Shared publicly  - 
With talks over Iran's nuclear programme breaking down, the country is likely to face even tougher sanctions.

Farmers have been hit hard. Limits on exports could even jeopardise Iran's 2,500-year-old Mohammadi rose harvesting and rose-water production tradition.

Imran Khan reports from central Iran:
Kin Enriquez's profile photoyaser Ahmed's profile photoAlin-Sorin Podaru's profile photoMushin J. Schilling's profile photo
We're a far cry from 'smart sanctions'. But that may be a way to go: Complex Adaptive Sanctions... get a couple of pragmatic experts across silos together to figure out how that could work, and then make lots of PR around that.
then implement... when Iran's technological rights (potentially) infringe on mine, then we've got a conflict. Sanctions are some of the many means groups, regions, states use in their conflicts. Rights and duties are connected and negotiations aim at balancing these out. 
+Mushin J. Schilling I still don't get it: Why are the US and Europe putting sanctions on Iran? Why do they threat that country?
Really, if it comes down to nuclear facilities, there are simply too many reasons NOT to bother Iran:
1. Even if they wanted to build a nuke, it would take decades for them to gather the uranium needed. In case they would build a reactor for plutonium production, still, this would take decades. Even more: once they got their commercial nuclear power plant, they will have to allow the IAEA inspectors a visit.
2. Either no country has the right to possess nuclear weapons, or every country has the same right. Taking a look at Israel, which has ~80 warheads, I simply cannot see any reason to deny Iran this technology. Even worse, my fellow countrymen sold a bunch of submarines capable of launching nuclear missiles to Israel.
3. Pakistan, North Korea, India, China, Russia. All of them are in possession of nukes.

Speaking of Pakistan and North Korea: both do pose a bigger threat to the western countries than Iran.
+Matt Mullin You make a whole lot of assumptions out of my statement that Rights are to be balanced by Duties. Which was in response to two people highlighting Iran's technological Rights. 
Given the power structure of the Iranian Government, which seems unstable to a very large degree, I would say that sanctions, and originally I wrote that I wished we could have "smart sanctions", are a acceptable means to make the point that "we", I would include Europe in that point of view, do not want the Iranian ruling elite to have the power to "push the button."

This is a clear and simple statement of what our main interests are in this matter. This is not a statement pro or contra Israelian politics. We could discuss elsewhere why I think that Israeli politics is counter-productive since decades, and against its own best interests, if those are to be at peace with its neighbors and safe within its borders.

We could also discuss elsewhere, why the Arab monarchies politics are counter productive, or about Syria's politics or how come that the Palestinians are being abused by their own ruling elites just as much as by the surrounding states, and how that might be changed.

But to believe that power politics around nuclear capabilities can be made based on statements of "Iran has the right to..." is simply naive. It has nothing to do with who already has that, and what kind of idiots and morons they are, it has everything to do with real-politik and how to solve conflicting views in the best possible way.
+Grey Geek Building a breeder and setting it operational takes its time. And: it is de facto impossible to completely hide a nuclear facility, leave alone the construction process.

The "decade" was the estimated time for uranium enrichment, in case one would want to build a uranium bomb.

"Making all the bombs you want"?
Definitely not, as you need the necessary amounts of plutonium first, bred from your breeder, which needs its uranium fuel.

Preemptive attacks (like the employment of "stuxnet") are a violation of the law of nations.
Besides, guess who also signed the "nuclear weapon nonproliferation treaty"? Right, Iran. Guess again who did not, yet is in possession of nukes...
By the way, what kind of "munitions" do you mean?

+Mushin J. Schilling Addressing stability in Iran: I would not give any estimate on the course of Iran's policy. Nevertheless, regarding their strive to use nuclear enegery, I cannot see why any action should be taken.
As long as there is no nuclear reactor operational in Iran, there is no reason to fear plutonium-based bombs (which could be achieved fastest, if wanted).
Simply pressing on their politics and putting on new sanctions will not solve the problem.

