Isreal pouts. "I thought what we had was special" :(

Ratings
1 86 0
Joined
May 21, 2015
Messages
385
Country
USA
Location
USA
#1
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused world powers on Sunday of stepping up concessions to Iran to enable a deal by June 30 on curbing its nuclear program even as Tehran balks at demands for heightened U.N. inspections.

Netanyahu has argued that the agreement in the works would not deny Iran - which says its nuclear projects are peaceful - the means of making a bomb, while granting it sanctions relief that could help bankroll its guerrilla allies in the region.

"To our regret, the reports that are coming in from the world powers attest to an acceleration of concessions by them in the face of Iranian stubbornness," Netanyahu told his cabinet in broadcast remarks on Sunday. He did not offer further details.

Netanyahu's point-man on the Iranian talks, Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz, said it appeared that world powers were prepared to accommodate Tehran's resistance to expanded, short-order U.N. nuclear inspections and demand to continue research and development of uranium centrifuges that make nuclear fuel.

On Saturday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said his country, in the name of protecting state secrets, could reject stepped-up inspections - even at the cost of missing the June 30 deadline. Western diplomats had sought the right to carry out inspections with as little as two hours' notice.

But in a televised address on Sunday, Rouhani played up the benefits of easing Iran's international isolation and pledged to reach a deal that would end the hardship of sanctions.

Steinitz, who was in Washington last week to discuss the Iran diplomacy, said the world powers -- the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany -- were considering a stop-gap whereby inspections would be decided on "by committee".

"Such an arrangement might offer reassurance on paper, but in reality it would give Iran time to cover up illegal nuclear activity or even relocate it off-site," Steinitz told Reuters.

He added that Israel saw no reason for world powers to allow Iran to continue research and development on uranium centrifuges "if this deal is indeed meant to freeze its program for years".

On a visit to Israel last week, America's top general sought to reassure Israel -- widely assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal -- of "unshakable" U.S. military support.

General Martin Dempsey said long-term prospects were "far better" with an Iran that was not a nuclear weapons power and that Washington would work to mitigate Iran-related risks, with or without a deal.

Netanyahu urged world powers to hold off on a final accord.

"From the outset, the agreement being put together looked bad. It looks worse and worse with each passing day," he said in his cabinet remarks.

Asked to rate the chances of world powers deferring the deadline to renegotiate the deal, Steinitz said: "Fifty-fifty."

The United States has said it stands by the end-June deadline for an agreement but other officials have indicated the date might be missed as negotiations about technical details drag on."
Israel accuses world powers of yielding to Iran for nuclear deal - Yahoo News Canada
 

Redheart

SENIOR MEMBER
Ratings
0 318 0
Joined
Dec 26, 2014
Messages
1,239
Country
USA
Location
USA
#2
Israel has good reasons for being wary. A nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to everyone in the Middle East. The world powers shouldn't make concessions that would give Iran the means [and time] to relocate whatever it is they were working on just so they can make a deal by June 30.

Move up the deadline, force Iran to accept the condition that would allow inspections within 2 hours of a notice being served and if they reject that offer call off the deal and let Israel destroy the Iranians nuclear facilities.
 

pcgamer

NEW RECRUIT
Ratings
0 5 0
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
22
Country
India
Location
India
#3
As if Pakistan wasn't enough? These Muslim countries are not safe at all. Unless your government is stable and strong enough to protect its citizens, they should not be allowed ot make a nuclear bomb.
 
Ratings
0 4 0
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
4
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
#4
It's understandable with the almost certainty that Israel has functioning nuclear weapons that Iran would want to acquire some as well.

The issue is obviously just the volatility of nuclear warheads and the absolute devastation that comes with them.

It's not worrisome that a Muslim country might have nuclear weapons as quite frankly just because a country is a Muslim country that doesn't mean they're going to actively be looking to bomb everyone all the time.

It's worrisome that with Israel's long standing random aggression towards Muslim countries that if Israel had a knee jerk reaction to something we would be looking at the destruction of a large part of the middle east due to both side launching nuclear warheads at each other.

You can't just force Iran to stop by telling Israel to go crazy as they will legitimately cost both sides thousands of lives if not held back by the United States.

For whatever reason, almost definitely political and financial, the United States has attempted to align itself with the radical ideology of Israel and as a result is now responsible for taking a hold of the situation. The only reasonable way to do this is to try and place sanctions on Iran, except obviously you can't ask Israel to do this as it will make the people of Iran feel as if they're being completely oppressed (they're not wrong); this means that once again you most likely have to deploy armed American troops into these nuclear locations which is another ridiculously costly tax adventure that the United States is struggling to afford.
 
Ratings
0 40 0
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
278
Country
Belize
Location
Belize
#5
So only Israel and US allies have to right to protect themselves by having nuclear weapons in their arsenal? Israel is such a cry baby that can only be aggressive when they have the backing of the US and other western powers. I think Iran has the right to make nuclear weapons for defensive purposes.
 
