An expected Friday deal gave way to more Saturday talks, and reports that the conference might continue into next week. It ended Saturday, however, without a deal and with only a promise to meet again November 20 to try again.
While many saw a hostile US Congress as the biggest obstacle to reaching a deal, it was France that ultimately stepped up and killed the proposal, with Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius citing Israeli and Saudi objections as a reason not to reach a pact on Iran’s civilian nuclear program.
Details of the specific objections are still scarce, with top officials mostly keeping quiet about the talks, but France was said to be particularly adamant that Iran be forced to hand over its civilian enriched uranium in any deal, and also wanted a halt of the construction of the Arak heavy water reactor.
The issues surrounding Arak are something of a microcosm for the disagreements on both sides. Arak is meant to replace the aging Tehran Research Reactor as a source of medical and industrial isotopes, and runs on unenriched uranium.
That it doesn’t require enriched uranium would seemingly make it a big “win” for the West, which keeps railing on about Iran’s civilian enrichment program making fuel for other reactors. But the waste the reactor produces could be further processed to extract plutonium. Even though Iran doesn’t have the facilities to do such processing, Western hawks are presenting it as “proof” Iran is trying to have a nuclear weapon capability, while Iranian hardliners see it as proof that there’s just no satisfying the West, and no point trying.
While the Arak dispute could seemingly be resolved with a simple agreement to transfer the waste abroad for disposal, the question of forcing Iran to surrender parts of its civilian fuel stockpile is much more onerous, since Iran isn’t actually doing anything wrong in having it, and is unlikely to want to set a precedent of losing civilian-enriched uranium it has every right to produce.
Who pays for all these negotiations? From air fare to and from; to logistical/operational/communications/intelligence/security support requirements; to the salaries of the people sitting around bullshitting; to all the other money spent (on Whom, by Whom)?
Who pays for all this? and, what is the return on Our investment?
i am reminded of being in Viet Nam when the Paris "Peace" Talks broke out, and the argument that held up negotiations for weeks if not months, about the size and shape of the table. according to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords ) :
A similar debate concerned the table to be used at the conference. The North favored a circular table, in which all parties, including NLF representatives, would appear to be "equal"' in importance. The South Vietnamese argued that only a rectangular table was acceptable, for only a rectangle could show two distinct sides to the conflict. Eventually a compromise was reached, in which representatives of the northern and southern governments would sit at a circular table, with members representing all other parties sitting on individual square tables around them.
i remember signing a letter inviting all of those assholes in Paris to come here, where we were, in the mud, the blood, the shit, and the lies that were Viet Nam in 1968. i was told that close to a million American GIs and Vietnamese signed that petition.
Who pays for all these negotiations? From air fare to and from; to logistical/operational/communications/intelligence/security support requirements; to the salaries of the people sitting around bull****ting; to all the other money spent (on Whom, by Whom)?
Who pays for all this? and, what is the return on Our investment?
i am reminded of being in Viet Nam when the Paris "Peace" Talks broke out, and the argument that held up negotiations for weeks if not months, about the size and shape of the table. according to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords ) :
"A similar debate concerned the table to be used at the conference. The North favored a circular table, in which all parties, including NLF representatives, would appear to be "equal"' in importance. The South Vietnamese argued that only a rectangular table was acceptable, for only a rectangle could show two distinct sides to the conflict. Eventually a compromise was reached, in which representatives of the northern and southern governments would sit at a circular table, with members representing all other parties sitting on individual square tables around them."
i remember signing a letter inviting all of those *******s in Paris to come here, where we were, in the mud, the blood, the ****, and the lies that were Viet Nam in 1968. i was told that close to a million American GIs and Vietnamese signed that petition.
western intransigence once again is the proverbial fly in the ointment….bad faith dealing and lies prevail- how sad. i hope that if these talks break down russia and china back up iran to stymie any direct assaults and break the sanctions in every and anyway possible.
i would like to see the same spoiling for a fight attitudes of these so called civilised western countries, applied to israeli expansion which is ongoing in the west bank- stop israeli illegal population transfer and dispossession of palestinians now
OK, now is the time to call them freedom fries.
Amazing to hear France acting as Israel's puppet this time. Most likely it's not Israel but Saudi Arabia who are bribing the French into dancing their little jig for them. And if France has a veto that's it for the path of peace. Saudi and Israel don't give a rat's damn about the Iranian nuclear program, whatever it is; they know Iran is not even trying to build a bomb. What they do care about is everything else Iran represents. They care about Iran's support for Assad, Hezbollah, and Maliki in Iraq, all of whom Israel and Saudi want gone; they care about the fact that Iran has ballistic missiles that could reach them, but most important, they care that Iran exists. Israel can't stand Iran because Iran will always oppose greater Israel. And Saudi Arabia is continuing the 1300-year-old war between Sunni and Shia.
It would be so much simpler if Israel and Saudi would just come out and say it: look, we don't care if Iran does give iron-clad guarantees that it won't build a bomb. We know they won't build a bomb. That's not the point. The point is that an Iran that is not crippled by eternal sanctions is unacceptable to us, unless they convert from Shia Islam to something acceptable, like Judaism and/or Sunni Islam. Failing that they cannot be trusted with a country that is not under sanctions.
It's not about nuclear technology at all, and the sooner the United States understands that, the sooner they'll stop this foolish attempt to avoid going to war on behalf of their rulers and masters in Saudi Arabi and Israel.
I don't understand. So what if the French objected? A deal is up to the US and Iran. I don't think the negotiations broke up because of French posturing. I think it's because the previous reports of an agreement were premature – they came mostly from the Iranian side. When Kerry went in, he checked up on the status of the talks – and not everything was already settled. So he tried to settle it with the Iranian FM – and couldn't. What Kerry wanted did not have anything to do with the French. His orders were coming from Washington.
Whatever was in the Hollande's telephone conversations that the US spied on and later gave them to a certain shi**y country in the ME?
According to the Press website:- Israeli Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said the regime will lobby the US Congress in an attempt to prevent any possible deal between Iran and the six powers. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also rejected a possible nuclear agreement with Iran as “a very bad deal” on November 8.
As far as the French stop gap of the negotiations and the proposed actions of the lobby in the US Congress the end result will be that "its not Iran that is guilty of breaking talks, but one of 5+1".
According to the Press website:- Israeli Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said the regime will lobby the US Congress in an attempt to prevent any possible deal between Iran and the six powers. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also rejected a possible nuclear agreement with Iran as “a very bad deal” on November 8.
As far as the French stop gap of the negotiations and the proposed actions of the lobby in the US Congress the end result will be that "its not Iran that is guilty of breaking talks, but one of 5+1".
How infuriating that Zionist Fabius (also his mother is American) has the FM job in the "socialist" French govt. Noody should take the side of the paranoid PM of Israel plus Bandar Bush/Saud against a possible peaceful decision.
I would have expected nothing less from Israhell to try everything to prevent a peace deal between USA and Iran. What would the Israelis do without an islamic boogie man (which always served them since the foundation of "the only democrazy in ME" to portray their arab and islamic neighbours in the western public as dangerous and insane savages))??? The western countries would get awake from their braindead sleep and recognize that actually only one Country consistently bullys the neighbours. And the American public would recognize that US interests and not identic with Israels ones.
The payment of billions of Military aid would be endagered.
With Hollande and Fabius (his father was a later converted askenazi jew) they have their puppets installed in France. That is what it is all about,