End of the road for Iran aviation imports
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
End of the road for Iran aviation imports
Everything to be shut down. Airbus, Boeing, ATR and everyone else. It's a great way to kick-off a negotiation.
Boeing, Airbus licences to sell jets to Iran to be revoked: U.S. treasury secretary | CBC News
Boeing, Airbus licences to sell jets to Iran to be revoked: U.S. treasury secretary | CBC News
End of the road to the West, yes. Iran Air's orders for Airbus and ATR will be cancelled, I guess - not a problem for the US!
Beginning of the road to Moscow? or the Belt and Road to China?
Beginning of the road to Moscow? or the Belt and Road to China?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble is that such things largely affect the poor and cause yet more isolation; which can never be good.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not cancelled, they'll be deferred
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm concerned, Trump can't stop the French selling Iran aircraft and spare parts. America's loss will be Europe's gain IMHO.
What gets me annoyed about this is the hard reality of history: as evidenced by both Pakistan and North Korea, a nation will (if they've a mind to) develop their nuclear capability with a treaty or without one. (Two exceptions being Iraq and Syria, whose plants got bombed by the Israelis in 1981 and 2007).
This decision seems to me a way to cut off one's own nose to spite one's face; it harms harms high tech jobs, and overall national trade/commerce both at home, and among our allies.
The only silver lining I see is that any number of observers have opined that "a new deal" being reworked turns all of this back on. OK, if a "new deal" is worked out, and the orders turned back on, all to the good. But I wonder at the timeline on that.
I am not keen to see the aircraft building industry take a hit, on either side of the pond.
And here's the other thing: the opportunity to increase a variety of low level contacts and influence. For example, you've got simulator / training set ups that can establish the kinds of contacts benefit in a variety of multinational efforts ... OK. Nuff said.
This decision seems to me a way to cut off one's own nose to spite one's face; it harms harms high tech jobs, and overall national trade/commerce both at home, and among our allies.
The only silver lining I see is that any number of observers have opined that "a new deal" being reworked turns all of this back on. OK, if a "new deal" is worked out, and the orders turned back on, all to the good. But I wonder at the timeline on that.
I am not keen to see the aircraft building industry take a hit, on either side of the pond.
And here's the other thing: the opportunity to increase a variety of low level contacts and influence. For example, you've got simulator / training set ups that can establish the kinds of contacts benefit in a variety of multinational efforts ... OK. Nuff said.
To go slightly off topic I wonder if Trump has any idea that he may have made the USA considerably less safe.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What gets me annoyed about this is the hard reality of history: as evidenced by both Pakistan and North Korea, a nation will (if they've a mind to) develop their nuclear capability with a treaty or without one. (Two exceptions being Iraq and Syria, whose plants got bombed by the Israelis in 1981 and 2007).
This decision seems to me a way to cut off one's own nose to spite one's face; it harms harms high tech jobs, and overall national trade/commerce both at home, and among our allies.
The only silver lining I see is that any number of observers have opined that "a new deal" being reworked turns all of this back on. OK, if a "new deal" is worked out, and the orders turned back on, all to the good. But I wonder at the timeline on that.
I am not keen to see the aircraft building industry take a hit, on either side of the pond.
And here's the other thing: the opportunity to increase a variety of low level contacts and influence. For example, you've got simulator / training set ups that can establish the kinds of contacts benefit in a variety of multinational efforts ... OK. Nuff said.
This decision seems to me a way to cut off one's own nose to spite one's face; it harms harms high tech jobs, and overall national trade/commerce both at home, and among our allies.
The only silver lining I see is that any number of observers have opined that "a new deal" being reworked turns all of this back on. OK, if a "new deal" is worked out, and the orders turned back on, all to the good. But I wonder at the timeline on that.
I am not keen to see the aircraft building industry take a hit, on either side of the pond.
And here's the other thing: the opportunity to increase a variety of low level contacts and influence. For example, you've got simulator / training set ups that can establish the kinds of contacts benefit in a variety of multinational efforts ... OK. Nuff said.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belgium
Age: 43
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who told you that and why did you believe it? It's patently untrue. https://www.gcsp.ch/News-Knowledge/P...ust-and-Verify (try page 25 onwards)
The US aren't the only ones who care about Iran and its nuclear ambitions, yet it is only they (well, along Iran's sworn enemies obviously) who insist on blowing up a deal that was doing fine for "something better" (undefined) for no obvious reason. (Of course even in the US there are plenty of well informed people in the government and military who were not in favor of terminating the deal either)
The world is a lot bigger than the US and ignoring long standing relationships with strong allies with this obvious buffoonery is worse for the US than it is for Iran.
The US aren't the only ones who care about Iran and its nuclear ambitions, yet it is only they (well, along Iran's sworn enemies obviously) who insist on blowing up a deal that was doing fine for "something better" (undefined) for no obvious reason. (Of course even in the US there are plenty of well informed people in the government and military who were not in favor of terminating the deal either)
The world is a lot bigger than the US and ignoring long standing relationships with strong allies with this obvious buffoonery is worse for the US than it is for Iran.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work for Boeing, so I know what you mean. That being said, both Boeing and Airbus have several years of backlog on the books. That means that there's several years breathing room to work out a new deal with Iran before there's any impact on "the aircraft building industry."
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who told you that and why did you believe it? It's patently untrue. https://www.gcsp.ch/News-Knowledge/P...ust-and-Verify (try page 25 onwards).
Three major developments enabled breakthroughs in the negotiations. The first was the election of Barack Obama as US president in November 2008, allowing direct US negotiations with Iran. The second was a shift in P5+1 policy from insistence on the cessation of uranium enrichment by Iran combined with sanctions, to one of containing Iran’s nuclear programme and using the lifting of sanctions as leverage. The third major development was the 2013 election of Hassan Rouhani as president of Iran on a platform of sanctions relief and economic recovery."
Containment was a shaky concept to begin with and proven by North Korea to be impossible. Containment, a concept upon which the whole Iran deal is built, is a totally failed and discredited concept.
A mutually acceptable agreement was achieved through dialogue and active diplomacy rather than threats (including of a military strike), isolation and unilateral demands. Both sides achieved their goals: for the P5+1, that of preventing Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons, and for Iran, that of preserving its acquired nuclear know-how and having the sanctions lifted.
Sadly, the recently released mountain of secret documents from Tehran proved that "preventing Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons" was a fiction. And this deal that allows Iran "keeping their nuclear know-how" meant them keeping their nuclear weapon know-how.
The Vienna agreement put into place an unprecedented verification system to ensure that Iran will not enrich uranium above a low level, that the volume of its stockpiles will remain capped, that its capacity to produce enriched uranium will be limited and that it will not produce weapons-grade plutonium. The IAEA will monitor the whole Iranian fuel cycle, from mining to spent fuel (which Iran will not be able to reprocess).
Again, the recently release mountain of secret documents fro Tehran show the verification system is a farce. The Iranians have in place secret facilities for the enrichment of uranium "above a low level" including to nuclear weapons-grade level. Obama and Kerry promised that after their negotiations and deal with Syria, ALL of Syria's chemical weapons had been "verified" destroyed and their chemical weapon production facilities "verified" to be dismantled. Those "verified" assurances were a total farce.
The lack of mutual trust between Iran and the P5+1 explains this extensive verification system, which follows a “distrust-AND-verify” approach. Iran also had to work with the IAEA to clarify pending questions on the past possible military dimensions of its programme. The monitoring mechanism put in place will ensure joint supervision of the implementation of the commitments (including a Joint Commission and regular ministerial meetings). The JCPOA is a model of a cooperative security approach.
Another farce. The secret documents reveal that Iran did NOT truthfully "clarify pending questions on the past possible military dimensions of its programme." A "model cooperative security approach" depends totally on.......cooperation. The secret documents clearly show that Iran is not engaged in cooperation, but in deception.
The "negotiations" were a farce because the Iranians were not engaged in negotiation but deception, and the resulting deal is an equal farce. Knowing what we know now we can and should negotiate a much tougher deal with much more stringent verification that does not depend on "cooperation." And the end result needs to be much different. The old end result gave Iran unlimited unfettered ability to do whatever they wanted after the agreement expired, which begins in phases in 2023. The new end result must ensure Iran can NEVER produce nuclear weapons.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belgium
Age: 43
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowing what we know now we can and should negotiate a much tougher deal
The old end result gave Iran unlimited unfettered ability to do whatever they wanted after the agreement expired, which begins in phases in 2023.
Under the agreement the IAEA will have access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities for the
next 20 years. It will continuously monitor the country’s enrichment capability, including
through real-time monitoring of its enrichment facilities and access to its uranium mining
and milling facilities. The IAEA will also supervise the production of uranium concentrate
(“yellow cake”) for the next 25 years. The IAEA seals on disassembled and stored centrifuges
will notify the Agency if they are tampered with. Iran must allow short-notice inspections
of its nuclear facilities – as short as two hours if inspectors are already present at the site.
The JCPOA also outlines a mechanism for gaining access to sites of concern, for example, if there is suspicious activity at an undeclared site. Iran can challenge the IAEA
’s request to inspect the facility, leading to an arbitration process that could take up to 24 days to
resolve.
This provision is intended to close a loophole in the Additional Protocol, which
does not cover what the international community can do if a country refuses to grant
the IAEA access to a suspect facility within 24 hours. While Iran could potentially use that
timeline to hide some evidence of minor illicit activities, the facilities needed to develop
a covert nuclear programme are likely to leave traces of radiation that do not disappear
quickly. In other words, illicit activity at an undeclared site is likely to be detected under the
JCPOA. If Iran decided to “sneak out” it would have to rebuild an entire covert fuel cycle, from
uranium ore to weapons-usable uranium, but it cannot do so and escape detection. Iran is
unable to produce all the parts and components necessary for its programme indigenously.
As a result, it would have either to procure what it needs or divert materials from
authorized procurements. Diversion would likely be detected by the IAEA because of the
intrusive verification system put in place, combined with the existing export control
regimes
The new end result must ensure Iran can NEVER produce nuclear weapons.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember in the 70s the Hazelnuts etc at Christmas came from Iran.
Remember reading it on the label. Realising that the world wasn't actually that big after all.
Once again the warmongers win.
Remember reading it on the label. Realising that the world wasn't actually that big after all.
Once again the warmongers win.
Actually, I alluded to a new deal, but I have no idea how long such a deal would take to put into place, given the number of principles involved. It would be great if in the next 30-60 days such a deal was arrived at. My crystal ball is hazy ...