Ratings
0 4 0
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
4
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
#6
So only Israel and US allies have to right to protect themselves by having nuclear weapons in their arsenal? Israel is such a cry baby that can only be aggressive when they have the backing of the US and other western powers. I think Iran has the right to make nuclear weapons for defensive purposes.
To which extent do we continue to allow countries to acquire nuclear warheads before we have to face the facts that it will really only take 1 mistake to guarantee the death of nearly every human being on the planet as after that one mistake we will immediately trend towards mutually assured destruction.

I understand the active need for the United States to have access to nuclear weapons; there isn't really an argument against this other than complete, worldwide nuclear disarmament.

When it comes to Israel and Iran however there should be a definite precedent set down by the UN stating that in fact neither of them can have them. This solution only works if the UN very actively investigates both countries and forces them to disarm their nuclear stockpile.

It's honestly a reasonably frightening prospect when you have countries as trigger happy as Israel and Iran are in the possession of the greatest and most effective killing machine ever known to mankind.

With all of the above said it is still extremely unlikely that we will ever experience a full-scale nuclear war as the consequences are far too great for everyone, to have anyone risk it.
 
Ratings
1 86 0
Joined
May 21, 2015
Messages
385
Country
USA
Location
USA
#7
The solution is so simple. When you were in preschool, what did the teachers do when brats who didnt like each other acres like they were going to fight. I've said this a lot, and I still mean it, if they are going to act like children, then treat them like children. Take away their favorite toys, or cut off their allowance.
 
Ratings
0 4 0
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
4
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
#8
The solution is so simple. When you were in preschool, what did the teachers do when brats who didnt like each other acres like they were going to fight. I've said this a lot, and I still mean it, if they are going to act like children, then treat them like children. Take away their favorite toys, or cut off their allowance.
The issue with this is that countries tend to have more opportunities for a reprieve than children do and that when you punish a child you don't do it by cutting aid and starving it until it gives into your demands.

Politics and international relations as a whole can rarely be examined on just a surface level. There are so many factors that go into any political decision let alone one that threatens the funding of aid to country that relies on that aid for the survival of its citizens. You can't expect to draw a reasonable parallel between disciplining children and international discussions about nuclear disarmament.

It's utterly disingenuous to suggest that a solution to an extremely multifaceted aspect of politics is "simple".
 
Ratings
1 86 0
Joined
May 21, 2015
Messages
385
Country
USA
Location
USA
#9
The issue with this is that countries tend to have more opportunities for a reprieve than children do and that when you punish a child you don't do it by cutting aid and starving it until it gives into your demands.

Politics and international relations as a whole can rarely be examined on just a surface level. There are so many factors that go into any political decision let alone one that threatens the funding of aid to country that relies on that aid for the survival of its citizens. You can't expect to draw a reasonable parallel between disciplining children and international discussions about nuclear disarmament.

It's utterly disingenuous to suggest that a solution to an extremely multifaceted aspect of politics is "simple".
I am so sorry. I had absolutely no idea ANYONE would take that literally. It's kindof like when someone is hungry and the say they could eat a horse. They don't mean it literally. They arent really hoping someone will go chop up a horse and bring it to them to eat. Have you never heard anyone say something that's figurative rather than literal? I'm a little flabbergasted that anyone is really going to take that literally. I wasn't planning on having to defend that obviously figurative statement. I'm not even sure how to explain the concept of "figurative" to someone. Most of the people I know understands the difference. Even my children know the difference. Do you want to know who DOESN'T understand the difference? Preschool children.
 

Kyler

NEW RECRUIT
Ratings
0 4 0
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
10
Country
Israel
Location
Israel
#10
I think they're just trying to protect themselves. I mean you never know. I personally also come from Israel and I wouldn't be able to answer why and how things would be done. It's just a whole mess here, due to problems in the region.
 
Ratings
1 86 0
Joined
May 21, 2015
Messages
385
Country
USA
Location
USA
#11
I'm not going to comment on whether or not Iran should have nukes. What I am curious about is how did we end up with the authority to allow or disallow another independent country to have their own military. I know, after WWII we spanked Germany and Japan, and told them what they were and weren't allowed to have. What's our bargaining chip with Iran?
 

Kyler

NEW RECRUIT
Ratings
0 4 0
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
10
Country
Israel
Location
Israel
#12
I'm not going to comment on whether or not Iran should have nukes. What I am curious about is how did we end up with the authority to allow or disallow another independent country to have their own military. I know, after WWII we spanked Germany and Japan, and told them what they were and weren't allowed to have. What's our bargaining chip with Iran?
I know what you mean, there is sense to it but the problem again is why produce nuclear? what is the purpose behind it and if there was no war, nor any hatred there wouldn't be the need for military, common, we have common sense and we can reason together, not fight each other.
 

mmchayle

NEW RECRUIT
Ratings
0 0 0
Joined
Jun 23, 2015
Messages
5
Country
USA
Location
USA
#13
To be fair, I am of the opinion that nuclear bombs should be disarmed just for the specific reason that if one were to be launched, the retaliation for that one attack would mean the extinction of every living thing on this planet. The nuclear bombs of this age are WAY more potent than the ones used in WWII in Hiroshima and nagashi. What are the point of these things? What do they keep you safe from?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
LilAnn Middle East & Africa 4
LilAnn Americas 3

Similar threads

Top