The Iran deal

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:46 am

Do I have to repeat how many major pieces of legislation (IRS, Social security, etc.) were very unpopular when passed, and were predicted to bring the end of the world nearer?
And how many of them, now, have become centerpieces of our society. The critics, mercifully, are forgotten.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:53 am

portia wrote: The critics, mercifully, are forgotten.


As long as things go the way you think they should. It's still a huge jerk move to essentially label anybody who disagrees with you as a crazy with nothing substantive to contribute and ignore them on the premise that "history will forget them."
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:18 pm

History will forget them because they turned out to be wrong.
There may or may not have been something in their criticism, at the time, but their opinions turned out to be incorrect, misplaced or unimportant.
Just because someone voices an opinion, loudly, does not assure that the opinion will be sound. The history of these big pieces of legislation is that, generally, the "nay sayers" are not correct.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:43 am

So . . . the same could be said about folks who disapproved of war in Iraq, yes? Despite any substance to their arguments 10 years ago, they are either flat our wrong or simply vastly unimportant now, yes?

I like this thought. It's essentially the philosophization of "what goes around really goes around."
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:30 am

Quite a bit of what the opponents of war in Iraq said was not correct.

You need to read my comment on the Election.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:45 am

hamlet wrote:
portia wrote: The critics, mercifully, are forgotten.


As long as things go the way you think they should. It's still a huge jerk move to essentially label anybody who disagrees with you as a crazy with nothing substantive to contribute and ignore them on the premise that "history will forget them."


If the program lasts more than a few years, history will forget them. If it is a major program to which businesses and other institutions have to change their rules, the new rules will become routine, the Society will adjust, and one generation farther along people will think the critics were hysterical. People will see the benefits and forget what they had to give up (if anything).

If the program lasts only a few years, the result may be different. (an example of the program not convincing everyone is the Pacific Electric trains issue in LA. The trains were abolished and the tracks taken up when the car became common. Now, there are a lot of people wishing we had them back, and a lot of $ is being sent on something that imitates the Pac Elec. trains.)
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:24 am

portia wrote:
hamlet wrote:
portia wrote: The critics, mercifully, are forgotten.


As long as things go the way you think they should. It's still a huge jerk move to essentially label anybody who disagrees with you as a crazy with nothing substantive to contribute and ignore them on the premise that "history will forget them."


If the program lasts more than a few years, history will forget them. If it is a major program to which businesses and other institutions have to change their rules, the new rules will become routine, the Society will adjust, and one generation farther along people will think the critics were hysterical. People will see the benefits and forget what they had to give up (if anything).

If the program lasts only a few years, the result may be different. (an example of the program not convincing everyone is the Pacific Electric trains issue in LA. The trains were abolished and the tracks taken up when the car became common. Now, there are a lot of people wishing we had them back, and a lot of $ is being sent on something that imitates the Pac Elec. trains.)

You've never read Nasredding stories, have you portia?

When Nasreddin, the wandering Sufi sheikh famous throughout the medieval Islamic world, decided that he was getting too old for further travels, he began bragging to anyone with a pair of ears that if he were given an allowance in gold and twenty years' time, he could teach the Persian Shah's favorite horse to read aloud from the Holy Qur'an. The rumor has soon reached the Shah's palace. Outraged by the boastful claim, the Shah ordered Nasreddin to teach the horse to read - or be beheaded should he fail. Nasreddin happily took the gold and the donkey, and proceeded to live in the Shah's palace in comfort from that day on.

Days and weeks passed, and no one understood why Nasreddin remained so carefree in the face of an impossible task. The Shah's servants began making increasingly large bets on whether or not Nasreddin had any magical powers, and one day the Grand Vizier himself came to Nasreddin and offered a generous bribe to reveal just how he planned to teach a horse to read.

"My friend," said Nasreddin, having taken the Vizier's gold, "I need not succeed in my labor. I am an old man, the Shah is an old man, and his horse is an old horse. Twenty years from now, one of us shall surely die".

