Iran Nuclear Negotiations

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

That's only one part of the problem. As has been posted here long ago, Turkey said they too will need nuclear weapons if Iran has them. Pakistan is rumored to have set aside some nuclear weapons for Saudi Arabia should Iran build one. Khan (of Pakistan) has successfully created a new market for Pakistani exports.

Yes, Saudi's have already ordered their first nuclear package from Pakistan. I'm sure others will follow, if Iran is able to keep theirs.

Nobody in the Middle East trusts Iran not to get nuclear weapons, if it has nuclear facilities hidden in the mountains, and without any inspectors from the international community.

Does not help that George Jr blew a giant hole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by offering nuclear material to India. And that Iran and N Korea both need nuclear weapons because of his 'Axis of Evil' speech that said we will unilaterally attack both nations.

We had to get India into nuclear arms, because it had two threats that were very real:

1) China was ready to annex a large part of Northern India.

2) Pakistan was ready to annex all of the Kashmir region.

And both of the above already had nuclear weapons, and aggressive nationalistic policy leaders in place.

North Korea HAD already been working on a nuclear bomb, long before we knew about it, or George Bush Jr. was president. When that became known, THEN they became part of Bush's "Axis of Evil", and it is hard to say he's wrong.

OK, the "Axis" part is wrong, simply because there is no unity between these countries. No Treaties to support each other, etc., are known to exist, so there is no axis. Sorry George!

When a country swears it will wipe you out, and works hard to develop nuclear weapons to make it possible, in secret, it's only logical to put them on your Evil list, isn't it?

How much more evil do they have to be?

These nuclear proliferation problems were created, in part, by an American government that even invented Saddam's WMDs because they (ie Cheney) only saw solutions in military actions. It is a legacy we and the region must now live with. And a lesson on why problems must be solve diplomatically.

Many problems can't be solved diplomatically. Iran for instance, won't budge "one iota" from it's position. North Korea has negotiated, but only to go right back to working on nuclear weapons, again. Still threatening to wipe out South Korea, the U.S., and our friendly nations. ("puppets" in their words).

The only reason the Cold War came to an end, is because the Soviet Union ran out of money - they were utterly broke.

There WAS no "diplomatic solution" until they couldn't feed their people, and prepare for war, anymore.

Concepts even explained in "The Art of War" were violated by Cheney who could only understand military solutions - with contempt for the American serviceman. He never understood the power or need for diplomacy (which explains his contempt for Colin Powell).

Cheney routinely violated those and many other well understood concepts. And so we have these now serous nuclear problems.

Iran is now stuck in the nuclear development pipeline because we said we would unilaterally attack Iran. And inadvertently may have created or encouraged a region wide nuclear standoff. It may not only be Israel and Iran. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia will also need those weapons. Pakistan will be happy to provide them.

We have to include Iran in the Evil category, not because they are developing nuclear facilities, but because they sponsor (HUGELY) Hezbollah. You may recall that Hezbollah was the group that bombed the Marine barracks when they were in Lebanon, trying to keep the peace in that countries civil war.

I would call Iran many things, but a peace loving nation is not one of them. Nuclear ambitions aside, they do NOT seek peace. They sponsor terror.

Iraq didn't have WMD, when we invaded, but they had them previously - we know, because we sold them specialized equipment for creating poison gas, decades before. Saddam had the program terminated after the outcry over his gassing of the Kurds in a few villages, reached the media.

Saddam never had nuclear weapons, or facilities to create them, but he did have a LOT of mobile missile launchers, aimed at Israel. Before the advent of the better Patriot Missile defense system (and now Iron Dome, etc), those would have been devastating, if used. We had a hell of a hard time finding and destroying them, btw.

If you're hunting for outrage or sympathy for Saddam being deposed in Iraq, you won't find it here. I wouldn't have done it probably, but I don't have the benefit of intelligence briefings by the CIA, etc., either. The world is not a worse place, because Saddam and his topmost regime, are gone from Iraq.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

We had to get India into nuclear arms, because it had two threats that were very real:

1) China was ready to annex a large part of Northern India.

2) Pakistan was ready to annex all of the Kashmir region.

Too much soundbyte reasoning in those statements. Even the story of Marine barracks in Lebanon changes completely once we include numerous other facts - that cannot be presented in soundbytes.

Take India. India already has plenty of nuclear weapons. They did not need that hole in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What George Jr was doing to undermine that treaty (as he was doing to other treaties even with Russia) is confounding.

Meanwhile, we also know Clinton literally flew shuttle diplomacy between India and Pakistan to defuse what was almost a nuclear exchange. Because India had more than enough nuclear weapons before George Jr was president.

India did not need more nuclear material. But appreciate a paranoia in Pakistan. Every year, as many babies are born in India as the entire population of Pakistan. The most serious threat to nations of that region (and to the US) is Pakistan. Putting more nuclear material in that region (in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty) does not make it safer.

That is a simple example. That cannot be explained in a soundbyte. Those other points required many times more facts not possible in soundbyte conclusions.


Iran clearly has interest in negotiating a solution. Because embargos do work. Iran elected a moderate leader; not a wacko extremist like Ahmadinejad. Somehow a consortium of world top power sent naive idiots to negotiate a resolve to the Iranian crisis? That is the theme of your posts. As if American, British, UN, French, Russian, et al negotiators know less than you?

We know they are negotiating in a hotel because Iran finally has interest in settling this problem. Because sanctions have been so effective as to even get extremists removed from power.

Now let's see what people who know better finally resolve.

[Griff]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25074729

Iran has agreed to curb some of its nuclear activities in return for about $7bn (£4.3bn) in sanctions relief, after days of intense talks in Geneva.

US President Barack Obama welcomed the deal, saying it included "substantial limitations which will help prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon".

Iran agreed to give better access to inspectors and halt some of its work on uranium enrichment.

President Rouhani said the interim deal recognised Iran's nuclear "rights".

But he repeated, in a nationwide broadcast, that his country would never seek a nuclear weapon.

[Adak]

I applaud their efforts in this negotiation, but Iran has not put a REAL stop to their nuclear ambitions.

As Israeili Prime Minister Netanyahu, states here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25083875
(video link near the middle of the article)

Some sanctions that took years to put into place, and more years to become effective, will be removed, but Iran could be back enriching it's uranium in a matter of a few weeks. The plutonium is still there, the heavy water reactor is still functioning.

Not just still THERE, but still a working nuclear facility.

The world powers have told Iran it's OK to have their own nuclear enrichment site. If Iran can have one, then everyone can have one - that's clear. This is a major precedent, surely.

And what about the inspections? They can be held daily, at just two facilities - notably, NOT at the heavy water facility.

Hoping for the best here; short term, it's easy to see it as a win-win, but I'm not optimistic about the terms of this deal, being enough to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. How hard can it be to have your nuclear weapons program run from sites OTHER THAN, the two being inspected, over and over?

We can win wars frequently, but we're not nearly as good at winning negotiations.

[Griff]

What have we won with war lately?

Bibi will not be satisfied with anything short of war. Thankfully he isn't part of our government, although he does have his minions.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

What have we won with war lately?

Wars are won only when we are reluctant to engage. Wars are lost by nations in a hurry to conduct one.

Israel's Likud is an example of the latter. Likud will heavily compaign for unilateral attacks (and against peace) where they are more often successful - the US Congress.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

Wars are won only when we are reluctant to engage. Wars are lost by nations in a hurry to conduct one.

Well said.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Griff

What have we won with war lately?

Bibi will not be satisfied with anything short of war. Thankfully he isn't part of our government, although he does have his minions.

1)
With the help of the cold war arms race, we destroyed the Soviet pact of nations aligned with Russia. Many are now independent, and democratic republics. That is to say, their lack of a vibrant economy, destroyed themselves, with few bullets having been fired.

That's the biggest step toward world freedom of nations, since the break up of the Ottoman Empire, almost a hundred years ago, so it's a VERY big deal.

2)
We stopped the German nationalists/fascists, twice. If we had not done so, we would now be either German servants/slaves, or exterminated in more efficient gas chambers/crematoriums.

This is what the Germans told the Lithuanians after they were conquered in WWII, when asked what will become of us:

"We are leaving for the Eastern Front. You will be allowed to work for us, until we get back. Eventually, you will be liquidated."

So stopping the fascists was a pretty big deal, if you aren't fond of Cyclon B gas.

3)
We replace a repressive dictator in Iraq. Bush lied to us to do it, but still, it's done, and I'm not sad about knocking off a regime that gassed it's own citizens, and started two wars (with Iran and us, in Desert Shield), and invaded two other countries: Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Whether you believe the ripple effect of this was the springboard for the "Arab Spring" or not, is up to you. Some would say it was, and I find their argument of the time line, believable.

4)
We knocked a big hole in Al-Qaeda's groups of religious fascists. It hasn't put them out of business, but they're busy dodging hellfire missiles, pretty much, to attack us very successfully.

5)
The U.N. was begun to work out issues that without diplomacy, would lead to war. Without WWI and WWII, there wouldn't be a U.N.

6)
Since the US was not attacked directly (much), during these wars, we were hugely benefited by the industrial capacity we had, to be the supplier or war material, to the Allies. This gave us a huge increase in wealth in our country.

We rose to be a superpower, in the space of a mere 50 years or less. Every American has benefited from that.

And that's just for starters.

[Griff]

I agree with number 2 in the second case.