'Historic' Iran nuclear deal reached

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,851
Reaction score
5,124
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32166814

An outline agreement on the future shape of Iran's nuclear programme has been reached after marathon talks with six major powers in Switzerland.

Under the deal, Iran will reduce its uranium enrichment capacity in exchange for phased sanctions relief.

US President Barack Obama said a "historic understanding" had been reached with Iran.

The world powers and Iran now aim to draft a comprehensive nuclear accord by 30 June.

The draft deal was hailed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who said he believed it would "contribute to peace and stability in the region".

"It will respect Iran's needs and rights while providing assurances to the international community that its nuclear activities will remain exclusively peaceful."
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I'm afraid that the Republicans in Congress (and sadly, a few Democrats as well) will do their utmost to scuttle this deal. Or any other deal, for that matter.

Hopefully, the fact that this is not just a US deal, but one which involves our European allies as well may make it harder for Congress to reject it.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Even as President Barack Obama warned Congress not to interfere with a burgeoning nuclear deal with Iran, Republican leaders showed no signs of backing away from legislation that could scuttle the agreement.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/bob-corker-iran-bill-116629.html#ixzz3WCFWIRZk

Also, CNN interviewed Benjamin Netanyahu's spokesman, who pronounced the proposed deal "dangerous" and a "move in the wrong direction."

Stay tuned for the exciting sequel:

Middle East: The return of the neocons
 

c.e.lawson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
1,286
Location
A beach town near Los Angeles
I think before we all jump on the neocons for imminently scuttling the deal, we should probably analyze the key points of the tentative framework and see if it is, indeed, in need of imminent scuttling.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I think before we all jump on the neocons for imminently scuttling the deal, we should probably analyze the key points of the tentative framework and see if it is, indeed, in need of imminent scuttling.
I believe the only deal acceptable to Republicans in Congress (and of course, Israel) is one that involves Iran's complete capitulation on every issue.

That of course is never going to happen. The alternative to trying to work with Iran is either military action, favored by those on the extreme right, or ratcheting up sanctions even tighter, with the idea that will force Iran to eventually cave.

History has shown however, that when you try to break the will of a nation and people by making life as miserable as possible for them, as the Nazis attempted to do during World War II with the blitz of London, all it does is harden the resolve to resist.

If Iran believes that no deal short of total surrender is ever possible, they will surely buckle down and work even harder to produce a nuclear weapon, which they will then see as their only alternative.

And the ratcheting up of sanctions will do nothing in any case if our European allies do not agree to go along with that. And it very much looks like they will not.

True, we should look carefully at what the specifics of the deal are. (Keeping in mind this is not a final deal but only a framework.) But as I said, I don't believe those on the right will accept any deal with Iran no matter what the specifics unless it is a unilateral capitulation on Iran's part. They certainly have not had the time to look at the deal carefully before coming out and blasting it.
 

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
I think before we all jump on the neocons for imminently scuttling the deal, we should probably analyze the key points of the tentative framework and see if it is, indeed, in need of imminent scuttling.

That's crazy talk.

You wanna read it before it's signed?

You'd never make it in congress.
 

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
You wanna read it before proclaiming it dangerous and fatally flawed?

That's crazy talk.

You'd make it just fine in Congress.

I never came down one way or the other.

But CE made a valid point. Just because there's a deal, doesn't mean it's a good one. I want to know more about it and hear both sides before I come to a conclusion.
 

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
I never came down one way or the other.

But CE made a valid point. Just because there's a deal, doesn't mean it's a good one. I want to know more about it and hear both sides before I come to a conclusion.


A reasonable position, but do you honestly think the Republicans in Congress are going to do that?
 

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
A reasonable position, but do you honestly think the Republicans in Congress are going to do that?

Nope.

But that doesn't mean they're automatically wrong. Their opposition could be right for the wrong reasons.
 

c.e.lawson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
1,286
Location
A beach town near Los Angeles
Well, besides the whole "death to America" stuff, and the fact that Iran has been less than forthcoming about their nuclear program for years, in reading a few news articles outlining the key points of this tentative framework (including Vox which explained it in plain speak which I appreciated), I do have a few concerns:

1) Why can Iran keep over 6,000 centrifuges?
2) Why can they continue to use Fordow, the facility so buried and protected by a mountain that it is impermeable to outside attack?

Here's an article from The Atlantic from a few days ago which I thought was fair (meaning not extreme to either side), and it outlined a few reasons to worry about a deal. Unfortunately, a few of these concerns seemed to have panned out in this tentative framework.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...o-worry-about-in-an-iran-nuclear-deal/388970/

And regarding Goldberg's 5th point from above, here is some information from a pretty smart guy (Olli Heinonen) regarding Iran's nuclear breakout time - sounds pretty concerning to me.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-a-fact-sheet

According to media accounts, the proposed nuclear agreement would lower the number of operating centrifuges to around 6,500. In that circumstance, what would Iran's breakout time be?

Using IR-1s with natural uranium as a feed, the breakout time for 6,500 centrifuges would be about nine months. A crucial question will be how much 3.5 percent enriched UF6 will remain in Iran. Yet even if UF6 stocks are reduced from their current 7.5-8 tons to 500 kg, a breakout time of between seven and eight months would still be possible given the program's enrichment capabilities with natural uranium feed. Since these breakout times are less than the goals set by the U.S. administration, it is important to know what parameters Washington used for its estimates.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
This is only the preliminary talks. A more fleshed out agreement will come forth in some time in June or July. So the agreement here means that there are some basic points that have been reached from which they can work on a deal. Which is a major step.

The truth will always be that Iran will get its nuclear weapons. What won't happen is Iran using it on Israel. What the weapons protects them against, if you can call the end result such, is further aggressions from Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia and Sunni-controlled Iraq (see: Saddam Hussein.)

The problem the US is facing is that it knows that Iran is a more ideologically aligned country than Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was the country that let a few Wahabbi-driven terrorists to fly and land planes in the US. Iran isn't so much, with its focus being much more regional. Iran is a relatively moderate country that, if let to be developed and grow, will come to ignore the Ayatollahs. Saudi Arabia, while being let to grow and develop, hasn't been doing so and spent most of its money on missionary work.
 
Last edited:

CrastersBabies

Burninator!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
666
Location
USA
It's funny. We were talking about Stuxnet in my HCI class today. I'm wondering why nobody's bringing that up--unless people really think that the US wasn't involved in damaging Iranian centrifuges via cyber attacks in 2010. Hmmmm.....

In any case, it might demonstrate that the US has contingency plans in place--plans that don't include all-out, full-frontal war. Just food for thought.
 
Last edited:

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
It's funny. We were talking about Stuxnet in my HCI class today. I'm wondering why nobody's bringing that up--unless people really think that the US wasn't involved in damaging Iranian centrifuges via cyber attacks in 2010. Hmmmm.....

In any case, it might demonstrate that the US has contingency plans in place--plans that don't include all-out, full-frontal war. Just food for thought.

I'm so ignorant about that that I didn't know it was public information, lol!

As far as Iran vs Saudi Arabia, that's all heating up more than it has in ages. The new government in Saudi Arabia is much more interested in being a regional power, and most Gulf countries, along with Egypt, welcome that.

Iran pushed the limits with aiding (and abetting!) so many bad Shia regimes so that Saudi Arabia is quite surrounded by their biggest foes. Look at a map* of Saudi with Iran, Syria, Iraq, and now Yemen. Lebanonand Bahrain are debatable. The Saudis state publicly that Russian support for the Syrian regime is a huge problem, and that is part of why these proxy wars are getting so intense, imho.

Oh, Iran will get nukes some day. I like the deal for letting inspectors in, but otherwise that's all just diplomacy.

I don't think the West will have to worry about being the ones bombing Iran's facilities if things go too far. There are folks over there lining up now, I think ;)

eta* https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/28/a8/91/28a891d785842fc570617aa8fa93173d.jpg
 
Last edited:

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,596
Reaction score
3,994
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
History has shown however, that when you try to break the will of a nation and people by making life as miserable as possible for them, as the Nazis attempted to do during World War II with the blitz of London, all it does is harden the resolve to resist.

If Iran believes that no deal short of total surrender is ever possible, they will surely buckle down and work even harder to produce a nuclear weapon, which they will then see as their only alternative.


History has also shown that if Iran reaches nuclear capable status, Israel will bomb the plant into rubble before it can come on-line.

A few days of talks isn't enough to untangle multiple-millennia-worth of historical conflicts that are layered, entwined, and nuanced beyond the comprehension of the political process. (not directed at your comment, rugcat)
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
247
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
It's not really a "deal" but more of a framework for further discussion. Some points have been agreed to, but there are still lots of details to be worked out. I guess the new timetable is the end of June.
Stay tuned.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
It's not really a "deal" but more of a framework for further discussion. Some points have been agreed to, but there are still lots of details to be worked out. I guess the new timetable is the end of June.
Stay tuned.

That's not a new timetable. That was always the goal - a framework by the end of March, a final deal by the end of June.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,851
Reaction score
5,124
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32172301

It was rather sweet to see young Iranian men in bluejeans dancing in the streets.

Iranian hardliners seem to be unhappy with the agreement, but most parties involved seem hopeful to relieved to jubilant.

The Iranian hardliners are joined in their displeasure by Israeli hardliners and US Republicans.
 

c.e.lawson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
1,286
Location
A beach town near Los Angeles
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32172301

It was rather sweet to see young Iranian men in bluejeans dancing in the streets.

Iranian hardliners seem to be unhappy with the agreement, but most parties involved seem hopeful to relieved to jubilant.

The Iranian hardliners are joined in their displeasure by Israeli hardliners and US Republicans.

Apparently, France isn't so keen on it, either.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/france-cautious-iranian-nuclear-deal-30079203

France's foreign minister says his country held out for firmer conditions in the preliminary agreement on Iran's nuclear program, and remains cautious about its success.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
Honestly, I'm not sure what more one could reasonably expect from a deal. It seems pretty solid to me, and fair to both sides, based on what I've read it contains.

As far as the neocons are concerned, I long ago became convinced based on their hysterical objections to making a deal that the only thing that will make them happy is a war against Iran. No thank you.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
But that doesn't mean they're automatically wrong. Their opposition could be right for the wrong reasons.

All that means is they would still be wrong.

Fred Kaplan at Slate says the deal reached is a breakthrough:

If this deal is fully implemented, Iran will be unable to build a nuclear bomb by enriching uranium or by reprocessing plutonium for at least 10 years. Some of the restrictions imposed by this deal would last 15 years. The international inspections of certain aspects of Iran’s nuclear program would stay in place for 25 years.

As for the economic sanctions against Iran, they would be lifted not upon the deal’s signing, as the Iranians initially demanded, but only after the inspectors have verified that Iran has fulfilled all of its commitments in the deal.

The main reason is that it is a profoundly good deal; there has never been a nuclear deal, with any country, that is so comprehensively restrictive. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged the U.S. Congress to demand “a better deal,” but his definition of such a deal—one that bans uranium enrichment, dismantles all its facilities, and insists on a drastic change in Iran’s foreign policy—is unattainable, and, more to the point, he knows it.

Yes, this deal wouldn’t keep Iran from being a menace in Middle East politics, or from repressing its own people. But no arms control deal can aspire to do that. The U.S.-Soviet strategic arms treaties, signed throughout the Cold War, didn’t require the Soviet Union to disavow communism, end its support of Third World insurgencies, or institute Jeffersonian democracy—but the deals were still very useful. They capped, and in the later years reversed, the nuclear arms race; and they provided a forum for diplomacy, a cooling-off of the distrust and hatred, at a time when no other issues could have done so.
I realize no deal is a perfect deal, but it seems it is the hardliners in Iraq, Israel and the United States whom are twitching and bitching the hardest today.

Which makes one wonder if they wanted any deal at all.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
If the hardliners on all sides are against it, that suggests legitimate compromise, IMO.
 

c.e.lawson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
1,286
Location
A beach town near Los Angeles
(Just a quick aside to Nighttimer -- I clicked on your Slate link and got a BIG presumptuous pop up ad from Slate exclaiming "You like us, and we like you!" Um...no I don't, and Slate wouldn't like me if they knew my political perspective.)

Anyway, it's pretty premature of anyone to celebrate here. First of all, it seems the U.S. and Iran aren't as close to an agreement as some might think (including Mr. Obama).
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-talks-recap-20150403-story.html
An outpouring of details from the Obama administration on the preliminary nuclear deal with Iran suggests the U.S. and five partner countries emerged from 18 month of talks with an agreement tilted very much in their favor.

The major powers did surprisingly well in some highly sensitive areas. But a long list of issues remains in dispute and must still be negotiated. On some points, it looks like Iran is likely to come out ahead.

Iranian officials didn’t endorse many of the points detailed in the five-page fact sheet that the White House emailed around the world after the talks concluded Thursday night.

Indeed, Tehran's version of events sounded considerably different.

And here's a bit of more critical analysis, which is what I think we need to have more of before we start dancing in the streets. (note, that is not directed to anyone here - it's re: the mention of some dancing in Iran, upthread) I don't think harsh critiques of this deal should be dismissed out of hand as reflexive neocon scuttling without an attempt to understand some of these concerns.

http://qz.com/372254/obamas-nuclear-deal-with-iran-puts-the-worlds-safety-at-risk/

Once upon a time, the administration insisted that no deal was better than a bad deal. The parameters of the nuclear deal that have emerged look like we are headed toward a seriously flawed one. This will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear weapons state increasingly immune to economic pressure, further supercharge Iranian aggression in the region, fan the flames of sectarian warfare, and possibly even encourage Iran’s Sunni adversaries to develop their own nuke capabilities. Indeed, “game-changing, legacy-setting” it will be.
 
Last edited:

Amadan

Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
8,649
Reaction score
1,623
I really would like to know what critics think a "good" deal would look like.