Turkey, Iran, Brazil sign deal on nuclear fuel swap

[Sarmatian]

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]

Powerplay

[Incongruous]

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]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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]

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).

[LittleGrizzly]

Any progress towards Iranian nukes is progress towards destroying western fantasies of attacking Iran, that in turn is progress towards Iranians seeing less threats to thier country, that in turn will lead to future presidents having less of a scary outside threat that the people will be distracted by him/her (the president) protecting them from. Progress is a good thing.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

Any progress towards Iranian nukes is progress towards destroying western fantasies of attacking Iran, that in turn is progress towards Iranians seeing less threats to thier country, that in turn will lead to future presidents having less of a scary outside threat that the people will be distracted by him/her (the president) protecting them from. Progress is a good thing.

Except progress in that direction will land an Israeli nuke in Tehran one day when they both miscalculate each others steps in the Great Game

[Husar]

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).

Look, now I reminded you that the USA <> America as america is actually a continent while the USA are just the biggest nation on that continent and that small fact made you turn into some liberal pinkoweenie using loads of colours everywhere. I'm not sure whether I find that more funny or worrying.
I've got nothing against the USA and comparing me to Megas is a bit off (haven't you read my previous arguments with him?).
But you guys are always the ones going "oh, we ruin other nations because we can and it's in our own best interest", so for you to cry about other nations doing things that are in their own best interest is a bit...weird and contradictory perhaps. I'm not saying I'm against US hegemony, quite the opposite, but it's mostly because of the good things this brought and when you're arrogant about it that doesn't look very good, just...arrogant...

[LittleGrizzly]

Except progress in that direction will land an Israeli nuke in Tehran one day when they both miscalculate each others steps in the Great Game

If that would be the case then not only does the need for Iranian nukes grow stronger but they need a good few of them quickly to give them a chance to respond to any first strike

[Louis VI the Fat]

Basically Brazil + Turkey got what the US failed to get: a re-affirmation of Iran's commitment to the NPT.

I would reverse that argument: if Iran really wanted to show commitment to the NPT, it indeed could've taken the similar deal that was proposed last year by France, Russia and America.*


If it is a serious proposal, at the very least it shows a willingness to obstruct, just to stick it to the Americans. Not a willingness to find a workable means to swap nuclear fuel, but power politics set the agenda of Tehran.

Obama now faces the prospect of rejecting a proposal it offered in the first place, or seeing months of effort to enact new sanctions derailed.


Tehran has two goals: build a bomb, and defeat America. I think they are willing to drop either one of these goals, but not both. This new agreement works towards either goal, so a clever move. It will be interesting to see what China does. Russia has gotten more in line with the West. China will have to choose between joining the established powers, or becoming the champion of the emerging ones.



*Showing that in common parlance nobody mistakes the country for the two continents.

[Sarmatian]

I would reverse that argument: if Iran really wanted to show commitment to the NPT, it indeed could've taken the similar deal that was proposed last year by France, Russia and America.*


If it is a serious proposal, at the very least it shows a willingness to obstruct, just to stick it to the Americans. Not a willingness to find a workable means to swap nuclear fuel, but power politics set the agenda of Tehran.

Obama now faces the prospect of rejecting a proposal it offered in the first place, or seeing months of effort to enact new sanctions derailed.


Tehran has two goals: build a bomb, and defeat America. I think they are willing to drop either one of these goals, but not both. This new agreement works towards either goal, so a clever move. It will be interesting to see what China does. Russia has gotten more in line with the West. China will have to choose between joining the established powers, or becoming the champion of the emerging ones.



*Showing that in common parlance nobody mistakes the country for the two continents.

There is also a part of not losing face. Turkey, as a muslim country and by being in relative vicinity, is a perfect choice for storing and inspecting the material if need be. It can hardly be said that American have tried to be constructive with Iran in the past.

Your explanation of Iranian foreign policy (build a bomb and defeat America) made me laugh really. Defeat America? Someone would have to be crazy over there. Not even a religious fanatic covers it, I'm talking genuine, certified "cluck-cluck, gibber-gibber, my old man is a mushroom" crazy. I'm still not convinced that Tehran is building a bomb. Sorry, but previous intelligence errors concerning similar issues leave me a bit skeptical.

[gaelic cowboy]

If that would be the case then not only does the need for Iranian nukes grow stronger but they need a good few of them quickly to give them a chance to respond to any first strike

Wrong the need to prevent a strike will precipitate one instead.

[LittleGrizzly]

Not quite sure what your saying, are you saying if Iran gets a nuclear weapon Israel will launch a pre emptive strike before Iran can ?

I thought the strike on nuclear facilities as was done with Iraq was it ? was not possible this time

My point is that Israel as sole superpower of the region needs some kind of counter balance, Iran is nothing to write home about and even with nukes hardly a big power but it will at least mean Israel has to be somewhat reasonable in its dealings with Iran, maybe this will even mean some of the pawns in the game (palestinians) could get something out of thier jockeying between each other.

[Husar]

*Showing that in common parlance nobody mistakes the country for the two continents.

I know, everybody does, I do if I'm not careful, but that doesn't make it right!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Your explanation of Iranian foreign policy (build a bomb and defeat America) made me laugh really. Defeat America? Someone would have to be crazy over there. Not even a religious fanatic covers it, I'm talking genuine, certified "cluck-cluck, gibber-gibber, my old man is a mushroom" crazy.

Defeat not as military defeat within a time-span of a few years. But defeat as in replacing America as the greatest power in the Middle East? Yes. Defeat as replacing America's cultural soft power? Sure. Even demographic and economical eclipse.

