Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal

  1. #11
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,336

    Re: U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Not sure what you mean with that.
    With what?
    -I want it to be made impossible for Iran to build a nuke. It the treaty can guaranty that, I would get what I want and you can give me Hell.
    -The two points you mentioned, are already part of existing international law. The problem is that Iran is not obeying the treaties.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    With what?
    -I want it to be made impossible for Iran to build a nuke. It the treaty can guaranty that, I would get what I want and you can give me Hell.
    -The two points you mentioned, are already part of existing international law. The problem is that Iran is not obeying the treaties.
    But I don't want to give you hell. What I said is that when the deal is done, and in its entirety sees the light of day, and either of the two premises the Obama administration has maintained will frame it are missing, then you and I can both raise hell about it. Obama insists that any deal will have far more rigorous monitoring than normal IAEA inspections to force IL compliance.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  3. #13
    Guru
    Declan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 04:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    4,670

    Re: U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Simpleχity View Post
    Two classes of materials were to be re-processed in Russia; spent fuel rods, and a quantity of Uranium hexafloride (UF6) already enriched to 20%.

    The Iranians now want to re-process the spent fuel rods themselves and locally dilute (down-blend) the 20% UF6.

    They reportedly have agreed to a maximum of 6,000 centrifuges, but it is unclear what centrifuges will be allowed. Their new prototype centrifuge is 16x more efficient than their current IR-2 model. Thus, they could theoretically increase enrichment production by a factor of 16:1 even with a cap of 6,000. This is far more than necessary for internal power generation, research, medical, industry, etc.
    Perhaps they desire to build reactors in other nations in the region or China or anywhere that could benefit from having non-petroleum based electricity.
    If I blow the conch and they don't come back; then we've had it. We shan't keep the fire going. We'll be like animals. We'll never be rescued.

  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    We just have to be clear in our minds that Iran is trying to get the weapons and the sanctions lifted. To do this they need a deal that allows them to do as much as possible legally, so that they do not have to hide very much from the few inspectors they allow into the country later.
    We saw how this haggling is done in Iraq. They will get the sanctions lowered and then play games with the UN.
    Iran is acting in a rational interest-maximizing fashion. Iran wants to gain the maximum benefit at the lowest price. It also wants to preserve its nuclear-related strategic flexibility.

    That strategic flexibility should be a deal breaker under normal circumstances given international goals, and the UN Security Council's and IAEA's requirements. However, Iran is likely gambling that even as it is worn down by the sanctions regime, the psychological fatigue is greater among the international community. Therefore, it retracted what should be a core element of a credible agreement. This may represent a tactic aimed at testing the willingness of the international community to walk away from a bad deal. If so, Iran could restore it, if it believes other provisions serve its nuclear-related interests e.g., the issue related to the number and type of centrifuges Iran would be able to continue to operate. If, however, the international community is desperate for a deal, the international community could overlook Iran's retraction, rationalize that it doesn't change much, and accept an alternative albeit a notably weaker one.

    Political pressure (interest-related calculations, expediency, desire for a major foreign policy breakthrough, legacy, etc.) among the various P5+1 countries differs, as do their desire for a rapid agreement. Iran's negotiators may well be familiar with which interlocutors might be more willing to accept a weak deal than the others and play them off against one another with the idea that the P5+1 would ultimately reach consensus on weaker terms than would otherwise be the case.

    In the end, this Iranian gambit probably should not be too surprising. Iran has little to lose, if it fails. A deal that gives it benefits and expires after a fixed period would represent a gain for it. The P5+1 is now confronted with a choice of accepting Iran's terms to secure an agreement (with at least some members more desperate for an agreement than others) or seeing a continuation of a status quo that sustains Iran's nuclear-related risks.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-30-15 at 12:05 PM.

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,336

    Re: U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    But I don't want to give you hell. What I said is that when the deal is done, and in its entirety sees the light of day, and either of the two premises the Obama administration has maintained will frame it are missing, then you and I can both raise hell about it. Obama insists that any deal will have far more rigorous monitoring than normal IAEA inspections to force IL compliance.
    Good! Let's wait and see. Only a few more days, if the controlled information flow speaks true.

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,336

    Re: U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Iran is acting in a rational interest-maximizing fashion. Iran wants to gain the maximum benefit at the lowest price. It also wants to preserve its nuclear-related strategic flexibility.

    That strategic flexibility should be a deal breaker under normal circumstances given international goals, and the UN Security Council's and IAEA's requirements. However, Iran is likely gambling that even as it is worn down by the sanctions regime, the psychological fatigue is greater among the international community. Therefore, it retracted what should be a core element of a credible agreement. This may represent a tactic aimed at testing the willingness of the international community to walk away from a bad deal. If so, Iran could restore it, if it believes other provisions serve its nuclear-related interests e.g., the issue related to the number and type of centrifuges Iran would be able to continue to operate. If, however, the international community is desperate for a deal, the international community could overlook Iran's retraction, rationalize that it doesn't change much, and accept an alternative albeit a notably weaker one.

    Political pressure (interest-related calculations, expediency, desire for a major foreign policy breakthrough, legacy, etc.) among the various P5+1 countries differs, as do their desire for a rapid agreement. Iran's negotiators may well be familiar with which interlocutors might be more willing to accept a weak deal than the others and play them off against one another with the idea that the P5+1 would ultimately reach consensus on weaker terms than would otherwise be the case.

    In the end, this Iranian gambit probably should not be too surprising. Iran has little to lose, if it fails. A deal that gives it benefits and expires after a fixed period would represent a gain for it. The P5+1 is now confronted with a choice of accepting Iran's terms to secure an agreement (with at least some members more desperate for an agreement than others) or seeing a continuation of a status quo that sustains Iran's nuclear-related risks.
    I am not at all surprised by Iranian behavior and concur fully with the statement of rationality at the moment. It does, however, appear irrational to have accepted the pain from the sanctions for so long. Iran could easily have joined the rich world decades ago, if their aims are not malevolent.

    In any event I will be somewhat nervous, if a deal is struck. I am not confident that we could put together enough pressure on them easily, when the do the dance around the inspectors later on. That would mean going it alone with a small coalition and the only thing we can actually afford, is realistically the use of horrendous weapons.

  7. #17
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal

    To all appearances this lays the groundwork for a nuclear Middle East. With the undeniable escalation of sectarian strife to the level of a regional war pitting Shia against Sunni, a few more nuclear armed countries in that region is a prescription for disaster. It's time to walk away from the negotiations, install more draconian sanctions, and seek to put a lid on the conflict before it blooms into something far more serious.

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    I am not at all surprised by Iranian behavior and concur fully with the statement of rationality at the moment. It does, however, appear irrational to have accepted the pain from the sanctions for so long. Iran could easily have joined the rich world decades ago, if their aims are not malevolent.
    In part, the Iranian Revolution was a quest to counteract modernization. For Iran's clerics, sustaining the Revolution took precedence over access to the global economy, if access meant compromising those principles. That Iran's clerics are unelected makes it easier for them to withstand public sentiment that almost certainly would favor Iran's becoming a part of the established international system. For Iran's clerics, that system and the related existing order are a problem. Iran's aspirations to become a regional hegemon further complicate the issue. The pain imposed by the sanctions and severance from a large part of the global economy are seen as an "investment" along a path that will lead to Iranian regional dominance.

    In any event I will be somewhat nervous, if a deal is struck. I am not confident that we could put together enough pressure on them easily, when the do the dance around the inspectors later on. That would mean going it alone with a small coalition and the only thing we can actually afford, is realistically the use of horrendous weapons.
    One should be wary if critical safeguards and core issues are set aside just to reach agreement. A weak agreement would almost certainly drain the willingness of some parties to take tough choices should Iran's nuclear activities remain clouded by ambiguity. A weak agreement may represent more of a punt of the issue into the future than a breakthrough. The hope would be that such an agreement would be honored and Iran would moderate during the time it is in force. Those are probably more wishful assumptions than realistic ones. That Iran has made tangible progress toward its goal of regional hegemony (Iraq is increasingly a proxy, Yemen has been destabilized, Bahrain remains restive even as the Gulf Cooperation Council put down a dangerous Shia-led insurgency there, military modernization continues, etc.) will probably sustain its adherence to the principles on which the Iranian Revolution was based. After all, it sees those principles leading it toward its long-term goals, so there's little incentive to embark on a fundamentally different course.

  9. #19
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    I am not at all surprised by Iranian behavior and concur fully with the statement of rationality at the moment. It does, however, appear irrational to have accepted the pain from the sanctions for so long. Iran could easily have joined the rich world decades ago, if their aims are not malevolent.

    In any event I will be somewhat nervous, if a deal is struck. I am not confident that we could put together enough pressure on them easily, when the do the dance around the inspectors later on. That would mean going it alone with a small coalition and the only thing we can actually afford, is realistically the use of horrendous weapons.
    Don't worry about it. I'm reasonably certain that there will be a republican president next or a hawkish (Clinton) democrat that will Iraq Iran, pulling the Khomeini from a spider hole and leaving an Iran that looks about like Iraq today. But hey, they'll not have a nuke!
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: U.S. Says Shipping Uranium Out of Iran Is Still Part of Possible Nuclear Deal

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    To all appearances this lays the groundwork for a nuclear Middle East. With the undeniable escalation of sectarian strife to the level of a regional war pitting Shia against Sunni, a few more nuclear armed countries in that region is a prescription for disaster. It's time to walk away from the negotiations, install more draconian sanctions, and seek to put a lid on the conflict before it blooms into something far more serious.

    It appears BO is in an 11th hour crunch and is now considering to deal with Congress.....just so he wont be embarrassed or humiliated. He even tried to play hardball with Purple state Demos if they don't ride with him. Seems it isn't working like he thought. Thanks to some Demos that are tired of him putting himself before country and his own party members.



    As negotiations with Iran on a nuclear deal come down to the wire, the White House is ramping up a yearlong campaign to persuade lawmakers and the public to support an agreement. In recent days, officials have tried to neutralize skeptical Democrats by arguing that opposing President Barack Obama would empower the new Republican majority, according to people familiar with the discussions.

    White House officials have encouraged liberal groups to put U.S. lawmakers on the spot with the question: “Are you for solving this diplomatically or being forced…to war?” Ben Rhodes, one of Mr. Obama’s closest foreign-policy advisers, used those words at a January 2014 meeting with dozens of representatives from liberal political organizations, according to a transcript reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.....snip~

    White House to Senate Dems: If you oppose us on this terrible Iran deal, the GOP wins Hot Air

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •