Iran, world powers reach draft nuke deal
source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33411619/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
-
-
- current89
- added this
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said that representatives of Iran and its three interlocutors — the U.S., Russia and France — had accepted the draft for forwarding to their capitals. ElBaradei said he hoped for approval from all four countries by Friday.
Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's chief delegate, praised the draft, saying it was "on the right track," while emphasizing that senior Iranian officials in Tehran still had to sign off on it.
"We have to thoroughly study this text and also (need) further elaboration in capitals," Soltanieh told reporters.
The apparent breakthrough came on the third day of talks in Vienna which aimed to overcome differences over Iran's nuclear intentions. While the United States and other nations fear Iran may be interested in developing nuclear weapons, Tehran insists its activities are peaceful and meant only to generate energy for its growing population.
ElBaradei said he had "circulated a draft agreement that in my judgment reflects a balanced approach to how to move forward."
"Everybody who participated at the meeting was trying to look at the future not at the past, trying to heal the wounds," the IAEA chief added. "I very much hope that people see the big picture, see that this agreement could open the way for a complete normalization of relations between Iran and the international community."
Neither Soltanieh nor Elbaradei gave details of what was in the package. But diplomats told The Associated Press that it was essentially the original proposal drawn up by the IAEA that would commit Tehran to shipping 75 percent of its enriched uranium stockpile to Russia for further enrichment.
Sending such a large amount of Iran's enriched uranium outside the country would temporarily get rid of most of the material it needs to make a bomb.
end of excerpt
Source: MSNBC
-
-
markbt116
-
Katmai,
I understand you believe Israel exists because of the West's desire to have an ally in the region and prevent an Arab/Muslim empire from being created. I did not claim you said Israel was created to be an empire.
But still, an ally in the region is one very minimal reason Israel was created. Remember, after world war 2 there were millions and millions of Jews who were victims, whose families were victims, all were without a place to go and they were scared.
And the "final solution" has been haunting the Jews for centuries.
- 2 years ago
-
markbt116
-
-
ampersand
-
As much as I think the we don't need any more national nuclear powers, (or even more conventional nuclear power itself, if we were to finally get control of our metastacizing world population), but in terms of the politics of the Middle East, there is no reason Iran should not have the same nuclear deterrent that Israel does. Iran has a long and absolutely consistent history of non-aggression against other countries. Neither Israel or the U.S. could say the same. Iran won't risk nuclear war to protect the Palestinians, but Iran, having a nuclear deterrent, would go a long way toward dissuading the US, Israel, or any other country from ill-advised adventures in or near Iran.
Is there a chance the a member of the theological lunatic fringe in Iran would get control of a weapon of mass destruction and unilaterally strike out against a perceived enemy? That is an astronomically less likely case than individuals in the theological lunatic fringe of Israel striking out against their perceived enemies. In the latter group, that's included their own peace-making Prime Minister, and Palestinian children throwing rocks at their tanks.
The most rational approach would be that US propose and broker an agreement that Israel disarm its nuclear program as the core of regional program of complete Middle East disarmament. You don't see that happening, do you? Ask yourself why. - 2 years ago
-
ampersand
-
-
markbt116
-
ampersand:
ampersand,
Israel is not disarming because they are sovereign nation, with a democratically elected government, the single ally in the region of nearly every western country. They are under constant terrorist attack and the threat of attack from every border from nations that refuse to recognize they even exist.
I can not think of a single nation that would disarm in that situation.
- 2 years ago
-
markbt116
-
-
Katmai512
-
ampersand:
The way I see it, Israel was created by the West solely to prevent the rise of another super empire not unlike the Ottomans or the Caliphate which haunted them for centuries. An empire rising in that region would be a nightmare considering Europe's Asian trade passes through the Indian Ocean, an area easily controlled by an empire.
The way things are right now, if the US withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan, these two will immediately fall under the influence of Iran; Israel would thus be the only power to contend with a new potent power.
- 2 years ago
-
Katmai512
-
-
markbt116
-
ampersand:
Katmai,
This argument doesn't make sense to me. Israel was created for many, many reasons. The most similar to your claim is to have a democratic ally in the region. The main reasons were a homeless, victimized people.
