Iran Nuclear Negotiations

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

You are a student of the Kosovo action? Do you remember what happened to the Dutch soldiers when they secured Srebrenica, and the Serb army demanded they surrender?

That was completely irrelevant to my comments. Since the Srebrenica massacre was when local European powers were in charge and were screwing to it up. It took another massacre before Clinton finally had a enough and said the Europeans would now do what he said. Once Clinton took over (and the British-French fast reaction forces were deployed), then a solution was quickly negotiated.

Diplomacy was used properly to 'encourage' Milosevic to surrender. Srebrenica happens when powers that be refuse to negotiate a solution and try to solve it with military (ie pathetic safe zone) actions. Actions clearly mocked by the Serbs. Dutch soldiers were sent back without their cloths. And still the powers that be did nothing - militarily or with negotiations.

An Iranian solution is being negotiated from a position of power. What is being traded? Well, we also did not know that an end to the cold war was being negotiated until well after negotiations had been ongoing in great detail.

We know the French went public with complaints of the Iranian negotiations. But we have no idea what the French and all other negotiators were saying at the table. We don't even know if that was only a negotiating tactic by the French. Maybe even planned or encouraged by other parties. We only have speculation.

We know this is the first time Iran has negotiated in earnest with other powers. We don't even know with certainty what they are and are not willing to trade. Since we only have press rumors - not actual confirmed comment from the negotiators sharing a common microphone.

French comments made those negotiations interesting. Also curious is what Israel might be doing to subvert those negotiation.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

That was completely irrelevant to my comments. Since the Srebrenica massacre was when local European powers were in charge and were screwing to it up. It took another massacre before Clinton finally had a enough and said the Europeans would now do what he said. Once Clinton took over (and the British-French fast reaction forces were deployed), then a solution was quickly negotiated.

Yes, when you say what you mean, and mean what you say, negotiations can move ahead - if both parties want it.

Diplomacy was used properly to 'encourage' Milosevic to surrender. Srebrenica happens when powers that be refuse to negotiate a solution and try to solve it with military (ie pathetic safe zone) actions. Actions clearly mocked by the Serbs. Dutch soldiers were sent back without their cloths. And still the powers that be did nothing - militarily or with negotiations.

Diplomacy hell - the Serb armies surrendered when they were facing superior military strength.

An Iranian solution is being negotiated from a position of power. What is being traded? Well, we also did not know that an end to the cold war was being negotiated until well after negotiations had been ongoing in great detail.

We know the French went public with complaints of the Iranian negotiations. But we have no idea what the French and all other negotiators were saying at the table. We don't even know if that was only a negotiating tactic by the French. Maybe even planned or encouraged by other parties. We only have speculation.

We know this is the first time Iran has negotiated in earnest with other powers. We don't even know with certainty what they are and are not willing to trade. Since we only have press rumors - not actual confirmed comment from the negotiators sharing a common microphone.

French comments made those negotiations interesting. Also curious is what Israel might be doing to subvert those negotiation.

Israeli Premier has been with Putin in Russia. Repeated again that he "promises the Iranians will never have nuclear weapons"., at a press conference. He made that very clear!

It's possible the next Israeli leader will feel differently, and both sides will peacefully keep their nuclear weapons (if Iran does get them). Personally, I'm not optimistic that such a "cold war" between Israel and Iran, will be able to take hold and sustain itself. Perhaps when a new Iranian Supreme leader is in place, it might work, who knows?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

It's possible the next Israeli leader will feel differently, and both sides will peacefully keep their nuclear weapons (if Iran does get them). Personally, I'm not optimistic that such a "cold war" between Israel and Iran, will be able to take hold and sustain itself.

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.

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. 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.

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.

[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.