TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The nuclear programme of Iran

Go To

So as not to derail the "would Russia back Iran in a war?" thread even more, starting this doozy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45209267/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

So Iran is in direct violation of the non-proliferation treaty that they signed. What now? Sanctions, or strikes?

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#476: Sep 27th 2012 at 9:29:49 AM

I'm pretty sure it's meant to be a response to 90% of the U.S. Senate voting to be aggressive with Iran.

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#477: Sep 27th 2012 at 10:03:30 AM

Oh, oops. That's what I get for not trying the link on a school computer. tongue

I'm baaaaaaack
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#478: Sep 27th 2012 at 10:27:03 PM

Ah, Joesolo, really? :P

I think my primary concern is Israel's rhetoric but I'm not sure if they're just trying to influence the American election this november.

vanthebaron Mystical Monkey Master from Carlyle, Il Since: Sep, 2010
Mystical Monkey Master
#479: Sep 28th 2012 at 1:22:24 AM

America needs to get Sammy L Jackson to sit both leaders down and make peace happen...he can be very persuasive.

edited 28th Sep '12 1:23:00 AM by vanthebaron

Untitled Power Rangers Story
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#480: Sep 28th 2012 at 10:00:11 AM

I'm tired of the M-fing disputes on this m-fing planet!

I'm baaaaaaack
NickTheSwing Since: Aug, 2009
#481: Sep 28th 2012 at 4:42:50 PM

Netanyahu has said previously that Iran's nuclear system is a nuclear duck.

We must stop this foul fowl from laying its nuke eggs and leaving its ducklings in Syria, Cuba and Azerbaijan!

Okay, serious mode, Iran is dangerous, sure, but they're also divided down the middle. On the one hand, we have Dinner Jacket and his enthusiastic declarations of anti-semitism. On the other hand, we have Ali Khamenei, who thinks Ahmadinejad is summoning Djinnis to kill him / depose him and has issued a Fatwa against nuclear weapons in his country.

Personally, I just cannot see Iran's two sections of government working together.

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#482: Sep 28th 2012 at 5:02:55 PM

give even the worst enemies an outside threat and they'll work together.

edited 28th Sep '12 5:03:35 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#483: Sep 28th 2012 at 6:29:58 PM

[up][up] It's only 9 more months. Then the Dinner Jacket is retired.

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#485: Sep 28th 2012 at 7:16:13 PM

more like dont give ANYONE enemies. The world would be alot better off if we'd just stop fighting with each other. for one thing we wouldn't have to spend so damn much on the military.(some sort of carrier-borne disaster-relief force could be kept around though.)

I'm baaaaaaack
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#486: Sep 29th 2012 at 2:00:00 PM

Of course there is the theory that the Iranian president (who can be overruled by the clerics in government) just says all the really controversial shit to deflect attention from the actual decision makers.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#487: Sep 29th 2012 at 8:22:46 PM

I still can't get over the fact their actually run by religious extremists. I mean, I'm a staunch Roman Catholic, But the pope running vatican city is about the most direct religious government I'd want to see.

I'm baaaaaaack
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#488: Sep 29th 2012 at 9:58:22 PM

That's not exactly how it works.

The assembly is elected and then they have a president. The other side is basically a "senate" except it's mostly religious clerics that get elected and they select someone among them to be the "leader". So technically, the guy is elected through one degree of indirection.

It's really more about the kind of decisions the guy makes than it is about whether he is religious or not. I prefer not to rag on someone just because of their religion but rather that they are crazy. As it stands, the religious clergy are staunchly anti-nuclear weapons and so is the politics. Iran is a flawed democracy but they still generally have to listen to the people who don't want weapons.

The other side of it is that Israel is also a democracy and works very well in favour of the Israeli prime minister to play up the Iranian threat. I mean, using air strikes against what are just civilian installations, as of now, which have the capability of producing weapons-grade uranium is going to be generally viewed as a terrible act of aggression from Israel by everyone in the mideast, and especially everyone in Iran but may be viewed as a heroic choice of action in Israel.

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#489: Mar 11th 2013 at 9:07:36 PM

[1]

I guess this is as good a place as any to talk about the sanctions regime. It seems Pakistan has signed a deal with Iran to build a pipeline and get themselves some oil. Pakistan argues because they're paying with barter (wheat, to be precise), it doesn't trigger sanctions, which is based around bank transaction. They also argue that since Turkey got exemption, Pakistan should too. The US, as to be expected, isn't buying the argument.

Background to this is Pakistan's electricity/energy industry sucks. They have too many people, too little installed capacity, and what capacity they do have is in disrepair. On top of that, no one pays their (subsidized) bills, including the politicians, govt cant pay the subsidy to the oil suppliers in Saudi Arabia (despite discounts) so they're stuck in debt. The outgoing Pakistani government is basically trying to buy the vote by saying they're doing something, even though Iranian gas is just not cheap enough, nor does it change non-supply issues.

Lascoden ... from Missouri, USA Since: Nov, 2012
...
#490: Mar 11th 2013 at 9:10:35 PM

[up]Why does Turkey get an exemption?

boop
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#491: Mar 12th 2013 at 2:31:39 PM

I think it has to do with the sheer percentage of Iranian gas makes up Turkey's energy sector prior to the sanctions.

Lascoden ... from Missouri, USA Since: Nov, 2012
...
#492: Mar 12th 2013 at 3:09:17 PM

[up]So it's more for Turkey's benefit, since it would greatly affect their energy plan?

boop
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#493: Mar 12th 2013 at 3:39:09 PM

Basically. Turkey would never have agreed to sanctions if it had to take that kind of hit, and without them, Iran would be unaffected (since all Europe-bound petrocarbons from Iran go through Turkey). Also, Turkey and Iran have a relatively easy-going relationship. If the West pushed too hard, that relationship could potentially tighten...

Pakistan doesn't enjoy the same luxuries. Due to Pakistan's close association with the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, Islamabad and Tehran would never be allies the same way Turkey and Iran potentially could be. Also, they're only just now building the pipeline (that, if finished, would connect to India and China as well), so they do not yet have the same strategic importance. On top of that, most of their fuel oil comes from the Gulf, so the sanctions did not hurt Pakistan on its face, and thus Islamabad isn't elligible for exemption.

SilasW A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#494: Nov 26th 2013 at 1:36:41 AM

With the latest news on Iran (that a deal has been struck, I'll try and grab details later) I thought it was time to bring this thread back. Also there are some points in the he Canadian politics thread that I wanted to reply to.

The other countries did NOT give permission

Not publicly, but the Afghanistan government is only there due to western forces and while the Pakistan government makes lots of noise it never actually tries to stop anything. I believe the main train of thought is that both governments have agreed to such strikes privately but condemn them public ally for PR reasons.

Iran has not fought an offensive conflict in well over the century.

The Iran-Iraq war was in the 1980s, so it most certainly has fought a war this century (and it was certainly on the offensive towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war.)

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Nohbody "In distress", my ass. from Somewhere in Dixie Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Mu
"In distress", my ass.
#495: Nov 26th 2013 at 3:26:12 AM

^ There's not that much that needs looking up about the deal. Iran maybe gets slowed down a little in exchange for its economy not totally grenading under the sanctions, the western world risks dislocating its arm by patting itself on the back for decisive diplomacy, and Khameini (sp?) is laughing all the way to The Bomb.

All your safe space are belong to Trump
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#496: Nov 26th 2013 at 5:01:20 AM

This is just the interim deal. The real deal (sorry) wont be for another 6 months. That's the one to watch.

Certainly the Iranians arent about to give up their civilian nuclear energy program. There is a way to do that while preventing them from weaponizing the by-product, but it takes an effective inspection regime. So we'll see.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#497: Nov 26th 2013 at 5:29:42 AM

A lot of it comes down to if Iran actually wants to build a bomb or if it just wants to have the capability to build one. The recent revelations about Saudi ties to Pakistan's nuclear program can't have gone down well in Iran. Iran has two regional enemies and one is nuclear armed (Israel) and the other is ready to arm up at a moments notice (Saudi Arabia). I can kinda understand why they might want the options of building a bomb.

Also, in shocking news, the deal has gone down very badly with the Israeli government. Though the Saudi's are cautiously optimistic about it.

edited 26th Nov '13 5:29:52 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#498: Nov 26th 2013 at 5:37:09 AM

[up] I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranians didn't already know about Saudi Arabia's links to the Pakistani Nuclear Program. It coming out would have an effect, though.

Israel's public reaction wasn't a surprise — I wonder what their views are in private?

edited 26th Nov '13 5:37:56 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#499: Nov 26th 2013 at 5:43:44 AM

The Israelies will be watching the details of the inspection regime the way hawks watch field mice.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#500: Nov 26th 2013 at 6:10:37 AM

The Iran-Iraq war was in the 1980s, so it most certainly has fought a war this century (and it was certainly on the offensive towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war.)
But it wasn't a war of aggression. Iran did not attack an other country, it defended itself from an attack. Which, by international law, is permitted.

edited 26th Nov '13 6:14:28 AM by Antiteilchen


Total posts: 702
Top