And do you believe that an Israeli presence is keeping the Arab nations from becoming dominant world power the Ottomans were? The nation of Israel is geographically similar to New Jersey. The Jewish population is only 6 million. There are only around 4- 5 million palestinians. The muslim population of the world nears 1.5 billion. The land of Israel is having no impact on their potential to be dominant, influential powers.
- 2 years ago
-
markbt116
-
-
Katmai512
-
ampersand:
I never mentioned that Israel was created to be an empire; they were placed there to PREVENT an empire from coalescing.
The size of the army becomes less important when you have advanced weapons and superpower support. In my opinion the European Jews were especially perfect for the project due to their historic belief system (Canaan's a gift from Yhwh) and also the Holocaust just happened, making them rather uncomfortable in Europe.
Remember, at the time of Israel's creation, only Iran (under the Shah), I believe, was the only ally of the West in the Middle East then; all other Arab states were just barely freed from Ottoman control (most were "freed" around 1919). As in any volatile political climate, an opportunity opens for an enterprising leader to dominate, a danger.
And no impact? The Palestinian Question's been haunting the Arab psyche for over a half-century already; the only thing preventing an attack on Israel again is America's support (and string of bases around the region).
- 2 years ago
-
Katmai512
-
-
neocongo
-
No one seriously believes that Iran is not intending to build nuclear weapons. I say let them. Every time the issue is brought up, everyone asks "but what about stability in the Middle East?" I would ask "what stability?" Israel is a nuclear despot who's actions in Palestine are the largest reason we now must concern ourselves with organizations like al Qaeda.
Let Iran develop nukes. Israel is pressured to behave like an adult, al Qaeda loses its number one recruiting tool, and we can get the fuck out of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
- 2 years ago
-
neocongo
-
-
markbt116
-
neocongo:
Neocongo,
What about the fact that Iran's leadership threatens to destroy Israel? Israel may not simply be "pressured to behave like an adult," and may cease to exist.
- 2 years ago
-
markbt116
-
-
fun_size
-
neocongo:
@mark
What makes you think that Iran would attack Israel any time soon? Not only is Israel backed by the US but they already have nukes. Even if Iran were to get nukes it would literally be suicide for them to use it.
- 2 years ago
-
fun_size
-
-
markbt116
-
neocongo:
fun_size,
you make a descent argument. I agree the USA is an ally of Israel, and both countries are nuclear armed. And I agree that if Iran were to an attack Israel, it would be a devastating mistake for them.
But I also believe that Iran and their leaders in particular are very unstable, unpredictable, irrational and illogical. I would not put it past them to bomb Israel. In fact, they already do this through proxies, a clear message of their intentions. This is especially true of a regime that lets itself be dictated by a religion that claims death in a holy war gets you straight to heaven.
In any case, there are many benefits to a nuclear free Iran and many potential hazards if they do have nukes.
I do want peace, and if a nuclear armed Iran would get us there, I would support it. But I just don't see it that way.
- 2 years ago
-
markbt116
-
-
Katmai512
-
neocongo:
The US would be "very unstable, unpredictable, irrational and illogical" too if you have the equivalent of Mexico and Canada armed to the teeth with foreign armies and other nuclear-armed countries talking tough.
- 2 years ago
-
Katmai512
-
-
markbt116
-
neocongo:
Katmai,
If you are blaming the US and Israel for Iran's instability, you are playing right into the hands of Ahmadinejad. It is his original claim that the protests against his election were started and agitated by western governments.
- 2 years ago
-
markbt116
-
-
Katmai512
-
neocongo:
The West had been known to encourage, even support, revolutions to their advantage; what makes you think the latest unrest isn't somewhat connected considering the rhetoric the West had been saying against Iran?
Besides, look at a map to understand just how much threatened their national security is.
- 2 years ago
-
Katmai512
-
-
markbt116
-
neocongo:
Katmai,
Quite the contrary. Look at a map to understand just how threatened Israel's national security is.
- 2 years ago
-
markbt116
