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

[Metric Mouse]

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.

I hope Biden does not implement policies that remove energy independence from the United States.

 

[Athanasius68]

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."

Israel has nukes. And there are no particular concerns they would launch them. They have been surrounded by countries that wish it be destroyed.
Nobody wishes Iran to be destroyed.
The problem in the mid-east has been Iran-- or if it sounds better-- the Iranian government. That fact is being understood by the Arab states which is why they have been striking deals with Israel.
Replace the Iranian government with a sane government that doesn't support terrorism, seek to export jihad, ect ect ect and a lot of stability in that region will follow.

 

[Athanasius68]

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.

That is a variation of the old search for 'moderates' in the Iranian government- the chimera that just about every president since Reagan has sought.
They don't exist.

 

[Athanasius68]

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.

Its certainly true there is an objection toward Iran expanding as a regional power.
Such an objection includes the Arab states as well.

 

[Cardinal]

That is a variation of the old search for 'moderates' in the Iranian government- the chimera that just about every president since Reagan has sought.
They don't exist.

If they entered into the JCPOA in the first place then they have moderates.

 

[snakestretcher]

Its certainly true there is an objection toward Iran expanding as a regional power.
Such an objection includes the Arab states as well.

Who said anything about expansion? Iran has never attempted adventurism beyond her borders, if that's what you are inferring. Iran is also not an Arab state and is not in the Middle East; her population is Eurasian.

 

[snakestretcher]

That is a variation of the old search for 'moderates' in the Iranian government- the chimera that just about every president since Reagan has sought.
They don't exist.

There are plenty of moderates within Iran. Why else would they have agreed to the JCPOA?

 

[Athanasius68]

There are plenty of moderates within Iran. Why else would they have agreed to the JCPOA?

You mean why would 'hardliners' agree to, ostensibly, give up nukes for 10 years in exchange for money and an end to sanctions?

 

[Athanasius68]

If they entered into the JCPOA in the first place then they have moderates.

Or they have people who know a good deal.
Whats an ostensible 10 year delay in exchange for $$$$ now?

 

[PosterPolitic]

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?

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.

Biden has no real authority other than the seeming inauguration that Trump is still trying to undermine any way he can. His bargaining power is limited if any.

Honestly you can't expect them to return to the deal at all. We have no leverage politically and we have to rebuild our economic leverage again while other countries who care less about the stability of the middle east and more about long term manipulation and gain could easily offer something.

Iran is a proud and at times stubborn nation just like any other and they do not take kindly to being cast aside.

They know Trump will strike even if not provoked but he burned bridges with them fairly directly. Biden dealt with them before but he is taking over a country that is currently reeling from mismanagement. Even if the administration is more rational the fact is that it is still going to be in disarray for a time.

Iran has more options than what we pushed them into before and then abandoned. Our credit with them is thin and the cost to returning may be high if none of them are willing to forgive us for Trump's acts on our behalf.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

If they had done that, then it would have been a much harder sell to convince the Iranian people that the result was due to the Iranian govermnent's actions than to the "benefice of the President of the United States of America".

In short, "face" is involved.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

Thank you for your contribution to the "I Love Genocide" club.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

If the Iranians were to announce that they had completed 10 nuclear weapons and that they had been mounted on missiles (located in 10 widely separated locations [quite distant from any population centers] and in hardened bunkers what would withstand anything short of a nuclear attack) that were capable of reaching Israel BUT that they would not be used unless the Israelis attacked Iran, the odds of Iran suffering 10 "nuclear accidents" within days are such that I'd bet the rent on it happening.

(At that point, the Iranians would reveal incontrovertible documentary/video evidence that proved that there had never been either missiles nor nuclear weapons at those locations.)

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

If the existing official US policy is "A" under the administration of "B", and if the administration of "B" is about to end with the administration of "C" about to start, and if "C" has made it clear that the official US policy is going to be "D" as soon as their administration starts (in less than two months) REGARDLESS of what "A" does in the meantime, exactly how "undermined" is the US policy going to be?

 

[Antiwar]

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

Give the bollllshit a rest.

 

[Antiwar]

I hope Biden does not implement policies that remove energy independence from the United States.

What's that supposed to mean? Note: I've got the person you quoted on ignore.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I hope Biden does not implement policies that remove energy independence from the United States.

<SARC>One of the simplest policies that would ensure "energy independence" for the United States of America would be to invade and conquer both Canada and Mexico. The Canadian provinces and Mexican states could be treated as "dependencies" or be granted statehood.

There would be no need to grant the Canadians or Mexicans American citizenship since they had not been born in the United States of America and they would not be eligible to apply for American citizenship since they had not legally immigrated to the United States of America.

Since the Canadians and Mexicans would not be American citizens, then that means that they would not be able to vote in American national elections or in the state elections if the conquered territory was granted statehood. This would mean that the 660,935 (as of the 2016 census) American voters who live in Canada would be the ones who formed the governments of the states (if the provinces were granted statehood).

Of course, since they were neither citizens nor immigrants, that would mean that the Canadian and Mexicans would be "indigenous people" and the US government has a lengthy history of how to deal with "indigenous people". If the Canucks get uppity, then they can always be moved from their reservations to new ones in Mexico and if the Mexicans get uppity, then they can always be moved from their reservations to new ones in Northern Quebec. Not only that, but it wouldn't cost very much to move them because they would simply have to walk (if they wanted to bring anything with them, then they would simply have to carry it themselves). Feeding stations could be set up 100 miles apart (and only kept open for a limited number of days) as an inducement for the "indigenous people" who were being "relocated to new homes" to actually travel to the indicated destination in a reasonable period of time.

</SARC> - right?

 

[Antiwar]

[Sorry, I haven't figured out multi-quote]

I'm not sure which one of you is more ridiculous.

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?

 

[Antiwar]

... while other countries who care less about the stability of the middle east and more about long term manipulation and gain could easily offer something.

You think the US wants stability in the Middle East?!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Israel has nukes.

Well, that is the answer to the first of the questions.

The answers to the other questions appear to have been deleted by some Internet Gremlin.

And there are no particular concerns they would launch them.

I quite agree that the US government is not in the least bit concerned that Israel will launch its nuclear weapons at the United States of America.

I also quite agree that the US government is not in the least bit concerned about the possibility of Israel launching its nuclear weapons at any other Middle East country that does not have nuclear weapons.

But saying that the peoples and governments of the other Middle East countries that do not have nuclear weapons are NOT concerned about the possibility of Israel launching its nuclear weapons at some Middle Eastern country that does not have nuclear weapons, is just a bit of a stretch too far.

They have been surrounded by countries that wish it be destroyed.

For some reason they simply cannot see the elementary justice of non-Middle Eastern countries giving away non-European land (to Europeans) in order to atone for the actions of a European government.

Nobody wishes Iran to be destroyed.

Of course they don't, it would leave a really big hole in the ground if it were destroyed.

The problem in the mid-east has been Iran-- or if it sounds better-- the Iranian government.

Would that be the democratically elected one that the UK and US engineered the toppling of in order to establish an absolute monarchy?

Or would that be the one that tossed out the foreign imposed absolute monarch and was then attacked by the US through its proxy Saddam Hussein?

Or would that be the one that has agreed NOT to develop nuclear weapons provided that the rest of the world treats it like a normal country but which the US government says simply has to go because it is developing nuclear weapons?

That fact is being understood by the Arab states which is why they have been striking deals with Israel.

If you are aware of the realities, those "new deals" are actually nothing more than the open acknowledgment of situations that have existed for over a decade.

Replace the Iranian government with a sane government that doesn't support terrorism, seek to export jihad, ect ect ect and a lot of stability in that region will follow.

Absolutely, I am sure that the US government would be absolutely ecstatic if it could topple the Iranian government and re-install a harsh and repressive absolute monarchy in the name of freedom and democracy.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

[Sorry, I haven't figured out multi-quote]

I'm not sure which one of you is more ridiculous.

From your reply, I gather that your opinion is "That would annoy the Israelis too much.".

What

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?​

amounts to is a "defence pact" - especially if it were coupled with an agreement on the part of the defended country that it would take certain actions which rendered it less able to defend itself (such as NOT having nuclear weapons).

 

[Fledermaus]

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

IIRC correctly there is one plant designed for high enrichment Uranium. I believe that one was given as "justification" for enhancing to the point of being weapons grade.

 

[Antiwar]

From your reply, I gather that your opinion is "That would annoy the Israelis too much.".

Are you ****ing serious?!

What

​

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?​

amounts to is a "defence pact" - especially if it were coupled with an agreement on the part of the defended country that it would take certain actions which rendered it less able to defend itself (such as NOT having nuclear weapons).

Nuclear weapons are stupid (You know what I mean; don't try that cutesy shit with me). Anyone advocating for anything but complete nuclear disarmament is a dumbass. **** that "it's a deterrent to bigger wars" bullshit.

Please let me know if something I said is unclear.

 

[PosterPolitic]

You think the US wants stability in the Middle East?!

Among the other countries together to an extent yes because in the long run it disadvantages our enemies far more to bring peace to those regions as divided they tend to be easier for powers other than the US to exploit.

Sure we destabilized the region when it suited our purposes but our reasons to actually control the region come with us juggling multiple conflicts, taking allies of convenience at times rather than shared values and were about resources and taking them for ourselves and denying easy or cheap access to them for our enemies.

Our interest in destabilizing them only still serves a tactical purpose if we are planning to colonize and absorb them. Now we need to develop them into an allied base and a united block tied through trade and alliances to us and our other allies so we have more economic, strategic and political power.

Honestly the more Russia makes in roads and sponsors terrorists in the region the more indirect attacks we will take and the more economic losses we will suffer in the region.

If we end the conflict and somehow stabilize the region we win politically, economically and strategically against Russia and have a greater advantage over China.

 

[Antiwar]

Among the other countries together to an extent yes because in the long run it disadvantages our enemies far more to bring peace to those regions as divided they tend to be easier for powers other than the US to exploit.

Sure we destabilized the region when it suited our purposes but our reasons to actually control the region come with us juggling multiple conflicts, taking allies of convenience at times rather than shared values and were about resources and taking them for ourselves and denying easy or cheap access to them for our enemies.

Our interest in destabilizing them only still serves a tactical purpose if we are planning to colonize and absorb them. Now we need to develop them into an allied base and a united block tied through trade and alliances to us and our other allies so we have more economic, strategic and political power.

Honestly the more Russia makes in roads and sponsors terrorists in the region the more indirect attacks we will take and the more economic losses we will suffer in the region.

If we end the conflict and somehow stabilize the region we win politically, economically and strategically against Russia and have a greater advantage over China.

How about we try something new?:
Stop being the biggest dickhead in the world.