Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/30/2015 12:56:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2015 12:59:23 PM EDT by MK262]
What No One Tells You: The Real Reason For Nuke Deal With Iran

4/28/2015

by Melik Kaylan
Contributor

[snip]


Why is it such a threat to them [Russia and China]? And if it is, surely Obama knows. Perhaps he even intends it. Here’s the thesis: It’s not about Iran’s nukes, or Iran per se, so much as Iran as a gateway to Central Asia. Look at the map. Iran acts as a geographical plug that bottles up all of Central Asia’s raw materials (Turkmen gas, Kazakh oil). Unplug Iran, turn it into a conduit for the Westward flow of Silk Road trade from the ‘Stans, and suddenly you’ve created a huge new headache for both Russia and China. Suddenly their own private backyard of supine satellite states might get rich and powerful and even, mirabile dictu, start acting all independent.


Right now, their pipelines only go west via Russia or east to China at prices dictated by both. Their economies are wholly owned subsidiaries of Beijing and Moscow. Generate growth, autonomy and confidence in the Central Asian countries and you’ve created a whole new geostrategic equation. The entire sleepy backwater comes alive and poses a potential threat to the nether regions of the West’s superpower rivals. It’s the Great Game all over again. But it’s more than that even–because with those flanks becoming unpredictable, Moscow’s focus on Europe instantly eases while Beijing’s push against India and Japan and the Pacific gets distracted.

Iran under sanctions is just another Central Asian hostage to the Russo-Chinese. Iran as a bridge for the great surge of trade reaps a windfall of multiple benefits. In fact, Tehran might even prefer affluent mercantile stability to the nightmare struggle for military hegemony in the Middle East, something no one has achieved since the Ottomans two centuries ago.

Now you see why President Obama won’t bang the drum on the chief attraction of his nuclear demarche to Iran.

[snip]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2015/04/28/what-no-one-tells-you-the-real-reason-for-nuke-deal-with-iran/

View Quote
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:01:32 PM EDT
An interesting thought, that.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:05:30 PM EDT
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20?
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:05:31 PM EDT
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:08:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20?
View Quote


Read the article. It talks about it in the article at the link. Due to board rules, I can't copy and paste the whole article.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:09:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NDT3:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders.
View Quote


Iran's Leaders are Not Suicidal
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:13:07 PM EDT
So.... "War for Oil"?

I'm still waiting on all the oil we won in the last "war for oil."
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:13:33 PM EDT
This has never been a secret. Things were definitely more convenient when Iran was in our orbit. The whole reason we sold them all that hardware before 79 was to counter Russia/the USSR. The discussion now is just about cost and whether we can keep our other regional allies in our orbit while re-engaging with Iran.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:13:42 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MK262:


Iran's Leaders are Not Suicidal
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MK262:
Originally Posted By NDT3:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders.


Iran's Leaders are Not Suicidal


You can be insane and not be suicidal. Nazi party for example.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:15:09 PM EDT

If a nuclear Iran was bad for China and Russia, they would have already made moves against it. They haven't so it is in their best interest.
It may simply be that they know it hurts the U.S. more than it hurts them.

The article is a lame excuse for why Obama is committing treason against the United States.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:15:42 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TokerM:
So.... "War for Oil"?

I'm still waiting on all the oil we won in the last "war for oil."
View Quote


What war?
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:15:53 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20?
View Quote


Because the article is wrong in it's analysis and conclusion.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:16:55 PM EDT
That's the plan. Iraq will broken up in to 3 regions. One Saudi controlled, one Iranian controlled, and the area around Baghdad U.S. controlled. Everyone wins.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:17:02 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NDT3:


You can be insane and not be suicidal. Nazi party for example.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NDT3:
Originally Posted By MK262:
Originally Posted By NDT3:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders.


Iran's Leaders are Not Suicidal


You can be insane and not be suicidal. Nazi party for example.


They aren't insane either.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:21:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/1/2015 3:42:53 AM EDT by MK262]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By C-4:

If a nuclear Iran was bad for China and Russia, they would have already made moves against it. They haven't so it is in their best interest.
It may simply be that they know it hurts the U.S. more than it hurts them.

The article is a lame excuse for why Obama is committing treason against the United States.
View Quote


It's not wrong. The Russians and Chinese aren't making moves against the agreement because they feel they can out maneuver the West and prevent this from happening, while benefiting from opening the Iranian market to their goods.

However, the West has more money and technology to exploit the Stans' resources, and therefore has more to offer them. So the West has an advantage over both Russia and China in competing in Central Asia. Who will win out is anyone's guess. Yet, attempting to bring Iran into the West's orbit again is central to enacting a strategy to compete with Russia and China there.

We'll see who is correct.

ETA: You're correct in one sense though. A nuclear Iran doesn't particularly threaten Russia and China. It does greatly constrain US interests. But since the deal we are making with Iran doesn't allow for them to become a nuclear weapons state, your point is moot. You are conflating an Iran deal to allow them to enrich Uranium at 5% with allowing them to get nuclear weapons, which isn't the case. No one is saying Iran will be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:21:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2015 1:22:12 PM EDT by TokerM]
Originally Posted By MK262:
Originally Posted By TokerM:
So.... "War for Oil"?

I'm still waiting on all the oil we won in the last "war for oil."
View Quote


What war?
View Quote

According to a bunch of libs: ALL OF THEM!!!
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:22:54 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By C-4:


Because the article is wrong in it's analysis and conclusion.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By C-4:
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20?


Because the article is wrong in it's analysis and conclusion.


Nah... you've just have closed off your mind to the possibility of a deal with Iran, no matter the potential costs.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:24:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NDT3:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders.
View Quote


It also assumes Obama has any sense or strategy or forethought.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:24:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MK262:


They aren't insane either.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MK262:
Originally Posted By NDT3:
Originally Posted By MK262:
Originally Posted By NDT3:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders.


Iran's Leaders are Not Suicidal


You can be insane and not be suicidal. Nazi party for example.


They aren't insane either.



But they do get a lot of hand-wringing in the US and Israel. 20 years ago Iran was going to get nukes any day. Now, Iran is going to get nukes any day.

It's a complicated issue, but made more complicated by calling the idiots in Iran the biggest villain of the century and keeping the hype turned to 11. For decades.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:26:02 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TokerM:
So.... "War for Oil"?

I'm still waiting on all the oil we won in the last "war for oil."
View Quote


You think you'll see it? Hell they won't even let us use our own oil.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:44:45 PM EDT
A decent post on Iran and nuclear weapons:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/12/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:51:08 PM EDT
Obama’s soft approach to world affairs hasn’t righted things. But the proposed nuclear framework agreement with Iran may be his first big venture to do just that.
View Quote

Budapest, the NNPT, none of those things seem to interfere with Obama's "soft approach". Obama's "soft approach" has worked so swimmingly everywhere else, why not give it a whirl in Iran?

For an article published on a finance site, it's remarkably naïve in its cause-effect conclusions. Iran doubles down on financial lunacy in commercial reactor procurement, a venture where Russian interests sustain/profit handsomely ... and Kaylan sees this as a sign of Russian weakness/insecurity? Industries in the West would kill for deals like this. The commercial nuclear agreements described in that article make no financial sense ... outside the context of overwhelming international monitoring.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 1:59:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MK262:
What No One Tells You: The Real Reason For Nuke Deal With Iran

4/28/2015

by Melik Kaylan
Contributor

[snip]

Iran as a bridge for the great surge of trade reaps a windfall of multiple benefits. In fact, Tehran might even prefer affluent mercantile stability to the nightmare struggle for military hegemony in the Middle East, something no one has achieved since the Ottomans two centuries ago....
View Quote
View Quote
Iran is building nuclear weapons while chanting "Death to America" and seizing cargo ships. So we can trust them, right?
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 2:12:38 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Iran is building nuclear weapons while chanting "Death to America" and seizing cargo ships. So we can trust them, right?
View Quote

Unless it's only the minority leadership doing those things, at the beck and call of Russia/China, in return for continued local power/wealth to keep up appearances to enable pretext for the sanctions (which benefit Russia, China, and Iran's leadership).

So there's two ways to break that feedback loop:
1) Popular uprising or otherwise replace the leadership (we blew that opportunity).
2) Offer them a better deal than they have now.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 2:15:35 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MK262:


It's not wrong. The Russians and Chinese aren't making moves against the agreement because they feel they can out maneuver the West and prevent this from happening, while benefiting from opening the Iranian market to their goods.

However, the West has more money and technology to exploit the Stans' resources, and therefore has more to offer them. So the West has an advantage over both Russia and China in competing in Central Asia. Who will win out is anyone's guess. Yet, attempting to bring Iran into the West's orbit again is central to enacting a strategy to compete with Russia and China there.

We'll see who is correct.

ETA: You're correct in one sense though. A nuclear Iran doesn't particularly threaten Russia and China. It does greatly constrain US interests. But since the deal we are making with Iran doesn't allow for them to become a nuclear weapons state, your point is moot. You are conflating an Iran deal to allow them to enrich Uranium at 5% with allow them to get a nuclear weapons, which isn't the case. No one is saying Iran will be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MK262:
Originally Posted By C-4:

If a nuclear Iran was bad for China and Russia, they would have already made moves against it. They haven't so it is in their best interest.
It may simply be that they know it hurts the U.S. more than it hurts them.

The article is a lame excuse for why Obama is committing treason against the United States.


It's not wrong. The Russians and Chinese aren't making moves against the agreement because they feel they can out maneuver the West and prevent this from happening, while benefiting from opening the Iranian market to their goods.

However, the West has more money and technology to exploit the Stans' resources, and therefore has more to offer them. So the West has an advantage over both Russia and China in competing in Central Asia. Who will win out is anyone's guess. Yet, attempting to bring Iran into the West's orbit again is central to enacting a strategy to compete with Russia and China there.

We'll see who is correct.

ETA: You're correct in one sense though. A nuclear Iran doesn't particularly threaten Russia and China. It does greatly constrain US interests. But since the deal we are making with Iran doesn't allow for them to become a nuclear weapons state, your point is moot. You are conflating an Iran deal to allow them to enrich Uranium at 5% with allow them to get a nuclear weapons, which isn't the case. No one is saying Iran will be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Of course there is good reason for connecting Iran's enrichment with their pursuit of HEU weapons.

It is pure financially insanity to pursue enrichment in view of the deals offered by Rosatom. And, if the Rosatom deals ever sour, the Iranians can get competitive deals from the French vendor - deals that have zero risk of physical proliferation. Their enrichment program defies economic sanity - especially when adding up all of the penalties accrued through existing sanctions.


Maintain LEU enrichment as a means of sustaining technical expertise for clandestine HEU enrichment. Make financially idiotic commercial power investments as a way to bring more Iranian nationals into the field.

To ensure victory in a shell game, increase the number of shells.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 2:22:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MK262:
What No One Tells You: The Real Reason For Nuke Deal With Iran

4/28/2015

by Melik Kaylan
Contributor

[snip]


Why is it such a threat to them [Russia and China]? And if it is, surely Obama knows. Perhaps he even intends it. Here’s the thesis: It’s not about Iran’s nukes, or Iran per se, so much as Iran as a gateway to Central Asia. Look at the map. Iran acts as a geographical plug that bottles up all of Central Asia’s raw materials (Turkmen gas, Kazakh oil). Unplug Iran, turn it into a conduit for the Westward flow of Silk Road trade from the ‘Stans, and suddenly you’ve created a huge new headache for both Russia and China. Suddenly their own private backyard of supine satellite states might get rich and powerful and even, mirabile dictu, start acting all independent.


Right now, their pipelines only go west via Russia or east to China at prices dictated by both. Their economies are wholly owned subsidiaries of Beijing and Moscow. Generate growth, autonomy and confidence in the Central Asian countries and you’ve created a whole new geostrategic equation. The entire sleepy backwater comes alive and poses a potential threat to the nether regions of the West’s superpower rivals. It’s the Great Game all over again. But it’s more than that even–because with those flanks becoming unpredictable, Moscow’s focus on Europe instantly eases while Beijing’s push against India and Japan and the Pacific gets distracted.

Iran under sanctions is just another Central Asian hostage to the Russo-Chinese. Iran as a bridge for the great surge of trade reaps a windfall of multiple benefits. In fact, Tehran might even prefer affluent mercantile stability to the nightmare struggle for military hegemony in the Middle East, something no one has achieved since the Ottomans two centuries ago.

Now you see why President Obama won’t bang the drum on the chief attraction of his nuclear demarche to Iran.

