Iran nuclear peace talks.......

[Guest Derek L]

Now I know this is not of the same magnitude of the initial rollout failure of Obamacare, Rob Ford, or the three Senators, but here we go:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-nuclear-talks-end-with-no-deal-1.2420977

Marathon talks on a deal to temporarily curb Iran's nuclear program ran into trouble Saturday after France raised objections to a draft agreement, complaining it did not go far enough to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and foreign ministers of six other delegations conferred with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a late-night session which broke up after midnight with no deal in place. Talks are expected to reconvene on Nov. 20.

France's insistence on tough terms on Iran dispelled an atmosphere of optimism that had prevailed since the talks began Thursday. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius spoke of "several points that … we're not satisfied with compared to the initial text," telling France-Inter Radio his nation does not want to be part of a "con game."

One thing I truly admire about the French Fifth Republic; they don’t take any crap on issues that contrive against their own best interests…..in this case, a nuclear armed Iran.

But with that:

Iranian state TV strongly criticized the French position, calling France "Israel's representatives at the talks," while Iran's IRNA news agency cited Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as urging world powers to reach a deal.

So is France becoming the Great Satan's sidekick now?

Regardless, I’m still doubtful a palatable agreement will be reached, as it’s clear, Iran does not intend to stop it’s current nuclear program.

Iran insists it is pursuing only nuclear energy, medical treatments and research, but the U.S. and its allies fear that Iran could turn this material into the fissile core of nuclear warheads. Iran currently runs more than 10,000 centrifuges that have created tons of fuel-grade material that can be further enriched to arm nuclear warheads.

It also has nearly 200 kilograms of higher-enriched uranium in a form that can be turned into weapons much more quickly. Experts say 250 kilograms of that 20 per cent-enriched uranium are needed to produce a single warhead.

I don’t think anyone thinks Iran is there yet, but the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran is growing.

So will talks succeed or fail? And if they fail, how long until Israel and/or the West intervene?

[Guest]

Who will they nuke first, the Israelis or the Saudis?

They know total annihilation will be the response if it's the Israelis. They might want to rid the world of a few Wahhabis first. Should be interesting watching the Saudis squirm as they get closer to the button.

[Guest Derek L]

Who will they nuke first, the Israelis or the Saudis?

They know total annihilation will be the response if it's the Israelis. They might want to rid the world of a few Wahhabis first. Should be interesting watching the Saudis squirm as they get closer to the button.

That's a very Interesting point……..Iran’s current intelligence agency, VEVAK, still is a vestige of the Shah’s SAVAK, which in the 70s had very close ties with the Israeli Mossad……….hmmmm…..Perhaps a potential yarn in the waiting, worthy of the late Tom Clancy.

None the less, one thing is clear, a nuclear armed Iran, will beget a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia……Almost fitting this was reported just a few days ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.

While the kingdom's quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran's atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic

.

But of course:

Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

Naaaaahhhh

[Guest]

I never saw the article about the Kingdom getting Pakistani nukes. It's certainly a step up from giving Israeli jets a free run at Iran.

[Guest Derek L]

I never saw the article about the Kingdom getting Pakistani nukes. It's certainly a step up from giving Israeli jets a free run at Iran.

Indeed.....of course the Israelis need no overflight rights with these:

[jbg]

Now I know this is not of the same magnitude of the initial rollout failure of Obamacare, Rob Ford, or the three Senators, but here we go:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-nuclear-talks-end-with-no-deal-1.2420977

**********************

So will talks succeed or fail? And if they fail, how long until Israel and/or the West intervene?

Here's to their "failure." Realistically Iran is never going to agree to and/or adhere to a deal that leaves them without the ability to go nuclear. They are implacably hostile to the West.

I'm not too worried; Israel will do what has to be done.

[Michael's input]

And now days later obama is handing Iran billions of dollars, giving Iran nuclear rights, and lifted sanctions. Now I know obama didn't all this on his own however it has been in America's best interests to help protect Israel since it's rise. Now obama is committing treason by supporting an enemy nation whom has threatened an allie with nuclear force for over a decade.

Insidious is what Iran has in mind. Iran has no intentions of joining the rest of the world as a civilized nation. But we'll soon see once again.

[bleeding heart]

And now days later obama is handing Iran billions of dollars, giving Iran nuclear rights, and lifted sanctions.

1. Obama is not "handing Iran billions of dollars."

2. The "giving" of "nuclear rights" is only (or arguably less) than what Iran is entitled to under the treaty to which it is a signatory.

3. Only a portion of the sanctions are being lifted, as you well know.

Now obama is committing treason by supporting an enemy nation whom has threatened an allie with nuclear force for over a decade.

Unfortunately, "treason" is an actual word with a real meaning. So that hurts your argument somewhat.

[DogOnPorch]

Obama caved to somebody. This isn't normal behaviour for the President of the United States. Iran is the enemy as long as the Mullahs are in charge.

[bleeding heart]

Obama caved to somebody. This isn't normal behaviour for the President of the United States. Iran is the enemy as long as the Mullahs are in charge.

Well, I couldn't say whether he caved to anybody or not....people can speculate to their hearts' desires, of course.

I was only responding to objectively false assertions in a previous post.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, I couldn't say whether he caved to anybody or not....people can speculate to their hearts' desires, of course.

I was only responding to objectively false assertions in a previous post.

I'm sure the President knows EXACTLY what he is doing...which is the scary part. Last time this sort of thing happened, the South Vietnamese had to hit the surf in rickety boats.

[bleeding heart]

I'm sure the President knows EXACTLY what he is doing...which is the scary part. Last time this sort of thing happened, the South Vietnamese had to hit the surf in rickety boats.

I don't understand the comparison.

[Guest Derek L]

Obama caved to somebody. This isn't normal behaviour for the President of the United States. Iran is the enemy as long as the Mullahs are in charge.

I don’t think so…….As I’ve said numerous times, diplomacy should be tried prior to war, and in my view, the deal is that last kick at the can, and if/when it fails, Obama can make his case to the American people (and the world) that all efforts were truly exhausted in finding a peaceful solution.....and they're left with the alternative.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't understand the comparison.

[DogOnPorch]

I don’t think so…….As I’ve said numerous times, diplomacy should be tried prior to war, and in my view, the deal is that last kick at the can, and if/when it fails, Obama can make his case to the American people (and the world) that all efforts were truly exhausted in finding a peaceful solution.....and they're left with the alternative.

We'll see, I suppose. Perhaps Obama is Israel's best friend...

...or not.

[Guest Derek L]

We'll see, I suppose. Perhaps Obama is Israel's best friend...

...or not.

I think at this time Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf States are exerting the greater influence on the talks from behind the curtain…..

[DogOnPorch]

I think at this time Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf States are exerting the greater influence on the talks from behind the curtain…..

Ah yes...the same folks that can't be bothered about Syria.

[Guest Derek L]

Ah yes...the same folks that can't be bothered about Syria.

Why would they? Syria doesn't pose a threat to them......but a nuclear Iran......watch out.

[bud]

And now days later obama is handing Iran billions of dollars, giving Iran nuclear rights, and lifted sanctions. Now I know obama didn't all this on his own however it has been in America's best interests to help protect Israel since it's rise. Now obama is committing treason by supporting an enemy nation whom has threatened an allie with nuclear force for over a decade.

Insidious is what Iran has in mind. Iran has no intentions of joining the rest of the world as a civilized nation. But we'll soon see once again.

lols.

satire is not only funny but it really can highlight the ridiculousness of the ridiculous.

[jbg]

And now days later obama is handing Iran billions of dollars, giving Iran nuclear rights, and lifted sanctions. Now I know obama didn't all this on his own however it has been in America's best interests to help protect Israel since it's rise. Now obama is committing treason by supporting an enemy nation whom has threatened an allie with nuclear force for over a decade.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with your maiden post.

I hope it's welcome aboard but I do suspect that some of your views may be "out there." So far so good though.

Insidious is what Iran has in mind. Iran has no intentions of joining the rest of the world as a civilized nation. But we'll soon see once again.

That I can heartily agree on. Iran has not changed its ways by virtue of the mullah's selecting people's nominally electing a telegenic figurehead to go on a charm offensive.

[jbg]

I don’t think so…….As I’ve said numerous times, diplomacy should be tried prior to war, and in my view, the deal is that last kick at the can, and if/when it fails, Obama can make his case to the American people (and the world) that all efforts were truly exhausted in finding a peaceful solution.....and they're left with the alternative.

After it's all-too-late and Iran has found someone to incinerate. Or when it's already a nuclear power and thus immune to attack.

[Guest Derek L]

After it's all-too-late and Iran has found someone to incinerate. Or when it's already a nuclear power and thus immune to attack.

To be blunt, that sounds a tad hysterical……..Iran will first require testing a bomb, then making enough and mating them to IRBM so as having the ability to launch a viable first strike against a nuclear armed opponent………I doubt both the Americans, nor the Israelis and Arabs will wait for such a point.

[jbg]

To be blunt, that sounds a tad hysterical……..Iran will first require testing a bomb, then making enough and mating them to IRBM so as having the ability to launch a viable first strike against a nuclear armed opponent………I doubt both the Americans, nor the Israelis and Arabs will wait for such a point.

Why wait when an attack can be mounted with far less danger against a pre-nuclear Iran? What if their "test" is against Sunni Muslims in SA or against Israel?

[bleeding heart]

After it's all-too-late and Iran has found someone to incinerate. Or when it's already a nuclear power and thus immune to attack.

Under the current diplomatic agreement, Iran will have to be able to do this within six months...and under the eyes of independent inspectors.

In other words....not.

[Guest Derek L]

Why wait when an attack can be mounted with far less danger against a pre-nuclear Iran?

An attack on a Iran today and a Iran with a rudimentary nuclear arsenal are near same with the after effects….

What if their "test" is against Sunni Muslims in SA or against Israel?

I doubt it.......Such an initial test for a very new nuclear nation could lead to a fizzle and a nuclear response…….None the less, like North Korea, I fully expect when the ability affords them, the mullahs in Iran with fully utilise a test detonation within their own territory for not only the benefit of their neighbours, but domestic consumption.