Iran says they did not agree to dismantle anything

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Jan 23, 2014.

  1. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,716
    Likes Received:
    5,332
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,557
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    from the article:

    (CNN) -- Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif insisted Wednesday that the Obama administration mischaracterizes concessions by his side in the six-month nuclear deal with Iran, telling CNN in an exclusive interview that "we did not agree to dismantle anything."

    Zarif told CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto that terminology used by the White House to describe the agreement differed from the text agreed to by Iran and the other countries in the talks -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

    "The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments" under the agreement that took effect Monday, Zarif said in Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum.


    ..............
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,977
    Likes Received:
    847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,742
    Unless he's right about the actual language, the only logical response here would be "well, we didn't agree to reduce sanctions/release impounded money/etc", but is there any doubt that we will gladly and blithely hold up our end? I mean, the negotiation is just a pretense anyway -- I think that if Obama and likeminded allies thought they could get away with doing it, they would just tank the sanctions and apologize for them because it's the "right thing to do", no terms required. The sane people in their countries would be incensed, though, so have to cook up an agreement for Iran to ignore first.
  3. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    Well, I guess you could just take the Iranian government official's spin as fact.
  4. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,977
    Likes Received:
    847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,742
    You're missing the point -- the fact that they are saying it just means they are already acknowledging what everybody who isn't an Obama flack or flack to his counterparts with half a brain already knew, that Iran was going to flout any terms placed on it in any agreement. Saying "oh, we are not obligated to blah blah blah" is just an obfuscated way of saying "we aren't going to blah blah blah".

    I'm open to the narrow possibility that the language of this piece of fluff is so soft that Iran may be technically correct, it doesn't obligate them to dismantle anything, but even if it did, even if the language threatened to unleash the plagues of Egypt on them if they didn't, they were never going to actually comply.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    So? I've already said this before, they would spin any deal they could conceivably agree to positively. Just like the people who think Obama& Kerry are ineffectual weenies (and secretely/openly want war or military action against Iran) will spin it negatively.
  6. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,716
    Likes Received:
    5,332
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,557

    or it makes you realize they cannot be trusted and any deal with them is only as good as the paper it was written upon
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. mocgator
    Offline

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,511
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    We have empty suits conducting life or death diplomacy with insane zealots...

    What could possibly go wrong??
    • Funny Funny x 2
  8. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    This is exactly the problem. The people who hate this don't want to deal at all. Nothing could please them, save a military strike or total capitulation (which would never happen diplomatically or militarily).
  9. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,977
    Likes Received:
    847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,742
    You *still* aren't getting it. Everybody spins agreements they make in a positive light, nations, people. And for the most part they do it because they want the deal they are going to comply with to be seen as having benefited them.

    Is that what this is? Is this Iran saying "we agreed to do X, Y, and Z because it is what is good for us"? Or is this Iran saying they aren't going to do X, Y, and Z at all? If you can't tell, that is disappointing.
  10. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    I'm not all that interested in what Iran is saying one way or the other. I'm more interested in what they actually do. How how they need to sell it to the world and their own people doesnt really mean much to me, if they adhere to the agreement made. If they don't adhere, then they've screwed themselves.
  11. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,977
    Likes Received:
    847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,742
    What they are going to do has never been in doubt has it, other than amongst the true marks out there.

    They are going to continue to press ahead tirelessly in pursuit of nuclear weapons and a mid-range or better delivery system (which the Norks will gladly trade them whenever they can get No Dong to be reliable). If, along the way, they build a nuclear power infrastructure, great, if not no big deal because they will be a nuclear state.

    Any discussion they participate in or term they pretend to agree to, they do solely to mollify the world long enough to accomplish that goal.

    That is it. There is no other angle here. They barely pretend otherwise. How can anyone not understand this?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    Yeah, the people who really, really want war or military action think its inevitable and that deals are pointless. How surprising.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Wish I would have said that Wish I would have said that x 1
  13. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,977
    Likes Received:
    847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,742
    I don't want war, which is why I don't want them to have nuclear weapons. We don't necessarily need war to stop them, although a tactical military incursion might of needs come about at some point. If playing aerial whackamole with them is what it takes, okay. Hard sanctions are worth maintaining, though. We are lightening sanctions in exchange for terms Iran is already saying they aren't bound to -- can you think of even one rational reason to believe that they are going to back down?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    So, you don't want war, and you don't want them to have nukes, and they are relentless pursuing a nuclear weapon according to you. Yet, any deal is worthless because they cant be trusted (and they really, really want nukes no matter what), and while full sanctions were in play, there were regular stories of Iran's imminent aquisition nukes (seems like every 6 months there was a story about Iran being nuclear capable in 6 months). Since a deal is pointless, and you don't want war, and unless you think sanctions will totally prevent them from getting a weapon (which seems unlikely), then you are kind of out of options. If you don't want war, you've at best created a self-fulfilling prophecy RE war.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,977
    Likes Received:
    847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,742
    Not everybody that prefers peace can avoid war. Iran needs to be given a reason to stop or to be stopped or they will be a nuclear armed state, and then we will really know about war.

    If negotiation is going to work, it will have to be a lot sturdier because it is already obvious they don't think of themselves as *needing* to negotiate and abide by an agreement, that they can get by just trolling that process while they pursue a weapon. Were they negotiating with Reagan or even with Kennedy, they would be doing so knowing that there is an implicit threat of negotiate or we will just go after your nuclear development like it's the Death Star wrapped in bacon. They know their nominal adversaries now are coming at it from a position of "negotiate! Or we will carry on asking you to negotiate! ... please?" Doesn't hurt them that the Obama ilk clearly and unguardedly treat negotiation as a victorious end unto itself. Not a high pressure situation at that point.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,244
    Likes Received:
    1,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,915
    not true. the language in the UN sanctions was very specific. They dismantle their nuclear program and the sanctions would be lifted. Anything short of that is capitulation to Iranian wishes purely for political gain.

    The fact that the insurers can now insure ships carrying Iranian oil will open the floodgates to their exports regardless of anything else. That ability to insure the ships is what stopped their exports and crippled them and it ahs been lifted.

    This was a one sided deal with 0 agreeing to take it as hard and as deep as the ayatollah wanted to give it to him just as long as 0 could say he made a diplomatic breakthrough.

    Giving them the time and the resources necessary to progress their pursuit of nuclear weapons only brings us closer to war.
  17. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    15,244
    Likes Received:
    1,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,915
    it isn't spin. it is written into the agreements that 0 negotiated. please show me anywhere that Iran agrees to dismantle anything they have or stop construction of their heavy water reactor. they have to eliminate their 20% enriched supply which can be replaced in a matter of weeks with their existing centrifuges. certain facilities are still off limits to inspections and others have limited advance notice inspection allowances. this is a STUPID deal but 0 is desperate for a political win and the EU is desperate for Iranian business to help their economy.
  18. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,870
    Likes Received:
    340
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,751
    It's guys like you who keep used-car salesmen from shady second-hand lots in business. It always baffled me why someone would ignore the failing reports from the BBB or the numerous consumer complaints--and how anyone could possibly sign on the dotted line when interest payments are at over 20% (or more)...but I see now that where there are people who want to invest in ocean property in Arizona, there will be a supply of people there to sell it to them. Carry on, good sir.
  19. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,870
    Likes Received:
    340
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,751
    I mean, they aren't exactly hiding what their intentions are. It's a dumb deal that gives them immediate relief in exchange for a pinky-swear that they'll "get serious" in six months about negotiating a long-term deal. But nothing until then. And they've been gleefully rubbing it in what a sweet deal they got--as well they should. The ayatollah is probably thanking Allah right now about his dumb luck here.
  20. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    Is this where you give the speech about how we need people like you on the wall to protect people like me who don't know their ass from their elbows? I think we've more or less said all there is to say on this until some point in the future when things have played out.

Share This Page