What's new

The end of the deal, hopes, delusions and treasons

New Recruit

Mar 30, 2015
77
0
147
Country
Spain
Location
Spain
Iran is a nuclear power many years ago.
Iran's public program (AEOI) is a covert-story. IRGC stealth nuke program is wayyyy more advanced.
Even AEOI couild build a bomb in days, if needed.

All these never ending "news" , JCPOAs, NPTs, Kamalvandi declarations, Bibi declarations, Rouhani declarations, Biden declarations, Obama declarations, Trump declarations, Ahmadineyad, Raisi, Macron... ALL belong to a trolling war Iran vs USA&ISRAEL&friends (who know ALL very well)
Since military way is not possible, there's a BIG BIG economic war and also a BIG BIG trolling war.

They ALL are trolling us. The truth lies behing this ethernal trolling.
 

mohsen

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 26, 2012
5,827
-1
13,043
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
According to a report by israelhayom, US is seeking a limited JCPOA in the upcoming Vienna meeting, lift of International sanctions against the cessation of nuclear enrichment, no further talk of missile or regional activities, and doesn't even address the amount of already enriched Uranium or the enrichment infrastructure.

Well, the phrases are so ambiguous that doesn't even worth my comment, but it has already upset our Zionist brothers. (as if I care or believe!)
 

vi-va

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 23, 2019
5,900
2
13,963
Country
China
Location
United States
According to a report by israelhayom, US is seeking a limited JCPOA in the upcoming Vienna meeting, lift of International sanctions against the cessation of nuclear enrichment, no further talk of missile or regional activities, and doesn't even address the amount of already enriched Uranium or the enrichment infrastructure.

Well, the phrases are so ambiguous that doesn't even worth my comment, but it has already upset our Zionist brothers. (as if I care or believe!)
  1. US is in big trouble domestically. US economy is not doing well, inflation is high, debt/GDP is high.
  2. US is in big trouble internationally. China and Russia are US headache, while India/EU are eating US pie as well.

Basically, US has lost the momentum of initiating another war against power like Iran. Sleepy Joe has no political capital nor political will to do that.

When war has been ruled out, the only way left is sanction. But sanction had come to its limit. There are no more meaningful sanctions US can put on Iran without a bloody war.

US has to make a concession to stop further enrichment. Literally, there is no other options.
 

Sineva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 24, 2018
2,958
-3
6,462
Country
Australia
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
I think we should file this one under "Wishful Thinking"...... :sarcastic:
Or perhaps it could provide the plot of a future bad tom clancy novel.....💩

The Bomb Will Backfire on Iran
RAY TAKEYH OCTOBER 18, 2021
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2021-10-18/bomb-will-backfire-iran

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in Tehran, September 2021 Wana News Agency

After years of high tensions and fitful diplomacy, it should now be clear to all that there will be no negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. And although U.S. presidents and Israeli prime ministers have routinely insisted that all options remain on the table, it is unlikely that either the United States or Israel will use overt military force to eliminate Irans nuclear program. It is time to start envisioning a world with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Critics of the theocracy in Tehran tend to cast that outcome as a nightmare scenario. In fact, going nuclear could lead to the undoing of the Islamic Republic. Getting the bomb would likely backfire on the regime, in part by sparking a much-needed reset of U.S. policy that would allow Washington to finally focus on the Islamist state itself and not just its nuclear apparatus. A nuclear arsenal would not offer the regime the security it so desperately craves; to the contrary, soon after testing a nuclear weapon, the theocracy would find itself more vulnerable than ever.

MUCH PAIN, NO GAIN

Since 2005, four U.S. presidents have made resolving the Iran nuclear issue a priority. But neither diplomacy nor covert action nor the threat of military force has done much to slow Irans march toward the bomb, much less stop it. There is little doubt that Tehran, building on decades of illicit research and production, could quickly enrich enough uranium to test a nuclear device. And the hard men who rule Iran are too suspicious of the United States and the global order it leads and too committed to achieving regional hegemony to simply stop at the threshold of acquiring the bomb. The Islamic Republic is not Japan.
Soon after the Iranians test a nuclear weapon, there will be much handwringing and finger-pointing. American credibility will be in tatters, and U.S. allies and partners in the region will begin to doubt Washingtons commitment and ability to protect them. Iran will be seemingly at the height of its power.
But the Islamic Republic will then discover the reality that all other nuclear-armed states, including the United States and the Soviet Union, have eventually grasped: it is nearly impossible to translate an atomic capability into strategic advantage. The mullahs who rule Iran have spent decades pursuing the bomb and weathering international isolation, sanctions, and a campaign of assassinations and subversion and they will surely try to press their perceived advantage. They will brandish their arsenal and make demands, such as insisting that U.S. forces leave the region and that oil prices be set according to their preferences.
It is nearly impossible to translate an atomic capability into strategic advantage.:omghaha:
But what will they do if they are rebuffed? What happens if Israel and Saudi Arabia, backed in no uncertain terms by Washington, react to Irans provocations with their own show of determination? It is extremely doubtful that Iran would risk its own obliteration by using nuclear arms against them. In the end, the weapon that was supposed to enshrine Irans regional hegemony will likely result in no measurable change in Iranian power.
That outcome, however, would depend to a great degree on how Washington responded to Iran’s nuclear test. The U.S. president would need to deliver an address insisting that nothing in the region had changed with the advent of an Iranian bomb and that the United States was still prepared to defend its allies. Washington would have to put Tehran on notice that it would be held responsible for any use or transfer of its new weapons. To reinforce that message and communicate its seriousness of purpose, the United States would need to deploy nuclear-armed vessels to the Persian Gulf and even place atomic-tipped missiles controlled by U.S. forces in the Gulf states. There would be tense moments and standoffs; Washington would need to demonstrate a tolerance for risk.