You're correct that eventually people will forget - correct in the Nasreddin sense of it. Give it enough time, and everything becomes irrelevant. Twenty years from now, the disastrous consequences of the Iran deal will come and go, spawning consequences of their own, and they will overshadow the original cause. Once Obama is out of office for a few years, blaming him for anything will become bad taste because that ship will have long sailed, and because the American public's memory is famously short. So you're right that it will be forgotten, but not because it isn't a bad deal.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:18 am

US Acts to Open Dialogue With Iran About Syria, Yemen Crises

This pretty much confirms my belief that the goal of Obama's Iran deal was not preventing Iran from going nuclear but rather deliberately empowering Iran for regional domination and courting it as an ally.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:00 pm

Story:
I can understand that you have a specific point of view on Middle East issues, but there is a LOT of space between shooting and talking on an issue. They do not overlap. Talking to someone about a issue does not mean that anyone has sold out or changed sides. It is only a recognition that war is the least beneficial means of settling a controversy and if there is some other path, the other path is probably better.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sun Sep 27, 2015 11:12 pm

portia wrote:Story:
I can understand that you have a specific point of view on Middle East issues, but there is a LOT of space between shooting and talking on an issue. They do not overlap. Talking to someone about a issue does not mean that anyone has sold out or changed sides. It is only a recognition that war is the least beneficial means of settling a controversy and if there is some other path, the other path is probably better.

That's what they said when negotiations with Iran were beginning - it's just talking. Doesn't mean concessions would be made, doesn't mean that anyone has sold out.

And then concessions were made and someone sold out.

More interestingly, are you saying that if Obama doesn't "talk" to Iran on Syria, it will cause war?
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:23 am

Portia: Well, you'd be hard pressed to find somebody here actively advocating for a shooting war with Iran. Even Storyteller, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm incorrect, is not advocating that.

However, what has been accomplished with this deal is not the prevention of a war, but the widening of it and, as Story pointed out, setting the stage for Iran to be a regional political power with strong dominance. A regional power that is rhetorically still hostile to the US and if you think it's going to get better then I'd say you're delusional.

Essentially, you've let a power hostile to the US and Saudi Arabia (if I'm not mistaken) take steps into being more dominant. Last I counted, Saudi Arabia was as close as it came to being an actual ally in that region short of Israel (which is rapidly on its way to general ennui where the US is concerned) and Iraq (by which I mean the US empowered government which has little authority and ability outside of a rapdily shrinking sphere of influence).

I fail to see this as a positive development in any way.

Storyteller wrote:More interestingly, are you saying that if Obama doesn't "talk" to Iran on Syria, it will cause war?


I feel the need to point out that there's already a war with Syria. And Yemen. And Russia. And . . .

That ship has more than sailed, it's left the bay and promptly run aground.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:39 am

You only thinkthat this will result in a widening of war, and not the avoidance of it. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not co-extensive with accurate forecasting. If it were, you would not waste your time with this forum: you would be out in public making forecasts, and charging a lot of money for them.

I keep wondering why we were hearing, in the Clinton Admin., that the Iranians would have a nuclear bomb in two years. What happened? Well software sabotage may have had some effect, but I frankly think that something else is going on. Take your pick: technical glitches that were unknown, maybe the Iranians are more interested in domestic nuclear power, or anything else.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:51 am

portia wrote:You only thinkthat this will result in a widening of war, and not the avoidance of it. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not co-extensive with accurate forecasting. If it were, you would not waste your time with this forum: you would be out in public making forecasts, and charging a lot of money for them.

I keep wondering why we were hearing, in the Clinton Admin., that the Iranians would have a nuclear bomb in two years. What happened? Well software sabotage may have had some effect, but I frankly think that something else is going on. Take your pick: technical glitches that were unknown, maybe the Iranians are more interested in domestic nuclear power, or anything else.

Sanctions were going on, among other things. It's hard to do this kind of expensive projects when you're short on cash. The threat of military response delayed the Iranian nuclear program by a good amount since they had to construct bomb-proof facilities like Fordow and Natanz. This, again, meant money, and funding shortages delayed work quite a bit. Their facilities are located, for strategic reasons, in locations poorly suited for it by climate and topography; the Bushehr site required developing special painting technologies because with the sheer amount of ocean brine in the air at that location it was near-impossible to rust-proof the machinery. Also, Russia delayed completing some of the sites for Iran because of American pressure, Ukraine was persuaded in 2005 not to supply turbines, etc. Add several major earthquakes on top of it all.

