Iranian officials have sent a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arguing that the P5+1 nuclear deal’s provision on selling excess heavy water should not oblige them to export the water abroad before an actual buyer is found for it.
This is a fair argument for a few reasons, as the P5+1 deal only caps Iran’s stockpile at 130-tonnes and says the rest “will be made available for export on the international market.” The US actually bought the first of Iran’s exports of heavy water, but it led to political controversy, so they didn’t buy anymore.
Which is the big problem. Iran doesn’t need all this heavy water because the Arak reactor which was meant to use it is being redesigned with international help, and the language in the deal was meant to give Iran access to an export market for the costly heavy water refinery they’d already built.
Heavy water itself isn’t dangerous in any way, and has important scientific applications, which is why it sells for a pretty decent price on the international market. The problem is, the same US sanctions making other commerce with Iran difficult are also making it hard for Iran to find buyers for the water.
Which isn’t Iran’s fault, and also isn’t a security issue. Pressure over Iran being “in violation” of the heavy water stockpile limit, simply because they couldn’t find a buyer in a timely fashion, has led Iran in the past to send some of the water to Oman, but it’s a needless expense, and Iran argues that the water is “on the market” as required whether it’s sitting unbought in a warehouse in Oman or in a warehouse in Iran.
Government’s do solve problems they only rearrange them like this example.
Mar 18, 2017 Flashback: How Did North Korea Get Nuclear Power
North Korea, Meet The New Sheriff With Washington taking a North Korea policy overhaul, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday declared that the existing “strategic patience” approach is over, saying all options including military action are on the table.
https://youtu.be/K-ZPkLqTfGI
You mean governments “don’t” solve problems. But in any case that’s just a silly blanket statement that is meaningless. Are you a libertarian? Because you sound like one.
You’ve given us an example of the libertarians’ talking points getting in the way of the real antiwar message which Jason Ditz spends so much time trying to impress on people.
If you want to talk about government then talk about your government and keep that separated from governments in other countries. Or, is you wish to draw some parallel between the US government and other government, then make a proper comparison.
Watch the whole video before commenting will benefit you greatly. Have a nice day Don!
I watched the whole video and I urge others to watch it too. It’s going to convince some people that you’re playing with less than a full deck.
Unbelieveable video. Probably the most prowar, pro-Trump, pro-republican nonsense ever posted on this site. At least up to the ten minute mark before it goes completely batsh-t crazy with Alex Jones! Still, don’t miss the last 5 minutes!
Especially rewarding in watching that video is the piece condemning Obama for the nuclear deal with Iran! It can’t get any sicker than that for those of us who are truly antiwar.
I would encourage everybody to suffer through it in order to see just what the rest of the world is up against now with Trump.
October 18, 1994 Remarks on the Nuclear Agreement With North Korea William J. Clinton
Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea’s nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula. This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=49319
Yes Brian, and it was accomplished temporarily by Clinton. Now put aside your partisan politics and pay attention for a minute or two:
Obama made a good deal with Iran which led to a temporary halt in the prowar rhetoric. And the other 5 signed on to the deal. But then Iran went and reneged and cheated on their side of the deal and so now Trump has to threaten war with Iran. This is a good parallel to draw with the N.Korea situation. Got it Brian?
Only one thing now Brian. Iran didn’t cheat on the deal. Can you see the parallel drawn with N.Korea to Iran?
Your video is completely disgusting and is a clear indication of your lack of being able to be a part of anything sensible on the antiwar cause.
We’re in a situation where Trump is taking the chance of bluffing on Iran, N.Korea, and Syria. You’ve decided to take a chance on those bluffs.
You need to buy some of Alex’s Caveman powder. Clearly you are about as intelligent as a fu–ing Neanderthal.
August 11, 2015 Retired generals and admirals back Iran nuclear deal in letter
WASHINGTON — Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.
http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal-in-letter-1.362469
Aug 12, 2015 36 Retired U.S. Generals and Admirals Announce Support of Iran Deal
Deal is ‘most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,’ high-ranking officers say in letter, adding that military action only possible after diplomatic path exhausted.
http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.670756