[snip]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2015/04/28/what-no-one-tells-you-the-real-reason-for-nuke-deal-with-iran/

View Quote
View Quote


if this deal was in any way, shape or form good for us, then obama would be running away from it as fast as he could. he fucking hates us and that is evident in every decision he makes/has made for him
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 2:23:40 PM EDT
blah blah blah... the fact is, Iran isnt going to hold to the agreement. anyone that believes they will is fucking retarded.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0NL09220150430

the 'agreement' isnt even binding. this whole thing is making Neville Chamberlain look good.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 2:27:03 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By C-4:


Because the article is wrong in it's analysis and conclusion.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By C-4:
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20?


Because the article is wrong in it's analysis and conclusion.


look who posted it
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 2:28:25 PM EDT
Why does much of this entire thread stink of propaganda and misinformation?
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 2:37:09 PM EDT
Thanks to Jimmy Carter.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 2:41:45 PM EDT
Will we be moving our nations capitol there or did I miss something while fishing
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 2:53:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NDT3:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders.
View Quote


They've changed the narrative, and this is no longer part of it. The press, and the pols, want this whole thing to sound like a strategic business deal, not that we're negotiating with the largest state sponsor of terrorism since their current government structure was put in to place. We're not allowed to talk about the religious zealots who want to hasten in the return of their prophet. We're supposed to believe that they want money and to, basically, be like us, only with a twinge of religion.

We're also supposed to forget all of the terrorist acts committed against the US and the West, both directly and indirectly, as well as all of the lives that have been lost because of Iran.

Didn't you get the memo?
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 3:09:17 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TrojanMan:

Unless it's only the minority leadership doing those things, at the beck and call of Russia/China, in return for continued local power/wealth to keep up appearances to enable pretext for the sanctions (which benefit Russia, China, and Iran's leadership).

So there's two ways to break that feedback loop:
1) Popular uprising or otherwise replace the leadership (we blew that opportunity).
2) Offer them a better deal than they have now.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TrojanMan:
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Iran is building nuclear weapons while chanting "Death to America" and seizing cargo ships. So we can trust them, right?

Unless it's only the minority leadership doing those things, at the beck and call of Russia/China, in return for continued local power/wealth to keep up appearances to enable pretext for the sanctions (which benefit Russia, China, and Iran's leadership).

So there's two ways to break that feedback loop:
1) Popular uprising or otherwise replace the leadership (we blew that opportunity).
2) Offer them a better deal than they have now.

3) Keep/reinstate the sanctions. Toss the deal that's currently on the table.

Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran.

Link Posted: 4/30/2015 3:17:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:

Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran.

View Quote



They did?
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 3:44:49 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kozaki:


They did?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kozaki:
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:

Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran.



They did?


Yes. They had to start over.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 3:51:00 PM EDT
Not gonna lie. Its a pretty interesting idea, and a game changer if implemented. Iv always thought we needed to open up to Iran, if only because alienating them puts us on the Sunni side of the Sunni/Shia conflict, and thus alienates half the middle east. But looking at it from this perspective puts an entirely different situation into play. I dont think Obama is looking at it from this perspective, as his foreign policy ideas so far have been about as deep as a puddle in the Texas summer, but if a more competent leader spearheaded it.......

Lets say hypothetically (ignoring the foolish nuke deal and the coming mid east arms race) we opened up dealings with Iran. Geographically they could then directly influence some of the problem parties in both Iraq and Afghanistan, allowing us to get more favorable outcomes in both conflicts. Simultaneously we could have significant influence in the neighboring states of both our international competitors? An interesting concept worthy of pursuit. On top of that the sunnies and shias could continue to kill each other, however instead of taking defacto sides like we have, we are immediately positioned to act as an impartial middle man to stop shit before it boils over as we would be able to influence both sides instead of just propping up the Saudis.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 3:53:38 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20?
View Quote


Because they are buying influence with them. Iran is currently our enemy. Russia is currently our enemy. Following the old adage of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", it makes sense. That being said, we have far more to offer Iran than Russia does, and Iran has far more to gain from us than from Russia.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 4:05:26 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cypher15:
blah blah blah... the fact is, Iran isnt going to hold to the agreement. anyone that believes they will is fucking retarded.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0NL09220150430

the 'agreement' isnt even binding. this whole thing is making Neville Chamberlain look good.
View Quote


Probably true. Thats why this agreement is a shitty way to open up dealings with Iran. We need to start working with them for the above mentioned reasons, but this isnt the way to do it.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 5:13:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:


Yes. They had to start over.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Originally Posted By kozaki:
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:

Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran.



They did?


Yes. They had to start over.


Cool. So, it should show an effect on Iran in, what 70-80 years?

After all, worked so well to cause regime change in Cuba.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 5:24:33 PM EDT
Iran buy uranium from Russian. Russia buys uranium from USA. What's not to understand?
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 5:33:22 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By C-4:

If a nuclear Iran was bad for China and Russia, they would have already made moves against it. They haven't so it is in their best interest.
It may simply be that they know it hurts the U.S. more than it hurts them.

The article is a lame excuse for why Obama is committing treason against the United States.
View Quote

That's my guess. Russia and China would be doing what we should be doing, so I'm guessing they don't have a problem with it.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 5:51:43 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RolandBozz:
Iran buy uranium from Russian. Russia buys uranium from USA. What's not to understand?
View Quote

No. Not even close.

http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 5:56:03 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:

Yes. They had to start over.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Originally Posted By kozaki:
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:

Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran.


They did?

Yes. They had to start over.

LOL. Sounds like some people don't know that the Soviet Union no longer exists.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 5:56:56 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:

No. Not even close.

http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By RolandBozz:
Iran buy uranium from Russian. Russia buys uranium from USA. What's not to understand?

No. Not even close.

http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 5:58:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:

No. Not even close.

http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By RolandBozz:
Iran buy uranium from Russian. Russia buys uranium from USA. What's not to understand?

No. Not even close.

http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/


Actually... Russia now owns around 20% of our Uranium production, thanks to Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama's State Department. Not much of a stretch to think that some of it would wind up in Iranian hands, through Russia.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 6:23:32 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cypher15:
blah blah blah... the fact is, Iran isnt going to hold to the agreement. anyone that believes they will is fucking retarded.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0NL09220150430

the 'agreement' isnt even binding. this whole thing is making Neville Chamberlain look good.
View Quote


+1

Glad I'm not the only one that looks at it this way.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 6:35:21 PM EDT
I've been saying for years that this is just the continuing Great Game, though the US has replaced the UK.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 8:19:16 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JBski:


Actually... Russia now owns around 20% of our Uranium production, thanks to Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama's State Department. Not much of a stretch to think that some of it would wind up in Iranian hands, through Russia.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JBski:
Originally Posted By L_JE:
Originally Posted By RolandBozz:
Iran buy uranium from Russian. Russia buys uranium from USA. What's not to understand?

No. Not even close.

http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/


Actually... Russia now owns around 20% of our Uranium production, thanks to Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama's State Department. Not much of a stretch to think that some of it would wind up in Iranian hands, through Russia.

It's something like 5% of domestic reserves, 10% of 2014 domestic production, and an operation that was sold to the French during Reagan, sold to another French company during GHW Bush, and then sold to the Canadians and then Russians under Obama.

Russia has no shortage of uranium, 4th largest reserves in the world and 2x the reserves of the US, and doesn't need US sources to funnel uranium to Iran.

In fact, the US purchases more Russian-mined uranium than uranium mined here in the US.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 10:04:18 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sedona:
Why does much of this entire thread stink of propaganda and misinformation?
View Quote


You act like Forbes magazine is Pravada or Fars News.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 10:09:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2015 10:09:56 PM EDT by CrazyWhiteGuy]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kozaki:


Cool. So, it should show an effect on Iran in, what 70-80 years?

After all, worked so well to cause regime change in Cuba.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kozaki:
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Originally Posted By kozaki:
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:

Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran.



They did?


Yes. They had to start over.


Cool. So, it should show an effect on Iran in, what 70-80 years?

After all, worked so well to cause regime change in Cuba.


the fall of the soviet empire didn't change their regime at all, what are you talking about? It flatlined their expansion, crushed their economy and destabilized every nation state in the former bloc making them easier for use to control and harder for them to take back over. It will take them at least another 2-4 decades to regain their old footprint.

Cuba is a fucking island.
Link Posted: 4/30/2015 10:11:24 PM EDT
No.

Obama refuses to believe the Mullahs are crazy and expects a nuclear Iran to be a counter-balance to Israel, which has had nukes for decades.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top