• 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!

Bargain With Iran

Make the Deal?


  • Total voters
    41
Simply put, if Iran offered to end their nuclear program if we dismantled some of our nuclear weapons, would you take the offer?

Ya, we already did. It was called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran has decided it is too good to follow that.
 
The unemployed are being accounted for the same way they have been for decades, and what does that have to do with Iran?

Whatever helps you ignore the issue I suppose.
 
Ya, we already did. It was called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran has decided it is too good to follow that.


There is no nuclear proliferation going on as far as I have heard.
 
That is why I specifically mentioned getting out of the war... I think that in most other issues especially the economy Obama doesn't know what the hell he is doing.

But considering the past dozen or so financial recessions, no one really does. A fact that partisans generally don't like to admit. I gave the example of the Thai Prime Minister during the Asian Crisis to Conservative and that guy ran from that point so fast it made my head spin.
 


That does not make sense. There is no reason to enrich to 20% in large quantities unless you are explicitly trying to make weapons. Furthermore, there is no reason to build the type of reactors Iran wants and keeping the waste fuel unless you want to make weapons. Economically and environmentally it is superior to simply buy fuel rods from Russia, send the waste back and buy new ones rather than having to enrich yourself and deal with the huge amounts of waste. Iran has the same type of plants the UK built explicitly to breed fuel for UK nuclear weapons. The UK was not interested in power when it built the breeder reactors. It was interested in produce tons of waste to make nuclear weapons from. On top of that, it's cheaper just to buy the nuclear capabilities on the open market from Japan, China, South Korea, France, Russia or the United States then to home grow it yourself. Westinghouse offers decent deals on nuclear power facilities, maintenance and expertise. Hell of a lot cheaper then to build fortified facilities to enrich costly uranium for a civilian plant in which you're stuck with mountains of highly radioactive waste. Furthermore, with that type of contract, Israel has little reason to attack you as it's all transparent.

Iran is actively working towards a nuclear weapon. That much is certain. While their claim they want peaceful civilian power is indeed true based on their declining oil production and weak refining, it does not change the fact they are taking steps no rational civilian only nuclear power seeking country would take.
 
If the US have an absolute assurance and reasons to believe such, then yes, the US should take the bargain.
However, the chance of this proposal is absolutely zero, and the chance of such proposal being kept is even slimmer than that
 
There is no nuclear proliferation going on as far as I have heard.

According to the most recent IAEA report:

While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing

This would be in violation of Article 3 of the NPT:

Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
 
That does not make sense. There is no reason to enrich to 20% in large quantities unless you are explicitly trying to make weapons. Furthermore, there is no reason to build the type of reactors Iran wants and keeping the waste fuel unless you want to make weapons. Economically and environmentally it is superior to simply buy fuel rods from Russia, send the waste back and buy new ones rather than having to enrich yourself and deal with the huge amounts of waste. Iran has the same type of plants the UK built explicitly to breed fuel for UK nuclear weapons. The UK was not interested in power when it built the breeder reactors. It was interested in produce tons of waste to make nuclear weapons from. On top of that, it's cheaper just to buy the nuclear capabilities on the open market from Japan, China, South Korea, France, Russia or the United States then to home grow it yourself. Westinghouse offers decent deals on nuclear power facilities, maintenance and expertise. Hell of a lot cheaper then to build fortified facilities to enrich costly uranium for a civilian plant in which you're stuck with mountains of highly radioactive waste. Furthermore, with that type of contract, Israel has little reason to attack you as it's all transparent.

Iran is actively working towards a nuclear weapon. That much is certain. While their claim they want peaceful civilian power is indeed true based on their declining oil production and weak refining, it does not change the fact they are taking steps no rational civilian only nuclear power seeking country would take.

If it is so certain, then why doesn't the IAEA or or Panetta seem to think so?
 
If it is so certain, then why doesn't the IAEA or or Panetta seem to think so?

The IAEA has said that it thinks Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Again from the most recent report:

Previous reports by the Director General have identified outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these. Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information.
 
According to the most recent IAEA report:



This would be in violation of Article 3 of the NPT:

As we found out the hard way in Iraq, technical violations of protocol does not equate to a threat to the US.
 
Possible. In other words, they have no evidence of it. It is fine to be wary, but is a precaution a good enough reason to go to war?
 
Possible. In other words, they have no evidence of it. It is fine to be wary, but is a precaution a good enough reason to go to war?

No, once again:

After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.

That is saying there is evidence.
 
No, once again:



That is saying there is evidence.

Relevant to does not mean necessarily so. Again, do we really want to get into a war again if we're not completely certain?
 
No, once again:



That is saying there is evidence.

And the UN has interpreted this "evidence" to be an imminent threat?
 
Iran is completely surrounded by American bases or direct-allied countries now.


Do you think they're going to give up their only chance to have real deterrence against invasion?

Don't kid yourself about bargaining. The U.S. wants to get in there before the deterrence is realized. The business contracts and resource control it would grant our country would be unparallelled. With the completion of the trans middle eastern pipeline system, under the control of the U.S., we would be able to challenge OPEC and reduce our own oil prices in the process.

Any attempt to bargain with Iran will be done to save face. They are the missing puzzle piece. It's just a matter of time before we invade. I'm not commenting on whether this is a good or bad thing, but the reality of the situation.

If anything, I would say that this reflects the supreme power of our business sector to control both American and world economy. They are literally reshaping nations, often by force, in order to apply their economic hegemony to new parts of the world. I find it scary.

EXACTLY!

We never seem to want to put ourselves in anybody else's shoes when it comes to foreign policy. The desire for a nuclear weapon is rational for Iran because they see quite clearly the potential threat the U.S. and its allies are to them. I'd cut a deal for sure, along with getting the hell out of the middle east. Let Israel handle their own problems (especially since they have told us so many times that they can).
 
As we found out the hard way in Iraq, technical violations of protocol does not equate to a threat to the US.

I don't think it is entirely fair to relate this to Iraq. In Iraq, they fully agreed to Resolution 1441 and allowed inspectors into the country. Those IAEA inspectors found no indication of resumed nuclear activities on March 7th, 2003, just prior to the invasion. There had been no inspection done in the country for years before hand. Iran has been in the spotlight for a while now and has not been fully compliant with the IAEA or the multiple UN Security council resolutions (which is why there are economic sanctions on the country), and the IAEA now says it has credible evidence they are pursuing nuclear weapons.
 
And the UN has interpreted this "evidence" to be an imminent threat?

The UN has determined that "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as their means of delivery, continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security." Hence the reason for the NPT in the first place.
 
Relevant to does not mean necessarily so. Again, do we really want to get into a war again if we're not completely certain?

At the moment we want to keep the pressure on Iran, keep them under the microscope, and not rule that out as an option. War right now, this minute, no. But we can't exactly tell them that either. Also, waiting till they actually have a bomb is too late, Israel most likely will preemptively attack if it gets that imminent. Guess what, they are our allie. That means we fight too. Its a little more sophisticated than, "we should just mind our own business."
 
As we found out the hard way in Iraq, technical violations of protocol does not equate to a threat to the US.

True, but Iraq wasn't actively building hardened secret facilities, using centrifuges copied from AQ Khan, enriching well beyond what any civilian facility needs in sufficient quantities and building breeder reactors.

Iraq was a pack of lies where the technical evidence did not support Bush's assertion. To this date the logistical trail simply does not exist for Iraqi WMD. Iran on the other hand....
 
I don't think it is entirely fair to relate this to Iraq. In Iraq, they fully agreed to Resolution 1441 and allowed inspectors into the country. Those IAEA inspectors found no indication of resumed nuclear activities on March 7th, 2003, just prior to the invasion. There had been no inspection done in the country for years before hand. Iran has been in the spotlight for a while now and has not been fully compliant with the IAEA or the multiple UN Security council resolutions (which is why there are economic sanctions on the country), and the IAEA now says it has credible evidence they are pursuing nuclear weapons.

The fact that Iran is essentially pulling a Dimona act is a big fat sign they're trying to build nukes.
 
EXACTLY!

We never seem to want to put ourselves in anybody else's shoes when it comes to foreign policy. The desire for a nuclear weapon is rational for Iran because they see quite clearly the potential threat the U.S. and its allies are to them. I'd cut a deal for sure, along with getting the hell out of the middle east. Let Israel handle their own problems (especially since they have told us so many times that they can).

Despite the raving lunatic rants of many people here, I don't actually have a problem with Iran itself acquiring a nuke. The Mullahs are anything but insane. Everything they have done since their power grab has been calculated and mostly rational (they probably should have agreed to the cease fire during the Iran-Iraq war, but one can't make every decision perfectly). No one has EVER been able to show how Iran's leaders who have had plenty of chemical weapons in the past yet refused to use them on Israel are actually trying to get themselves killed. The bigger threat is everyone else in the region rushing for nukes.
 
The UN has determined that "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as their means of delivery, continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security." Hence the reason for the NPT in the first place.

And their decision to strike Iran? When was that made?
 
And their decision to strike Iran? When was that made?

The UN has not decided 'strike' Iran. According to the UN watch dog there is credible evidence Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. The UN has imposed numerous economic sanctions to try to pursued Iran to cooperate and is doing because it has found Iran in violation of NPT. Those are the facts which I have repeatedly said in this thread. I don't know what your question pertains to in our argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom