No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by mrjingles on May 9, 2018 4:26:19 AM
Iran to start enriching uranium more than before in the next weeks

If war breaks out as a result, who is responsible. The US for pulling out of the deal, Iran for its belligerence or the Obama admin for allowing the JCPOA to pass to begin with?

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
mrjingles - 09 May 2018 04:32:41 (#1 of 240)

Yes, perhaps the Iranians have been abiding by the terms of the JCPOA (who knows?)but it should in my opinion never have been signed due to it having so many holes in it to begin with.

However,if as they claim, the Iranians will indeed start overtly ramping up production of Uranium the West will only have themselves to blame for allowing Iran to do so, thus military action will be the fault and direct result of the criminal actions of the Obama administration in allowing such a poor agreement to be signed to begin with.

WhataBoderation - 09 May 2018 04:36:46 (#2 of 240)

However,if as they claim, the Iranians will indeed start overtly ramping up production of Uranium the West will only have themselves to blame for allowing Iran to do so, thus military action will be the fault and direct result of the criminal actions of the Obama administration in allowing such a poor agreement to be signed to begin with.



No. It will be the result of the USA reneging on the deal.

FishPaste - 09 May 2018 04:47:56 (#3 of 240)

Why can't we all be friends?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd-2BHPlwQ

AlanII - 09 May 2018 06:26:43 (#4 of 240)

At least we all know where Trump’s going to have his War now.

browserbutton - 09 May 2018 06:40:00 (#5 of 240)

He's meeting Kim soon, isn't he? He might manage two (2) wars.

machiavelli - 09 May 2018 07:09:36 (#6 of 240)

I see that the biggest man-child has chucked the biggest toy out of the pram.

GyratingTrampoline - 09 May 2018 07:32:32 (#7 of 240)

It's not gonna reassure Kim (or anyone else the US wants to make a deal with) as to the ability of the US to stick to any deal it makes.

mrjingles - 09 May 2018 07:49:26 (#8 of 240)

No. It will be the result of the USA reneging on the deal.

But what if the deal was faulty to start with? Are you comfortable with the IAEA being denied access to 'military' sites especially having been shown how Iran has clearly lied about its weapons programne?

mrjingles - 09 May 2018 07:51:52 (#9 of 240)

gyrating

It's not gonna reassure Kim (or anyone else the US wants to make a deal with) as to the ability of the US to stick to any deal it makes.

I think on the contrary it will make those negotiating with the US over such important matters more keen to be open and honest in the first place

SinnerBoy - 09 May 2018 07:56:08 (#10 of 240)

The US for pulling out of the deal

Well, there is your answer. America isn't just pulling out, it's going back on its word. As GT says, why on Earth would Kim trust them now?

Iran for its belligerence

Iran isn't being belligerent. Iran is responding as expected, in the face of an aggressive move.

Trump "thinks" that the deal is terrible; that's because he's an idiot, who doesn't understand it. He's just looking for an enemy and sucking up to Israel, which is desperate for America to attack Iran on their behalf.

Imperfect the deal may be, but it was agreed that Iran would have its secret sites. All countries do. The IAEA seems to be satisfied that Iran is pursuing a civilian programme. Imports of any equipment are monitored closely and they haven't been going after centrifuges etc.

Shadrack22 - 09 May 2018 07:59:15 (#11 of 240)

Sucking up to Israel and to Saudi Arabia, both of whom want to rollback western detente with Iran.

mrjingles - 09 May 2018 08:24:06 (#12 of 240)

sinnerboy

Imperfect the deal may be,

Thats honest of you but try and be a bit more open when discussing such an important issue as nuclear weapons in the hands of radical extremists

but it was agreed that Iran would have its secret sites. All countries do.

THAT is one of the major flaws in the deal and as for other countries, I know of no other countries exporting terror and seeking nuclear weapons.

The IAEA seems to be satisfied that Iran is pursuing a civilian programme.

I'd rather be convinced but the following doesn't make for pleasent reading

https://www.memri.org/reports/insights-following-exposure-irans-military-nuclear-program-%E2%80%93-part-ii-iaeas-closure-file

IAEA director-general Amano agreed to a scandalous inspection process at the Parchin military site, in which he complied with the following demands from Iran:

No IAEA inspector entered the site. Amano himself entered Parchin for a token visit for only a few minutes, but not for inspection purposes. He was not even permitted to carry his cellphone.

Iran refused to allow the IAEA to question Iranian nuclear scientists.

The soil samples from the site were taken and handed over by the Iranians themselves, with no way of ascertaining their source.

Amano even accepted Iran's demand that the title of his report not be "Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of Iran's Nuclear Programme," but that it be "Final Assessment of Past and Present Outstanding Issues Regarding Iran's Nuclear Programme."[4]

The above was confirmed by Iran's representative in the IAEA, Reza Najafi, in a September 21, 2015 interview with Iran's ISNA news agency: "I deny the Reuters report that the samples from Parchin were taken in the presence of IAEA inspectors. We ourselves took the samples. This is the red line for us, and no inspector is authorized to enter a military site and conduct an inspection. The visit of Amano and his deputy was strictly a general protocol visit; they had no equipment, not even a cellphone; their visit lasted no longer than a few minutes, [and it was] only in order for them to see that there is nothing suspicious and that the claims about [Parchin] were completely wrong.

mrjingles - 09 May 2018 08:25:54 (#13 of 240)

shadrak

Sucking up to Israel and to Saudi Arabia, both of whom want to rollback western detente with Iran.

And quite rightly. Not sure why you think the US needs to suck up to Israel or SA but why not roll back detente with such a belligerent nation?

browserbutton - 09 May 2018 08:33:38 (#14 of 240)

The USA* is looking increasingly belligerent. Seeking to pick fights with all the world's 'baddies'.

I mean Trump of course. But somebody must've voted for him.

niggler - 09 May 2018 08:36:02 (#15 of 240)

The media coverage on this has been extraordinarily balanced. They seem to have simply reported the facts and not come down very decisively on one side or the other. Which is very interesting.

One side says the deal is working but not perfect. The other side says Iran is breaking the deal and doing things in secret. Not only that but withdrawal from the deal merely gives them further license. Further, that the re-imposition of sanctions effectively releases them from any deal so they may as well carry on anyway. Etc Etc.

There doesn't seem to be any real indication that Iran is, in fact, pursuing nuclear capabilities under the covers. Israel has said that a raid uncovered old files and CDs but they may be dated or non-operative. The Inspectors say Iran is complying.

Without being privy to real intelligence it's hard to say what this all means one way or the other. Anyone can tub-thump but opinions aren't facts.

Most actions are based largely on two things, money and ideology. Politicians seem to react mostly on whether a things is economically beneficial or ideologically threatening. Russia's decisions tend to be self-protective. The US's decisions under Trump are based almost solely on self-interest. The Europeans, including the UK, are more flexible, with money tending to come first.

America can be highly paranoid. They fear other powers having nuclear weapons, especially powers like Iran that are ideologically in conflict with them.

I suppose we can say one good thing, that this particular issue isn't about religion. At least we should be grateful for that.

virgil5 - 09 May 2018 08:48:35 (#16 of 240)

Negotiating with the Iranians would make them more human and less easy to kill.

Can't have that.

niggler - 09 May 2018 10:15:48 (#17 of 240)

It would seem that way.

Trump seems to thrive on conflict. If he's not fighting with someone somewhere he's frustrated. He began at home with the media, his own security, his own staff, Mexicans, Women's groups, North Korea, it goes on and on and on. His whole life is one battle after the other.

He's just not a wise man. In fact he's an idiot who's completely assured of his own righteousness. It doesn't matter what he says, it's his actions that count.

SinnerBoy - 09 May 2018 10:18:54 (#18 of 240)

mrjingles -

Thats honest of you but try and be a bit more open when discussing such an important issue as nuclear weapons in the hands of radical extremists

You mean America, I presume? And you used MEMRI as a source! Sorry, I'm having a coughing fit from laughing at you!

mrjingles - 09 May 2018 11:10:46 (#19 of 240)

niggler

America can be highly paranoid. They fear other powers having nuclear weapons, especially powers like Iran that are ideologically in conflict with them.

Your not concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons?

browserbutton - 09 May 2018 11:13:15 (#20 of 240)

You can't stop states getting them, eventually. Pakistan's got them already.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » International