• 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!

Foreign ministers arrive amid crucial weekend for Iran nuclear talks

Will they make a deal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • Or will they extend with the final deal made by end June?

    Votes: 4 80.0%
  • Total voters
    5
Erod said:
Why are Obama and Kerry the only people on the planet who support this?

What is their real goal?
Click to expand...


Probably the best and most ignored question.

Why would an administration pursue a bad deal?

One, Obama is the driving force, and he won't be around to answer for it.

Two, we can remove Kerry from the equation as he sees this as a another shot at the White House, the great negotiator; and he is just stupid enough to believe his own resume'. He is a 'yes' man, he has cowered before Obama amid one "teensy attack" gaff after another.

Obama is, I have maintained since October of '08 is all about Obama, his image, legacy and history. he has carefully been trying to cultivate an image of the great peace maker, a man of Islam and Christianity too, worthy of a peace prize before doing anything but be black and fool an apparently easily fooled nation. He has backed away from conflict with anything Arab or Islam, tried to spin a terrorist attack as a 'spontaneous demonstration', and abandoned Iraq to ISIS.

Does he hate America? No. He just loves himself more and needs to see himself in huge, dramatic terms to self identify; admiration is not enough for this guy, he wants worship. As kings in middle ages Europe were given monikers, such as Ivan the Terrible, John the liberator, and Henrik the bold, he wants one, Obama the brave, pursuer of peace'

And I don't think he really cares whether there is peace or not, as he has shown nothing is his fault, he can always say then Iran nukes Tel Aviv, "It's _______ fault!"
 
Fearandloathing said:
"Traitors!"
Click to expand...

Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

I would have to agree with you, except that I would call them "cowards" at this point, since this looks a lot like kicking the can down the road, which is basically saying, "we'll give you a chance to prove you can be trusted until we see you can't." What good is that, since it will be too late at that point - then we could truly call them traitors to the entire world community, for all that it would matter to anyone at that point! Talk is cheap, and Iran has not kept their word on other agreements, and those voting know that! I can understand some of the Dems wanting to help BO, but a unanimous vote? What's going on here? :2mad:
 
MMC said:
Yeah Lady P, I think they will roll over and give up the sanctions. Not forcing Iran to prove themselves.

Others in the ME more than likely are already making plans to get theirs.

Its okay if ya can't do push ups......you know that exercise where you reach for the sky? See, ya lean back in ya chair and lift ya arms up over your head, stretch like ya trying to touch the ceiling. Go ahead and try.....I'll watch to see if ya get it Right.
love10.gif
Click to expand...

I'm only 5'2" tall, so I do your reaching exercise every time I have to get something from the top shelf in my cupboards! When it's a heavy bowl, I've got to drag the kitchen ladder out so I don't end up wearing it! That's easier than wearing three-inch heels around the house all day, though. :mrgreen:
 
polgara said:
Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

I would have to agree with you, except that I would call them "cowards" at this point, since this looks a lot like kicking the can down the road, which is basically saying, "we'll give you a chance to prove you can be trusted until we see you can't." What good is that, since it will be too late at that point - then we could truly call them traitors to the entire world community, for all that it would matter to anyone at that point! Talk is cheap, and Iran has not kept their word on other agreements, and those voting know that! I can understand some of the Dems wanting to help BO, but a unanimous vote? What's going on here? :2mad:
Click to expand...



I think you give them far too much credit.

It is cowardice, but not kicking the can down the road, it is CMA, "cover my ass". Clearly the Republicans will take any vote that sends a message the deal is not Obama's to make. The Democrats who voted "yes' are clearly unsure about the deal, and are registering that so when the bomb is dropped on Tel Aviv, they can say "I was against this deal" or some other magnificent stretch of the truth.

Does it have any meat? Will it slow Iran's nuke program?

No.


I suspect now that Obama has given the money back before getting a deal, the only way Iran's nukes will be stopped is by "bombing them into the stone age."

Anyone following this needs to read even a short biography on Anthony Eden. The parallels are frightening, right down to the quote "..its' for domestic consumption" when Hitler said he would lead his tanks through the Arc de Triumph in Paris, or which we now have many photographs with his hand in the "seig hiel" salute.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I think you give them far too much credit.

It is cowardice, but not kicking the can down the road, it is CMA, "cover my ass". Clearly the Republicans will take any vote that sends a message the deal is not Obama's to make. The Democrats who voted "yes' are clearly unsure about the deal, and are registering that so when the bomb is dropped on Tel Aviv, they can say "I was against this deal" or some other magnificent stretch of the truth.

Does it have any meat? Will it slow Iran's nuke program?

No.


I suspect now that Obama has given the money back before getting a deal, the only way Iran's nukes will be stopped is by "bombing them into the stone age."

Anyone following this needs to read even a short biography on Anthony Eden. The parallels are frightening, right down to the quote "..its' for domestic consumption" when Hitler said he would lead his tanks through the Arc de Triumph in Paris, or which we now have many photographs with his hand in the "seig hiel" salute.
Click to expand...

Are we the only ones sanctioning them, or is this a multi-country thing? If we drop the sanctions, do the other countries also have to comply, if that's how the "agreement" reads? I suppose it would, but I'm not sure of that. Most of the world does not want Iran to have nukes, so what kind of deal can be reached by talking about it for the years this discussion has been going on?
 
polgara said:
Are we the only ones sanctioning them, or is this a multi-country thing? If we drop the sanctions, do the other countries also have to comply, if that's how the "agreement" reads? I suppose it would, but I'm not sure of that. Most of the world does not want Iran to have nukes, so what kind of deal can be reached by talking about it for the years this discussion has been going on?
Click to expand...



If I am not mistaken, there are several layers of sanctions ongoing. The first were in 1979 by the US, later followed by Canada after the revolution and hostage taking.

Then there are those stemming from the UN 2006 resolution over Iran's refusal to curb nuke development. They have been exceptionally effective and are aimed at oil and gas exploration, development and new customers; China has been very accommodating and not developed new business in the region but that has to do with developing more reliable supply through Canada.

The US has had a total, some say crippling embargo through to a ban on all Iranian made products and, along with Canada, have identified many high ranking individuals who are banned from travel and cannot set foot on either country's soil, in Canada's case recognized by the Commonwealth.

Combined they have stifled much of the economy and made international lepers of Iranian leaders; imagine being a foreign minister who is denied diplomatic immunity in Canada, US, Britain, India, Australia etc.

I believe Obama has returned $11 billion as a sign of "good faith", meaning a bribe to get talks, and suspended the harsher aspects of it's embargo. Europe and the UN participants have not, to my knowledge. However, should Obama lift all restrictions and the rest of the world should not, Iran would be in very good shape and have the US as a new, hungry market they would only be willing to dump cheap oil over the short term, say two to ten years, depending on who occupies the White House.
 
From what I understand, Iran has agreed to 6,000 centrifuges. Although it seems a huge concession, this is dependent on the type of centrifuge. Most of the the units in their current centrifuge-cascades are of the IR-2 model which is an improvement over the original IR-1 model which was a copy of a European Urenco model whose blueprints were stolen by A.Q. Khan of Pakistan and sold to the Iranians. However, Iran has fabricated a new centrifuge prototype which is 16x more efficient than the current IR-2. Thus, end-product capability would be increased by a factor of 16:1. This is far more than Iran needs for power-generation, research, medicine, industry, etc. So the critical question is; are the 6,000 allowed centrifuges strictly of the IR-2 type or is this facet unspecified?

Some other sticking points:

Iran seeks the ability to continue with advanced centrifuge research.
Iran is averse to the Phase I agreement (March 31) being a written agreement.
Iran is balking at sending spent fuel rods to a third country (Russia).
Iran wants to locally dilute (down-blend) stocks of Uranium hexafloride (UF6) enriched to 20% rather than transfer this stock to Russia.
Iran wants all sanctions to end immediately rather than be incrementally phased out over time.
Iran is strongly resisting intrusive inspections.

Another problem is that the P5+1 nations could unilaterally offer sanctions relief in the areas of trade, oil and banking. However, the question of easing comprehensive UN sanctions is much more complex and involves Iranian compliance with IAEA demands of transparency in 20 areas of inquiry including Possible Military Dimensions, (PMDs - missile technology, warhead blueprints, etc)
 
cpwill said:
Bibi: Iran Deal a Threat to All Mankind


Iranian Defector: US Negotiating Team Mainly There To Speak On Iran's Behalf
Click to expand...

The Telegraph article says the defector quit his job and wasn't sent to cover the nuclear talks...so how would he know?


“Amir Hossein Motaghi had terminated his contribution to ISCA and this news agency has not had any reporter at the nuclear talks, except for a photojournalist”, it said.

However, critics said Mr Mottaghi was “prey of the exiled counter-revolutionaries” and had gone to Lausanne with the sole purpose of seeking refugee status in Switzerland.
Click to expand...
 
Moot said:
The Telegraph article says the defector quit his job and wasn't sent to cover the nuclear talks...so how would he know?
Click to expand...

:doh

The Telegraph is citing the Iranian News Agency.




Reading.jpg
 
Simpleχity;1064475344 said:
From what I understand, Iran has agreed to 6,000 centrifuges. Although it seems a huge concession, this is dependent on the type of centrifuge. Most of the the units in their current centrifuge-cascades are of the IR-2 model which is an improvement over the original IR-1 model which was a copy of a European Urenco model whose blueprints were stolen by A.Q. Khan of Pakistan and sold to the Iranians. However, Iran has fabricated a new centrifuge prototype which is 16x more efficient than the current IR-2. Thus, end-product capability would be increased by a factor of 16:1. This is far more than Iran needs for power-generation, research, medicine, industry, etc. So the critical question is; are the 6,000 allowed centrifuges strictly of the IR-2 type or is this facet unspecified?

Some other sticking points:

Iran seeks the ability to continue with advanced centrifuge research.
Iran is averse to the Phase I agreement (March 31) being a written agreement.
Iran is balking at sending spent fuel rods to a third country (Russia).
Iran wants to locally dilute (down-blend) stocks of Uranium hexafloride (UF6) enriched to 20% rather than transfer this stock to Russia.
Iran wants all sanctions to end immediately rather than be incrementally phased out over time.
Iran is strongly resisting intrusive inspections.

Another problem is that the P5+1 nations could unilaterally offer sanctions relief in the areas of trade, oil and banking. However, the question of easing comprehensive UN sanctions is much more complex and involves Iranian compliance with IAEA demands of transparency in 20 areas of inquiry including Possible Military Dimensions, (PMDs - missile technology, warhead blueprints, etc)
Click to expand...


Which they were already in hot water from 2003 over the Ballistic Missile Program.....they still are in violation of the UN treaty over Ballistics. Yet they say there is no discussing over their Military Program.

Now the French told the Iranians yesterday, they need to take a deep breath and to start getting serious about their intentions.
 
Simpleχity;1064475344 said:
From what I understand, Iran has agreed to 6,000 centrifuges. Although it seems a huge concession, this is dependent on the type of centrifuge. Most of the the units in their current centrifuge-cascades are of the IR-2 model which is an improvement over the original IR-1 model which was a copy of a European Urenco model whose blueprints were stolen by A.Q. Khan of Pakistan and sold to the Iranians. However, Iran has fabricated a new centrifuge prototype which is 16x more efficient than the current IR-2. Thus, end-product capability would be increased by a factor of 16:1. This is far more than Iran needs for power-generation, research, medicine, industry, etc. So the critical question is; are the 6,000 allowed centrifuges strictly of the IR-2 type or is this facet unspecified?

Some other sticking points:

Iran seeks the ability to continue with advanced centrifuge research.
Iran is averse to the Phase I agreement (March 31) being a written agreement.
Iran is balking at sending spent fuel rods to a third country (Russia).
Iran wants to locally dilute (down-blend) stocks of Uranium hexafloride (UF6) enriched to 20% rather than transfer this stock to Russia.
Iran wants all sanctions to end immediately rather than be incrementally phased out over time.
Iran is strongly resisting intrusive inspections.

Another problem is that the P5+1 nations could unilaterally offer sanctions relief in the areas of trade, oil and banking. However, the question of easing comprehensive UN sanctions is much more complex and involves Iranian compliance with IAEA demands of transparency in 20 areas of inquiry including Possible Military Dimensions, (PMDs - missile technology, warhead blueprints, etc)
Click to expand...

As long as the nuclear material is not carefully controlled and shipped out of the country, the number of 6.000 centrifuges is preposterous in any case, as far as I can tell. As more becomes known of the proposed treaty, it appears more and more to mean that we have decided to allow Iran to be a virtual nuclear weapons power.
 
Moot said:
The message is still same. doh! :roll:



From your link.....

The British Telegraph has details of Motaghi's defection:

Amir Hossein Motaghi, who managed public relations for Mr Rouhani during his 2013 election campaign, was said by Iranian news agencies to have quit his job at the Iran Student Correspondents Association (ISCA).....​


From the British Telegraph article.....

..ISCA, which has come under fire from regime hardliners critical of Mr Rouhani, issued a statement denying that Mr Motaghi was in Lausanne to report for it.

Amir Hossein Motaghi had terminated his contribution to ISCA and this news agency has not had any reporter at the nuclear talks, except for a photojournalist”, it said.

However, critics said Mr Mottaghi was “prey of the exiled counter-revolutionaries” and had gone to Lausanne with the sole purpose of seeking refugee status in Switzerland....

Pro-Hassan Rouhani Iranian editor defects while covering nuclear talks in Lausanne - Telegraph​


The only mention of the Iranian news agency was their denial of sending Motaghi to cover the story in Switzerland.

Badda boom badda bing.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you :)




.... do you ever get tired of proving your oppositions' points for them?
 
He's as credible as the Iraqi defector Curvball who assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had WMD stockpiles, and America was months away from having a mushroom cloud over a US city, lol.
 
IMO, the parties will reach a framework agreement on March 31 or perhaps a few days later. All the sides have too much vested to allow the process to collapse right now. Therefore, some fundamental differences will be papered over using general and/or flexible language that is open to each side's interpretation.

As a result, the framework deal will likely be a weak one (and far short of the requirements set forth in UNSC Res. 1696). There will be no commitment that Iran would ship its enriched uranium stockpile to Russia. Iran would also likely be permitted to keep a share of its more modern centrifuges and maintain some of its atomic R&D activities. While general language about verification and inspections--and even stronger rhetoric in the news conference--will be present, concrete details will be lacking. At the same time, there will likely be a commitment to lift most of the international sanctions once Iran reaches a final agreement based on the framework deal in June. To deal with some of the P5+1's views, the lifting of some modest sanctions would likely be tied to Iran's short-term performance and/or a timeframe of a few years. There could be general language that broken Iranian commitments could result in consideration of renewed sanctions, but consideration isn't the same thing as automatic renewal of sanctions.

Finally, one can't rule out the possibility that some additional sanctions relief could be provided for Iran's reaching a framework agreement.

Of course, I could be wrong. But that's how I see things right now.
 
cpwill said:
Yes, thank you :)

.... do you ever get tired of proving your oppositions' points for them?
Click to expand...
And... what exactly was your point?
 
A main sticking point remains sanctions. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said on his website on Monday morning: “Sanctions must be lifted in one go, not as a result of future Iranian actions.”

P5+1 negotiators are balking at this demand because it immediately rewards Iran for ten years of compliance before any compliance whatsoever has been accomplished and verified.

It is unknown if this is simply a hard-bargaining stance by Iranian negotiators or a solid Khamenei red line.
 
donsutherland1 said:
IMO, the parties will reach a framework agreement on March 31 or perhaps a few days later. All the sides have too much vested to allow the process to collapse right now. Therefore, some fundamental differences will be papered over using general and/or flexible language that is open to each side's interpretation.

As a result, the framework deal will likely be a weak one (and far short of the requirements set forth in UNSC Res. 1696). There will be no commitment that Iran would ship its enriched uranium stockpile to Russia. Iran would also likely be permitted to keep a share of its more modern centrifuges and maintain some of its atomic R&D activities. While general language about verification and inspections--and even stronger rhetoric in the news conference--will be present, concrete details will be lacking. At the same time, there will likely be a commitment to lift most of the international sanctions once Iran reaches a final agreement based on the framework deal in June. To deal with some of the P5+1's views, the lifting of some modest sanctions would likely be tied to Iran's short-term performance and/or a timeframe of a few years. There could be general language that broken Iranian commitments could result in consideration of renewed sanctions, but consideration isn't the same thing as automatic renewal of sanctions.

Finally, one can't rule out the possibility that some additional sanctions relief could be provided for Iran's reaching a framework agreement.

Of course, I could be wrong. But that's how I see things right now.
Click to expand...



Mornin DS. :2wave: Nope its not happening today......they just released they will not be able to reach a framework. The Russian fool Lavrov has shown up calling for an end to all sanctions if a deal is reached.

All smiles and grins......I would have walked up went to shake his hand, then punched him Right in the Head. Then told him to laugh about that....giving him a Cheesy BO grin.
 
While most Americans (59%) support the Lusanne negotiations and the easing of sanctions IF this results in curtailing Iran's ability to procure nuclear weapons, the exact same percentage (59%) have no confidence that any deal will achieve its noble aims.

I am wary. The US Congress is wary. Many European nations are wary. Israel is extremely wary as are all Sunni ME nations.

Considering the well-deserved wariness, Kerry better deliver something extraordinary and ironclad ... something which I personally highly doubt is forthcoming.
 
Simpleχity;1064479778 said:
While most Americans (59%) support the Lusanne negotiations and the easing of sanctions IF this results in curtailing Iran's ability to procure nuclear weapons, the exact same percentage (59%) have no confidence that any deal will achieve its noble aims.

I am wary. The US Congress is wary. Many European nations are wary. Israel is extremely wary as are all Sunni ME nations.

Considering the well-deserved wariness, Kerry better deliver something extraordinary and ironclad ... something which I personally highly doubt is forthcoming.
Click to expand...

There is China, Russia, France, the UK and Germany setting at this table. It's not all on Kerry's back.
 
Montecresto said:
There is China, Russia, France, the UK and Germany setting at this table. It's not all on Kerry's back.
Click to expand...

Correct. However, that doesn't impact Americans' expectations. I strongly support the diplomatic process, however based on the details that have emerged in the media and comments from some of the negotiators, I expect a weak deal that falls short of the requirements set forth in UNSC Res. 1696.
 
MMC said:
Mornin DS. :2wave: Nope its not happening today......they just released they will not be able to reach a framework. The Russian fool Lavrov has shown up calling for an end to all sanctions if a deal is reached.

All smiles and grins......I would have walked up went to shake his hand, then punched him Right in the Head. Then told him to laugh about that....giving him a Cheesy BO grin.
Click to expand...

We'll see what happens. I suspected that the framework agreement could be reached a few days late. Russia's position, which runs counter to those of the Western states involved in the talks, isn't all that surprising. Russia's interests with respect to Iran are not symmetrical to the Western ones. An immediate end to sanctions could boost Russian commerce and given Russia's current economic challenges, Russia would like to achieve that outcome.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Correct. However, that doesn't impact Americans' expectations. I strongly support the diplomatic process, however based on the details that have emerged in the media and comments from some of the negotiators, I expect a weak deal that falls short of the requirements set forth in UNSC Res. 1696.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, we'll wait to see. Still, whatever the P5+1 agree on, is a P5+1 deal, and not a Kerry deal.
 
donsutherland1 said:
We'll see what happens. I suspected that the framework agreement could be reached a few days late. Russia's position, which runs counter to those of the Western states involved in the talks, isn't all that surprising. Russia's interests with respect to Iran are not symmetrical to the Western ones. An immediate end to sanctions could boost Russian commerce and given Russia's current economic challenges, Russia would like to achieve that outcome.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree with that, and would point out that that would frame many a historical positions that the US has backed for similar reasons, that may not have been all that good for others though. It appears that that's what nations do, watch out for their own interests. That said, I seriously doubt that Russia, or China consider a nuclear armed Iran is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom