Military Review

Illusion of victory

The Geneva agreements on Iran’s nuclear program have dangerous features

The Geneva Agreement of the Six with the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is undoubtedly an event historical. The only question is with what sign they are evaluated. Commentators who believe that a diplomatic victory was won in Geneva (and there are most of them) are unlikely to think about how this agreement differs in its main parameters from the fall of Rouhani. Although he was not yet president. And the leader of the country was the same Ayatollah Khamenei.

The level of development of Iran’s nuclear program in 2003 was much lower than in 2013. The United States was at the height of power, and Iran, more than in 2013, was inclined to listen to the world community. The crisis of the Western strategy in the Middle East was still ahead. The US union with Israel, Turkey and the Arabian monarchies is strong, as is their relationship with Pakistan and the secular regimes of the Arab world.

Illusion of victoryAhead - failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the crisis of the “Arab spring”, the betrayal of the allies for the sake of democratization of the region, the slip of American policy in Syria, the inability to cope with international terrorism, including on the territory of the States themselves. Not to mention the economic crisis that significantly reduced the ability of Americans to wage war. However, the president of the United States in 2003 was Bush, not the populist Obama, who was not too committed to American values ​​and obligations.

Be that as it may, the 2003 Geneva negotiations of the year were conducted by a weaker Iran with a stronger West. Since Iran led them precisely with the West. Russia and especially China, which was then its partner to this day, was not considered as a factor of external threat in Tehran. The defeat of the Afghan Taliban, the lightning-quick defeat of Iraq and the capture of Baghdad by the Americans created a sense of immediate threat from the Iranian leadership, which was withdrawn by Rouhani, despite harsh criticism of its activities from the conservative wing of the Iranian military-political elite.

However, this situation lasted only two years. This was followed by a long period of aggressive foreign policy, “tightening the screws” in the domestic political sphere and the intensive development of the nuclear program. And in the field of not only enrichment of uranium, but also the creation of warheads and launch vehicles. For what, in fact, the space program of Iran and is intended. A decade-old Geneva talks were necessary for Tehran only to gain time to develop a nuclear program in a more favorable and safe environment. It’s more than strange to ignore this experience, optimistic about the current agreement in Geneva.

Another thing is that negotiations with Iran in Geneva, as envisioned by the current administration of the American president, should be the first step towards normalizing relations with this country. The logic is visible here. President Obama is clearly determined not only to curtail the US military presence in the Middle East, not to mention the fight against international terrorism, but, judging by the latest US National Security Strategy, he redirects his country to confrontation with China. Which requires a review of the list of priorities and relations with traditional regional allies.

US betting

Establishing cooperation with Iran to ensure that the interests of the United States in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the main military contingent controlling this country from 2014, in addition to Pakistan, are based on some of the serious regional players, Washington needs. China is excluded here by definition. Russia too. The bet on India has not justified itself. The US leadership has little trust in Pakistan, which it demonstrates, ignoring the protests of the military-political leadership of this country against the conduct of US special operations on its territory. Whether it is the elimination of Osama bin Laden or the destruction of the Taliban leaders with the help of UAVs. America’s cooperation with Iran, if it succeeds, can help Obama solve this problem.

The second direction in which the establishment of relations with the IRI unlocks the situation, for the Americans contradictory, is the safety of the water area of ​​the Persian Gulf. It is clear that the States will retain control over the situation in this important region for the world economy in any scenario. However, the policy of self-sufficiency in the United States with hydrocarbons gives America many more degrees of freedom in pursuing its regional policy. And this policy can be more flexible.

The USA does not refuse strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia. The ideas on the formation of several weak states on its territory still remain within the framework of theoretical research of political technologists. But the kingdom is entering a period of change of generations of the ruling elite. Its stability leaves much to be desired, moreover, there are no chances to reduce the level of contradictions between Wahhabi Nejd and the Shiites of the Eastern Province, the Ismailis of Najran and the Zaydites of Assyr. This leaves room for any development, including the disintegration of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

An example of how Obama passed Hosni Mubarak in Egypt recalls the similar policy of his predecessor, Carter, against the Iranian Shah in 1979. This forces the Saudi leadership to suggest the possibility of the same attitude to their own dynasty in the event of its difficulties in controlling the country. Tensions between Riyadh and Washington are growing lately.

