April 8, 2009: Following an Iran policy review by the new Obama administration, the United States announces that it would participate fully in the P5+1 talks with Iran, a departure from the previous administration’s policy requiring Iran to meet UN demands first.
Website:
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran
_____________________________________
Isn't President Trump criticized a lot for agreeing to meet with people before conditions are met?
I am about at the year 2010 at that website, which gives a dense and detailed timeline of interactions between the United States and Iran pertaining to nuclear capability. I definitely don't understand all of the technical language.
This is the first entry at the timeline:
______
November 1967: Iran’s first nuclear reactor, the U.S. supplied five-megawatt Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) goes critical. It operates on uranium enriched to about 93 percent (it is converted to run on 20 percent in 1993,) which the United States also supplies.
_____
These are the next 4 entries:
_____
1970s
February 1970: The Iranian parliament ratifies the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
1974: Shah Reza Pahlavi establishes the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) and announces plans to generate about 23,000 megawatts of energy over 20 years, including the construction of 23 nuclear power plants and the development of a full nuclear fuel cycle.
1979: The Iranian Revolution and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran result in a severing of U.S.-Iranian ties and damages Iran’s relationship with the West. Iranian nuclear projects are halted.
1980s
January 19, 1984: The U.S. Department of State adds Iran to its list of state sponsors of terrorism, effectively imposing sweeping sanctions on Tehran.
______
If I'm not mistaken, the Russian and Syrian governments routinely designate anyone whom they decide to kill in Syria as a "terrorist." I'm mentioning this because the Iranian government is currently an ally of Mr. Assad, and should not be.
Most of the rest of the timeline, up to where I have read, seems to be describing haggling about nuclear weapons and includes almost nothing about the issues of contention between the United States and Iran. The United States doesn't demand that its allies not have nuclear weapons; it doesn't even demand that everyone with whom it has major disagreements not have nuclear weapons. I will leave that type of thinking where it is for the time being.
I have a question from the reading about Iran that I did today.
If the governments of smaller countries where larger countries have a history of large-scale intervention did not feel continuously at a disadvantage on the world stage, would they be so restrictive about human rights within their borders?
Can there be a nuclear nonproliferation/human rights summit?
I'm asking because I'm getting by without having a lot of money. I figure that the money will work out later, in a way that is in accord with my conscience, if the principles guiding my actions now are good.
