P5+1 and Iran agree landmark nuclear deal at Geneva talks

Why do you fail to say on what information the article was based? This is one sided and biased information, as you do most of the time.
The article was based on a April 24, 1984, edition of the British defense magazine, Jane’s Defence Weekly.
Their estimate was based on the completion of the Busher nuclear reactor (work on which startet in 1975 by German companies but suspended in 1979 because of the Iranian revolution) when the Germans planned to finish the job.
If it would have been a serious threat to Israel they would have bombed it, like they did in Iraq and Syria. The Busher plant was connected to the grid in 2011.
German intelligence also reported that Iran was on the brink of making a bomb with Pakistani uranium.
Do you know who the President of Iran was at that time? Khamenei. Now the supreme leader.

Israel should not worry? Then read this article published in the Fars news agency which is run by the Revolutionary Guards and thus represents the views of the Islamic regime. You can read it here.
In English here.(scroll down)
an excerpt:

The Islamic world should rise up and shout that "a nuclear bomb is our right to wake America and Israel up!​

but there is more:

ایران باید تا 2014 به اسرائیل حمله کند/Iran must attack Israel by 2014

So cut the crap that Iran is the peaceful nation and Israel is the culprit.
 
Yet here we are 30 years later and Iran still doesn't have nukes that leads me to believe either:
a) Iranian scientists are dumber than rocks but given the few I have met I seriously doubt that.
b) They don't actually want nukes which oddly enough would tie in with what everyone but Israel says.

Because I am pretty sure I could have McGyvered a nuke in my garage out of an old sock and a can of sardines faster than it appears Iran is.

Spare us the nonsense will you.

Oh look...

Iran, U.N. nuclear agency to meet again after "constructive" talks

By Fredrik Dahl
VIENNA Fri Sep 27, 2013 12:47pm EDT

r

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief nuclear inspector Herman Nackaerts arrives for a meeting about Tehran's disputed nuclear programme at the Iranian embassy in Vienna September 27, 2013.
Credit: Reuters/Heinz-Peter Bader

(Reuters) - Iran and the U.N. nuclear agency held "constructive" talks on Friday and made plans to meet again in one month, adding to momentum for a negotiated end to a standoff that could otherwise potentially flare into war.
The discussions in Vienna, home of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), took place as new President Hassan Rouhani was telling world powers in New York he wanted a deal within months to end the long-running dispute.
The IAEA talks are distinct from Iran's meetings with world powers, but both diplomatic tracks centre on suspicions that Iran may be seeking the capability to assemble nuclear bombs behind the facade of a civilian atomic energy program.
Israel and the United States have threatened possible pre-emptive strikes on Iran if diplomacy fails. Iran says its nuclear program is a peaceful bid to generate electricity, and not aimed at building weapons.
Herman Nackaerts, IAEA deputy director general, said the discussions, at Iran's diplomatic mission in Vienna, had been "very constructive" but gave no details. At the next meeting on October 28, Iran and the IAEA would "start substantial discussions on the way forward to resolve all outstanding issues," he said.
That would be almost two weeks after Iran meets the six world powers again, in Geneva on October 15-16, as part of what European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton called an "ambitious timetable" to address Western concerns.
Analysts suspect that Iran may seek to use the IAEA talks to help win relief from sanctions as part of any wider political settlement with the powers - the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China.
ACCESS
The IAEA - in its role of preventing the spread of atomic arms - wants a deal allowing it to resume a long-stalled inquiry into suspected nuclear weapons research in Iran.
The Vienna meeting - the 11th since January 2012 - was shorter than previous ones, just over four hours, suggesting that any concrete progress would have to wait for the follow-up. The IAEA is seeking access to Iranian sites, officials and documents for its investigation.
Iranian Ambassador Reza Najafi, leading the Islamic Republic's negotiating team for the first time since his appointment last month, said he hoped for an agreement soon.
"We, indeed, should continue these constructive discussions and we hope that we could reach an agreement as soon as possible," he told reporters, standing next to Nackaerts.
For several years, the IAEA has been investigating suspicions that Iran may have coordinated efforts to process uranium, test explosives and revamp a ballistic missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead.
Iran says the allegations are baseless, but has pledged, since Rouhani took office in early August, to expand cooperation with the U.N. agency. Western diplomats have accused Iran of obstructing the IAEA investigation in the past.
Israel, believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, has said Iran's new, conciliatory approach is merely an attempt to "buy time" to push ahead with its nuclear work without fear of military action.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who met privately in New York on Thursday as well as in talks with other major powers about the nuclear dispute, both expressed cautious optimism.
Iran says its program is a peaceful, but its refusal to curb sensitive nuclear work and lack of full openness with IAEA inspectors have drawn tough Western sanctions, hurting its lifeline oil exports.
Rouhani said this week that Iran would never develop nuclear weapons and called for a nuclear deal in three to six months.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSBRE98Q08W20130927
 
Last edited:
That article is your reason that Iran is going to make bomb????
Maybe you have forgotten to read 3 first paragraphs!!

First point: this essay is just the personal opinion of the author that as a critique tries to give opinion about it and has no warranty of the Iranian government for the usage and the ability to perform.

Second point: this essay is just defrayed the reasons for having the atomic bomb for Islamic countries and believes in the just of Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei opinion for the prohibition of atomic bomb.


Third point: because of ambiguity of necessity reasons of having atomic bomb for Islamic countries in religious viewpoint of elites, in this essay, the necessity of reaching this important is discussed from political and common viewpoint.
I can find articles much better than this in west media against Iran. But there is a difference. We don't have nuke and you have so who should be more care?
 
Last edited:
Long story short: they are not allowed to visit the Parchin military site.

Isn't that a coincidence. Exactly the site that the IAEA suspects of working on a nuclear device is of limits.

Iranian officials said the International Atomic Energy Agency was not being granted access to the Parchin military site, where Tehran is suspected of having experimented with nuclear arms development.​

Or do you think the Iranians are so stupid to do nuclear weapons research in civilian nuclear sites?

Rouhani has no control over the military.

That article is your reason that Iran is going to make bomb????
Maybe you have forgotten to read 3 first paragraphs!!

I can find articles much better than this in west media against Iran. But there is a difference. We don't have nuke and you have so who should be more care?

Sure, but not as official as the ones I gave. I think we must make a difference between the military and the civilian side. In Iran the military is not under civilian control as it is in Israel, the US and Europe.
 
Last edited:
Or do you think the Iranians are so stupid to do nuclear weapons research in civilian nuclear sites?

No but I am beginning to think you are too stupid to realise no one cares.

So what if Iran has researched nuclear weapons I have no doubt most countries in the world have researched them especially since you can now buy most of the components from your local electronics store and get 80% of the data you need from rudimentary high school physics books but it is still a long road to producing them and there is no evidence that they are trying to produce one.

Here is your problem and it is a problem that has permeated throughout all your "I love Israel" threads you have bought into the hysteria Israel is trying to sell in order to keep them at the top of the pecking order in the middle east but no one else cares.

But here is the reality, most people and that includes Israel know that if Iran was to produce a nuclear bomb tomorrow including the delivery system they still would not use it because Iranians like Americans, Chinese, Russians and every other country on Earth that has them knows that to use them for aggression will result in their destruction the only thing having the bomb will do for Iran is keep its enemies away from their borders and oddly enough that does not scare me.
 
No but I am beginning to think you are too stupid to realise no one cares.

So what if Iran has researched nuclear weapons I have no doubt most countries in the world have researched them especially since you can now buy most of the components from your local electronics store and get 80% of the data you need from rudimentary high school physics books but it is still a long road to producing them and there is no evidence that they are trying to produce one.

Here is your problem and it is a problem that has permeated throughout all your "I love Israel" threads you have bought into the hysteria Israel is trying to sell in order to keep them at the top of the pecking order in the middle east but no one else cares.

But here is the reality, most people and that includes Israel know that if Iran was to produce a nuclear bomb tomorrow including the delivery system they still would not use it because Iranians like Americans, Chinese, Russians and every other country on Earth that has them knows that to use them for aggression will result in their destruction the only thing having the bomb will do for Iran is keep its enemies away from their borders and oddly enough that does not scare me.

I already explained to you how nuclear weapons are used. If you forgot, ask the Indians.
 
You know what we were talking about, yet you deliberately misunderstand it. That's foolish or shows your lack of knowledge.
 
No what is foolish is your insistence that a nation with the finance, intelligence and motivation to build a nuclear weapon could be taking over 40 years to do it, 5 years maybe Israel had them by 1953 so it is possible, 10 years certainly but here we are 40 years later and you are still trying to scare us with the same inane nonsense.

It is very difficult to take you seriously on these matters any more consequently you get what you deserve a pointless reply.
 
