|
hypnorotic posted:Is there a good place to find updates on the negotiations? The websites I follow only have snippets. Perhaps a twitter link?? https://twitter.com/nuclearenergyir has a bunch of comments from the press conference if that's what you're after
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
C-SPAN feed live for non-cable subscribers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Somebody check on Eli Lake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
So they get to keep 6,000 centrifuges at their heavily fortified sites (Natanz & Fordow). What could go wrong? What a bargain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Arkane posted:So they get to keep 6,000 centrifuges at their heavily fortified sites (Natanz & Fordow). What could go wrong? What a bargain. I don't know, what could go wrong with regular inspections?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
So does this mean that Iran is free to be a normal country now with normal economic relations? this could be a gigantic huge boost for them, because even under the worst conditions they've managed to outmaneuver everyone else in the region and achieve massive influence in the ME, and if this deal goes through and their economy becomes unshackled they're pretty much going to be the regional hegemon, because they'll have both population competence AND oil wealth to carry them. Or maybe I'm wrong? can someone else who might know more comment on the ramifications this has on the region?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Hey Dave, can you just, Greg,
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
I think we need to see what happens in June before anything else. Framework is great but Obama himself has said time is running out for a real solid deal to actually come together. Of course that was in 2012
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:So does this mean that Iran is free to be a normal country now with normal economic relations? this could be a gigantic huge boost for them, because even under the worst conditions they've managed to outmaneuver everyone else in the region and achieve massive influence in the ME, and if this deal goes through and their economy becomes unshackled they're pretty much going to be the regional hegemon, because they'll have both population competence AND oil wealth to carry them. How many extra barrel bombs can they ship to Assad now the sanctions are lifted ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:
Can't speak for the others but I was decidedly unhappy with the first two and not exactly big on the third. But I'm not at all convinced that Sisi's particular cure is better than an oppressive Islamist presidential dictatorship. At least under Morsi there was a slim chance of the electorate having a say (and in point of fact, the whole reason Morsi got as far as he did is that the electorate is pretty Islamist).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:How many extra barrel bombs can they ship to Assad now the sanctions are lifted ? And how much more can they openly support Shia militias in Iraq? That's going to be the legacy of this deal. The nuclear poo poo doesn't matter. Obama's speaking now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Iran has gone for decades with nuclear power capabilities without any nuclear weapons program getting past the "Yeah, we probably could develop nuclear weapons, if we wanted the whole world to bomb us into oblivion. Which we don't, so we won't." stage. I don't think this deal is gonna push them past that barrier. I despise Iran, but they've always been fairly pragmatic with the whole nuclear weapon situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
A good deal. Phew.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Arkane posted:So they get to keep 6,000 centrifuges at their heavily fortified sites (Natanz & Fordow). What could go wrong? What a bargain. As much as I want this to be a breakthrough I get the feeling it's not a good deal for the U.S. In order for all sanctions to be lifted and to renormalize relationships Iran should have to give up all enrichment. To be able to hold on to some capability and to be able to keep some facilities but just turn them off isn't a good bargain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
lol at the journalists on their smart phones tweeting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Can't speak for the others but I was decidedly unhappy with the first two and not exactly big on the third. But I'm not at all convinced that Sisi's particular cure is better than an oppressive Islamist presidential dictatorship. At least under Morsi there was a slim chance of the electorate having a say (and in point of fact, the whole reason Morsi got as far as he did is that the electorate is pretty Islamist). SIsi's constitution does also "enshrine Islam as the state religion" so I don't know where Liberal L33t is going with that post. In fact, I'm not sure how that constitution really differs from Morsi's when it comes to religion, except that it bans religious political parties, which is just a way to ban the Brotherhood.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:As much as I want this to be a breakthrough I get the feeling it's not a good deal for the U.S. In order for all sanctions to be lifted and to renormalize relationships Iran should have to give up all enrichment. To be able to hold on to some capability and to be able to keep some facilities but just turn them off isn't a good bargain. You know they have a nuclear power plant that they need to fuel, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:So does this mean that Iran is free to be a normal country now with normal economic relations? Depends on whether or not they show good faith in carrying out whatever the final deal turns out to be. If they act like adults, they'll get a seat at the adults' table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:You know they have a nuclear power plant that they need to fuel, right? Also that there is a massive difference between reactor grade and weapon grade fuel. I mean my personal preference is that we just help them build some of these instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
The only way for Obama to please the republicans is bomb Iran into extinction thereby preventing them forever. Anything short of that is a "bad deal" with loopholes the size of at least one Iranian.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:So does this mean that Iran is free to be a normal country now with normal economic relations? this could be a gigantic huge boost for them, because even under the worst conditions they've managed to outmaneuver everyone else in the region and achieve massive influence in the ME, and if this deal goes through and their economy becomes unshackled they're pretty much going to be the regional hegemon, because they'll have both population competence AND oil wealth to carry them. I think it depends on how many/how fast sanctions on Iran are willing to be lifted, and what Iran decides to do with the increased economic activity. If Iran uses the influx of money to put a lot of investment into domestic spending, infrastructure, welfare, and all the other internal stuff that's been suffering due to sanctions then they'll probably start to become (more of) a powerhouse pretty quickly, and the US/Europe won't really say or do anything about it. Iran will probably also start buying more military equipment to replace some of the rather ancient and decrepit stuff they're using. This isn't necessarily a red flag, since having a functional Army/Navy/Air Force is important in the tinderbox that is Middle East, and some of Iran's military equipment is basically held together with duck tape and bailing wire thanks to a lack of available replacement parts. On the other hand, if Iran decides that the influx of money should go almost entirely into purchasing a huge spate of new tanks/planes/bombs/other military stuff with the intention of starting/continuing more regional proxy wars, while basically ignoring domestic spending/infrastructure, then Iran may find its new economic opportunities quickly being limited as the US and Europe use their various influences to get everybody to start cutting back trade with Iran. Zeroisanumber posted:Depends on whether or not they show good faith in carrying out whatever the final deal turns out to be. If they act like adults, they'll get a seat at the adults' table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
He mentioned the concerns about Iran's support for destabilizing proxies, but he didn't say anything about it other than "being vigilant," and he's spending a lot more time talking about protecting Israel. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Here is the factsheet. http://www.scribd.com/doc/260720210/Fact-Sheet-Framework-for-Iran-Nuclear-Deal edit: Reagan and Nixon drop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Also that there is a massive difference between reactor grade and weapon grade fuel. I demand more Thorium research.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
But guys what about a dirtybomb! Iran can put uranium in one of them barrel bombs so Assad can wipe out Israel. It is a bad deal because Iran isn't completely humiliated! They can still do something they have been able to do for years but haven't done! What about that!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:He mentioned the concerns about Iran's support for destabilizing proxies, but he didn't say anything about it other than "being vigilant," and he's spending a lot more time talking about protecting Israel. I mean, he is the President of the United States. Saying that there's a difference of opinion between him and Netenyahu in a press conference is a radical statement by this country's standards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
I guess a huge upside is that we won't wake up six months from now to a Iranian nuclear bomb test. According to the scribd document, the estimate was 2-3 months away. Otherwise why bother with this negotiation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Here is the factsheet. I don't know how anyone could think [except the Iranians] this was a bad deal. The US/EU/IAEA definitely has the upper hand in this commitment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:I don't know how anyone could think [except the Iranians] this was a bad deal. The US/EU/IAEA definitely has the upper hand in this commitment. Yeah, it's 10-15 years of heavy restrictions and if they gently caress up once all current sanctions are immediately put back into place. vvv To be fair the US destabilized the ME more than anyone else in the last 20 years vvv
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:I mean, he is the President of the United States. Saying that there's a difference of opinion between him and Netenyahu in a press conference is a radical statement by this country's standards. I agree, but it's disturbing to me that American discourse seems to be such a driver when it comes to this deal. Nobody in the US is talking about Iran leading the region in destabilizing proxy wars in the face of sanctions, and nobody would talk about Iran doing that at a larger scale once the sanctions were gone. People dying in the Middle East is as much of a non-story within the country as there can be unless the US is involved. What's good for America isn't always good for the world, and I keep getting more and more of the sense that this deal will be good for the US and very good for Iran, but terrible for everyone who has to deal with Iranian influence personally. We may be taking the target off our own backs and putting it onto someone else in exchange for giving Iran a bigger gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Yeah, it's 10-15 years of heavy restrictions and if they gently caress up once all current sanctions are immediately put back into place. ahem, in fact if you check carefully i think you'll find it was actually ARAB LIBERALS
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:vvv To be fair the US destabilized the ME more than anyone else in the last 20 years vvv Yeah and this deal clearly strays from that proud tradition because
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I agree, but it's disturbing to me that American discourse seems to be such a driver when it comes to this deal. Nobody in the US is talking about Iran leading the region in destabilizing proxy wars in the face of sanctions, and nobody would talk about Iran doing that at a larger scale once the sanctions were gone. People dying in the Middle East is as much of a non-story within the country as there can be unless the US is involved. What's good for America isn't always good for the world, and I keep getting more and more of the sense that this deal will be good for the US and very good for Iran, but terrible for everyone who has to deal with Iranian influence personally. We may be taking the target off our own backs and putting it onto someone else in exchange for giving Iran a bigger gun. My pet theory has been that we don't actually give much of a gently caress about an Iranian nuclear program, it was just a convenient way to tie one of Iran's hands behind its back during the sensitive period of the Arab Spring (much good that did us) and squeeze out some concessions later on for no particular cost to ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Here is the factsheet. This is pretty reasonable I'm not seeing the issue here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Dolash posted:That sounds nice, although I imagine there are plenty of Christians who'd argue the same sort of thing is needed in Western Civilization to become "Christian Democracies" with the inevitable attached discrimination against women, minorities, non-believers and homosexuals. It would be nice to have a Christian party that is actually Christian, and not Pauline or Levitician. Svartvit posted:SIsi's constitution does also "enshrine Islam as the state religion" so I don't know where Liberal L33t is going with that post. In fact, I'm not sure how that constitution really differs from Morsi's when it comes to religion, except that it bans religious political parties, which is just a way to ban the Brotherhood. Well it bans the MB from being a political party; but it also prevents religious minorities like the Coptics from forming a party to represent them in Parliament or whatever. (Not that it matters much when Egypt's House of Representatives remains empty, vacant, and deserted.) Necc0 posted:This is pretty reasonable I'm not seeing the issue here? No invasion of Iran. It's bad for Halliburton's profits. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:This is pretty reasonable I'm not seeing the issue here? The Shah does not reign in Tehran, thus this deal is a failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:This is pretty reasonable I'm not seeing the issue here? -Now the US can't start a war Iran! -Now we can't make our defense contractors super rich by starting a war with Iran! -Those fuckers took our guys hostage in 1979, and they still have to be punished more for it! -The US is ignoring/giving Israel the middle finger by doing this! -Now Israel has to deal with Iran like adults instead of constantly sabre rattling about war! -They're all Muslim terrorists who can't be trusted! -RARG IRAN BAD! AXIS OF EVIL! Now if you mean actual issues with the deal, there are none because it's a reasonable deal. Actually it's very reasonable, I'm a little surprised Iran is willing to give up that much. Of course, this is assuming the deal goes through and both sides stick to it. fade5 fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:My pet theory has been that we don't actually give much of a gently caress about an Iranian nuclear program, it was just a convenient way to tie one of Iran's hands behind its back during the sensitive period of the Arab Spring (much good that did us) and squeeze out some concessions later on for no particular cost to ourselves. The very real cost is alienating Israel and arab states. Saudi Arabia is livid over this, and I think probably plays a role in their tactic of keeping oil prices super low. I also think the dollar value of opening Iran as a market to the West shouldn't be underestimated here. Typically the US and the UK before them forcefully opened markets because they're basically trading empires. This is a similar thing, except Iran makes concessions for the privilege.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I guess a huge upside is that we won't wake up six months from now to a Iranian nuclear bomb test. According to the scribd document, the estimate was 2-3 months away. Otherwise why bother with this negotiation. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not. There's literally no evidence they even have a weapons program. That estimate is the minimum time to enrich the uranium; not actually design, build and test a bomb. They've had this "breakout" capacity for years now. If they wanted to test a bomb they could have already done so. They don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Count Roland posted:I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not. There's literally no evidence they even have a weapons program. That estimate is the minimum time to enrich the uranium; not actually design, build and test a bomb. The hardliner reps want to, but Iran isn't a democracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:27
|
|