Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 971
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm putting this here rather than the current threads focussing on developments following the siege of the US embassy in Iraq, as it goes back to the quitting of JCPOA.

 

TEHRAN WARNS IT MAY EXIT NPT AS TENSIONS HEIGHTEN WITH EU OVER IRAN DEAL

 

By REUTERS

 

Iran said on Monday it could quit the global nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if European countries refer it to the U.N. Security Council over a nuclear agreement, a move that would overturn diplomacy in its confrontation with the West.

 

The 1968 NPT has been the foundation of global nuclear arms control since the Cold War, including a 2015 deal Iran signed with world powers that offered it access to global trade in return for accepting curbs to its atomic program.

 

The fate of the 2015 pact has been in doubt since U.S. President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of it and reimposed sanctions. Iran has responded by scaling back its commitments, although it says it wants the pact to survive.

 

Amid the heightened tension, Iran also announced that for scheduling reasons it had pulled out of the World Economic Forum that opens in Davos Switzerland on Tuesday and where Trump is a featured speaker.

 

Britain, France and Germany declared Iran in violation of the 2015 pact last week and have launched a dispute mechanism that could eventually see the matter referred back to the Security Council and the reimposition of U.N. sanctions.

 

"If the Europeans continue their improper behavior or send Iran's file to the Security Council, we will withdraw from the NPT," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said, according to comments carried by IRNA and other Iranian news agencies.

He also said Iran could take other steps before withdrawing from the NPT, although he did not specify them.

 

The nuclear dispute has been at the heart of an escalation between Washington and Tehran which blew up into military confrontation in recent weeks.

 

The 190-member NPT bans signatories other than the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France from acquiring nuclear weapons, in return for allowing them to pursue peaceful nuclear programs for power generation, overseen by the United Nations.

 

The only country ever to declare its withdrawal from the NPT was North Korea, which expelled nuclear inspectors and openly tested atomic weapons. Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan never signed up, nor did Israel, which does not say whether it has nuclear weapons but is widely presumed to have them.

 

[...]

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-warns-of-further-rollbacks-of-its-commitments-to-nuclear-deal-614683

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, does it matter that much that Iran gets nuclear weapons? Iran is currently fairly safe from a full-scale foreign invasion, since they can deal with small local threats and larger powers have no interest in getting into a costly land war and the mess that would follow. Iran would get a weapon that it can't use, since if they did, Teheran would be turned into a parking lot in a matter of minutes and it appears their leadership is not as suicidal was we often assumed. A nuclear Iran that misbehaves through proxies is going to remain economically isolated and impoverished... As it is now.

 

Doesn't look like Iran having nuclear weapons would change the status quo all that much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, does it matter that much that Iran gets nuclear weapons? Iran is currently fairly safe from a full-scale foreign invasion, since they can deal with small local threats and larger powers have no interest in getting into a costly land war and the mess that would follow. Iran would get a weapon that it can't use, since if they did, Teheran would be turned into a parking lot in a matter of minutes and it appears their leadership is not as suicidal was we often assumed. A nuclear Iran that misbehaves through proxies is going to remain economically isolated and impoverished... As it is now.

 

Doesn't look like Iran having nuclear weapons would change the status quo all that much.

The problem as I see it, it means trusting a system that is, to every extent possible, finds it impossible to trust anyone else. Can we trust that the next time they get one of their generals plinked, they wont use a bucket of sunshine? Or worse, they might give support to other nations that we currently have issues with, getting a bomb? Or even, God help us, supplying one to terrorists?

 

Granted those are unlikely options in a system that is apparently risk adverse. As we saw though, they are capable of damaging tankers and shrugging their shoulders. Who can say they wouldnt let one off at a place like Diego Garcia and disavow all knowledge? They have supported terrorists often enough. How hard would it be to give one to a group capable of such lunacy?

 

We should be working for fewer atomic weapons in the world. Signing off on a nation like Iran having them isnt just giving up on that policy, its allowing there to be a lot more, and greatly increasing the chance of their usage. It cannot be allowed. The problem as ive always pointed out is, short of invading and occupying them, there is no way of stopping them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is, if we got off our fat asses and started a nuclear buildown till we all have a handful each. You dont need any more for deterrence purposes. At that point we get serious about negotiating them out of existence.

 

We came within an ace of it happening in 1986, and we blew it. We may never get that chance again. And we really need to get rid of them. This is the century in which I increasingly think they are going to be used again, its matter of not if, but when.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

it will probably be by a non-state actor that manages to obtain one from a non-UNSC P5 member for blackmail purposes.

 

Allowing India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea to break the NPT system will continue to encourage others to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it will probably be by a non-state actor that manages to obtain one from a non-UNSC P5 member for blackmail purposes.

 

Allowing India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea to break the NPT system will continue to encourage others to do so.

 

NORK: "We're not exactly sure how that nuke was "lost" and ended up in the hands of a radical extremist non-state actor, found itself on a container ship and detonated in your port.... but rest assured the security of our stockpile has been reviewed and improved so it's unlikely to ever happen again. If you nuke us in retaliation, you're just being mean to the people who weren't the problem and the UN says that's a human rights violation so... you know, no good answer here"

 

Edited by Burncycle360
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure. Japan managed to ban firearms for over 100 years after they recognised it meant the end of the existing social order. Few societies have extant chemical or bio weapons programs, for precisely the same reason.

 

It's a bit different banning something inside a closed, tightly ordered society and the entire world. Also, those countries that do have chemical and bio weapons programs keep them because they give them a huge advantage over countries that don't have them who have the unenviable choice between just letting the stuff rain down on them or going nuclear. It's the same to a limited extent with AP landmines and to a far greater extent with cluster weapons - we rushed to ban both, but our most likely opposition went on to even further emphasise the latter and may well retain the former. We have no way of knowing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Amid tensions with US, Iran builds fake aircraft carrier to attack

 

 

As tensions remain high between Iran and the U.S., the Islamic Republic appears to have constructed a new mock-up of an aircraft carrier off its southern coast for potential live-fire drills.

The faux foe, seen in satellite photographs obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, resembles the Nimitz-class carriers that the U.S. Navy routinely sails into the Persian Gulf from the Strait of Hormuz, its narrow mouth where 20 percent of all the world’s oil passes through.

...

The replica carries 16 mock-ups of fighter jets on its deck, according to satellite photos taken by Maxar Technologies. The vessel appears to be some 200 meters (650 feet) long and 50 meters (160 feet) wide. A real Nimitz is over 300 meters (980 feet) long and 75 meters (245 feet) wide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

 

That does not look particularily survivable.

Very long rang over the horizon radars are hard to make survivable. They do have some useful mobile systems though.

 

 

 

 

Knowing nothing about anything of the topic, I've long wondered if they could make a drone array that organises itself into a LF radar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

UNSC votes against extension of arms embargo on Iran, in defiance of the US. US 'allies' in the council have abstained from the vote as a sign of protest against the US.

 

It is entirely okay to let Iran, who managed to ravage the entire middle east with its limited resources and expand to its farthest borders, gain access to substantially more advanced weapons than what they already have, just to get back at Donald.

France, Italy, and co, are still working to destabilize parts of the middle east like Lebanon and Libya.

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-security-council-votes-to-let-iran-arms-embargo-expire-rejecting-us-demands/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think there is a problem here. If the Iranian regime rearms then they are repeating the mistakes of the Shah, and we all know what that led to dont we?

 

And the Iranian regime really does have an issue getting its oil to market. Till they solve that problem, their aims to be a regional superpower again are going nowhere.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8626909/US-seizes-Iranian-petrol-destined-Venezuela-report.html

 

Personally I dont see the French or the Russians giving them anything on loan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MZ, in the past you've seemed pretty big on the idea that the Israelis do not need the UN and can treat international opinion with a certain degree of contempt. Now you're whining that the UN isn't going to pull Israel's chestnuts from the fire for it?

Edited by glenn239
Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S. Seizes Iranian Fuel Cargo for First Time
Trump administration expects seizures will deter shipping companies from dealing with Iran and Venezuela

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-seizes-iranian-fuel-cargoes-for-first-time-11597352574?st=lmpne16aqfh6jcw&reflink=article_copyURL_share&fbclid=IwAR3GvK8c-iQqYubOZfipJ_VplHmVaIyD0XJPFf4TsuIzDr0ZWn8eV1kar8w

Link to post
Share on other sites

MZ, in the past you've seemed pretty big on the idea that the Israelis do not need the UN and can treat international opinion with a certain degree of contempt. Now you're whining that the UN isn't going to pull Israel's chestnuts from the fire for it?

Define "UN". This is the UNSC, the only UN agency that's officially classified as a non-castrated one, therefore it has weight.

 

Circlejerk forums like the UNGA, UNHRC, UNESCO, etc, are officially castrated and therefore irrelevant.

 

Israel's image is only negative in the circlejerk forums. Not the UNSC.

 

Besides, my opinion here centers around the fact that alleged US allies are voting to assist the US's, NATO's, and their own enemies, militarily.

 

That's not helping their case as alleged allies.

 

Israel is not even related to this story. Just because Israel is on the frontline of the battle against Iranian expansionism and fundamentalism, doesn't mean others shouldn't help.

It just makes those western countries who abstained, really crappy "allies".

Edited by Mighty_Zuk
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think most of the EU sees Iran as their problem. Their votes were not unexpected - the US backed out of JCPOA again the desires of everyone else involved, ensuring that the deal failed. It isn't at all surprising that they won't support US moves in the future concerning Iran.

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...