• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran isn’t providing needed access or information, nuclear watchdog says

From today's edition of The Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

This is exactly why any agreement will need to have an intrusive and robust verification mechanism that runs beyond periodic inspections if it is to be credible. Iran's continuing failure to provide the IAEA with relevant information even as the diplomacy is approaching a critical deadline, raises serious potential compliance issues. My view remains unchanged concerning the looming deadline: if Iran fails to reach an agreement in principle with robust verification by the end of this month, Congress should reinstall the sanctions. That Iran continues to be evasive when it comes to the IAEA's requests for information and access argues that even if such sanctions cause Iran to walk away from the talks, those sanctions may offer the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities.

Iran isn't cooperating with the IAEA? Color me shocked!
 
From today's edition of The Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

This is exactly why any agreement will need to have an intrusive and robust verification mechanism that runs beyond periodic inspections if it is to be credible. Iran's continuing failure to provide the IAEA with relevant information even as the diplomacy is approaching a critical deadline, raises serious potential compliance issues. My view remains unchanged concerning the looming deadline: if Iran fails to reach an agreement in principle with robust verification by the end of this month, Congress should reinstall the sanctions. That Iran continues to be evasive when it comes to the IAEA's requests for information and access argues that even if such sanctions cause Iran to walk away from the talks, those sanctions may offer the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities.

The President has already stated that he's not interested in pushing back the deadline. If the talks fall through then I'm sure sanctions will follow.
 
So, the real question is - what happens if Israel decides to go solo, with a passive enablement from Saudi Arabia?

Worst case?

Israel gets literally showered with ballistic missiles, many with MIRV capability.

Israeli population centers (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem most notably) are reduced to rubble.

Something like 30% to 40% of the Israeli population dies.

If we continue to assume that a.) President Obama has no backbone and remains the ineffectual diplomat and b.) that Iran is a liar, we assume the potential for a chemical and/or biological attack.
 
Worst case?

Israel gets literally showered with ballistic missiles, many with MIRV capability.

Israeli population centers (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem most notably) are reduced to rubble.

Something like 30% to 40% of the Israeli population dies.

If we continue to assume that a.) President Obama has no backbone and remains the ineffectual diplomat and b.) that Iran is a liar, we assume the potential for a chemical and/or biological attack.

Israel has been investing pretty heavily in Ballistic Missile Defense for precisely that reason.
 
Israel has been investing pretty heavily in Ballistic Missile Defense for precisely that reason.

And Iran has been investing more heavily in ballistic missile offense for the same reason.

I wouldn't want to be on the ground in Tel Aviv if this goes South.
 
From today's edition of The Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

This is exactly why any agreement will need to have an intrusive and robust verification mechanism that runs beyond periodic inspections if it is to be credible. Iran's continuing failure to provide the IAEA with relevant information even as the diplomacy is approaching a critical deadline, raises serious potential compliance issues. My view remains unchanged concerning the looming deadline: if Iran fails to reach an agreement in principle with robust verification by the end of this month, Congress should reinstall the sanctions. That Iran continues to be evasive when it comes to the IAEA's requests for information and access argues that even if such sanctions cause Iran to walk away from the talks, those sanctions may offer the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities.

I don't think anyone is surprised by that. But serious attempts should be made to come to an accord, anyway, and include stiff inspection and such rules. Every stone should be turned over before we start blowing babies' arms off. It is the average person who suffers the consequences of war the most. And long after the war ends, those people who are still alive often are left to struggle the rest of their lives with mutilated bodies and no way to earn a good living, much less living a happy life. Every effort should be made, even if it fails.

I read that it's a good thing to hold back Iran oil with sanctions right now, though. Because of the oil glut. Don't know if that's true, but if so....something to think about.
 
No they dont. Contradictory statements from Israel and the Israeli Mossad support this.


Israel would never go right ahead on their own without 1.)getting the green light from us or 2.)having us somehow directly support them in someway. And I also seriously suspect that we would never allow Iran to get a bomb if they actually are going towards that end goal.

True enough. There are many inside Israel that don't buy what Bibi's peddling. But I wouldn't put too much on them not going alone.
 
True enough. There are many inside Israel that don't buy what Bibi's peddling. But I wouldn't put too much on them not going alone.

People forget or perhaps don't understand that Israel is a nation of about 8 million while Iran has about 80 million. It also has a huge amount of wealth due to their oil reserves. So thinking that Israel will take that step as anything but a least resort are delusional.
 
People forget or perhaps don't understand that Israel is a nation of about 8 million while Iran has about 80 million. It also has a huge amount of wealth due to their oil reserves. So thinking that Israel will take that step as anything but a least resort are delusional.

Well, if it truly is reserved as a "last resort" then it won't be happening.

People forget that Israel already has nukes!!!
 
Well, if it truly is reserved as a "last resort" then it won't be happening.

People forget that Israel already has nukes!!!

Yes they have nukes. They had them when the country was nearly overrun in 1973, which you may not be old enough to remember.
 
