Talks over Iran's nuclear program stall

High-level ministerial talks between Iran and the P5+1 world powers over the Persian nation's nuclear activities have ended without a preliminary agreement in which the country would curb its program in a return for an easing of sanctions. France objected that the proposals didn't do enough to limit Iran's program.

Of particular concern is a heavy-water reactor that Iran has been building in Arak and which would produce plutonium.

However, the sides believe they've made enough progress to hold another round and they'll go at it again in ten days, although not at the ministerial level.

Analysts had said that oil prices could plunge if an agreement were to have been reached this weekend, as seemed possible on Friday.


From other sites
Comments (8)
  • User 353732
    , contributor
    Comments (5153) | Send Message
    Appeasing tyrants and terrorists is now the defining trope of Foreign policy in the West.


    Iran will build nuclear plants and develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems despite all talks and agreements. Iran heeds no nation in the West but only China and Russia, neither of whom are troubled by Iran's imperialism and terrorism.
    10 Nov 2013, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1354) | Send Message
    No other country has been under so much pressure just for enrichment. Obama is doing the correct approach of inspect and verify as enrichment is not illegal. There is only one hypocritical country in the MidEast which has not signed the NPT who doesnt want the people under its rule. It wants to ethnic cleanse the natives. And it is currently too powerful to be sanctioned, but things will soon be changing.
    11 Nov 2013, 04:27 AM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (8535) | Send Message


    Iran's supported terrorism. Iran's already attacked "that country" through Hamas & Hezbollah for years. They, and Iran's leadership's call for it's destruction in annual "the world without zionism" conferences. Iran's already skirmished with Saudia Arabia & supported Al Quaeda style folks in Yemen's civil war. It's close allies with Syria that wouldn't ratify even the Saudi-created Arab Initiative for peace with Israel.


    You're afraid to say "Israel" because, you know when you fill it in, your comments sound like the irrational attack on the only Jewish-majority country in the world that they are.


    Iran gained benefits from it's signing the NPT. Israel chose not to sign and not to get benefits. Therefore Iran is obligated to it. Israel is not. This is a simple commitment problem. Plus ALL those Arab countries pressing the US to "do something about Iran" are not worried on Israel's behalf. There's are reasons why France objected, Europe is worried, Asian countries are concerned as N. Korea sees how far it can go. Blaming this on Israel -- and claiming that Jewish majority country is all powerful & controls too much and is the aggressor to those who want it destroyed, is just so early 1900's sounding.


    FYI, Jews are native to the Middle East. Israel is majority Sephardi Middle Eastern Jews, kicked out of Arab countries often without their belongings after some of their family was brutalized or killed. Jews have been part of the Middle East continuously for over 3000 years. A tiny, tiny 2% of the land for a safe place for Jews, is only a problem if you ascribe to the myth that the Middle East is Arab & Persian & Turkish and only they can rule anyone there. Meanwhile, there's a ton of ethnicities in the Middle East & pretending it's mono cultural is insensitive to all those others (Druze, Bahia, Coptics, Kurds, Samaritans, etc, etc.). Before Israel, Jews were the majority in Jersualem, so by your own logic, Jersualem should be run by Israel, but I doubt that fits your picture. Jordan was invented at the same time, & Coptics are the real ancestor rulers in Egypt before Arab conquest (until you go even further back).


    Iranian's themselves are living in a state where their vote didn't count & we all saw what their rulership did to them for protesting. It's a rulership that's sent children to clear minefields with keys to heaven for when they blew up. This isn't a rulership that's safe to have enriching while they keep secrets of it's reactors from even it's ally Russia.
    11 Nov 2013, 05:50 AM Reply Like
  • SoliMoli
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
    What makes everybody else eligible to have them except Iran? Have they ever started a war on another country in the recent history??
    11 Nov 2013, 06:27 AM Reply Like
  • Land of Milk and Honey
    , contributor
    Comments (8535) | Send Message


    1) Yes they've started wars recently.


    They've funded and authorized Hamas & Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. Both H's leaders have stated that outright, such as Nazrallah about it's 2006 Hezbollah attack on Israel. In my prior comment I listed several other skirmishes they've started (Saudi, Yemen).


    In their annual conference, they ramble on about how it's Gd's work to get rid of Israel & return the Middle East to exclusively Muslim rule, & how it's an act of martyrdom. Iranians tend to be more progressive than this gov't & it's views, but the gov't is running the show.


    2) Iran agreed not to have them by signing the NPT, so by their own commitment. And they aren't the only country not able to have them by a long shot.


    (For the NPT they got help with development of nuclear power in exchange for agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons.)


    All the Arab countries decided not to develop them, until Iran started to -- and now they're talking about developing them. It's starting a straight up arms race because of the political Middle East history of "who rules, Iran, Turkey, or Arabs."


    Plus they aren't a democracy or other people-driven country. They are a dictatorship. And that makes it more dangerous and less acceptable... All it takes is some rogue terrorist organization they support, with no world stage accountablity, to get a hold of them.
    11 Nov 2013, 06:37 AM Reply Like
  • coolsun43
    , contributor
    Comments (49) | Send Message
    Natural gas to 4
    10 Nov 2013, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • Anon5311
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
    This bit was funny, "Analysts had said that oil prices could plunge if an agreement were to have been reached this weekend, as seemed possible on Friday". Really? Make up any old BS just to look like they can tell the future.
    10 Nov 2013, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • fourchan
    , contributor
    Comments (82) | Send Message
    they should have talks on tepco's nuke policy. the larger threat to mankind's survival on the planet.
    10 Nov 2013, 10:31 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs