• 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's powerful Guard rejects inspection of military sites

Montecresto said:
To the bolded, does that mean that Iran hasn't proposed any new measures? Practical can be in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

If means that Iran has not proposed anything that meets the IAEA's thresholds, not that Iran hasn't proposed anything.
 
donsutherland1 said:
If means that Iran has not proposed anything that meets the IAEA's thresholds, not that Iran hasn't proposed anything.
Click to expand...

And who sets the IAEA thresholds?? I recall when the IAEA was dismissed by the Bush administration for failing to deliver WMD's on Iraq. You should recall a very angry Hans Blix who didn't hold any punches public ally criticising both the Bush and Blair administrations.
 
Montecresto said:
And who sets the IAEA thresholds?? I recall when the IAEA was dismissed by the Bush administration for failing to deliver WMD's on Iraq. You should recall a very angry Hans Blix who didn't hold any punches public ally criticising both the Bush and Blair administrations.
Click to expand...

The IAEA members set the thresholds. The IAEA's standards and the Bush/Blair Administration standards (or goals) differed.

The U.S. and UK chose a different course despite the inspectors' findings, assuming that the inspections 'missed' things (in part, there was a gap between what the Intelligence community concluded and what was found by the inspectors, and the U.S. and UK assumed that flawed results from the inspections were the more likely explanation for that gap). The inspections turned out to have been quite robust. The post-war findings essentially vindicated the conclusions of the international inspectors.

Whether or not the U.S. or any other country will choose to adopt different conclusions or a posture inconsistent with the IAEA's findings remains to be seen. Indeed, I worry that political expediency may take precedence over the IAEA's own assessment (as it did in the run-up to 2003) and access to all sites relevant to its work.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The IAEA members set the thresholds. The IAEA's standards and the Bush/Blair Administration standards (or goals) differed.

The U.S. and UK chose a different course despite the inspectors' findings, assuming that the inspections 'missed' things (in part, there was a gap between what the Intelligence community concluded and what was found by the inspectors, and the U.S. and UK assumed that flawed results from the inspections were the more likely explanation for that gap). The inspections turned out to have been quite robust. The post-war findings essentially vindicated the conclusions of the international inspectors.

Whether or not the U.S. or any other country will choose to adopt different conclusions or a posture inconsistent with the IAEA's findings remains to be seen. Indeed, I worry that political expediency may take precedence over the IAEA's own assessment (as it did in the run-up to 2003) and access to all sites relevant to its work.
Click to expand...

To the bolded. That was exactly my point. Who's won out? ;)
 
Montecresto said:
To the bolded. That was exactly my point. Who's won out? ;)
Click to expand...
Political force interceded. However, the IAEA inspection conclusions on Iraq were ultimately vindicated.

Yet you now doubt the IAEA conclusions in regards to Iran. You can't have it both ways.
 
Montecresto said:
To the bolded. That was exactly my point. Who's won out? ;)
Click to expand...

We all know what policy choice was undertaken (and the IAEA's having been correct). But just as many countries, including NATO allies such as France and Germany opposed the war, there is no compelling reason the U.S. or P5+1 must automatically ratify Iran's failure to meet its obligations to the IAEA. Indeed, lack of Iranian forthcoming provides insight into Iran's possible intentions and underscores the need for robust verification, which would include the ability of international inspectors to have access to any and all actual or suspected nuclear sites, including military installations, to ensure that Iran would comply with any commitments it makes in a nuclear agreement.
 
justabubba said:
share with us the insight it provides
Click to expand...

If Iran refuses to clear up the two outstanding practical issues, it suggests that one should be cautious about Iran's express 'peaceful' intentions. If Iran is unwilling to be forthcoming on matters that have some relationship to the nature of its nuclear activities, that lack of transparency underscores the need for more robust verification than might otherwise be the case. If Iran were wholly committed to a peaceful civil nuclear energy program, Iran would have little purpose failing to resolve the outstanding issues.
 
donsutherland1 said:
If Iran refuses to clear up the two outstanding practical issues, it suggests that one should be cautious about Iran's express 'peaceful' intentions. If Iran is unwilling to be forthcoming on matters that have some relationship to the nature of its nuclear activities, that lack of transparency underscores the need for more robust verification than might otherwise be the case. If Iran were wholly committed to a peaceful civil nuclear energy program, Iran would have little purpose failing to resolve the outstanding issues.
Click to expand...

as i see it, iran is engaging in rational behavior
its facilities have been the target of continuous attacks by those allied with one of the negotiating members
it would be folly to reveal the nature of a nation's defensive capacities and to expect that information not to be potentially used to their own demise
 
Simpleχity;1064615764 said:
Political force interceded. However, the IAEA inspection conclusions on Iraq were ultimately vindicated.

Yet you now doubt the IAEA conclusions in regards to Iran. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

The IAEA was ordered out of Iraq before having completed their inspections and were unable to make full conclusion. Which is to my point that the IAEA can be and has been dismissed.
 
donsutherland1 said:
We all know what policy choice was undertaken (and the IAEA's having been correct). But just as many countries, including NATO allies such as France and Germany opposed the war, there is no compelling reason the U.S. or P5+1 must automatically ratify Iran's failure to meet its obligations to the IAEA. Indeed, lack of Iranian forthcoming provides insight into Iran's possible intentions and underscores the need for robust verification, which would include the ability of international inspectors to have access to any and all actual or suspected nuclear sites, including military installations, to ensure that Iran would comply with any commitments it makes in a nuclear agreement.
Click to expand...

This can and has been abused, and don't think that Iran's unaware of it. IMO, Iran has every reason to believe that Israel will not tolerate them having a nuclear program, regardless of what the P-5+1 and the IAEA concludes. Otherwise, I hope you realize that I have supported the P-5+1 all along, and would prefer the Obama approach over the McCain approach to Iran.
 
justabubba said:
as i see it, iran is engaging in rational behavior
its facilities have been the target of continuous attacks by those allied with one of the negotiating members
it would be folly to reveal the nature of a nation's defensive capacities and to expect that information not to be potentially used to their own demise
Click to expand...

Exactly, and it seems, at present, that the negotiators understand that and are trying to work around it. Iran (or any country for that matter) has no defence if their entire defence department is opened to scrutiny. There is no way in hell that the US would open up its entire defensive infrastructure to satisfy a world body that they have indeed reduced nuclear weapons stockpiles as treatied, just as an example.
 
Montecresto said:
This can and has been abused, and don't think that Iran's unaware of it. IMO, Iran has every reason to believe that Israel will not tolerate them having a nuclear program, regardless of what the P-5+1 and the IAEA concludes. Otherwise, I hope you realize that I have supported the P-5+1 all along, and would prefer the Obama approach over the McCain approach to Iran.
Click to expand...

Israel's needs, based on a smaller margin for error, clearly differ from those of the P5+1. Reduced transparency and/or a hobbled verification regime can only magnify Israel's concerns.

Like many, I also support the diplomatic route. At the same time, I believe a viable agreement needs to contain a very strong verification regime. That element, IMO, is more important than the exact timing of sanctions relief. Without such an agreement, much tougher sanctions might be the way to go.
 
It would make no difference if anyone in the Pasdaran or elsewhere wanted Iran's atom bomb facilities to be inspected, if those facilities were nothing but ruins. That could be arranged without too much difficulty, and already should have been.
 
Montecresto said:
We are, as well as the IAEA, which is used by the US when it's to our political advantage and dismissed when not. Sorry about the full box, it's empty now. ;)
Click to expand...

Good, everyone send Monte a PM, just like last time. :2razz:




j/k
 
donsutherland1 said:
Israel's needs, based on a smaller margin for error, clearly differ from those of the P5+1. Reduced transparency and/or a hobbled verification regime can only magnify Israel's concerns.

Like many, I also support the diplomatic route. At the same time, I believe a viable agreement needs to contain a very strong verification regime. That element, IMO, is more important than the exact timing of sanctions relief. Without such an agreement, much tougher sanctions might be the way to go.
Click to expand...

Well distilled to that, there's not much space between us.
 
From Reuters:

The Czech Republic blocked an attempted purchase by Iran this year of a large shipment of sensitive technology useable for nuclear enrichment after false documentation raised suspicions, U.N. experts and Western sources said.

Exclusive: Czechs stopped potential nuclear tech purchase by Iran: sources | Reuters

This example highlights anew the need that international inspectors have unfettered access to any actual or suspected nuclear site in Iran. The false documentation undercuts Iranian trustworthiness. That the technology had nuclear enrichment implications can only raise concerns about the nature of Iran's nuclear activities.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From Reuters:

The Czech Republic blocked an attempted purchase by Iran this year of a large shipment of sensitive technology useable for nuclear enrichment after false documentation raised suspicions, U.N. experts and Western sources said.

Exclusive: Czechs stopped potential nuclear tech purchase by Iran: sources | Reuters

This example highlights anew the need that international inspectors have unfettered access to any actual or suspected nuclear site in Iran. The false documentation undercuts Iranian trustworthiness. That the technology had nuclear enrichment implications can only raise concerns about the nature of Iran's nuclear activities.
Click to expand...

So these compressors have dual application, and Iran attempted the purchase from a US company? Interesting.

The panel said that in January Iran attempted to buy compressors - which have nuclear and non-nuclear applications - made by the U.S.-owned company Howden CKD Compressors.

The IAEA and the United States have said repeatedly that Tehran has adhered to the terms of the 2013 interim deal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/13/us-iran-nuclear-czech-exclusive-idUSKBN0NY2K720150513
 
Montecresto said:
So these compressors have dual application, and Iran attempted the purchase from a US company? Interesting.

The panel said that in January Iran attempted to buy compressors - which have nuclear and non-nuclear applications - made by the U.S.-owned company Howden CKD Compressors.

The IAEA and the United States have said repeatedly that Tehran has adhered to the terms of the 2013 interim deal.

Exclusive: Czechs stopped potential nuclear tech purchase by Iran: sources | Reuters
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the IAEA was aware of this attempted transaction at the time it issued its last report. If Iran were acting in a transparent fashion, there would have been no need to falsify the documentation. The IAEA's report to be made public either late this month or early next month may provide more insight as to the IAEA's position regarding this attempted transaction.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I'm not sure the IAEA was aware of this attempted transaction at the time it issued its last report. If Iran were acting in a transparent fashion, there would have been no need to falsify the documentation. The IAEA's report to be made public either late this month or early next month may provide more insight as to the IAEA's position regarding this attempted transaction.
Click to expand...

Yes, seems stupid in fact to me. If they're trying to purchase something that they're not suppose to be purchasing, though these compressors have more than one use, so I fail to see the conflict necessarily, then why in the heck are they trying to by them from the US of all people on falsified documents, knowing damn well the scrutiny their under? Seems fishy somehow.
 
From today's edition of The Washington Post:

Iran’s supreme leader vowed Wednesday he will not allow international inspection of Iran’s military sites or access to Iranian scientists under any nuclear agreement with world powers...

“The impudent and brazen enemy expects that we allow them talk to our scientists and researchers about a fundamental local achievement but no such permission will be allowed,” Khamenei told military commanders in Tehran Wednesday, in remarks broadcast on state TV. “No inspection of any military site or interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed.”

Iran rejects access to military sites, scientists - The Washington Post

Based on Iran's continuing insistence that sites be exempt from international inspection and international inspectors be barred from having access to Iranian nuclear scientists, it is increasingly clear that Iran wants a nuclear deal that would free it of international sanctions, but does not want a verifiable agreement. IMO, unless an agreement has a strong verification component, the P5+1 should not accept it. The latest position articulated by Ayatollah Khamenei would satisfy Iran's goals, but would not accommodate the international community's needs.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From today's edition of The Washington Post:

Iran’s supreme leader vowed Wednesday he will not allow international inspection of Iran’s military sites or access to Iranian scientists under any nuclear agreement with world powers...

“The impudent and brazen enemy expects that we allow them talk to our scientists and researchers about a fundamental local achievement but no such permission will be allowed,” Khamenei told military commanders in Tehran Wednesday, in remarks broadcast on state TV. “No inspection of any military site or interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed.”

Iran rejects access to military sites, scientists - The Washington Post

Based on Iran's continuing insistence that sites be exempt from international inspection and international inspectors be barred from having access to Iranian nuclear scientists, it is increasingly clear that Iran wants a nuclear deal that would free it of international sanctions, but does not want a verifiable agreement. IMO, unless an agreement has a strong verification component, the P5+1 should not accept it. The latest position articulated by Ayatollah Khamenei would satisfy Iran's goals, but would not accommodate the international community's needs.
Click to expand...

i would bet that iran would permit such inspection of their military infrastructure if we and the other negotiating nations open our military facilities to the iranian scientists for inspection

and if we are unwilling to do so, then is iran wrong in doing the same?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom