• 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

donsutherland1

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

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Tuesday ruled out freezing sensitive nuclear work in the country for a long time and said sanctions imposed on it should be lifted as soon it reaches a final deal with major powers, state TV reported.

The six - 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.


Iran's Khamenei rules out freezing sensitive nuclear work for long period | Reuters

As the deadline for a nuclear agreement approaches, Iran has advanced two positions that preclude a credible and, perhaps even useful, agreement:

1. It has continued to refuse to allow IAEA inspectors assurances that they would have access to sensitive sites. Such limitations preclude a credible verification regime.
2. It seeks an early end to restrictions on its nuclear activities.

In substance, Iran is seeking sanctions relief, as well as international ratification of a path that would allow it to achieve a nuclear breakout. Unless Iran abandons those demands, I don't believe the P5+1 should accept the kind of substantially impaired agreement that would be on the table.

Finally, Iran still has not resolved all of its outstanding issues with the IAEA. This failure, coupled with the above two demands, further undercuts notions that Iran is seeking only a peaceful nuclear energy program.
 
Reuters reported:




Iran's Khamenei rules out freezing sensitive nuclear work for long period | Reuters

As the deadline for a nuclear agreement approaches, Iran has advanced two positions that preclude a credible and, perhaps even useful, agreement:

1. It has continued to refuse to allow IAEA inspectors assurances that they would have access to sensitive sites. Such limitations preclude a credible verification regime.
2. It seeks an early end to restrictions on its nuclear activities.

In substance, Iran is seeking sanctions relief, as well as international ratification of a path that would allow it to achieve a nuclear breakout. Unless Iran abandons those demands, I don't believe the P5+1 should accept the kind of substantially impaired agreement that would be on the table.

Finally, Iran still has not resolved all of its outstanding issues with the IAEA. This failure, coupled with the above two demands, further undercuts notions that Iran is seeking only a peaceful nuclear energy program.


Cmon now DS. The usual detractors will just say he was playing to the base. He don't decide anything. BO has a deal, says its good.
 
What do you want to bet that

A) it would be pretty easy to find a statement from the Administration from a year or so ago that this is completely unacceptable and they won't sign any deal that includes it and

B) the administration will fold on this and seek to sign a deal that includes it?



Iran knows that Obama needs this more than they do. They're going to stick it to him, and keep their program.
 
[Obama says] the pending deal would shrink Iran’s nuclear program, so that if Iran later “decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to respond.” Unfortunately, that claim is false, as can be demonstrated with basic science and math. By my calculations, Iran’s actual breakout time under the deal would be approximately three months — not over a year. Thus, the deal would be unlikely to improve the world’s ability to react to a sudden effort by Iran to build a bomb. Breakout time is determined by three primary factors: the number and type of centrifuges; the enrichment of the starting material; and the amount of enriched uranium required for a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama seems to make rosy assumptions about all three.

Most important, in the event of an overt attempt by Iran to build a bomb, Mr. Obama’s argument assumes that Iran would employ only the 5,060 centrifuges that the deal would allow for uranium enrichment, not the roughly 14,000 additional centrifuges that Iran would be permitted to keep mainly for spare parts. Such an assumption is laughable. In a real-world breakout, Iran would race, not crawl, to the bomb. These additional centrifuges would need to be connected, brought up to speed and equilibrated with the already operating ones. But at that point, Iran’s enrichment capacity could exceed three times what Mr. Obama assumes. This flaw could be addressed by amending the deal to require Iran to destroy or export the additional centrifuges, but Iran refuses. Second, since the deal would permit Iran to keep only a small amount of enriched uranium in the gaseous form used in centrifuges, Mr. Obama assumes that a dash for the bomb would start mainly from unenriched uranium, thereby lengthening the breakout time. But the deal would appear to also permit Iran to keep large amounts of enriched uranium in solid form (as opposed to gas), which could be reconverted to gas within weeks, thus providing a substantial head-start to producing weapons-grade uranium.

Third, Mr. Obama’s argument assumes that Iran would require 59 pounds of weapons-grade uranium to make an atomic bomb. In reality, nuclear weapons can be made from much smaller amounts of uranium (as experts assume North Korea does in its rudimentary arsenal). A 1995 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council concluded that even a “low technical capability” nuclear weapon could produce an explosion with a force approaching that of the Hiroshima bomb — using just 29 pounds of weapons-grade uranium. Based on such realistic assumptions, Iran’s breakout time under the pending deal actually would be around three months, while its current breakout time is a little under two months. Thus, the deal would increase the breakout time by just over a month, too little to matter. Mr. Obama’s main argument for the agreement — extending Iran’s breakout time — turns out to be effectively worthless.....snip~

Brutal: Nuclear Expert Demolishes Obama's Central Argument for Iran Deal - Guy Benson


Looks like BO, and his Team got it wrong again.
 
Come on, anyone really surprised by this?
 
Enough of the transparent Double Standard

As long as the selectively meddlesome U.S. & EU tolerate other illegally acquired Nuclear Arsenals in the Region, it is blatantly hypocritical to kvetch & whine about what Iran does.
 
Enough of the transparent Double Standard

As long as the selectively meddlesome U.S. & EU tolerate other illegally acquired Nuclear Arsenals in the Region, it is blatantly hypocritical to kvetch & whine about what Iran does.
Some countries have proved themselves worthy of extra scrutiny, like for example, being the leading state sponsor of terror in the world. Insisting that they be treated as an ordinary actor when they have shown themselves to be anything but is blatantly silly.
 
Iran is clearly being irrational here. If they want an end to sanctions, the responsible position is to halt nuclear development.

Enough of the transparent Double Standard

As long as the selectively meddlesome U.S. & EU tolerate other illegally acquired Nuclear Arsenals in the Region, it is blatantly hypocritical to kvetch & whine about what Iran does.

Which is why the US/EU should take a stance against all nuclear arsenals in the region.
 
Reuters reported:




Iran's Khamenei rules out freezing sensitive nuclear work for long period | Reuters

As the deadline for a nuclear agreement approaches, Iran has advanced two positions that preclude a credible and, perhaps even useful, agreement:

1. It has continued to refuse to allow IAEA inspectors assurances that they would have access to sensitive sites. Such limitations preclude a credible verification regime.
2. It seeks an early end to restrictions on its nuclear activities.

In substance, Iran is seeking sanctions relief, as well as international ratification of a path that would allow it to achieve a nuclear breakout. Unless Iran abandons those demands, I don't believe the P5+1 should accept the kind of substantially impaired agreement that would be on the table.

Finally, Iran still has not resolved all of its outstanding issues with the IAEA. This failure, coupled with the above two demands, further undercuts notions that Iran is seeking only a peaceful nuclear energy program.

So, they're still trying to negotiate. They are, however, negotiating from a weak position.

And, they're not negotiating with Obama. They're negotiating with six powerful nations, no one of which actually needs Iran for anything.
 
So, they're still trying to negotiate. They are, however, negotiating from a weak position.

And, they're not negotiating with Obama. They're negotiating with six powerful nations, no one of which actually needs Iran for anything.

The Obama Administration is desperate to sign a deal. Any deal. That has some pretty serious impact.
 
Enough of the transparent Double Standard

As long as the selectively meddlesome U.S. & EU tolerate other illegally acquired Nuclear Arsenals in the Region, it is blatantly hypocritical to kvetch & whine about what Iran does.

Iran can take its chances pursuing an illicit nuclear weapons program. At the same time, the U.S. and EU can do what they believe is necessary to safeguard their critical interests and prevent Iran from acquiring such weapons. Neither the U.S. nor EU are compelled to lift sanctions should Iran choose to pursue such weapons. Moreover, they are not compelled to refrain from taking other measures to thwart Iran's nuclear activities should Iran choose to pursue such weapons.
 
Which reminds me.

Tomorrow (25 June 2015) the Iranian opposition coalition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) says it will release a detailed report on Iran's nuclear duplicity. The NCRI was the first to blow the whistle on the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and the Arak heavy-water plant in 2002 and subsequently made a string of stunning revelations on other nuclear sites in Iran, triggering the inspection of Iranian nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and leading to UN Security Council sanctions targeting the regime.

This could be very interesting.
 
Simpleχity;1064749144 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=National_Post
... Since Izzy Asper's acquisition of the National Post, the paper has become a strong voice in support of the state of Israel and its government. The Post was one of the few Canadian papers to offer unreserved support to Israel during its conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon during 2006 ...
On May 19, 2006, the newspaper ran two pieces alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law requiring religious minorities to wear special identifying badges. One piece was a front page news item titled "IRAN EYES BADGES FOR JEWS" accompanied by a 1935 picture of two Jews bearing Nazi-ordered yellow badges. Later on the same day, experts began coming forward to deny the accuracy of the Post story. The story proved to be false, but not before it had been picked up by a variety of other news media and generated comment from world leaders ... the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) has been actively monitoring media coverage for anti-Muslim or anti-Islam sentiment ... The Congress has singled out the National Post, saying the paper "consistently is No. 1" as an anti-Islam media outlet ...

no agenda by that source [/sarcasm]
 
Hence, my mention of the P5+1 and no mention of President Obama.

Correct, and yet we get statements like this:

Originally Posted by cpwill
The Obama Administration is desperate to sign a deal. Any deal. That has some pretty serious impact.

Which may be true, but he still can't make a unilateral agreement.
 
Correct, and yet we get statements like this:



Which may be true, but he still can't make a unilateral agreement.


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
 
This is what happens when the left gets mugged by reality.

Heya USC. :2wave: I like the part after Khamenei says only if sanctions are removed first. Which then the lib writer says......COULD further complicate things.:doh
 
Heya USC. :2wave: I like the part after Khamenei says only if sanctions are removed first. Which then the lib writer says......COULD further complicate things.:doh

They are chanting death to america yet again (domestic consumption you see) and are now receiving billions after sanctions were lifted.

So they have more money, more power, and are still going to get nukes just as soon as they please.

Man our smart diplomacy really is smart.
 
They are chanting death to america yet again (domestic consumption you see) and are now receiving billions after sanctions were lifted.

So they have more money, more power, and are still going to get nukes just as soon as they please.

Man our smart diplomacy really is smart.



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.
 
Back
Top Bottom