Three kingdom answers

The KSA's policy of supporting terrorist groups close to Al-Qaeda, such as Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, as well as the accumulated problems in the control of radical Islamists in the United States itself have strengthened the position of the Saudoscaptic in the CIA and the Pentagon. “9 / 11”, “a small September 11 in Libya”, during which the ambassador was killed and the staff of the US consulate in Benghazi were killed, “Boston terrorist attack” and other such events reduced the level of American confidence in Saudi information. The establishment of informal ties with Iran is a natural and inevitable result of this.

Note that Saudi Arabia’s response to negotiations and an agreement with Iran in Geneva, in addition to ignoring Secretary of State Kerry and CIA Director Brennan during their visit to Riyadh from Prince Bandar bin Sultan, head of the KSA General Intelligence Directorate, as well as the demonstrative refusal of this countries from the place of a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council with the demand to reform this organization is implemented in three directions.

First, it announced the formation of a mercenary Army of Mohammed (another name for it is the Army of Islam) from 250 thousands of people grouped into 50 brigades. The units formed on the ethnic principle of the Jordanians, Pakistanis, Egyptians and Yemenis, it is intended to use to achieve the military and political objectives of KSA in Syria and Yemen.

In Syria, this confrontation is with the Alawites, while the overthrow of Assad has failed and the ruling regime wins the civil war. In Yemen, with the Housits, whose tribes defeated the Saudi National Guard not long ago. Hope for the participation of US troops and their NATO allies in both conflicts no longer exists. Iran, establishing its relations with the West, becomes an extremely dangerous adversary for the kingdom.

Secondly, it is stated, albeit in passing, that the emergence of Iran’s nuclear weapons confronts Saudi Arabia with the need to obtain similar technologies, which, according to experts, it is from Pakistan and will receive in the form of finished products with carriers and service personnel. The latter means an arms race, and nuclear ones, which most likely will not be limited to KSA and Iran.

The development of events in such a scenario with a high degree of probability will occur in the short term, raising the relevant questions to other major regional players, of which Turkey will be the main one. This will mark the end of the non-proliferation regime. The process is not limited to the Middle East. Moreover, all its participants will argue that they are developing nuclear programs for peaceful purposes.

As a consequence, in perspective, the Geneva agreement with Iran in the format that we are seeing will not lead to the elimination of the Iranian nuclear program, but to its legitimation, with all the ensuing consequences. Technologically, nuclear weapons today can produce around 40 countries, including North Korea, currently nine. And over the years, 20 – 25 can be in service with 25 – 30 states that have small nuclear arsenals with a relatively low threshold for their use.

Returning to the reaction of Saudi Arabia to the Geneva agreements with Iran, we note the third direction of Riyadh activity: the intensification of informal contacts with Israel. Information leaks about KSA proposals to provide Jerusalem with an air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities make air refueling corridors, information from Saudi drones and support for sabotage and reconnaissance groups in Iran most likely correspond to reality.

The fact that Israel is interested in contacts with the leaders of the Arab world and will consider their proposals regarding confrontation with Iran does not mean that it will accept them. Saudi Arabia is a non-permanent and dangerous partner, as the United States has learned from experience, whose influence on the kingdom is immeasurably superior to that of Israel.

An alliance with Riyadh in the confrontation with Tehran for Jerusalem can be a medicine that is worse than the disease. For the Salafis, the war of the Jews and the Shiites is a double success. KSA will do everything to provoke a collision between them. But the kingdom will do everything to ensure that there are no winners in this war. And the current Israeli leadership understands this.

For those Israeli experts who soberly assessed what was happening around the Iranian nuclear program, the intentions and capabilities of Western countries, as well as the readiness of President Obama to curtail the American presence outside its own territory and the rejection of the security guarantees received by the US allies under his predecessors, the outcome of Geneva was not a surprise become.

Acting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as a person more committed to American values ​​than Obama, took it painfully. There is no doubt that if Iran crosses the “red line” designated for the Americans by the Israeli leadership, Israel will strike at Iranian nuclear facilities. However, there is no doubt that the US wants an attack of this kind, if it takes place, to be carried out only in coordination with the Pentagon and in the period indicated by the White House.

Israel is concerned

Rumors that the top leadership of the United States, using its information about what is happening in the Israeli IDF, repeatedly disrupted Israeli operations against the Iranian nuclear program, leaked to the press, after which it was simply pointless to carry out any actions, apparently correspond to reality. This poses a new challenge for Israel in terms of cooperation with the United States on Iranian issues.

