Promises from Iran

[Skeptic Ginger]

Paraphrased from an interview on CNN:
Obama (in a clip): If the Republicans have objections I hope they'll tell us their alternate plan.
Rep Peter King, Republican (interviewed by the newscaster): Obama says it's his way or the highway.
Newscaster made zero effort to challenge the sound bite, just let it slide.

It's scary to think a potential nuclear war depends on an agreement that will in all likelihood be sabotaged by the Republicans and Netanyahu. All Israel knows is oppress and bomb and look how successful the strategy has been for them.

Iran will get a bomb, sanctions or not. It's a fantasy that we can threaten and coerce them into stopping something they are doing because we are threatening and coercing them.

Yeah yeah, "Death to Israel" "Death to America the Great Satan". It's not like the US and Israel haven't done their share of spreading death in the region.

Get over it. Here's the bottom line.
A) Keep the status quo and Iran continues until they succeed making a bomb.

B) We bomb the out of them and kill millions more, create millions more out to kill us, lose another few thousand young men and women with no guarantee of even destroying their bomb making capability.

C) We accept this agreement. Iran gets to refill their coffers with sanctions lifted, but we get a whole lot more information about where their nuclear capabilities are, how far along they are, how hardened the targets are. If the deal fails, sure, Iran will be in a stronger economic position but we will be in a better intelligence position.

Israel and the Republicans are only working toward B. They ignore the possibility of A as if it didn't exist or as if B can always stop A when the evidence is that is not certain.

Israel and the Republicans cannot accept C for ideological and political reasons.

How sad for the world.

But the one saving grace is, the US and Israel do not control the entire agreement. Sanctions and an agreement involve a number of other important countries.

 

[Peter May]

They don't have a 'desperate need' so there is nothing to equate.

The 'attempt' seems to have worked...

A deal has been achieved, so speculation about what might happen without it is irrelevant.

Yes. At this point it would be a particularly stupid move.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32176399
Awaiting your apology..

 

[Roger Ramjets]

President Hassan Rouhani.

“We will keep our promises within the framework of our national interest”

Several times the Iranian president stated that they would keep their promises and not cheat. You extracted one short sentence out of that speech that might (if taken out of context) imply they might try to cheat. Was that your intention, or was it just an unfortunate choice?

 

[Peter May]

Several times the Iranian president stated that they would keep their promises and not cheat. You extracted one short sentence out of that speech that might (if taken out of context) imply they might try to cheat. Was that your intention, or was it just an unfortunate choice?

Still waiting for your apology.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Still awaiting your apology..

Sorry, not going to apologize for asking for a cite.

What you say is false, prove I am wrong!

An unverified quote is indistinguishable from a false statement.

'The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity.' - Abraham Lincoln

The only way you can do that is to contact the BBC 24 hours News channel and confirm what I say is true.

And yet when pressed you were able to provide a link, so I didn't have to contact the BBC after all. When are you going to apologize for misleading me?

 

[Peter May]

Sorry, not going to apologize for asking for a cite.

An unverified quote is indistinguishable from a false statement.

'The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity.' - Abraham Lincoln

And yet when pressed you were able to provide a link, so I didn't have to contact the BBC after all. When are you going to apologize for misleading me?

"I assume that you don't actually have a source and just made it up":

Still awaiting your apology,

 

[Darat]

I'm sorry you didn't believe me...Darat

First of all I gave no indication whether I believed you or not; secondly the link you have repeatedly posted does not seem to be supporting the idea that you have reproduced a quote "verbatim".

 

[Peter May]

First of all I gave no indication whether I believed you or not; secondly the link you have repeatedly posted does not seem to be supporting the idea that you have reproduced a quote "verbatim".

I cannot in truth state that the BBC translation is true. I will however contact the BBC
as to the validity of the translation.

 

[Earthborn]

I think this is the source of the quote.

“The world should know that we are not deceptive and are not liars and any promises we give will be within framework of our national interests and we will live up to our promises provided that the opposite side abides by its promises as well.”

 

[Darat]

I cannot in truth state that the BBC translation is true. I will however contact the BBC
as to the validity of the translation.

The quote you provided does not appear in the article you linked to, so I don;t know why you think the BBC would be able to verify a translation of something they haven't published. Did you mean to link to a different article?

 

[angrysoba]

President Hassan Rouhani.

“We will keep our promises within the framework of our national interest” *

*Please note, the above is a quotation, not a synopsis.

So, how does this equate with Iran's desperate need to develop a deployable nuclear weapon, and Kerry's attempts to keep the talks alive?
The only member who has really spoken out is Phillip Hammond who warns that.
“Failure to achieve a deal over Iran's uranium enrichment programme could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East”.

Would it surprise anyone if Israel attacks Iran in the coming weeks, or months?

I've Googled the quote in your OP and found that it doesn't exist in that form that you have written.

In your version, Iran says it will only keep the promises that are in its national interest.

In the actual versions that are available online, Iran says it will only give those that are in their national interests.

The second one obviously makes far more sense as Iran has stated it wants nuclear power for its citizens and therefore won't promise to scrap all nuclear programmes. The version you gave would be a pretty ludicrous statement to make in the public forum. If they are planning on reneging on promises you would think the regime is not going to advertise this in advance.

So, maybe hopefully this will clear up your confusion and the thread can now be peacefully laid to rest.

 

[Giz]

The second one obviously makes far more sense as Iran has stated it wants nuclear power for its citizens and therefore won't promise to scrap all nuclear programmes. The version you gave would be a pretty ludicrous statement to make in the public forum. If they are planning on reneging on promises you would think the regime is not going to advertise this in advance.

On the other hand, Iran has a track record of making public statements that are ludicrous (for a power that aspires to join the nuclear club) so who knows?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Iran has a track record of making public statements that are ludicrous

Such as?

 

[Giz]

Such as?

Really? Where have you been?

Try this for a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

see:
- Calls for destruction of Israel
- Holocaust denial

And there's plenty more (it's not just Ahmonajihad).

 

[angrysoba]

On the other hand, Iran has a track record of making public statements that are ludicrous (for a power that aspires to join the nuclear club) so who knows?

Yet you would think that a declaration to only keep a promise if it serves them to do so is such a prima facie ludicrous statement to make at the end of negotiations that any claim that they did make such a declaration will itself need to be verified. So far we only have Peter May's word that Iran have made this statement given that he has conspicuously failed to source such a statement. Given the evidence presented, does it not seem unlikely that they made such a ludicrous promise not to abide by their promises?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page... This article may contain excessive, poor, or irrelevant examples

Sorry, can't be bothered picking though that mess trying to find what you are on about. What is it about a simple request to back up a claim with cites that is so hard?

And there's plenty more (it's not just Ahmonajihad).

Really? Please show examples of Iran (not just a former president who was often in conflict with his own government) making ludicrous public statements that are relevant to their nuclear 'aspirations'.

I bet that I could find plenty of 'ludicrous' statements made by both present and former US politicians. Does that mean we should be kicked out of the 'nuclear club'?

 

[MikeG]

...... Awaiting your apology..

.........Waiting for your apology......

Still waiting for your apology.

.........Still awaiting your apology,

You base a thread on a translation of a quote which you don't provide a link too until hours later and after being asked multiple times, when it is finally posted it doesn't substantiate your claim, and then YOU demand an apology from those who asked for it. Any idea why that hasn't worked out quite the way you wanted it to?

 

[Darth Rotor]

What has time to do with the truth?
Do you think that truth is a function of time?

Sort of. In time, the truth tends to come out. (example: watergate, sikes picot, etc)

Skeptic Ginger: Uh, that cartoon version of reality is, to be charitable, oversimplified.

However, in your defense, some of the rhetoric might lead one to leap towards that conclusion.

A few years ago I took the position (and posted it in various commentary on JREF forum discussions) that I believe that Iran seeks their nuclear capability primarily to have a credible deterrent, and I stick to that assessment. It would leave them more free to act in the conventional arena if the nuclear deterrent back up is on hand.

In other news, a few years ago Dr X in Pakistan demonstrated quite clearly what a load of rubbish the NPT has come to be. I eagerly await the Saudis calling a press conference to report that they have established a nuclear deterrent (most likely having gotten a few Pakistani items in a discrete fashion). The primary audience for that announcement would be Iran, but the Israelis and their supporters will likely think that it's all about them.

That will really get the screaming and moaning going. Popcorn sales would skyrocket.

 

[McHrozni]

I would've thought it is in Iran's foremost national interest not to need nuclear weapons in the first place. Their policy continuosly and unnecessarily pushes them towards conflict with countries who have, or are believed to have, sizable nuclear arsenals against which Iran currently has no reply and against which it can not defend.

McHrozni

 

[CapelDodger]

In the actual versions that are available online, Iran says it will only give those that are in their national interests.

To say anything else would be to admit that they'd been strong-armed into concessions against their national interest, which is what happens to defeated parties. Rouhani and the negotiators wouldn't survive a week if they said that.