Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise

JANFU said:

The power struggle between those 2 should not draw the West in.
Saudi has always been the power broker in the ME.

Click to expand...

Here is a piece about ISIS and why it is the way it is.....with the Sunni and the Saud.


The Gulf-Gulf conversation about the challenges posed by the Islamic State (IS/ISIS) and the alliances that will be forged to destroy it indicates that a striking disparity exists between the positions of official leaderships and the sentiment of the grassroots. There is a sense of schizophrenia surrounding what the Gulf parties want from the United States, as they quarrel over what Washington wants from them. What is remarkable -- and certainly healthy -- is the sudden candor in expressing radical differences, for example between the fact that Gulf governments have characterized the ISIS threat as an "existential" one, and the fact that a large segment of the public sympathizes with ISIS and its motives, and sees it as something necessary in the balance of power and the balance of terror. A segment in the Gulf says that Islam is innocent of ISIS and that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Another segment sees it as the pure Islam that spoke about Christians in the language of "convert or be killed or exiled." Therefore, this segment of society in the Gulf does not perceive ISIS and its practices from the standpoint of terrorism -- and this is more common in Saudi society relative to other Gulf societies.

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz made it clear that the priority should be to fight terrorism, whether it is practiced by ISIS or by similar organizations. On the other hand, there is a significant segment of Saudi society -- including within institutions -- that deny the charge of terrorism from ISIS and sees the latter as a necessary instrument to confront the Islamic Republic of Iran and its regional ambitions, especially in the war in Syria, and as a way to avenge the Sunnis in Iraq who have been marginalized by the Shiites. This race between these two principles and two paths is directly impacting President Barack Obama's assessment of and objectives behind his declared war on ISIS, amid a lack of confidence in Obama and ongoing doubt in whether he is serious this time or whether he is going to back track again.....snip~

The Gulf: ISIS in Return for Iran! | Raghida Dergham

MMC said:

Yes Iran having it is more of a threat than Israel or Pakistan or even the US and Russia......this comes from telling the entire Shia Nation that they will Wipe and entire Race of people off the planet.

That you prefer that none have Nukes.....doesn't change the reality at hand. Certain people have them. Certain people don't and shouldn't. Not until they at least have been neutered.

Click to expand...

Lol! The only country to have justified the use of nuclear weapons to glass two whole cities should be the ones deciding who else gets to have them. Sorry dude, that's nuts.

sawdust said:

He grew up in Madarassas in Indonesia and has a deep respect for the religion. .

Click to expand...

what are those?

MMC said:

Here is a piece about ISIS and why it is the way it is.....with the Sunni and the Saud.


The Gulf-Gulf conversation about the challenges posed by the Islamic State (IS/ISIS) and the alliances that will be forged to destroy it indicates that a striking disparity exists between the positions of official leaderships and the sentiment of the grassroots. There is a sense of schizophrenia surrounding what the Gulf parties want from the United States, as they quarrel over what Washington wants from them. What is remarkable -- and certainly healthy -- is the sudden candor in expressing radical differences, for example between the fact that Gulf governments have characterized the ISIS threat as an "existential" one, and the fact that a large segment of the public sympathizes with ISIS and its motives, and sees it as something necessary in the balance of power and the balance of terror. A segment in the Gulf says that Islam is innocent of ISIS and that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Another segment sees it as the pure Islam that spoke about Christians in the language of "convert or be killed or exiled." Therefore, this segment of society in the Gulf does not perceive ISIS and its practices from the standpoint of terrorism -- and this is more common in Saudi society relative to other Gulf societies.

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz made it clear that the priority should be to fight terrorism, whether it is practiced by ISIS or by similar organizations. On the other hand, there is a significant segment of Saudi society -- including within institutions -- that deny the charge of terrorism from ISIS and sees the latter as a necessary instrument to confront the Islamic Republic of Iran and its regional ambitions, especially in the war in Syria, and as a way to avenge the Sunnis in Iraq who have been marginalized by the Shiites. This race between these two principles and two paths is directly impacting President Barack Obama's assessment of and objectives behind his declared war on ISIS, amid a lack of confidence in Obama and ongoing doubt in whether he is serious this time or whether he is going to back track again.....snip~

The Gulf: ISIS in Return for Iran!*|*Raghida Dergham

Click to expand...

So the saudi's would prefer ISIS over Iran? They care more about their stupid intra religious feud than actually trying to stop ISIS.

Montecresto said:

Lol! The only country to have justified the use of nuclear weapons to glass two whole cities should be the ones deciding who else gets to have them. Sorry dude, that's nuts.

Click to expand...

That's what the talks are about.....since its not just the Country that glassed 2 cities. But then we are the only ones to know the errors of that way. This doesn't mean that the Iranians would ever forget that Sectarian divide. Even if Israel was out of the way.....then its back to the same game. With the original board and player. The Sunni.



Iran refuses UN nuclear watchdog access to Parchin base.....

Iran will not give UN nuclear inspectors access to a military base outside Tehran that they have been seeking to visit since 2005, Defence Minister Hossein Dehgan said on Saturday.

Access to Parchin was not agreed under the terms of that accord but the IAEA has been seeking to visit the base as part of its mission to answer all concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, past and present.

Iran has repeatedly refused the IAEA access to the base but "we keep on insisting to have access to that particular site in Parchin, to the people and to their documents," Amano said in the report. Dehgan also said that his country refused to give the agency information on its scientists in the defence industry.....snip~


Iran refuses UN nuclear watchdog access to Parchin base

sawdust said:

Obama is pro muslim in the totality of his foreign policy. He favored the Muslim brotherhood over Mubarak in Egypt, he also favored them in Lybia when Gadaffi was ousted. He favored The free Syrian army In Syria which had ties to Islamists. He's destroyed our relationship with Israel. He refuses to recognize that there is a violence problem within Islam. He grew up in Madarassas in Indonesia and has a deep respect for the religion. His bias toward Islam is obvious.

Click to expand...

Well, and don't forget the Syrian MB returned despite Assad's Father Banishing them.....so they were there too.

Even though the Saud is vested in Syria and doesn't care for the MB it is quite amusing how they both always have their hand into the same cookie jar.

Unitedwestand13 said:

So the saudi's would prefer ISIS over Iran? They care more about their stupid intra religious feud than actually trying to stop ISIS.

Click to expand...

The Shia!


US should stop Syria not ISIS: Saudi prince.....

U.S. policymakers should concentrate on eliminating the threat posed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad instead of Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, according to an influential member of the Saudi Arabian royal family.



Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud told CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos that the reason why Islamic State exists is because of what's happening in Syria and has called on U.S. authorities including the government, the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to act. "They are all aware of what needs to be done," he said. "It needs the political will.".....snip~

US should stop Syria not ISIS: Saudi Prince.

MMC said:

The Shia!


US should stop Syria not ISIS: Saudi prince.....

U.S. policymakers should concentrate on eliminating the threat posed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad instead of Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, according to an influential member of the Saudi Arabian royal family.

Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud told CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos that the reason why Islamic State exists is because of what's happening in Syria and has called on U.S. authorities including the government, the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to act. "They are all aware of what needs to be done," he said. "It needs the political will.".....snip~

US should stop Syria not ISIS: Saudi Prince.

Click to expand...

So the Shia are the enemy?

Unitedwestand13 said:

So the Shia are the enemy?

Click to expand...

It appears that way.....but here lets take it from those ISIS recruits and their Leaders.


The final and most important category of recruit is often under-appreciated by the West -- those drawn by the group's political ideology. Many Sunni Muslims in the region feel threatened by Shias led by a resurgent Iran. "Across the region, Shias are confident, bold and on the rise, while Sunnis feel insecure and persecuted," said Hassan.

"Many disagree with ISIS on ethical grounds but they see them as the only group capable of protecting them." ....snip~

MMC said:

It appears that way.....but here lets take it from those ISIS recruits and their Leaders.


The final and most important category of recruit is often under-appreciated by the West -- those drawn by the group's political ideology. Many Sunni Muslims in the region feel threatened by Shias led by a resurgent Iran. "Across the region, Shias are confident, bold and on the rise, while Sunnis feel insecure and persecuted," said Hassan.

"Many disagree with ISIS on ethical grounds but they see them as the only group capable of protecting them." ....snip~

Click to expand...

Oh for }#%^'s sake Iran is the enemy? Iran?

Given the fact ISIS is mostly Sunni, why should we we help the Sunni engage in their petty sectarian war with the Shia?

MMC said:

The Shia!


US should stop Syria not ISIS: Saudi prince.....

U.S. policymakers should concentrate on eliminating the threat posed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad instead of Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, according to an influential member of the Saudi Arabian royal family.

Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud told CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos that the reason why Islamic State exists is because of what's happening in Syria and has called on U.S. authorities including the government, the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to act. "They are all aware of what needs to be done," he said. "It needs the political will.".....snip~

US should stop Syria not ISIS: Saudi Prince.

Click to expand...

The SP is wrong.

Unitedwestand13 said:

Oh for }#%^'s sake Iran is the enemy? Iran?

Given the fact ISIS is mostly Sunni, why should we we help the Sunni engage in their petty sectarian war with the Shia?

Click to expand...

Well I don't think we should be helping the Sunni nor the Shia. Besides BO's own people have said the deal was 50/50 at best.



Iran's parliament has started to draft a law that would allow the country's nuclear scientists to intensify their uranium enrichment, a step that could complicate ongoing talks with world powers. The move, announced Saturday by parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, comes after U.S. lawmakers said they were planning legislation that could place new sanctions on Iran. "This bill will allow the government to continue enrichment, using new generation centrifuges," he said, referring to more modern machines that would speed up production.

US President Barack Obama has said he will veto any move to adopt new sanctions but a White House spokesman said Friday the "likelihood of success" in the nuclear talks is "at best 50/50."....snip~

Iran Lawmakers Drafting Law on Nuclear Enrichment Hike


The Saud tend to panic when they get surrounded by Shia.....which as you know they were behind the BS in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and Bahrain, anyways.

MrVicchio said:

You assume Iran is governed by rationale people.

Click to expand...

They're rational.

Iran is like a little dog. **** loads of barking but no bite, and when you step in front of them they whimper.

sawdust said:

No nation ever posed a direct significant threat to the US until they developed significant intercontinental ballistic missile capability. Believing that we should watch them enrich uranium for nuclear power and they will never construct weapons capable of turning Israel to glass or eventually go long range is the kind of short sighted and pro muslim thinking that I'd expect from the Obama administration. This is the way forward to mutually assured destruction.

Click to expand...

The problem is that Iran knows how to do the things that you have mentioned, and that you cannot change. There are three significant hurdles that a nation must cross before it can deploy nuclear weapons. One is that it must figure out EXACTLY how to enrich uranium. The next is actually obtaining a sufficient amount of U-235 to make a bomb. The next is figuring out the EXACT method for triggering the release of neutrons at precisely the EXACT moment that a critical mass of uranium is assembled. The first two are certainly the most daunting of the three and Iran knows exactly how to do that and that you cannot change. The third item, while difficult is something that can be done undetected relatively easy and is something someone who is expert at the detonation of explosive devices, along with competent engineers and physicists could accomplish. Therefore the only realistic long term solution is one that attempts to insure that Iran finds it unnecessary to build a bomb and to strictly monitor it's enrichment activities. Otherwise, it is not possible to do it, long term, through military means.

RDS said:

Iran should move ahead with their nuclear plans. US sanctions did not work out. Why go for Iran and close one eye with Pakistan which is a terrorist hub.

Click to expand...

There is nothing that can be done about Pakistan. We had a chance to build decent relations with them, but unfortunately it did not work out. The two partners are simply to incompatible at the present.

Montecresto said:

Lol. Iran has supplied Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons to do just that?? That's funny. Every time either of them get into it with Israel, Israel crushes them, and their families until mounting international pressure forces the parties to sue for peace. I don't understand your claim of my affiliation with any "ilk", but speaking for myself as always, I haven't any concerns about Iran and nukes. I wasn't concerned about Iraq and nukes when BushCo, was scarring old ladies and children with tales of mushroom clouds over US cities. Your contrived fears of Iran to justify, god only knows, what kind of preemptive actions makes you as problematic as those your demonising in Iran.

Click to expand...

I understand your disappointment that the new anti- missile weapons Israel created did not get you the result you desired. I guess you want people on this site to believe that Iran sends missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah knowing that they will not destroy Israeli towns and cities. Sorry your fantasy on a second holocaust has not yet been fulfilled.

I have never called for a preemptive strike against Iran, another lie you and your ilk like to toss about. I would have kept the sanctions that were working and by now, since we did not get agreement in the 12 months as first proposed tightened them. This would do the opposite of what Obama, you and your ilk say. It would have a decent chance of getting Iran to relent in their pursuit of the bomb.

washunut said:

I understand your disappointment that the new anti- missile weapons Israel created did not get you the result you desired. I guess you want people on this site to believe that Iran sends missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah knowing that they will not destroy Israeli towns and cities. Sorry your fantasy on a second holocaust has not yet been fulfilled.

I have never called for a preemptive strike against Iran, another lie you and your ilk like to toss about. I would have kept the sanctions that were working and by now, since we did not get agreement in the 12 months as first proposed tightened them. This would do the opposite of what Obama, you and your ilk say. It would have a decent chance of getting Iran to relent in their pursuit of the bomb.

Click to expand...

Lol. Past sanctions really stopped em...

I see the spirit of Neville Chamberlain is alive and well. Khamenei is a damned murdering, degenerate son of a whore, as are the rest of the pack of boy-buggering jihadist curs that have been oppressing Iran for the past thirty-five years. Since they are the enemies of the United States--they have sponsored terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of American civilians and servicemen--it's predictable that people who choose to take up space in the U.S. while running it down at every opportunity would come to their defense.

The U.S. could and should have, quite a few years ago, issued an ultimatum to Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons facilities completely and permanently and allow international inspections to verify compliance, or be blockaded. Other oil exporters would have increased production to make up any shortfall, and Iran would have been helpless to lift a blockade. The resulting economic damage and loss of prestige might well have been fatal to the Khomeinist regime. And it could have been warned that the blockade was only a first step--that the U.S. would respond to any attempt at retaliation by destroying all of Iran's nuclear weapons facilities from the air.

Anyone who imagines a nuclear-armed Iran would not be a threat to the U.S. either is being willfully blind or has not thought very much about the matter. The Tehran regime has openly declared its intent to attack Israel when it gets nuclear weapons, even though it knows that because Israel has a hundred or more of them itself, that would mean the end of Iran. Why would fanatics like that hesitate to attack this country, particularly if they thought they could hide their part in an attack? A crew of Hizballah suicides could sail into a port city here some night in one of the nondescript thousands of cargo ships that are sea at any given time, with a bomb somewhere in its hold--and before anyone had any idea who they were, blow up the ship in the harbor, taking themselves and a good part of the city with it. There would be no evidence left to point to any nation's involvement.

washunut said:

I understand your disappointment that the new anti- missile weapons Israel created did not get you the result you desired. I guess you want people on this site to believe that Iran sends missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah knowing that they will not destroy Israeli towns and cities. Sorry your fantasy on a second holocaust has not yet been fulfilled.

I have never called for a preemptive strike against Iran, another lie you and your ilk like to toss about. I would have kept the sanctions that were working and by now, since we did not get agreement in the 12 months as first proposed tightened them. This would do the opposite of what Obama, you and your ilk say. It would have a decent chance of getting Iran to relent in their pursuit of the bomb.

Click to expand...

I'm the one that promotes peaceful solutions to grievances, not war. I'm not interested in any people's dying because of war. You cannot find me promoting any wars or military actions beyond truly defensiveness. You claimed that Iran was supplying Hezbollah and Hamas with weapons in order to help them realise their ambition to wipe Israel off the map. That is patently false. That would take nuclear weapons, and guess what would happen to the WB and Gaza Strip if that were to take place? Your thought process is hilarious. I suppose you think your cute accusing me of hoping for another Jewish Holocaust, but its ineffective debating.

SlevinKelevra said:

Lol. Past sanctions really stopped em...

Click to expand...

It brought them to the negotiating table. I think they have since come to the conclusion that Obama could care less if they get the bomb. Now they just have to get the P5 to relent.

MildSteel said:

Otherwise, it is not possible to do it, long term, through military means.

Click to expand...

What do you think makes it impossible to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities from the air? There is no secret about where they are, and the U.S. certainly has plenty of weapons of the type needed to destroy them, as well as the means of delivering those weapons to the targets.

washunut said:

It brought them to the negotiating table. I think they have since come to the conclusion that Obama could care less if they get the bomb. Now they just have to get the P5 to relent.

Click to expand...

Senator Murphy’s view appears to be adding to the consensus in Washington and beyond as editorials from some of the nation’s top newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post — which has been traditionally hawkish on Iran, and the Los Angeles Times, all came out in favor of extending the negotiations should the parities not reach a final deal by July 20.
Iran watchers and non-proliferation experts agree. I'll take rational thinking any day.

Montecresto said:

I'm the one that promotes peaceful solutions to grievances, not war. I'm not interested in any people's dying because of war. You cannot find me promoting any wars or military actions beyond truly defensiveness. You claimed that Iran was supplying Hezbollah and Hamas with weapons in order to help them realise their ambition to wipe Israel off the map. That is patently false. That would take nuclear weapons, and guess what would happen to the WB and Gaza Strip if that were to take place? Your thought process is hilarious. I suppose you think your cute accusing me of hoping for another Jewish Holocaust, but its ineffective debating.

Click to expand...

Call it what you will. What do you think is a realistic effect of thousands of missiles hitting a country the size of Rhode Island? What has Hamas promised the Jews of Israel if they get their way? Then explain why Iran ships all of this military equipment to Gaza. You want to call it defensive? You think that is really a debateable point.

My thought process is based on how the world responded 80 years ago and many lost all the family that remained in Europe. My thought process is based on the folks killed in Paris for the sole reason they were Jews.

What I find funny is that there are something like 20 million Jews in a world of about 7 billion, and yet there continues to be such hatred. Even in countries like Poland that solved their Jewish problem over 70 years ago.

washunut said:

Call it what you will. What do you think is a realistic effect of thousands of missiles hitting a country the size of Rhode Island? What has Hamas promised the Jews of Israel if they get their way? Then explain why Iran ships all of this military equipment to Gaza. You want to call it defensive? You think that is really a debateable point.

My thought process is based on how the world responded 80 years ago and many lost all the family that remained in Europe. My thought process is based on the folks killed in Paris for the sole reason they were Jews.

What I find funny is that there are something like 20 million Jews in a world of about 7 billion, and yet there continues to be such hatred. Even in countries like Poland that solved their Jewish problem over 70 years ago.

Click to expand...

I'll agree with you that there's a Jewish hate problem in those places. I didn't say that the weapons that Hezbollah and Hamas have are defensive. The US remains the largest arms distributor in the world, so more hypocrisy pointing at Iran.

Montecresto said:

I'll agree with you that there's a Jewish hate problem in those places. I didn't say that the weapons that Hezbollah and Hamas have are defensive. The US remains the largest arms distributor in the world, so more hypocrisy pointing at Iran.

Click to expand...

Well the topic is Iran, not American arms shipments. Do you think Iran is a passive nation, really? They have just taken over Yemen through a proxy government, effectively control Lebanon through Hezbollah, control southern Iraq where most of Iraq's oil comes from and is fighting to preserve Assad in Syria. Where would a nuclear Iran leave the gulf states. And while we say who cares, let them take care of themselves. Lets not forget that the gulf still churns out something like 25% of the world's oil. Enough so that a material change in how that oil flows has a dramatic impact on the price of oil and thus the developed world's economy.

So even if the world could care less if Israel is destroyed or not, it should care about a nuclear Iran which would effectively control a good chunk of the world's oil supply.