NUCLEAR BLOWBACK

Once Iran goes nuclear, however, neutralizing the impact of an Iranian bomb should not be Washingtons sole mission: the larger goal should be to finally craft a global consensus against the Islamic Republic. The United States and its allies will have to levy harsh sanctions against the regime and further isolate it by pushing for the United Nations to formally censure Iran. Washington will need to persuade its European allies to sever diplomatic relations with Tehran. Those steps would not shut off all avenues of commerce with Iran: China would continue to purchase some of its oil, for one thing. But Japan and South Korea would need to cease doing so. The United States would also need to further restrict Irans commercial relations by stripping the regime of its ability to use the international banking system and repatriate its money from abroad. That would have the effect of reducing the regime to bartering, and a nation of 85 million people cannot live that way forever. The Islamic Republic would not bend but it might break.

Some might object that a similar strategy has not broken the regime in North Korea, which defied the world by going nuclear in 2006 and has managed to stay in power despite economic and political isolation. But that comparison ignores the vast differences between the two countries. Unlike North Korea, Iran has a rich history of protests and revolutions that have toppled governments. Politics and society in Iran are not nearly as regimented as in North Korea. The regime in Tehran is brutal and oppressive, but it does not exercise the same level of control as the regime in Pyongyang.
Getting the bomb would also undercut the regimes quest for regional hegemony: the weapon that the mullahs would hail as the countries strategic salvation could instead trigger a nuclear arms race in Irans neighborhood. It is hard to imagine the Saudis standing idly by as their main rival brandishes an atomic arsenal. Turkey, desperate to be a consequential power in the region, might also get in on the act. The Middle East would suddenly become more volatile and Iran would be less secure.
In this scenario, a crucial factor would be the effect of a nuclear-armed Iran on domestic U.S. politics. Few other international topics have so intensely divided Republicans and Democrats in the past few years. Democrats have castigated Republicans as warmongers who reflexively abjure sensible arms control. Republicans have denounced Democrats as agents of appeasement. With the nuclear question settled, both parties would have incentives to get tougher on Iran. Republicans are already hawkish and would be unlikely to dial down their animosity. And Democrats would be vulnerable to the charge that they let Iran get the bomb, giving them clear reasons to embrace a harsher position. In this way, political calculations would likely foster a new consensus in favor of confronting and undermining the Islamic Republic.
The most consequential victim of an Iranian bomb will be the theocracy itself.
Free of the divisive debate over the nuclear issue, Washington would be able to focus on the character and nature of a regime that represses its population and has recently installed a mass murderer as president. Disgust with Irans horrendous record on human rights would grow on both sides of the aisle and would serve as a platform for greater unity on the need to weaken the regimes position through covert action and support for dissenters inside Iran. Not all Democrats and liberals would suddenly be converted to the cause of regime change. But once Iran goes nuclear, the notion that the mullahs would moderate if only Americans tread gently will no longer resonate. At the same time, U.S. politicians from both parties will have to understand that an Iranian bomb will make it harder to leave the Middle East behind and pivot or rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward Asia. For both strategic and political reasons, the United States can demonstrate strength to Iran only if it maintains a robust presence in the region.

Ultimately, the most consequential victim of an Iranian bomb will be the theocracy itself. The regime has spent billions of dollars on its atomic program and has suffered massive sanctions. When it finally succeeds and finds out that it yields no strategic benefit and further aggravates its economic dilemmas, it will confront explosive domestic political blowback. The Islamic Republic has already forfeited much of its legitimacy with contrived elections, dismal economic performance, massive corruption, and a mismanaged response to the COVID-19 pandemic. When a bomb that the regime had promised would enhance the countries stature instead merely further drained its treasury, the public outcry will be immense and overwhelming.

The Iranian people are hardly docile subjects tolerating their governments many abuses. In the past few years, members of nearly every social class have taken to the streets all over the country to protest against the regime. The mullahs will no doubt try to crush any mass movement that seeks their overthrow. But despite a facade of strength, the regime finds itself in the weakest position domestically that it has faced since its inception. And just as an Iranian bomb would solidify an anti-regime consensus in Washington, so, too, would it fortify opposition to the mullahs at home.

Some might object that even if getting the bomb backfires and contributes to the fall of the theocracy, a nuclear-armed Iran governed by something other than the current regime would itself pose a major problem for the United States and its partners and allies in the region. But if the regime fell, its successor would most likely emerge from the crucible of the opposition. As such, it would probably focus on internal economic development, mending fences with the international community, and acceding to global norms. A new Iranian government would likely reverse course on nuclear arms in order to deal with the myriad problems it would face at home. It would have every reason to heed the lesson that the current regime seems intent on learning the hard way: for Iran, the costs of having a nuclear weapon will far outweigh the benefits.

After years of high tensions and fitful diplomacy, it should now be clear to all that there will be no negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. And although U.S. presidents and Israeli prime ministers have routinely insisted that all options remain on the table, it is unlikely that either the United States or Israel will use overt military force to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. It is time to start envisioning a world with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Critics of the theocracy in Tehran tend to cast that outcome as a nightmare scenario. In fact, going nuclear could lead to the undoing of the Islamic Republic. Getting the bomb would likely backfire on the regime, in part by sparking a much-needed reset of U.S. policy that would allow Washington to finally focus on the Islamist state itself and not just its nuclear apparatus. A nuclear arsenal would not offer the regime the security it so desperately craves; to the contrary, soon after testing a nuclear weapon, the theocracy would find itself more vulnerable than ever.

MUCH PAIN, NO GAIN

Since 2005, four U.S. presidents have made resolving the Iran nuclear issue a priority. But neither diplomacy nor covert action nor the threat of military force has done much to slow Iran’s march toward the bomb, much less stop it. There is little doubt that Tehran, building on decades of illicit research and production, could quickly enrich enough uranium to test a nuclear device. And the hard men who rule Iran are too suspicious of the United States and the global order it leads—and too committed to achieving regional hegemony—to simply stop at the threshold of acquiring the bomb. The Islamic Republic is not Japan.

Soon after the Iranians test a nuclear weapon, there will be much hand wringing and finger-pointing. American credibility will be in tatters, and U.S. allies and partners in the region will begin to doubt Washington’s commitment and ability to protect them. Iran will be seemingly at the height of its power.
But the Islamic Republic will then discover the reality that all other nuclear-armed states, including the United States and the Soviet Union, have eventually grasped: it is nearly impossible to translate an atomic capability into strategic advantage. The mullahs who rule Iran have spent decades pursuing the bomb—weathering international isolation, sanctions, and a campaign of assassinations and subversion—and they will surely try to press their perceived advantage. They will brandish their arsenal and make demands, such as insisting that U.S. forces leave the region and that oil prices be set according to their preferences.

But what will they do if they are rebuffed? What happens if Israel and Saudi Arabia, backed in no uncertain terms by Washington, react to Iran’s provocations with their own show of determination? It is extremely doubtful that Iran would risk its own obliteration by using nuclear arms against them. In the end, the weapon that was supposed to enshrine Iran’s regional hegemony will likely result in no measurable change in Iranian power.

That outcome, however, would depend to a great degree on how Washington responded to Iran’s nuclear test. The U.S. president would need to deliver an address insisting that nothing in the region had changed with the advent of an Iranian bomb and that the United States was still prepared to defend its allies. Washington would have to put Tehran on notice that it would be held responsible for any use or transfer of its new weapons. To reinforce that message and communicate its seriousness of purpose, the United States would need to deploy nuclear-armed vessels to the Persian Gulf and even place atomic-tipped missiles controlled by U.S. forces in the Gulf states. There would be tense moments and standoffs; Washington would need to demonstrate a tolerance for risk.

NUCLEAR BLOWBACK

Once Iran goes nuclear, however, neutralizing the impact of an Iranian bomb should not be Washington’s sole mission: the larger goal should be to finally craft a global consensus against the Islamic Republic. The United States and its allies will have to levy harsh sanctions against the regime and further isolate it by pushing for the United Nations to formally censure Iran. Washington will need to persuade its European allies to sever diplomatic relations with Tehran. Those steps would not shut off all avenues of commerce with Iran: China would continue to purchase some of its oil, for one thing. But Japan and South Korea would need to cease doing so. The United States would also need to further restrict Iran’s commercial relations by stripping the regime of its ability to use the international banking system and repatriate its money from abroad. That would have the effect of reducing the regime to bartering, and a nation of 85 million people cannot live that way forever. The Islamic Republic would not bend—but it might break.
Some might object that a similar strategy has not broken the regime in North Korea, which defied the world by going nuclear in 2006 and has managed to stay in power despite economic and political isolation. But that comparison ignores the vast differences between the two countries. Unlike North Korea, Iran has a rich history of protests and revolutions that have toppled governments. Politics and society in Iran are not nearly as regimented as in North Korea. The regime in Tehran is brutal and oppressive, but it does not exercise the same level of control as the regime in Pyongyang.

Getting the bomb would also undercut the regime’s quest for regional hegemony: the weapon that the mullahs would hail as the country’s strategic salvation could instead trigger a nuclear arms race in Iran’s neighborhood. It is hard to imagine the Saudis standing idly by as their main rival brandishes an atomic arsenal. Turkey, desperate to be a consequential power in the region, might also get in on the act. The Middle East would suddenly become more volatile—and Iran would be less secure.

In this scenario, a crucial factor would be the effect of a nuclear-armed Iran on domestic U.S. politics. Few other international topics have so intensely divided Republicans and Democrats in the past few years. Democrats have castigated Republicans as warmongers who reflexively abjure sensible arms control. Republicans have denounced Democrats as agents of appeasement. With the nuclear question settled, both parties would have incentives to get tougher on Iran. Republicans are already hawkish and would be unlikely to dial down their animosity. And Democrats would be vulnerable to the charge that they let Iran get the bomb, giving them clear reasons to embrace a harsher position. In this way, political calculations would likely foster a new consensus in favor of confronting and undermining the Islamic Republic.
The most consequential victim of an Iranian bomb will be the theocracy itself.
Free of the divisive debate over the nuclear issue, Washington would be able to focus on the character and nature of a regime that represses its population and has recently installed a mass murderer as president. Disgust with Iran’s horrendous record on human rights would grow on both sides of the aisle and would serve as a platform for greater unity on the need to weaken the regime’s position through covert action and support for dissenters inside Iran. Not all Democrats and liberals would suddenly be converted to the cause of regime change. But once Iran goes nuclear, the notion that the mullahs would moderate if only Americans tread gently will no longer resonate. At the same time, U.S. politicians from both parties will have to understand that an Iranian bomb will make it harder to leave the Middle East behind and pivot or rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward Asia. For both strategic and political reasons, the United States can demonstrate strength to Iran only if it maintains a robust presence in the region.

Ultimately, the most consequential victim of an Iranian bomb will be the theocracy itself. The regime has spent billions of dollars on its atomic program and has suffered massive sanctions. When it finally succeeds and finds out that it yields no strategic benefit and further aggravates its economic dilemmas, it will confront explosive domestic political blowback. The Islamic Republic has already forfeited much of its legitimacy with contrived elections, dismal economic performance, massive corruption, and a mismanaged response to the COVID-19 pandemic. When a bomb that the regime had promised would enhance the country’s stature instead merely further drained its treasury, the public outcry will be immense and overwhelming.

The Iranian people are hardly docile subjects tolerating their government’s many abuses. In the past few years, members of nearly every social class have taken to the streets all over the country to protest against the regime. The mullahs will no doubt try to crush any mass movement that seeks their overthrow. But despite a facade of strength, the regime finds itself in the weakest position domestically that it has faced since its inception. And just as an Iranian bomb would solidify an anti-regime consensus in Washington, so, too, would it fortify opposition to the mullahs at home.

Some might object that even if getting the bomb backfires and contributes to the fall of the theocracy, a nuclear-armed Iran governed by something other than the current regime would itself pose a major problem for the United States and its partners and allies in the region. But if the regime fell, its successor would most likely emerge from the crucible of the opposition. As such, it would probably focus on internal economic development, mending fences with the international community, and acceding to global norms. A new Iranian government would likely reverse course on nuclear arms in order to deal with the myriad problems it would face at home. It would have every reason to heed the lesson that the current regime seems intent on learning the hard way: for Iran, the costs of having a nuclear weapon will far outweigh the benefits.
 

aryobarzan

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 17, 2019
2,378
1
7,284
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
The top article shows how ignorant they are about Iran but reality has a way of enforcing itself... .. And now this:.... they are in panic to stop Iran.. :undecided::undecided:....@QWECXZ ..there may be so truth to what you were saying about some unofficial truce and agreement.




Report: US, Israel mulling short-term agreement with Iran
By
IFP Media Wire
-
November 18, 2021

Washington and Tel Aviv are discussing the idea of having a temporary agreement with Tehran that will extend the time for negotiation to revive the Iran nuclear deal, Axios reported on Wednesday, citing US and Israeli sources.
US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan raised with his Israeli counterpart the idea of an interim agreement with Iran to buy more time for nuclear negotiations, three Israeli and US sources announced.
The idea is only preliminary, and the Joe Biden administration continues to insist that the full 2015 nuclear deal be restored. But with nuclear talks set to resume in Vienna on Nov. 29, it provides a window into at least some of the thinking inside the administration.
In recent weeks, Sullivan raised the idea of an interim deal while discussing next steps on the Iranian nuclear file with his counterpart Eyal Hulata.
Two American sources familiar with the call say the two were just “brainstorming” and that Sullivan was passing along an idea put forward by one of America’s European allies.
According to the US sources, the idea was that in exchange for a freeze from Iran (for example, on enriching uranium to 60%), the US and its allies could release some frozen Iranian funds or provide sanctions waivers on humanitarian goods.
Hulata told Sullivan he thought it wasn’t a good idea and stressed the Israeli concern that any interim deal will become a permanent agreement that allows Iran to maintain its nuclear infrastructure and uranium stockpile, an Israeli official stated.
In another call with Sullivan on Tuesday, Hulata also stressed that the US and its European allies must push for a censure resolution against Iran in next week’s meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, a source familiar with the conversations added.
Such a move to censure Iran would come just days before nuclear talks are set to resume.
A spokesperson for the Israeli National Security Council noted details of this story were inaccurate, but would not specify which details and did not deny that the idea of an interim deal had been discussed.
US Iran envoy Rob Malley visited Israel this week and met with Hulata as well as with Defense Minister Benny Gantz and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, both of whom contended that the only way to get Iran back to the 2015 deal was to increase rather than loosen the pressure, according to a senior Israeli official.
Malley made clear that the Biden administration also thinks more pressure on Iran is needed. The main difference is over the timing of further steps against Iran, the official said.
The US approach is to go to Vienna in good faith and see what Iran proposes, a US source familiar with the administration policy added.
If the Iranians make extreme demands, it will then be possible for the US to get other world powers including Russia and China to increase the pressure, the source contended.
Iran’s position heading into the talks is that the US must compensate Iran for its withdrawal from the deal, lift all (not just nuclear) sanctions imposed since 2015 at once, rather than in phases, and provide assurances that no future administration will back out of the deal.
On Nov. 22, IAEA director general Rafael Grossi will travel to Tehran to discuss the agency’s concerns about limitations placed on UN inspectors in the country, followed by the IAEA board meeting on Iran (Nov. 24-25) and the resumption of negotiations (Nov. 29).
 
Last edited:

Sineva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 24, 2018
2,958
-3
6,462
Country
Australia
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
Iran nuclear negotiator: Talks must address removal of sanctions

Past blunders must not be repeated if this week’s meeting in Vienna is to succeed
https://www.ft.com/content/ecd4d7c1-f166-4263-a31c-93bcebccfd47
The writer is Iranian deputy foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator

This week, Iran and five global powers gather in Vienna for so-called “nuclear negotiations”. This very term — which is used to refer to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement — is rife with error.
Western countries, in particular the US, work tirelessly to portray “negotiations” as merely a process to restrict Iran’s legitimate and peaceful nuclear programme, which is enshrined in international treaties and watched by oversight organisations. From Iran’s perspective, however, “negotiations” must pursue real objectives, observed by all parties.
In this vein, we have two goals: the first is to gain a full, guaranteed and verifiable removal of the sanctions that have been imposed on the Iranian people. Without this, the process will continue indefinitely. “Negotiations” without an airtight solution benefit no one.
The second is to facilitate the legal rights of the Iranian nation to benefit from peaceful nuclear knowledge, especially the all-important enrichment technology for industrial purposes, according to the terms of the international Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Previous attempts to close the “trust gap” between parties of the nuclear talks have failed mainly because the west regards any agreement solely as an established platform from which to launch more pressure against Iran. In English, you call it “moving the goalposts”.
This is the crux of the dispute that has forced us, six years after the initial agreement, to the table yet again. We will be starting these new discussions under circumstances influenced by the unfortunate fate of the JCPOA, when US president Donald Trump unilaterally decided to abandon this deal. This was a terrible betrayal of trust for Iran and Iranians.
Experience tells us that the west does not seek to implement a deal. Rather, it seeks to score public perception points by announcing one while stealthily “dis-implementing” the agreement in every possible way. From our experience, this is followed by actions to “hijack” the JCPOA platform to force Iran to make more concessions in areas unrelated to the nuclear issue. As a result, the Iranian people trust neither the process, nor its outcome.
It would be naive to attribute these problems solely to the Trump administration and to his “maximum pressure campaign.” Constant US efforts to deny Iran any economic benefits for reducing its nuclear activities are why many once-passionate Iranian defenders of the agreement have now changed their minds: they no longer trust either its tangible benefits or its intent. Donald Trump merely removed the velvet gloves from the cast-iron hand of the previous US administration.
From our viewpoint, past blunders should not be repeated. We have all, respectively, learned over the past six years what and who can be trusted. To ensure any forthcoming agreement is ironclad, the west needs to pay a price for having failed to uphold its part of the bargain. As in any business, a deal is a deal, and breaking it has consequences.
Iran remains committed to the process and we will adhere to our commitments. From our perspective, the principle of “mutual compliance” cannot form a proper base for negotiations since it was the US government which unilaterally left the deal. The US should therefore demonstrate that it is serious this time, and that it possesses the necessary competence to fulfil its commitments.
In Iran’s recent presidential elections, voters decided to invest their confidence in a paradigm that espouses a more realistic engagement with the west. Actions now matter more than mere words. We should be offered a clear and transparent mechanism to ensure that sanctions will be removed. For what other conceivable reason would we compromise regarding Iran’s technological advances and nationally-precious domestic nuclear programme?
Iran did not succumb to the use of either military threats, economic sanctions or “maximum pressure” under Trump and it will not do so under Biden. In order to secure the rights and interests of our nation, we are ready for a fair and careful discussion, based on the principles of “guarantee” and “verification”. This must prioritise compensation for the violation of the deal, which includes the removal of all post-JCPOA sanctions.
In return, Iran is ready to voluntarily fulfil its nuclear commitments in accordance with the agreement. We remain prepared to react proportionately to any pressure and reciprocate any goodwill gesture. We have made our choice. We will now find out whether or not the west has the will to enter real negotiations.
 

Sineva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 24, 2018
2,958
-3
6,462
Country
Australia
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
Heres a really hilarious one,basically a former cia spook,and current 💩fdd shill💩,venting his spleen over the negotiations on the us return to the jcpoa.
I do think that the title is appropriate tho`,as chumpist america,and indeed the 💩chumpenfuhrer-in-chief💩 himself,did remind me oh so much of a nasty spiteful little child with a hammer,running about the house bent on pointless destruction and gleefully breaking anything and everything that it could reach.
So I guess the moral of the story is this,if you`re going to act like a child,dont expect to be treated as an adult.;)
In the end tho,the us only has itself to blame for any humiliation that it suffers,or feels that it does.After all,it not only allowed a man like trump to run in an election,which was bad enough,but then it actually elected this person to the highest office in the land,which is truly insane.

I`d also recommend checking out the comments thread on this "article" over at the wsj site,truly hilarious,as one would naturally expect.:sarcastic:

Iran’s Nuclear Negotiators Make the U.S. Sit at the Kiddie Table
The Islamic Republic relishes humiliating Americans while granting no concessions.:omghaha:[YOU violated the deal,yet somehow you think that you`re entitled to "concessions"!?]

By Reuel Marc Gerecht and Ray Takeyh
Nov. 28, 2021 5:23 pm ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-nuclear-jcpoa-tehran-enrichment-islamic-republic-11638129541
Arms-control talks between Iran and the great powers resume Monday with a notable absence. At Tehran’s insistence, the U.S. delegation won’t have a seat at the table—its members must wait in an antechamber to be briefed by the Europeans. The mullahs have always relished humiliating Americans, particularly those eager to prove their benevolent intentions. These negotiations will yield little, no matter how much money Washington releases or how ardently Biden administration officials describe any follow-on talks as important steps toward a diplomatic solution.

The clerical regime’s atomic ambitions will continue to progress rapidly because the U.S. administration has no intention of trying to rescind what President Obama’s nuclear deal granted: the development of high-yield, easily hidden centrifuges, the key to an unstoppable bomb program. The Islamic Republic has displayed an uncanny ability to advance its aspirations and eviscerate American red lines with impunity.

The theocracy’s nuclear diplomacy succeeds precisely because it seeks no agreement. The mullahs understand things their interlocutors don’t. The U.S. and Israel have repeatedly chosen not to disable Iran’s nuclear program by force, undermining the regime’s fear of attack and allowing the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, more maneuvering room. All U.S. administrations have sincerely, at times desperately, wanted an accord. The United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency censure the Islamic Republic, and the regime ignores them. If Tehran pretends to be interested in diplomacy, Washington, always fearful of another war in the Middle East, makes more concessions.

The achievements of this diplomatic stratagem are extraordinary. Washington and the Europeans once insisted that the Islamic Republic couldn’t have a domestic enrichment capacity. This was a sensible precaution. The infrastructure required to enrich uranium for nuclear power is the same as what is needed to make a bomb. The process is costly, and most nations that use civilian nuclear power import refined uranium.

Yet today U.S. and European officials, and many nuclear experts, pooh-pooh the idea that Iran should forgo indigenous enrichment. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal Mr. Obama struck and President Trump abandoned, has become canonical among Democrats. It specifies not only that Iran has the right to enrich but that its enrichment capability can become industrialized. The clerical regime obtained this permissive accord by merely showing up at various conclaves and holding firm. American officials fulminated, threatened, bickered among themselves and eventually capitulated.

The Biden administration isn’t diverging from Mr. Obama’s path. A well-timed Israeli leak shows the White House is considering an interim arrangement whereby Iran would cease some of its activities in exchange for sanctions relief. It won’t be long before Washington deludes itself into believing that a threshold capability will satisfy Iran, that it can be an Islamist version of Japan—inches away from developing a bomb but with no intention to take the next step.

The ascendance of the hard-line Ibrahim Raisi to the presidency altered the economics of arms control. He subscribes to Mr. Khamenei’s “economy of resistance,” the notion that Iran can meet its needs by relying on its internal market and trade with China and neighboring states. In this view, segregation from the global economy is virtuous, wise and courageous. Unlike former President Hassan Rouhani, the new crew isn’t looking for Western commerce as a means of rejuvenating the economy and the revolution. There appears to be little concern among Mr. Khamenei’s ruling elite that this scheme will lead to poverty and another lost generation.

Even more than Mr. Raisi, Mr. Trump accelerated history. According to Mr. Obama’s blueprint, we were going to see a nuclear Iran and a much richer clerical regime. Freed from sanctions, the ruling clergy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards would have had time to build up their armed forces, as well as the nuclear-weapons program. Thinking that renewed and improved sanctions would give him a “good” nuclear deal (always a dubious proposition), Mr. Trump collapsed 15 years of Western diplomacy and the JCPOA’s envisioned decade of sun-setting restrictions into clear and irrevocable choices.


Mr. Biden can’t turn back the clock. Diplomacy and extortion—the two are synonymous for the Islamic Republic—may have had their day. Mr. Khamenei is going to make the president pony up a huge amount of money for the fleeting relief of his nuclear anxiety—assuming the supreme leader still even wants to play such games with the U.S. For Mr. Biden, the only question is whether he wants to endure this humiliation in return for so little.

Mr. Gerecht, a former Iranian-targets officer in the Central Intelligence Agency, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mr. Takeyh, the author of “The Last Shah,” is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
 

mohsen

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 26, 2012
5,827
-1
13,043
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Heres a really hilarious one,basically a former cia spook,and current 💩fdd shill💩,venting his spleen over the negotiations on the us return to the jcpoa.
I do think that the title is appropriate tho`,as chumpist america,and indeed the 💩chumpenfuhrer-in-chief💩 himself,did remind me oh so much of a nasty spiteful little child with a hammer,running about the house bent on pointless destruction and gleefully breaking anything and everything that it could reach.
So I guess the moral of the story is this,if you`re going to act like a child,dont expect to be treated as an adult.;)
In the end tho,the us only has itself to blame for any humiliation that it suffers,or feels that it does.After all,it not only allowed a man like trump to run in an election,which was bad enough,but then it actually elected this person to the highest office in the land,which is truly insane.

I`d also recommend checking out the comments thread on this "article" over at the wsj site,truly hilarious,as one would naturally expect.:sarcastic:

Iran’s Nuclear Negotiators Make the U.S. Sit at the Kiddie Table
The Islamic Republic relishes humiliating Americans while granting no concessions.:omghaha:[YOU violated the deal,yet somehow you think that you`re entitled to "concessions"!?]

By Reuel Marc Gerecht and Ray Takeyh
Nov. 28, 2021 5:23 pm ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-nuclear-jcpoa-tehran-enrichment-islamic-republic-11638129541
Arms-control talks between Iran and the great powers resume Monday with a notable absence. At Tehran’s insistence, the U.S. delegation won’t have a seat at the table—its members must wait in an antechamber to be briefed by the Europeans. The mullahs have always relished humiliating Americans, particularly those eager to prove their benevolent intentions. These negotiations will yield little, no matter how much money Washington releases or how ardently Biden administration officials describe any follow-on talks as important steps toward a diplomatic solution.

The clerical regime’s atomic ambitions will continue to progress rapidly because the U.S. administration has no intention of trying to rescind what President Obama’s nuclear deal granted: the development of high-yield, easily hidden centrifuges, the key to an unstoppable bomb program. The Islamic Republic has displayed an uncanny ability to advance its aspirations and eviscerate American red lines with impunity.

The theocracy’s nuclear diplomacy succeeds precisely because it seeks no agreement. The mullahs understand things their interlocutors don’t. The U.S. and Israel have repeatedly chosen not to disable Iran’s nuclear program by force, undermining the regime’s fear of attack and allowing the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, more maneuvering room. All U.S. administrations have sincerely, at times desperately, wanted an accord. The United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency censure the Islamic Republic, and the regime ignores them. If Tehran pretends to be interested in diplomacy, Washington, always fearful of another war in the Middle East, makes more concessions.

The achievements of this diplomatic stratagem are extraordinary. Washington and the Europeans once insisted that the Islamic Republic couldn’t have a domestic enrichment capacity. This was a sensible precaution. The infrastructure required to enrich uranium for nuclear power is the same as what is needed to make a bomb. The process is costly, and most nations that use civilian nuclear power import refined uranium.

Yet today U.S. and European officials, and many nuclear experts, pooh-pooh the idea that Iran should forgo indigenous enrichment. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal Mr. Obama struck and President Trump abandoned, has become canonical among Democrats. It specifies not only that Iran has the right to enrich but that its enrichment capability can become industrialized. The clerical regime obtained this permissive accord by merely showing up at various conclaves and holding firm. American officials fulminated, threatened, bickered among themselves and eventually capitulated.

The Biden administration isn’t diverging from Mr. Obama’s path. A well-timed Israeli leak shows the White House is considering an interim arrangement whereby Iran would cease some of its activities in exchange for sanctions relief. It won’t be long before Washington deludes itself into believing that a threshold capability will satisfy Iran, that it can be an Islamist version of Japan—inches away from developing a bomb but with no intention to take the next step.

The ascendance of the hard-line Ibrahim Raisi to the presidency altered the economics of arms control. He subscribes to Mr. Khamenei’s “economy of resistance,” the notion that Iran can meet its needs by relying on its internal market and trade with China and neighboring states. In this view, segregation from the global economy is virtuous, wise and courageous. Unlike former President Hassan Rouhani, the new crew isn’t looking for Western commerce as a means of rejuvenating the economy and the revolution. There appears to be little concern among Mr. Khamenei’s ruling elite that this scheme will lead to poverty and another lost generation.

Even more than Mr. Raisi, Mr. Trump accelerated history. According to Mr. Obama’s blueprint, we were going to see a nuclear Iran and a much richer clerical regime. Freed from sanctions, the ruling clergy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards would have had time to build up their armed forces, as well as the nuclear-weapons program. Thinking that renewed and improved sanctions would give him a “good” nuclear deal (always a dubious proposition), Mr. Trump collapsed 15 years of Western diplomacy and the JCPOA’s envisioned decade of sun-setting restrictions into clear and irrevocable choices.


Mr. Biden can’t turn back the clock. Diplomacy and extortion—the two are synonymous for the Islamic Republic—may have had their day. Mr. Khamenei is going to make the president pony up a huge amount of money for the fleeting relief of his nuclear anxiety—assuming the supreme leader still even wants to play such games with the U.S. For Mr. Biden, the only question is whether he wants to endure this humiliation in return for so little.

Mr. Gerecht, a former Iranian-targets officer in the Central Intelligence Agency, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mr. Takeyh, the author of “The Last Shah,” is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Post some comments, I don't have the subscription.
 

Sineva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 24, 2018
2,958
-3
6,462
Country
Australia
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
Post some comments, I don't have the subscription.
"President Trump (Jared Kushner and Mike Pompeo) gave us a path to peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords. Forge an alliance among the Muslim countries in the region and Israel, who have a mutual loathing for Iran. Devastate Iran with crushing economic sanctions in order to instigate an overthrow of the oppressive Iranian regime by the Iranian people. It was a new and non-conforming approach that was working. Sadly, we abandoned that path when we elected a career bureaucrat and politician who reverted back to the old playbook of appeasement. Sadly, the American public wasn't even aware of these Accords and that this process had a meaningful chance at leading to sustainable peace in the middle east because our media refused to cover anything positive about our previous president."
*****************************************************************************************
"Jagdish, the Arab nations in that area have always viewed Iran as their greatest strategic threat; nothing has changed in that regard. In the 1980's, Iran started a war with its Arab neighbor Iraq. Expect Arab nations in the area to take action to stay equal with Iran in offensive military capability.

As to your comparison with Israel, I view those two countries differently. One of them has vowed, for years, to destroy the other. The other has never done that. "
*****************************************************************************************
"The Rodney King mantra has become the base ideology of the Democrats: "Can't we all just get along?" It never ends. Liberals forever delude themselves into believing that all humanity is inherently good and wants peace and prosperity, and good will towards all. History, and the present, demonstrate the exact opposite. Churchhill said it best: "You can't negotiate with a Tiger when your head is in its mouth!" Dems inherently live in the mouth of the enemy.

I didn't want Trump to run again, or to be President again (would much prefer someone like DeSantis). However I am starting to change my mind. As ugly are his words, and uncouth his behavior, it will again take someone like Trump (a modern day Patton, to my mind) to dismantle the madness of the Progressive Lib left policies without mercy, apology or compromise."
*****************************************************************************************
This one I really like,the old munich comparison,except of course I`d always considered rouhani to be neville chamberlain,the big difference was that even chamberlain eventually woke up to the true nature of the regime that he was doing deals with,sadly tho` rouhani never did.

"The US is in the same boat as Czechoslovakia at the 1938 Munich conference. Forced to sit outside while france, britain, and germany decided their fate. Wonder which of the heads of the EU will show up back home waving a piece of paper promising 'peace in our time'."
*****************************************************************************************
This one really gets me,in syria it was the west supporting the people who were throwing government workers off of the roofs of buildings while chanting "alawites to the grave,christians to beirut",while it was iran and its allies fighting to stop them.That says everything in my book.

"Evil exists. And the only thing that stops evil is force. Iran's approach to government is to dictate a preferred morality on its people and its neighbors. That is stopped only through force, making the imposition of a preferred morality by Iran unprofitable. Now if you find throwing people off buildings due to a chosen life style appropriate, and adherence to a particular faith and its dubious tenants of behavior acceptable, then I suppose the mullahs use of force wouldn't bother you.

But if you find people should be free to live as they choose, absent any use of force or fraud as they pursue their own values and happiness, then you abhor Iran's approach to government and international relations.

Sooner or later ever more force will have to be used against Iran, unless the profit in the government's behavior is negated more quietly."
*****************************************************************************************
Heres a classic bushism:
"The only thing that stops evil is for good men(women) to do nothing (negotiate with evil)"
LOL-WHUT!? :omghaha:
*****************************************************************************************
Heres one of the few sane posters,who also happens to point out some uncomfortable facts.

"Why should the Iranians negotiate with a country that breached the last agreement? And if the last agreement was so ineffectual, why did even Trump's administration certify the Iranians were in compliance prior to breaking our word? "

Naturally the response to this is pretty much the equivalent of a child insisting: "it doesnt count!,we had our fingers crossed when we said it,so it doesnt count,so there!"

"As per the U.S. constitution, "our word" is only given when 2/3 of the senate concur. Our word was never given, Obama's word was given."
*****************************************************************************************
Sadly when it came to the vast majority of these posters,their ignorance was matched only by their arrogance,which was in turn matched only by their utter blind stupidity.
I have to say,its a truly depressing time to be a westerner........:tsk:
 

mohsen

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 26, 2012
5,827
-1
13,043
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Arak reactor is gone for good! From safety point of view, it can not be recovered.


Thanks to mother f@cker traitors.
 

Draco.IMF

FULL MEMBER
Jan 17, 2015
1,345
0
3,385
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Arak reactor is gone for good! From safety point of view, it can not be recovered.


Thanks to mother f@cker traitors.
how long will it take to build a new heavy water "Arak-style" reactor?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom