Iranian President Rouhani: 'Iran's nuclear rights recognised'

BBC News ^ | November 24, 2013

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Iran has reached an agreement with world powers over its nuclear activities.

In a televised address, the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, welcomed the deal, saying the country had the right to continue its uranium enrichment programme.

[my small voice]

ABSOLUTELY correct. You can read about us in Romans 1.

[edcoil]

like o attacking Syria - it is incredibly small, a pin-prick.

[TheBigJ]

Zero’s sponsors, the Saudi sodomite kingdom who financed and placed him in universities just got stabbed in the back it seems. This after the cabal of nuts in the White Hut sent tons of dough and weapons to them, and the not so secret wars in Libya, Egypt, Syria for Saudi benefit. Zero the puppet’s marxist/muzzie handlers have tweaked their agenda again...No honor amongst scumbags.

[JohnBrowdie]

this administration doesn’t consider the whacked out terrorists that want to kill us to be their “enemy”. They consider fellow Americans with whom they have a mere political disagreement, aka, “republicans”, to be their “enemy”

[paristexas]

“It is a sea change. The lifting of sanctions and the recognition of Iran’s nuclear program (peaceful or otherwise) will set off a chain of events in the region and the world. There will be other countries pursuing nuclear programs in response to Iran’s. They will pursue them now because the US appears to be the “weak horse” who will not stop Iran’s inevitable pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Containment is the new policy”

Sanctions didn’t prevent a much less developed North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. Why should we believe they will be effective in preventing Iran from attaining them? I think being able to inspect their nuclear sites will be a more effective way of keeping them from getting weapons than sanctions. Verification is the keystone of arms limitation. There can be no credible means of preventing nuclear weapons without it. Ronald Reagan himself used to quote the old Russian saying, “Trust but verify.” when speaking of the INF agreement with the Soviets in 1987.

[Hoodat]

Kerry is also a traitor.

[kabar]

Sanctions didn’t prevent a much less developed North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. Why should we believe they will be effective in preventing Iran from attaining them?

They won't, but there is no doubt that sanctions have hurt the Iranian economy and put the regime under greater pressure. The "Green Revolution" was an indication of the vulnerability of the regime. People are unhappy. There has been a huge brain drain from Iran for over a decade. The fertility rate in Iran is 1.86, which is below replacement levels.

Why weaken the sanctions and provide Iran with $9 billion dollars by unfreezing their assets? Does anyone believe that Russia and China, parties to this agreement, would do anything to harm Iran?

I think being able to inspect their nuclear sites will be a more effective way of keeping them from getting weapons than sanctions. Verification is the keystone of arms limitation. There can be no credible means of preventing nuclear weapons without it.

We are using the same template for Iran that we used for the PRK. We had an extensive inspections regime with a supposedly strong verification protocol. Clinton and Albright negotiated this with the PRK and used aid to buy their agreement. As it turned out, the PRK negotiated in bad faith. They were secretly developing the bomb and we didn't find out about it for years, i.e., when the Bush administration took office. The PRK continues to use extortion to extract aid from the West.

How effective does anyone think an international verification system will be in a society like Iran? What kind of access will we really have? I lived in Iran for two years during the fall of the Shah and the rise of Khomeini. Anyone who trusts the mullahs and the Supreme Leader to adhere to an agreement is either insane or more cynically, believes that they can fool people with this phony agreement thus kicking down the road any real action against the Iranian regime.

The only way we will stop Iran from a nuclear program is regime change. Obama just legitimized the current regime and gave it breathing room by relaxing sanctions and by providing them more time to develop a nuclear weapon free from any threat of a military strike by the US or Israel for that matter. The real reason for this agreement, which was set in motion over a year ago, was to forestall an Israeli attack against Iran. Obama really wants a containment strategy rather than a military solution. He continues to prop up the current regime knowing full well that Iran will eventually have a nuclear weapon.

[EternalHope13]

Iran has ‘rights’ to nukes like the Apaches had a ‘right’ to own a Gatling gun: none at all, and ‘acknowledging’ such a ‘right’ would have led to slaughter unimaginable.

Gee, its almost like Europeans/Westerners have a DUTY to keep powerful weapons out of the hands of barbarians, and Very Bad Things will happen if they shirk their duty?

[ZULU]

No argument there.

The American sheep elected the wolf pack to watch the sheepfold.

[Gabrial]

Iran needs money and time to complete a nuclear bomb.

Obama is giving them both.

Go figure.

[paristexas]

“We are using the same template for Iran that we used for the PRK. We had an extensive inspections regime with a supposedly strong verification protocol.”

You might recall that North Korea very publicly expelled the nuclear inspectors and said it was going to start reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, so in fact there was no inspection regime at all in place in the years immediately leading up to their first nuclear bomb.

[kabar]

You might recall that North Korea very publicly expelled the nuclear inspectors and said it was going to start reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, so in fact there was no inspection regime at all in place in the years immediately leading up to their first nuclear bomb.

Here is a chronology of North Korea's development of a nuclear weapon.

Reading the chronology is instructive because it is essentially the same route we are following with Iran. And Wendy Sherman was a major player in the negotiations with North Korea as she is in Iran. North Korea bought time with its negotiations and realized material concessions. Iran is just following suit.

Re the expulsion of the inspectors:

October 16, 2002: The United States announces that North Korea admitted to having a clandestine program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons after James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, confronted representatives from Pyongyang during an October 3-5 visit. Kelly later explained that the North Korean admission came the day after he informed them that the United States was aware of the program. North Korea has denied several times that it admitted to having this program.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher states that "North Korea's secret nuclear weapons program is a serious violation of North Korea's commitments under the Agreed Framework as well as under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, and the Joint North-South Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." Boucher also says that the United States wants North Korea to comply with its nonproliferation commitments and seeks "a peaceful resolution of this situation."

December 12, 2002: North Korea sends a letter to the IAEA announcing that it is restarting its one functional reactor and is reopening the other nuclear facilities frozen under the Agreed Framework. The letter requests that the IAEA remove the seals and monitoring equipment from its nuclear facilities. A North Korean spokesman blames the United States for violating the Agreed Framework and says that the purpose of restarting the reactor is to generate electricity-an assertion disputed by U.S. officials.

A November 27 Congressional Research Service report states that the reactor could annually produce enough plutonium for one bomb. The CIA states in a 2002 report to Congress that the spent-fuel rods "contain enough plutonium for several more [nuclear] weapons."

U.S. estimates on North Korea's current nuclear status differ. A State Department official said January 3, 2003 that the U.S. intelligence community believes North Korea already possesses one or two nuclear weapons made from plutonium produced before the negotiation of the Agreed Framework. The CIA publicly estimates that Pyongyang "has produced enough plutonium" for one or two weapons.

December 14, 2002: North Korea states in a letter to the IAEA that the status of its nuclear facilities is a matter between the United States and North Korea and "not pursuant to any agreement" with the IAEA. The letter further declares that North Korea will take unilateral action to remove seals and monitoring cameras if the IAEA does not act.

December 22-24, 2002: North Korea cuts all seals and disrupts IAEA surveillance equipment on its nuclear facilities and materials. An IAEA spokesman says December 26 that North Korea started moving fresh fuel rods into the reactor, suggesting that it might be restarted soon.

December 27, 2002: North Korea orders IAEA inspectors out of the country. They leave on December 31.

North Korea expelled the inspectors after the US revealed they were cheating. Until then, there were IAEA inspectors on the ground. Clinton and Albright were hoodwinked. Bush continued to negotiate despite knowing that North Korea could not be trusted. We are going down the same path with Iran and will have the same result. We relaxed sanctions and offered aid to buy compliance by North Korea. It didn't work.

Even after the IAEA inspectors were kicked out at the end of 2002, negotiations continued just 8 months later with the six-party talks.

August 27-29, 2003 The first round of six-party talks is held in Beijing. The talks achieve no significant breakthroughs.

North Korea proposes a step-by-step solution, calling for the United States to conclude a “non-aggression treaty,” normalize bilateral diplomatic relations, refrain from hindering North Korea’s “economic cooperation” with other countries, complete the reactors promised under the Agreed Framework, resume suspended fuel oil shipments, and increase food aid. Pyongyang states that, in return, it will dismantle its “nuclear facility,” as well as end missile testing and export of missiles and related components. North Korea issues an explicit denial for the first time that it has a uranium-enrichment program.

The North Korean delegation, however, also threatens to test nuclear weapons or “demonstrate the means that they would have to deliver” them, according to a senior State Department official.

January 8, 2004 North Korea allows an unofficial U.S. delegation to visit its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and displays what it calls its “nuclear deterrent.” North Korean officials allow delegation member Siegfried Hecker—a senior fellow at the Los Alamos National Laboratory—to handle a jar containing what appears to be plutonium metal. North Korean officials claim that it came from reprocessing the spent fuel rods from its five-megawatt reactor.

The delegation also visits the spent fuel cooling pond that had been monitored under the Agreed Framework and observes that the rods have been removed. The North Korean officials tell the delegation that Pyongyang reprocessed all of the spent fuel rods between January and June 2003.

Hecker later tells the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he does not know for certain that the substance was plutonium and that he could not determine when it was produced.

October 9, 2006: North Korea conducts an underground nuclear test near the village of P’unggye. Most early analyses of the test based on seismic data collected by South Korean, Japanese, and U.S. institutes estimates the yield to be below one kiloton. Russian estimates differed significantly, and Foreign Minister Sergei Ivanov said Oct. 10 that the estimated yield was between 5 and 15 kilotons.

October 11, 2006: North Korea’s Foreign Ministry states that its “nuclear test was entirely attributable to the US nuclear threat, sanctions and pressure,” adding that North Korea “was compelled to substantially prove its possession of nukes to protect its sovereignty.” The statement also indicates that North Korea might conduct further nuclear tests if the United States “increases pressure” on the country.

However, the Foreign Ministry also says that North Korea remains committed to implementing the September 2005 joint statement, arguing that the test “constitutes a positive measure for its implementation.” Additionally, Pyongyang “still remains unchanged in its will to denuclearize the peninsula through dialogue and negotiations,” the Foreign Ministry statement says, adding that the “denuclearization of the entire peninsula was President Kim Il Sung’s last instruction and an ultimate goal” of North Korea.

[garjog]

Time to stock up.