I don't think anyone is surprised by that. But serious attempts should be made to come to an accord, anyway, and include stiff inspection and such rules.

I favor the diplomatic process and would support a credible agreement. Such an agreement needs to fully address the IAEA's concerns and contain a robust verification mechanism. The parties need to have confidence that Iran won't try to break the agreement to rapidly pursue a nuclear weapon and, if Iran did so, there would be a very high probability that it could be caught in time to prevent its becoming a nuclear weapons state.

Tactically, I believe the partial lifting of sanctions was not a wise move. It merely lowered the marginal gains of reaching agreement, as a smaller share of sanctions would then be lifted. Preferably, the lifting of sanctions should occur in phases over a fixed period of time once there is a credible agreement, with those phases being tied to measurable performance on the part of the Iranians.

If the recent news accounts are accurate, it seems that a much weaker arrangement may be evolving, Iran has rejected one important component of a verification regime (snap inspections), and Iran may not be willing to even accept a specific and concrete framework by the end of this month. Add to it the IAEA Director General's recent commentary about the two unresolved substantive issues and Iran's lack of cooperation in addressing them, one should reasonably be concerned that the kind of credible agreement that is needed is something that Iran won't accept.
 
I favor the diplomatic process and would support a credible agreement. Such an agreement needs to fully address the IAEA's concerns and contain a robust verification mechanism. The parties need to have confidence that Iran won't try to break the agreement to rapidly pursue a nuclear weapon and, if Iran did so, there would be a very high probability that it could be caught in time to prevent its becoming a nuclear weapons state.

Tactically, I believe the partial lifting of sanctions was not a wise move. It merely lowered the marginal gains of reaching agreement, as a smaller share of sanctions would then be lifted. Preferably, the lifting of sanctions should occur in phases over a fixed period of time once there is a credible agreement, with those phases being tied to measurable performance on the part of the Iranians.

If the recent news accounts are accurate, it seems that a much weaker arrangement may be evolving, Iran has rejected one important component of a verification regime (snap inspections), and Iran may not be willing to even accept a specific and concrete framework by the end of this month. Add to it the IAEA Director General's recent commentary about the two unresolved substantive issues and Iran's lack of cooperation in addressing them, one should reasonably be concerned that the kind of credible agreement that is needed is something that Iran won't accept.

Sounds good to me! You missed your calling. You should send a letter to Congress and the Prez immediately, informing them of these tactical moves we need to make.

One question, though. If we reinstate full sanctions, does that prevent Iran from pursuing the nuclear option? Or does it just make it harder for them to make enough money to do it faster? Seems to me sanctions is helpful but doesn't address the source of any particular problem (like Cuba).
 
Sounds good to me! You missed your calling. You should send a letter to Congress and the Prez immediately, informing them of these tactical moves we need to make.

One question, though. If we reinstate full sanctions, does that prevent Iran from pursuing the nuclear option? Or does it just make it harder for them to make enough money to do it faster? Seems to me sanctions is helpful but doesn't address the source of any particular problem (like Cuba).

Full sanctions would slow the process. They would result in less revenue for the government and, more importantly, reduced access to components (including dual use items) that could be used for an illicit nuclear weapons program. Sanctions definitely aren't perfect and Iran has a strong capacity to absorb hardship, so sanctions won't produce major political changes there (policy or leadership).
 
From today's edition of The Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

This is exactly why any agreement will need to have an intrusive and robust verification mechanism that runs beyond periodic inspections if it is to be credible. Iran's continuing failure to provide the IAEA with relevant information even as the diplomacy is approaching a critical deadline, raises serious potential compliance issues. My view remains unchanged concerning the looming deadline: if Iran fails to reach an agreement in principle with robust verification by the end of this month, Congress should reinstall the sanctions. That Iran continues to be evasive when it comes to the IAEA's requests for information and access argues that even if such sanctions cause Iran to walk away from the talks, those sanctions may offer the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities.

Reagan: TRUST BUT VERIFY!
Obama: I am a spineless weasel muslim appeaser who lets US/ally enemies treat me like their b1&#%.
 
Reagan: TRUST BUT VERIFY!
Obama: I am a spineless weasel muslim appeaser who lets US/ally enemies treat me like their b1&#%.

Thank you for your "analysis."
 
As when Reagan negotiated with Iran to prevent the release of our hostages until Carter was out of office--that Reagan?
Or the Reagan that followed up that bit of treason with giving them missiles--pretty smooth move there by that ex lax RWR huh?

And then we have the Iran/Contra affair felonies by 'trust and verify' Reagan.
Quite a stellar record there don't you think ?

Reagan: TRUST BUT VERIFY!
Obama: I am a spineless weasel muslim appeaser who lets US/ally enemies treat me like their b1&#%.
 
Thank you for your "analysis."

You know, I have never seen you add sh1t to any discussion, other than to try to pass yourself off as philosophical douche-bag. Phil*o*soph*i*cal: having a calm attitude toward the difficult questions regarding truth and the meaning of life.
 
You know, I have never seen you add sh1t to any discussion, other than to try to pass yourself off as philosophical douche-bag. Phil*o*soph*i*cal: having a calm attitude toward the difficult questions regarding truth and the meaning of life.

I give hackery the derisionit deserves. Act like an adult and I'll treat you like one.
 
Of course--because calling Obama a spineless weasel muslim appeaser who lets US/ally enemies treat me like their b1&#%, as you did,
is philosophical having a calm attitude toward the difficult questions regarding trutch and the meaning of life.
You know, I have never seen you add sh1t to any discussion, other than to try to pass yourself off as philosophical douche-bag.
Phil*o*soph*i*cal: having a calm attitude toward the difficult questions regarding truth and the meaning of life.
Time for Israel to obey International law don't you think Chainsaw--as told to us by ALL Republican Presidents.

You know--'trust and verify' their nukes, their spying on us back to Reagan,
the 1967 borders, the two-state solution, the racist Bibi remarks about Israelis Arabs .
 
From Reuters:

Tehran insists on the freedom to continue research on advanced centrifuges, machines that purify uranium for use in nuclear power plants or, if very highly enriched, in weapons, at an underground facility, and the immediate lifting of all U.N. sanctions and the most severe U.S. and European Union sanctions.

"There has been massive progress on all the issues," a senior Iranian official told Reuters. "There are still disputes over two issues -- R&D (research and development) and U.N. sanctions."


Iran, six powers demand mutual concessions in tense nuclear talks | Reuters

Any terms that allow Iran to continue R&D activities that could allow it to accumulate technical knowledge and components that could provide a future nuclear arms capability should not be accepted by the P5+1. Such terms would lack credibility, as they would permit Iran to develop the knowledge necessary to attain a nuclear weapons capability all the while gaining from a lifting of sanctions.
 
From Reuters:

Tehran insists on the freedom to continue research on advanced centrifuges, machines that purify uranium for use in nuclear power plants or, if very highly enriched, in weapons, at an underground facility, and the immediate lifting of all U.N. sanctions and the most severe U.S. and European Union sanctions.

"There has been massive progress on all the issues," a senior Iranian official told Reuters. "There are still disputes over two issues -- R&D (research and development) and U.N. sanctions."


Iran, six powers demand mutual concessions in tense nuclear talks | Reuters

Any terms that allow Iran to continue R&D activities that could allow it to accumulate technical knowledge and components that could provide a future nuclear arms capability should not be accepted by the P5+1. Such terms would lack credibility, as they would permit Iran to develop the knowledge necessary to attain a nuclear weapons capability all the while gaining from a lifting of sanctions.

You have to understand that the U.S. will accept ANYTHING at this point to prove Obama can make a deal. So long as the media feeds the public the administration line that it is this deal or war, the public will choose this deal.

Do you or anyone on this board really believe that Obama/ Kerry would lose a minute's sleep over the fact that Iran has a bomb?
 
From today's edition of The Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

This is exactly why any agreement will need to have an intrusive and robust verification mechanism that runs beyond periodic inspections if it is to be credible. Iran's continuing failure to provide the IAEA with relevant information even as the diplomacy is approaching a critical deadline, raises serious potential compliance issues. My view remains unchanged concerning the looming deadline: if Iran fails to reach an agreement in principle with robust verification by the end of this month, Congress should reinstall the sanctions. That Iran continues to be evasive when it comes to the IAEA's requests for information and access argues that even if such sanctions cause Iran to walk away from the talks, those sanctions may offer the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities.



And Iran has shown such a willingness to co-operate with inspectors and obey the rules.

So in all of this, of those who think inspections will work, what is the deterrent? What happens if Iran breaks the rules? More sanctions and ten to twenty years to have an impact?

War?

How will this inspection program be backed up and by whom? Obama? Hillary?
 
"while the rest have not been addressed at all."
--This is not true at all. There were a total of 7 areas the IAEA has requested investigation into with the PMD's in Iran. Iran has provided 5 of these 7 areas. There now remain two areas.



There's always an Obama bot at the outset to make a wild claim about how it's a lie......and not one citation.

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe you after six years of this kind of vacuous bull****?

Even if true, two areas are outstanding so it is NOT a lie until Iran turns over everything requested....which we are certain they will do because now that Obama and Kerry are dealing with them, they have become nice people who don't hate America anymore...all that "Death to America" is like an old habit...they can't help themselves, they really are kind and gentle and care deeply when they are slaughtering your family in front of your eyes and always apply balm to the burn wounds they leave when torturing.
 
The President has already stated that he's not interested in pushing back the deadline. If the talks fall through then I'm sure sanctions will follow.

Well then he would have absolutely no choice if the talks don't fall thru.....as he knows Congress will impose the sanctions. Knows all he can do is take that pen and sign it.

We just won't be seeing any cheesy grin.
 
Back
Top Bottom