April 13, 2012 : P5+1/Iran summit, take 2.

Previous Thread Next Thread
S

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17670095
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...rrorist-team/2012/04/10/gIQA8I3I8S_story.html

Iran, like most nations, has a pretty loose interpretation of "terrorism" and likely greatly exaggerated both the threat and the haul. More pre-summit posturing. They still stand fast on their right to enrich uranium up to 20%; something the P5+1 continues to object to. The two sides are still very far apart on the simplest issues, so likely don't expect much to come out of these talks
 
B

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,291
6,661
113
seth gecko said:
... They still stand fast on their right to enrich uranium up to 20%; something the P5+1 continues to object to. ...
Click to expand...
Well it continues to violate laws, the Iranians continue to do it, and the world continues to object. Of course anything more than 3% is needless for power generation but lets's not get that in the way of things.

In other words, it seems Iran will do whatever it wants because they know the world won't agree on repercussions.
 
S

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
seth gecko said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17670095
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...rrorist-team/2012/04/10/gIQA8I3I8S_story.html

Iran, like most nations, has a pretty loose interpretation of "terrorism" and likely greatly exaggerated both the threat and the haul. More pre-summit posturing. They still stand fast on their right to enrich uranium up to 20%; something the P5+1 continues to object to. The two sides are still very far apart on the simplest issues, so likely don't expect much to come out of these talks
Click to expand...

Looks like I was wrong on the outcome of these talks, as the parties involved are calling them a success:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9U4VILO0.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/iran-nuclear-talks-istanbul

Maybe I don't completely understand how international diplomacy works, but agreeing to hold more talks doesn't exactly qualify as a great accomplishment. This round of talks didn't end in failure, as others have, but I think theres a few middle steps between failure and great accomplishment, like actually achieving something.
Building some trust and dialogue after almost 35 will take some time, but its certainly a step in the right direction (being a step away from going to war, IMO).
 
G

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
It sounds like it was a success because the US didn't come in with Israel's requests, that they demand all uranium work cease, and because it sounds like Iran and the rest of the P5 are willing to perhaps go back to the 2010 fuel swap plan that the neo-cons and Israeli's blocked.
 
R

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
groggy said:
It sounds like it was a success because the US didn't come in with Israel's requests, that they demand all uranium work cease, and because it sounds like Iran and the rest of the P5 are willing to perhaps go back to the 2010 fuel swap plan that the neo-cons and Israeli's blocked.
Click to expand...
The 2010 fuel swap plan is not going to fly. No chance.

There is a possibility that Iran will agree to stop at about 10% and allow very broad inspection in exchange for staged end to sanctions.
 
G

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
rld said:
The 2010 fuel swap plan is not going to fly. No chance.

There is a possibility that Iran will agree to stop at about 10% and allow very broad inspection in exchange for staged end to sanctions.
Click to expand...
I believe the 2010 fuel swap plan isn't that far off.
There is talk that Iran is close to having enough 20% pure to generate enough medical isotopes for a good enough time that they could offer this concession.
But they won't stop 3.5% enrichment for reactors.
 
S

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
groggy said:
It sounds like it was a success because the US didn't come in with Israel's requests, that they demand all uranium work cease, and because it sounds like Iran and the rest of the P5 are willing to perhaps go back to the 2010 fuel swap plan that the neo-cons and Israeli's blocked.
Click to expand...
Israeli PM says nuclear talks gave Iran 'freebie'

(AP) -- Israel's prime minister says Iran got a "freebie" from the world's big powers at nuclear talks this weekend.
Officials from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany met with Iran in Istanbul to discuss the country's nuclear program. The talks were described as positive, and they agreed to meet again on May 23 in Baghdad.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that the arrangement gave Iran five weeks to continue uranium enrichment - a process that can be used both in the production of nuclear energy or nuclear weapons - without any restrictions. He said Iran should be forced to stop this immediately.

 
R

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
groggy said:
I believe the 2010 fuel swap plan isn't that far off.
There is talk that Iran is close to having enough 20% pure to generate enough medical isotopes for a good enough time that they could offer this concession.
But they won't stop 3.5% enrichment for reactors.
Click to expand...
While you may like it I have not read anything that suggests that outline is still live in the discussions.
 
G

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
rld said:
While you may like it I have not read anything that suggests that outline is still live in the discussions.
Click to expand...
The EU's Catherine Ashton opened the negotiations with a declaration of Iran's right under the NPT for peaceful nuclear industry. That requires fuel, which either means acknowledging Iran's right to enrich it under the treaty or reviving a fuel swap plan, like the 2010 one the US killed on behalf of Israel.

Its sounding more like the US is treading a fine line. They really don't want a war, but even Obama is susceptible to pressure from the Israel lobby so has to play along. But at least it sounds like its not going to be leading to war, unless Obama loses the elections and Israel can force/trick the US to fight another war for them.
 
G

groggy

Banned
Mar 21, 2011
15,262
0
0
seth gecko said:
Israeli PM says nuclear talks gave Iran 'freebie'

(AP) -- Israel's prime minister says Iran got a "freebie" from the world's big powers at nuclear talks this weekend.
Officials from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany met with Iran in Istanbul to discuss the country's nuclear program. The talks were described as positive, and they agreed to meet again on May 23 in Baghdad.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that the arrangement gave Iran five weeks to continue uranium enrichment - a process that can be used both in the production of nuclear energy or nuclear weapons - without any restrictions. He said Iran should be forced to stop this immediately.

Click to expand...
Netanyahu is getting pissed that negotiations are happening at all. He wants war now, and the US to do it for him.
 
B

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,291
6,661
113
groggy said:
The EU's Catherine Ashton opened the negotiations with a declaration of Iran's right under the NPT for peaceful nuclear industry. That requires fuel, ...
Click to expand...
To all but the intentionally obtuse, power generation requires fuel no more than about 3% enriched. If Iran wasn't so keen on enriching past 20% and was open about what they were doing, no one would have much of a problem.


p.s South Korean news is reporting a dozen or so Iranian representatives at the attempted NK missile launches.
 
S

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
basketcase said:
To all but the intentionally obtuse, power generation requires fuel no more than about 3% enriched. If Iran wasn't so keen on enriching past 20% and was open about what they were doing, no one would have much of a problem.


p.s South Korean news is reporting a dozen or so Iranian representatives at the attempted NK missile launches.
Click to expand...
Yes, and remember the TRR? Do you remember what that requires in terms of fuel? Although I thought it was explained fairly well, should we post a link to that thread just to refresh everyone on the facts?
 
B

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,291
6,661
113
seth gecko said:
Yes, and remember the TRR? Do you remember what that requires in terms of fuel? Although I thought it was explained fairly well, should we post a link to that thread just to refresh everyone on the facts?
Click to expand...
And the small amount of fissionable material for that reactor was also discussed. Do you car to explain why Iran has produced (and continues to produce) significantly more 20%+ fuel than that reactor requires?

If you need details, The Tehran research reactor requires less than 1.5 kg per month which one enrichment facility has the capacity to easily accomplish yet:
a) They have well over 100 kg by now and,
b) They have continued to build more centrifuges and opened another enrichment plant.
 
S

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,725
42
48
basketcase said:
And the small amount of fissionable material for that reactor was also discussed. Do you car to explain why Iran has produced (and continues to produce) significantly more 20%+ fuel than that reactor requires?

If you need details, The Tehran research reactor requires less than 1.5 kg per month which one enrichment facility has the capacity to easily accomplish yet:
a) They have well over 100 kg by now and,
b) They have continued to build more centrifuges and opened another enrichment plant.
Click to expand...
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-373277.html

Now, I think the best details on the TRR were linked in post #8, but if you have some better anaylsis, please provide a link, as I`d be interested in seeing what you have. I`ve already explained point "a" several times in the above thread (refer posts #8,11,16 & 46).
I`m not sure what you`re missing with regards to the that, but we can go over it a few more times if you still don`t understand the hard data.
But I`ll tell you what I`m missing from your point "b" - when did they open another enrichment plant? what plant are you referring to? Again, if you have some data, please share what you can.
 
R

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
groggy said:
The EU's Catherine Ashton opened the negotiations with a declaration of Iran's right under the NPT for peaceful nuclear industry. That requires fuel, which either means acknowledging Iran's right to enrich it under the treaty or reviving a fuel swap plan, like the 2010 one the US killed on behalf of Israel.

Its sounding more like the US is treading a fine line. They really don't want a war, but even Obama is susceptible to pressure from the Israel lobby so has to play along. But at least it sounds like its not going to be leading to war, unless Obama loses the elections and Israel can force/trick the US to fight another war for them.
Click to expand...
None of which suggests the fuel swap plan is being actively discussed. My understanding is that it is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom