Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

Search

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Kerry come clean.

Friday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Mitchell asked Kerry about Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who has publicly denounced the four-page framework put out by the White House.

Mitchell asked Kerry about Zarif’s unwillingness to even do a joint announcement with Kerry, saying, “He [Zarif] read a very boilerplate statement and the fact sheet that you and the president released is much more specific. If you couldn’t agree on standing up together and announcing together exactly what you’ve agreed on here, what makes you think in the next three months you’re going to actually come to an agreement?”

Kerry, admitting there are many “specifics,” still not agreed on, said, “Because there’s a great deal of difference for them between what happens now, and where this goes and what can happen when you have a final signature. And there are a lot of things that get worked out that are important to them in that context that don’t get worked out now in terms of limitations. We fully understand that and in fact, we discussed it at great length. There are internal documents that people are working with which are quite specific.”

So lets be truthful here. Not much was accomplished.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,726
Tokens
"The Iranian delegation threatened at the last minute to leave the talks entirely, which persuaded the American delegation to capitulate"

Note that the Iranian President went on TV today to announce they will enrich uranium in Iran. This was 40 minutes after the White House said Iran would have to enrich uranium out of the country.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Amazing the hypocrites who don't believe a word Iran says normally, think they are being entirely truthful when they give their spin on the agreement to their rabid fools at home to save face. :):)Bibi, Iran Hardliners, and insane R's in America on the same side. Thankfully the sane people in the world on the other side.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]Egypt hopes Iran nuclear accord will lead to stability in Middle East[/h] Source: Reuters - Fri, 3 Apr 2015 07:38 PM Author: Reuters

(Adds background)
April 3 (Reuters) - Egypt sees the framework nuclear accord that Iran reached with world powers this week as a first step towards a final deal that will hopefully help bring stability to the Middle East, the state news agency reported on Friday, quoting the foreign ministry.
Egypt, the most populous Arab state, is a close ally of Saudi Arabia, Iran's main regional rival.
The tentative accord, struck on Thursday after eight days of talks in Switzerland, clears the way for a settlement to allay Western fears that Iran could build an atomic bomb, with economic sanctions on Tehran being lifted in return.
Egypt's state news agency quoted foreign ministry spokesman Badr Abdelatty as saying Cairo hopes a final deal will be reached that could contribute to stability in the Middle East and prevent an arms race.
Egypt and other Arab states recently agreed to form a joint military force designed to confront regional security threats as Iran's influence grows in the Middle East. (Reporting by Ahmed Tolba; Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

http://www.trust.org/item/20150403192408-t1csa/
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]The Fruits of Diplomacy With Iran[/h] By WILLIAM J. BURNSAPRIL 2, 2015

WASHINGTON — IN a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran, and its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We can’t wish or bomb away the basic know-how and enrichment capability that Iran has developed. What we can do is sharply constrain it over a long duration, monitor it with unprecedented intrusiveness, and prevent the Iranian leadership from enriching material to weapons grade and building a bomb.
Those are the goals that have animated recent American diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear issue, including during the back-channel talks with Iran that I led in Oman and other quiet venues in 2013. Against a backdrop of 35 years without sustained diplomatic contact, filled with mutual suspicion and grievance, it was hardly surprising that our discussions were difficult, and our Iranian counterparts as tough-minded and skeptical as they were professionally skilled. But our efforts helped set the stage for the interim agreement, or Joint Plan of Action, concluded in November 2013.
Much maligned at the time, the J.P.O.A. has proved its value, freezing and rolling back Iran’s nuclear program for the first time in a decade, applying innovative inspections measures, allowing only modest sanctions relief and keeping substantial pressure on Iran.
The understanding announced in Lausanne, Switzerland, on Thursday is an important step forward. Many crucial details still have to be resolved. But the understanding outlines a solid comprehensive agreement that would increase, for at least a decade, the time it would take Iran to enrich enough weapons-grade material for a single bomb from the current two-to-three-month timeline to at least one year. It would significantly reduce Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium, substantially limit the country’s enrichment capacity and constrain Iranian research and development on more advanced centrifuges. And it would cut off Iran’s other possible pathways to a bomb, including by effectively eliminating Iran’s potential capacity to produce weapons-grade plutonium at its planned Arak reactor and banning enrichment at the underground Fordow facility for at least 15 years.
In addition to these significant limitations, we would create an inspection regime unparalleled in intensity, going well beyond current international standards and ensuring that any breakout effort would be quickly detected. Only a negotiated deal gets us the verification and monitoring we need to close off any covert path to a weapon.

Through carefully phased sanctions relief with built-in procedures to reimpose sanctions immediately in case of Iranian noncompliance, we would also preserve ample enforcement leverage. With more eyes on less material in fewer places, and clarity about the harsh costs of cheating, we would be well positioned to deter and prevent Iranian breakout.
As consequential as this understanding is, much more remains to be done. Three challenges loom largest.
The first is the most obvious and immediate: the difficult, painstaking work of negotiating the details of a comprehensive agreement. Rigorous execution of such an agreement will be a critical priority for this administration and its successor, and that will depend on the quality of its verification and enforcement provisions. There is no reason to rush this effort, especially given the continued freeze on Iran’s program under the J.P.O.A. What’s crucial is to get it right.


The second and third challenges are more long-term, but equally important. Completing this comprehensive nuclear accord with Iran must be one part of a cleareyed strategy for a Middle East in deep disarray. I do not assume that progress on the nuclear issue will lead anytime soon to relaxation of tensions with Tehran on other regional problems, or to normalization of United States-Iranian relations. Nor do I assume that the Iranian leadership will make an overnight transformation from a revolutionary, regionally disruptive force to a more “normal” role as another ambitious regional power.
That means we must work to reassure our partners in the region, whose concerns about both Iranian threats and the impact of a nuclear deal are palpable. We should urgently pursue new forms of security assurances and cooperation. Taking a firm stance against threatening Iranian actions in the region, from Syria to Yemen, not only shores up anxious longtime friends. It also is the best way to produce Iranian restraint, much as a firm stance on sanctions helped persuade Iran to reassess its nuclear strategy.
Similarly, it’s important to embed a comprehensive Iranian nuclear agreement in a wider effort to strengthen the global nuclear order. New inspection and monitoring measures applied through an Iran agreement may create useful future benchmarks. The Iranian problem has exposed significant vulnerabilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, especially the absence of a clear divide between civilian and military programs. The Iran case makes clear that the gray zone in the treaty between the right to use nuclear energy and the prohibition against manufacturing nuclear weapons is too wide. As nuclear technology and know-how become more diffuse and states turn to nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, building a sturdy firewall between military and peaceful activities will be an increasingly important task.
None of this will be easy. But the prospect of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran in the next few months, if executed rigorously and embedded in wider strategies for regional order and global nuclear order, can be a significant turning point. It can also be a much-needed demonstration of the enduring value of diplomacy.

The history of the Iranian nuclear issue is littered with missed opportunities. It is a history in which fixation on the perfect crowded out the good, and in whose rearview mirror we can see deals that look a lot better now than they seemed then. With all its inevitable imperfections, we can’t afford to miss this one.
William J. Burns, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was deputy secretary of state from 2011 to 2014 and continues to advise the government on the Iran talks.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]This is why Zarif must spin at home, to try and satisfy the insane hardliners. Their words are irrelevant, as are the stupid Death to America Chants. They are the same kind of nuts there, that here say Obama is a Muslim, Kenyan, etc.. The only things that count are what's agreed to on paper, and the other parties seem to agree with what Obama has laid out in the fact sheets.

Iran’s Leaders Begin Tricky Task of Selling Nuclear Deal at Home[/h] By THOMAS ERDBRINKAPRIL 3, 2015

TEHRAN — As word made its way around the globe that an understanding had been reached with the United States and other powers to limit Iran’s nuclear program, Iranians themselves greeted the news with optimism and skepticism on Friday.
While the political climate remained uncertain, the government was allowed to promote the deal at Friday Prayer, a sign that the plan was broadly supported by Iran’s establishment.
In a nationally televised speech on Friday, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, praised the deal as a development that “benefits everybody.”
Answering some Western critics who question Tehran’s credibility, he pledged that his country would keep its end of the bargain. “Any promise that we made and any promise that we will make, we will stand by it,” he said. “We are not men of deception and hypocrisy.”
Wading into an area that his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, conspicuously avoided in the negotiations this week in Switzerland, Mr. Rouhani portrayed the nuclear deal as an Iranian opening to the world.

“It is not true to say that when the nuclear issue is over we will have nothing to do with the world,” he said, calling it a first step toward “constructive interaction with the world.”
Some predicted that hard-liners, who mostly kept quiet during the negotiations, would now mobilize for a fight. But business leaders, in particular, were elated at the prospect that a deal could soon mean the lifting of long years of economic sanctions.
“I jumped up and down of happiness,” Rouzbeh Pirouz said by telephone. An Oxford-educated investment fund manager, Mr. Pirouz, 43, received the news just after landing on the Mediterranean island of Majorca.
“People in the terminal must have thought I was crazy,” he added.
As details of the framework agreement were sifted here, however, the outlines of the deal was immediately criticized for what hard-liners called overly deep concessions by Iran.

“We should say in a word that we gave a saddled horse and received a torn bridle,” the semiofficial news agency Fars quoted Hossein Shariatmadari, a vocal hard-liner who is editor in chief of the state newspaper Kayhan, as saying on Friday.

After finding out that Iran would be allowed to have only about 5,000 centrifuges, according to a fact sheet released by the State Department, Alireza Mataji, a 26-year-old student who has been allowed to organize events critical of the negotiations, posted on Twitter: “We will have just enough centrifuges left to make carrot juice.”

There was no reaction from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who in recent weeks has emphasized that all Iranians should support the negotiations. But now that a framework has been reached, analysts said that he would allow those criticizing a deal — he might do so himself — to voice their opposition.
“We can expect him to listen to all sides,” said Saeed Laylaz, an economist close to the government of President Rouhani. “That means that we might even see hard-liners gaining more power in the coming months; on the other hand, it also might be different. We have to wait and see how this will play out.
“No matter how we try to sugarcoat it,” Mr. Laylaz added, “this means we no longer will have an industrial-scale enrichment program. This is the price we have to pay for earlier mistakes.”

Others also expressed disappointment about the terms for Iran and noted that the deal itself would do little to change the underlying differences with the United States.
“According to the U.S. interpretation, significant concessions have been made, and sanctions will not be removed in the way many here were expecting,” said Mohammad Marandi, a professor of North American studies at Tehran University.
Mr. Marandi, who has been critical of the United States government, pointed at the rise of Saudi- and Turkish-backed extremism in the Middle East and emphasized that under current circumstances there could be no normal relationship with Washington.
“What we really want to see from the Americans is an end to their support of countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey who support extremist groups,” he said. “Make no mistake, the Middle East may soon explode, and we need a clear signal from the Americans to see where they stand.”
At the important Friday Prayer session in Tehran, a bastion of hard-liners, there were the usual chants of “death to America,” but efforts were also made to push the nuclear negotiations to a wider audience.

Mr. Rouhani’s first adviser took the stage to give the pre-sermon speech and lauded the agreements made in Lausanne, Switzerland, as good achievements.
“Those who never wanted us to have the right to enrichment now agree we have that right,” said the adviser, Mohammad Nahavandian. “Those who opposed us having the full fuel cycle now no longer oppose. Instead of sanctions, they now speak of cooperation. We have not retreated. Those opposing this deal are enemies, in line with the Zionists.”
Worshipers basking in the spring sun were also optimistic.
“If it is in our national interest to make an understanding with the West, we should do it,” said Mohsen Abdollahi, a cleric in a white turban on his way to the V.I.P. section of the prayer hall at Tehran University. “We can even stop shouting ‘death to America’ if it is needed.” (Funny Line, showing how meaningless those chants really are: TG)

Still, most in Tehran seem first and foremost to be hoping for a revival of the economy once the sanctions are lifted. Being able again to sell oil to the European Union and to have restrictions on sales to Asia lifted by the United States could bring in much-needed cash for Mr. Rouhani’s government, Mr. Laylaz said.
Iranians appear also to be hoping for the strengthening of their currency, which has plummeted since sanctions, including those blocking bank transactions, were intensified. There is also the prospect of around $100 billion in frozen funds returning to the country.
“Still, I hope the government will be responsible and not start to inject all this cash into the economy, as inflation will skyrocket,” Mr. Laylaz said. He added that many of Iran’s economic problems were caused by mismanagement and corruption, not by sanctions.
Mr. Pirouz, the fund manager, had long ago bet on Iran to open up. It seemed, he said, that the moment was now very near.
His inbox was overflowing with messages of congratulations from well-known international funds that over the past year had shown interest in investing in Iran, he said.
“There now is the potential of lots of foreign investment coming into the country,” said Mr. Pirouz, whose company, Turquoise Partners, is helping investors find their way into the Tehran Stock Exchange. “These are very exciting times.”
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]The Real Achievement of the Iran Nuclear Deal[/h] [h=5]By Peter Beinart[/h]
Right now, a thousand pundits and politicians are debating the details of Thursday’s framework nuclear deal with Iran. That’s fine. I think the details are far, far better than the alternative—which was a collapse of the diplomatic process, a collapse of international sanctions as Russia and China went back to business as usual with Tehran, and a collapse of the world’s ability to send inspectors into Iran. But ultimately, the details aren’t what matters. What matters is the potential end of America’s 36-year-long cold war with Iran.
For the United States, ending that cold war could bring three enormous benefits. First, it could reduce American dependence on Saudi Arabia. Before the fall of the shah in 1979, the United States had good relations with both Tehran and Riyadh, which meant America wasn’t overly reliant on either. Since the Islamic Revolution, however, Saudi Arabia has been America’s primary oil-producing ally in the Persian Gulf. After 9/11, when 19 hijackers—15 of them Saudis—destroyed the Twin Towers, many Americans realized the perils of so great a dependence on a country that was exporting so much pathology. One of the unstated goals of the Iraq War was to give the United States a large, stable, oil-producing ally as a hedge against the uncertain future of the House of Saud.

What George W. Bush failed to achieve militarily, Barack Obama may now be achieving diplomatically. In recent weeks, American hawks have cited Saudi anxiety about a potential Iran deal as reason to be wary of one. But a big part of the reason the Saudis are worried is because they know that as U.S.-Iranian relations improve, their influence over the United States will diminish. That doesn’t mean the U.S.-Saudi alliance will disintegrate. Even if it frays somewhat, the United States still needs Saudi oil and Saudi Arabia still needs American protection. But the United States may soon have a better relationship with both Tehran and Riyadh than either has with the other, which was exactly what Richard Nixon orchestrated in the three-way dynamic between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing in the 1970s. And today, as then, that increases America’s leverage over both countries.


Over the long term, Iran may also prove a more reliable U.S. ally than Saudi Arabia. Iranians are better educated and more pro-American than their neighbors across the Persian Gulf, and unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran has some history of democracy. One of the biggest problems with America’s Mideast policy in recent years has been that, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to Egypt, the governments the United States supports preside over populations that hate the U.S. Thursday’s nuclear deal, by contrast, may pave the way for a positive relationship with the Iranian state that is actually undergirded by a positive relationship with the Iranian people.

