Framework for a Nuclear Deal with Iran: apparently agreement
- Thread starter Al A Bama
- Start date
Well, selling the Iranians anti-tank missiles (with a range of less than four kilometers) to use against Saddam Hussein's forces might not be exactly the same thing as allowing a guy who yells, "Death to America!" to get his hands on nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
I could be wrong on that, however, and you could be right. These two activities could be exactly the same thing.
If the agreement doesn't work out we can always bomb them back to the stone age later. I know some of you can't wait but a little patience please.
Regarding inspections, this might elucidate some one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...cheating-according-to-a-former-u-n-inspector/
Once it submits a request to Iran to visit an “undeclared” facility, the IAEA and Iran will have 14 days to agree on the terms of access. If IAEA concerns are not met within that period, a joint commission made up of the seven negotiating countries — Iran and the United States and its partners — plus the European Union, will have up to seven days to review the dispute and decide what Iran needs to do.
Only five of the eight members need to agree, effectively ensuring that Iran, Russia and China cannot prevail if they vote together. Iran then has three days to implement the decision. If it does not, “then we can begin snap-back” of sanctions, a [U.S.] administration official said.
Regarding inspections, this might elucidate some one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...cheating-according-to-a-former-u-n-inspector/
Once it submits a request to Iran to visit an “undeclared” facility, the IAEA and Iran will have 14 days to agree on the terms of access. If IAEA concerns are not met within that period, a joint commission made up of the seven negotiating countries — Iran and the United States and its partners — plus the European Union, will have up to seven days to review the dispute and decide what Iran needs to do.
Only five of the eight members need to agree, effectively ensuring that Iran, Russia and China cannot prevail if they vote together. Iran then has three days to implement the decision. If it does not, “then we can begin snap-back” of sanctions, a [U.S.] administration official said.
Last edited:
I see 24 days from the time the IAEA declares it wants to see facility X, if Iran does not agree. 24 days is a bit of time to hide the evidence.
Once the 24 days expires and the IAEA declares it will start "snap-inspections," the Iranians can just say, "To heck with you people, we are leaving the regimen." Then President Clinton will say, "Look, we don't want to give up on diplomacy. Let's talk about this for a few months."
I am not in favor of bombing ran. I would prefer the sanctions remain in place for those uncivilized savages and murderers until they come to their senses (or they just learn to like being economically depressed). This deal moves up the time when the US (or Israel) will face the alternatives of bombing a nuclear Iran or losing a major city of our own.
Not to worry. Whenever that happens, Democrats will say "It's Bush's fault."
Plus, everybody in the neighborhood with enough money will see through the vacuous terms of the agreement and realize that the Iranians just got a paved road to nuclear weapons, so they will have to get nuclear weapons of their own.
Based on what I've read, right now, if Iran went all out, they could have a nuclear weapon in three months. I think we can all agree THAT WOULD BE BAD.
The proposed deal does not eliminate the possibility that Iran could still make a nuke. But
Is it perfect? No. I agree that Iran should release any hostages held by the government. If they are smart, they will allow opposition to the agreement to build, then release the hostages as a show of good faith.
The proposed deal does not eliminate the possibility that Iran could still make a nuke. But
- It will be MUCH harder for them to do so, due to massive reductions in resources and equipment.
- It will be much harder for them to do so without being detected.
- They will have a strong incentive not to pursue nukes--the sanctions will be gradually lifted, but the agreement allows them to be reinstated almost instantly.
Is it perfect? No. I agree that Iran should release any hostages held by the government. If they are smart, they will allow opposition to the agreement to build, then release the hostages as a show of good faith.
Perhaps this is all correct.
I just think it will be much more difficult reimposing sanctions for alleged bad behavior than it would be to keep them in place. It will not be instant.
Just look at the Europeans and the Russian invasion of Europe. There are a lot of Europeans who are falling all over themselves to deny to themselves and anybody who will listen that there are any Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Anybody with open eyes and a brain can see there are Russian troops in Ukraine, yet there are people who deny it.
The same dynamic will happen with Iran when Iran starts to cheat and deny the right of outside inspectors to inspect certain facilities, citing "Iranian national security." Some will say, "Come one, why are you picking on Iran? Do you have any proof they are cheating?"
To which rational people will say, "No, we do not have proof, because the Iranians are denying inspectors access to the facility in question."
The "let Iran off the hook" crowd will say, "See? No proof."
I wonder if Iran can easily cheat by moving its nuclear operations into Iraq or Syria. Iran has a material presence in both countries and could benefit from the unrest and the availability of "lawless" areas to conduct clandestine nuclear operations.
Last edited:
UN security council approves Iran deal...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/un-security-council-endorses-iran-nuclear-deal/
Nice end around by the President. Not that the jellyfish in the Senate would disapprove of the measure, but now they are basically "forced" to accept it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/un-security-council-endorses-iran-nuclear-deal/
Nice end around by the President. Not that the jellyfish in the Senate would disapprove of the measure, but now they are basically "forced" to accept it.
Interesting assessment of the deal in the WSJ:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deals-collapsing-rationale-1437436211
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deals-collapsing-rationale-1437436211
Very telling article. I highly doubt he would have tweeted such a depiction of someone he respected.
He tweets for internal consumption. Iran has its own hardline nutcases.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/20/us-iran-nuclear-un-idUSKCN0PU1BH20150720
Iranian hardliners are worried that U.N. inspectors may gain some access to sensitive military sites under the resolution, which becomes international law.
The country’s senior nuclear negotiator, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, dismissed critics' concerns and called the resolution an "unprecedented achievement in Iran’s history". The deal must be approved by Iran's National Security Council and later by Khamenei. Parliament's role is not clear.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/20/us-iran-nuclear-un-idUSKCN0PU1BH20150720
Iranian hardliners are worried that U.N. inspectors may gain some access to sensitive military sites under the resolution, which becomes international law.
The country’s senior nuclear negotiator, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, dismissed critics' concerns and called the resolution an "unprecedented achievement in Iran’s history". The deal must be approved by Iran's National Security Council and later by Khamenei. Parliament's role is not clear.
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
