners are more rational than the funny hat and robe makes you believe. They want to have the power and rule The Islamic Republic of Iran. When they die they would like family members, relatives and friends to continue having a grip on the power. Using one single nuke on Israel would be the end of dictating how citizens of Iran should live and what they should or should not do, it would be the end of acting as a powerful regional player, end of having the status as leaders in your country, everything they want will be lost. The hardliners in Tehran dont want nuclear armaggedon. If you heard that they would consider using a nuclear weapon on a enemy then you just heard a myth or propaganda.

Did you learn all these rather astonishing "facts" from your visits to the two Middle East countries?

If not, you might want to post a link to it so we can all get up to speed.

PS: Which two countries have you visited?

Morrocco and Egypt. Arab countries but not in The Middle East.

Its just my opinion, nothing else. I read books, papers and watch documentaries. The information gets accumulated thru the years. I process the information and use my reasoning skills.

How can I provide you with links and references to books and documentaries Ive watched thru the years?

I dont do link and poll wars.

Just fighting one another with links and polls and attacking the links and polls validity.

I like arjundadawns way of posting. Hes highly intelligent, eloquent and use intellect when posting, and he uses accumulated information. Sometimes he use links sometimes he writes a long intellectual piece without pointing to any online link or book.

Even though I disagree with very much of his posts.

You can disagree with my way of discussing.

Im not going to argue with you. My response to one of your posts got me suspended during the weekend.

There's clearly groups of us here who go back and forth, render our opinions, and take each other's back. Disagree with this? Ok, but I think its evident.

Having said that I have never been of the mind that someone needs to be a subject matter expert to render opinion. I also dont think someone needs to visit Kashmir to discuss the difficulties there. I have spent many years in most muslim countries on earth but this experience only lends to a very narrow, personal perspective and mostly on topics we dont discuss. Most of my observations are only roughly supported by this experience where the majority of my knowledge comes as BKKBobby above states: Reading, links, papers, documentaries, etc. I think no man has an inferior position because of visa stamps. It is all in the quality of the argument. If most of us had to actually visit the places we discuss each day we would be Renaissance men for sure.

Ha, i just looked up and read the remainder of BKKBobby's post. I hadn't realized you referenced me (Thank you; and yes, we are in disagreement on things). I was only responding to an issue that has come up previously- is someone's point of view lessened by not having visited a particular country? No;, not mostly. Unless we are talking about how [they] lay the spread for a meal in the desert and how the outrageous sun turns quickly to bitter cold visiting a country is not requisite to having strong convictions or being right.

[Seastallion]

Of course Iran wont use nukes. Iran most likely would want to join the "I have nukes"-club if they could have gotten away with it. But these islamic hardliners are more rational than the funny hat and robe makes you believe. They want to have the power and rule The Islamic Republic of Iran. When they die they would like family members, relatives and friends to continue having a grip on the power. Using one single nuke on Israel would be the end of dictating how citizens of Iran should live and what they should or should not do, it would be the end of acting as a powerful regional player, end of having the status as leaders in your country, everything they want will be lost. The hardliners in Tehran dont want nuclear armaggedon. If you heard that they would consider using a nuclear weapon on a enemy then you just heard a myth or propaganda.

You're absolutely right, of course.

Iran does not want armageddon, but it does want a deterrent against a rogue nation that HAS bombed Iran before and has threatened to do so again AND has nukes but refuses to sign up to any international treaties.

That rogue criminal nation that refuses to sign nuclear treaties is the country that really hates the idea of an armed Iran and thus tries it's damndest to influence the P5+1 nations.

[Srikcir]

"White House spokesman Josh Earnest said it was up to Iran to make that happen."

For once the Iranians must face up to a final decision that they do not fully control and has adverse restraints of their sovereignty. This is out of character with Seyyed Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution. Failure of acceptance by Iran does not require any action by the P-5 to merely keep sanctions in place. And each of the P-5 are free to INCREASE sanctions. For example, the US Senate is already prepared to impose harsher sanctions that will likely be supported by the EU and ME allies. Russia and China cannot reverse the UN imposed sanctions without unanimous vote of the permanent UN Security Council members.

The recent solidification of the Arab Council to provide active resistance to Iranian political incursion into the Middle East (Yemmen and Lybia) presents Iran with another Great Adversary to its expansionist goals. Iran's best strategy now is to clear itself of the nuclear weapons program and focus on rebuilding its economic fortunes. Strength through domestic wealth. However, that would mean the evolution and increase in an educated middle class that may not be so quick to lose it all for the wishes of the Supreme Leader who wants to become the dominant political force in the ME.

Either way, nuclear deal or not, Iran has pinned itself into a political and economic corner without a shot being fired.

[arjunadawn]

Of course Iran wont use nukes. Iran most likely would want to join the "I have nukes"-club if they could have gotten away with it. But these islamic hardliners are more rational than the funny hat and robe makes you believe. They want to have the power and rule The Islamic Republic of Iran. When they die they would like family members, relatives and friends to continue having a grip on the power. Using one single nuke on Israel would be the end of dictating how citizens of Iran should live and what they should or should not do, it would be the end of acting as a powerful regional player, end of having the status as leaders in your country, everything they want will be lost. The hardliners in Tehran dont want nuclear armaggedon. If you heard that they would consider using a nuclear weapon on a enemy then you just heard a myth or propaganda.

You're absolutely right, of course.

Iran does not want armageddon, but it does want a deterrent against a rogue nation that HAS bombed Iran before and has threatened to do so again AND has nukes but refuses to sign up to any international treaties.

That rogue criminal nation that refuses to sign nuclear treaties is the country that really hates the idea of an armed Iran and thus tries it's damndest to influence the P5+1 nations.

It is likely Israel and Israeli's may exaggerate the threat- somewhat. But it is actually difficult to exaggerate a threat when those you are referring to have been killing your ancestors for over 1,400 years! Nuclear means or not, it is hard to exaggerate a threat when those you refer to have threatened your very existence repeatedly, in varied forms. When one does exaggerate they are mostly appealing to the emotive response in a populace. I want to link two very similar videos that are markedly the same, separated by many decades. One is called Daisy and the other The First Few Minutes. Both videos reveal the base appeal to emotions yet both also reveal the palpable threat they refer to. So, with regard to Israel, if there is even a 10% chance it is possible, that is a number too high. It is possible for a video to be both propaganda and be correct; I think both these videos are. I also think the second video is a plausible scenario.

(Note: The idea that Iran (ruling body) does not want "Armageddon" (har-meggido) is an unrealistic appraisal; those that rule Iran are a considerably orthodox people (though historically the Persians are quite varied and cosmopolitan). This assertion that Iran would avert end times acts flies in the face of the entire fabric of shia islamic eschatology which most definitely requires invasion of forces(outside) of the bilad-al-sham- greater syria (Sham), etc! Read Sahih Muslim 41:7023. [They] can actually facilitate the return of the Mahdi which will in turn usher the return of Isa, Jesus Christ. Read Sahih al-Bukhari 3:43:656. To be a devoted muslim and not want the return of the Mahdi and Isa is utterly absurd. And yes, there is an antichrist in the interim.

So, in essence the end of days is very similar to the christian dispensationalism end of days folks. There is a considerable amount of shia Twelvers that run Iran these days. The threat is clear and present.

EDIT: The above Israeli film was made by private citizens. Israel is ostensibly an free people. The following film was made by Iranian government. It also shows the nuclear annihilation of Israel. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177599

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.574995 This one shows the end.

Edited March 30, 2015 by arjunadawn

[RockyBeerbelly]

Of course Iran wont use nukes. Iran most likely would want to join the "I have nukes"-club if they could have gotten away with it. But these islamic hardliners are more rational than the funny hat and robe makes you believe. They want to have the power and rule The Islamic Republic of Iran. When they die they would like family members, relatives and friends to continue having a grip on the power. Using one single nuke on Israel would be the end of dictating how citizens of Iran should live and what they should or should not do, it would be the end of acting as a powerful regional player, end of having the status as leaders in your country, everything they want will be lost. The hardliners in Tehran dont want nuclear armaggedon. If you heard that they would consider using a nuclear weapon on a enemy then you just heard a myth or propaganda.

You're absolutely right, of course.

Iran does not want armageddon, but it does want a deterrent against a rogue nation that HAS bombed Iran before and has threatened to do so again AND has nukes but refuses to sign up to any international treaties.

That rogue criminal nation that refuses to sign nuclear treaties is the country that really hates the idea of an armed Iran and thus tries it's damndest to influence the P5+1 nations.

It is likely Israel and Israeli's may exaggerate the threat- somewhat. But it is actually difficult to exaggerate a threat when those you are referring to have been killing your ancestors for over 1,400 years!

Question than: when was the last time an Iranian killed an Israeli by an act of terrorism or war? We know Israel killed Iranians with their bombings, but what about the other way around? Besides, when you bring up the killings of ancestors over the last 1400, the jews and the christians have probably killed as many muslim ancestors.

Everyone here seems also convinced that Irans' nuclear program is aimed at building nuclear weapons. I for one think that if they really wanted one, they would have had one already. Would I feel worried when Iran would have a nuclear weapon? Not more (and not less) than the worry I have with Israel having them. It might balance the region out a bit....

Btw, Iranians are by far the friendliest, open, smartest and most hospitable people I encountered in the Middle East.....

[Seastallion]

Of course Iran wont use nukes. Iran most likely would want to join the "I have nukes"-club if they could have gotten away with it. But these islamic hardliners are more rational than the funny hat and robe makes you believe. They want to have the power and rule The Islamic Republic of Iran. When they die they would like family members, relatives and friends to continue having a grip on the power. Using one single nuke on Israel would be the end of dictating how citizens of Iran should live and what they should or should not do, it would be the end of acting as a powerful regional player, end of having the status as leaders in your country, everything they want will be lost. The hardliners in Tehran dont want nuclear armaggedon. If you heard that they would consider using a nuclear weapon on a enemy then you just heard a myth or propaganda.

You're absolutely right, of course.

Iran does not want armageddon, but it does want a deterrent against a rogue nation that HAS bombed Iran before and has threatened to do so again AND has nukes but refuses to sign up to any international treaties.

That rogue criminal nation that refuses to sign nuclear treaties is the country that really hates the idea of an armed Iran and thus tries it's damndest to influence the P5+1 nations.

It is likely Israel and Israeli's may exaggerate the threat- somewhat. But it is actually difficult to exaggerate a threat when those you are referring to have been killing your ancestors for over 1,400 years! Nuclear means or not, it is hard to exaggerate a threat when those you refer to have threatened your very existence repeatedly, in varied forms. When one does exaggerate they are mostly appealing to the emotive response in a populace. I want to link two very similar videos that are markedly the same, separated by many decades. One is called Daisy and the other The First Few Minutes. Both videos reveal the base appeal to emotions yet both also reveal the palpable threat they refer to. So, with regard to Israel, if there is even a 10% chance it is possible, that is a number too high. It is possible for a video to be both propaganda and be correct; I think both these videos are. I also think the second video is a plausible scenario.

(Note: The idea that Iran (ruling body) does not want "Armageddon" (har-meggido) is an unrealistic appraisal; those that rule Iran are a considerably orthodox people (though historically the Persians are quite varied and cosmopolitan). This assertion that Iran would avert end times acts flies in the face of the entire fabric of shia islamic eschatology which most definitely requires invasion of forces(outside) of the bilad-al-sham- greater syria (Sham), etc! Read Sahih Muslim 41:7023. [They] can actually facilitate the return of the Mahdi which will in turn usher the return of Isa, Jesus Christ. Read Sahih al-Bukhari 3:43:656. To be a devoted muslim and not want the return of the Mahdi and Isa is utterly absurd. And yes, there is an antichrist in the interim.

So, in essence the end of days is very similar to the christian dispensationalism end of days folks. There is a considerable amount of shia Twelvers that run Iran these days. The threat is clear and present.

EDIT: The above Israeli film was made by private citizens. Israel is ostensibly an free people. The following film was made by Iranian government. It also shows the nuclear annihilation of Israel. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177599

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.574995 This one shows the end.

It is possible for a video to be both propaganda and correct. I agree.

Your first video is proof of that. Love humanity or die.

Your second video...pure propaganda, but possibly correct in how things may unfold......if Israel continues to aggressively try to wrest control of the lands that Arabs live on and have done so for centuries. As I watched it, with a ghastly sadness, all I could think of was, "You poor dear people...why oh why did you keep voting in the right-wing zionist hawks that have led your country to be despised around the world?"

As for Twelvers and doomsday cult....call me naive, but a nation of how many millions of intelligent, loving, friendly and modern people are not a cult. They are just like you and me, they love their kids, they help their neighbours, they cry when Grandma dies....No, the nation is not like that.

In fact one of our esteemed elder members who lived there has more than once announced that he has friends there, good people he reckons.

Edit; I just saw your edit...of an Iranian video showing what might happen in a counter attack after Israel/US attacks first.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Scott

[sdanielmcev]

Iran needs to get this done before Obama's become a serious lame duck. The Senate is already unanimous in opposing this 'agreement.'

But as has been pointed out numerous times, the Senate do not have a say in Executive agreements, so all they can really do is write embarrassingly stupid letters and make themselves look foolish.

The Senate voted 100-0 to nullify any agreement Obama signs with Iran. Please keep current and quit changing the subject.

[Steely Dan]

An Iranian journalist who used the talks in Switzerland as an opportunity to defect spelled out explicitly that the U.S was in effect negotiating on behalf of Iran. Here are just some of the links with Iran, there are actually more in Obamas past influences.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5726/friends_of_iran_in_the_united_states

The deal he is pushing for is unbelievably bad, all pretense of the one year breakout time has been dropped and the IAEA are not even in a position to know where Iran are now with their nuclear developments, which makes proving they are in future violation practically impossible.

[Chicog]

Iran needs to get this done before Obama's become a serious lame duck. The Senate is already unanimous in opposing this 'agreement.'

But as has been pointed out numerous times, the Senate do not have a say in Executive agreements, so all they can really do is write embarrassingly stupid letters and make themselves look foolish.

The Senate voted 100-0 to nullify any agreement Obama signs with Iran. Please keep current and quit changing the subject.

They cannot nullify a non binding agreement. What they can do is refuse to remove the sanctions for which they voted.

And that's going to make them look pretty stupid if the P4+1 lift theirs. Plus it gives the others a great chance to get in there and grab the new business coming out of Iran.

[snarky66]

IMHO Iran is never going to allow inspections and monitoring of its entire program. they're going to insist that barry remove all sanctions while they are free to continue their secret nuclear weapons program. if liberals don't agree with this I really don't care. it seems that liberals and radical leftists want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. The reason for this is unknowable.

Edited March 30, 2015 by snarky66

[Jingthing]

Well, I'm not qualified to know how bad a deal this is for those negotiating with Iran, but like most, I respect the skill of Iran to get a good deal for themselves, which means a bad deal for everyone else.

But HOW bad a deal?

Well, this analysis from Israel is interesting:

The deal currently being consolidated in Switzerland – which may not even come into fruition by the deadline - between the five world powers and Germany (P5+1) and Iran, even if not ideal, certainly does not belong in the category of "sword at the throat."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Analysis-Emerging-Iran-deal-is-not-a-sword-at-Israels-throat-395596

Anyway, so maybe not a disaster for Israel but wouldn't further progress by Iran mean other regional powers like Saudi would more or less be forced to get into nukes as well?

[snarky66]

Jing. That is what sane rational people do not want. But once barry lets the genie out of the bottle it can never be put back.

Barry has Iran on the same path North Korea used to get nuclear weapons.

[Publicus]

The moon howlers continue to say Prez Obama is determined to give nuclear weapons to Iran and to remove all sanctions for free besides. They seem to think the president regards nuclear weapons as bean counting and that he's at a distribution center. We're talking really marginal people who want to think this, that need to think it.

They would believe for instance, that if I were to recognize Iran is in the process of building a nuclear energy and power program and that, as with certain other states, it may someday elevate the program to the dimension of weaponry, that would necessarily and absolutely mean I'd be handing over to Iran a nuclear bomb or arsenal with missile delivery systems besides. Worse yet, they would believe that I would be consciously, deliberately, systematically working to destroy the United States.

