Iran's Ayatollah Rejects Long-Term Nuclear Research Freeze

[TexasTowelie]

Source: New York Times

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's top leader has rejected out a long-term freeze on nuclear research and supports banning international inspectors from accessing military sites as a deadline in negotiations with world powers approaches.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also says Iran will sign a final deal provided all economic sanctions now on Iran are first lifted.

Khamenei's comments, made Tuesday night and broadcast on Iranian state television, suggests the Islamic Republic may be toughening its stance ahead of a June 30 deadline for a final deal.

Tehran is negotiating with the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany over its contested nuclear program.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/06/24/world/middleeast/ap-iran-nuclear.html?_r=0

[leftynyc]

1. So they want to

not allow any inspections and want all sanctions lifted. Yeah, that'll happen.

[7962]

2. Anyone surprised by this? Anyone ready to admit the talks are a joke?

NO agreement of substance was going to be reached. Because Iran has never had any intention of stopping what they're doing.

[6chars]

3. They're having fun

bargaining and seeing what they can get. They know the other side has a whole lot to lose if there isn't a deal.

[aceofblades]

4. It was worth pursuing in my opinion..

if only because of the alternatives to "talks". Jaw jaw vs. war war; this issue is likely going to end one of those two ways.
Also, a sincere and earnest push towards a peaceful resolution is crucial to try hold the P5+1 together in case they fail. And they may fail now unfortunately.

If there is going to be fast sanction relief(that is verifiable) the balance is to have verification that the Iranians are holding up their end of the bargain & for a significant amount of time(however you define that). If the two sides can't agree to an independent body that both sides trust , or, if as the Ayatollah's suggesting , it's a red line period, then there's no realistic room for a deal imo.

My only thinking is that the Ayatollah's are banking on
1.) the P5+1 not maintaining unity for long (and that may be true,despite their best efforts )

2.) The U.S. ,if given the hypothetical (as only the ayatollah knows the true intentions) choice between going to war/military intervention and letting Iran get a bomb, that the U.S. will settle for the latter.

This may be true for the U.S depending on who the president is, but I'm not so sure that's the case for Israel, and the Ayatollah may be somewhat overconfident in that regard(see Iran & Syria nuclear reactors, yes there are a lot of difference but still, worth considering I think).

There are right-ring opponents to peace and talks among the P5+1 & the iranians & unfortunately(imo) it looks like they may get what they want

[bananas]

14. The Ayatollahs don't care about point 2.

2.) The U.S. ,if given the hypothetical (as only the ayatollah knows the true intentions) choice between going to war/military intervention and letting Iran get a bomb, that the U.S. will settle for the latter.

If military action is taken, the Iranian people will give more political support to the Ayatollahs, they win either way.

In 2009, the Ayatollahs brutally suppressed protests against the stolen election.

They don't want "peaceful nuclear energy", they're doing this for political power.

On 19 June, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denounced the pro-Mousavi demonstrations as illegal,[28] and protests the next day were met with stiff resistance from government forces, with many reported deaths.[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009

Footage of the death of Nedā Āghā-Soltān[11] (Persian: نِدا آقا سُلطان‎ – Nedā Āġā Soltān; 23 January 1983 – 20 June 2009) drew international attention after she was shot dead during the 2009 Iranian election protests.[12] ... Her death was captured on video by bystanders and broadcast over the Internet[14] and the video became a rallying point for the opposition.[14] It was described as "probably the most widely witnessed death in human history".[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan

[DhhD]

5. In my opinion, The Iranian War with Saudia Arabia began some time ago.

The Shia Republic vs. The Wahhabi Republic.

[jamzrockz]

6. Iran should demand that

they be treated just like every other country who signed the NPT. Do not and I mean to not agree to anything extra inspections other than what is stipulated in the NPT. No inspections of non nuclear military sites, no using of proxy sites to enrich your uranium. You have a right to peaceful nuclear industry.

But again, this whole episode should tell Iran all they need to know about the west and it would end in your destruction if continue this silly course of bowing down to their wished. They cannot be trusted to abide by the agreements signed and just like they did in Libya, they would manufacture a reason to invade and take over your country once they realized you have been fully disarmed. Take this opportunity to develop a nuclear defense cos you are next on the neocon list to invade and sadly, Russia is too occupied right now to help.

[leftynyc]

7. If they don't agree to inspections

then Iran will have to live with the sanctions. They are NOT in the drivers seat here if they want sanctions lifted.

[jamzrockz]

8. But they are already living with sanction

and adapting very well to it. If they can just break out and build the damn weapon then they can ensure their survival. Until then, they will continue to live with sanction and the west and their middle east enemies will continue to demand more and more stricter sanction regime more than anything stipulated in the NPT.

Saudi Arabia and the GCC dictators in meantime will be reloading their jihadist proxy army they sent to Syria and move them to Iran when the time is right. They cannot survive in that region surrounded by enemies without the bomb. Conventional weapons aren't going to be enough to face off against an enemy who has virtually unlimited oil money to burn and one who doesn't care about living

[leftynyc]

10. Then they'll continue to live with the sanctions

No skin off my back.

[StevieM]

11. They are not adapting to the sanctions very well.

The sanctions are hurting the Iranian economy. Whether or not they decide that it is worth it is a separate issue. But the sanctions have taken their toll.

Admittedly, it is not as bad as the Iraqi sanctions were on Saddam, because they can still sell oil. (Although Saddam got better at cheating the sanctions towards the end). Also, the Iraqi sanctions came on top of all the damage done to the country by the first Gulf War.

It remains to be seen what the Iranians will be willing to agree to after Khameini dies.

[happyslug]

9. So he wants a BAN on inspection on MILITARY SITES. Does the US permit such inspections?

And the answer to that question is NO. Khamenei is rejecting the ability of the US to use inspection for Nuclear Weapons to inspect ALL of the Iranian Military. Khamenei is agreeing to inspection in the rest of Iran, including any places where they is evidence that nuclear activity MAY be occurring, but he wants more then someone saying "Iran MAY be making a bomb in Army Base A" and then use that EXCUSE to see what Iran's Military has in Army Base A, when Army Base A has only high tech and conventional weapons (The US wanted to know about those high tech and conventional weapons and use the right to inspect for nuclear weapons as an excuse to study THOSE weapons NOT nuclear Weapons).

Any the Iranian has a good argument, all they have to say is what is good for them is good for the US, thus Iran should be able to inspect US Military bases for undeclared Nuclear Weapons. Such an inspection done on an American base in Germany would upset the Germans if the inspection is denied by the US for the US does not want to reveal if Nuclear weapons in on that base (remember in this hypothetical the US Base is in Germany). Germany is one of the countries in the negotiations and they will NOT want to agree to something that MAY CAUSE EMBARRASSMENT BACK HOME IN GERMANY IN A FEW YEARS.

Thus I see the US giving in on that point, The Germans will NEVER agree to such inspections of American Bases in Germany not that the German Government oppose US Nuclear weapons in Germany, but the German people will if it ever is admitted (US policy today is not to admit or deny the presence of nuclear weapons, thus it gives covers to the German government in that there is no evidence of US nuclear weapons in Germany, a refusal to permit an inspection would be interpreted by the German People of the presence of Nuclear weapons and a demand that Germany close those US bases. That is NOT acceptable to the US or the German Government so they can NOT agree to inspection of US bases in Germany or elsewhere).

As to the other objection, a rejection of a ban on long-term freeze on nuclear research, Iran has a very advance Nuclear research capacity, mostly aimed at high tech and Medical research. A short term ban is acceptable for most research at the present time does NOT need actual nuclear material that would be subject to the ban. On the other hand, we are nearing a time when such research can lead to further development and Khamenei wants to keep that door open.

In many ways this is a non issue. Iran is willing to agree to a short term ban till the inspection system is set up and operating, but once that system is operating why prohibit nuclear research that has little to do with making weapons? Especially since the research will be subject to inspections? I see the US giving in on this point for banning such research, research subject to inspection, just does not make sense, if the purpose of the ban is to prevent nuclear weapons development, for the inspection would quickly see such development and report it and we are back where we are today.

It looks like we will have an agreement by June 30, unless the US does not really want an agreement but is still looking for an excuse to invade Iran (something Obama, even if he wanted to invade Iran, does NOT want to give the impression of).

[EX500rider]

12. "Does the US permit such inspections?' Actually the answer is yes.

Russians Inspect Montana Nuclear Launch Facilities

HELENA, Mont. — Russian nuclear inspectors visited the U.S. amid heightened tensions between the two nations to verify that 18 nuclear missile launch facilities had been demolished as part of a 2011 arms control treaty, Air Force officials said Monday.
The April 9 inspection — the first of its kind at Montana'sMalmstrom Air Force Base, according to treaty compliance chief Richard Bialczak— went ahead despite the strain between the two nuclear powers over Russia's intervention in Ukraine.
Vice President Joe Biden was in Ukraine on Tuesday to send a high-level signal of Washington's support for Kiev. The U.S. has threatened additional sanctions against Russia if it does not heed an international agreement meant to de-escalate tensions.
Russia is allowed eight inspections of U.S. facilities each year under New START, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which is designed to reduce the number of deployed nuclear missiles by 2018.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/22/russians-inspect-montana-nuclear-launch-facilities.html

[happyslug]

16. Or, the Russian can inspect the new NSA facility in Virginia?

Read the non proliferation treaty, it RESTRICTS inspection to nuclear related areas. What the US wants is the right to INSPECT ANY AREA THE US SAYS HAS NUCLEAR MATERIAL. The US has NEVER agree to that, for it had the Russians would be in the New NSA data gathering plant in a heartbeat on the grounds it is using enough electricity to operate a centrifuge and thus MAY be making nuclear bombs and thus subject to inspection. The US will NEVER agree to such an inspection, and Iran is refusing to agree to such inspections. That is the hangup NOT inspection of Nuclear facilities, Iran has long accepted inspections of its Nuclear faculties.

[EX500rider]

18. Except Iran has been found by the IAEA to be concealing nuclear activities...

.....thus the desire to search other possible locations.

And no one who wants nuclear research just for medical reasons puts thousands of centrifuges deep in a mountain bunker and continues over UN/IAEA and international protests and sanctions.

[EX500rider]

13. Also if Iran didn't want inspections they shouldn't have signed the NPT.

From the IAEA website:

https://www.iaea.org/publications/factsheets/iaea-safeguards-overview

What kinds of inspections are done?

The IAEA carries out different types of on-site inspections and visits under comprehensive safeguards agreements.

Ad hoc inspections typically are made to verify a State´s initial report of nuclear material or reports on changes thereto, and to verify the nuclear material involved in international transfers.
Routine inspections - the type most frequently used - may be carried out according to a defined schedule or they may be of an unannounced or short-notice character. The Agency´s right to carry out routine inspections under comprehensive safeguards agreements is limited to those locations within a nuclear facility, or other locations containing nuclear material, through which nuclear material is expected to flow (strategic points).
Special inspections may be carried out in circumstances according to defined procedures. The IAEA may carry out such inspections if it considers that information made available by the State concerned, including explanations from the State and information obtained from routine inspections, is not adequate for the Agency to fulfil its responsibilities under the safeguards agreement.
Safeguards visits may be made to declared facilities at appropriate times during the lifecycle for verifying the safeguards relevant design information. For example, such visits may be carried out during construction to determine the completeness of the declared design information; during routine facility operations and following maintenance, to confirm that no modification was made that would allow unreported activities to take place; and during a facility decommissioning, to confirm that sensitive equipment was rendered unusable.

[happyslug]

15. Iran is NOT objecting to those inspections.

Under the Treaty the inspections are limited to:

is limited to those locations within a nuclear facility, or other locations containing nuclear material, through which nuclear material is expected to flow (strategic points).

The problem is the US does NOT want to limit itself to those sites, but to ALL POSSIBLE SITES. i.e. if the US SAYS nuclear material is in a location they want the right to inspect it. No evidence of such nuclear material being present would be needed, just a claim that it MIGHT be. That is what the Iranians are rejecting NOT to inspection of "locations within a nuclear facility, or other locations containing nuclear material, through which nuclear material is expected to flow".

[EX500rider]

19. That is for routine inspections....unfortunately for Iran they have been found in non-compliance..

...thus:
Special inspections may be carried out in circumstances according to defined procedures. The IAEA may carry out such inspections if it considers that information made available by the State concerned, including explanations from the State and information obtained from routine inspections, is not adequate for the Agency to fulfil its responsibilities under the safeguards agreement.
And Iran IS rejecting snap inspections... Iran wants 24 days’ notice before any inspections of non-military facilities.
24 days notice would give them plenty of time to sanitize a site and hide prohibited nuclear activities.

[bananas]

20. Iran hid their enrichment facilities on military sites - twice.

After they were caught, they did it again.
They've demonstrated twice that they will do this.
They will do it again if they think they can get away with it.
At this point, the IAEA has to be able to inspect any site.
Otherwise, it's a bad deal, and Obama's claim that their breakout time is a year has no basis in fact.

Iran has no need for nuclear energy - it's expensive, dirty, and dangerous. They would be better off giving it up entirely. Instead, they are causing a nuclear arms race with their neighbors. And they know it.

[daleo]

17. At least with sanctions

They won't lose all their jobs and industry to trade agreements.