See, the thing is, we are fighting an assymetrical war. A war who's assymtry is best summed up as: they are trying to defeat us, we are not even aware that they are trying to do so.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE


TEHRAN -- Iran boasted yesterday it could defeat any American military action over its nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.


"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.


"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a conference in Tehran. "I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," Gen. Safavi said with a grin.


"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack." Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium on a small scale that could be used for nuclear reactors. The claim represented a direct challenge to the United States and the U.N. Security Council, which has demanded that Iran halt enrichment activities by April 28.


At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran yesterday, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad branded the U.S. as a "decaying power" lacking the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions. And hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Agence France-Presse that a U.S. push for tough U.N. sanctions was of "no importance." "She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the U.N. charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action. "We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1615797/posts

That is how many view the conflict. From the US 'encirclement' in Iraq and Afghanistan, to America's 'defeat' in Iraq, to economical breakdown of America/the West and economical ascendescy of emerging powers. To many hardliners, not only is Iran trying to defeat America, but many would say that Iran has been making great strides too towards defeating America these past three decades. Unlike America / the West, they have the patience and capacity to think long-term. There is a relentless drive to eclipse America in huge parts of the world, completely unknown to America - which is not an imperialistic, expansionist power, and is as such mostly oblivious to this sentiment.

[Tellos Athenaios]

China has moved already. And re-affirmation of the NPT is a bit of a cuddly couch-politics feel-good game; rather than a hard commitment to actually change something.

I think Iran will, for the time being, be content to have a two-speed negotiation device at its disposal which allows the regime to make concessions without submitting to the little & big devil directly. I think the regime would view an untouchable, unquestionable autonomy over its (civil) nuclear ambitions as the end goal. Iran works by a combination of angry state rhetoric and funding massive subsidies on petrol, and the more oil it requires for its domestic demand the more expensive this becomes.

[gaelic cowboy]

@LittleGrizzly

I am talking about how if Iran goes down the route of nuclearisation then it first must normalize its relationship with Israel. The idea that this is same as the cold war in that two side balance each other is false Israel has no strategic depth while Iran does as a result Iran can take a hit or three but Israel cannot.

Therefore it is obvious that Israel cannot allow Iran to obtain nukes or the equation will be unbalanced to Iran's benefit talk of how Iran fears Israel misses the point that Israel fears Iran more due to there continual interference in Israel through proxies and the fact the repeatedly call for the actual destruction of Israel

On how an Israeli strike would be attempted is ultimately of little use it would simply have to be done or Israel would be risking everything. Iran is effectively gambling that the USA will constrain Israel due to the Iraq war and that once it presents it's cards it will be allowed at the table while continuing to meddle in the greater mid-east secure behind MAD but really a MAD in favor of themselves.

[gaelic cowboy]

See, the thing is, we are fighting an assymetrical war. A war who's assymtry is best summed up as: they are trying to defeat us, we are not even aware that they are trying to do so.

They will miss us when were all gone Louis they see the WEST (there capitals not mine) as all the same and they go to bed at night praying they win or America exhausts itself which it possibly is. The day China rules the Great Game will change there wont be anyplace to hide for an errant regime the nukes will fly at tinpot dictators no bother.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Acquiring nuclear weapons and some form of semi-reliable delivery system is a rational choice for any nation-state. This is especially true if one of the powers that be dislike them for some reason. Nuclear technology and weapons must proliferate and will do so for more or less the same reasons the musket and bayonet did.

Eventually, a nuke will fall into the hands of some extra-national willing to use it. Then the death toll will be 300k+ not 3,000. We need to think what we can do to minimize such events and how best to respond to them.

[Husar]

Defeat not as military defeat within a time-span of a few years. But defeat as in replacing America as the greatest power in the Middle East? Yes. Defeat as replacing America's cultural soft power? Sure. Even demographic and economical eclipse.

You mean Iranian restaurants may one day be more numerous than McDonalds? And iranian goat/camel milk or whatever will take over Coca Cola(I really have no idea what drinks they have invented over there, if any)? But what about Döner? Can they ever beat Turkey?

[Subotan]

ZamZam Cola

[Skullheadhq]

America as america is actually a continent while the USA are just the biggest nation on that continent :

I thought Canada was bigger then the US...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I thought Canada was bigger then the US...

Depends how you count things. Usable land? Resources therein? In terms of strict mathematical area, they are of course larger.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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]

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]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

I don't think Iranian nuclear weapons represent an insurmountable strategic problem for Israel. Israel is currently a very hard target for Iran or, as history has demonstrated, most of the Arab Middle East at once. Israel is known to be possessed of nuclear weapons, a fact that all potential invaders must acknowledge in their plans. Iran would be well aware that lobbing a nuke at Tel Aviv would earn them a response that would not be to their liking. On the other hand, it will make Israel far more reticent of launching air strikes into Iran either as a means of harming Iranian industry or as responding punitively for Iran's support of Hezbollah. Even more importantly from Iran's thinking is that it puts nukes in the hands of a Shia state and minimizes the likelihood of another Iran-Iraq or other quasi shia v sunni struggle from happening again. Add in the bonus of being able to tell the USA to piss up a rope without getting airstriked for it and you simply have to see the appeal from their perspective.

All in all, the greatest threats to Iranian and Israeli security lie within their own borders -- no outside threat is truly comparable.

Nation states will not be the next player to use atomic weaponry in combat -- some NGO/terror group will.