And then there are the Dark Side Diaries, which in their hunting and gathering have now visited this thread too. While the Diaries bamboozle a few for various reasons, the vast majority of others dismiss them out of hand because the Diaries advocate the absurd, i.e., the ayatollahs would nuke themselves to nuke others first. No government or its people on the planet want a nuclear holocaust. None would deliberately and consciously initiate a nuclear armed attack of any scale.

Even a nuclear armed sovereign state that sponsors terrorism would make a giant and wildly irrational leap to provide a dirty bomb to terrorists because, for one thing, the connections between the state and the terrorists are clear. They are clear not only to the US and to Israel itself, but to other major powers and their intelligence services. The only question then would be what exactly to do and how to do it, not against whom.

A dirty bomb by state sponsored terrorists would constitute a first use and the state knows this. Anyone knows first use almost assures a chain of events to follow sooner or later which is something no one wants, save for the people who cheerfully publish their Gunfight At The OK Corral Dark Diaries.

[Credo]

It would appear that what the conservatives want is a war with Iran. If that's the case, now's probably a pretty good time to do it.

Iran is well on it's way to having a bomb, war or no war; agreement or no agreement. The only difference is how long to postpone the inevitable.

[sdanielmcev]

Iran needs to get this done before Obama's become a serious lame duck. The Senate is already unanimous in opposing this 'agreement.'

But as has been pointed out numerous times, the Senate do not have a say in Executive agreements, so all they can really do is write embarrassingly stupid letters and make themselves look foolish.

The Senate voted 100-0 to nullify any agreement Obama signs with Iran. Please keep current and quit changing the subject.

They cannot nullify a non binding agreement. What they can do is refuse to remove the sanctions for which they voted.

And that's going to make them look pretty stupid if the P4+1 lift theirs. Plus it gives the others a great chance to get in there and grab the new business coming out of Iran.

You're almost there, Chicog. Senators as a rule, serve longer than Presidents, thereby adding more long-term sway to their arguments and opinions. What you may say are "foolish" remarks or letters, are more viable to any long term commerce or alliances. Since Senators must ratify any treaties, their mind-set must be taken into account.

[Publicus]

Trouble with the wars of the past 50 years is that they've been presented as quick and short "Mission Accomplished" kinds of wars that instead turn out to last a lifetime, and for anyone in the war zone in any capacity a lifetime suddenly becomes awfully short, to in many cases include the lifetime of the country too. Indeed, everyone participating becomes an instant long term loser.

[NeverSure]

The moon howlers continue to say Prez Obama is determined to give nuclear weapons to Iran and to remove all sanctions for free besides. They seem to think the president regards nuclear weapons as bean counting and that he's at a distribution center. We're talking really marginal people who want to think this, that need to think it.

They would believe for instance, that if I were to recognize Iran is in the process of building a nuclear energy and power program and that, as with certain other states, it may someday elevate the program to the dimension of weaponry, that would necessarily and absolutely mean I'd be handing over to Iran a nuclear bomb or arsenal with missile delivery systems besides. Worse yet, they would believe that I would be consciously, deliberately, systematically working to destroy the United States.

And then there are the Dark Side Diaries, which in their hunting and gathering have now visited this thread too. While the Diaries bamboozle a few for various reasons, the vast majority of others dismiss them out of hand because the Diaries advocate the absurd, i.e., the ayatollahs would nuke themselves to nuke others first. No government or its people on the planet want a nuclear holocaust. None would deliberately and consciously initiate a nuclear armed attack of any scale.

Even a nuclear armed sovereign state that sponsors terrorism would make a giant and wildly irrational leap to provide a dirty bomb to terrorists because, for one thing, the connections between the state and the terrorists are clear. They are clear not only to the US and to Israel itself, but to other major powers and their intelligence services. The only question then would be what exactly to do and how to do it, not against whom.

A dirty bomb by state sponsored terrorists would constitute a first use and the state knows this. Anyone knows first use almost assures a chain of events to follow sooner or later which is something no one wants, save for the people who cheerfully publish their Gunfight At The OK Corral Dark Diaries.

When a blatant terrorist sponsor like Iran has nukes it can get away with more. Right now we're looking at potential nuclear proliferation in that whole area, as Saudi has been sword rattling about getting The Bomb.

Saudi and the coalition are doing nothing more right now than fighting Iranian puppets in Yemen and they know it. Do you think they will not arm if they see that Iran will?

Iran is a loose cannon that neither Arab states nor any of these 5 nations who are "negotiating" trusts. They all know what Iran is.

Ever heard the cliche "elephant in the room?"

[BKKBobby]

The moon howlers continue to say Prez Obama is determined to give nuclear weapons to Iran and to remove all sanctions for free besides. They seem to think the president regards nuclear weapons as bean counting and that he's at a distribution center. We're talking really marginal people who want to think this, that need to think it.

They would believe for instance, that if I were to recognize Iran is in the process of building a nuclear energy and power program and that, as with certain other states, it may someday elevate the program to the dimension of weaponry, that would necessarily and absolutely mean I'd be handing over to Iran a nuclear bomb or arsenal with missile delivery systems besides. Worse yet, they would believe that I would be consciously, deliberately, systematically working to destroy the United States.

And then there are the Dark Side Diaries, which in their hunting and gathering have now visited this thread too. While the Diaries bamboozle a few for various reasons, the vast majority of others dismiss them out of hand because the Diaries advocate the absurd, i.e., the ayatollahs would nuke themselves to nuke others first. No government or its people on the planet want a nuclear holocaust. None would deliberately and consciously initiate a nuclear armed attack of any scale.

Even a nuclear armed sovereign state that sponsors terrorism would make a giant and wildly irrational leap to provide a dirty bomb to terrorists because, for one thing, the connections between the state and the terrorists are clear. They are clear not only to the US and to Israel itself, but to other major powers and their intelligence services. The only question then would be what exactly to do and how to do it, not against whom.

A dirty bomb by state sponsored terrorists would constitute a first use and the state knows this. Anyone knows first use almost assures a chain of events to follow sooner or later which is something no one wants, save for the people who cheerfully publish their Gunfight At The OK Corral Dark Diaries.

When a blatant terrorist sponsor like Iran has nukes it can get away with more. Right now we're looking at potential nuclear proliferation in that whole area, as Saudi has been sword rattling about getting The Bomb.

Saudi and the coalition are doing nothing more right now than fighting Iranian puppets in Yemen and they know it. Do you think they will not arm if they see that Iran will?

Iran is a loose cannon that neither Arab states nor any of these 5 nations who are "negotiating" trusts. They all know what Iran is.

Ever heard the cliche "elephant in the room?"

Do you consider the US allied arab countries to moderate good guy?

Do you know that the US assists, is funding and arming "the good guys/terrorists" when it suits the US agenda?

Do you know that a lot of these good guy-terrorists turn on the US?

Hmmmm...

[EnglishJohn]

Of course Iran wont use nukes. Iran most likely would want to join the "I have nukes"-club if they could have gotten away with it. But these islamic hardliners are more rational than the funny hat and robe makes you believe. They want to have the power and rule The Islamic Republic of Iran. When they die they would like family members, relatives and friends to continue having a grip on the power. Using one single nuke on Israel would be the end of dictating how citizens of Iran should live and what they should or should not do, it would be the end of acting as a powerful regional player, end of having the status as leaders in your country, everything they want will be lost. The hardliners in Tehran dont want nuclear armaggedon. If you heard that they would consider using a nuclear weapon on a enemy then you just heard a myth or propaganda.

You're absolutely right, of course.

Iran does not want armageddon, but it does want a deterrent against a rogue nation that HAS bombed Iran before and has threatened to do so again AND has nukes but refuses to sign up to any international treaties.

That rogue criminal nation that refuses to sign nuclear treaties is the country that really hates the idea of an armed Iran and thus tries it's damndest to influence the P5+1 nations.

You people who think the Middle East would not put a nuke into Tel Aviv are a danger to the rest of the world. Did you not see the cheering masses when the airplanes hit on 9/11 ?.

They see it as Gods work. Trying to rationalise these people as being similar in intellect to developed world Western leaders is nonsense. They get elected on campaign promises to wipe Israel off the map for Gods sake.

All it takes is a desperate regime in trouble at home who need to distract and unite the people. They do not have the checks and balances of a democracy to stop it : it will be done on the will of a single man.

This is one case where I will not be gloating when I say "I told you so.".

[Publicus]

The moon howlers continue to say Prez Obama is determined to give nuclear weapons to Iran and to remove all sanctions for free besides. They seem to think the president regards nuclear weapons as bean counting and that he's at a distribution center. We're talking really marginal people who want to think this, that need to think it.

They would believe for instance, that if I were to recognize Iran is in the process of building a nuclear energy and power program and that, as with certain other states, it may someday elevate the program to the dimension of weaponry, that would necessarily and absolutely mean I'd be handing over to Iran a nuclear bomb or arsenal with missile delivery systems besides. Worse yet, they would believe that I would be consciously, deliberately, systematically working to destroy the United States.

And then there are the Dark Side Diaries, which in their hunting and gathering have now visited this thread too. While the Diaries bamboozle a few for various reasons, the vast majority of others dismiss them out of hand because the Diaries advocate the absurd, i.e., the ayatollahs would nuke themselves to nuke others first. No government or its people on the planet want a nuclear holocaust. None would deliberately and consciously initiate a nuclear armed attack of any scale.

Even a nuclear armed sovereign state that sponsors terrorism would make a giant and wildly irrational leap to provide a dirty bomb to terrorists because, for one thing, the connections between the state and the terrorists are clear. They are clear not only to the US and to Israel itself, but to other major powers and their intelligence services. The only question then would be what exactly to do and how to do it, not against whom.

A dirty bomb by state sponsored terrorists would constitute a first use and the state knows this. Anyone knows first use almost assures a chain of events to follow sooner or later which is something no one wants, save for the people who cheerfully publish their Gunfight At The OK Corral Dark Diaries.

When a blatant terrorist sponsor like Iran has nukes it can get away with more. Right now we're looking at potential nuclear proliferation in that whole area, as Saudi has been sword rattling about getting The Bomb.

Saudi and the coalition are doing nothing more right now than fighting Iranian puppets in Yemen and they know it. Do you think they will not arm if they see that Iran will?

Iran is a loose cannon that neither Arab states nor any of these 5 nations who are "negotiating" trusts. They all know what Iran is.

Ever heard the cliche "elephant in the room?"

Without an agreement, if the US and/or Israel go ahead to at some point hit the deep and fortified nuclear reactors and sites, the international reaction will be broadly negative and strongly hostile. Israel will suffer the negative global opinion in particular due to the high profile opposition of Netanyahu to any agreement at all. Congress will get some international criticism but not so much as it's become increasingly realized the Congress is an irrelevant noise maker.

If an agreement is signed, and if Iran is found to be incorrigibly violating it, hitting the nuclear centers will of course still get some criticism, but the broad global reaction would be more positive and more accepting, given Iran would be the clear culprit and the P5+1 the unquestionably aggrieved party.

Also keep in mind the key nuclear site at Fordo is essentially in the center or Iran and in a mountain, and that Iran anyway has high tech sophisticated Russian A2/AD defense systems (anti-access, area denial), and that neither Iran nor the Pentagon nor anyone else knows if the US newest MOP 30,000 pound conventional bomb can get the job done there or at any other site. The Massive Ordinance Penetrator with its 5,300 pound explosive needs to be delivered by B-2 Stealth and the Pentagon is still talking about how many "bites at the apple" would be required, meaning how many B-2s, when, where, how, and probably how many return hits to be made.

Israel can't get there except to use sabotage or to insert what would be suicide special forces.

So while some people are staring at the elephant we all see in the room, others are taking specific note of all the mice running around causing the specific detailed problems that need seriously to be considered and addressed.

[Daniel Ingalls]

Lets not forget the only country in the world that has used nuclear bombs on people was the United States. And was used on civilians, as terrorist act on Japan. So who are we to dictate who will have or not have nuclear capabilities? If I was Iran I would tell the US to shove it!