Iran to react if US prevents lifting arms embargo as per nuclear deal: President Rouhani

[SubWater]

Leaving JCPOA and or NPT just means more sanctions. The only effective response is to develop nukes and ICBM and demand lifting of all sanctions in exchange of giving up nuclear warheads. Then the sanctions will begin again and we will fall into a loop. Our only solution is to somehow work our differences with US and Israel, there is no other solution, unless several of the liberal US states like California declares independence from war mongering Texas

There is other option called WAR.

 

[zartosht]

Irans oil revenues are down to 8 billion from over 100~

just imagine that shock alone of losing half the government revenue would probably bring 90% of world governments to collape..

the other 10% holding on by a thread would see their coup d grace In the form of swift sanctions. where no monetary transactions can be made. you cant buy goods and you cant sell anything.

all trade needs to be done by a complex under the table barter system. that makes It excruitiangly slow, expensive And risky for all involved.

Iraq had 500k children starve to death when their oil alone was sanctioned as a comparison.

the Iranian government has become a victim of its own success in my opinion. They have weather American sanctions and plots so well, and kept life relatively ordinary for Iranians. to the point where Iranians forgot the geopolitical war and embargo their country is in. and blame the government because the economy is not booming.

 

[mangekyo]

That's the important part. What's your solution? What can we do to neutralize our relations? The JCPOA was supposed to do that, but it turned out to be the worst deal we signed in 50 years. What's your solution? I am all ears.

I am not saying we should bend over and accept US as our masters like certain countries in the region. But for starters, we can lose the image that we are uncivilized barbarians by not hanging people publicly from cranes, stop chanting death to US, death to Israel, stop burning flags, stop executing children, and adopt a more normal foreign policy. Become more tourist friendly. Show the world that we are a friendly, hospitable people with more than 3000 years of rich history, culture, teach them about our people that invented the windmills, distillation, the first air condition, the first fridge, wrote the first charter of human rights, freed the jews from Babylon. Wrote a book on medicine that was the standard in European universities for more than a thousand years. We could open up to the world. We can fix our internal problems, so we wont have riots 24/7. Although we have been treated unjust and unfairly since forever. I'ts very hard to feel sympathy to Iran when we act like we do.

 

[Philosopher]

No, that's not related to warhead design. I said assume that you have already built the warhead. So, that's related to the RV. If your RV damages your warhead, it won't function as expected. What part of it is so hard for you to understand?

You are confusing the general concept of a Re-entry vehicle vs the contents of the warhead i.e conventional vs non-conventional. An ICBM requires the robust RV regardless whether it is nuclear or not.

Okay, man. An ICBM is just a multi-stage missile carrying a nuclear warhead then.

An ICBM can carry a nuclear or non-nuclear systems, the contents of the warhead are not related to the ICBM design.

I wonder why a nuclear state like Pakistan that already has multi-stage solid fuel missiles like Shaheen III can't build them. Or why countries like the US, Russia, China and France want to improve their nuclear ICBMs.

Those nations are nuclear powers thus their missiles are tipped with nuclear warheads. It does not mean they were "designed" to house a nuclear warhead. All Iranians missiles, from Shahab series, to Sejill, to Fateh etc can carry nuclear warheads. There is no limitation except payload here.

I remember once you called my facts about neuroscience and brain engineering as some "Alex Jones level conspiracies" that disrepute whatever I say. When I showed you a video of an academic M.Sc. course at one of our neuroscience institutions in Iran which said exactly the same thing, you didn't even apologize for making fun of me and instead said something like we should make sure that Iran is progressing in these fields too.

If I recall, I accepted your position in the end in that thread. What are you are doing here however is passing your own claims not backed by any technical evidence. If you want to act as if I am not correct, then go and find some else here whom you believe understand this area and ask their opinions too. For example, PeeD.

I will leave you with this question. Name me a single one of Irans missiles today that you think is not designed to carry a nuclear warhead and explain to me why it could not carry a nuclear warhead. Hopefully, you will realise that issue is due to warhead itself and has nothing to do with the design of missile overall.

 

[mangekyo]

A missile is just essentially a delivery system for a warhead. The warhead design is something that is done so separately. Lets take a "simpler" design such as Sejill-2, as compared to an ICBM. Lets assume Sejill can carry a 1 ton warhead. Now also lets assume Iran managed to create a nuclear warhead that is 1 ton. Do you think Sejill can carry that 1 ton nuclear warhead? If yes, then are you saying Sejill is "designed" to carry a nuclear warhead? Explain to me how it is designed to do that.

What differentiates between a missile than carry a nuclear vs non-nuclear warhead? People are confusing warhead design here with the design of the actual missile.

I said from the start. And I will quote myself.

I'm thinking more in the sense of developing an ICBM designed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Even if we have ICBMS, we do not have nuclear warheads, so technically, we do not have missiles designed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads. If we develop nuclear warheads and test it, then technically, one can assume the ICBMs we design are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

We do not have nuclear warheads, ergo we do not have missiles designed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads. If we produce nuclear warheads and test it, then we can assume that the missiles we produce are designed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

We do not have nuclear warheads, therefore, Sejjil-2 is not designed to be able to carry nuclear warheads.