They just didn't have the resources to move fast.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:40 am

portia wrote:You only thinkthat this will result in a widening of war, and not the avoidance of it. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not co-extensive with accurate forecasting. If it were, you would not waste your time with this forum: you would be out in public making forecasts, and charging a lot of money for them.
.


So . . . I'm wrong because I'm posting my opinion in fly by posts between meetings here instead of out making policy as, for argument's sake, a senator while you're right because . . . well you're just special?

I think it will lead to a widening of war in the region because it IS leading to a widening of war. Russia is now militarily active in Syria with the stated goal of keeping Assad in office. Russia IS courting Iran to join that effort which WILL make Iran more powrful and, at best, a close ally with Russia and Putin which is, shall we say, less than desireable given the nature of Mr. Putin and Iran's penchant for conflating military/political goals with religous ones which will certainly lead to oppression of dissenting religous opinions.

Granted, that last bit is a bit of prognostication, but I don't find it even remotely far fetched. The first part was on the morning news today.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:48 am

So, just to summarize, Republicans want to give Netanyahu his war with Iran, they want war in Syria against ISIS and Iran and Russia, and they want another war with Russia over the Crimea.

Meanwhile, they intend to pay for all these wars by giving tax cuts to billionaires and by keeping gay people from getting married. They also intend to build a HUGE wall on the Mexican border, but that'll be easy because Mexico will pay for it - I guess we'll threaten war against them too if they refuse? Oh, and the Constitution is meaningless and should be totally ignored wherever anyone thinks it conflicts with something they think Jesus might have said once, even if he didn't.

Oh, and Confederate Flags are very Patriotic.

Got it, thank you GOP!
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:07 pm

Minardil wrote:So, just to summarize, Republicans want to give Netanyahu his war with Iran, they want war in Syria against ISIS and Iran and Russia, and they want another war with Russia over the Crimea.

Meanwhile, they intend to pay for all these wars by giving tax cuts to billionaires and by keeping gay people from getting married. They also intend to build a HUGE wall on the Mexican border, but that'll be easy because Mexico will pay for it - I guess we'll threaten war against them too if they refuse? Oh, and the Constitution is meaningless and should be totally ignored wherever anyone thinks it conflicts with something they think Jesus might have said once, even if he didn't.

Oh, and Confederate Flags are very Patriotic.

Got it, thank you GOP!


And what exactly was that supposed to contribute? Or . . . just generic Conservative bashing?
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:10 pm

I don't know which is sadder, Hamlet, whether you consider a listing of your party's stated policy objectives to be "bashing", or that you think any of their positions are remotely "conservative".

There is no further value in discourse with any self-identified "conservative". You've all gone insane.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:28 pm

Minardil wrote:So, just to summarize, Republicans want to give Netanyahu his war with Iran, they want war in Syria against ISIS and Iran and Russia, and they want another war with Russia over the Crimea.

Meanwhile, they intend to pay for all these wars by giving tax cuts to billionaires and by keeping gay people from getting married. They also intend to build a HUGE wall on the Mexican border, but that'll be easy because Mexico will pay for it - I guess we'll threaten war against them too if they refuse? Oh, and the Constitution is meaningless and should be totally ignored wherever anyone thinks it conflicts with something they think Jesus might have said once, even if he didn't.

Oh, and Confederate Flags are very Patriotic.

Got it, thank you GOP!

Nah. You'll just make peace with everybody by giving them good speeches and everything they want, because you've got this awesome speechmaker President whose charisma can put it all right. There is no harm in talking, and no consequences. And ISIS, Russia and everything else will just go away by itself like a flu, just give it enough time and drink lots of hot tea.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:46 am

Argentina's President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner claims that the Obama administration sent their Coordinator for Arms Control to Argentina with a request that they provide Iran (then still under Ahmadinejad) with nuclear fuel - and they backed away from it when Argentina asked for the request to be put in writing.

I don't trust Kirchner one bit, but it would fit in with the rest of the known events pretty well.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:11 am

Minardil wrote:I don't know which is sadder, Hamlet, whether you consider a listing of your party's stated policy objectives to be "bashing", or that you think any of their positions are remotely "conservative".

There is no further value in discourse with any self-identified "conservative". You've all gone insane.


My party? Where have I ever indicated that I am a Republican?

My comment was merely that your post contributed nothing to the thread at all other than snide self assured superiority crisis.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:38 am

Since I am mostly in favor of free speech, I usually listen politely while people lecture me on what "Will" happen if this or that course of action is followed.

But it is all speculation and opinion, usually either biased or ignorant or both. So, I am more interested in letting events work themselves out. Maybe mentioning something that I feel someone has forgotten, and needs to recall.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Tue Oct 06, 2015 11:59 am

portia wrote:Since I am mostly in favor of free speech, I usually listen politely while people lecture me on what "Will" happen if this or that course of action is followed.

But it is all speculation and opinion, usually either biased or ignorant or both. So, I am more interested in letting events work themselves out. Maybe mentioning something that I feel someone has forgotten, and needs to recall.

I can almost believe your declaration of passivity and "letting events work themselves out... but something tells me you vote.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:45 am

Yes, indeed. But a vote relates to a great many issues; not just one.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:41 am

UAE to US lawmaker: We have a right to enrich uranium, too

WASHINGTON (AP) — Amid fears of an atomic arms race in the Middle East, a senior United Arab Emirates official has told a top US lawmaker that it too might seek the right to enrich uranium that Iran has asserted under the recently signed nuclear deal.

The landmark Iran accord to curb its nuclear weapons in exchange for economic sanctions relief allows Tehran to enrich uranium. In barely noticed testimony last month, Rep. Ed Royce (R-California), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the UAE’s ambassador in Washington, Yousef al-Otaiba, had informed him in a telephone call that the country no longer felt bound by its previous nuclear agreement with the United States.

“He told me, ‘Your worst enemy has achieved this right to enrich. It’s a right to enrich now that your friends are going to want, too, and we won’t be the only country,'” Royce said in a phone interview with The Associated Press this week, elaborating on his testimony.

In a 2009 pact with the UAE, the United States agreed to share materials, technology and equipment for producing nuclear energy. In the accord — known as a 123 Agreement — the UAE made a bold pledge not to enrich uranium or reprocess spent fuel to extract plutonium, two pathways to an atomic weapon.

Asked to respond, the UAE Embassy in Washington sent a one-sentence email that said the “government has not formally changed its views or perspective on the 123 Agreement or commitments.” The UAE has said in the past that it welcomes the nuclear deal reached with Iran.

However, Royce said al-Otaiba told him that the UAE “no longer felt bound” by those provisions of the agreement. While he said al-Otaiba did not explicitly state that his country was walking away from them, Royce said, “I took that to mean that they had the right to do that and that it was under consideration.”

The State Department declined requests for comment.

Royce and other opponents of the Iran nuclear deal have repeatedly warned that the accord will unleash a cascade of proliferation in the unstable Middle East or set off an arms race in a hotbed for terrorists. Proponents say it will make the region safer by preventing Tehran from having the means to produce bomb material for more than a decade or longer.

At a House subcommittee hearing on Sept. 10, Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) quizzed Frank Klotz, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, about whether the UAE had contacted the US about wanting to forego the part of the 123 Agreement that restricts it from enriching uranium. Klotz said he had no knowledge of it.

A week earlier, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, pressed the Obama administration for details on whether any nation had asked to renegotiate or alter obligations in 123 Agreements signed with the United States after the Iran deal.

In a Sept. 3 letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and National Intelligence Director James Clapper, the two GOP lawmakers wrote: “The committees require the administration to provide details regarding whether any state party to a 123 Agreement with the United States has notified the administration that it intends to renegotiate or otherwise alter its obligations under such an agreement due to the” Iran nuclear deal.

“Similarly, the committees require the administration to provide any other information it may have concerning the intentions of allies with respect to their civil nuclear capabilities,” the letter said.

The United States has signed similar 123 Agreements with about 20 countries. The name comes from Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, which requires such accords when the US is transferring significant amounts of nuclear material, equipment or components to other nations for peaceful energy production. The goal is to prevent further proliferation of material that also can be used to build nuclear weapons.

The UAE’s pledge not to enrich has been dubbed the “gold standard” in 123 Agreements. Other nations have resisted making legal commitments that would forever prevent them from being able to enrich.

“The UAE, which has a strong commitment to nonproliferation and global nuclear disarmament, is a notable exception,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the independent Arms Control Association, which supported the Iran deal.

“If the UAE were to seek to back out of its commitment not to pursue enrichment and reprocessing, it would be a symbolic setback to the longstanding goal of preventing the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies — which can be used for civilian or military purposes,” he said.

But even if the UAE backed away from its pledge not to enrich, Kimball said it doesn’t mean it has aspirations of building a nuclear weapon.

The issue still rankles Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), who opposed the Iran nuclear deal.

In a lengthy speech to announce his opposition in August, Menendez said: “Imagine how a country like the United Arab Emirates — sitting just miles away from Iran across the Strait of Hormuz — feels after they sign a civilian nuclear agreement with the US … to not enrich or reprocess uranium?”


Obama will be remembered, that's for sure. As the man who set off the new nuclear arms race.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:35 pm

So the Iran deal has just been officially violated, with no consequences to follow:

US confirms Iran tested nuclear-capable ballistic missile.

The United States has confirmed that Iran tested a medium-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, in "clear violation" of a United Nations Security Council ban on ballistic missile tests, a senior US official said on Friday.

"The United States is deeply concerned about Iran's recent ballistic missile launch," US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said in a statement.

"After reviewing the available information, we can confirm that Iran launched on Oct. 10 a medium-range ballistic missile inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon," she said. "This was a clear violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1929."

The United States is preparing a report on the incident for the Security Council's Iran Sanctions Committee and will raise the matter directly with Security Council members "in the coming days," Power said.

Council diplomats have told Reuters it was possible to sanction additional Iranian individuals or entities by adding them to an existing UN blacklist. However, they noted that Russia and China, which have opposed the sanctions on Iran's missile program, might block any such moves.

"The Security Council prohibition on Iran's ballistic missile activities, as well as the arms embargo, remain in place," Power said. "We will continue to press the Security Council for an appropriate response to Iran's disregard for its international obligations."

Ballistic missile tests by Iran are banned under Security Council resolution 1929, which was adopted in 2010 and remains valid until a nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers goes into effect. Under that deal, reached on July 14, most sanctions on Iran will be lifted in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

Once the deal takes effect, Iran will still be "called upon" to refrain from undertaking any work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons for a period of up to eight years, according to a Security Council resolution adopted in July.

Countries would be allowed to transfer missile technology and heavy weapons to Iran on a case-by-case basis with council approval.

However, in July a US official called this provision meaningless and said the United States would veto any suggested transfer of ballistic missile technology to Iran.

On Sunday, the United States, the European Union and Iran are expected to announce a series of measures to comply with the nuclear deal that will take effect once the UN International Atomic Energy Agency confirms Iranian compliance with terms of the agreement.
Last edited by Storyteller on Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:23 am

I do not now why you are using up posting space with these long, pointless posts. It is up to you, I suppose, but the rest of us are free to ignore them.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:18 am

To remind you what you're ignoring.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:53 am

portia wrote:I do not now why you are using up posting space with these long, pointless posts. It is up to you, I suppose, but the rest of us are free to ignore them.


I fail to see how they are pointless. If nothing else, it's good evidence to back up the assertion that the deal with Iran is not as great as a lot of folks make it out to be and that it has a whole lot of unintended consequences, the least of which is not that suddenly other nations in the region are insisting that they too be permitted to enrich uranium.

I would also fail to see how they are long.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:59 pm

Iran Issues Ultimatum: Stop Examining ‘Military Dimensions’ of Nuclear Program or Deal Is Off

Iran gave the international community an ultimatum on Thursday, its semi-official Fars News Agency reported.

The ultimatum — either stop focusing on the Possible Military Dimension (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program or forget about implementing the nuclear deal — was spelled out by Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi, a chief negotiator with the P5+1, in a televised interview.

The P5+1 countries and International Atomic Energy Agency are “well aware that they have to choose between [continuing to investigate] the PMD [case] and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” Aragchi said.

“If the PMD [case] is not closed, and even if there remains a chance of return of the PMD, it would mean that the JCPOA will not move ahead,” he said, and Iran, “will not fulfill its remaining commitments under the JCPOA.”

Aragchi was echoing remarks made last week by Reza Najafi, Iran’s Ambassador to the IAEA, who said that Iran’s implementation of the JCPOA was conditional upon the closing of the PMD case.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:16 am

I think I should report you to the aspca for beating a dead horse.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest