BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

How should the West react to new Iran-Turkey deal?

10:51 UK time, Monday, 17 May 2010

Iran has agreed a deal with Turkey to send its low-enriched uranium abroad in exchange for nuclear fuel from the United States, France and Russia. What is your reaction?

Iran's foreign ministry said it was ready to ship 1,200kg of low-enriched uranium to Turkey, in return for nuclear fuel for its medical research reactor. A similar idea was proposed last year but Tehran rejected the deal.

Iran is already under three sets of UN sanctions for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment, which the West fears hides a covert nuclear weapons programme. It is thought this new deal mediated by Brazil may ward off another round of sanctions and lead to new talks.

Will this move make any difference to Iran's relationship with the West? Should another round of sanctions be imposed on Iran? Should world leaders engage in further talks with Tehran?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 6

  • Comment number 1.

    How should the West react to new Iran-Turkey deal?

    With cautious optimism.

    How will the West react?

    I think the majority will see it as a positive step, whilst those who seem determined to have a conflict with Iran will remain unpassified.

    Lets face it Ahmejinedad has made some pretty aggressive statements regarding Israel & The West, and whilst those comments were made largely to boost support amongst his domestic, Iranian audience, its a dangerous game to play.

    Its not altogether suprising that certain elements seem set on the destruction of his regime.

    I just hope that they remember that one man is not a country, and not every Iranian deserves to suffer as a result of his game playing.

  • Comment number 2.

    The Western rection should be to seize the material leaving Iran and ensure that no more gets there....

    Wonder how much the Brazilians are getting paid though.

  • Comment number 3.

    Turkey should be thrown out of the 'EU' immediately - like today!

  • Comment number 4.

    Like always the Israel supporters would not want that. They want US to attack not negotiate with Iran. Now Iran make the first move will US work with them or will US move the goal post to satisfy Israel.

    Even if US move the goal post due to its super powerful Israel lobby group, I hope EU will negotiate with Iran.

    Peace and not war.

  • Comment number 5.

    Sounds sensible.

    After all, the problem with Iran having nuclear facilities has been created out of fears that the same processing plants can make fuel for reactors or material for bombs. If they provide the raw materials for someone 'more trustworthy' to process and then give them fuel for their reactors, the problem has been solved.

    Of course, those whose problem is being hostile to Iran as a whole will still try to create difficulties, but it's about time they grew up and realised that the whole world will not change to suit them and that genuine international relations are built on less childish reactions.

  • Comment number 6.

    3. At 12:20pm on 17 May 2010, James wrote:
    Turkey should be thrown out of the 'EU' immediately - like today!

    --

    They'd have to join first.

    You need to realise that this isn't some shady deal between Iran, Turkey and Brazil, its a UN sponsored plan designed so that Iran is supplied with non-weapons grade uranium for use in their nuclear power plants, rather than enriching their own uranium, which is what they have been doing, possibly to weapons grade standard.

    Its good news, sort of, not some evil conspiracy.

  • Comment number 7.

    Let's first await the details of the agreement. It seems like it was signed rather easily, especially considering the Russians had a similar proposal that was refused by Iran. There's probably something in the fine print that gives Iran a lot of lenience or the Ayatollah's pulled Ahmadijenad's leash when they realized Iran was getting boxed in by the UN now that even Russia is turning against them.

  • Comment number 8.

    Accept the deal and welcome it.

    Also, stop the double standards with regards to Israel and its atomic weapons, only then will the rest of the Arab world take note.

  • Comment number 9.

    3. At 12:20pm on 17 May 2010, James wrote:
    Turkey should be thrown out of the 'EU' immediately - like today!
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Wouldn't that mean we would have to let them join first to throw them out.

  • Comment number 10.

    I think collaboration between Iran and Turkey is a good idea.... more of it is required......and one more reason to keep Turkey OUT of Europe.

  • Comment number 11.

    To look too much into the future is foolhardy on the part of the West. The move by Turkey and Iran agreeing to sent low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel from the USA and Europe is an amiable gesture on the part of Iran that should not go unappreciated by doubting Thomas-es. To dream of HG Wells One-World Country - United we..."

  • Comment number 12.

    Anything that moves away from the sabre rattling is positive.

  • Comment number 13.

    There is limited hope it may appease the warmongers, although as Iran has been doing nothing to violate treaties of which they are signatories there should be no problem with what they were doing previously.

  • Comment number 14.

    For the sake of world peace give Iran the Nuke! without it, the US and Israel will use the weapons to bully other nation states! and Who is "the West!" you talk about, i am british and british only, not lap dog to the yanks or Israel, and we are without labours "yes sir" programme with the US. There is the US and Israel and then separately Europe. The US is using the weapons to threaten non nuclear countries! and Israel is continuing to murder and kill palestinians without any recourse and have also shown how fascist they are by denying Prof Chomsky in becasue he criticises Israels occupation, and as a brit i dont want the US and Israel holding a gun to any country for strategic purposes and straight up Oil theft!

  • Comment number 15.

    Call me paranoid but I've gone over the details of the agreement again and it does seem like an awfully sweet deal, for the Iranians that is. 1200kg is only a part of Iran's current stockpile and the treaty does not oblige Iran to stop enrichment of its own, which is strange as the 120kg of 20% enriched uranium from the deal would satisfy's Iran's medical demands for at least six years. So, in my opinion other nations still have reason to be suspicious. Yes, it looks like a sign of goodwill but it does not stop the Iranians from enriching themselves (probably why they accepted this offer while refusing Russia's offer), it may just accelerate Iran's own enrichment efforts since they've now outsourced part of the work.

  • Comment number 16.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 17.

    "Also, stop the double standards with regards to Israel and its atomic weapons, only then will the rest of the Arab world take note.

    Anthony Rat"

    Israel didn't sign the NPT, so they're being treated the same as India and Pakistan (why do we never hear the Arabs complain about Pakistan?), no double standards needed: Iran could just withdraw from the NPT and the UN would be powerless against them.

  • Comment number 18.

    If this plan is being sponsored by the UN I'm having my doubts already. Blue helmets and nuclear material don't belong in the same sentence.

  • Comment number 19.

    The United Nations should support a peaceful use of nuclear science. Iran developed nuclear power plants for electricity production. The UN could recognize Turkey for providing a service for energy needs.

  • Comment number 20.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 21.

    "Sounds sensible.

    After all, the problem with Iran having nuclear facilities has been created out of fears that the same processing plants can make fuel for reactors or material for bombs. If they provide the raw materials for someone 'more trustworthy' to process and then give them fuel for their reactors, the problem has been solved.

    Megan"

    That's just it: Iran is allowed to continue enrichment of its own, it has just outsourced part of the work.

  • Comment number 22.

    I think this is just yet another delaying ploy by Iran.

    Iran plays the same deceitful game as Saddam played.

    I bet my right arm that something will enevitably make Iran retract from this, you dont need to be Mystic Meg to know the future, you just need a basic understanding of Irans historical and recent behaviour, which is heavily weighed with lies and deceit.

  • Comment number 23.

    The question, how should 'the west' react, is of course loaded. Most of the countries of the west, as with the rest of the world, are not concerned with Iranian nuclear development. The West, like 'international community' is just code for whoever happens to agree with the US.

    Asking how we should react presupposes that this is any of our business at all. In my opinion, it should only concern us in our capacity as a member of the United Nations. The same goes for the US.

    The talk of Iranian aggression is a massive reversal of reality. On the one hand, we have various provocative statements by President Ahmadinejad, most prominently the oft repeated but false assertion that he as called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map' (which he has not). These are given heavy coverage by the media despite the fact, well known to journalists and regional specialists, that Ahmadinejad has no control over Iran's foreign policy.

    Then there is what's actually going on in the real world. Iran is surrounded by countries occupied by US forces or with substantial US military presences. The US attempts to dictate to Iran what it may or may not do in the Persian Gulf, which is about as justifiable as Iran attempting to tell the US what it should do in the Gulf of Mexico.

    In addition to having militarily surrounded Iran, the US is also sponsors Israel to the tune of several billion dollars per year. While Iran has invaded or attacked nobody in five hundred years, Israel is a rogue state that has attacked several of its neighbours and maintains an illegal occupation now over forty years old. It also threatens Iran, including with provocative military 'exercises' in the Gulf.

    Add to this that the US likely funds terrorism within Iran (the formerly proscribed MEK), is engaged in economic warfare against it, and previously deposed a democratic government in favour of a murderous dictator, not to mentioned supported Saddam Hussein's war on Iran (including use of chemical weapons) and the real reality of the situation becomes clear.

    We can add to this the US's serial violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty such as support for Israel and India not to mention the manifest hypocrisy of condemning Iran's nuclear programme now when it was the US who initiated it under the Shah with the so-called 'Atoms for Peace' programme.

    What 'the west' should do is stop meddling in the Middle East, stop funding terrorist states, stop supporting terrorism, recall its occupation forces and make a statement that it is subject to rather than above international law.

  • Comment number 24.

    Don't care, Turkey has nothing to do with the UK.

  • Comment number 25.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 26.

    This shows that Iran has bent over backwards to reach a compromise but the truth is the West will reject it because they want nothing less than an Iranian surrender. This will not happen. Forget sanctions. Proceed directly to war for this is the only logical outcome of the West's intransigent position.

  • Comment number 27.

    The West should react by ending the double standards, promoting a nuclear free Middle East, forcing the still-expanding apartheid state of Israel back to its lawful borders, witholding our aid until Israel sign the NPT, defying AIPAC's warmongering, inspecting Dimona. And pigs will fly through ash clouds.

  • Comment number 28.

    Iran - oil rich state looking at using nuclear power stations as a "cleaner" solution to just burning the huge amounts of gas and oil they have.

    Of course people are going to be sceptical, why would they want to do this? Turkey although not an EU member is an associate member, it could be their failure to join if this deal is not agreed in European Parliament.

    I don't know enough about nuclear physics to comment on the types for power plants or weapons, but I can certainly raise concerns about if it is possible to enrich further to weapon standard. How about "dirty Bombs" quite easy to make one of these once you have the ingrediants.

    This action needs to be considered by countries worldwide to determine what the intentions are. Where are Irans power station plans and why have they not asked advice from the countries who have many of them (Russia and China do not have a good track record), the trade should be for a full package deal, not just the fuel, now that would be united countries working together.

  • Comment number 29.

    This offers China a way out of the position it is in on sanctions. China should now tell the Zionists who want an Iranian surrender that it is the only deal on offer and that it will not agree to sanctions that will damage China's economy.

  • Comment number 30.

    "
    10. At 12:46pm on 17 May 2010, tc wrote:

    I think collaboration between Iran and Turkey is a good idea.... more of it is required......and one more reason to keep Turkey OUT of Europe.
    "
    Turkey can have Britain's place in the EU.

  • Comment number 31.

    Turkey is up to her old tricks again (a past master)- playing each way.

  • Comment number 32.

    It is a shame that not be given due credit to Brazil by the agreement and calling Turkish Deal. Worse still is the disappointment in the EU and USA who never really wanted to deal. They always prefer war.

  • Comment number 33.

    D wrote: For the sake of world peace give Iran the Nuke! without it, the US and Israel will use the weapons to bully other nation states!

    ------------------------------

    How would giving Iran the Nuke bring world peace? Do we have a problem with Iran and the USA being at war at the moment which can only be fixed by giving them Nuke. Is this what passes for a peace campaigner, someone who thinks that increasing the amount of weapons in the world will equate to less deaths. Maybe that why teenagers on London's streets are dying: there's not enough weapons on the streets.

    And what are these National States you are talking about? The only people trying to bring about new nations through force of arms are the Islamic extremists.

    Finally, Iran itself are claiming they do not intend to build the bomb, so why are you calling for them to do so unless you support the potential uses the west are worried about, mainly the destruction of the Israeli and finishing off Hitlers 'final solution'.

  • Comment number 34.

    22. At 1:14pm on 17 May 2010, MrWonderfulReality wrote:
    I think this is just yet another delaying ploy by Iran.

    Iran plays the same deceitful game as Saddam played.

    -----
    what a ignorance, Iraque was completely destroied and none nuclear weapon was found.. Yes, both Iran an Iraque are abused by USA and Bristish... such a shame.. Remember.. there are human been living there!!!

  • Comment number 35.

    With suspicion

  • Comment number 36.

    Anthony Rat wrote: "Also, stop the double standards with regards to Israel and its atomic weapons, only then will the rest of the Arab world take note.

    ------------

    What double standards are they? If Israel has not signed the NPT then to treat them like they have would be a double standard. What you really mean is that we should have double standards and treat Iran and Israel the same.

  • Comment number 37.

    There's nothing that says any nuclear deal made with Iran has to include the U.S. or any of the other major powers in the UN. Further, there's nothing that can lead anyone to believe that further UN sanctions against Iran will do any good. If Brazil and Turkey can work out a nuclear fuel deal with Iran where others have failed, then God bless them.

  • Comment number 38.

    I believe that this seems a good, transparent agreement under the UN observation and find it very difficult to see this as a secret collaboration between Turkey and Iran.This should be seen as a confidence builder between the West and Iran and that the West should start direct talks with Iran and when this happens this whole region will feel a lot safer.If anything Turkey should be commended for their mediation and not condemned.

  • Comment number 39.

    "This shows that Iran has bent over backwards to reach a compromise but the truth is the West will reject it because they want nothing less than an Iranian surrender. This will not happen. Forget sanctions. Proceed directly to war for this is the only logical outcome of the West's intransigent position."

    No, they've just outsourced part of the work. If Iran was really bending over backwards it would have accepted Russia's proposal that was the same as Turkey's proposal except that it would require Iran to stop enriching themselves. All the West sees now is a financial deal: Iran gets to speed up its enrichment by outsourcing some of it to Turkey and Turkey makes a lot of money on it, both nations also get political credits from those who are too stupid to read the fine print. I really find it strange that people aren't getting the fact that this treaty only has advantages for Iran, no drawbacks or concessions.

  • Comment number 40.

    I think the deal is a very workable and practical solution to the Iranian nuclear problem, although the Iranians have been fanatical in nature due to their religion their willingness to come forward for the deal is commendable, however it will be naive to assume that the powerful Israel lobby will sit quietly and watch the dealing go by.

    They will rest in peace only when the Iranians have surrendered themselves to the will of the west especially Israel and America.


  • Comment number 41.

    The dictators in Teheran will never stop their drive for nuclear weapons, and this is just another in their constant delaying tactics. They have supposedly agreed multiple times to ship their uranium abroad, only to renege on the deal. They stole the election last year, have instituted horrendous repression on the opposition, and just last week executed five men, one of whom had a trial that lasted a WHOLE SEVEN MINUTES!

    I only hope the Green movement keeps up their efforts to take their country back from the religious nutjobs who are destroying Iran.

  • Comment number 42.

    With so many people apparently unable to understand a simple treaty like this (which is all form, no substance) it's no wonder so many people put up with governments like that of Iran. I guess this doesn't bode well for the future for humanity...

  • Comment number 43.

    What ludicrous comments are made regarding the mediation of Turkey and Brazil. Turkey is merely a convenient port of call for the exchanges and has no other aspirations.Also most Turkish people do not want to join the euro club, especially as the eurozone implodes.
    As for Brazil, I can only recommmend exclusion from the World Cup as a punishment for intervening on behalf of the UN.
    As for sanctions, only the poor in Iran are being punished, the fanatics are shielded by the system.
    Give peace a chance.

  • Comment number 44.

    "Turkey is up to her old tricks again (a past master)- playing each way."

    What, you mean making money instead of throwing it away? Who's example would you rather they followed then? Greece?

  • Comment number 45.

    How should the West react?

    They should FINALLY treat this as a NUCLEAR THREAT.
    That is EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

    But of course, the US will just try to explain it away as nothing.
    No problem. Let every nation have nukes. ALL of them have
    nothing but the best of intentions, right?

    And when Iran's A'jahd continuously repeats his nation's desire
    to "WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP", we should just ignore that as
    "friendly gibberish" or something equally innocuous.

    Sure. That's the EASIEST thing to believe,
    so that's what Obama will think.

  • Comment number 46.

    Iran is still keeping enough enriched nuclear material to make at least one very good nuclear weapon. That is all Iran really needs to scare their sacred enemy Israel. I think the Iranian government is just playing a game with the world at large. They agreed to one thing and then said the want to keep 20 percent of their nuclear stockpile to enrich to nuclear weapon's grade to help out cancer victims. I am more than sure any civilized country would rather give the Iranian government the needed material, and equipment to help those who suffer from cancer and need radiation treatments then have them make a bomb. This is another example of Iran's continued play on words using double speak in order to prevail in what they really want to achieve.

  • Comment number 47.

    "34. At 1:53pm on 17 May 2010, Sandro from Brazil wrote:
    I think this is just yet another delaying ploy by Iran.

    Iran plays the same deceitful game as Saddam played.

    -----
    what a ignorance, Iraque was completely destroied and none nuclear weapon was found.. Yes, both Iran an Iraque are abused by USA and Bristish... such a shame.. Remember.. there are human been living there!!!"

    That's not what he meant at all: Iraq did not have any nukes (though they did have chemical weapons), but they intentionally gave the world the impression that they were working on nukes or already had them. Saddam Hussein himself confessed this to the FBI when they interrogated him, he said he did not want Iran to know how weak Iraq had become, so he obstructed cooperation with the IAEA to make it look like Iraq had something to hide, but his plan backfired on him.

  • Comment number 48.

    "At 1:23pm on 17 May 2010, David Traynier wrote:"

    A lengthy ridiculous diatribe about how the west is so evil.
    It is AMAZING how this person tallies up so many imagined slights form the west, but completely ignores all aggression from Middle Eastern Arab terrorist states.

    It must be so comfortable in your little dreamworld.
    Wish I could leave reality and live there with you.

  • Comment number 49.

    Taking it on face value ,it is a good development. However,Amejinedad is known for his undiplomatic,unpredictable behaviour. It is difficult to believe that he has suddenly become a moderate,seasoned statesman. Many persons, who are otherwise admirers of Irani civlisation(including this writer), would keep their fingers crossed till they find some reliable evidence to substantiate what has been said by Irani foreign minister.
    Turkey and Brazil should come clean on this.
    I am sure diplomats are already busy to probe the matter further before taking a firm stand. Iran can also take necessary measures to convince the world community in its long term interest.

