CNN: Iranian leader announces partial withdrawal from nuclear deal
Iran announced Wednesday it was partially withdrawing from a landmark nuclear deal, marking a serious escalation in Tehran's faceoff with the United States.
President Hassan Rouhani said in a televised speech that Iran would reduce its "commitments" to the deal, but would not fully withdraw, amid heightened pressure from the US in recent weeks.
Rouhani said that from this week, Iran will keep its excess enriched uranium and heavy water, rather than sell it to other countries as previously agreed to limit its stockpile.
The President said drastic measures would be implemented unless the remaining signatories of the deal -- Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia -- eased restrictions on Iran's banking and oil sectors in the next 60 days.
The measures include removing caps on uranium enrichment levels, and resuming work on its Arak nuclear facility.
Read more ....
More News On Iran Withdrawing From Parts Of The 2015 Nuclear Deal
Iran threatens more enrichment if no new nuclear deal -- AP
Iran quits parts of critical 2015 nuclear deal -- France 24
Iran nuclear deal: Tehran may increase uranium enrichment -- BBC
Iran will restart uranium enrichment programme and roll back on key parts of nuclear pact with Britain and other nations unless it is protected from US sanctions, President Rouhani says -- Daily Mail
Iran rolls back nuclear pledges but stops short of violating pact -- Reuters
Iran Will Stop Complying With Some Parts of Nuclear Deal -- The New York Times
Iran announces partial withdrawal from nuclear deal -- The Guardian
Iran stops selling excess uranium, will enrich to higher level in 60 days unless Europe acts -- RT
Iran nuclear deal: Tehran to lift cap on uranium enrichment -- Al Jazeera
Iran pulls out of parts of nuclear deal, sets 60-day deadline to renegotiate terms -- FOX News
Iran scraps 'some commitments' to nuclear deal -- DW
Iran abandons key portions of nuclear deal and says it will only go back to compliance in exchange for help evading US sanctions -- Business Insider
Iran’s row-back on nuclear deal is legal & reversible – Foreign Minister Zarif (VIDEO) -- RT
EU leaders voice concern over Tehran nuclear deal moves, call for stronger commitment -- RT
World watches warily as Iran scales back nuclear deal -- DW
World reacts to Iran's decision to abandon parts of nuclear deal -- Al Jazeera
AP EXPLAINS: Iran’s nuclear program as 2015 deal unravels -- AP
14 comments:
Sanctions will not be eased - Iran is clearly desperate (but bposter will of course tell us that Iran will whoop our asses... and if not them, then mighty mighty Russia - that has a gdp of Italy, a country a tenth its size) :D same old, same old
Iran you got to go too hell soon you blind your people just like the rest of the world governments
Life is not about the guns you all got hold on
You'll all be sorry at the end of your life brother s
Jesus is right with me
We are super special in the eyes of good and evil
Lucifer got your souls
Anon,
I did not say Russia, Iran, or China would definitely win. We cannot know the outcome of a war in advance. What I have said is each of them are very capable adversaries and need to be addressed as such.
You cite gdp. As I have discussed before, while that stat is not unimportant in and of itself it is the least important measure when comparing the military capabilities of countries. I'd liken it to "time of possession" in American football except less important.
If we assume Iran is desperate, remember desperate people often do desperate things. They may decide the time is now right to launch a military assault on America. I'm NOT suggesting the sanctions should necessarily be discontinued. What I have pointed out is we appear to be overestimating our own capabilities and underestimating those of Iran. IMHO this is a very dangerous situation.
I never said Russia is "great" in the sense you are suggesting that I did. Is this due to a lack of reading on your part or is this deliberate. I can't say. As you continue with the falsehood, I tend to think this deliberate as you have had ample time and opportunity to read my posts in their entirety and yet you persist with the slander.
Now is Russia "great" in terms of being a major military power or a major geo political power? I would say they definitely need to be respected and are likely equal to the US and in someway perhaps superior in this area.
"Go jerk off to your Putin posters, propaganda boy." You have no valid point to make therefore you insult and slander hoping to discredit someone in this manner. This is nothing new and is often employed by those with weak arguments.
Depending upon which Forbes ranking is consulted Putin is ranked as either the most or second most powerful person in the world. I don't think anyone would could say that Forbes is somehow Russian. I think president Trump has put it well when he stated that getting along with powerful world leaders is a good thing and attempts to do so are good.
The point is overestimating one's own abilities while underestimating those of an adversary or potential adversary is at best very dangerous and at worst will lead to unmitigated disaster. My "take" on this is unchanged. US officials are doing this at an extreme level. This is hubris. Hubris precedes a fall.
Maybe I am wrong. A useful model might be North Korea. I recall in September and October 2017 rhetoric was extremely heated yet now tremendous progress has been made. Sanctions appear to have had a key role in this. While things are far from solved with regards to North Korea, we are in a much better place right now. I hope and pray the situation with Iran will work out in a similar fashion.
If you have anything to add, I will try and respond but as I am quite busy today I may not be able to. Constructive dialogue is always appreciated. Insults and slander are a waste of valuable time.
Well said B. Poster
Well, B.Poster, I remember you writing that Russia has the most powerful army in the world... I remember it because I argued against it.
Yeah his stick is saying completely Bullshit punts and then rudering it back. He's clearly a Russian operative and has been pushing his propaganda of glorious Russia for years on this blog. It's just mind numbing BS. But they keep repeating it and some will fall for it. We all know about CPP, bpoater thank you. Yawn
Hans,
As always, thank you for the reply. While I do not recall the particular discussion, we have had several on this topic over the last couple of years or so.
I am pretty sure I made the statement you attribute me and I am sure you have noticed that at one time I was more convinced than I am today that Russia has a stronger military than the US. As anyone who studies things carefully will attest to, we constantly read, reread, and read from multiple sources. As we do so, our theories will be subject to change and updating. I am not as convinced of the superiority of Russian forces today as I was at one time.
Essentially it is a very powerful country and needs to be respected as such. I think this goes without saying.
"Stable and focused" people are always carefully studying things and are not afraid to reevaluate a position as new evidence is discovered. I think it was you who used the term "sable and focused." I like the term and think it is an apt description.:-)
I suspect I may have been thinking about the Russian/Georgian war of August 2008. Retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters was forced to admit that Russian forces displayed capabilities that our own forces lacked. Also, while not involving army battles, Russian sources reported during the Russia's involvement in Syria that their air force performed well against ours in mock battles event to the point of awarding medals to the participants. Frankly, awarding medals strictly for messaging purposes would be a surefire way to destroy the morale of one's armed forces who know the truth. As such, I suspect had these situations turned into actual dog fights we would have suffered huge losses in terms of pilots and planes. Does this mean Russia would have won? Would we have won? The only way to know would be to actually have the battles. Furthermore when confronted with this the response of US sources was to downplay or ignore it entirely lending further credence to the credibility of the Russian reports.
Furthermore I would add that Russian forces have since had additional combat experience in Ukraine, Syria, and probably other places. As such, I would suspect they have improved both in relative and absolute terms since 2008. In contrast, the US has continued to expend its forces on a variety of missions around the world likely further depleting them in ways that do not seem to make sense for people who are "stable and focused." In such an environment it is going to be problematic at best to make the proper investments in the troops and the equipment that are going to be necessary for improvement. As such, I would be skeptical over any notion that US forces have made any significant improvements both in relative or absolute terms and may have actually lost ground in both areas.
Essentially my responses to anon are unchanged. Is Russia "great" in the ways that he/she seems to suggest? I would say no and I am not aware of having said that unless a comment was taken out of context and/or not evaluated in light of other comments I had made elsewhere. I generally try and assume that people read comments in their entirety. It doesn't work so well when people don't. Now is Russia "great" in terms of military power and geo political power. I would say so. A country with that many nuclear weapons is going to be a force to be reckoned with. Frankly we could stop right there. When other factors are considered, I believe it further supports the notion that Russia is a major military and geo-political power. The US and the "west" will need to understand this. IMHO failure on the part of US leaders to grasp this has caused us much unneeded problems we didn't need and could have been easily avoided had reality been grasped. As I have been saying, we cannot "know" the outcome of such military conflicts in advance. We could win.:-) As to what we would "win" for the enormous costs and risks involved, that's hard to say.
Hans,
I should have mentioned thank you for the CONSTRUCTIVE reply. These conversations are always much appreciated.
Anon (1:38PM),
I think I pretty well addressed what you say in the other replies to anonymous yet you continue with the same slander. These are not constructive and frankly do not add value. Perhaps you had not seen my reply to anonymous previously or perhaps you did not take the time to read. You may not have had a chance to see my reply to Hans. I think the reply to Hans should further clarify assuming you are actually interested in learning.
Manstein,
I recall a time when dialogue with major powers was encouraged. I think it was called "statesmanship." Now we've entered into what one commentator here awhile back, as I recall, referred to as "silly season" whereby the notion of talking to powerful world leaders and engaging with the countries they represent now results in having one's patriotism or their nationality questioned and honest critiques of policy is forbidden. I will reiterate insults are generally synonymous with someone who does not have a valid point to make and are searching for anyway they can find to discredit a point they are either unable or unwilling to address based upon its merits.
I have repeatedly provided detailed information here about who I am and how I can be found. I do not know who anonymous is.
Post a Comment