It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran nuclear deal agreed at Geneva talks

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
An historic agreement or a path to nuclear annihilation?

This depends on what side you take I guess. Israel are saying it's a historic mistake, whilst others are claiming it will ensure Iran will not work towards building a nuclear bomb.




John Kerry hailed a “dramatic” step to “roll back” Iran’s nuclear ambitions on Sunday when America and Tehran overcame decades of confrontation to achieve their first formal agreement for 34 years.



Personally, I believe that Iran have the right to nuclear energy if it chooses and nothing and nobody should be able to interfere with this. However in the post agreement press conferences both sides contradict each other with regards to the enrichment programme.




They appeared to contradict one another over the vital issue of whether their agreement recognises Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium. This highly sensitive process could be used to make fuel for nuclear power stations — which Tehran says is the only goal — or the core of a nuclear weapon.

The question of whether Iran has a right to possess this technology lies at the heart of its confrontation with America and its allies.

Mr Zarif said that two references in the agreement meant that “this recognition is there — that Iran will have an enrichment programme”. Mr Kerry, by contrast, said: “The first step does not say that Iran has a right to enrichment.” The full text of the deal has not yet been released. But a fact sheet provided by the White House spelled out how Iran will stop enriching uranium above the 5 per cent threshold needed for nuclear power stations.


Another significant move is the removal of sanctions on Iran, which will release around $7 billion for them.

The deal is initially for a 6 month interim period, so let's hope both sides are happy with the progress made over the next 6 months and that this continues on a path of peaceful agreement.

Will Israel allow this to happen?

www.telegraph.co.uk...




posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
This is a vid to Obama making his statment www.youtube.com...=12



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


Nice one, thanks.




posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Israel shouldn`t have any say in it, at all.
They wont sign the nuclear arms treaty so why aren`t sanctions being placed upon them ?

I don`t think Iran are planning to build nuclear weapons..as I`m sure most would agree.
It would be pointless as they could never use them.
Any government who has built nuclear bombs are...in my opinion.... putting their own people at risk........
and the planet.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

lambros56
Israel shouldn`t have any say in it, at all.
They wont sign the nuclear arms treaty so why aren`t sanctions being placed upon them ?

I don`t think Iran are planning to build nuclear weapons..as I`m sure most would agree.
It would be pointless as they could never use them.
Any government who has built nuclear bombs are...in my opinion.... putting their own people at risk........
and the planet.


They are refusing to recognise the agreement and this should isolate them from the rest of the world community, but it won't. Of course Iran has threatened to blow Israel off the map, but that was in response to the way they have been treated by Israel and the U.S.

Israel have been exposed for what they really are today. Out and out war mongerers!!



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
More chance now of Israel striking Iran than ET popping in to say a belated hello. Israel knows that if it strikes Iran the US will just ignore it. Maybe thats the plan. Do a deal but Israel strikes because it disagrees. Crafty move US? OBama visit to ISrael (this the plan).

And IRAN, well they've pulled a fast one here. Beware of those who submit out of character particularly when they are the same beasts!



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   

lambros56
Israel shouldn`t have any say in it, at all.
They wont sign the nuclear arms treaty so why aren`t sanctions being placed upon them ?

I don`t think Iran are planning to build nuclear weapons..as I`m sure most would agree.
It would be pointless as they could never use them.
Any government who has built nuclear bombs are...in my opinion.... putting their own people at risk........
and the planet.


Oh Israel WILL have a say. It's intelligent and diplomatic to allow them a say at this stage, when people aren't dying over it. However, in the end, there are TWO combatants or potential combatants here. Not 3..not 50. Israel and Iran. We're cheerleading from one side (kinda.. sorta.. does ANYONE really know which side we're on anymore??) and Iran has it's direct support on it's side.

Ignoring one or the other to impose a solution like some two-bit Royal Decree from on-high and far away will simply insure the ignored side has it's say by body count later. What passes for 'diplomacy' these days makes the folly which led to World War I look pretty tame and logical. I hope the outcomes are very different for the sake of millions of civilians.

edit on 24-11-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: Minor Correction



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
White House Fact Sheet On Iran Nuclear Deal

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 23, 2013
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Iran has committed to halt enrichment above 5%:

· Halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%.

Iran has committed to neutralize its stockpile of near-20% uranium:

· Dilute below 5% or convert to a form not suitable for further enrichment its entire stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium before the end of the initial phase.

Iran has committed to halt progress on its enrichment capacity:

· Not install additional centrifuges of any type.

· Not install or use any next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium.

· Leave inoperable roughly half of installed centrifuges at Natanz and three-quarters of installed centrifuges at Fordow, so they cannot be used to enrich uranium.

· Limit its centrifuge production to those needed to replace damaged machines, so Iran cannot use the six months to stockpile centrifuges.

· Not construct additional enrichment facilities.

Iran has committed to halt progress on the growth of its 3.5% stockpile:

· Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low enriched uranium, so that the amount is not greater at the end of the six months than it is at the beginning, and any newly enriched 3.5% enriched uranium is converted into oxide.

Iran has committed to no further advances of its activities at Arak and to halt progress on its plutonium track. Iran has committed to:

There is a bunch more in the article that is worth reading ....peace



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 

Dear Cobaltic1978,

The source you quoted for us contains the following:

They appeared to contradict one another over the vital issue of whether their agreement recognises Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium. This highly sensitive process could be used to make fuel for nuclear power stations — which Tehran says is the only goal — or the core of a nuclear weapon.

The question of whether Iran has a right to possess this technology lies at the heart of its confrontation with America and its allies.


So, the issue which "lies at the heart of its confrontation with America," dividing the West and Iran is left at "They appeared to contradict one another over the vital issue of whether their agreement recognises Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium."

They don't have agreement on the main issue but they're touting this as an historic agreement? On top of that, we're relying on Obama's promise that everything will be all right? I've been tired of being fooled for quite some time. I'm past surprise, I'm beginning to be fatalistic. Can we hold on for another 3+ years? If we do, I never want to hear another person say "miracles can't happen."

With respect,
Charles1952



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join