Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Iran, World Powers ‘Hit a Wall’ on Nuclear Talks – French FM

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has told The Los Angeles Times that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program have “hit a wall.” After four months of talks, the negotiators have only struck agreement on minor “technical points,” Fabius added.

An agreement on the scope of Iran’s future enrichment program has become a major issue of contention. Iran has installed some 19,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium, with some 10,000 in full operation. It wants to increase this number to at least 50,000, arguing that it needs the high numbers to produce enough fuel for Bushehr nuclear power reactor, for which the Russians have already provided the fuel for the next 10 years and are committed to continue doing so

The West wants to keep the number of centrifuges to only few thousands to prevent a rapid breakout capability by Iran. Fabius told the LA Times that the numbers should be “some hundreds” and not “hundreds of thousands,” as he says the Iranians want. That’s a wide gap to overcome before the 20 July expiration of the interim agreement, JPOA.

UPDATE: Iran’s deputy foreign minister and senior nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi told reporters today after holding talks with his French counterpart in Geneva that their talks were “helpful” and the two sides exchanged their views on the nuclear issues in a “positive atmosphere.” (IRNA)


Anonymous said...

The Weasten wants iran only to have onlyy a few centrifuges, which means the industrial Enrichment is not possible, and the centrifuges can be seen only as decoration.
so we donot need any agreement under this condition.
The sanction Regime against iran is falling apart. so why we need more negotiation ?

Anonymous said...

Thank you God

Anonymous said...

The french will soften up the minute their legions lose ground in North Iraq.

Gurney said...

Goes to show Iran wants to have the A-bomb. Not long until top brass vaporizes anything military and nuclear related in Iran... if the Iranian paper tiger tought the war with Iraq was tough... just wait for it! Take all that pummeling Iran recieved by the Iraqi air force during those 8 years of war and then multiply it a thousand times and then shorten it down to a month. They won't have a snowballs chance in hell. Actually it'll be a turkey shoot a la Iraq style. Patience is running out...!

Anonymous said...

From your mouth to God's ears.

Anonymous said...

Ok Gurney, time once more for some basic reality check :

1- The US is not in a position to start a military campaign against a 1,6 km² wide, 80 million people strong country at a time of deep economic crisis and two failed wars in its recent record. Public opinion now matters and it is absolutely not ready for even limited engagement in East-Ukraine, let alone the whole of Iran.

2 - No matter the ultimate outcome of a confrontation and how hard the US could theoretically hammer Iranian forces on the long run, thousands of American personnel in bases all around Iran will inevitably die via Iran's initial second strike in a matter of days if not hours. No administration would like to make such instant suicide by provoking a scale of deaths not seen since WWII.

3 - In 34 years of rule of the Islamic Regime, the US has chosen time and again the diplomatic path of engagement or sanctions at worst in times of hostility rather than picking up arms, and even during the Bush era no one in the Pentagon decently took any Iran strike option seriously... it certainly hasn't changed for the better 10 years after considering American defense official such as Leon Panetta acknowledge themselves that Iran has made significant advances both in air defense and ballistic/cruise missile capability, augmenting projected USAF and USN losses in case of a confrontation.

The only exception to that was Operation Praying Mantis when Iran was internationally cut off from the rest of the world, it's army totally depleted in every way possible and on the verge of total collapse after 8 years of bitter war with internationally armed Iraq. By then Iran had difficulties producing even the most basic form of military equipment.

4 - Consider putting an end to the regular baseless, empty and weak, utter bullshitting. An 8 year old would do better, I'm serious. "Bang bang bang my daddy is Rambo's brother and he is gonna kick your ass !" A really nasty habit you got there, trust me. At best, you make a joke of yourself every god damn time. Or, try some documentation before posting, that could change the tide here. Maybe.


Anonymous said...

In other terms, "thank you God, negotiations will fail along with diplomacy, paving the way for war" ? is that why you're thanking your god for ? You sure he'd like such a wish against a whole people ?

Anonymous said...

Yes thank you God for vanquishing the world of the evil iri

Anonymous said...

Iranians are as willing to fight for this regime as you are A

Anonymous said...

