US and Iran Make Breakthrough Nuclear Deal

[F1jocker12]

The Reuters link is in the article for a reason.

Then why posting this link
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3285032/posts?page=10
instead of Reuters link?

Only by reading the comments on the page you provided, any reader will understand what Free Republic is all about... hmmm ... Extremism?

 

[Omnis]

You do not know what you are talking about... Only give you one example - Do you know what an MRI is? Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imagery is a diagnostic tool in breast cancer... According to your statement, it should be a military secret... No comment.
Every single respected hospital in the world has a Radiology Department...
See Washington Post - In Iran, nuclear issue is also a medical one
The article you've posted refers to military sites... To say military sites equals nuclear sites is ignorant and... yes... conspiratoid.

How about stop being a bully, especially with this refractory attitude of yours. This is not a request. Everyone is tired of it. Stop being so snide when someone throws it back at you.

Now then... MRI has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear reactors. Absolutely nothing. Bad example to use there. The real problem is below:

As signatory of NPT, Iran has the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

"Since very few of the states with nuclear energy programs are willing to abandon the use of nuclear energy, the third pillar of the NPT under Article IV provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons."


They do have the right to do it themselves... see above!

The Iranians want to make Moly99 so that they can have their own source of Technitium99. The problem is that the bomb kind of uranium is necessary to make Moly99. So, by necessity, the requisite conditions for medical use also make available a weapons use, regardless of intentions.

Iran does have a right to make medical isotopes. And to best meet that end, the more the uranium is enriched, the better. That is a huge security burden for Iran. It's also real expensive to do without enriched U-juice. And when you consider that they don't want to bypass that-- when they are in a proxy war with the Arabs-- by just purchasing the isotopes from the globally trusted suppliers, it raises some red flags. It is natural for the trusted community to be wary of such a program that remains peaceful only on the whim or stated intent of the Iranian government. The fact that Moly99 production is directly dependent on fissile uranium is exactly why it is such a double-edged sword, and exactly why this issue has yet to be settled.

 

[F1jocker12]

How about stop being a bully, especially with this refractory attitude of yours. This is not a request. Everyone is tired of it. Stop being so snide when someone throws it back at you.

Off topic
I started with "off topic', because you, a moderator, are encouraging this right here, right now, without even mark it properly, so ... I am going to do it for everybody to see, not for only the two of us.

Can you underline the bully aspect of my (quoted by you) comment? If the "silly goose" here may ask?

I have a feeling you are jumping on conclusions.... again!

MRI has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear reactors. Absolutely nothing. Bad example to use there.

You are entitled to an opinion, like anybody else here. The Washington Post (see the posted link) has a different opinion. And, by the way, that was an example... nothing more!

Iran does have a right to make medical isotopes. And to best meet that end, the more the uranium is enriched, the better. That is a huge security burden for Iran. It's also real expensive to do without enriched U-juice. And when you consider that they don't want to bypass that-- when they are in a proxy war with the Arabs-- by just purchasing the isotopes from the globally trusted suppliers, it raises some red flags. It is natural for the trusted community to be wary of such a program that remains peaceful only on the whim or stated intent of the Iranian government. The fact that Moly99 production is directly dependent on fissile uranium is exactly why it is such a double-edged sword, and exactly why this issue has yet to be settled.

That is why you need an agreement with Iran.

 

[Tornado]

And, by the way, that was an example... nothing more!

And yet this is now the third member you've tried to shout down for even questioning it's relevance to the topic.

 

[F1jocker12]

And yet this is now the third member you've tried to shout down for even questioning it's relevance to the topic.

Off topic - Please, read my comment #141... and also my posted, reposted by one of the mods, comment states how I stated from the beginning

Only give you one example

Back to contributing to the topic
Interesting read here
Changing Iran Trends in the Worldwide Threat Assessment

As these quotes illustrate, the newest assessments show a marked shift in tone regarding Iran and its proxies. While past editions portrayed Tehran as a malign influence and state sponsor of terrorism that was actively seeking to undermine the United States and its allies, the most recent assessments cast a different light.