The task is to interact with a partner whom Israel cannot fully trust. This is exactly what the Israeli expert group, starting in the United States, will work together with the Americans on the coordination of positions on the Geneva agreements. It can be assumed that the agreements will be adjusted and their final interpretation by the States from the Israeli point of view will be much better than at the time of the end of the negotiations in Geneva. Although worse than all that the Americans and Israelis agreed to before the negotiations. The possibility of a strike on Iran in any case, Israel has. Moreover, Obama as president of the United States is not forever. The only question is the impact efficiency.

Only Israel, without the support of the United States, can slow down Iran’s nuclear program. Destroy - no. And this explains why almost all Israeli political leaders are focused on the Iranian threat. The Geneva Agreement with Iran not only does not provide for the elimination of its nuclear potential, but also signifies acceptance of the right to enrich uranium. That is, it destroys the binding resolutions of the UN Security Council, which demanded that of Iran. Given that Iran retains facilities in Ford, Natanz, Arak and, freezing uranium enrichment work to 20 percent, reserves all the necessary capacity for this, their activity can be resumed at any time. Especially since the reactor in Arak, as announced, will be completed.

Iran not only preserves the entire scientific and industrial potential in the nuclear field, but also continues to enrich uranium to five percent. Even assuming that he has only those objects whose fate was discussed in Geneva, the agreement adopted there gave him the time needed to refine the components of the nuclear complex that have not yet been brought to the required level: warheads and launch vehicles. However, Iran has objects that have not been discussed in Geneva. What happens there is unknown.

Thus, by refusing small-scale accumulation of highly enriched uranium, which is useless anyway, Iran got what it needed. Including access to the frozen funds, although only to a small part of them. It is clear that a lot can change in six months. Moreover, according to most experts, at the time of the start of negotiations in Geneva, the IRI remained a year and a half before the nuclear bomb. As a result, having temporarily rendered quantitative indicators, Iran has all the opportunities to bring the quality indicators to the necessary condition.

Characteristically, speaking a few hours before the start of the 20 negotiations in Geneva in November in front of 50 by thousands of Basij militia officers, the spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel a rabid dirty dog ​​in the region. What does the continuation of the course of the destruction of the Jewish state, which the same Khamenei before the previous round of negotiations called illegitimate country, means? Iranian leaders are not limited to appeals: two of their previous wars, the second Lebanese 2006 and Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008 – 2009, Israel led de facto against Iran.

The standard Iranian strategy of war against Israel includes the use of Arab military-terrorist formations in Gaza and southern Lebanon, trained by instructors from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards and armed with Iranian missiles. The technology of using underground tunnels to penetrate the Israeli rear and conduct special operations there is Iranian know-how. A political and propaganda war with Israel around the world complements the attacks on its borders. The same applies to intelligence activities and operations to explode embassies and representative offices of Israeli official organizations.

Although Iran is currently waging a larger-scale fight against Sunni radicals and the question of hegemony in the Islamic world, primarily in countries with large Shiite communities and the Persian Gulf zone, for it is more important than the confrontation with Israel, its own claims to pan-Islamic leadership make Iran to concentrate its ideology on the struggle against the Jewish state. Therefore, Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon, regardless of its power and the number of units in Israel, is assessed as the number one threat. This is also because it makes Iran invulnerable to external force intervention. Unless, of course, do not consider the nuclear bombing of this country.

Israel, analyzing the agreements in Geneva, notes that they correspond to the “red lines” that Iran designated before the start of negotiations. Four of them were named in the Tehran newspaper Kaykhan: not to close the facility in Ford, not to stop building the reactor in Arak, not to export enriched uranium from Iran, and most importantly not to sign the Additional Protocol to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The fifth was outlined in Geneva by the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif: the continued enrichment of uranium.

Who is the winner?

Professionals note the outcome of Geneva as a significant success not of the “six”, but of Tehran. Putting aside substantive questions, it should be noted that Iran has not signed the Additional Protocol to the NPT and the modified IAEA code 3-1 regarding direct control has not been introduced. This will neutralize the IAEA inspectors regardless of what the diplomats think about this.

There are few hopes in terms of monitoring the Iranian nuclear program at the IAEA and its inspectors. All that could fail in the control of the non-proliferation regime, they failed both in Iran and in Libya and North Korea. Not to mention the fact that while the IAEA was working on Iraq, nuclear technologies and equipment from Pakistan diverged around the world. And the “conspiracy of Abdul-Kadir Khan” was discovered not because of them, but after he became aware of him from Gaddafi.

As for Russia, it is the only one among the negotiators with Iran that borders. Requirements to recognize Iran’s rights to the 20 percent of the Caspian Sea are the only territorial dispute on the perimeter of Russian borders that Moscow has not settled. On the other hand, Tehran did not participate in destabilizing the situation in the North Caucasus, although, of course, from its own pragmatic considerations. Getting them nuclear weapons is dangerous for the Russian Federation, but it cannot be compared with the danger that Israel and KSA have.

In conclusion, it should be noted that in the 1938 – 1939 years, going to an agreement with Germany, Western and then domestic diplomats were about the same euphoria that is currently in relation to the agreement with Iran, concluded in Geneva. And the press received from them the same comments in enthusiastic tones, which, as is well known, did not stop the Second World War. Although ideally it was supposed to bring "peace for generations." As Winston Churchill said later about this: “We had a choice between disgrace and war. We chose shame and got the war. ”
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. makarov
    makarov 4 December 2013 08: 10
    Unfortunately, the author of the material never made any conclusions. In the title of the paragraph "Who's Winning?" he never announced his point of view ...
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 4 December 2013 09: 36
      Quote: makarov
      Unfortunately, the author of the material never made any conclusions. In the title of the paragraph "Who's Winning?" he never announced his point of view ...
      - the author has a very speaking surname, appealing to an angel who rebelled somehow on the occasion. As a matter of fact, the article is written in a very infernal, apocalyptic style. "Help, Iran is arming itself! Mustache is gone! Russians, if only Iran is your worst enemy because of 20% of the Caspian Sea!" Why is Satanovsky silent at the same time that Israel already has nuclear weapons? Why are we being offered the ultimate truth by default that Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is absolutely safe for the world, and Iran's possession of these weapons is absolutely dangerous? I am just very much afraid of nuclear weapons in the hands of Isaril - a country where outright criminals-maniacs who do not hesitate to rape their own secretary reach the level of the prime minister, it is absolutely impossible to have nuclear weapons !!!! am For with filters on the way to power, she’s completely MISSIBLE!
      Here is my answer to SABJ - let's first discuss the elimination of nuclear weapons in Izaril, and only then consider the pressure on Iran in this matter. Israel is not Jupiter, Iran is not a bull! These are two, albeit different, with different socio-political and economic structures, but two completely equal states, and therefore I think the issue should be considered from this point of view. It is unclear on what grounds Israel considers itself superior, considers itself Jupiter - let it go and fight with Iran, and we will see what comes of it. Although what is there to look at, it is always clear how unreasonable ambitions end - this is what A.S. Pushkin pointed out in "The Tale of the Fisherman and the Goldfish", although the old woman got off easily there. Whether Israel gets off so easily - I am noticing something.
      1. And Us Rat
        And Us Rat 4 December 2013 12: 25
        3 item.

        These are two albeit different, with different socio-political and economic systems, but two completely equivalent states

        Iran calls for the destruction of Israel. Israel does NOT call for the destruction of anyone.
        This is a fact.

        For with filters on the way to power, she’s completely MISSIBLE!

        From the CIS countries (especially those where self-centered authoritarian kings and tyrants rule) should generally hide their eyes shyly when discussing such things. Only a cretin will not see the hypocrisy in such "shouts from the back rows." BUT how could I forget - fanatical mullocracy is a model of reason and sanity lol

        let's first discuss the elimination of nuclear weapons in Izaril

        I recently found:
        ... "The President of Russia recalled that for 50 years the Strategic Missile Forces have been the basis of the country's defense and guarantee our sovereignty "....

        Try to discuss the elimination of nuclear weapons in Russia, or at least in France - I wonder what will be answered? lol (This is by the way by the way about Jupiter and the Bull)
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 4 December 2013 13: 05
          Quote: And Us Rat
          Iran calls for the destruction of Israel. Israel does NOT call for the destruction of anyone.
          This is a fact.

