• 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 Nuclear Stockpile Grows, Complicating Negotiations

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From The New York Times:

With only one month left before a deadline to complete a nuclear deal with Iran, international inspectors have reported that Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration’s contention that the Iranian program had been “frozen” during that period...

The overall increase in Iran’s stockpile poses a major diplomatic and political challenge for President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, who flew back to the United States from Geneva on Monday for treatment of a broken leg he suffered in a bicycling accident, as they enter a 30-day push to try to complete an agreement by the end of June. In essence, the administration will have to convince Congress and America’s allies that Iran will shrink its stockpile by 96 percent in a matter of months after a deal is signed, even while it continues to produce new material and has demonstrated little success in reducing its current stockpile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/world/middleeast/irans-nuclear-stockpile-grows-complicating-negotiations.html

The story also noted that the IAEA found "no evidence that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon." At the same time, neither the news story above or similar accounts in the international media noted that Iran had resolved the two outstanding practical issues. In short, it's a mixed report on the surface. Iran's large increase in its enriched fuel stockpile and very likely failure to resolve the outstanding practical issues do not exactly illustrate a country that is serious about pursuing a fully peaceful nuclear program. Those developments underscore precisely why no viable agreement can permit Iran to have safe harbors that are exempt from international inspection.

The full report has not yet been posted on the IAEA's website. Once that report is posted in coming days, perhaps just after the IAEA Board's meeting, one will be able to confirm whether or not Iran resolved the outstanding practical issues. Very likely, it didn't, as that detail is sufficiently large that it would have garnered international media coverage.
 
There's six nations looking over Iran's shoulder, if they all agree to the deal in the end, we should be good to go.
 
As negotiations approach the June 30 deadline ... Iran has increased its nuclear stockpile at a rate of 1.2% each month over the past 18 months.

The most likely explanation is that Iran has low-confidence in the P5+1 negotiations and is proceeding accordingly.
 
There's six nations looking over Iran's shoulder, if they all agree to the deal in the end, we should be good to go.

:rofl

This report just confirms what most people thought all along; Iran can't be trusted to comply with any agreement.
:boom
 
Simpleχity;1064679988 said:
As negotiations approach the June 30 deadline ... Iran has increased its nuclear stockpile at a rate of 1.2% each month over the past 18 months.

The most likely explanation is that Iran has low-confidence in the P5+1 negotiations and is proceeding accordingly.


Mornin Simplexity. :2wave: Not to mention Khamenei stated there will be no inspections of any military facilities. Wont be able to talk to their nuke scientists either.
 
Mornin Simplexity. :2wave: Not to mention Khamenei stated there will be no inspections of any military facilities. Wont be able to talk to their nuke scientists either.
And yet there are a handful here who insist it is a good deal lol.
 
Simpleχity;1064686625 said:
And yet there are a handful here who insist it is a good deal lol.

Yeah most of them lean left. But this is nothing new. Despite that they allege they have smart powers. Of course its nothing but sheer propaganda.
 
Time to find out if the administration is more keen on securing an agreement with a nation with few previous diplomatic ties to the U.S. rather than securing a meaningful agreement. I'm betting the former.
 
Simpleχity;1064686625 said:
And yet there are a handful here who insist it is a good deal lol.

Laughing at your strawman! Nobody here has said that. The deal first must be completed, then, it must be agreed upon by all. If it is agreed upon by all, then those of us who have been supportive of the process want to see it implemented and monitored to see if in fact it keeps Iran in the peaceful purposes only nuclear program, at which time we will conclude that it was in fact, a good deal. However, as the president has repeated, sometimes to purposely deaf ears, is that if Iran breaks out for the weapon, there will still be sufficient time to do what all the neo-cons have been wanting to do since the first time that freak uttered, "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064680060 said:
:rofl

This report just confirms what most people thought all along; Iran can't be trusted to comply with any agreement.
:boom
Because they aren't complying with a non existent standard?
 
Because they aren't complying with a non existent standard?

More like.....they aren't complying with the restrictions that were placed upon them. But tell the truth......you would keep trusting those that lie to your face, Right?
 
Laughing at your strawman! Nobody here has said that.
You are the one of the handful who balk at allowing the IAEA to inspect suspect Iranian military sites.

No strawman. I just call a spade a spade when the handful fails to tell folks what they've said in different threads.
 
Simpleχity;1064690052 said:
You are the one of the handful who balk at allowing the IAEA to inspect suspect Iranian military sites.

No strawman. I just call a spade a spade when the handful fails to tell folks what they've said in different threads.

"Suspect" is too subjective. Iran obviously won't be accepting that.
 
"Suspect" is too subjective. Iran obviously won't be accepting that.
It is not subjective when IAEA environmental samples indicate the presence of nuclear materials and/or nuclear by-products.
 
Simpleχity;1064690325 said:
It is not subjective when IAEA environmental samples indicate the presence of nuclear materials and/or nuclear by-products.

And how would they have those samples?
 
More like.....they aren't complying with the restrictions that were placed upon them. But tell the truth......you would keep trusting those that lie to your face, Right?

Which restrictions, placed by who, and when?
 
...With only one month left before a deadline to complete a nuclear deal with Iran, international inspectors have reported that Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration’s contention that the Iranian program had been “frozen” during that period...

Wait. How does this "partially" undercut the claim that the Iranian program had been frozen. It disproves the claim that the Iranian program had been frozen.
 
If a deal isn't reached, there's still ample time to bomb the Iranian nuclear infrastructure back a few decades. All the handwringing is nothing more than partisan politics.
 
Wait. How does this "partially" undercut the claim that the Iranian program had been frozen. It disproves the claim that the Iranian program had been frozen.

i thought the same thing.

if the administration contention was that the program was "frozen", and yet during that same time, the stockpile had increased, there isn't anything partial about it. the contention is entirely false
 
Wait. How does this "partially" undercut the claim that the Iranian program had been frozen. It disproves the claim that the Iranian program had been frozen.

I guess the claim is now that it was slushy.
 
I guess the claim is now that it was slushy.

No, no, no.
nono.gif
That's Smoothie. :mrgreen:
 
And how would they have those samples?
Do you know anything at all about nuclear physics? Environmental biota, water, air, soil, and dust samples are easily obtainable.

There are three major IAEA labs available to preform a wide variety of tests ... Radionuclide signatures on particles as minute as a human cell are detectable.
 
Simpleχity;1064693036 said:
Do you know anything at all about nuclear physics? Environmental biota, water, air, soil, and dust samples are easily obtainable.

There are three major IAEA labs available to preform a wide variety of tests ... Radionuclide signatures on particles as minute as a human cell are detectable.

Are you suggesting that the IAEA has been to the Iranian military bases?
 
Back
Top Bottom