 

[Tornado]

Off topic

Not something you get to dictate, even ignoring the hypocrisy inherent in you specifically doing so. You brought it up in the first place. You defended it for an entire page against multiple members. You just defended it again when someone told you it had no bearing on the discussion. It isn't off topic just because there are people who actually are able to explain why it was wrong so you don't want to discuss it anymore.

Please, read my comment #141

In a 6 page thread where post numbers aren't labeled, you're going to have to do a bit better than that.

... and also my posted, reposted by one of the mods, comment states how I stated from the beginning

And from the beginning you were wrong, because as an example it doesn't apply to this conversation.

 

[Sanji Himura]

That is why you need an agreement with Iran.

Oh, and for the record, Israel has nukes for defensive purposes. When you have an entire region wanting blood, you better have a 🤬 good plan in stopping them. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons just to wipe Israel off the map, if you believe the Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

 

[F1jocker12]

Israel has nukes for defensive purposes.

You are opening a can of worms... You sure you want to go ahead with this statement?

 

[Blitz24]

Oh, and for the record, Israel has nukes for defensive purposes. When you have an entire region wanting blood, you better have a 🤬 good plan in stopping them. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons just to wipe Israel off the map, if you believe the Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

Not even worth bringing up. It's not worth the effort to discuss it.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Iran is seeking nuclear weapons

Is this a fact or is this what you believe?

to wipe Israel off the map

Wow... Is that really what they want to do, or is it what you want to believe they want to do?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Then why posting this link
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3285032/posts?page=10
instead of Reuters link?

Only by reading the comments on the page you provided, any reader will understand what Free Republic is all about... hmmm ... Extremism?

I assume most people in these forums are capable of pushing a couple of buttons if they have to, to find original sources for articles, when the links are at the head of or in the body of an article. If Reuters wasn't linked, I would have made the link to Reuters myself. Understand?

 

[DK]

I've just had a thought: why hasn't Iran tried developing a thorium reactor? I'm going to guess that the sanctions against them also excluded thorium imports.

 

[Omnis]

Off topic
I started with "off topic', because you, a moderator, are encouraging this right here, right now, without even mark it properly, so ... I am going to do it for everybody to see, not for only the two of us.

Can you underline the bully aspect of my (quoted by you) comment? If the "silly goose" here may ask?

I have a feeling you are jumping on conclusions.... again!

Stop this.

You know what you're doing.

You are entitled to an opinion, like anybody else here. The Washington Post (see the posted link) has a different opinion. And, by the way, that was an example... nothing more!

That was not my opinion. The Washington Post whitewashed the issue. I clarified it. Let's get the facts straight and not lean on bad examples to engage in question begging (as below) and circular reasoning.

That is why you need an agreement with Iran.

Nobody trusts Iran to have a bomb.
Nobody trusts Iran to produce moly99 from fissile uranium.
Iran will agree to not make bombs as long as they are allowed to make bomb materials.
You can't trust Iran until you can trust Iran.
That is why you need an agreement with Iran.

 

[F1jocker12]

The Washington Post whitewashed the issue

Can you clarify this statement? Any written materials about the molybdenum scenario and Iran's production (if the story is too long for the thread here)?

Nobody trusts Iran to have a bomb.

Do you have proof they want to have a bomb?

Iran will agree to not make bombs as long as they are allowed to make bomb materials.

It is still difficult to estimate what Iran will and will not agree about. A nuclear weapon .... hmmmm .... if US wants them not to have it, they wont... If US wants them to have it, then they will. As simple as that.

The rest of your comment.... you lost me there... sorry.... Anyway, good luck with it!

Edited by staff: Removed AUP issue

 

[Omnis]

You can't whitewash the production of specific radiopharmaceuticals (tc99) as the entire practice of radiology. MRI and diagnostic tools, and the majority of procedures to not involve radioactive therapies that rely on these reactors. You can't use nuclear medicine to justify nuclear reactors just because it has nuclear in its name. What I explained earlier is the fact of the matter. That is, moly99 production requires fissile uranium-- that which also makes available its use for weapons, regardless of Iran's promises or intentions.

Do I have proof they want to have a bomb? That's not the issue here. The issue is the availability of the option. The opposition to this has been published and widely reported. It is common knowledge. Stop trying to sidestep and replace arguments.

Every time someone calls out your circular reasoning, you commit an argument from ignorance and/or strawman that person. That is my issue with you, and it's hard to have a constructive argument with you because of it. Oh, wait, did I lose you?

I do love when people think these "agreements" will actually be held up.

Danoff gets it.

 

[F1jocker12]

You can't whitewash the production of specific radiopharmaceuticals (tc99) as the entire practice of radiology. MRI and diagnostic tools, and the majority of procedures to not involve radioactive therapies that rely on these reactors. You can't use nuclear medicine to justify nuclear reactors just because it has nuclear in its name. What I explained earlier is the fact of the matter. That is, moly99 production requires fissile uranium-- that which also makes available its use for weapons, regardless of Iran's promises or intentions.

Do I have proof they want to have a bomb? That's not the issue here. The issue is the availability of the option. The opposition to this has been published and widely reported. It is common knowledge. Stop trying to sidestep and replace arguments.

Every time someone calls out your circular reasoning, you commit an argument from ignorance and/or strawman that person. That is my issue with you, and it's hard to have a constructive argument with you because of it. Oh, wait, did I lose you?



Danoff gets it.

Whoever you think is getting it, it's only getting your point... Big difference...

Classic Why: The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Iran and the Bomb, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Facts

Lesson #1: Iran is not building nuclear weapons

National Intelligence Estimate: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” (2007 National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities; November 2007)

“Several senior Israeli officials who spoke in recent days to The Associated Press said Israel has come around to the U.S. view that no final decision to build a bomb has been made by Iran.” (Associated Press, “Israel shifts views on Iran”; March 18, 2012)

The 2011 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a synthesized compilation of data evaluated by America’s 17 intelligence agencies, declared that there were no serious revisions to the controversial (for war hawks) 2007 NIE—which stated Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. While the 2011 estimate did include updated progress on Iran’s civilian nuclear program, such as an increased number of operative centrifuges, it still could not muster any evidence to indicate the program was being weaponized.

These findings echo reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has also concluded that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. The IAEA accounts are typically pored over for the slightest hint of ambiguity or malevolence, which are then promulgated as the most important takeaways in Western news summaries.

A recent example of such deliberate obfuscation was the IAEA report on Iran from August 30, 2012.Typical American media accounts highlighted the increase in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure (underground centrifuge production, etc.), while failing to mention that their stockpile of 20%-enriched uranium—the only material capable of being enriched further to 85% or weapons grade—had actually diminished as a result of conversion to fuel plates for use in the Tehran Research Reactor, which produces medical isotopes. Thus nuclear development is highlighted, under the false premise that that equals progress toward a weapon, while exculpatory evidence is discarded: a case study in how news and propaganda function.

A civilian nuclear program

is not easily converted into a weapons program.

• Before a country can begin the latter, it must break theIAEA monitoring seals on its uranium stockpile, which is also under constant camera detection.

• It must also kick out international inspectors, who currently have unfettered access to all of Iran’s nuclear sites.

Completing those very public steps would be the first true warning indicators that Iran was building nuclear weapons.

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is entitled to enrich uranium to low levels for domestic power consumption and medical treatment, such as radiation therapy for cancer patients

You are only scared, that's all.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Whoever you think is getting it, it's only getting your point... Big difference...

Classic Why: The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Iran and the Bomb, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Facts
You are only scared, that's all.

All of your links are 3-12 years old. Anything actually current?

This is part of the reason some of us don't want to rely on pieces of paper to prevent Iran from developing nukes:

• 12 October 1994: the United States and North Korea signed the "Agreed Framework": North Korea agreed to freeze its plutonium production program in exchange for fuel oil, economic cooperation, and the construction of two modern light-water nuclear power plants. Eventually, North Korea's existing nuclear facilities were to be dismantled, and the spent reactor fuel taken out of the country.
• 31 August 1998: North Korea launched a modified Taepodong-1 missile in a launch attempt of its Kwangmyŏngsŏng-1satellite. U.S. military analysts suspect satellite launch is a ruse for the testing of an ICBM.
• 27 December 2002: North Korea says it is expelling the two IAEA nuclear inspectors from the country. It also says it is planning to reopen a reprocessing plant, which could start producing weapons grade plutonium within months.[13]
• 23 April 2003: Talks begin in Beijing between the US and North Korea, hosted by China. The talks are led by the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian affairs, James Kelly, and the deputy director general of North Korea's American Affairs Bureau, Li Gun.
• 14 January 2005: North Korea says it is willing to restart stalled talks on its nuclear programme, according to the official KCNA news agency. The statement says North Korea "would not stand against the US but respect and treat it as a friend unless the latter slanders the former's system and interferes in its internal affairs".
• 19 September 2005: In what is initially hailed as an historic joint statement, North Korea agrees to give up all its nuclear activities and rejoin the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while the US says it had no intention of attacking.
• 9 October 2006: North Korea announces that it has performed its first-ever nuclear weapon test

Source

 

[Omnis]

Whoever you think is getting it, it's only getting your point... Big difference...

Classic Why: The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Iran and the Bomb, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Facts








You are only scared, that's all.

No, Israel is scared. That was my point. And why shouldn't they be? It's in Israel's best interest for Iran to have nothing nuclear.

They're civilian nuclear program is not easily converted to a weapons program. But its existence allows for that possibility. That is why Israel does not approve. Maybe everyone would freak out less if Iran hadn't postured aggressively against Israel and weren't actively engaged in proxy wars with the Saudis.

Remember what danoff said. Who really thinks intent means anything in matters of national security? Not anyone that isn't completely naive.

Personally, I hope they continue towards peace and that negotiating can be successful. I just wonder why they couldn't just buy what they needed as a show of good faith, or what the financials were like that they couldn't make that happen.

 

[F1jocker12]

No, Israel is scared. That was my point. And why shouldn't they be? It's in Israel's best interest for Iran to have nothing nuclear.

They're civilian nuclear program is not easily converted to a weapons program. But its existence allows for that possibility. That is why Israel does not approve. Maybe everyone would freak out less if Iran hadn't postured aggressively against Israel and weren't actively engaged in proxy wars with the Saudis.

Remember what danoff said. Who really thinks intent means anything in matters of national security? Not anyone that isn't completely naive.

Personally, I hope they continue towards peace and that negotiating can be successful. I just wonder why they couldn't just buy what they needed as a show of good faith, or what the financials were like that they couldn't make that happen.

Israel is not scared. They have a huge nuclear arsenal. Besides that, using nuclear weapons in the area, will anihilate both sides, and realistically nobody believes Bibi anymore. Even Mossad's reports are saying Iranians are not after a nuclear weapon.
And, on top of everything, Iran is not an aggressive attacking, crazy nation. Never was. Never will be. Iran was not aggressive towards Israel... that is a mith... wiping Israel off the map... Iran supports a "multicultural" state, versur, a "jewish" only state...

As a nation, Iran can develop nuclear facilities, and they've regulary accepted international inspections. When it comes to Israel, the reality changes... They've never accepted international inspections, and never signed the NPT. The moment you stop being affarid of Iran, the next logical question is, why is Israel hiding? - Because the International Community will ask them to regulate their development.
In theory, having nuclear weapons makes that nation very difficult to attack, that's why Israel is pushing against Iran. Closing the circle, any use of a nuclear wepon in Middle East will damage everybody, so it's out of question anyway. So what is Israel doing? Diverting... Time will tell what they are trying to divert from....

Here is another one
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal

 

[squadops]

In theory, having nuclear weapons makes that nation very difficult to attack, that's why Israel is pushing against Iran.

Are you suggesting that Israel is planning on attacking Iran?

 

[Blitz24]

Are you suggesting that Israel is planning on attacking Iran?

It fits in with his ridiculous belief that Israel is going to go on an imperialistic run, so yes. This is, as opposed to Iran's known funding of Hamas and Hezbollah and their military actively bullying the gulf countries.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Closing the circle, any use of a nuclear wepon in Middle East will damage everybody, so it's out of question anyway. So what is Israel doing? Diverting... Time will tell what they are trying to divert from....

If the use of nuclear weapons are "out of the question anyway", then it shouldn't concern you that Israel has them should it?

 

[F1jocker12]

If the use of nuclear weapons are "out of the question anyway", then it shouldn't concern you that Israel has them should it?

Former Knesset member explains it

Burg, who also served as chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, suggested that: "the region's countries, including Iran, must all engage in a comprehensive dialogue, because you cannot free the region of these weapons without dialogue. I believe that dialogue represents an alternative to a nuclear weapon and can protect us from this risk."

otherwise...

After the conference, Burg told Maariv newspaper that: "it's time to get out of the nuclear coffin and to demystify the ambiguity about Israel's nuclear programme. Either everyone is going to have this weapon or no one will."

Akiba Tadatoshi, who served as the mayor of Hiroshima between 1999 until 2011, also attended the conference and urged Israel to support a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East.

Former Knesset chairman recognises Israel's nuclear arsenal, calls for honest discussion

simply alienates the entire region and potentially fuells extremism....

 

[Blitz24]

Israel is not foolish enough to launch a nuclear warhead at Iran.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Former Knesset member explains it

otherwise...


Former Knesset chairman recognises Israel's nuclear arsenal, calls for honest discussion

I wasn't looking for a Knesset member's reaction. You have previously railed against Israel having a nuclear weapon, but stated a couple of hours ago that the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East "is out of the question anyway". So if you think it's out of the question, why would it concern you if Israel has them? Note that I'm asking you, not a random link to some website or YT video, or a member of the U.N.

 

[Tornado]

I wonder what Pakistan, India (and South Africa) were all hiding. Will we soon see international regulation of those two's nuclear activities?

 

[F1jocker12]

Israel, unlikeIran, never signed up to the 1968 NPT so could not violate it. But it almost certainly broke a treaty banning nuclear tests, as well as countless national and international laws restricting the traffic in nuclear materials and technology.

They need to sign the NPT to show the ientire world their good intentions. It is funny and crazy at the same time, how a person can be aware of Iran developing nuclear programs, and not be concerned by Israel's behaviour. They are equal Middle Eastern nations, willing to be part of the same international community.

 

[F1jocker12]

I wonder what Pakistan, India (and South Africa) were all hiding. Will we soon see international regulation of those two's nuclear activities?

Those nations too, I completely agree !!!

sorry for the double posting... mistake....

 

[Blitz24]

They need to sign the NPT to show the ientire world their good intentions. It is funny and crazy at the same time, how a person can be aware of Iran developing nuclear programs, and not be concerned by Israel's behaviour. They are equal Middle Eastern nations, willing to be part of the same international community.

Iran signed the treaty but has chosen to not follow safeguards.
https://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf

 

[F1jocker12]

Negotiating with Iran... lessons from "John Limbert ... political officer in the US embassy in Tehran when the nightmare hostage crisis unfolded in 1979"

Avoid legalisms; seek solutions based on “mutually agreeable standards” that Iran can claim as a victory.

“Be aware of Iran’s historical greatness” and past grievances based on humiliations by foreign powers.

Throughout the years of talks with Iran, its leaders have above all else demanded “respect,” i.e., justice and recognition of Iran’s legitimacy. The nuclear negotiations have provided that.

Clarify lines of authority: be sure to talk with the right people, but also present a common US position.

Understand Iranian interests. Obviously, removing the sanctions was essential to a deal, but not at any price. Iran’s insistence on keeping fuel rods at home and not shipped to Russia was essential face-saving, and US negotiators did not allow that position to halt the talks.

Do not assume the Iranians are illogical, uncompromising, untrustworthy, duplicitous. US negotiators clearly did not. Hopefully, they kept in mind that many Iranians view Americans the same way.

Ignore hostile rhetoric and grandstanding; be businesslike and professional—and be willing to stay the course.

Don’t interpret public statements about the deal by the other side as backsliding with the intention to subvert it.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/07/the-iran-framework/