Maybe Iran would be in the position to allow IAEA controls, once the worst part of embargos and sanctions is dropped?
I have friends in Iran and saw the rose water productions in the region. My worries are if I can still chat with my friends tomorrow for the mullahs wanting to cut off the internet. All this WMD bullshit also worries me a lot as I don't see in any way how Iran would do a first strike which would essentially put the whole country in ashes but I see how falcons openly discuss attacks on the nuclear facilities that would also dramatically threaten people I love.
What are those financial sanctions any good for after all? Yes, those who know how to do it pay a 40% markup to transfer money. With this situation you slow down everything by 40%, make banks richer and richer and if the money is needed for the military, it will be there to pay those 40% and not with the small time rose water producers.

(I wonder when people will realize how little sanctions can block bitcoin. If there is a way to ship rose water out of the country, sending bitcoin in is no problem at this or at any future moment. Demand should be high in Iran once people open their eyes.)
Just send the drones to kill all the Iranian nuke scientists
Just send a drone to kill all the american war mongers. </sarcasm>
+Kin Enriquez Your proposal somewhat infantile, barbaric and uncivilized. Are you american?
What can you do when two nuclear powers( ISRAEL and USA) wants to invade your country?BECOME A NUCLEAR POWER,IRAN have all rights to protect theyr borders and citizens,for them this is only chance to survive as a nation.Israel intention to attack are clear : "it is time to attack, before they develop nuclear weapons after that is very difficult"  -evil intentions of the ISRAEL and USA,SHAME ON YOU  :((((
Not a fan of Iran's present regime.  But also not a fan of Israel.  BTW, yesterday was the 45th anniversary of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty that resulted in the deaths of 34 US Sailors and Marines with another 170 wounded.  Retribution consisted of reducing annual foreign aid to Israel by half - for one year. 
+Kin Enriquez you know what US policy is? If you suggest sicsicsicsomething, sad as it is, people either know you and see the sarcasm or they assume "you are from the US". If indeed you are from there, please support groups that change this picture.
+Matt Mullin If you would read instead of speculate so much you would actually understand what I mean by duty. If you claim the right to build nuclear explosives you have the duty to face the interest of those who don't want you to have it. Anyone can claim the right to nuclear destruction of the neighbor or some far off country they hate. But then it would be their duty to assure them that they would only use it in retaliation to being attacked with nuclear devices. Iranian government officials have declared time and again which countries they wish to destroy. There is no doubt about what they've said, and what they keep saying. So why would "we" act as if we think they're just bragging and drumming on their chests? Why would we think they don't mean what they say? Why should we do nothing and just let them build their nuclear divices? Is there any reason whatsoever that we can trust this regime?
+Matt Mullin I told you to read, because I had already responded at length about Iranian technological rights. The allusion to speculating was on the grounds of your lengthy speculation as to my opinions and ideas before, which I found without much respect, especially since I had made a simple proposition as to 'smart sanctions' which would not hurt the rose gardeners and merchants. That being said, I can't see how I would have offended your character in any way, at least I did have no intention to do so.

As to Iranian claims... I don't believe Iran to be an entitiy that does or says anything. I was, and am speaking about the claims of certain parts of the Iranian government. A government that rules because it violently suppressed a large movement of the Iranian population that accused it of "stealing the election". A government, moreover, that uses repression to keep many of its people in fear. Therefor I cannot and do not speak of what Iran wants: I can't know, 'cause the people aren't free to tell.

This also is a major contribution to what I called to be the regime's instability. A government where competing branches even have their own para-military groups doesn't seem one that would in any way be trustworthy. So if, as you say, "Iran has yet to claim the right to build nuclear explosives," then I would say that the Iranian government doesn't have to claim that. They can even deny it. But it doesn't take a  genius to notice that they, or particular groups within it, are working very hard at realizing the capacity to make their own weapons-grade nuclear material. And, history has shown us that governments have no trouble lying to obfuscate others from seeing that they are preparing for aggression.

The "technological rights" you were claiming are, in consequence the right to destroy your neigbor with nuclear means. And the "duty to face the interests" is also a consequence of claiming these rights. I wouldn't know how that points towards a "crusaders world order" or has anything to do with a Declaration of Human Rights, which, by the way, the Iranian government has broken on numerous accounts following the 2009 elections. As much as the Iranian government, claiming any rights, has the duty to face the interest of its population by, for instance, making it possible to have a fair and open election, it has the duty to face the fair interests of surrounding countries to live safely within it's borders.

"Iran has never declared a desire to destroy countries," you say. That seems like a rather strange statement when you know some facts. For instance, on October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), filed a story on Ahmadinejad's speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran, entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map. Ahmadinejad said literally, "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement."

Be that as it may, the Iranian government by the mouth of it's president has stated clearly what it's interests are, Ahmadinejad said on television quite recently speaking about Israel (May 2011)"... like a cancer cell that spreads through the body, this regime infects any region. It must be removed from the body," Seems to be a metaphor he likes because in Egypt’s Al-Akhbar newspaper in November 2011, Ahmadinejad stated "This entity [Israel] can be compared to a kidney transplanted in a body that rejected it. “Yes it will collapse and its end will be near.”

So if Achmadinejad and other major factions of the Iranian government have no intention of destroying Isreal, he and they are doing their utter best to be misunderstood. So my questions remain, Why would we think they don't mean what they say once very clearly and mostly implicitly? Why should we do nothing and just let them build their nuclear divices because of some imaginary "technological right"? Is there any reason whatsoever that we can trust this regime to wish the countries around it peace, and work towards strengthening that peace, especially if they are not Shiites? 
is normal for people to hate Israel and U.S.A, because they want to control each country, they want everyone to kneel before them, to do just what they say and what they want and that's not right... I personally if I had a magic stick, I make this two countries to disappear, I'm sorry but their external politics make me to wish that  :((  It seems that just war is what they want  BAD POLITICS
the world will be a better place once Iran had the nuke bomb. World peace all around, kumbaya!
=)))    israel can sell them a few nuclear bombs, that is to become friends   =))))
هذه بداية وانطلاقة لتعليم اطفالنا كيف نحيا بالمحبة والسلام  ليعم السلام بكل العالم نسال القدير ان يعم الامن والسلام بجميع الكرة ارضبة بداية موفقة لحمل غصن زيتون للعالم 
ماذنب الشعب حتى يحرم من الطفولة  والتعليم ورعاية  واعمار ايران وتوفير احتياجاته حتى يقوم من الجديد   بلد غير ماعرف العالم عنه لماذا لا نمحي الدموع  ونبشرهم بانطلاقة جديدة  غير ماعرفوه والفوه  وعرف العالم عنه  بذوبهم الجديد وقيادتهم الجديدة وشعب تغير حاله من  اسوا الى افضل  من اجل الطفلة من اجل ابتسامتها الرسالة الى كل المدنيين وجميع فئات المجتمع  وجميع قادة العالم   وشعوبها من اجل الطفلة التي لم تلتمس  سوى الزهور  وعينها لم تشاهد الماسي وعقلها الذي لايعرف سوى الطفولة لاجل جميع اطفال ايران من اجل جميع اطفال الكرة ارضية فلنحميها من كل من سعا لخرابها وتدميرها
Wanting simple solutions, +Alin-Sorin Podaru? wanting to believe, it's all the fault of someone else? And believing that if the Ayathollas rule, every country would be a paradise like Iran? 
And if Israel and the U.S.A would lead all countries would be paradise?With this capitalist system where money are more important  than people and their lives?
Of course not +Alin-Sorin Podaru and, other than  you, I never ever suggested that. Quite the contrary. You keep blaming everybody else for Iran's problems. I've explained at length what I think the challenges are, you keep repeating the simple recipes where everybody else is to blame for Iran's difficulties. 
Add a comment...