  • Comment number 50.

    It seems as though history is bound to repeate itself...the reaction of the prime minister of Turkey's soon to be Theocracy resime, quoted: "diplomacy has just saved the world" resembles Neville Chamberlain's optimistic view following his agreement with Hitler, quoted: "prevented war in our generation" .
    Yes, I am for peace, much like the majority of the western world but with Iran's credentials in the past decade (massive civilian killings, country led by religion, and massive arms buildup not to mention the support of terrorist organizations in the middle east) we are crazy to think they are sincere and not merely playing us as fools.
    As for Lula - stop searching for global political gain, your work is cut our for you at home.

  • Comment number 51.

    James mentioned that Turkey should be thrown out of the EU, just to point out that Turkey is not part of the EU. The west should react positively as they are Nuclear countries themselves and have allowed India, Pakistan and Israel to have nukes with open arms. Its ironic that the country to have the highest stockpile of Nukes, and to have used Nukes twice on a sovreign country is the one who is paranoid.

  • Comment number 52.

    I don't think medical research reactor is more important than serving the greater cause of humanity.

    What! Iran an economic power? I don't think anyone will agree.

    Fuel/Gas powered electric plants are more safer than nuclear one's. Also there are other issues that can promote friendship among nations, we know it from the speeches delivered in Ahmedinejad's recent visit in the US. Accusing US being nuclear power.

    When you accuse someone in your terms, you probably overwieghed yourself not giving damn about the rights and responsibilities as a leader.

    Ahmedinejad is hostile to peace. If Iranians finds tranquility in him, I would say, "A Nation in Crisis."

  • Comment number 53.

    To those who say that the US should simply negotiate with Iran, please remember the 1979 hostage crisis. Iranian militants, including several people closely tied to the current regime, stormed the US embassy and held American diplomats hostage for more than a year. The regime continues to celebrate that brazen international crime each year. It's hard to negotiate with a country that takes your diplomats hostage.

    I am cautiously optimistic about the Brazil-Turkey deal with Iran. I hope, however, that Brazil and Turkey do not attempt to prop up the illigitimate Ahmadinejad regime in light of last year's stolen election and the ongoing persecution of the political opposition. The Iranian people have the right to live in peace and engage in political self-determination.

  • Comment number 54.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 55.

    You also criticized Turkey when we rejected to send troops to Iraq War. Who was right in the end? There were no WMDs in Iraq. Your soldiers were sent there unnecessarily. Now we are trying to avoid another war. This is not a "Turkey-Iran alliance" or something like that. Do you want another nightmare worse than Iraq War?
    And for the EU. We have waited 40 years and your answer was always no. So why do you still complain about this?

  • Comment number 56.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 57.

    This is a good deal on the surface. Nuclear proliferation is indeed a troublesome threat to world peace. Just as troublesome however is the hypocrisy of nuclear states that seek to contain the spread of nuclear weapons whilst defending their own stockpiles.

    I liken the burgeoning Mid East Cold War to that of the USA-Soviet Cold War. Imagine the reaction from Soviets if the 'world' (I use that term loosely because Russia has a UN veto) tried to sanction them for attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Sure, stopping a large, powerful, and paranoid country like the CCCP from getting nukes seems like a good idea, but what assurances did Soviets have that their USA adversary wouldn't use their new found weapon as leverage?

    Nuclear arms will be sought by the likes of Iran (Iraq tried in the 80s, Pakistan got them because of a feud with India who itself got nukes because the nieve Canadian gov't of that time gave them Candu reactor technology) because they want parity with rival nuclear nations, especially Israel. The USA, or any other nuclear-armed country, would have far more leverage with Iran if they applied sanctions to Israel for having pursued a clandestine nuclear arms program with South Africa in the 1960s.

    This whole situation is arising because Israel can largely bomb other Mid East countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc) with impunity. What country wouldn't want insurance against that kind of act? Iran is reacting the same way as the Soviets did in the late 1940s. I may not agree with their style of government, but then again Israel is a democracy and it secretly developed nukes. Why? Regional hegemony.

  • Comment number 58.

    This will turn into another anti-Israel thread by the axis of Muslims and left wingers.

    This deal should be treated cautiously, as Turkey have been becoming more and more Islamist in their view. The Islamist Turkish government has been moving against secularism. I have personal friends in Turkey who're now leaving due to the pressure from the Islamists. They can feel a change in the country and they don't like it.

    So we basically have a rogue terrorist state in Iran, now in a deal with an increasingly Islamist Turkey.

    Can't say I'm thrilled.

  • Comment number 59.

    Looked at the strong business and historic relationship that France still has with Iran, and other nations 'post colonial'. Nothing wrong with that; as good people deal with bad people and vise versa, in the name of trade, since human civilisation began?

    Today, however, there is a more, 'orchestrated' ruse and 'distraction' for public consumption?

    France is a world leader in nuclear technology and nuclear power stations. Tony Blair, while PM., was particularly interested/involved in talks with France to build nuclear power stations in UK because of French expertise and good safety history?

    Most deals are done well before media 'gets it' - and often boils down to 'good cop'/'bad cop' scenario? Nations and governments often spit nails at each other in public - but rarely is that the case behind the scenes?

  • Comment number 60.

    Forget all those stupid media hypes and congrats those guys for the deal which makes the next imperialistic war much more difficult to start...

  • Comment number 61.

    BarryRunningwater wrote:

    This whole situation is arising because Israel can largely bomb other Mid East countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc) with impunity.

    ===

    Oh dear, I think you may have this back to front and upside down.

    It's the hostile Arab entity surrounding Israel that seemed to think they have impunity to attack Israel in 1948, 67, 73, 82. Not to mention the 2006 Lebanese attack and the frequent attacks in between the major wars. Dozens of terrorist incidents before 1948 and pre-1967.

    What selective memories you left wingers have.

  • Comment number 62.

    16. At 12:57pm on 17 May 2010, D wrote:
    Well When you have evangleist churches and synagogues discussing this subject to find justification through a divine entry, just says what they plan to do anyway! with or without the worlds consent! this is about making true some age old script translated a thousand times to show they need oil and land and plenty money to kill the muslims and appease their god!

    Hmmm,lot of hate gone into comment.
    Tell me,are we not at war with radical Muslims who justify there actions by misinterprating the holy book.
    No doubt your an apologist.

    4. At 12:32pm on 17 May 2010, Wil wrote:
    "Like always the Israel supporters would not want that. They want US to attack not negotiate with Iran. Now Iran make the first move will US work with them or will US move the goal post to satisfy Israel.

    Even if US move the goal post due to its super powerful Israel lobby group, I hope EU will negotiate with Iran.

    Peace and not war."

    First move?,the US sat back and let EU3 negotiate with the Iranians for the last five years and all the got was false promises,threats to wipe out another country and an hidden enrichment palnt.
    Tell me why does anybody who wants Iran to comply have to be an Israeli supporter?,you think the Arabs want there neighbour have nuclear weapons?.

    23. At 1:23pm on 17 May 2010, David Traynier wrote:
    "In addition to having militarily surrounded Iran, the US is also sponsors Israel to the tune of several billion dollars per year. While Iran has invaded or attacked nobody in five hundred years, Israel is a rogue state that has attacked several of its neighbours and maintains an illegal occupation now over forty years old. It also threatens Iran, including with provocative military 'exercises' in the Gulf."

    America does give Israel miltary aid but it gives other countries such as Pakistan military aid,so why highlight Israel or dosent Aljazeera,the Guardian or the Independent mention that?.
    Israel has fought it neighbours but if got past Israel hate you would see in most cases Israel is defending itself,i.e 1967,Nasser throwing out the UN and placing the Eygptian troops on the boarder,1973,the Arabs launch an attack on Yom Kippur,the Jewish holy day when it knows Israel is most vunerable.
    Indeed Iran dosent attack anyone,it gets its "poodles" in Lebanon and Iraq to do it bidding.





  • Comment number 63.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 64.

    According to CNN Iran has already announced it will continue to enrich its own uranium - so what does this deal really accomplish?

  • Comment number 65.

    @ Doug NYC Van

    Yes, my post was such a diatribe that you're completely unable to muster a single argument against it.

    Ahmadinejad never said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. What he actually did was quote from a previous speech of Ayatollah Khomenei who said that the Israeli regime would eventually follow the Soviet Union, the apartheid regime in S. Africa, and the Hussein regime in Iraq and 'vanish from the page of time'.

    As the leading regional scholar Juan Cole has said, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

    One final point -capital letters don't make an argument. They just make you look angry and unreasonable.

  • Comment number 66.

    @ DCHeretic

    How about remembering the 1953 CIA and MI6 backed coup (aided by the BBC) against the Iranian Government that deposed their Prime Minister and installed the Shah?

    How about remembering the decades of brutal US-backed repression and the thousands murdered by the SAVAK secret police?

  • Comment number 67.

    58. At 3:00pm on 17 May 2010, SystemF wrote:
    This will turn into another anti-Israel thread by the axis of Muslims and left wingers.

    ---

    Really, on balance I'd say it was just as much an anti islamic/Turkish thread.

    Why else are people bringing up Turkey's pending EU status or trying to infer that this is some kind of dodgy deal between two Islamic nations (whilst convieniently ignoring Roman Catholic Brazil's contribution and the fact that the deal has full UN backing).

    Oh to be able to see the world purely in terms of black & white, right & wrong.

  • Comment number 68.

    The reaction will depend on which side of the coin you are betting on.For an optimistic person, this is a positive development with out involvement of any major power and making Iran more transperent on the N-Fuel issue.

  • Comment number 69.

    In the original deal a few months earlier, the sticking point was that Iran did not believe that the West would give them the rods once they get the low enriched uranium, every sane person would agree with Iran on this. All Iranian demands were related to this one issue, that Iran was required to trust the West.

    Iran had three demands: (1) Simultaneous exchange, (2) Multi-stage exchange, (3) Exchange on Iranian soil.

    All three demands have been met by using Turkey as an escrow, ensuring that the West does not get it's hands on the Iranian uranium till Iran gets the fuel rods, so it is in affect simultaneous. Iran knows that Turkey would not kowtow to Zionist and Western thuggery.

    I also hope that this deal would be a catalyst for the Turks to discover that they are never going to join EU . Their desire to join Europe at the beginning of the Asian century is like living in the past, Europe's loss is Asia's gain. Asia could really use morally upright leaders like Erdogan and Abdullah Gul. As a Pakistani, I would gladly trade Zardari and Gilani for Erdogan's or Lula's shoes.

  • Comment number 70.

    Re: "Turkey's back to its old tricks"




    Like ENOSIS.

    [an outragous attempt by Turkish junta in Athens to make Cyprus a part of Greece. :)))]

  • Comment number 71.

    Mohammed Hossain wrote:

    I don't think medical research reactor is more important than serving the greater cause of humanity.

    What! Iran an economic power? I don't think anyone will agree.

    ************************************************************************

    "Economic Power" is somewhat of a nebulous term. But please do check the CIA website. Iran's per-capita GDP is more than China and 400% that of India. If India is supposedly doing well, what would you say about a nation four times richer? You would need to spin quite a theory why India is a future economic power and Iran isn't.

  • Comment number 72.

    Re " Iran knows that Turkey would not kowtow to Zionist and Western thuggery."





    But we do know that current (Erdogan's) Islamist regime in Ankara will kow-tow to murderous thugs in Tehran.


    So all in all a pretty good deal, wouldn't you say?


    [if you're an Iranian ayatollah, that is. Or a Quds terrorist]

  • Comment number 73.

    Iran has NOT agreed to stop enriching uranium - only to send SOME of their uranium abroad. Just another lie from the dictators in Teheran. And only the leftie loonies believe their lies.

  • Comment number 74.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 75.

    This was a victory for the Brazilian Presidente Lula da Silva.
    Nobody -- including Hillary Clinton and the Russian President -- believed (or hoped) that the Brazilian could pull this off. But he did. He went to Iran and in 2 days extracted from the Iranians what the UN Security Council had been demanding for months. It's a pity that the BBC does not give Lula da Silva more credit for this amazing feat.

  • Comment number 76.

    If, Brazil and Turkey stopped another Middle East war, good for them.
    They should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Price

  • Comment number 77.

    How should the West react to new Iran-Turkey deal?
    With good faith, even apparent relief.
    Iran must be so tired of the endless western "requests". Iran must feel that the west cannot be satisfied. Iran must think there is nothing that it can say or do.
    Yet Iran needs enriched uranium for power, for medical treatments and other bona fide causes; it needs enriched uranium for all the same reasons that other modern, advancied countries need enriched uranium; so, I begin to think that the idea is to keep Iran in the dark ages.
    Iran's foreign ministry says it's ready to ship 1,200kg of low-enriched uranium to Turkey, in return for nuclear fuel for its medical research reactor. A similar idea was proposed last year but Tehran rejected the deal because there was no agreement as to when Tehran would receive the enriched uranium, or the return of its low-enriched uranium.
    Iran is already under three sets of UN sanctions for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment. Why should it halt its uranium enrichment? Where is there any evidence that Iran is building a bomb? The use of the enriched uranium is peaceful. I read about medical research in Iran almost daily - advances being made, discoveries, treatments...
    Mark my words, the United States of America, pressured by Israelis lobbyists will find some reason (however miiniscule & nonsensical) to reject the latest proposal.
    Will this move make any difference to Iran's relationship with the West?
    No, the United States will never change its mind. If Iran was a lady, you could strip her naked and do a full body search, and the US would still declare: but she is hiding "it" somewhere. We know she is!
    Should another round of sanctions be imposed on Iran?
    No, sanctions are not the answer.
    Should world leaders engage in further talks with Tehran?
    Only if these world leaders are prepared - like Turkey and Brazil to be unbiased and helpful.
    Instead of worrying about Tehran and its new deal with Turkey, let's see Israel act in good faith and declare her nuclear stockpile and well as open it to inspection. You'd think that Obama would be most anxious to press Israel on this issue since he wants a world without nuclear weapons.

  • Comment number 78.

    I have read alot of comments here, and, its seems to me that modernjane is one of people who prefer go to war rather than be happy that there is a shift in a countries position for peace. David Traynier Your comment was spot on & took the words right out of my mouth.

  • Comment number 79.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 80.

    While I detest this Ahmedenajad guy, he is a very savy politician very good with words, and the manipulation of people. Right now he is shoving it in Obama's other end. Obama is a naieve fool compared to Ahmedenajad, the French wanted sanctions a year ago but Obama wanted more time, more talk, more dialog, but time was on Ahmedenajad's side and not ours and now that once reasonable nations like (Islamic dominated) Turkey and Brazil take Iran's side, virtually nothing can be done now to stop the Iranian bomb and the regional arms race this will ignite.
    Obama is an Idiot.
    Ahmedenajad a savy tyrant who simultaniusly can play the victim while being the regional aggressor.

  • Comment number 81.

    Iran's decision to send its enriched uranium abroad, particularly to Turkey, a NATO member,may be a turning point in the Iran-West relationsip. Its procurement of nuclear fuel from the United States, Russia and France is a big business for the three developed mercantile countries. This may be the beginning of a thaw in relations between the United States and Iran.That's what it should be. How long should the US remain tied to Israel's apron string to the dissatifaction of Iran, Turkey and other Muslim states.
    Iran's purchase of nuclear fuel from the West will meet its need for its medical research centre in Tehran.This will also give the US an oppourtunity to monitor Iran's so-called nuclear ambitions closely.Another round of sanctions on Iran may not be necessary. Refraining from economic sanctions will give the Iranians the reliefs they need. Nevertheless, Iran should continue to prize its friendship with the Palestians. The new development in its relatios with US should not make it oblivious of its hapless brethren in Palestine.A friend in need is a friend indeed.

  • Comment number 82.

    First, some facts straight: Turkey doesn't have any Uranium enrichment capacity—except maybe some experimental capacity in Istanbul— and has had no desire to do so, and it will merely serve as a mediator in the exchange. It will still go to France or Russia, but Turkey will keep Iran's Uranium until what's promised to the latter (fuel for its medical facility) is delivered.

    So, it's a good thing. Iran won't have weapons grade Uranium, which will satisfy the West (whatever that might be) while Iran will receive the fuel it claims it needs. Turkey (and Brazil), meanwhile, will get more pinky points for defusing a potential conflict and avoiding more instability in its region. Otherwise, why would Turkey support Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons? After all, the two have been regional rivals economically and politically and such an outcome can only tilt the balance in Iran's favor at Turkey's expense.

    Therefore, I am having difficulty understanding some hostile comments made against Turkey here—not to mention those calling for kicking Turkey out of the EU, which do not really attest to any healthy knowledge on current affairs. If a Turkey in peaceful relations with its neighbors, one that tries to promote peace in its region is unwelcome to the EU, than be it.

    It is still early though. Let us see what the U.S. State Department has to say on the issue and if their points will make sense. An outdated example, but we have seen the results of warmongering against Iraq. No WMDs showed up and hundreds of thousands dead later, we are still waiting for normalcy to return back. A bloody-handed tyrant as he was, Saddam had only one life to give, which he deservedly did, but it has not done much good for most of the country if body count is a measure. Even Afghanistan, where U.S. had a much more legitimate reason to attack has turned out to be a quagmire and look at the president "the West" is now forced to support in the country! Karzai is slightly better than Taliban but worse than Iran.

    But well, those who are itching to get their hands on Iran can take comfort in the fact that they have "benign(!)" allies on their sides such as the Saudi Arabs, who would not flinch to see their Shiite enemies destroyed. But don't forget, it is neither logistically nor politically possible to sustain any prolonged presence in the region: it has not been in Iraq and neither will it be in Iran. And when, sooner or later, U.S. troops will withdraw, they will have created a true thriving ground for the worst of the worst. The first US-British orchestrated coup to oust the democratically elected Mosaddeq in 1950s and hand the country over to the brutal regime of the Shah led to the 1979 Revolution and this theocracy in Iran. So for every example of Appeasement you will give, I can give ten examples when military action was taken and made the situation worse. I am concerned of the same in this instance and sincerely hope that this recent agreement will work out.

  • Comment number 83.

    This is weirdly funny - the BBC removed my post !!

    Quote
    Posting:
    I think we have sufficient Nukes to deal with Iran and Turkey ..
    so no problem but .. no way to Turley into the EU now.
    Unquote

    BBC - you didn't think I meant actually to Bomb these places for no reason did you ? they are for use as "deterants" .... am speaking rhetorically ... i.e. we have sufficient in order to act as a deterrent ... you silly people

  • Comment number 84.

    If Iran gets the nuclear fuel the Israelis as a US proxy will bomb the reactor. This is a major concern.

    However, since neither US, Turkey or Iran have a strong record in honesty or truth perhaps there is less to worry about.

  • Comment number 85.

    Firstly, it is so strange that Israel still produce nuclear weapons in spite of no objections to them.There is an issue going on that Iran make nuclear weapons, plants, etc. However, It is open to debate. Since, no one has claimed that they really do this for any reason. Secondly, Turkey try to keep war away from the region. Everyone saw what ended up in Iraq or Afghanistan. After that, if anyone still accuses Turkey or Brasil of the deal between three countries, that means they do not want a peace there. Instead, they wish to see their countries as invaders in there.

  • Comment number 86.

    Many contributors here (SystemF et al) seem to think that this can be framed as a left-wing right-wing argument. How simplistic. What on Earth does a commentary about Iran or Israel have to do with one's political leanings? Could you explain then what exactly left-wing implies? Probably not. What a simplistic one-dimensional view of politics. Try to look at politics, especially geo-politics, in a more pragmatic manner.

    Lastly, Israel was attacked in 1948, etc after it decided it had a right to 'reform' after nearly a 2000 year hiatus without any input from the mostly Arab Muslims and Christians who lived in Palestine. It capitalised on Allied war and holocaust guilt, post WW2. Many, including General George Marshall (architect of the Western Allied war effort in Europe and Pacific), were against its forming, and foretold of nearly all the grievances we are experiencing now.

    Regarding the pre-1948 terrorist incidents you mention, are you referring to those precipitated by the Stern Gang, etc, King David Hotel. Probably not, those were Zionist terrorists who killed British soldiers and Arabs. No, SystemF, you and your ilk are the ones being 'selective' in your view of history. It is precisely because neither side is totally innocent that Iran wants nuclear parity.

    The more Israel bays at the moon about Iran arming with nukes, the more legitimacy it lends to hard-liners in Tehran. The more the USA et al, ignore Israel and its abuses, the more they feed anti-Israel, anti Western fervor. That hatred impacts everyone.

    The reality of Mid East politics is that it is far too complex to effectively sum up in this forum. What may seem selective to you is called summation. If you need to fill in the blanks read a book.

  • Comment number 87.

    This should be taken as a positive development.
    the role of Turkey must be appreciated. Now the US needs to reconsider the issue before taking any "severe steps"

  • Comment number 88.

    DibbySpot:

    Can you please tell me what are your grounds to claim that Turkey has no good record of honesty? Which international treaty has Turkey signed and not carried out? It has a great deal of flaws, but it surely is not any more dishonest than any country in "the West."

  • Comment number 89.

    This "have your say" is wonderful, I love it. Lots of dumb ideas and equal answers ! So the USA is going to trade low level radiation to Iran for high level "stuff" ? But the USA does not want Iran to make a bomb from it! Have I missed something here ? Here are the keys to my car but I don't want my blind friend to drive away! OK, so do it, kill yourself and I could be sued !
    The USA gives Isreal anything they want including an unknown number of atomic bombs and the means to deliver them. Why not give every nation in the world a few atomic bombs ? We would all be equal, RIGHT ?
    Kill everyone and let God sort it out !

  • Comment number 90.

    57. At 2:57pm on 17 May 2010, BarryRunningwater wrote:


    I liken the burgeoning Mid East Cold War to that of the USA-Soviet Cold War. Imagine the reaction from Soviets if the 'world' (I use that term loosely because Russia has a UN veto) tried to sanction them for attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Sure, stopping a large, powerful, and paranoid country like the CCCP from getting nukes seems like a good idea, but what assurances did Soviets have that their USA adversary wouldn't use their new found weapon as leverage? …

    -----
    Answer - if “paranoid” USSR wouldn’t have made it’s own nuke in 1946 to stop “paranoid” USA then Sahara probably wouldn’t be now the biggest desert on the Earth. So who is the biggest paranoic – the one who tested it on Japan and always has been the leader in developing WMD or the CCCP who had no other choice unless to stop them from even thinking about it? Who sold technology to Iran, maybe the ones who enthusiastically gave birth to Al-Caeda during Afghan war? Just a rhytorical question.

  • Comment number 91.

    Anyone with a functioning long term memory should be able to make a connection between the accusations made towards Irak right before its invasion by the USA military and NATO partners and the current accusations made by the USA government and the UN towards Iran. Said people will probably also remember the circus created not long thereafter when every single member of the USA government who had previously stated on camera that Irak had WMDs changed their story when no WMDs were found, with no consequences to them whatsoever. The consequences to the USA are 4,693 lives and to Irak anywhere between 100,000(USA governments estimate) and 1,000,000(no way to confirm) and counting, the governments estimate is only off by a 0 anyhow, not taking into account the chemical and radiation poisonings and disfigurements of the generations to come in areas where DU and DP tipped shells and micro-nukes were used.
    I strongly believe these are the exact same unfounded accusations, better described as brainwashing and propaganda, used to form the worlds opinion so any anti-war voices will be drowned in preparation of the full-on attack on Iran by the USA military and its NATO partners which will shortly follow.
    Highly doubt this comment will get posted.

    P.S.: Substitute the word "invade/invasion" with "spreading democracy" wherever it appears in this post.

  • Comment number 92.

    This has been going on for many years. The Iranians are tactical wizards at delay. Whenever serious sanctions loom, they make a diplomatic offer they know they won't keep, but it defuses sanctions and buys more time for their nuclear weapons program. The Iranians will cultivate fruitless negotiations as long as possible, and will end up reneging on their offer, as they did last year. The wonder is that there are so many naive people who still take the bait.

  • Comment number 93.

    While this proposal will be viewed sceptically, one should not reject this out of hand. The United Nations is trying its level best to keep negotitions moving. Secluding Iran on nuclear issues could be highly dangerous. Till a better proposal is mooted, Turkey's offer should be welcomed. The pros and cons should be looked into.

  • Comment number 94.

    BarryRunningwater wrote:

    This whole situation is arising because Israel can largely bomb other Mid East countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc) with impunity.

    ===

    Oh dear, I think you may have this back to front and upside down.

    It's the hostile Arab entity surrounding Israel that seemed to think they have impunity to attack Israel in 1948, 67, 73, 82. Not to mention the 2006 Lebanese attack and the frequent attacks in between the major wars. Dozens of terrorist incidents before 1948 and pre-1967.

    What selective memories you left wingers have.

    What complete rot. Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. Defying UN resolutions continually, stockpiling nuclear weapons, human rights abuse against it's own citizens...

    Need I go on?

  • Comment number 95.

    If the EU needed any further reason to reject Turkey's application for membership, then they have been very obliging by supplying it. Also, will the EU fudge Turkey's deficit like they did with Greece? Bet they do. Bet we end up paying again....

  • Comment number 96.


    Some refresher history lessons.
    The US congress abdicated from their monetary policy responsibility with the introduction of the Federal Reserve Act. 1913. The US theocracy used Weapons of Mass Delusion, in particular, since 2000. The time Iran starting trading oil in Euros rather than US dollars the US Federal Reserve stopped publishing the M3 money supply. Coincidence?
    The US congress abdicated from their responsibility with the introduction of the National Security Act. 1947. This formed the CIA and the National Security Council. Since this law all the so called police actions for the whatever war the US and British started congress approval was not needed any more. Just scare the hell out of the captured audience and say it is a matter of national security, you will get away with anything.
    Mohammad Mosaddegh was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, 1951. A British oil company wanted Iran’s oil and did not like the price. The British and US organized a coupe de’etat, 1953. The CIA’s first big covert operation. For the rest of Mohammad’s life he had house arrest till 1967-March-05. That oil company now is known as British Petroleum and they are successfully drawing attention to other entertainment nowadays. (Coincidence? Check out who is shorting them)
    The US started the war in Afghanistan in the seventies during the Carter years; just check the statements from Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, to Le Nouvel Observateur, 1998-January.
    (On the question whether in retrospect he has any second thoughts about the US involvement in setting up the Mujahideen, Taliban, and Al Qaeda he responds:
    “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”)
    The CIA set up the SAVAK, whose treatment of their own people has been of questionably quality (torture).
    The Iranians were able to rid themselves of the US imposed torturous regime and the Shah was replaced, 1979.
    The Iran-Contras affair managed to get some airtime. Ronald Reagan changed his mind faster than Disney’s dancing brooms in the Sorcerer’s Apprentice; some perjury, some skeletons in Latin America close to the present oil leak, some commercial break and back to the superbowl, drive the kids in the bankrupt gas-guzzler to bible study, we are working hard and got values.
    Ok Ok Ok I get it this is not working we have to come up with something else, eh, eh, eh.
    Use Saddam to fight the Iranians. A war of 8 years did not work either.
    Now what?
    After some buildings were demolished, Hans Blix and 700 IAEA specialists did not find any Weapons of Mass Destruction, some CIA covers blown. Darn!! So we created the believe in Weapons of Mass Destruction in the captive audience, residing in this town on the hill. Saddam was no use any longer and his job description was changed. Because we are so smart and the best in the world we arranged a job rotation between the Shiites and Sunnis; oops open mouth insert foot.
    The public secret is that the US armed forces are protecting the drug industry in Afghanistan while we are filing our tax return to finance the bankers mentioned on line one above. Destabilizing Iran from the east?

    Some quotes:

    “Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities”. Francois Marie Arout, a.k.a. Voltaire; 1694-1778

    “It is well that the people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be revolution before tomorrow morning”. Henry Ford


    Questions to the wise gentle-ladies and men under this audience:

    1.
    Do I see a pattern here?

    2.
    Who is next?

    3.
    Who are the real thugs here, not based on believe but on facts.

    4.
    Are the next demagogues already circling over the tea parties?

    5.
    When is Israel going to sign the NPT?

    6.
    Oh, when you are at it could you clarify some juicy tidbit:

    David Kelly post mortem to be kept secret for 70 years as doctors accuse Lord Hutton of concealing vital information.

    Vital evidence which could solve the mystery of the death of Government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly will be kept under wraps for up to 70 years.
    In a draconian – and highly unusual – order, Lord Hutton, the peer who chaired the controversial inquiry into the Dr Kelly scandal, has secretly barred the release of all medical records, including the results of the post mortem, and unpublished evidence.

    The move, which will stoke fresh speculation about the true circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death, comes just days before Tony Blair appears before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War.

    7.
    I am sure the popular media will find the next politician in heat.

  • Comment number 97.

    "Medical research reactor" my foot! This is a joke! Doesn't anyone understand what the Iranians will do with this refined uranium and their "medical research" reactor? They'll be pumping out plutonium by the bucketload and putting it straight into long-range missiles aimed at Israel and the rest of us!

    Pass me the spade darling - I'm starting work on the shelter again...

  • Comment number 98.

    This is a good deal for everyone. Russia offered to sell reactor grade uranium (4% U235) to Iran some years back but the offer was refused thus creating anxiety as to Iran's nuclear ambitions. It is still possible to make plutonium Pu239 in reactor rods, removing them after short intervals of neutron bombardment but such a process normally requires reactor shutdown which is easily monitored.
    It is ironic that the UK now has no experts of working age capable of designing a nuclear power station.

  • Comment number 99.

    89. At 5:07pm on 17 May 2010, willis marshall wrote:

    The USA gives Isreal anything they want including an unknown number of atomic bombs and the means to deliver them. Why not give every nation in the world a few atomic bombs ?

    ---
    According to the histories i've read ( though I accept that anything concerning Israel is controversial and liable to be contradicted) it was France who helped Israel devlop a nuclear arsenal, and the US government of the day was absolutely furious about it.

  • Comment number 100.

    3. At 12:20pm on 17 May 2010, James wrote:
    Turkey should be thrown out of the 'EU' immediately - like today!



    This is the end result of what happens if you have no Sats tests to guage the competance of teaching, the end result is growth in numpties.

    If you think Turkey should be thrown out of the EU then why not also throw out Australia or China, DOH!!!!

 

Page 1 of 6

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.