The French are only concerned of the followings:
i) Their ties with Bibi Netanyahou, they want to show the Israeli right wing politicians that they are better friends with them than the big US and thereby ask for better relations with Israel and also the Jewish lobby worldwide. The 10 billion USD fine on BNP Pariba due to breaking Iran sanctions is nothing they forget that easily and they know it is the Israeli lobby in the US which has pushed for that fine so they are just trying to restore ties with that lobby by being hard on Iran.

ii) US has asked the French for postponing the sale of advanced naval ships to Russia due to the current crisis in Ukraine. Obama expressed that publicly during the D-Day anniversary and the French politicians didn't appreciate the fact that a US president is telling them what to do or not to do. So now they are playing the Iran card to push the US.

iii) France is very afraid of losing Iran's lucrative market to US business. They are not happy about the direct talks between Iran and US as those talks might have included some lucrative business suggestions from Iran to US should sanctions be removed (and bear in mind Iran is mainly interested in getting unilateral US sanctions removed first as it knows the rest will just follow US).

So all the barking from the French side has reasons beyond the traditional nuclear talks and concerns...

Anonymous said...

being willing to fight for the regime isn't really useful when the fighting will take place in the air above Iran rather than on the ground.

there's nothing that Iranians can do to stop the bombs from dropping from the sky.

Anonymous said...

Oh, "the world of evil" ! that speaks volume about your mindset. And IQ. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you for wishing the death of another million of innocent middle-eastern people like last time you praised the same god of yours for allowing the US to attack Iraq.

Anonymous said...

9:21 ,

except that it won't be ordinary Iranian fighting for this regime. It will rather be 15 million peoplep comprisi basijis, pasdaran and their relatives and henchmen who will since they will have nowhere else to go in the event that the regime falls. And their are funded, trained, equipped and motivated enough to do the job... Before Saddam attacked the regime was already on the verge of collapse, totally Morsi style, and look at the patriotic fervor that arose so massively right after the first Iraqi bomb crushed into an airport... The IRI is willing such an aggression, specially their "principalists", and this is for that very reason.

Anonymous said...

1:09 AM,

The US defense establishment itself actually acknowledges serious progress in layered air-defense network over hotspots in Iran over the past 5 years. Besides, there won't be much to protect american soldiers in vicinity of Iran's missile from getting killed either... missiles also fly in the air, Iran won't have to make its battalions march all the way to their distant targets. Like it or hate it, the day they attack Iran they will have a dearly price to pay to achieve their goals, the country is not just another third world country with a non-existent army and capabilities like starving and embargo-ridden Iraq and ruined, backwards Afghanistan and its warlords were, and the thing is, US top brass know it and refrain from taking the military option to the fore, and rather opt for crippling sanctions, break its economic back (and ruin its ordinary people in the process) to get the IRI to the negotiating table, I consider it quite wise actually from their perspective, even though crude, cruel, opportunistic and unfair in an absolute way.

Official US-released figures estimate the cost of starting a war with Iran as equivalent to a sum greater than the Iraqi and Afghanistan campaigns combined, I let you imagine the economic prospects they will be facing in such dire times if they finally go for that madness. And this is not even taking into account projected military losses and their political impact at home.

The Iranian regime knows full well it does not need to win a war conventionally to avoid being toppled, and make their own people bear the blunt of any conflict if need be. That's part of the policy of asymmetrical warfare, I recommend documenting yourself on this. The 2006 Lebanon war is an exemplification of such theories where technologically and numerically inferior Hezbollah managed to successfully contain a force as strong as the IDF conventionally. In the Iranian case, Russia and China won't stand idly by considering their current record level of tensions and geopolitical rivalry with the US and won't refrain from covertly sending top military hardware to maximize US losses.

Anyway, let's just hope the Iranian people does not becomes the next target of the US war machine and its military-industrial culprits and lobbies.


ufred said...

Anon 11:28 AM====

the Americans losses will be less than 1% of the Iranian.

Iranian air defenses have progressed but it will take less than 3 weeks for them to be destroyed.

Iran can fire missiles at US bases, but how effective will they be and what will firing at hem accomplish?
there is nothing there that America can't replace.

China and Russia won't do a thing while the bombing goes on and won't be able to send anything to Iran that the US won't be able to track. No airplanes will be able to enter Iran and there won't be any ships able to enter and there won't be any port facilities left standing.

Anonymous said...


That 1:100 ratio is pure speculation on your part, and does not even take into account the intensity and length of a conflict, the extent of the combat theater or even what type of operations that would take place, and where. in the event of a full ground invasion effort American losses would surely surpass the Vietnam War.

In all other scenarios, several thousand american personnel will inevitably die when thousands of missiles of various kinds will crush on their barracks and other major, hard-to-miss structures, specially in USN 5th fleet base in Bahrain, and no amount of ABM system will prevent saturation in the opening hours of a conflict, that their designer acknowledge themselves. And you do not simply "replace" human being comprising your fighting force, there is a heavy price to pay when trying to sell another war of choice to your already war-weary population. As for the rest, how long can you replace billion-dollar worth equipment and structures in an already unpopular war ?

We aren't talking precision strikes, Iran does not need to achieve metric precision to target and inflict severe damage to several hundred meters long infrastructure, and most of its half-ton warhead, SRBM assets have a demonstrated ability to achieve a 100m CEP at least as observed in Syria by many eyewitnesses from both military and the press, or civilians in the area. The Pentagon acknowledged such progress on the part of Iranian missile R&D in declassified reports just in 2012. We are not in 2003 and these are not early Shahab-3s we are talking about anymore.
China and Russia will absolutely try and succeed in furnishing even a few crucial, additional defense systems to the country or provide them with critical intelligence, the US has nowhere near the observation capabilities to track everything that goes in and out of country on every inch of land and maritime borders the size of Iran, this is second flawed assumption. If in doubt have a look at their record missing stuff as big as construction sites for North Korean nuclear complexes a few years back, including all the material needed to fulfill such work that came to the country beforehand.

Besides, Iran is certainly not exclusively dependent on its ports and many bordering countries would help it bridge the gap with China or Russia if need be, but even discounting that aid, its current inventory would surely have its toll on attacking US forces. Pentagon wargames systematically result in at least a couple dozen major surface combatant sunk, no matter the engagement method considering Iran's concentrated and well-camouflaged anti-ship belt on the persian gulf and southwards facing the indian Ocean.

The USN's only option short of foreign hosts for the USAF would be to get off range of Iran variants of C-80x series of missiles and Anti-ship ballistic missile such as Khalij-Fars SRBMs and launch repeated cruise missile strikes on whatever target they seem fit or matching missile launchers on Iranian shores. Meanwhile their forces all around Iran would sustain heavy fire from Iranian missile brigades all along, this is not a scenario that will make Iran win a war conventionally (I recall saying that on the long run, the country would of course be hammered down by US forces in any war of attrition), but it will help it stall US advances while inflicting never-seen-before damage to its forces for a period of time long enough to render it politically and economically unacceptable. Considering their current financial situation from which they are not about to take off, we can discard the military scenario at least on the mid-term.

The problem with your rationale is that you consistently inflate American capabilities many folds while completely underestimating Iranian ability at least equally in every regard, plus you simply do not even consider political and economic aspects and opt for an all-military thinking (typical mistake from traditionally hawkish US representatives) while they constitute an integral part of such a costly war.


Gurney said...

"in the event of a full ground invasion effort American losses would surely surpass the Vietnam War."

You wont be getting an A from me when you come up with such fantastic fantasies. Stopped reading there. Iranian military capability is a joke compared ours. Are you kidding man...?! It's not even a shadow of the Iraqi army and airforce of 1991...and they had massive amount of troops, tanks, aircraft...and yet they got crushed. In reaching Tehran US would probably lose a few hundred men, maximum... No friggin way US would lose thousands. The poor Iranian army would be the one whose losses would number in the tens of thousands, no doubt. Iranian military will seize to exist after a 100,000+ sorties! That doesn't take into account the 500+ cruise missiles which will eliminate every C2 & C3 and every radar station in Iran, so they cant target our ships which BTW is equipped with high tech jammers, chaff, and CIWS! And all that will be done in just one month! ... You guessed it... Iranian troops will be vaporized! In a ground assault they'll be dropped like flies infront of the advancing US troops and get piled up sky high!!! Wont be difficult giving them what they seek > Martyrdom. LOL

Anonymous said...

Ahahahahah.... Gurney, Gurney, Gurney. The ignorant character of your passionate posts will never stop amazing and amusing me. No really, you would have gained a lot of
valuable insight by reading further down my previous comment since I actually addressed the redundant parts of your reply in it. Indeed, I was tempted in turn to stop reading
past your flawed and totally stupid Iran/Iraq comparison to begin with... the Iraqi army was still a debt-ridden, battle fatigued paper tiger barely recovering from a ruinous 8
years of bitter war with its Iranian neighbor in 1991... the very start of the Kuwait invasion was a desperate attempt from Saddam to secure foreign sources of oil to get rid of
that debt. The world's (rightful) reaction was so unanimous that the Iraqi army got itself surrounded and completely embargoed by virtually every nation around it, including
the Arab ones like Egypt whom mobilized hundreds of thousands of troops to take it down from every direction on top of attacking NATO and specially US troops they
hosted. Nothing like the kind of support the US would be able to garner today in 2014 in the event they foolishly try to attack Iran alone in such a unfavorable financial and
geopolitical context. Unlike in 1991, not ONE gulf nation bar maybe Saudi Arabia would be willing to host even a single USAF aircraft for sorties against a neighboring Iran.