No what is foolish is your insistence that a nation with the finance, intelligence and motivation to build a nuclear weapon could be taking over 40 years to do it, 5 years maybe Israel had them by 1953 so it is possible, 10 years certainly but here we are 40 years later and you are still trying to scare us with the same inane nonsense.

It is very difficult to take you seriously on these matters any more consequently you get what you deserve a pointless reply.

So you don't take the IAEA seriously too?
 
Why are you the IAEA?
It is you I do not take seriously now obviously that extends to the agenda you are pushing as well since you are about as transparent as clear plastic.

However as I have said even if I am totally wrong and Iran does build a bomb I still don't care because I consider your racist, xenophobic nonsense a far greater threat to world peace than an Iranian nuke.
 
Why are you the IAEA?
It is you I do not take seriously now obviously that extends to the agenda you are pushing as well since you are about as transparent as clear plastic.

However as I have said even if I am totally wrong and Iran does build a bomb I still don't care because I consider your racist, xenophobic nonsense a far greater threat to world peace than an Iranian nuke.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

from IAEA report: Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons.

Annex:
44. The Agency has strong indications that the development by Iran of the high explosives initiation system, and its development of the high speed diagnostic configuration used to monitor related experiments, were assisted by the work of a foreign expert who was not only knowledgeable in these technologies, but who, a Member State has informed the Agency, worked for much of his career with this technology in the nuclear weapon programme of the country of his origin. The Agency has reviewed publications by this foreign expert and has met with him. The Agency has been able to verify through three separate routes, including the expert himself, that this person was in Iran from about 1996 to about 2002, ostensibly to assist Iran in the development of a facility and techniques for making ultra-dispersed diamonds (“UDDs” or “nanodiamonds”), where he also lectured on explosion physics and its applications.
51. Hydrodynamic experiments such as those described above, which involve high explosives in conjunction with nuclear material or nuclear material surrogates, are strong indicators of possible weapon development. In addition, the use of surrogate material, and/or confinement provided by a chamber of the type indicated above, could be used to prevent contamination of the site with nuclear material. It remains for Iran to explain the rationale behind these activities.
58. The Agency has information provided by a Member State that Iran may have planned and undertaken preparatory experimentation which would be useful were Iran to carry out a test of a nuclear explosive device. In particular, the Agency has information that Iran has conducted a number of practical tests to see whether its EBW firing equipment would function satisfactorily over long distances between a firing point and a test device located down a deep shaft. Additionally, among the alleged studies documentation provided by that Member State, is a document, in Farsi, which relates directly to the logistics and safety arrangements that would be necessary for conducting a nuclear test. The Agency has been informed by a different Member State that these arrangements directly reflect those which have been used in nuclear tests conducted by nuclear-weapon States.​
 
Really because it seems the IAEA has something completely different to say now...

Iran’s most sensitive uranium stockpile shrinks after nuclear deal

By Reuters, Friday, February 21, 10:22 AM

VIENNA — The size of Iran’s most contested uranium stockpile has declined significantly for the first time in four years following a landmark nuclear deal with world powers in November, the U.N. atomic agency reported Thursday.

As a result, Iran’s holding of uranium gas enriched to a fissile purity of 20 percent — a relatively short technical step from the level required for nuclear weapons — is now well below the amount needed for processing into a bomb.
Click here to subscribe.

The stockpile is closely watched. Israel, believed to be the Middle East’s only nuclear-armed power, warned in 2012 that if Iran amassed enough such refined uranium for a single bomb it would be a “red line” for possible military action.

Iran agreed under a Nov. 24 deal with six big powers to stop its 20-percent enrichment, which it began in 2010, and has since diluted some of the material to a lower concentration and converted some into less proliferation-prone uranium oxide.

“That decrease has been quite important,” a senior diplomat familiar with Iran’s nuclear program said. “That progress has been quite substantial in terms of inventory.”

Thursday’s report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also showed that Iran was meeting its commitments under last year’s interim agreement with the six powers to curb its most sensitive nuclear work in exchange for some easing of sanctions.

“Things are progressing as planned,” the diplomat said.

The IAEA report was issued to member states just hours after Iran and the six countries — the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia — ended a first round of negotiations in Vienna aimed at a final settlement of the decade-old dispute over the nature of Tehran’s nuclear activity. The next round was set for March 17.

U.N. nuclear inspectors are playing a critical role in monitoring that Iran is living up to its side of last year’s six-month accord, designed to buy time for the negotiations on a comprehensive agreement over atomic activity that Tehran says is entirely peaceful but which the West fears may have military designs.

Iran’s reserve of 20-percent uranium fell to 354 pounds in February from about 431 pounds in November, the IAEA said. About 550 pounds is needed for the core of one nuclear warhead, experts say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...230d14-9a64-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

But let me see if I understand this, your contention is that in the 40 years Iran has been working frantically to get a nuclear bomb they have managed 170Kg of fissionable material which would add up to a whole 11.6g a day, I really don't want to make you look like a bigger xenophobic alarmist than you already are but I could probably have extracted about as much radioactive material from the last shipment of smoke detectors that entered the country.


Hasbara Central really isn't giving you good material to work with I am afraid, now I realise this is a small forum so they don't send us their best or brightest but PM me with your supervisors number and I will see if I can get you some help as you just aren't enough of a challenge to make this fun.
 
Oh look AIPAC have crawled out from their hole again, still desperately trying to stop any agreement with Iran.

My particular favourite line in this idiotic pile of double talk is:
At this moment, we must not allow Iran to dictate the appropriate role of Congress.
Nope because that is Israels role as indicated by the fact that AIPAC is pushing this line.

Op-Ed Contributors
Don’t Let Up on Iran

By MICHAEL KASSEN and LEE ROSENBERG


February 21, 2014

WASHINGTON — LIKE all Americans, we strongly hope that the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts lead to the peaceful dismantling of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. To achieve this key national security goal, we support a policy that complements the current negotiations with a range of congressional actions that threaten greater economic and diplomatic pressure on the Iranian government.
Some opponents of such a policy crudely characterize its proponents as warmongers, and fret that Tehran will walk away from the table. But the critics have it backward.
The approach we outline offers the best chance to avoid military conflict with Iran. In fact, diplomacy that is not backed by the threat of clear consequences poses the greatest threat to negotiations — and increases prospects for war — because it tells the Iranians they have nothing to lose by embracing an uncompromising position.
Successful negotiations between adversaries rest on the confluence of interests and goals. Iran came to the negotiating table because it sought the abrogation of sanctions; we came to the table to reach an agreement that, in the words of President Obama, would “make it impossible” for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Anthony Russo

Our message to Tehran should be clear: It will not achieve its objectives unless it satisfies ours.
Unfortunately, Iran’s leaders are acting as if they have not received that message. In recent weeks, the president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, has declared that his government will not dismantle a single centrifuge. Tehran also went beyond words by testing long-range ballistic missiles that could reach American military bases in the Middle East, as well as our ally Israel. It has even dispatched warships to sail close to the maritime borders of the United States in the Atlantic Ocean.
We also know the Iranians have worked to deceive us in previous rounds of negotiations. In 2003, when Mr. Rouhani was Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Tehran issued a declaration that it was suspending uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities. Last year, as he ran for president, Mr. Rouhani even boasted that Iran had flouted the agreement.
Offering inducements is not enough. Diplomacy must be backed by a clear choice for the Iranian government: Either it dismantles its nuclear program so that it lacks a pathway to weapons capability or it faces greater economic sanctions and international isolation. Without this clarity, no one can be surprised if Iran rejects diplomatic overtures.
The partial recovery of Iran’s economy in recent weeks, thanks to the relaxation of sanctions, in tandem with its continuing advanced research and development of centrifuges, highlights our concerns. If Iran can achieve such progress without dismantling any part of its nuclear program, why should it make concessions?
We strongly believe that the assertion by Congress of its historic role in foreign policy can, in fact, complement and enhance the administration’s efforts by forcing Iran to recognize the stark implications of intransigence. The president should welcome such congressional initiatives, which would actually strengthen, not weaken, the hand of his administration in forthcoming negotiations.
Thus we urge Congress to outline for Iran the acceptable terms of a final accord. This must include, at a minimum, the dismantling of its nuclear program, so that Iran has neither a uranium nor a plutonium pathway to a nuclear weapon.
Second, Congress should exercise oversight to ensure that Tehran understands that our existing core sanctions architecture will remain in place for the full duration of the negotiations. Third, Congress must oversee continual implementation of the interim agreement: We cannot permit Iran to violate trust again by advancing its nuclear program even as it joins negotiations.
Finally, we support the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, sponsored by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s chairman, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, and by Senator Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois. This bill would present Iran with a menu of consequences, including new sanctions — if, and only if, the talks fail. Earlier this month, we agreed with Mr. Menendez on delaying a vote in the Senate, but we remain committed to the bill’s passage.
Historically, presidents have resisted congressional involvement that would affect or constrain their diplomatic efforts. Over the past two decades, however, both Republican and Democratic administrations have opposed Iran sanctions legislation only to embrace it later as their own. At this moment, we must not allow Iran to dictate the appropriate role of Congress.
As long as Mr. Rouhani can brazenly declare that he will not dismantle a single centrifuge as part of a final agreement, the United States Congress should proclaim that Iran will pay a steep price for its recklessness. America’s elected representatives are not the problem; the unelected theocrats of Iran are.
Next week, more than 14,000 Americans from all walks of life will carry this bipartisan message to Capitol Hill as part of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference. We support the president’s diplomatic effort to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We also believe the best chance for success in this purpose lies with continued congressional pressure on Iran throughout the negotiations.
Michael Kassen is the president, and Lee Rosenberg is the chairman of the board, of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.




http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/opinion/dont-let-up-on-iran.html?_r=0&referrer=
 
x-atomic agency chief: Netanyahu using scare tactics on Iran nuclear program

Brig.-Gen.Uzi Eilam is convinced that Iran is a decade away from a bomb, and is unsure that this is what Tehran even wants.
Ronen Bergman

An insider in Israel's nuclear program believes that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is employing needless fearmongering when it comes to Iran's atomic aspirations, in order to further his own political aims.
Brigadier General (res.) Uzi Eilam, who for a decade headed the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, does not believe that Tehran is even close to having a bomb, if that is even what it really aspires to.
"The Iranian nuclear program will only be operational in another 10 years," declares Eilam, a senior official in Israel's atomic program. "Even so, I am not sure that Iran wants the bomb."Uzi Eilam comes from the heart of Israel's secret security mechanisms, having served in senior roles in the defense establishment that culminated in a decade as the head of the atomic agency. His comments are the first by a senior official that strongly criticize Netanyahu's policies on the Islamic Republic.
"The statements and threats made regarding an attack on Iran did not help," Eilam says. "We cannot lead the charge on this front. As far as the project goes, Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered and buried under tons of earth, concrete and steel. This would require more than one strike, such as on the nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria. A strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would in effect be the opening salvo in all-out war."

Eilam is one of the central figures in the development of Israel's nuclear and missile programs in the last half century: Before his decade heading the Atomic Energy Commission, he was head of the IDF's Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure (known in Israel by its Hebrew acronym, Mafat).
Since then, he has worked as an advisor for the defense establishment, and is well-informed on Israel's nuclear program, and has been closely following that of Iran. He is convinced that the road to an Iranian nuclear weapon is still a very long one.
"From being involved in many technology projects, I have learned the hard way that things take time," he says. "Netanyahu and other politicians have struck terrible, unnecessary fear into the hearts of the Israeli public, and thankfully the flames fanned over the issue seemed to have died down for now."

Netanyahu has even condemned the nuclear agreement being hammered out between Iran and the West, but Eilam has a different perspective.
"According to reports, the steps Iran has taken are most significant, the primary step being the dilution of more than half of its enriched fuel," he says, referring to the Iranian decision to dilute its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium to 5-percent grade uranium.
"The main issues are still ahead of us, but it is definitely possible to be optimistic. I think we should give the diplomatic process a serious chance, alongside ongoing sanctions. And I'm not even sure that Iran would want the bomb – it could be enough for them to be a nuclear threshold state – so that it could become a regional power and intimidate its neighbors.

"Besides, what good would bombing do? It would only unite the Iranian people behind its government, and provide it with an incentive to continue the project, with far more resources. Bombing would achieve the direct opposite of what we desired."




Eilam points the finger of blame directly at Netanyahu. "Netanyahu is using the Iranian threat to achieve a variety of political objectives," he said. "These declarations are unnecessarily scaring Israel's citizens, given Israel is not party to the negotiations to determine whether Iran will or will not dismantle its nuclear program."

But Eilam is reluctant to present a theory on why Netanyahu has followed this path. "I studied engineering and worked in research and development. I have no clue about his psychology, or ours."


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4517536,00.html



 
What exactly has Iran done wrong apart from having lots of oil and gas and refuse hand it over to the Western.
Stop your nasty and vile propaganda against Iran.
 
Back
Top