          The fact is that Iran may be calling for someone to be destroyed, however, calling does not mean destroying, at the same time, Israel has already destroyed the Arab state on its territory and continues to destroy and aggressively invades the territory of neighboring states.
          1. atalef
            atalef 4 December 2013 13: 14
            Quote: Setrac
            The fact is that there may be Iran and urges someone to destroy, but to call does not mean to destroy

            so do we believe him or not?
            Quote: Setrac
            , at the same time, Israel has already destroyed the Arab state on its territory

            Tell me the name of this state?
            Quote: Setrac
            continues to destroy and aggressively invades the territory of neighboring states

            Read the story of who started the war - VIKI to help you if you do not know what hi
          2. And Us Rat
            And Us Rat 4 December 2013 20: 53
            ... and aggressively invades the territory of neighboring states.

            Well, straight propaganda poster, cliché phrases, pathos ... you keep readers of this forum for cretins? Do you think they will buy such frank lecimerie? request
        2. rolik
          rolik 4 December 2013 13: 43
          Quote: And Us Rat
          Try to discuss the elimination of nuclear weapons in Russia, or at least in France - I wonder what will be answered? (This is by the way by the way about Jupiter and the Bull)

          The United States can also be connected to this discussion, I wonder what they will answer ???))) Well, Israel, if you started such a conversation, ah ... well, yes, I forgot that Israel has no nuclear weapons)))))))
        3. fisherman
          fisherman 4 December 2013 18: 57
          Iran calls for the destruction of Israel. Israel does NOT call for the destruction of anyone.
          This is a fact.

          if Iran ceases to call for the destruction of Israel, moreover, it begins to assure everyone that Israel is now a friendly neighbor, will Israel not mind Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons? :)
        4. Victor-M
          Victor-M 4 December 2013 23: 45
          Quote: And Us Rat
          . Israel does NOT call for the destruction of anyone.

          He just takes and destroys.
      2. knn54
        knn54 4 December 2013 17: 52
        -Aksakal: I’m just very afraid of nuclear weapons in the hands of Israel ...
        They are the Chosen.
        And there is no desire to comment on Netanyahu’s OBVIOUS singing along.
      3. Angry reader
        Angry reader 4 December 2013 20: 22
        You yourself mentioned the author’s surname, so discussing nuclear weapons in Israel is neither democratic nor tolerant. And general, aksakal- Are you anti-Semite? !! hi )))))))))
    2. alone
      alone 4 December 2013 19: 34
      As for Russia, it is the only one among the negotiators bordering Iran. Demands to recognize Iran’s rights to 20 percent of the Caspian Sea is the only territorial dispute along the perimeter of Russian borders that Moscow has not resolved

      Of course, I apologize very much, but in my opinion the Author is not familiar with the political map of the world, I have never had the honor of being familiar with the political map of Russia, and even more so, I don’t know where Iran is.
      Please show me where exactly, on land and at sea, Iran borders with Russia? This fact alone casts doubt on everything that is written in the article. And the editors of the site also don’t know about this?
    3. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 4 December 2013 22: 59
      Quote: makarov
      Unfortunately, the author of the material never made any conclusions. In the title of the paragraph "Who's Winning?" he never announced his point of view ...

      Why didn’t you? The article is clearly with a Jewish darling. The conclusion is obvious - the agreement is beneficial to Iran and Iran has deceived everyone.
      Unlike many publications on this topic, the article is quite voluminous. However, many conclusions are controversial. They did not make a deal with Iran of their own free will, but of necessity because of their powerlessness. The United States today does not have the strength to independently maintain this region. The United States has many more important issues around the world. At the beginning of autumn, the United States almost forcibly dragged into a war that was unnecessary and inevitable for him. Which from Syria would spread to Iran and the entire BV.
      That is why the United States decided to cool the region faster and changed rhetoric. Not because they are not dependent on oil supplies, but because their bluff against Iran has been revealed and they are actually weak. If the United States would be drawn into the war with Iran, as Israel wanted, then this would deprive the United States of all its forces by at least 5, or even 10 years. Just like in Iraq. And 10 years the handicap for China, the United States will never catch up.
      Although I agree with the conclusion of the article. The deal is beneficial to Iran. It is beneficial to Russia. If in half a year Iran proves that its program is peaceful, then sanctions can be lifted. As a result, this will allow the Iranian economy to breathe freely and recover quickly, especially in those sectors that the state needs. After some time, Iran will be ready to continue its nuclear program, but it will have a choice. Complete its program and level it with Israel in the issue of possessing WMDs, or raise the issue of control and elimination of WMDs by Israel. In both cases, Iran’s position will be strong, and this will become possible thanks to today's deal.
      Israel understands this, and therefore opposes such a development of events. The Jews want to destroy Iran, and not to fall under its retaliation, and to preserve their arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. But this "trick" has already got the United States, especially since this is all achieved at the expense of the United States itself. So the State Department is beginning to slowly drain Israel in order to concentrate forces on the Asia-Pacific region, and this process will only accelerate.
    4. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 5 December 2013 00: 31
      Yes, no one benefits. Iran crawls away hoping that the sanctions will be lifted (which no one is going to lift), the staff members lose face (although it now looks more like a seat, you can even call it an iron), Israel is gaining cause for aggression ... I think it's a Mexican draw when it seems everyone reconciled, but suddenly died
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Sunjar
    Sunjar 4 December 2013 09: 08
    Many countries have only one way out - the creation of nuclear weapons, under the threat of which they are at least able to scare off invasion from other countries, and sanctions of various kinds can be imposed in any case.
    And from the IAEA there is no particular sense. I remember how the whole world savored and criticized the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, but especially not to hear about Fukushima. Our nuclear scientists offered help in overcoming the catastrophe: we still have experience in eliminating nuclear accidents; but the Japanese, Europe and the United States refused such assistance. Many experts argue that the accident in Japan is much more dangerous than the Chernobyl accident, as in Chernobyl everything has withered well, and slow smoldering is going on in Fukushima. All of them there is flooded with water, which pours out into the ocean without a pale. For the most part, this action is hidden, but sometimes it just becomes impossible to hide such a crime.
  4. SHILO
    SHILO 4 December 2013 09: 28
    And the author is not familiar with dialectics? "If we lost the Patriotic War, we would drink Bovarian" - "Victory Illusion" from this opera.
  5. taseka
    taseka 4 December 2013 09: 28
    " which the same Khamenei before the previous round of negotiations called the illegitimate country."- But Stalin thought differently then in the" political hospital! "
    "Tehran did not participate in destabilizing the situation in the North Caucasus" - thanks!
  6. Grif
    Grif 4 December 2013 10: 06
    For there to be world peace, it is necessary that all countries have nuclear weapons. It should be possible to hit the main aggressors, it is very sobering. Or as an option to supply the UN with nuclear weapons. For any aggression, a nuclear strike, regardless of who attacked whom. And the answer is nowhere to put. In my opinion a good option. Of course, half of the owners of the UN are the main aggressors and they will not allow this, and who will provide UN Kuzkin with a mother is a big question, but it would be nice to think about this topic.
  7. Same lech
    Same lech 4 December 2013 10: 23
    Professionals note the results of Geneva as a significant success not of the Six, but of Tehran. Putting aside essential issues, it should be noted that Iran has not signed the Additional Protocol to the NPT and the amended IAEA Code 3-1 with regard to direct control has not been introduced. This will neutralize IAEA inspectors

    Of course, in Iran there are no fools to allow IAEA employees to Iranian facilities - this means allowing agents from the CIA, MI6, TSAHAL and then.
    No one wants to share the fate of SADAM HUSSEIN.
  8. Fin
    Fin 4 December 2013 10: 31
    The United States has started to improve its image, showing the desire for peace. The quarrel with the SA, Israel's discontent - dust in the eyes. The Geneva agreements can be thrown away at any time by declaring a violation of the Iranian treaty and bombed. For a real threat they have Israel and the SA, the latter is preparing for war. In the event of a mess, the Yankees will express deep concern and remain on the sidelines. In addition, Iran can and will create a bomb in 1,5-2 years, but the means of delivery are apparently far from perfect, and therefore a temporary truce was concluded. The United States will not retreat from their own, they just chose a different path and by someone else's hands.
  9. ded_73
    ded_73 4 December 2013 10: 36
    As if the lifting of trade sanctions would not have collapsed the price of oil. In the current conditions, for Russia it would be very, very not camillo.
  10. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 4 December 2013 10: 49
    The winner is primarily the Islamic Republic of Iran. Partial lifting of sanctions will favorably affect the situation of ordinary people. The threat of a military attack by Israel on the country's nuclear facilities will be averted. TThe fact that Iran’s enemies in the region are malicious is evidence that the treaty on Iran’s nuclear issue will positively affect the country's situation.
  11. alexdol
    alexdol 4 December 2013 12: 42
    I looked at the name of the author and stopped further reading, everything became clear!
    From myself I will add: there is NO more foul country than ISRAEL on this planet today!
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 4 December 2013 13: 07
      Quote: alexdol
      From myself I will add: there is NO more foul country than ISRAEL on this planet today!

      THERE IS and this is not the USA, this is Britain.
      DEMENTIY 4 December 2013 13: 55
      Quote: alexdol
      I looked at the name of the author and stopped further reading, everything became clear!
      From myself I will add: there is NO more foul country than ISRAEL on this planet today!

      Confuse a respected cause and effect! The most foul country is Pin-iya. Without which Israel did not last half a year.
      1. alexdol
        alexdol 4 December 2013 14: 37
        DEMENTIY SU "The nastiest country is Ping-ya."
        Setrac (2) RU "THERE IS and this is not the US, this is Britain."
        The fact that Britain, that Syshlya are scum, there is no dispute! But you look at who controls them, and not only them, but the entire WEST, and in the ranks of both the Russian and Ukrainian authorities, who DOMINATES? The example of one "Medvedev" is quite enough, but he is not at all alone and is successfully pursuing a policy hostile to RUSSIA! And in Ukraine, I already gave an excerpt, as our Kharkov Jew E. Khodos calls the Ukrainian government, I repeat: the Ukrainian government can be called Ukrainian, if you take the word "Ukrainian" in a quotation mark! Why? Yes, because more than 50 percent of the Verkhovna Rada are Jews or half-breeds! "I will add here: having dual citizenship_the second Israeli! And in addition, you can recall the statement of the American millionaire Ford who said something like this: give me control of 50 Jewish bankers and all wars on earth will stop! And you look who now heads the so-called OPPOSITION in Ukraine, what nationality do most of them belong to? Not at all "Ukrainian"! All of them are "traveling" representatives of Israel to implement its hegemonic goals! Nobody is going to call them to the Promised Land There is still a lot to say, but I think it's enough to understand what Israel is like!
        1. vasiliysxx
          vasiliysxx 4 December 2013 19: 15
          By the way, look at our bogeyman-type bogeys. put you a plus.
  12. voliador
    voliador 4 December 2013 20: 41
    If Iran does not enrich uranium over 5% and emit Pu-239 plutonium, then it will not be able to make any nuclear weapons in principle.
    1. basmach
      basmach 4 December 2013 23: 07
      In fact, plutonium is obtained from spent fuel rods, enrichment is an increase in the content (or release, whatever you like) of isotopes 235 and 233, which actually divide (the bulk is isotope 238, the content is about 98%, 235 is about 1,5%, the rest is 233) .238 it is possible to make fission under the conditions of a thermonuclear explosion. It is practically impossible to create an ammunition based only on fission, with a capacity of more than 20 kilotons. The simplest charge scheme is a cannon. The critical mass of uranium is 49,9 kg (the mass at which spontaneous chain reaction) of plutonium is smaller, the size is slightly larger than an orange. Theoretically, having at home 50 kg of the corresponding isotope, a neutron source (to start the reaction), a decent charge of conventional explosive, as well as material for a neutron reflector (shell) - anyone at home can collect "nuclear suitcase", but in practice, to obtain such a quantity of the required isotope even for one product (and in fact it is also necessary to test it) is an archeological scientific and technical problem that has been solved for more than one year. Iran received all the components for its program - time, the possibility of enriching uranium (and the possibility of its subsequent re-enrichment to the required limits at unknown so far, and maybe at the same enterprises), the possibility of obtaining weapons-grade plutonium, but most importantly, the possibility of developing thermonuclear weapons , the power of which is far beyond 20 kt, but the creation is much more difficult than just a nuclear one (and 20 kt is Hiroshima_occhchchen painful, but not fatal). It is simply unclear why everyone jumped to Israel, the topic is different, and the answer is obvious. they will fight al no, this is a topic for a separate review.
      I will immediately answer the question - "deep knowledge"?
  13. sxn278619
    sxn278619 4 December 2013 22: 37
    Anyone who does not believe that Israel has nuclear weapons is a naive fool. Only that country has sovereignty who has nuclear weapons. In the words of De Gaulle - defense in all directions.