Iran is ready to enter 'serious and substantive' nuke talks - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
Off Topic Totally off-topic chat in here.

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-07-13, 12:17 AM Thread Starter
ZOMGZOR CUSTOM USER TITLE
 
scscofield's Avatar
scscofield's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Finger Lakes Region of NY
Posts: 6,195
Reputation: 56
Default Iran is ready to enter 'serious and substantive' nuke talks

This is a pretty big turn around from the previous stance of the country if it is true and not just grandstanding.

From: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...id=msnhp&pos=1

TEHRAN – Iran’s new president said the country was determined to resolve the nuclear disagreement with the U.S. and the West and was ready to enter “serious and substantive'' negotiations.


In his first newsconference since taking the oath of office Saturday, President Hassan Rouhani defended Iran’s nuclear program and was critical of U.S. and Western economic sanctions.


Asked by NBC News if a new round of economic sanctions against Iran passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week would complicate negotiations, Rouhani criticized the U.S. for sending both conciliatory and bellicose messages.


"The United States has sent conflicting messages in the way it acts. What they say and do differs,” said Rouhani. "It is important that America responds in practice – not just talk."

Iran is under U.N. sanctions and unilateral Western oil and banking sanctions over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to build nuclear weapons. Iran says the program is aimed at generating electricity and producing treatments for cancer patients.


Rouhani said Iran would not abandon its nuclear program, but rather that would continue under the terms of the non-proliferation treaty.


"We will not do away with the right of the nation,” he said.


“However, we are for negotiations and interaction. We are prepared, seriously and without wasting time, to enter negotiations which are serious and substantive with the other side.''


“If the other party is also prepared like we are, then I am confident that the concerns of both sides will be removed through negotiations within a period which will not be very long.''


Rouhani was very careful with his words during the news conference, pausing before he would answer questions. For instance, he was clear to say he was “neither optimistic, nor pessimistic” about future nuclear negotiations.


Despite the conciliatory tone, Rouhani made an apparent reference to Israel, though never directly mentioning the Jewish country by name. He said the U.S. Congress “follows the welfare of one foreign country and takes orders from them. The interests of this foreign country and certain groups are imposed on Congress and it does not serve the interests of the American people, but of another country.”


Rouhani was heckled by some of the Iranian media for answering questions posed to him by American reporters – even though only four American journalists asked questions and the rest of the journalists asking questions were all Iranian.


Hopes for a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear impasse have risen with Rouhani's win over conservative rivals in June, when voters replaced the former president hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


The White House indicated that it hoped that nuclear tensions would ease under Rouhani, the country’s former nuclear negotiator.


“The inauguration of President Rouhani presents an opportunity for Iran to act quickly to resolve the international community’s deep concerns over Iran’s nuclear program,” according to a statement put out by the White House. “Should this new government choose to engage substantively and seriously to meet its international obligations and find a peaceful solution to this issue, it will find a willing partner in the United States.”


Last week, however, the U.S. House overwhelmingly passed new restrictions on Iran's oil sector and its mining and construction industries. Senators are expected to take up the same package in September.


Iran's critics say that it has used previous nuclear negotiations as a delaying tactic while continuing to develop nuclear weapons-related technology.


The U.S. State Department said Tuesday that “the ball is in their court” for the Iranians to take credible actions.

http://i.imgur.com/aPfHUHy.gif?1




scscofield is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-08-13, 02:45 AM
Senior Member
hailene's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 2,215
Reputation: 17
Default

I'm not terribly learned on the subject, but haven't we, the United States, been pretty firm on our terms? The disarmament of the refinement of nuclear material, right? Like, solid, hardline on it?

I think this is more stalling tactics.

Honestly, I don't think Iran would do anything too crazy with a nuclear weapon, but it's safer for us if they didn't have them, even if the actual threat is extremely low. In an objective world, I would say let them develop their technology. In a world where the United States has the weight and clout to say no, I say we should...dissuade them.

A military solution isn't viable. It wouldn't hold up domestically or abroad. I think we should ramp up the economic pressure a lot. I know we're hitting them with sanctions but...up it a few notches. Make anything but basic necessities a fond memory. The government will either change or their people will change the government.
hailene is offline  
post #3 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-08-13, 01:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Rems's Avatar
Rems's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,717
Reputation: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hailene View Post

A military solution isn't viable. It wouldn't hold up domestically or abroad. I think we should ramp up the economic pressure a lot. I know we're hitting them with sanctions but...up it a few notches. Make anything but basic necessities a fond memory. The government will either change or their people will change the government.
Or you unify and radicalize them. Wouldn't be the first time a deprived country was unified against a common enemy and spurred onto war.

It's a tough question. If Iran's serious then this could help ease tensions and foster better relations. It could be a win win for everyone. The issue is of course a history of belligerent rhetoric and action and the fact that even the possibility of a hostile nuclear armed state is anathema.

Rems is offline  
post #4 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-08-13, 04:41 PM
Senior Member
 
emporershand89's Avatar
emporershand89's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New England.....somewhere in that mess of awesomness!!
Posts: 2,270
Reputation: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rems View Post
Or you unify and radicalize them. Wouldn't be the first time a deprived country was unified against a common enemy and spurred onto war.
As Rems says, if we corner them like rats they will use force to opt out of their current situation. They could be stalling, or they could be serious; we won't really know until we talk to them.

I think we need to let them enrich a little, to show the Muslim world we still have faith in the good people of their society. By "strong arming" them we only spread distrust and dissent about what we are trying to tell them. Plus they are Iran, the center of Persia, and the cultural home of Muslim society. We should try and talk steps to make them our friend, not our enemy.

On the other hand I agree we need to have them reign in their program a little. Honestly though this is all a game of charades, as the "High King " of Iran, the head Cleric Ali Khamenei. We need to speak to him, and not the President who honestly is just for show. Then things will change, for even the Clerics and their radicals in Iran respect the ruling of the Supreme Leader.



"Walk Softely, and Carry a Big Gun!"
emporershand89 is offline  
post #5 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-08-13, 07:44 PM
Senior Member
hailene's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 2,215
Reputation: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rems View Post
Or you unify and radicalize them. Wouldn't be the first time a deprived country was unified against a common enemy and spurred onto war.
I wouldn't be too worried about the Irianians in a conventional military conflict. They like the force projection to make themselves as any sort of threat, even ignoring the gap in military technology.

Even if Iran magically teleported to the west coast, they still wouldn't be a threat as a military force.

And I think they know actually attacking us would be a huge mistake. Yes, popular support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is pretty much nil, but our response to a clear and visible threat that has killed a lot of Americans? That's a completely different story.

A non-conventional attack may work better in the short term. Some sort of gas attack or bombing of a public event or building.

I can only imagine the public outcry would be even stronger. If we somehow traced it back to Iran, it wouldn't be pretty.

Basically, I think, we (and not we as just the United States, but much of the Western world) are not interested in Iran developing a nuclear program. And we (again, as the West) hold pretty much all the cards in this game. At least for now. What we want, we can get.

Whether this is a good foreign policy 50...100...200 years down the road is another question.
hailene is offline  
post #6 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-10-13, 09:47 AM
Senior Member
 
cheeto's Avatar
cheeto's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kapaa, Hi
Posts: 431
Reputation: 3
Default

Something tells me they aren't too serious... or maybe they were hoping to extort the west for the money through a treaty that means nothing to them in order to buy some materials for a nuke.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/w...cle3839144.ece
cheeto is offline  
post #7 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-10-13, 01:34 PM Thread Starter
ZOMGZOR CUSTOM USER TITLE
 
scscofield's Avatar
scscofield's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Finger Lakes Region of NY
Posts: 6,195
Reputation: 56
Default

http://www.timesofisrael.com/zimbabw...anium-to-iran/

Link to the same story without the requirement to log in to read it all.


I am sure this tidbit will be a large chunk of the discussion if we ever sit down at a table with them.

http://i.imgur.com/aPfHUHy.gif?1




scscofield is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > HO Off Topic > Off Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome