Talk

Advanced search

Iran Nuclear Deal - really?

(12 Posts)
Isitmebut Tue 14-Jul-15 15:46:03

A deal is done, but are the international powers that be making more ‘known unknown’ assumptions, that the UK Office For Budget Responsibility (OBR) have to make on their economic, interest rate and inflation predictions several years forward, analysing a Osborne Budget?

Israel are clearly not happy bunnies, and I have to admit I agree with most of what they say as nearly every international red line has been erased to get this deal done, including the ‘Martini’ clause, where inspections ‘anytime, anyplace, anywhere’, has been replaced with a 1-month Notice of inspection, that can be refused?

I suspect there are several motives, including political legacies and the hope of more Iranian ‘sandals on the ground’ to attack ISIS to augment western and regional coalition air power – but to my mind, nothing much I see shows any evidence anti western Iran has changed - other than Shia Iran gets to go about its work with the west, with an ‘open season’ on Sunni Muslims, hopefully the ones from ISIS.

”Iran, World Powers Have Reached Nuclear Agreement”
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-14/iran-world-powers-said-to-have-reached-nuclear-agreement-ic2ypjym

”Iran and six world powers sealed a historic accord to curb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in return for ending sanctions, capping two years of tough diplomacy with the biggest breakthrough in relations in decades.”

”Diplomats reached the deal in Vienna on Tuesday, their 18th day of talks. President Barack Obama said it blocks “every path to a nuclear weapon” for Iran, while Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called it a “win-win” solution.”

“This is probably going to go down in history as one of the biggest diplomatic successes of the century,” Ellie Geranmayeh, a policy fellow at the European Council of Foreign Relations, said by phone from London.

”Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the deal as a “historic mistake,” saying in a statement that “sweeping concessions were made in all areas meant to block Iran from the ability to arm itself with nuclear weapons.”

MonstrousRatbag Tue 14-Jul-15 17:44:35

And here is the response from a former diplomat previously involved in the talks, writing in Politico magazine:

A deal that verifiably constrains Iran’s enrichment program until at least 2025 or 2030, limits its R&D, prevents the production of weapons-grade plutonium and reprocessing and provides unprecedented transparency and verification forever, would be an enormous win for the United States and its partners. Kill that deal, and tomorrow Iran can resume enrichment including to higher levels, keep its fissile material stockpile, finish building its heavy water reactor, and do unlimited R&D, all without transparency or international supervision.

Good luck with that.

Read more: Full article

MyBeloved Tue 14-Jul-15 20:08:41

The world has gone completely mad. I fear for the future of my children.

fukkigucci Wed 15-Jul-15 03:25:07

I don't understand how this deal can be a good thing, I really don't.

MonstrousRatbag Wed 15-Jul-15 14:02:37

It's 'good' because it puts Iran back from getting a nuclear bomb by at least 10 years. It's 'good' because the only other outcome was 'no deal at all' in which case Iran could and would forge ahead with their nuclear programme at top speed and get the bomb very soon indeed.

Despite what Netanyahu would have people believe, the programme could not have been stopped by aerial bombing, only delayed, and no one in their right mind wants the kind of full-on ground war with Iran that it would take to stop them getting the bomb for many years. Certainly not America, which would have to commit the troops to do it since neither Saudi nor Israel (the main critics) was going to do it.

peltata Wed 15-Jul-15 14:19:09

Unless oil-rich Iran have come over all green and eco they obviously want nuclear weapons - difficult to say which way makes it more difficult do, under sanctions or with more transparency and foreign trade?

No doubt both sides think they got a good deal but was Kerry/Obama concerned about their legacy a bit too much? And will some UK parties still want to disarm now?

Isitmebut Wed 15-Jul-15 14:58:24

'Obama The Peacemaker' now has Cuba, Iran, will he go for North Korea as the 'evil axis win treble'? Nah.

PtolemysNeedle Sat 18-Jul-15 12:13:49

Netanyahus opinions have no credibility whatsoever considering the international laws he chooses to ignore.

Personally I don't think we have any right to try and prevent the Iranians having nuclear weapons considering that we have them and our behaviour internationally isn't exactly something to be proud of.

MyBeloved Sat 18-Jul-15 12:36:58

So giving the means to compile nuclear weapons to a regime who regularly chant death to America and death to israel whilst burning flags of western nations is fair because other countries have them???

PtolemysNeedle Sat 18-Jul-15 12:59:51

I'm not saying I'm comfortable with the thought of Iran having nuclear weapons, but I don't think it's any worse than us having them. I disagree with that too. To many people in the world, we are the terrorists, understandably so IMO. When was the last time Iran stared dropping bombs on innocent civilians? No, it's us the Americans and the Israelis that do that.

MyBeloved Sat 18-Jul-15 16:44:21

Right so we will ignore pushing gay people off buildings, hangings and executions then.

oh and not sure the last tine israel or USA dropped a nuclear bomb.....???

Isitmebut Sat 18-Jul-15 23:45:02

PtolemysNeedle …. Re your ”When was the last time Iran stared dropping bombs on innocent civilians? No, it's us the Americans and the Israelis that do that.”

I can’t argue too much on who actually is SEEN to drop bombs on civilians, innocent or otherwise, but Iran wouldn’t would it, there are too many defence pacts amongst their enemies that’s not how Iran – the largest and most aggressive Shiite State – rolls, Iran fights their wars entirely by political and financial proxy.

Lets have a look at Shia Iran’s sponsored killing of civilians.

- Iran supports Shia Syria’s Assad, how many non ISIS Sunnis have died or been displaced there due to that support from the air and land?

- Iran supports Shia Hezzbollah in the Lebanon, as a State within a State taken by force and money, after their friends in Syria who invaded the Lebanon and stayed around 20-years, left.

- Iran supports the Shia Bahrainis within Bahrain against the Sunni Rulers, a bridge away from Sunni Saudi Arabia.

- Iran supports the Shia in Yemen, again a stones throw away from Sunni Saudi Arabia, opening up another ‘front’ on Saudi borders.

- Iran support (wait for it) Sunni repeat Sunni Hamas against Israel in a joint mission ‘to wipe Israel off this earth’, involves financial and supplying rocket/missile technology - so how many civilians have died in that conflict because Hamas had the technology and supply of rockets to try and kill as many Israelis as they could, only to invite retaliatory action on a Gaza Strip (smaller than the Isle of Wight) - that both makes and stores their rockets amongst their own citizens homes and work?

So why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear bombs, because you never know WHO they’d give them to and ask to do their dirty work for them – and within Iran, you never know who is control of Iranian actions – the politicians, or the Ayatollahs and we can see what fuckwittery is committed in the name of Islam, by Islamist fuckwits of BOTH sects.

And what do the influential Ayatollahs currently think?

Iran nuclear deal: Ayatollah Khamenei says hostile policies towards 'arrogant' America will not change
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-nuclear-deal-ayatollah-khamenei-says-hostile-policies-towards-arrogant-america-will-not-change-10398733.html

”The deal over Iran’s nuclear programme will not change the country’s opposition to America's “arrogant” policies in the Middle East, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said in his most comprehensive verdict on the accord so far.”

”In a fiery address at a mosque in Tehran to mark the end of Ramadan, the Supreme Leader suggested that Iranian hardliners could yet block the pact, adding that Iran’s hostile stance towards the United States remains unchanged.”

”A major source of conflict with the US, Iran’s backing for its “friends” in the region - which include Syria, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shia rebels in Yemen – would not alter because of the deal, the Ayatollah said.”

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now