• 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 Khamenei rules out freezing sensitive nuclear work for long period

It was once "smart power" but the "power" in the equation went to **** at Benghazi.

While Obama aims at the flag of the Confederate States of America for his goons to hate, his new friends in Tehran chant "death to America" and that's OK. It came up in conversation yesterday, and a woman I don't know said "they [the US] needs to learn they aren't kings of the world anymore".

That, I would suggest, is more poignant and insightful a comment you or I could ever make.

I dont know that we ever were kings of the world. Our position was largely based on who was destroyed in WW2 and our enormous economy.
Still, like every nation I expect us to exert our power as it best suits us.

Dont confuse the US under Obama with the US.
 
Former Advisers [and dubya advisors] Caution Obama on Iran Nuclear Talks
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/w...caution-obama-on-iran-nuclear-talks.html?_r=0
... At the core of the letter are what Mr. Einhorn, now at the Brookings Institution, called “required elements that have not yet been achieved.” He said that all the signatories supported a negotiated settlement, and “there is no poison pill here” intended to undercut the chance of an agreement.
...
The letter gets to the heart of some of those areas, all of which are still under negotiation, and in some cases bitter dispute.
For example, the negotiations that ended in April resulted in vague statements about how inspections would work, beyond an understanding that Iran would sign an International Atomic Energy Agency convention that gives inspectors broad rights to investigate suspicious sites. But Ayatollah Khamenei, along with his commanders, immediately ruled out allowing foreigners to visit military sites.

The letter, referring to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, said inspections “must include military (including IRGC) and other sensitive facilities. Iran must not be able to deny or delay timely access to any site anywhere in the country.”

Similarly, while Mr. Kerry said last week that it was not necessary to make Iran account for evidence of past effort to work on weapons designs, because the United States and its allies already had “absolute knowledge” of those activities, the former advisers view the long-sought answers to those questions as vital.

The inspectors, they write, must be able “to take samples, to interview scientists and government officials, to inspect sites, and to review and copy documents as required for their investigation of Iran’s past and any ongoing nuclear weaponization activities.” The letter adds, “This work needs to be accomplished before any significant sanctions relief.”

On another delicate issue in the talks, the letter calls for “strict limits on advanced centrifuge R&D, testing, and deployment in the first 10 years,” and for measures to prevent “rapid technical upgrade” when those limits expire. Some limits were negotiated in April, but the details remain to be resolved.

Perhaps the hardest part from an Iranian perspective is the insistence in the letter that the United States publicly declare — with congressional assent — that even after the expiration of the agreement Iran will not be permitted to possess enough nuclear fuel to make a single weapon. ...

now we have politicos from both countries chiming in with their opinions about any negotiated agreement
notice our guys did not find immediate end of sanctions worth mentioning. apparently, that is something to be conceded to iran

kerry has already given up on obtaining information about iran's past nuclear development programs. so, when these former advisors insist they are not penning a poison pill recommendation, they obviously are by insisting on access to iran's prior nuclear program data as a condition they believe we should fall on our sword to accomplish
 
I dont know that we ever were kings of the world. Our position was largely based on who was destroyed in WW2 and our enormous economy.
Still, like every nation I expect us to exert our power as it best suits us.

Dont confuse the US under Obama with the US.

Excellent point. In context the quote was significant to me in that a likely low information voter in her 60's at least would see the decline in the short time Obama has been there. The frightening part is that US foreign policy now was shaped in part by her majesty. We are watching terror grow in the world while the Democrats play politics with it. As I have said before, under the "owe" America's friends are asking what "friend" means now
 
Excellent point. In context the quote was significant to me in that a likely low information voter in her 60's at least would see the decline in the short time Obama has been there. The frightening part is that US foreign policy now was shaped in part by her majesty. We are watching terror grow in the world while the Democrats play politics with it. As I have said before, under the "owe" America's friends are asking what "friend" means now

I can't blame you for asking.
 
Then we get statements like this.



Iran hardens stance on nuclear deal as deadline nears.....


Iran has hardened its stance less than a week before the deadline for a nuclear deal, with its top leader rejecting a long-term freeze on nuclear research as a constitutional body on Wednesday approved a law banning access to military sites and scientists.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also insisted that Iran will only sign a deal if international sanctions are lifted first, which could further complicate the negotiations. The new law calls for all sanctions to be lifted the first day of any agreement's implementation.

Iran's constitutional watchdog, known as the Guardian Council, ratified the legislation banning access to military sites and scientists, making it binding law, according to state TV. The bill would still allow for international inspections of Iranian nuclear sites within the framework of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty......snip~

Iran hardens stance on nuclear deal as deadline nears

Even if Obama wants to go along with those unreasonable demands, there are still five more powerful nations that will have to agree as well. Were he out there on his own, he just might give in, but he still can't make a unilateral agreement.
 
Even if Obama wants to go along with those unreasonable demands, there are still five more powerful nations that will have to agree as well. Were he out there on his own, he just might give in, but he still can't make a unilateral agreement.

The french are tougher on Iran than our own President weak sauce.
 
Iran is clearly being irrational here. If they want an end to sanctions, the responsible position is to halt nuclear development.



Which is why the US/EU should take a stance against all nuclear arsenals in the region.
Frankly, I think Iran is acting quite rationally. They are pursuing what they see as in their national interest.
 
Frankly, I think Iran is acting quite rationally. They are pursuing what they see as in their national interest.

The actions of the government are resulting in sanctions against the country, which is hurting their economic development and therefore obviously not in their national interest. Whether or not they are using development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, they are the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and I don't think they deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt for that reason.
 
Even if Obama wants to go along with those unreasonable demands, there are still five more powerful nations that will have to agree as well. Were he out there on his own, he just might give in, but he still can't make a unilateral agreement.

Well we know where Russia and China stands, huh?

But now.....who would be these so called other POWERFUL nations?
 
Well we know where Russia and China stands, huh?

But now.....who would be these so called other POWERFUL nations?

According to the OP:

Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and the United States - want Iran to commit to a verifiable halt of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear development work as part of a landmark atomic deal they aim to reach by June 30.

So, unless their position is being misrepresented, those six nations, any one of which could destroy present day Iran, want a verifiable halt on sensitive nuclear development.

And while the Republicans like to portray Obama as weak and wussy in the arena of foreign affairs, his policies are the same as those of his predecessor. There is no credible evidence that he wants to cave in to Iran's demands. Even if he did, the other five nations would be unlikely to go along.

So, the idea that Obama is going to give away the farm to Iran is just election rhetoric, IMO.
 
According to the OP:



So, unless their position is being misrepresented, those six nations, any one of which could destroy present day Iran, want a verifiable halt on sensitive nuclear development.

And while the Republicans like to portray Obama as weak and wussy in the arena of foreign affairs, his policies are the same as those of his predecessor. There is no credible evidence that he wants to cave in to Iran's demands. Even if he did, the other five nations would be unlikely to go along.

So, the idea that Obama is going to give away the farm to Iran is just election rhetoric, IMO.



Post 4 and also what DS started the OP with. Brings the perspective out into the open. Oh and I doubt the one from the NY Times is a Republican.

Yes BO is weak and a wussy with Foreign Affairs. Seems his predecessor knew a bit more about implementation. When BO's own people admit to failures in policy, and then you hear about the reset for different policies. Then a pivot.....followed by another reset. This is not carrying the ball from who has come before him. No is seen as any success.

Also, I would note those who use BO's own words and what he has told others. Which it is logical to start with what the Man said.
 
Post 4 and also what DS started the OP with. Brings the perspective out into the open. Oh and I doubt the one from the NY Times is a Republican.

Yes BO is weak and a wussy with Foreign Affairs. Seems his predecessor knew a bit more about implementation. When BO's own people admit to failures in policy, and then you hear about the reset for different policies. Then a pivot.....followed by another reset. This is not carrying the ball from who has come before him. No is seen as any success.

Also, I would note those who use BO's own words and what he has told others. Which it is logical to start with what the Man said.

No foreign policy failure could possibly equal that of having invaded Iraq in the first place, but then, Obama's record hasn't been stellar either.

But, what has he said that leads us to believe that he's in favor of caving in to Iran's demands?
And, even if he were, how is he going to get the other five to go along?

No, I still think the specter of a nuclear armed Iran is just election rhetoric. Maybe the Iranians will prove me wrong. I hope not, but let's see what is actually in any agreement that is finalized first, then judge whether anyone has given away the ranch.
 
No foreign policy failure could possibly equal that of having invaded Iraq in the first place, but then, Obama's record hasn't been stellar either.

But, what has he said that leads us to believe that he's in favor of caving in to Iran's demands?
And, even if he were, how is he going to get the other five to go along?

No, I still think the specter of a nuclear armed Iran is just election rhetoric. Maybe the Iranians will prove me wrong. I hope not, but let's see what is actually in any agreement that is finalized first, then judge whether anyone has given away the ranch.


In post 4 they pointed out some things he said then pointed out what the realities were. Moreover didn't Russia's Lavrov come out and say they were fine with all the Sanctions coming off, already?
 
In post 4 they pointed out some things he said then pointed out what the realities were. Moreover didn't Russia's Lavrov come out and say they were fine with all the Sanctions coming off, already?

You mean the opinion piece on the blog?

Pardon me if I don't rush out and order a fallout shelter to be built based on that.
 
You mean the opinion piece on the blog?

Pardon me if I don't rush out and order a fallout shelter to be built based on that.

Yeah from a Nuke Expert.....go figure. Not like we should listen to any of them, huh?
 
So, unless their position is being misrepresented, those six nations, any one of which could destroy present day Iran, want a verifiable halt on sensitive nuclear development.
There is no document anywhere that I am aware of which explains the internal dynamics of the P5+1 group. It is unknown if unanimity is required or if mere consensus is enough.

So, the idea that Obama is going to give away the farm to Iran is just election rhetoric, IMO.
Since Obama is negotiating a presidential Sole Executive Agreement with Iran, he can accept any conditions that are amicable to him alone.
 
Simpleχity;1064756424 said:
There is no document anywhere that I am aware of which explains the internal dynamics of the P5+1 group. It is unknown if unanimity is required or if mere consensus is enough.


Since Obama is negotiating a presidential Sole Executive Agreement with Iran, he can accept any conditions that are amicable to him alone.

and enforce them unilaterally?
 
Back
Top Bottom