I will leave you with this question. Name me a single one of Irans missiles today that you think is not designed to carry a nuclear warhead and explain to me why it could not carry a nuclear warhead. Hopefully, you will realise that issue is due to warhead itself and has nothing to do with the design of missile overall.

Every single one of our missiles. We do not have nuclear warheads, therefore we do not design missiles that are capable of carrying something we dont have. Even if you could put a nuclear warhead on any of our missiles, they are not designed for it.

 

[Philosopher]

I


We do not have nuclear warheads, ergo we do not have missiles designed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads. If we produce nuclear warheads and test it, then we can assume that the missiles we produce are designed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

We do not have nuclear warheads, therefore, Sejjil-2 is not designed to be able to carry nuclear warheads.

That is precisely why the wording of the UNSC was changed, so Iran could develop its missile but could say "they are not designed to carry because we do not have nuclear weapons". However, this is not what we are discussing. I am explaining to you that in a technical sense, there is no missile "designed" to carry nuclear weapons. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, its missile designs would not change. All missiles are "nuclear capable" if they can carry that payload. Do not confuse capability with intent.

 

[QWECXZ]

You are confusing the general concept of a Re-entry vehicle vs the contents of the warhead i.e conventional vs non-conventional. An ICBM requires the robust RV regardless whether it is nuclear or not.

An ICBM can carry a nuclear or non-nuclear systems, the contents of the warhead are not related to the ICBM design.

Those nations are nuclear powers thus their missiles are tipped with nuclear warheads. It does not mean they were "designed" to house a nuclear warhead. All Iranians missiles, from Shahab series, to Sejill, to Fateh etc can carry nuclear warheads. There is no limitation except payload here.

If I recall, I accepted your position in the end in that thread. What are you are doing here however is passing your own claims not backed by any technical evidence. If you want to act as if I am not correct, then go and find some else here whom you believe understand this area and ask their opinions too. For example, PeeD.

I will leave you with this question. Name me a single one of Irans missiles today that you think is not designed to carry a nuclear warhead and explain to me why it could not carry a nuclear warhead. Hopefully, you will realise that issue is due to warhead itself and has nothing to do with the design of missile overall.

Let me ask my question in a different way. Do you agree that a nuclear warhead, depending on its method of reaching the critical mass and providing neutrons for the chain reaction, consists of several different components that each one of them is extremely critical for its function?

I am not saying we should bend over and accept US as our masters like certain countries in the region. But for starters, we can lose the image that we are uncivilized barbarians by not hanging people publicly from cranes, stop chanting death to US, death to Israel, stop burning flags, stop executing children, and adopt a more normal foreign policy. Become more tourist friendly. Show the world that we are a friendly, hospitable people with more than 3000 years of rich history, culture, teach them about our people that invented the windmills, distillation, the first air condition, the first fridge, wrote the first charter of human rights, freed the jews from Babylon. Wrote a book on medicine that was the standard in European universities for more than a thousand years. We could open up to the world. We can fix our internal problems, so we wont have riots 24/7. Although we have been treated unjust and unfairly since forever. I'ts very hard to feel sympathy to Iran when we act like we do.

Now you are talking American propaganda. Stay in Norway please.

 

[mangekyo]

That is precisely why the wording of the UNSC was changed, so Iran could develop its missile but could say "they are not designed to carry because we do not have nuclear weapons". However, this is not what we are discussing. I am explaining to you that in a technical sense, there is no missile "designed" to carry nuclear weapons. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, its missile designs would not change. All missiles are "nuclear capable" if they can carry that payload. Do not confuse capability with intent.

Maybe you are right that you can technically put a nuclear warhead on any missile. Like I said, I am no missile expert. But my post from the beginning was about us building nuclear warheads and designing new ICBMS, which would send the message that we have nuclear weapons and have designed an ICBM with the sole purpose of delivering the nuclear warheads.

 

[Philosopher]

Let me ask my question in a different way. Do you agree that a nuclear warhead, depending on its method of reaching the critical mass and providing neutrons for the chain reaction, consists of several different components that each one of them is extremely critical for its function?

Yes, but that is an issue of the design of warhead content. There are many different types of warheads a missile is capable of carrying, however it does not mean it had to be specially designed to carry that specific system. For example, a Fateh-110 can carry anything from thermobaric warhead, to nuclear to chemical and so on. Don't get boggled down on this "designed to carry" term.

Maybe you are right that you can technically put a nuclear warhead on any missile. Like I said, I am no missile expert. But my post from the beginning was about us building nuclear warheads and designing new ICBMS, which would send the message that we have nuclear weapons and have designed an ICBM with the sole purpose of delivering the nuclear warheads.

They already know we have that capability, Iran has sent them that message. Whether Iran will overly stated test an ICBM and/or nukes depends on its own calculations. If Iran feels the need for it, it will happen. We are not there yet.

 

[mangekyo]

Now you are talking American propaganda. Stay in Norway please.

What do you mean "American propaganda"? Do you deny my claims, are they factually incorrect, does what I mentioned not happen in Iran, is there any reason it needs to continue?

They already know we have that capability, Iran has sent them that message. Whether Iran will overly stated test an ICBM and/or nukes depends on its own calculations. If Iran feels the need for it, it will happen. We are not there yet.

They suspect but they dont know. Even so, did they expect us to capture a British ship when they captured ours? They knew we had the capability to do it. Anyways, my point was if we develop ICBMS and nuclear weapons, we can exchange them for sanctions relief. But once we do that, they will sanction us again. Either we change our foreign policy and fix our image, or we hope that US falls.

 

[Philosopher]

They suspect but they dont know. Even so, did they expect us to capture a British ship when they captured ours? Anyways, my point was if we develop ICBMS and nuclear weapons, we can exchange them for sanctions relief. But once we do that, they will sanction us again. Either we change our foreign policy and fix our image, or we hope that US falls.

My friend,

The message has been sent. They know fully well Iran could develop the nuclear systems with relative ease. The ICBM technology is already demonstrated. My feelings is Iran will wait to see what happens in the next US elections before deciding what to do next. Iran is very smart, they do not take rash decisions, their moves are calculated.

 

[zhxy]

Iran should negotiate with Israel and Arabia Saudi, reestablishing relationships with them. And stop supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad ...

Iran is currently isolated, they have too many enemies in the Middle East region.

 

[Kastor]

There is no endgame, thats the thing. I know Shah was an American vassal in the beginning, as he had no other choice. But during his later reign, he distanced himself more and more from US and wanted to make Iran more independent. If you see his videos when he talks about the visions he has for Iran. Man.. We are 80 million, we have a highly capable, young and educated workforce. We have the third or fourth largest proven oil reserves, the largest or second largest gas reserves. We control energy corridors, we are situated in the middle of east meets west. We have tremendous potential. We could easily be in the top 5 richest countries in the world.

Absolutely....that's what I said as well. We have tremendous potential but due to the BS rhetoric and ideology our people have lost out on one of the biggest economic boom of the 20th and 21st century. Meanwhile UAE a literal sandbox is becoming a ME business hub.

 

[mangekyo]

My friend,

The message has been sent. They know fully well Iran could develop the nuclear systems with relative ease. The ICBM technology is already demonstrated. My feelings is Iran will wait to see what happens in the next US elections before deciding what to do next. Iran is very smart, they do not take rash decisions, their moves are calculated.

I know they know we have the capability, but right now the general belief is that we wont ever do it. Thats why I used the British ship as an example. They knew we had the capability to capture it, but they didn't believe we would do it. We need to show them that we will do it, and we will even use it if we want to. But whatever we do, I agree, we need to wait until after the US elections

 

[hussainb72]

I am not saying we should bend over and accept US as our masters like certain countries in the region. But for starters, we can lose the image that we are uncivilized barbarians by not hanging people publicly from cranes, stop chanting death to US, death to Israel, stop burning flags, stop executing children, and adopt a more normal foreign policy. Become more tourist friendly. Show the world that we are a friendly, hospitable people with more than 3000 years of rich history, culture, teach them about our people that invented the windmills, distillation, the first air condition, the first fridge, wrote the first charter of human rights, freed the jews from Babylon. Wrote a book on medicine that was the standard in European universities for more than a thousand years. We could open up to the world. We can fix our internal problems, so we wont have riots 24/7. Although we have been treated unjust and unfairly since forever. I'ts very hard to feel sympathy to Iran when we act like we do.

I am really sorry but Iran is an islamic republic, so there are some rules everyone has to follow, like hijab, or hanging people. These arent rules set by the rulers but actually things from islam, and islam is related to everything in our lives.
Also it looks like you dont really know why Iranians chant death to america, death to israel and why they burn their flags. Is it that you really dont know the reason, or that you forgot it, or you just want to ignore it?
Also regarding Iranian history and achievements, some of these are actually well known in the west, especially in the fields of medicine. But the western media nowadays controls how people really think, so they have turned Iran into this barbaric backwards country that oppresses it's own people and kills them on a daily bases. But that's not true and it's far from reality.
Iran's internal problems should only be discussed and solved by the Iranians, it makes no sense for an Iranian to ask another country to fix such things. Also it has always been a mistake negotiating with the west. If they really cared about Iranian people, they would be removed those sanctions when the deals were signed.
There is actually a solution for the current situation. Iran should simply get out of any deal it has made with the US, because it gained nothing from them and so it can actually leave them. Also Iran has many countries near it, it can start exporting to these countries and expand its exports in Africa. There are alot of small countries that would buy cheap goods and wouldn't care much about the US and its threats. Iran can very well maintain different sectors in these small countries and that can be used as a source of finance. An example for this is Iran overhauling the Venezuelan C130. Now that Venezuela makes deals with Iran, it can take advantage of Iran's capabilities and improve itself. Iran will also receive an income in this way, so it's a win-win situation.
The only thing needed is a proper president who can stop corruption and actually work in such a way to create such links with these countries and expand Iran's economy.