what about russia's decision on Iran nuclear deal?
156360
At now russia has indefinitely postponed the talks with iran deal.China was expected to participate in the Moscow talks with Iran, and a senior member of the Russian lower chamber suggested that other countries might also join.
474334
It now appears a foregone conclusion that Iran will continue its nuclear program no matter what the United States and European Union offer to stop it. A military strike would likely be futile, since Iran has hardened and dispersed its nuclear complex. \n\nA war, even a limited one, will almost certainly raise oil prices to recession-inducing levels, as Iran cuts itself off from global markets.\n\nThere are fearfully powerful arguments against the use of the military option. But multiplied together, squared, and then cubed, the weight of these arguments does not come close to matching the case for us to stop, by whatever means may be necessary, Iran from becoming a nuclear power. \n\nIf Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler. \n\nAnd the kind of society we live in and cherish in the West will change beyond recognition. We balk now at intrusive government measures to tap our phones or other intrusions into our civil liberties. Imagine how much more our freedoms will be curtailed if our governments fear we are just one telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload, one lead-lined cargo ship away from another Hiroshima. \n\nYou ask for a date of the attack, it's unknown, be there are timeposts that military tacticians, i'm sure are looking at. The estimated dates of an operational nuke in Iran is anywhere between 2007 and 2012. \n\nThere are reports that the Israel deadline for strikes against Iran are the end of March. American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted. \n\nTehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
1087781
FYI....Russia has had positive economic growth for several years now. And your personal use of your SUV guarantees that the russian economy will continue to grow. \n\nGiuliani for president. He will clean up the excess spending, pull us out quietly and quickly. He will find a way to profit with china and russia and will have a sitdown about Iran.\nThe Democrats have no chance since it looks like Hillary will be their candidate and all republicans will slit their wrist before seeing that woman in office.
1062670
Minimal. Iran think about possibly looking to get a nuclear power station and threats are made. N korea displays that it has intercontinental capabilities and US says they want to negotiate.\n\nN korea would never use a nuclear weapon. Their weapon just gives them a chip to bargain at the big boys table
240157
It now appears a foregone conclusion that Iran will continue its nuclear program no matter what the United States and European Union offer to stop it. A military strike would likely be futile, since Iran has hardened and dispersed its nuclear complex. \n\nA war, even a limited one, will almost certainly raise oil prices to recession-inducing levels, as Iran cuts itself off from global markets.\n\nThere are fearfully powerful arguments against the use of the military option. But multiplied together, squared, and then cubed, the weight of these arguments does not come close to matching the case for us to stop, by whatever means may be necessary, Iran from becoming a nuclear power. \n\nIf Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler. \n\nAnd the kind of society we live in and cherish in the West will change beyond recognition. We balk now at intrusive government measures to tap our phones or other intrusions into our civil liberties. Imagine how much more our freedoms will be curtailed if our governments fear we are just one telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload, one lead-lined cargo ship away from another Hiroshima. \n\nYou ask what are the odds of an attack, over 50%, there are timeposts that military tacticians, i'm sure are looking at. The estimated dates of an operational nuke in Iran is anywhere between 2007 and 2012. \n\nThere are reports that the Israel deadline for strikes against Iran are the end of March. American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted. \n\nTehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
691931
consider the politics involved.\nEurope, most of the Americas(  Canada, USA, and south America have means of producing power through nuclear reaction) many "friendly" countries of the middle east and the Asian continent have these means also.\n\npeace may be found if the trouble maker is taken out of negotiations to bring about an agreement between Iran and the EU. along with the UAR.\ni think at this point, Iran poses as much a treat to us as did Iraq had when it's "weapons of mass destruction " were thought to exist.\n we didn't know they didn't. it was a needed excuse to enter a war which we are still "engaged" in.\n how do we know that these allegations aren't false also.\n \n maybe if the accuser is removed so Iran can establish her defense under the eyes of these world unions, we might better understand the exact nature of this situation.\n\nin other words, give Iran a Chance to defend her self without the worry of facing an aggressor while trying to do so.