Secondly, Iran, unlike Iraq has the region's recognized most powerful and diverse ballistic missile production capability and arsenal, one that has long been deemed able to
inflict serious and unacceptable losses to an aggressor, a major distinction

Only several hundred deaths by half-ton to 1,5 ton warhead falling by the thousands on their bases within Iran's ballistic range ? I doubt your beloved
country's top military brass shares your optimism, really. Otherwise a strike on Iran would gave made headlines for years now. The US lost 60,0000 to a foe with
much less direct offensive capabilities in the Vietnam War. The NVA had zero ballistic capability.

CIWS will certainly not save your ships from swarm attacks augmented with saturation anti-ship cruise missile attacks from Persian Gulf Shores either, there again , you are
simply dreaming and going even further than the defense system manufacturers, who do not pretend their products can deal with dozens of missiles inbound at the same time,
and Pentagon war-games always take that into account !

Your jammers would have to be in range of Iran's C3I system to begin with, which will not happen so long as cruise missile strikes haven't dealt with critical centers of the
Iranian air defense apparatus, and US personal all around Iran would have to deal with constant blows from ballistic missile of all kind all along ! Chinese FM-90 derivatives are produced in great numbers in Iran, they happen to be specialized in diminishing impact from cruise missile strike by
taking some of them down in flight at low range. Add 29 batteries of Russian Tor-M1s to the mix plus a number of Buk-M2 and Hawk XXIs and your 500+ cruise missile won't be many to
ultimately strike their target. And again, meanwhile, Iranian ballistic missiles will kill US personnel and destroy expensive material on the ground, deployed Patriot batteries are
nowhere near enough to protect them all, and they know it. And you're disregarding Iran's own demonstrate ECCM capabilities to disrupt US missile fire, you know the same
ones that made a cutting edge RQ-170 drone gently land on an Iranian runway back in 2013 ? well I got bad news, these still exist and have evolved further. Anyway, most of Iran's
ballistic missiles are based on inertial guidance, they do not need any form of external guidance to reach their target infrastructure on US bases around.

But hey mate, I know, I know no worries, your daddy is stronger, he will beat the whole of Iran and vaporize it entirely blablabla, all resistance is futile let's just surrender or get vaporized la la la la:-D


Anonymous said...


"No friggin way" the US would loose thousands of troops in reaching Tehran ? You mean among the ranks of foot soldiers on their way to Iran during a ground incursion ? May I ask : are you on drugs ? The Iraqi theater was a flat desert terrain and Saddam is historically renowned at stupidly ordering massed mechanized columns to attempt at repealing of foreign forces, ultimately leading to an early slaughter of its armor divisions, sitting ducks in the dozens with no air cover nor air defense units in range, making them an incredibly easy prey for enemy air forces. And we all know what happened next. By contrast, entry routes to Iran are not even suitable to heavy tanks since entry routes to the capital are composed of a mixture of desertic, urban, muddy and accidented regions, making it impossible for heavy armored units to penetrate without a nightmarish logistical chain stretching for hundreds of kilometers to support bases outside Iran borders. The very military doctrine in Iran is designed to make dual use of such guerilla techniques for in-depth defense of their homeland with an added layer of modern air-defenses and passive detection assets as well as early warning systems that would harass invading forces and strain their air cover element all the way to their forward frontline troops. Sure they would sustain very heavy losses anyway due to much superior American firepower, I won't question it, but the real question is : at what cost ? No one in US top military brass ever publicly showed any kind of willingness for such a scenario. Iran's strategic depth is simply too huge and its terrain too difficult to take on for a ground invasion force big enough to take on its sprawling capital to be so easily considered let alone executed. Only simple-minded armchair generals such as you , Gurney, would expect them to perform so brilliantly. In fact nobody in official US circled ever floated the crazy idea of mouting any boots on the ground, you are actually the very first person to be insane and/or ill-informed enough of the obstacles at stake to not only wish for such a war but also have such deep conviction in its feasibility. Kudos to you on the boldness, nonetheless, at least you deserve this.