I think that if they produce 1.5kg, there might not be a noticable difference. If they produced, say, 10kg (which is what is needed) it would be a much longer period of time, or a much more intense amount of action.
Official Iran Thread
- Thread starter Perun
- Start date
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
How much do they have now? Can we really know? Was not the purpose of this deal to stop them from getting a nuke. It really does not seem like it does, at best it delays them and in the meantime the regime gets stronger with oi revenue and I would be willing to bet orgs like Hezbollah do as well.
Again, I am fine with a deal, I do not think this is a good one. .... beyond cheaper gas, which is always nice
Again, I am fine with a deal, I do not think this is a good one. .... beyond cheaper gas, which is always nice
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I'll add that I enjoyed the discussion about this .. but just landed in Colorado. Off to the Rocky Mountain National Park, avoiding Coors beer like the plague, and debating if I want a pot brownie or not 
We'll see how the Iran deal works out, I am clearly uneasy about it. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt I am
We'll see how the Iran deal works out, I am clearly uneasy about it. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt I am
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Well, granted it was 10 years ago (and a different President), but there is this, which many Americans believe is Iran's (and the Supreme Leader's) genuinely held view:
Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."
The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by IRNA.
...
Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by IRNA.
...
Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
SOURCE: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/
Last edited:
It was indeed more than ten years ago, it was Ahmadinejad, and what he literally said is that Israel must "disappear", which is not necessarily a mission statement. The translation by MEMRI which is quoted by most other media is, as always, quite tendentious, and the institute has been repeatedly criticised for this.
What is more interesting in this context is that a few days after Ahmadinejad's speech, Khamene'i, who is in fact the supreme leader of Iran and the guy who actually has the power, said that Iran will not commit acts of aggression against any nation. Now, I'm not going to portray Khamene'i as a good guy, but these are two conflicting statements, and Khamenei's words have more authority. And again - it was ten years ago. Ever since, how many missiles has Iran launched against Israel?
An excellent summary of how the agreement works:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ce_constrain_the_islamic_republic.single.html
"The timing of sanctions-relief is addressed in Annex V of the document, and it’s very clear that nothing gets lifted right away. This is a step-by-step process.
The first step is “Adoption Day,” which occurs 90 days after the deal is endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. On that day, the United States and the European Union start taking legal steps to lift certain sanctions—while Iran must pass the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which allows for onsite inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency) and issue a statement on “Past and Present Issues of Concern,” acknowledging or explaining military aspects of its nuclear program in the past. (Many critics were certain that Iran would never own up to this obligation.)
The second step is “Implementation Day.” This is when the West really starts to lift sanctions, but only “upon the IAEA-verified implementation by Iran of the nuclear-related measures”—that is, only after international inspectors are satisfied that Iran has fulfilled its main responsibilities in freezing and reducing elements of its nuclear program. Section 15 of Annex V lists 11 specific requirements that Iran must have fulfilled, including converting the Arak heavy-water research reactor, so it can no longer produce plutonium; reducing the number of centrifuges and halting production of advanced centrifuges; slashing its uranium stocks; and completing all “transparency measures” to let the inspectors do their job.
The third step is “Transition Day,” when more sanctions are dropped. This happens eight years after Adoption Day, and even then only after the IAEA Board of Governors issues a report, concluding “that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities.”
Finally, there is “UNSCR [U.N. Security Council Resolution] Termination Day,” when the Security Council drops all of its remaining nuclear-related sanctions. This happens 10 years after Adoption Day.
In other words, sanctions are not lifted upon the signing of the deal or anytime at all soon—and when they are lifted, it’s only after inspectors signify that Iran is abiding by the terms of the deal, not simply that a certain date on the calendar has passed.
But how will the inspectors know this? The Advanced Protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran must sign and ratify soon, allows international inspectors inside known nuclear sites. But what about covert sites? This has always been a knotty issue in arms control talks. No country would sign an accord that lets outsiders inspect any military site of their choosing simply because they “suspect” covert nuclear activity might be going on there. And yet covert nuclear activity might be going on somewhere. How to reconcile this genuine dilemma?
The deal’s section on “Access,” beginning with Article 74, lays out the protocols. If the inspectors suspect that nuclear activities are going on at undeclared sites, they will request access, laying out the reasons for their concerns. If access is denied, the matter can be turned over to a joint commission, consisting of delegates from the countries that negotiated the deal, which would have to rule on the request—either by consensus or majority vote—within seven days.
This may seem legalistic to some, but what are the alternatives? Meanwhile, under other articles of the deal, the inspectors will have access to the complete “supply chain” of Iran’s nuclear materials—from the production of centrifuges to the stockpile of uranium to such esoterica as all work on neutrons, uranium metallurgy, and multipoint detonation optics. For instance, centrifuge rotor tubes and bellows will be kept under surveillance for 20 years.
The point is, cheating—pursuing an atomic weapon covertly—requires a number of steps, at a number of complexes, some of which are very likely to be detected, given the IAEA’s rights of surveillance. If Iran suddenly denies IAEA those rights, if it ignores a decision by the joint commission, the United States and the European Union can pull out of the deal and reinstate the sanctions."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ce_constrain_the_islamic_republic.single.html
"The timing of sanctions-relief is addressed in Annex V of the document, and it’s very clear that nothing gets lifted right away. This is a step-by-step process.
The first step is “Adoption Day,” which occurs 90 days after the deal is endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. On that day, the United States and the European Union start taking legal steps to lift certain sanctions—while Iran must pass the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which allows for onsite inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency) and issue a statement on “Past and Present Issues of Concern,” acknowledging or explaining military aspects of its nuclear program in the past. (Many critics were certain that Iran would never own up to this obligation.)
The second step is “Implementation Day.” This is when the West really starts to lift sanctions, but only “upon the IAEA-verified implementation by Iran of the nuclear-related measures”—that is, only after international inspectors are satisfied that Iran has fulfilled its main responsibilities in freezing and reducing elements of its nuclear program. Section 15 of Annex V lists 11 specific requirements that Iran must have fulfilled, including converting the Arak heavy-water research reactor, so it can no longer produce plutonium; reducing the number of centrifuges and halting production of advanced centrifuges; slashing its uranium stocks; and completing all “transparency measures” to let the inspectors do their job.
The third step is “Transition Day,” when more sanctions are dropped. This happens eight years after Adoption Day, and even then only after the IAEA Board of Governors issues a report, concluding “that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities.”
Finally, there is “UNSCR [U.N. Security Council Resolution] Termination Day,” when the Security Council drops all of its remaining nuclear-related sanctions. This happens 10 years after Adoption Day.
In other words, sanctions are not lifted upon the signing of the deal or anytime at all soon—and when they are lifted, it’s only after inspectors signify that Iran is abiding by the terms of the deal, not simply that a certain date on the calendar has passed.
But how will the inspectors know this? The Advanced Protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran must sign and ratify soon, allows international inspectors inside known nuclear sites. But what about covert sites? This has always been a knotty issue in arms control talks. No country would sign an accord that lets outsiders inspect any military site of their choosing simply because they “suspect” covert nuclear activity might be going on there. And yet covert nuclear activity might be going on somewhere. How to reconcile this genuine dilemma?
The deal’s section on “Access,” beginning with Article 74, lays out the protocols. If the inspectors suspect that nuclear activities are going on at undeclared sites, they will request access, laying out the reasons for their concerns. If access is denied, the matter can be turned over to a joint commission, consisting of delegates from the countries that negotiated the deal, which would have to rule on the request—either by consensus or majority vote—within seven days.
This may seem legalistic to some, but what are the alternatives? Meanwhile, under other articles of the deal, the inspectors will have access to the complete “supply chain” of Iran’s nuclear materials—from the production of centrifuges to the stockpile of uranium to such esoterica as all work on neutrons, uranium metallurgy, and multipoint detonation optics. For instance, centrifuge rotor tubes and bellows will be kept under surveillance for 20 years.
The point is, cheating—pursuing an atomic weapon covertly—requires a number of steps, at a number of complexes, some of which are very likely to be detected, given the IAEA’s rights of surveillance. If Iran suddenly denies IAEA those rights, if it ignores a decision by the joint commission, the United States and the European Union can pull out of the deal and reinstate the sanctions."
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Nice to see Slate is still mouthing the White House Press releases. The "summary" leaves out the restrictions on inspections, the sunset clause that lets Iran spin up as much as the want after 10 years with no sanctions.
In the meantime thousands of centrifuges will be spinning , Iran will bring in millions and millions of dollars fairly quickly to prop up their regime and continue funding Hezbollah.
We got nothing from this deal of substance beyond a slowdown of Iran's nukes and gave up a fair amount
Back in February the IEAA pretty much said Iran has hidden facilities and it seems iffy that those will be disclosed
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...es-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html?_r=1
In the meantime thousands of centrifuges will be spinning , Iran will bring in millions and millions of dollars fairly quickly to prop up their regime and continue funding Hezbollah.
We got nothing from this deal of substance beyond a slowdown of Iran's nukes and gave up a fair amount
Back in February the IEAA pretty much said Iran has hidden facilities and it seems iffy that those will be disclosed
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...es-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html?_r=1
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
The soon to be Democratic leader in the Senate announced he would vote against the Iran deal
-------------------------------------
Last night, during the attention-sucking Republican primary debate, the Huffington Post reported that Senator Chuck Schumer planned to announce his opposition to the Iran deal on Friday. A day later, aides said that not only was he planning to vote in favor of a resolution disapproving of the agreement, but he would also vote to override a veto.
"I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy," he wrote in a statement published on Medium this morning. "It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be."
-------------------------------------
Last night, during the attention-sucking Republican primary debate, the Huffington Post reported that Senator Chuck Schumer planned to announce his opposition to the Iran deal on Friday. A day later, aides said that not only was he planning to vote in favor of a resolution disapproving of the agreement, but he would also vote to override a veto.
"I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy," he wrote in a statement published on Medium this morning. "It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be."
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
The Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran in January to settle a decades-old legal dispute just as the Iranians were releasing four Americans detained byTehran, The Wall Street Journal reportedWednesday.
The Journal, citing U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation, said wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currency were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane.
The money was the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the administration reached with Iran to resolve a 37-year-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the fall of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979. The legal wrangling was being arbitrated before the international tribunal in The Hague.
According to the Journal, senior U.S. officials denied the payment was a quid pro quo for the release of the prisoners. They said the timing was coincidental.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/03/report-400m-flown-iran-us-prisoners-freed/87992898/
Yeah .. right.
The Journal, citing U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation, said wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currency were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane.
The money was the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the administration reached with Iran to resolve a 37-year-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the fall of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979. The legal wrangling was being arbitrated before the international tribunal in The Hague.
According to the Journal, senior U.S. officials denied the payment was a quid pro quo for the release of the prisoners. They said the timing was coincidental.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/03/report-400m-flown-iran-us-prisoners-freed/87992898/
Yeah .. right.
I dunno, it makes sense to me. The USA has locked up billions in Iranian money, and is releasing it, and paying some that they owed for quite awhile.
It was reported:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/
That is CNN from Jan 17th, where it reports that the $400 million fund the US had frozen is being returned to them.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/
That is CNN from Jan 17th, where it reports that the $400 million fund the US had frozen is being returned to them.
The US is required to pay the money by their settlement at the international tribunal...I'm sure that the US not reneging on their debts is giving a positive and helps improve the US's image in Iran, making it more likely. But it sounds like one hand didn't know what the other was doing, or they'd have made a bigger deal with it not being about hostage exchange.
In short, sure. It makes US look better, but Iran was getting that money no matter what.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Seems like at least one hand knew what the other way doing .. not sure why they did not say this to start with instead of denying they were releated
------------------
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-payment-idUSKCN10T2E9
The U.S. State Department said on Thursday it released $400 million in cash to Iran under a tribunal settlement only once it was assured that American prisoners had been freed and had boarded a plane.
"The payment of the $400 million was not done until after the prisoners were released," State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters.
"We took advantage of that to make sure we had the maximum leverage possible to get our people out and get them out safely," Kirby added.
It was the first time the administration has said publicly that it used the payment as leverage to ensure the prisoners were released by Iran.
...
The administration had maintained that negotiations over the funds and the prisoners were conducted on separate tracks and were in no way linked.
Yeah, that's sad. Not the worst thing in the world, but unnecessary lying is bullshit. I get why, to save face and stuff. But it just is very sad.