Report: Iran will halt enrichment if West removes sanctions

[dirk digler]

Should we trust them? Probably not but it is an interesting development

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726206803&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Iran expressed readiness to freeze its uranium enrichment program in return for lifting the international sanctions imposed on it, Channel 2 analyst Ehud Ya'ari revealed Thursday evening.
He cited unnamed Western officials as the source of the new development.
Iran has staunchly resisted repeated incentive packages offered by the West in return for halting it enrichment program and has also intermittently limited access of IAEA officials to its nuclear sites.
The West, spearheaded by the US and Israel, rejects Iran's claim that its nuclear program is geared towards peaceful purposes only.
Recently a set of sanctions was imposed on Teheran by the European Union, after the UN has already imposed three rounds of sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
The recent EU sanctions include a ban on trading with Bank Melli, Iran's main state-sponsored bank.
The unconfirmed report Thursday comes after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expressed scorn at the West's sanctions and said Iran will push on with its nuclear program despite them.

[Donger]

Should we trust them? Probably not but it is an interesting development

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726206803&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Iran expressed readiness to freeze its uranium enrichment program in return for lifting the international sanctions imposed on it, Channel 2 analyst Ehud Ya'ari revealed Thursday evening.
He cited unnamed Western officials as the source of the new development.
Iran has staunchly resisted repeated incentive packages offered by the West in return for halting it enrichment program and has also intermittently limited access of IAEA officials to its nuclear sites.
The West, spearheaded by the US and Israel, rejects Iran's claim that its nuclear program is geared towards peaceful purposes only.
Recently a set of sanctions was imposed on Teheran by the European Union, after the UN has already imposed three rounds of sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
The recent EU sanctions include a ban on trading with Bank Melli, Iran's main state-sponsored bank.
The unconfirmed report Thursday comes after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expressed scorn at the West's sanctions and said Iran will push on with its nuclear program despite them.

That is interesting. I do think that "don't trust and verify" is essential.

My first thought was that they've probably already enriched enough for multiple physics packages.

[Direckshun]

I think tough action needs to be taken with Iran, but they're going to get nuclear weapons at some point in the future. There's nothing we can do in the long run to prevent that.

Does anybody honestly think we can prevent that from happening, forever?

[dirk digler]

That is interesting. I do think that "don't trust and verify" is essential.

My first thought was that they've probably already enriched enough for multiple physics packages.

I agree. If this is true and they are willing to stop then that is a huge win for the US and Israel.

[Donger]

I agree. If this is true and they are willing to stop then that is a huge win for the US and Israel.

Not if they've already enriched enough, it isn't.

[dirk digler]

I think tough action needs to be taken with Iran, but they're going to get nuclear weapons at some point in the future. There's nothing we can do in the long run to prevent that.

Does anybody honestly think we can prevent that from happening, forever?

Yes and either Israel or we will make damn sure it never happens. They are basically a terrorist state IMHO.

[Mr. Kotter]

Yeah.

It's a damn shame we had to sit down across the table with those crazy bastards and negotiate with them to get here....

;)

[dirk digler]

Not if they've already enriched enough, it isn't.

Why? Can't they make a condition to destroy all nuclear products before they lift the sanctions?

[dirk digler]

Yeah.

It's a damn shame we had to sit down across the table with those crazy bastards and negotiate with them to get here....

;)

We have been negotiating with them not just not on the presidential level

[HonestChieffan]

wait to deal till after the first round is over

[Mr. Kotter]

We have been negotiating with them not just not on the presidential level


Exactly. As it should be, and should remain.

[Donger]

Why? Can't they make a condition to destroy all nuclear products before they lift the sanctions?

Possibly. The IAEA should be able to determine how much they've enriched so far.

[HolmeZz]

Exactly. As it should be, and should remain.

Like you honestly give a shit.

If we're f*cking dealing with them, we're f*cking dealing with him. Don't feed me the "we legitimize them by gracing them with the presence of our President!" bullshit. That pomposity and arrogance only leads to more conflicts.

[Mr. Kotter]

Like you honestly give a shit.

If we're f*cking dealing with them, we're f*cking dealing with him. Don't feed me the "we legitimize them by gracing them with the presence of our President!" bullshit. That pomposity and arrogance only leads to more conflicts.

You are entitled to your opinion. Even if you choose to be wrong. ;)

[Donger]

That pomposity and arrogance only leads to more conflicts.

Are you talking about Barack Hussein?

[Hog Farmer]

If one was to take them at their word they would be a fool. Those dumbasses want the apocolypse to take place. Ayatollah kadipwad and Arhmadickhead cannot be trusted.

[Hog Farmer]

That is interesting. I do think that "don't trust and verify" is essential.

My first thought was that they've probably already enriched enough for multiple physics packages.


I don't know about that but I bet they got enough to build a bomb ot two.

[J Diddy]

Exactly. As it should be, and should remain.

and why is that?

[Nightfyre]

You are entitled to your opinion. Even if you choose to be wrong. ;)

Kotter knows all about this statement.

[dirk digler]

Possibly. The IAEA should be able to determine how much they've enriched so far.

That is what I am thinking as well. If that can be worked out this is a huge win. But like others have said you can't really trust those ****ers.

[BucEyedPea]

If one was to take them at their word they would be a fool. Those dumbasses want the apocolypse to take place.

No that's Hagee and Protestant Dispensationalists....so they can perfect Jews.
You heard it from Coulter first. Some Israel supporters they turned out to be.

[BucEyedPea]

That is what I am thinking as well. If that can be worked out this is a huge win. But like others have said you can't really trust those ****ers.

Inspections as set up, cannot verify and proove they're making a bomb.
Maybe that's where there should be change so the needless speculation doesn't continue.

[patteeu]

I think tough action needs to be taken with Iran, but they're going to get nuclear weapons at some point in the future. There's nothing we can do in the long run to prevent that.

Does anybody honestly think we can prevent that from happening, forever?

I'm not advocating an attack, but as an academic matter, we can certainly prevent this regime from ever gaining nuclear weapons.

[patteeu]

Like you honestly give a shit.

If we're f*cking dealing with them, we're f*cking dealing with him. Don't feed me the "we legitimize them by gracing them with the presence of our President!" bullshit. That pomposity and arrogance only leads to more conflicts.

On the one hand, you call that idea bullshit, but on the other hand I don't recall you criticizing Obama when he indicates that the presence of our President (or of some kind of more direct, high-level talks in any event) is the kind of thing that can make an adversary feel respected enough to be more willing to make a deal? Either there is a difference or there isn't. :shrug:

FWIW, I can remember pointing out that the Bush administration is willing to talk to just about all of our adversaries including Iran and that the only difference that Obama is proposing is the type of talks. I don't recall you backing me up with a supportive "[I]f we're f*cking dealing with them, we're f*cking dealing with him" post.

[patteeu]

BTW, this isn't the breakthrough that it might appear to be. Our goal is a dismantling of enrichment capability not a mere freeze. This proposal is designed to buy time by making it look like the Iranians are negotiating in good faith. This is the same thing they've been doing for a while now and it follows the pattern of North Korea where both Clinton and Bush have essentially failed.

[Direckshun]

I'm not advocating an attack, but as an academic matter, we can certainly prevent this regime from ever gaining nuclear weapons.
Dude, I hate to break it to you, but more and more people are getting more and more technology. This isn't a gradual trend, it's an exponential trend.

It's only a matter of time before dozens of countries across the globe have nuclear weapons, and the best we can do is merely slow that down, else we're going to have to eradicate entire countries.

Iran will undoubtably be one of them. It'll probably happen in my lifetime, despite heated opposition from practically the entire globe. Maybe not in your lifetime, however, as the best I can judge is that you're on death's doorstep as it is.

[mikey23545]

Gee, they seem like trustworthy fanatics.

[patteeu]

Dude, I hate to break it to you, but more and more people are getting more and more technology. This isn't a gradual trend, it's an exponential trend.

It's only a matter of time before dozens of countries across the globe have nuclear weapons, and the best we can do is merely slow that down, else we're going to have to eradicate entire countries.

Iran will undoubtably be one of them. It'll probably happen in my lifetime, despite heated opposition from practically the entire globe. Maybe not in your lifetime, however, as the best I can judge is that you're on death's doorstep as it is.

Some of the alarmists on the left are suggesting that civilization is about to collapse and that it's only a matter of whether it's global warming or peak oil that gets us first. But I'm not really buying it.

Iran and the current Iranian regime are two different things. We absolutely have the capability to prevent this regime from getting nuclear weapons if it's important enough to us to do so. Dude.

[BucEyedPea]

Gee, they seem like trustworthy fanatics.

I'm glad you finally see that about Bush and Co ( including his advisors*)


Like advisor Kissinger's quote: " First we do the illegal. Then we do the unConstitutional."

[Direckshun]

Dude.
Easy there Ben Stein. You're giving me dry eyes.

See, I don't think that the spreading of nuclear weapons necessarily means that civilization will end. Pakistan and India are one of the most heated cultural rivalries on the planet, and they haven't nuked each other yet. Matter of fact, and I don't have the facts on this, but I don't think they've had a serious war since acquiring nuclear weapons?

But I'm definitely not going "yay nukes for everyonez," as I think their spread needs to be slowed as much possible. But there is just no way that in a nation of a few million people with a relatively strong government can ever be eternally prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. Other than by eradicating them, of course.

[patteeu]

Easy there Ben Stein. You're giving me dry eyes.

See, I don't think that the spreading of nuclear weapons necessarily means that civilization will end. Pakistan and India are one of the most heated cultural rivalries on the planet, and they haven't nuked each other yet. Matter of fact, and I don't have the facts on this, but I don't think they've had a serious war since acquiring nuclear weapons?

But I'm definitely not going "yay nukes for everyonez," as I think their spread needs to be slowed as much possible. But there is just no way that in a nation of a few million people with a relatively strong government can ever be eternally prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. Other than by eradicating them, of course.

I've tried to make it clear that you're talking about something different than I am. You keep talking about keeping Iran from getting nukes for eternity, which may or may not be possible. I'm talking about keeping the current Iranian regime from getting nukes, which is entirely possible if we are willing to pay the price. I described this as an academic observation because I'm not saying that we *should* pay the price required to change this regime. I'm not taking a position on that.

But here's the argument against letting the current Iranian regime get nuclear weapons. It's not that I'm particularly afraid of Iran using it's nukes for a first strike because that would surely draw a retaliatory strike that would put an end to whatever it is they hold dear. Instead, the danger of a nuclear Iran is an increase in their aggressive use of their proxy armies, Hezbollah and Hamas, and of their conventional forces to cause problems for their neighbors and expand their influence/control throughout the region. Their nukes would provide a shield that would make them nearly immune from all but the most universal international pressure to reign themselves in.

[BucEyedPea]

Dude, I hate to break it to you, but more and more people are getting more and more technology. This isn't a gradual trend, it's an exponential trend.

I'd say the exponential aspect is due to the Bush Doctrine sending shivers down the spine of other nation states out of fear of being invaded if they don't do as the US says to do.

[tiptap]

I've tried to make it clear that you're talking about something different than I am. You keep talking about keeping Iran from getting nukes for eternity, which may or may not be possible. I'm talking about keeping the current Iranian regime from getting nukes, which is entirely possible if we are willing to pay the price. I described this as an academic observation because I'm not saying that we *should* pay the price required to change this regime. I'm not taking a position on that.

But here's the argument against letting the current Iranian regime get nuclear weapons. It's not that I'm particularly afraid of Iran using it's nukes for a first strike because that would surely draw a retaliatory strike that would put an end to whatever it is they hold dear. Instead, the danger of a nuclear Iran is an increase in their aggressive use of their proxy armies, Hezbollah and Hamas, and of their conventional forces to cause problems for their neighbors and expand their influence/control throughout the region. Their nukes would provide a shield that would make them nearly immune from all but the most universal international pressure to reign themselves in.

The notion that nuclear capability translates into more aggressive conventional adventures is bunk. There is no causal relationship. It is a supposition and one that is bunked by the lack of aggressiveness on the part of S. Africa or Brazil or even S. Korea over pre nuclear capability. The relative conventional belligerence is quite displaced from their Nuclear capability. Nuclear capability does make a difference in the safety or defense that a regime holds against foreign invasion.

[alanm]

We have been negotiating with them not just not on the presidential level
It's true. I believe the Swiss have been sending them chocolates. LMAO

[alanm]

Like you honestly give a shit.

If we're f*cking dealing with them, we're f*cking dealing with him. Don't feed me the "we legitimize them by gracing them with the presence of our President!" bullshit. That pomposity and arrogance only leads to more conflicts.
Ah youth. It's so cute.

[BucEyedPea]

Well chocolate will sweeten anyone up. It has chemicals in it that do that.
Send some to Cheney, Podhoretz and Kissinger too.

[HolmeZz]

Ah youth. It's so cute.

That's what a lot of you idiots turn to when you don't have an intelligent response to someone else's point.

[bigfoot]

No that's Hagee and Protestant Dispensationalists....so they can perfect Jews.
You heard it from Coulter first. Some Israel supporters they turned out to be.


We are dealing with the Hitler and Nazis of our time. You can't broker a deal with them. You are as misguided as N Chamberlin if you think that's possible.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410

Hagee, Coulter, and Protestants--Now that really strikes fear!........Give me a break.

[alanm]

Some of the alarmists on the left are suggesting that civilization is about to collapse and that it's only a matter of whether it's global warming or peak oil that gets us first. But I'm not really buying it.

Iran and the current Iranian regime are two different things. We absolutely have the capability to prevent this regime from getting nuclear weapons if it's important enough to us to do so. Dude.
The alarmists on the left aren't happy unless everyone is suffering.
But alas hope and change is on the way and we'll all be dancing congo lines in the street. PBJPBJPBJ

[alanm]

That's what a lot of you idiots turn to when you don't have an intelligent response to someone else's point.
Oh.. like you're penchant for personal attacks for anyone who doesn't agree with you.
You're a decent kid still in school. I was where you are once.
Then I graduated and had to go to work. The real world doesn't give a shit about academia

[mikey23545]

I'm glad you finally see that about Bush and Co ( including his advisors*)


Like advisor Kissinger's quote: " First we do the illegal. Then we do the unConstitutional."

Off your meds again?

[HolmeZz]

Oh.. like you're penchant for personal attacks for anyone who doesn't agree with you.
You're a decent kid still in school. I was where you are once.
Then I graduated and had to go to work. The real world doesn't give a shit about academia

I have no idea what you're gabbing about. It has zero to do with my original post in this thread, which you didn't seem to want to address the content of.

[alanm]

Off your meds again?
Cooking with Reynolds wrap. ;)

[alanm]

I have no idea what you're gabbing about. It has zero to do with my original post in this thread, which you didn't seem to want to address the content of.
What's the point, you're always right. I get it. :spock:

[tiptap]

We are dealing with the Hitler and Nazis of our time. You can't broker a deal with them. You are as misguided as N Chamberlin if you think that's possible.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410

Hagee, Coulter, and Protestants--Now that really strikes fear!........Give me a break.

None of these countries have scientists winning the most Nobel Prizes in Science for 20 years. None of them have industrial capacity. Many can't supply their own refined petroleum products. There is no capacity for sustained military action. Oh yeah there is some ability to foster some attacks here and there but not sustained winning aggressive war apart from what they can buy from somewhere else. It is not the same at all.

[patteeu]

The notion that nuclear capability translates into more aggressive conventional adventures is bunk. There is no causal relationship. It is a supposition and one that is bunked by the lack of aggressiveness on the part of S. Africa or Brazil or even S. Korea over pre nuclear capability. The relative conventional belligerence is quite displaced from their Nuclear capability. Nuclear capability does make a difference in the safety or defense that a regime holds against foreign invasion.

I agree that it's impossible to "prove" a causal link, but your argument based on history of other countries is what is bunk. There is no comparison between Iran and any of the countries you mention. Iran is already aggressive in it's conventional and proxy hijinks in the face of potential retaliation from the west. When that possibility is removed, Iran will have less reason to restrain itself. If you want to take a cue from history, you should compare Iranian activities immediately after our retaliatory invasion of Afghanistan when they feared that they might be next and their recent activities after we became occupied with Iraq and their fear of being targeted dissipated.