• 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!

Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement warn

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

I'm not looking for loopholes.
You do look for loopholes.

Despite the fact the the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) manages Iran's nuclear programs, you maintain that all Iranian military facilities should be off-limits to IAEA inspections.

Allowing military facilities to be sanctuaries is a guarantor of failure. Something you don't quite appreciate although the Saudi minister is quite clear...

A "watertight" agreement is required to prevent widespread ME nuclear proliferation.
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Well in your statement you yourself engage in hypocrisy since you appear to have no problem at all to argue for sanctions against Saudi Arabia while being strongly against any action taken against Iran due to its violations. Exhibit A:



If you don't support sanctions on Saudi Arabia you wouldn't make that question. Even if your claim is that there should be sanctions on Saudi Arabia if only because there are sanctions on Iran, well then considering you claim you support neither then that will simply be a "two wrongs make a right" approach.

As to your remark regarding my intelligence I find it irrelevant since as you probably know I don't hold you to a high regard at all. In fact if I had to form a list of the members on these boards based on their intelligence your name will probably not show up due to the 5000 characters rule.

But I'm not arguing "for" sanctions on Saudi Arabia, I'm pre-emptively pointing out the US hypocrisy with NPT which will follow. ;) otherwise lol, why would you even engage somebody you think would be eliminated of mention by the 5K rule. What a joke, find somebody else to troll your **** on.
 
Last edited:
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Simpleχity;1064701511 said:
You do look for loopholes.

Despite the fact the the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) manages Iran's nuclear programs, you maintain that all Iranian military facilities should be off-limits to IAEA inspections.

Allowing military facilities to be sanctuaries is a guarantor of failure. Something you don't quite appreciate although the Saudi minister is quite clear...

A "watertight" agreement is required to prevent widespread ME nuclear proliferation.

What loopholes have I looked for, hmm? I've argued that it's not reasonable to think Iran would accept inspections of their military infrastructure, and if SA goes nuclear and we do the same to them that we're doing to Iran, I'll be arguing that it's not reasonable to expect that they'd allow inspections of their military infrastructure either. That's just not going to happen, anywhere. Such would completely compromise a countries national security, and you know this!
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

But I'm not arguing "for" sanctions on Saudi Arabia, I'm pre-emptively pointing out the US hypocrisy with NPT which will follow. ;)

Y'know why it isn't US hypocrisy though?
Because Saudi leaders aren't calling "death to America". So it ain't a US concern if Saudi Arabia violates the NPT to gain nuclear weapons, and as such the US may not be the one to lead a call for sanctions against the Saudis. Simple, really.
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

I know man, and I agree with you. My point for mentioning NPT was to pre-emptively point out that there will be a double standard on the seriousness we place upon NPT signatories when it comes to SA, wait and see.

My main issue is the double standard already exists in similar context.

Because the US supports Israel, we turn our heads to their clear ambitions and the fact that they never signed the agreement (and probable existing stockpile of arms of this class, the US either gave them or helped them with in some other way.) Because we trade with India, we turn our heads to the fact that they actually have nukes and also never signed the agreement. Also and led by the US, India has international agreements to import both domestic energy use and military grade use uranium fuel all under "international safeguards" all with the stipulation that India *does not* have to abandon its nuclear weapons program. It is a subset of the "Additional Protocol" policy.

Besides, the NPT itself at this stage by default requires only that internationally traded nuclear material and technology is safeguarded and subject to "international inspection." If the other provisions of the NPT were used there would be far less existing nuclear stockpiles. India specifically agreed to the inspection, but intelligently declined to disarm and join the NPT as a "non-weapon" state using the argument of the have and have not clubs.

Just because Saudi Arabia *did* sign the agreement does not mean we will all of a sudden then be hypocrites, my point is we past that status a long way back. Depending upon who we are talking about here sanctions comes down to foreign policy intentions of key players, not NPT intentions. Which is why Iran having nukes presents a problem, but if Saudi Arabia ever obtained them you could bet the US not only helped them but designed similar policy to allow it to happen despite NPT intentions. At the end of the day odds are Saudi Arabia would simply switch from a "non-weapon" state to "recognized nuclear weapon state" with US help.

Making the NPT a generally useless agreement, subject to political intentions from the key players at the UN. Ending the debate on the UN as a useless organization.
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

I'll be arguing that it's not reasonable to expect that they'd allow inspections of their military infrastructure either. That's just not going to happen, anywhere. Such would completely compromise a countries national security, and you know this!
Iran compromised its right to secrecy with its past deceit and lies about its nuclear programs.

Iran has no one to blame but itself when a P5+1 nation such as France demands total transparency and intrusive inspections.
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

My main issue is the double standard already exists in similar context.

Because the US supports Israel, we turn our heads to their clear ambitions and the fact that they never signed the agreement (and probable existing stockpile of arms of this class, the US either gave them or helped them with in some other way.) Because we trade with India, we turn our heads to the fact that they actually have nukes and also never signed the agreement. Also and led by the US, India has international agreements to import both domestic energy use and military grade use uranium fuel all under "international safeguards" all with the stipulation that India *does not* have to abandon its nuclear weapons program. It is a subset of the "Additional Protocol" policy.

Besides, the NPT itself at this stage by default requires only that internationally traded nuclear material and technology is safeguarded and subject to "international inspection." If the other provisions of the NPT were used there would be far less existing nuclear stockpiles. India specifically agreed to the inspection, but intelligently declined to disarm and join the NPT as a "non-weapon" state using the argument of the have and have not clubs.

Just because Saudi Arabia *did* sign the agreement does not mean we will all of a sudden then be hypocrites, my point is we past that status a long way back. Depending upon who we are talking about here sanctions comes down to foreign policy intentions of key players, not NPT intentions. Which is why Iran having nukes presents a problem, but if Saudi Arabia ever obtained them you could bet the US not only helped them but designed similar policy to allow it to happen despite NPT intentions. At the end of the day odds are Saudi Arabia would simply switch from a "non-weapon" state to "recognized nuclear weapon state" with US help.

Making the NPT a generally useless agreement, subject to political intentions from the key players at the UN. Ending the debate on the UN as a useless organization.

I have no disagreement with anything here.
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Simpleχity;1064701568 said:
Iran compromised its right to secrecy with its past deceit and lies about its nuclear programs.

Iran has no one to blame but itself when a P5+1 nation such as France demands total transparency and intrusive inspections.

Right, I've understood your position on Iran for some time now.
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Simpleχity;1064701568 said:
Iran compromised its right to secrecy with its past deceit and lies about its nuclear programs.

Iran has no one to blame but itself when a P5+1 nation such as France demands total transparency and intrusive inspections.



Well if it isn't their lies and deceit. There is that issue of just ignoring sanctions and letting their own actions show their defiance. Of course our alleged importance to the NPT isn't really alleged. Being one of the Premiere Countries on the Planet and having our own interests to secure.

When we shake.....the rest of the planet rattles and rolls. As evidenced, with time and BO. :confused:





Iran to take legal action if U.S. stops new Mahan Air planes: ISNA.....


Iran will take legal action if Washington tries to stop newly acquired Iranian passenger planes flying international routes, the head of the country's aviation authority said on Tuesday.

Iran's Mahan Air, blacklisted by Washington, bought eight second-hand Airbus A340s and one Airbus A321 in May in defiance of U.S. sanctions. Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported last week that the planes would be used on international routes.

The U.S. Treasury has imposed sanctions on two firms based in Iraq and the United Arab Emirates on suspicion of helping the purchase.....snip~

Iran to take legal action if U.S. stops new Mahan Air planes: ISNA
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

The Iranians would tell the Saudis to go to hell, and in reality that's what they're telling US and we dont piss them off near as much as the KSA does.

Obama needs to be strong, he should just dictate to them the terms and invade if they don't comply.

Tell them our position is a command not a request

If Iran's response is "go to hell" regardless then why does it matter who's doing the nogotiating? If the Sauds take personal responsibility then at least they can take lead on the deal if one does get approved. Instead they're backseat drivers as we put affairs in order in their own backyard. They should STFU.
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

If Iran's response is "go to hell" regardless then why does it matter who's doing the nogotiating? If the Sauds take personal responsibility then at least they can take lead on the deal if one does get approved. Instead they're backseat drivers as we put affairs in order in their own backyard. They should STFU.

Not so much as backseat drivers, when telling the Israelis they will assist in any endeavor in preventing Iran from getting their Nuke. Moreover BO peep must be worried about that. Since he sent over Brennan of the CIA last week for a lil chat with Pardo. Plus BO is sending General Dempsey to go and have some talks with the Israelis Top Military Brass this week.

The pressure is building on BO.....knowing a bunch of the Sunni Leaders refused to show up for his summit at Camp David. The Saud King who told Kerry he would be there, but then declined the invitation. Helped with the perception the Saud wanted to send.
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Mornin Simplexity. :2wave: The Egyptians say they will have the same deal as Iran too. If BO and his Team are thinking that they can make it difficult for the Saud and Others to get materials they need. Then they need to start listening to some Judas Priest. Especially the song. Got Another Thing Coming.



We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,” one of the Arab leaders preparing to meet Mr. Obama said on Monday, declining to be named until he made his case directly to the president. Prince Turki bin Faisal, the 70-year-old former Saudi intelligence chief, has been touring the world with the same message.

Still, the Saudis have given the subject of nuclear armament more than passing thought. In the 1980s they bought a type of Chinese missile, called a DF-3, that could be used effectively only to deliver a nuclear weapon because the missiles were too large and inaccurate for any other purpose. American officials, led by Robert M. Gates, then the director of the C.I.A., protested. There is no evidence the Saudis ever obtained warheads to fit atop the missiles.

Prince Turki argued that the United States was making a “pivot to Iran” that was ill advised, and that the United States failed to learn from North Korea’s violations of its nuclear deals. “We were America’s best friend in the Arab world for 50 years,” he said, using the past tense.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/w...to-match-iran-in-nuclear-capability.html?_r=0

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

I have to agree with Prince Turki, especially his statement about being America's best friend for 50 years. It was Saudi Arabia's deal with us over 50 years ago that enabled our country to have the "petrodollar" as the global reserve currency - ie, other countries had to convert their currencies to our dollar in order to buy oil, which has greatly benefitted us in many ways. It looks like that may be coming to an end, and that should alarm everyone that sees the possible financial downside to our country from this.

Saudi Arabia has made no bones about their feeling of betrayal by us in catering to the Iran regime, and they will go nuclear in self defense, IMO. The Saudis kept their word with us for over 50 years - will Iran do the same? I personally doubt it, judging from their actions so far, in telling us what they will or will not do! WTH??? We shall see....
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Greetings, MMC.
I have to agree with Prince Turki, especially his statement about being America's best friend for 50 years. It was Saudi Arabia's deal with us over 50 years ago that enabled our country to have the "petrodollar" as the global reserve currency - ie, other countries had to convert their currencies to our dollar in order to buy oil, which has greatly benefitted us in many ways. It looks like that may be coming to an end, and that should alarm everyone that sees the possible financial downside to our country from this.

Saudi Arabia has made no bones about their feeling of betrayal by us in catering to the Iran regime, and they will go nuclear in self defense, IMO. The Saudis kept their word with us for over 50 years - will Iran do the same? I personally doubt it, judging from their actions so far, in telling us what they will or will not do! WTH??? We shall see....



The Iranians keep their Word Lady P????? :shock: :lol: .....
funny.gif
.....
smiley_ROFLMAO.gif


No but really.....the Iranians keep their word.
laughing4.gif
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Well if it isn't their lies and deceit. There is that issue of just ignoring sanctions and letting their own actions show their defiance. Of course our alleged importance to the NPT isn't really alleged. Being one of the Premiere Countries on the Planet and having our own interests to secure.

When we shake.....the rest of the planet rattles and rolls. As evidenced, with time and BO. :confused:





Iran to take legal action if U.S. stops new Mahan Air planes: ISNA.....


Iran will take legal action if Washington tries to stop newly acquired Iranian passenger planes flying international routes, the head of the country's aviation authority said on Tuesday.

Iran's Mahan Air, blacklisted by Washington, bought eight second-hand Airbus A340s and one Airbus A321 in May in defiance of U.S. sanctions. Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported last week that the planes would be used on international routes.

The U.S. Treasury has imposed sanctions on two firms based in Iraq and the United Arab Emirates on suspicion of helping the purchase.....snip~

Iran to take legal action if U.S. stops new Mahan Air planes: ISNA

I guess it's going to take a readjustment in my way of thinking, since I'm just not used to having other countries, especially those that fund terrorism, dictate to us about the way things are going to be done in the future whether we like it or not! :bs:
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

I guess it's going to take a readjustment in my way of thinking, since I'm just not used to having other countries, especially those that fund terrorism, dictate to us about the way things are going to be done in the future whether we like it or not! :bs:

Only until BO is sent to pasture Lady P. Then he can watch all he strived for be taken apart piece by piece.
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Simpleχity;1064701208 said:
Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement warns ambassador



"Watertight" agreement. Although Obama may overlook loopholes and disregard ambiguous language, other nations will definitely not ignore such shortcomings.

Nuclear proliferation all across the volatile Middle East will almost certainly transpire unless the IAEA is allowed unfettered access to all declared and suspected nuclear facilities in Iran.

Nations look after their vital interests. That the U.S. margin for error from Iranian cheating is much larger than that of Iran's neighbors, allows the U.S. to take many more risks, including a weak verification mechanism. Such risks, though, are intolerable to the states most directly exposed to the possible threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Nations look after their vital interests. That the U.S. margin for error from Iranian cheating is much larger than that of Iran's neighbors, allows the U.S. to take many more risks, including a weak verification mechanism. Such risks, though, are intolerable to the states most directly exposed to the possible threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

That's even if a nuclear armed Iran is a risk. In a perfect world, we would all work together on nuclear eradication, but unfortunately, there's a couple dozen nations working toward that end, and quite naturally, none of them are nuclear powers. That said, there are foreign relations/affairs experts that argue the virtues of a nuclear armed Iran. ;)

http://www.cfr.org/world/why-iran-should-get-bomb/p28610

Why Iran Should Get the Bomb
Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability
 
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

That's even if a nuclear armed Iran is a risk. In a perfect world, we would all work together on nuclear eradication, but unfortunately, there's a couple dozen nations working toward that end, and quite naturally, none of them are nuclear powers. That said, there are foreign relations/affairs experts that argue the virtues of a nuclear armed Iran. ;)

Why Iran Should Get the Bomb - Council on Foreign Relations

Why Iran Should Get the Bomb
Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability

IMO, Mr. Waltz's piece is highly speculative. Some excerpts:

Waltz: Yet so far, every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact...new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.

Mr. Waltz is assuming that future outcomes will be identical to past ones. In sum, such an assumption ignores the different dynamics at play e.g., how rivals will view the development. Second, his analysis misses the exception of North Korea. North Korea has continued to play a destabilizing role and has not become a stabilizing entity since acquiring nuclear weapons. North Korea's conduct has not changed toward a materially more stabilizing role.

Waltz: Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of providing for its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities...

This is speculation. He acknowledges that Iran's intentions are uncertain, yet makes a conclusion that assumes relative certainty.

Waltz: Another oft-touted worry is that if Iran obtains the bomb, other states in the region will follow suit, leading to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But the nuclear age is now almost 70 years old, and so far, fears of proliferation have proved to be unfounded.

Again, he is assuming a perfect match between the past and future, while ignoring the intense rivalries that exist in the Middle East. The India-Pakistan rivalry is relevant. Back in 1965, Pakistan's Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto declared that if India built nuclear weapons, Pakistan would follow suit. India tested its first nuclear device in 1974. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons in the 1980s. Already, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have explicitly indicated that they would not be indifferent to a situation under which Iran could attain a nuclear weapons capability. The India-Pakistan case suggests that one should not automatically assume Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia are merely posturing.

In sum, his piece is speculative. It misses a number of nuances in the historical record that undercut his thesis.
 
Last edited:
Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Simpleχity;1064701208 said:
Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement warns ambassador



"Watertight" agreement. Although Obama may overlook loopholes and disregard ambiguous language, other nations will definitely not ignore such shortcomings.

Nuclear proliferation all across the volatile Middle East will almost certainly transpire unless the IAEA is allowed unfettered access to all declared and suspected nuclear facilities in Iran.

"Could go nuclear"? They will go nuclear. No doubt about it. But so will others too.
 
Back
Top Bottom