• 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!

Text of agreement with Iran on its nuclear program

countryboy said:
Good grief, of course they don't mean it. They are still chanting "death to America", and have stated the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable. How ****ing gullible can some people be? You gotta be Shiite'n me. :shock:
Click to expand...

Nobody would Shiite you. 'Wouldn't dream of it.
 
Why are GOP hardliners believing anything the Iranians have said?
Except of course when these Iranian hardliners are disagreeing with the President/Secretary of State !

Samhain said:
How many times does Lucy need to pull the football away before Charlie Brown realizes she will always do it?
Click to expand...
 
Not to mention "unafraid", as told to us by Bret Baier.
Though I trust him more than anybody on FOX.
Montecresto said:
You speak as though the "hard liners" were out of the loop in the negotiations.
I appreciate your acknowledgement in the robust nature of the framework. FOX was incapable of the same, despite their "fair and balanced" nature.
Click to expand...
Btw, my long-range money is still on Gov. Kasich--I'm disappointed to see his odds drop from 75/1 to 50/1 at www.sportsbook.ag .
 
Looking at the framework for this deal, I'd say the G6 got much of what they wanted while Iran got to keep a small fraction of their nuclear enrichment program intact.

I know the pundits wanted a total dismantling of Iran's nuclear program but that was unreasonable. You'd never get a sovereign nation to agree to that. But what you could do was force them to prove that their nuclear ambitions were peaceful. If they are, Iran should have no problem downgrading their production/enrichment capabilities and limit such to R&D and nuclear energy only.

I noticed as Bibi Netanyahu made the Sunday talk show circuit, not only did he back down on his demand that Iran declare Israel's right to exist, he also downplayed his demand for total dismantling. However, his hyperbole is still in full bore, such as....

....keeping the infrastructure to produce not one nuclear bomb but many, many nuclear bombs down the line...
Click to expand...

While I'm sure Iran could produce a bomb or two from the 3.76% enriched uranium they're allowed to produce, let's keep in mind this is low-grade enriched uranium. Therefore, any bomb they do manage to produce would be a rather crude weapon at best.

There's lots to like from this deal. But the critics like Sen. Lindsay Graham :roll: will continue to put down the President's efforts to find a peaceful, diplomatic solution to this problem whether the framework for this Iran nuke deal went more to Bibi's favor or not.
 
Simpleχity;1064495596 said:
I wouldn't say directing negotiations like a conductor commands an orchestra. As negotiations enter each different phase, there is probably a home-consultation regarding a minimalist position, but everything above this bottom-line position is available to the negotiator. This sort of latitude methodology is probably true for Kerry also.
Click to expand...

Possibly so, but you and I don't know with any certainty. Could be far less wiggle room for the negotiators on all sides. At any rate, if the Ayatollah' aren't micro managing essentially everything relating to Iranian FP, I'd be surprised. But if they aren't, that's good for Iranians, the region and the world.
 
Simpleχity;1064495688 said:
Iran's Leaders Begin Tricky Task of Selling Nuclear Deal at Home

Iran celebrates yet challenges remain for Rouhani
Click to expand...

I consider this the key element of your link. The voices of opposition are intentional for foreign audiences, lending legitimacy to the notion that Iran made reasonable concessions, even to their own disadvantage. Helps rebut those critics like Bolton, McCain and Netanyahu which prefer a military response to Iran's nuclear program.

Some predicted that hard-liners, who mostly kept quiet during the negotiations, would now mobilize for a fight. But business leaders, in particular, were elated at the prospect that a deal could soon mean the lifting of long years of economic sanctions.
 
Montecresto said:
I consider this the key element of your link. The voices of opposition are intentional for foreign audiences, lending legitimacy to the notion that Iran made reasonable concessions, even to their own disadvantage. Helps rebut those critics like Bolton, McCain and Netanyahu which prefer a military response to Iran's nuclear program.

Some predicted that hard-liners, who mostly kept quiet during the negotiations, would now mobilize for a fight. But business leaders, in particular, were elated at the prospect that a deal could soon mean the lifting of long years of economic sanctions.
Click to expand...

People forget that the U.S. and Iran were once good trading partners before the 1979 hostage crisis.
 
Moot said:
It's a good milestone. If Iran is key to peace in the ME then it's stupid not to talk to them. And now, a lot of skeptics and critics are surprised at how good the deal really is.....the Saudi king, for one....

'...Saudi Arabia’s King Salman staked out less confrontational ground, telling President Obama that he hoped it would strengthen “stability and security” in the region.

The remarks by Salman suggested no major policy shifts by Saudi Arabia or its Persian Gulf Arab partners after the announcement Thursday of a framework that would place limits on Iran’s nuclear program — but allow some level of uranium enrichment — in exchange for easing international sanctions...."

Iran nuclear pact stirs hope
​


It was just last week the Saudi's were threatening a nuclear arms race if the Iran deal was agreed on.....today...meh, not so much.
Click to expand...
nice link.
Further on it talks about "unease" by Salman and the Gulf and the "wider" ME.

I'm thinking no one really want to go on record now as opposition - except Bibi.
SA has their hands full with Yemen, and is get US logistical help so it's not a good time to rock relations with US..
We'll see, but recall please SA paid for Pakistan's program so it could buy nukes 'off the shelf' when needed.

Does Pakistan have nuclear weapons ready to ship to Saudi Arabia? | World news | The Guardian
It is not a new story, of course, but Urban came up with some new data points: a Saudi belief that it could obtain nuclear weapons from Pakistan at any time, and reported intelligence that Pakistan has prepared nuclear weapons for delivery to Saudi Arabia. The first part is probably true: The Saudis helped to finance Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme and believe that they were given a promise that the weapons would be used to defend the Saudi kingdom if need be.
Click to expand...
Would Pakistan give them [nuclear weapons]? There would be real punishments for that and they would want to avoid those. For Saudi Arabia to take possession it would mean withdrawing from the NPT [nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. Any US military sales would have to stop. That could not be ignored. Only in a very dire situation in which Iran has a nuclear weapon and is being confrontational, could you imagine something like this
Click to expand...
.
 
Montecresto said:
But business leaders, in particular, were elated at the prospect that a deal could soon mean the lifting of long years of economic sanctions.
Click to expand...
That's a natural. The internal problems begin with governmental entities like the Majiis, the IRGC (who has a vested financial interest in Iran's nuclear program), the MOIS, Quds Force, etc.
 
We find ourselves on the precipice not because of a looming, lousy nuke deal with Iran, not even because of the oxymoronic nature of the very concept, but because of ourselves. Because Obama is a sufficient cause of the existential threat facing us today, we cannot remove the threat without first removing Obama....
 
Simpleχity;1064500316 said:
That's a natural. The internal problems begin with governmental entities like the Majiis, the IRGC (who has a vested financial interest in Iran's nuclear program), the MOIS, Quds Force, etc.
Click to expand...

Iran was heading in a fine direction prior to 1953!
 
annata said:
nice link.
Further on it talks about "unease" by Salman and the Gulf and the "wider" ME.

I'm thinking no one really want to go on record now as opposition - except Bibi.
SA has their hands full with Yemen, and is get US logistical help so it's not a good time to rock relations with US..
We'll see, but recall please SA paid for Pakistan's program so it could buy nukes 'off the shelf' when needed.

Does Pakistan have nuclear weapons ready to ship to Saudi Arabia? | World news | The Guardian

.
Click to expand...

That too was a good article from the Guardian. Unfortunatley, it undermines the claim that SA can buy nukes "off the shelf" from Pakistan and reduces it to Israeli propaganda. From the BBC report quoted in the Gaurdian...


The "Nato decision-maker" bit looks interesting but is somewhat undermined a bit later in the TV version by the revelation that the intelligence is thought to have originated in Israel.

The trouble is lots of intelligence reports originate in Israel and some are probably true, but the timing of this one, while talks on the Iranian nuclear programme are underway, is fairly convenient.....

Mark Fitzpatrick,...non-proliferation expert at the state department and now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies had this to say....The second part is probably false: I doubt that Pakistan is ready to send nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia. Pakistan's reputation suffered greatly the last time they assisted other countries with nuclear weapons technology (i.e., the sales by A.Q. Khan, with some governmental support or at least acquiescence, to North Korea, Iran and Libya)....

David Albright, the head of the Institute for Science and International Security, broadly agrees..... Would Pakistan give them [nuclear weapons]? There would be real punishments for that and they would want to avoid those. For Saudi Arabia to take possession it would mean withdrawing from the NPT [nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. Any US military sales would have to stop. That could not be ignored. Only in a very dire situation in which Iran has a nuclear weapon and is being confrontational, could you imagine something like this. ...."
​



I seriously doubt the Saudi's would or could get nukes off the shelf.



Here's another article about the Saudi's endorsing the Iran deal....


...Saudi Arabia released a cautious statement Monday endorsing the nuclear “framework” agreement reached last week between Iran and six world powers.

“The council of ministers,” a top governing body within the Saudi system, “expressed hope for attaining a binding and definitive agreement that would lead to the strengthening of security and stability in the region and the world,” read the statement, first published by the Saudi state news agency..."

Saudi Arabia cautiously endorses Iran deal - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO​
 
Last edited:
ggwilder said:
We find ourselves on the precipice not because of a looming, lousy nuke deal with Iran, not even because of the oxymoronic nature of the very concept, but because of ourselves. Because Obama is a sufficient cause of the existential threat facing us today, we cannot remove the threat without first removing Obama....
Click to expand...

If you're afraid of nuclear war then you're barking up the wrong tree because it's Israel that wants a war with Iran at US expense, not Obama.
 
Moot said:
That too was a good article from the Guardian. Unfortunatley, it undermines the claim that SA can buy nukes "off the shelf" from Pakistan and reduces it to Israeli propaganda. From the BBC report quoted in the Gaurdian...


The "Nato decision-maker" bit looks interesting but is somewhat undermined a bit later in the TV version by the revelation that the intelligence is thought to have originated in Israel.

The trouble is lots of intelligence reports originate in Israel and some are probably true, but the timing of this one, while talks on the Iranian nuclear programme are underway, is fairly convenient.....

Mark Fitzpatrick,...non-proliferation expert at the state department and now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies had this to say....The second part is probably false: I doubt that Pakistan is ready to send nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia. Pakistan's reputation suffered greatly the last time they assisted other countries with nuclear weapons technology (i.e., the sales by A.Q. Khan, with some governmental support or at least acquiescence, to North Korea, Iran and Libya)....

David Albright, the head of the Institute for Science and International Security, broadly agrees..... Would Pakistan give them [nuclear weapons]? There would be real punishments for that and they would want to avoid those. For Saudi Arabia to take possession it would mean withdrawing from the NPT [nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. Any US military sales would have to stop. That could not be ignored. Only in a very dire situation in which Iran has a nuclear weapon and is being confrontational, could you imagine something like this. ...."
​



I seriously doubt the Saudi's would or could get nukes off the shelf.



Here's another article about the Saudi's endorsing the Iran deal....


...Saudi Arabia released a cautious statement Monday endorsing the nuclear “framework” agreement reached last week between Iran and six world powers.

“The council of ministers,” a top governing body within the Saudi system, “expressed hope for attaining a binding and definitive agreement that would lead to the strengthening of security and stability in the region and the world,” read the statement, first published by the Saudi state news agency..."

Saudi Arabia cautiously endorses Iran deal - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO​
Click to expand...
thanks for the link.
From what I've read SA can call in their chit with PAkistan if/when Iran does get nukes -that link is already 2 years old.
Since then Iran has expanded in Iraq, and SA is fighting their proxies (or sort of proxies) in Yemen.

So that aren't really concerned about Iranian nukes at the moment. But the nukes are there for them in Pakistan
It's going to interesting to see just how much Pakistan answers the call by SA for Yemen too.
 
Last edited:
annata said:
thanks for the link.
From what I've read SA can call in their chit with PAkistan if/when Iran does get nukes -that link is already 2 years old.
Since then Iran has expanded in Iraq, and SA is fighting their proxies (or sort of proxies) in Yemen.

So that aren't really concerned about Iranian nukes at the moment. But the nukes are there for them in Pakistan
It's going to interesting to see just how much Pakistan answers the call by SA for Yemen too.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you don't read what you post because it was your source, the Guardian that said it was highly unlikely that Pakistan had "off the shelf" nukes for SA to buy and was probably just Israeli propaganda.
 
Moot said:
Apparently, you don't read what you post because it was your source, the Guardian that said it was highly unlikely that Pakistan had "off the shelf" nukes for SA to buy and was probably just Israeli propaganda.
Click to expand...
I used off the "shelf in quotes", that is the predominate view -that SA ( since it paid for Paki's nukes) can get them anytime it wants.
Just order them up like a pizza.

It's not that simple -why I posted the Guardian, but it's not wrong either.. Yes; I doubt they are actually "packed and ready to go"
despite the BBC report - but we really don't know one way or the other. It's not important as long as Paki will supply them.
The question is how.

This is the "chit" I was talking about:
Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan - BBC News
Talking to many serving and former officials about this over the past few months, the only real debate I have found is about how exactly the Saudi Arabians would redeem the bargain with Pakistan.
Some think it is a cash-and-carry deal for warheads, the first of those options sketched out by the Saudis back in 2003; others that it is the second, an arrangement under which Pakistani nuclear forces could be deployed in the kingdom.

Others I have spoken to think this is not credible, since Saudi Arabia, which regards itself as the leader of the broader Sunni Islamic 'ummah' or community, would want complete control of its nuclear deterrent, particularly at this time of worsening sectarian confrontation with Shia Iran
Click to expand...
so there are various scenarios.
The question is, will Paki cooperate (in what ever fashion) and give nukes to SA (by whatever scenario).

I think -considering their long history of defense cooperation they will, the only question is "how"
 
The only way to deal with Iran is to send Kerry to Iran with a sealed note and a bomb on his plane. Tell the islomites that they can shut down their nuclear weapons making projects or they can eat the bomb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom