Turkey, Iran, Brazil sign deal on nuclear fuel swap

**Sarmatian** · 05-22-2010, 09:33

Iran inked a nuclear fuel swap deal Monday which commits it to ship 1,200 kilograms of low enriched uranium to Turkey, potentially ending a standoff with world powers gearing for new sanctions against the Islamic republic.

link

US still silent officially, China welcomed the deal after some deliberation, which puts US in a difficult position to push for sanctions in UN security council. What happens now?

Not totally related, but is this also "coming of age" for Brazil? For the first time they involved themselves in such a big issue in world politics...

**Fragony** · 05-22-2010, 09:51

Powerplay

**Incongruous** · 05-22-2010, 12:18

Whatever, if Iran want Nuclear power give it to them. The towel heads in charge would never be stupid enough to use them, it would mean bye bye middle-east. This is all power-bollocks, everyone should stop being so silly and just give Iran the attention it really deserves, zilch, it's a piece of crappy real-estate with a public ready to shoot its absurd leadership.

**PanzerJaeger** · 05-22-2010, 13:28

Two of America's supposed "allies" and "partners" have subverted our efforts at sanctions and given Iran the cover it needs to continue its weapons program. How the mighty have fallen.

**Vladimir** · 05-22-2010, 15:02

Brazil has prided itself on being independent from but friendly with the U.S. I don't see a betrayal there.

I suspect the deal with Turkey has U.S. support. It is consistent with the administration's overall foreign policy and the silence is telling.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 05-22-2010, 18:05

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Brazil has prided itself on being independent from but friendly with the U.S. I don't see a betrayal there.

I suspect the deal with Turkey has U.S. support. It is consistent with the administration's overall foreign policy and the silence is telling.

Even more telling if you read the first clause. Basically Brazil + Turkey got what the US failed to get: a re-affirmation of Iran's commitment to the NPT.

**Husar** · 05-22-2010, 15:06

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Two of America's supposed "allies" and "partners" have subverted our efforts at sanctions and given Iran the cover it needs to continue its weapons program. How the mighty have fallen.

Sticking to the USA (Bazil is America as well...) was probably not in those nations' best interest.

**PanzerJaeger** · 05-22-2010, 16:40

Originally Posted by Husar

Sticking to the USA (Bazil is America as well...) was probably not in those nations' best interest.

Ok, Megas.

I agree, though, the hegemony that THE UNITED STATES created during the Cold War is quickly falling apart as former partner nations look to deal with the old communist bloc powers and rogue nations. It will hurt THE UNITED STATES, and the Western World, far more than we realize, especially when the dollar ceases to be the world's reserve currency, but that is the way of realpolitik. If you're not going up, you're going down. Hopefully, in the future, THE UNITED STATES will learn to be more self serving. Despite the far Left's cries of imperial intentions, no superpower has been more self defeating and destructive, which is both a compliment and a tradgedy (if you're a United Statesperson).

**a completely inoffensive name** · 05-24-2010, 02:55

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Two of America's supposed "allies" and "partners" have subverted our efforts at sanctions and given Iran the cover it needs to continue its weapons program. How the mighty have fallen.

Two independent countries have not followed along with America's policies, how dare they.

**rory_20_uk** · 05-24-2010, 13:22

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Two of America's supposed "allies" and "partners" have subverted our efforts at sanctions and given Iran the cover it needs to continue its weapons program. How the mighty have fallen.

Yes, America expects unquestioned obedience from allies. Of course, none has to be shown in return...

India wants the bomb? Fine - they're stable as a rock (apart from the showoffs with Pakistan, the internal Maoist uprisings and squaring up to China)
Pakistan wants the bomb? Fine. Stability exemplified. First amongst equals (as long as the equals are Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and Georgia).
Israel wants the bomb? Fine. Fair minded people. Only want peace and the right to exist. Who can deny that? (OK, other people happen to live where they want the right to exist, but no problem...)

Iran wants the bomb... They'll destabilise the whole region as no one else has one aprt from Israel. They're not allowed one as... they're not, OK?

Nukes are far less likely to be used than biologicals or chemical agents. Getting nukes is a way of posturing on the world stage, not really a useful addition to one's arsenal - except if one is afraid of being overrun by a foreign power in short order and conventional forces are not enough... the logical Israel used and Iran is justified in feeling the same way.

**gaelic cowboy** · 05-24-2010, 13:58

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Nukes are far less likely to be used than biologicals or chemical agents. Getting nukes is a way of posturing on the world stage, not really a useful addition to one's arsenal - except if one is afraid of being overrun by a foreign power in short order and conventional forces are not enough... the logical Israel used and Iran is justified in feeling the same way.

This is incorrect it does not follow that to be truly safe the equation must be perfectly balanced some factors can be far more important to the strategic equation. In this case Israel has no strategic depth so it must have nukes to deter invasion it does not follow that Israel will use then in aggression as the states around it have many chemical and biological weapons and strategic depth.

Iran having nukes massively unbalances Israels security this means that the period of time we are in now is the most dangerous for Iran as Israel MUST prevent it getting nukes.

You propose that nukes are not useful when infact the case is too many nukes are useless but small numbers of nukes are useful. Cold War levels of nukes cause both side to have to be on the same page in regard to the moves they make on the chessboard. Each side must anticipate the other sides reaction to it's own move plus the counter move it will make after there first move.

This having to know the other sides head can be dangerous and luckily we escaped without blowing up the world. However when less nukes enter the equation the danger is that the incentive for use goes up as the entire world is not at stake in the game being played.

Put simply more nukes equals stalemate equals 50/50 chance of extinction, however close to zero levels means the incentive to use goes up and at zero levels the incentive to obtain one is massively increased.