[W;90]Iran’s parliament approves bill to stop nuclear inspections

[JANFU]

Welp, I’d say the assassination had its intended result.

Iran does not have much in their corner excepting a war- they are far to wily to start a war

 

[Jredbaron96]

When was that? The deal only lasted for 10 years. In 2025, Iran is free and clear to do what it wishes.

You mean decade in which to further normalize relations and remove Iran as a perennial enemy of America? Yeah, I'm okay with that.

Hint: Iran does not want a nuke just for the sake of it.

 

[Cardinal]

Iran does not have much in their corner excepting a war- they are far to wily to start a war

Yeah, but if the hardliners in their government were looking for a pretext for leaving the JCPOA forever then I‘d say they have it.

 

[JANFU]

Quite right, when faced with a hostile government that possesses (in the neighbourhood of) 200 nuclear weapons and which has shown absolutely no reluctance to actually conduct military attacks on Iran (and uses 70+ year old "collective guilt" to prevent other countries calling it out for its actions), it only makes sense for Iran to have a retaliatory capacity that would deter that hostile government from escalating its attacks on Iran to the "nuclear strike" level.

Mind you, I certainly appears that you didn't bother to read the article, Did you?

Did you know that IF you build a "100Kt" nuclear weapon using weapon's grade Uranium THEN you get a 100Kt blast, BUT IF you build a "100Kt" nuclear weapon using 20% Uranium, THEN you do NOT get a 20Kt blast?

Luv that
Iran at this time has an economy crashing. Now are they willing to make deals on more than Nukes? I think they are

A population decimated from corruption and are as we have seen, braving bullets and disappearances to have mass protests

If their leadership fails due to protests, the Military will step in
So that is also in the back of Khomeini's/religious leaderships minds

Biden is not going into office announcing a serious lifting on Iranian sanctions

 

[JANFU]

Yeah, but if the hardliners in their government were looking for a pretext for leaving the JCPOA forever then I‘d say they have it.

I disagree, there is more of a chance of making a deal vice Iran leaving

That would lessen EU support

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Is Biden allowed to engage in such back channel diplomatic discussions before inauguration?

Is answering a question, without further comment, the same thing as "negotiating"?

Would "I don't exactly like the situation and I will be taking a very close look at it to see what can be done to improve international relations." the same thing as "negotiating"?

Do you think it likely that Biden will attempt to return to the nuclear deal, or one substantially similar, and call it a day?

That is one possibility.

Or will he use current sanctions as leverage to get a slightly different deal?

That is another possibility. After all the Iranians might be willing to agree to do something that they aren't doing, don't exactly want to do, and possibly aren't able to do effectively in return for some concrete benefit and/or solid guarantee that the US will actually abide by the current terms of the JCPOA.

I mean, the US government scored a tremendous diplomatic victory when Lybia agreed to abandon its abortive nuclear program that showed no signs of even coming close to succeeding in return for benefits that it actually got. Well, didn't it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not if one is researching weapons, for sure. It is approximately 500% of what is needed for a nuclear power plant.

We're talking "negotiating points" - NOT actually building nuclear weapons - here, so I'm not sure what your point actually is.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Right... Israel is the problem in the mid-east...

Why not try answering (honestly) the following questions"

Do you deny that Israel is the possessor of actual nuclear weapons (estimated at between 50 [by the optimists] and 200 [by those whose careers tend to be based on being right])?

Do you deny that Israel is NOT a signatory to any nuclear weapons limitation agreements?

Do you deny that Israel has NEVER officially taken the position that it would NOT use nuclear weapons as a "first strike" option?

Do you deny that Israel has actually used its military to conduct attacks on Iran and done so with the official sanction of the Israeli government?

Do you deny that Israel has invaded other countries and, contrary to international law, forcibly annexed territory of those other countries?​

No, it IS NOT true that "Israel is THE problem in the Middle East.".

However it IS true that "The Israeli government is A problem in the Middle East."

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The 20% is also required for medical isotopes used in medical imaging. Something the US has put on the sanctions list

Has the US government removed 2B pencils from the sanctions list yet?

No, I'm not kidding.

It is (or at least was) a violation of the US sanctions to sell 2B pencils to Iran (because 2B pencils contain "large amounts of graphite" and because "graphite in a material used in the construction of nuclear reactors").

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oh-- so Biden will violate the Logan Act, undermine USA policy ect ect ect?

Which, of course, isn't what I said at all.

Obviously you didn't happen to notice that what I actually said was

However, IF Mr. Biden assures the Europeans that ... (emphasis added)​

It is just as possible for him to send a reply to the effect of

While it would be inappropriate for me to respond one way or the other to your inquiry, I have received it and will be considering it in due course after I am inaugurated. At that time it will be appropriate for me to respond and I will so so. I trust that my response, whatever it is and even if you disagree with it, will assist to lowering the tensions in the Middle East and that you will view it as an attempt to lower the tensions in the Middle East.​

with, or without, an accompanying (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, you know what I mean, you know what I mean).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When was that? The deal only lasted for 10 years. In 2025, Iran is free and clear to do what it wishes.

Well, it is 2020 and Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet.

Possibly Iran would agree to having the JCPOA extend to 2030 PROVIDED that the US actually complies with its terms.

However, I just had a thought.

One of the reasons why Iran might feel that it needs nuclear weapons is so that it can conduct a "second strike" is some other nation attacks it with nuclear weapons. Couldn't the US government guarantee that IT would destroy the capital city (and 10 of the next largest cities) with nuclear weapons of ANY country that conducted a "first strike" attack on Iran with nuclear weapons?

Or would that upset the Israelis too much?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Terrorist country, should be turned into glass.

The population of Iran is roughly 84,000,000. Hitler only murdered around 15,000,000.

Congratulations for your desire to outdo him by a factor of around 5.6 :: 1.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Is Biden allowed to engage in such back channel diplomatic discussions before inauguration?

Do you think it likely that Biden will attempt to return to the nuclear deal, or one substantially similar, and call it a day? Or will he use current sanctions as leverage to get a slightly different deal?

Who knows but given Biden wants to ban fracking and kneecap our energy sector while pissing off the entire Arab world by sucking up to Iran then I would invest in the most fuel efficient car you can find. The market value on 95 geo metros is about to skyrocket

In the meantime I think Mohammed Bin Salman should announce a “peaceful” nuclear energy program.

 

[joko104]

They want another $100 billion from the Obama/Biden team with a good chuck of it secretly delivered in plane loads of cash.

 

[joko104]

The population of Iran is roughly 84,000,000. Hitler only murdered around 15,000,000.

Congratulations for your desire to outdo him by a factor of around 5.6 :: 1.

...and you claim that in WW2 we killed 100% of all Germans, right? Why do YOU want to kill 100% of Iranians if there is a war with Iran? Obviously to you war is singularly about 100% genocide.

The Muslim Empire killed 200,000,000 - the equal to over a billion today.

 

[Antiwar]

Where are all of the 2A purists? Iran needs nuclear weapons for self-defense. Every country needs nuclear weapons for self-defense. The US has nuclear weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons. Why are some countries "allowed" to have nuclear weapons, and some aren't? Self-defense is a natural right. A country without nuclear weapons cannot successfully defend itself from countries with nuclear weapons.

 

[Fishking]

Although its a bit of an over simplification, this action is analogous to someone who was purchasing a car stopping making the payments when the vendor refused to deliver the car.[/indent[​

If that were so they would've made that move a while ago. However, they did it after the election and most of the post election confusion died down knowing Biden is going to be President. So this can also just as easily be seen as Iran sensing a weak incoming administration.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

...and you claim that in WW2 we killed 100% of all Germans, right?

Obviously "reading English" isn't one of your persona's strong points.

Why do YOU want to kill 100% of Iranians if there is a war with Iran? Obviously to you war is singularly about 100% genocide.

Obviously "correctly identifying a poster" isn't one of your persona's strong points.

The Muslim Empire killed 200,000,000 - the equal to over a billion today.

Quite possibly that is the total for all the years between the 7th Century and today.

Now, what is the total number that "Christians" have killed between the 1st Century and today?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If that were so they would've made that move a while ago. However, they did it after the election and most of the post election confusion died down knowing Biden is going to be President. So this can also just as easily be seen as Iran sensing a weak incoming administration.

Or sensing that a rational administration was coming.

 

[Fishking]

Or sensing that a rational administration was coming.

If that were the case they'd have just kept the inspections going to more quickly pick up where it was left off before. Why exactly now? Your comment doesn't match the action.

 

[Rudy]

The population of Iran is roughly 84,000,000. Hitler only murdered around 15,000,000.

Congratulations for your desire to outdo him by a factor of around 5.6 :: 1.

What would the world lose? What does Iran produce? Pretty much NOTHING. They have been and will be a country of terrorists.

 

[Athanasius68]

Well, it is 2020 and Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet.

Possibly Iran would agree to having the JCPOA extend to 2030 PROVIDED that the US actually complies with its terms.

However, I just had a thought.

One of the reasons why Iran might feel that it needs nuclear weapons is so that it can conduct a "second strike" is some other nation attacks it with nuclear weapons. Couldn't the US government guarantee that IT would destroy the capital city (and 10 of the next largest cities) with nuclear weapons of ANY country that conducted a "first strike" attack on Iran with nuclear weapons?

Or would that upset the Israelis too much?

Is there some particular reason to be concerned that Israel would up and decide to launch nukes upon Iran?

 

[Metric Mouse]

Is answering a question, without further comment, the same thing as "negotiating"?

Would "I don't exactly like the situation and I will be taking a very close look at it to see what can be done to improve international relations." the same thing as "negotiating"?



That is one possibility.



That is another possibility. After all the Iranians might be willing to agree to do something that they aren't doing, don't exactly want to do, and possibly aren't able to do effectively in return for some concrete benefit and/or solid guarantee that the US will actually abide by the current terms of the JCPOA.

I mean, the US government scored a tremendous diplomatic victory when Lybia agreed to abandon its abortive nuclear program that showed no signs of even coming close to succeeding in return for benefits that it actually got. Well, didn't it?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Athanasius68]

Which, of course, isn't what I said at all.

Obviously you didn't happen to notice that what I actually said was

​

However, IF Mr. Biden assures the Europeans that ... (emphasis added)​

It is just as possible for him to send a reply to the effect of

​

While it would be inappropriate for me to respond one way or the other to your inquiry, I have received it and will be considering it in due course after I am inaugurated. At that time it will be appropriate for me to respond and I will so so. I trust that my response, whatever it is and even if you disagree with it, will assist to lowering the tensions in the Middle East and that you will view it as an attempt to lower the tensions in the Middle East.​

with, or without, an accompanying (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, you know what I mean, you know what I mean).

That's ok. But by the standards that had been applied to Mr. Flynn during the last transition, such comments would constitute 'undermining' official USA policy.

 

[snakestretcher]

As if Iran needs an excuse to want to build nuclear weaponry...

Why shouldn't they seek nuclear parity? It isn't as if they would ever use nuclear weapons aggressively-unless they enjoyed retaliatory self-immolation, which I doubt very much. No, the West's intent is clear; there shall be no alteration in the balance of power in the region. Iran is not now, and never has been, an existential threat to anyone in the region. The last time Iran was forced into war was with Saddam's formal declaration of war in September 1980 when Iran was forced to defended herself.