405216
Experts say it still remains unclear how close Iran is to completing a nuclear-fuel cycle. But nuclear experts point out that Iran has proceeded with its enrichment process much faster than many expected and, despite skipping steps along the way, may have passed a point of no return in terms of rolling back its nuclear program. \n\nThe Iranians removed seals from enrichment equipment at their Natanz reactor in January and, within a span of two weeks, developed a cascade of 164 centrifuges. Given the new political facts on the ground and Iran's recent announcement, most experts admit that the most likely option now, especially if the UN Security Council fails to take strict action, is for Iran merely to freeze its nuclear program, not completely dismantle it. \n\nOthers, including the International Crisis Group, have even called for sanctioning a "limited enrichment" program, provided it is coupled with intrusive inspections. CFR President Richard Haass says in a new interview with cfr.org's Bernard Gwertzman that a very limited enrichment program could be permitted as part of a diplomatic package that combines incentives with the threat of military force. Any limited military strike, Haass argues in the FT, would not be "small or quick" and "would not remain limited for long."
639673
You are overlooking one vital fact.  Iran has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the World, and the majority of electricity within the World, including within Iran is still generated using oil based or carbon based power stations.\n\nIran needs nuclear power like the a fish needs a bicycle.\n\nThe basic reason why Iran wants a nuclear power station is to enrich uranium in order to make nuclear weapons.\n\nRussia has already offered to sell Iran cheap low-grade uranium, which is what is used in nuclear power stations. Iran has refused. Why ? Because low-grade is what is used in power stations, but can't be used for nuclear bombs. You need high-grade uranium which is a by-product of nuclear power generation. That's why Iran wants a power station. To make nuclear weapons, otherwise if it really wanted just to generate nuclear power it could have accepted Russia's offer of cheap low-grade uranium.
636809
Why is it between U.S. and Iran? Just about the entire U.N. is coming down on Iran. If the guy was smart, he'd remember how Iraq was crippled by all of the U.N. sanctions. We don't have to go to work with Iran to hurt them, and we wont. Iran is hurting themselves by not allowing Russia to control their uranium enrichment process.
125188
It's delicate. My guess is that Iran will take Russia's offer for enrichment at least for now. I'm quite sure their research will go on, which means sooner or later someone's gonna call their bluff and then it won't matter whether they've been onest about the purpose of their program.\nThe sad thing is Iran still has the NPT and international law on it's side since none of the accusers managed to prove its program is -not- entirely civilian. \nWar right now would be damn inconvenient for US since to most neutral countries it will appear and incessant bullying and some might rally behind Iran, Syria and Venezuela.\nUS can't exploit Iraq oil just yet. Of course US companies will be preffered for drilling and/or refining Iraq oil but they have to wait for the situation in Iraq and give the appearance of elections.
670545
America’s Options Against Iran. Iran’s nuclear program is a matter of concern. The real question, of course, is “what can the United States do about it?”\n\nThe options are negotiate, launch aerial attacks to take out the nuclear program, or to enact regime change through one means or another. Negotiation is not exactly an option – Iran has pretty much ruled out any deal that would limit its nuclear weapons program. There is also the fact that the Israelis will not patiently sit by while the Iranians use negotiations to buy time to continue their nuclear weapons development. These two factors leave only the option of stopping the program through air attacks or regime change.\n\nAir attacks have huge problems. Iran has a widely-dispersed nuclear program. There are at least 23 cities (plus uranium mines) in this program. However, targeting does not just involve the nuclear program. Iran also has a huge missile program. There are 40 cities or islands involved with Iran’s missile program, which also would need to be hit – so as to limit or preferably eliminate delivery options for the Iranians. This means at least 63 sites have to be hit in order to guarantee a major disruption to the Iranian nuclear program and its delivery system.\n\nThe type of air attack involved would probably be on the order of the first day of the 1991 Gulf War, in which a devastating air attack was launched over a month’s time. Even that devastating attack was not enough to prevent Saddam Hussein from launching missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War. In 2003, special operations forces were able to prevent a large number of launches, but their use is a huge step forward. Iran has some modern planes (particularly the MiG-29 Fulcrum), but the majority of their aircraft are old F-14As, F-4 Phantoms, J-7 Fishbeds, and F-5E Tigers. An air campaign would be able to hit the sites, and degrade the program. Iranian response would unpredictable, though.\n\nThe best option to guarantee a halt to Iran’s nuclear weapons program is to overthrow the imams. There are two ways this can be done; sponsoring the domestic opposition (which has significant popular support), or through an invasion. The former option has worked in the past. In the 1980s, the CIA was able to keep the Polish Solidarity movement functioning as an opposition movement despite martial law and opposition by the Polish and Russian secret police. That said, the effort took eight years, and the CIA back then was run by William Casey. Today’s CIA has become more of a bureaucracy, and much more risk-averse. The other problem with such an effort is that the situation in Iran is markedly different in two respects: Poland did not have a lengthy history of sponsoring terrorist attacks, nor was that country trying to develop nuclear weapons.\n\nThe other option is an invasion. This is probably the touchiest option. Currently, Iraq involves 17 American  brigades and three division headquarters. Afghanistan involves another division headquarters and three brigades. The 2nd Infantry Division is pretty much committed to defending the Republic of Korea. Two more divisions are carrying out peacekeeping in various parts of the world (the Sinai, Kosovo, and Bosnia being major deployments on that front). This is seven out of 24 divisions available (12 active, 8 National Guard, 3 active Marine, one reserve Marine). The Army is arguably stretched thin, since some divisions will have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. Until the situation in Iraq stabilizes or additional divisions are formed up, that will remain the case. Iraq has become an insurgency, and those take time (usually five to ten years). Iran would, in all likelihood, develop a similar insurgency. That will further tie down American forces in the region.\n\nThe options against Iran are limited, in large part due to the “peace dividend” of the 1990s, in which eight active-duty and four National Guard divisions were dis
775397
maybe the russian spy knew something?\n\nrussia knows iran is doing some undercover ****; maybe he thinks mother russia will rise again and start making the bling bling
471832
Interesting question.\n\nAt the moment the truth is that Iran is stating absolutely that it doesn't want 'Nukes', instead it is claiming a right to develop a nuclear capacity for peaceful power generation. With the price of oil rising globally this seems a sensible strategy.\n\nOf course the problem is that this could be masking a drive for the development of nuclear weaponry.  \n\nIs this justified?  Well there are two schools of thought.  \nThe first is that for defence purposes it is.  Iran is a developed nation in the Middle East and one of its neighbours, Israel has a nuclear capability.  Iran could justifiably argue that it requires a nuclear deterrent to counter that of Israelis.\n\nThe second is that no, it's not.  Iran has been explicitly threatening to the West and Israel (whom it said it intended to 'wipe off the map') and whilst the rest of the world are looking to dismantle nuclear stock piles, it is incongruous for a nation to be building a nuclear capability.\n\nNot sure of the answer, but hope this helps.
401042
Well Britain , Australia , the US have shown that they\nare responsible with their nukes and will not use them to kill million of people however Iran is different. The President of Iran had said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet> I don't know about you but I don't trust nuclear technology to a person who goals is to wipe another country out of existence.He had apparently said that the world will end in three years and his goal is to bring chaos and destruction to the world to bring about \nthe reign of a Muslim prophet . This Prophet will make the world an Islamics world- Can you trust a guy who said all that with nukes??\n\n there a different process to transform Uranium to\nuse for Power than for weapon . the problem is that Iran\nrefused Russia offer to enrich Uranium for them to make sure it wont be used for WMD. .This is a compromise agreed on by the UN to let Iran have nuclear power for energy consummation. Why? the obvious reason is the want nuclear grade uranium for WMD.
898206
I wouldn't really call this breaking news.\n\nThe next issue will be who gets to deal with Iran.  And Russia.  Sorry, but it's true.
96621
The idea to contain nuclear proliferation is to have as few countries as possible have atomic weapons.  On the other hand any country can use nuclear energy for electric production.  A number of countries will assist other countries in constructing a peace nuclear energy plant.\n\nThe problem occurs when a country wants to develop their own nuclear industry, purportedly for peaceful purposes and their government is not stable and their plans for such development are clearly for weapons development.  Iran falls into this latter category.\n\nRussia has offered to develop for them (on Russian soil) the nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes and Iran has turned this down.  They want nuclear weapons and they already have the missile systems which deliver them at least as far as Europe.  They support the destruction of Israel and it is a surety that if they had such weapons they would use them.\n\nThey will be helped to have atomic energy plants for peaceful purposes, they will not be allowed to have an atomic weapons development program.  .
390549
The UN will probably not vote for an attack on Iran.  Russia is making money off of Iran, and Russia is broke so they need the money.  So, Russia is on the Security Council of the UN and has veto power.  We'll talk to them, impose some sanctions that Russia and others will skirt around, threaten them, etc.  I think that we'll bomb certain facilities if we think they're getting close.  One good thing is that France is totally against Iran having nukes.  That makes a coalition easier to form, since the French can be active whiners.\n\nHowever, Russia may get with the program if we can show proof Iran is close.  The superpowers know that it would be a BAD thing for little countries to get The Bomb.\n\nBTW, the reason Iran has such a creep for president is because the moderates boycotted the last election in protest of a failure to achieve more democratic change.  They'll probably vote next time, so they'll get a cooler president.