Which brings us to the second benefit of ending America’s cold war with Iran: It could empower the Iranian people vis-à-vis their repressive state. American hawks, addled by the mythology they have created around Ronald Reagan, seem to think that the more hostile America’s relationship with Iran’s regime becomes, the better the United States can promote Iranian democracy. But the truth is closer to the reverse. The best thing Reagan ever did for the people of Eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R. was to embrace Mikhail Gorbachev. In 1987, American hawks bitterly attacked Reagan for signing the INF agreement, the most sweeping arms-reduction treaty of the Cold War. But the tougher it became for Soviet hardliners to portray the United States as menacing, the tougher it became for them to justify their repression at home. And the easier it became for Gorbachev to pursue the policies of glasnost and perestroika that ultimately led to the liberation of Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the U.S.S.R.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, like Gorbachev, wants to end his country’s cold war with the United States because it is destroying his country’s economy. And like Gorbachev, he is battling elites who depend on that cold war for their political power and economic privilege. As Columbia University Iran expert Gary Sick recently noted, Iran’s hardline Revolutionary Guards “thrive on hostile relations with the U.S., and benefit hugely from sanctions, which allow them to control smuggling.” But “if the sanctions are lifted, foreign companies come back in, [and] the natural entrepreneurialism of Iranians is unleashed.” Thus “if you want regime change in Iran, meaning changing the way the regime operates, this kind of agreement is the best way to achieve that goal.”
The best evidence of Sick’s thesis is the euphoric way ordinary Iranians have reacted to Thursday’s agreement. They’re not cheering because they want Iran to have 6,000 centrifuges instead of 20,000. They’re cheering because they know that opening Iran to the world empowers them, both economically and politically, at their oppressors’ expense.
Finally, ending the cold war with Iran may make it easier to end the civil wars plaguing the Middle East. Cold wars are rarely “cold” in the sense that no one gets killed. They are usually proxy wars in which powerful countries get local clients to do the killing for them. America’s cold war with the U.S.S.R. ravaged countries like Angola and El Salvador. And today, America’s cold war with Iran is ravaging Syria and Yemen.
When America’s relationship with the Soviet Union thawed, civil wars across the world petered out because local combatants found their superpower patrons unwilling to send arms and write checks. The dynamic in the Middle East is different because today’s cold war isn’t only between Iran and the United States, it’s also between Iran and Sunni Arab powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, neither of which seems particularly interested in winding down the civil wars in Syria and Yemen. Still, a different relationship between the United States and Iran offers a glimmer of hope. In Syria, for instance, one reason Iran has staunchly backed Bashar al-Assad is because it fears the fierce hostility of his successors. The United States cannot entirely alleviate that fear, since some of the groups battling Assad—ISIS, most obviously—are fiercely hostile to Iran and to Shiites in general. But if Iran’s leaders knew that at least the United States would try to ensure that a post-Assad government maintained good relations with Tehran, they might be somewhat more open to negotiating a transfer of power in Syria.
Clearly, the United States should push for the best nuclear deal with Iran that it possibly can. But it’s now obvious, almost three decades after Reagan signed the INF deal with Gorbachev, that it’s not the technical details that mattered. What mattered was the end of a cold war that had cemented Soviet tyranny and ravaged large chunks of the world. Barack Obama has now begun the process of ending America’s smaller, but still terrible, cold war with Iran. In so doing, he has improved America’s strategic position, brightened the prospects for Iranian freedom and Middle Eastern peace, and brought himself closer to being the kind of transformational, Reaganesque president he always hoped to be.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/global/a...-achievement-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/389628/
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
I challenge anyone to watch Peter Beinart for 5 minutes on TV without putting your foot through it.

William Burns is the male version of Jen Psaki.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Warmongers aren't happy about Iran nuke deal, the rest of us should be | Editorial

Iran-nuke-kerry-brianSnyder-AFP.jpg
Years of crippling sanctions, President Obama believes, allowed the U.S. and the rest of the UN Security Council to make a "robust and verifiable deal" that will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. (Brian Snyder/AFP)

Star-Ledger Editorial Board By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
on April 03, 2015 at 4:00 PM, updated April 03, 2015 at 4:51 PM

Depending on which tribal colors you wear, the Iran nuclear deal is either the linchpin moment in geopolitical history, or a reenactment of Neville Chamberlain's placation oration at the Heston Aerodrome.
Neither is likely to be the case. But if the described proposal holds, Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons will be neutered for a decade, and even though its theocratic lunatics will still foment wars from Syria to Gaza to Yemen, this is the best chance the world has to keep the region's dominant state under tight control.

A nuclear Iran was not an option, and the Obama Administration has succeeded in outlining a comprehensive framework to defang the problem. Yet early criticisms of the plan seem to be rooted in a stubborn ignorance over the level of enriched uranium that is required to build a nuclear weapon.

Because while the deal may not be perfect, it is sweeping in its scope:
Iran agrees not to enrich uranium above 3.7 percent for the next 15 years (it must be 90 percent to be considered weapons-grade), and it surrenders 97 percent of its enriched uranium stockpile. It reduces its 19,000 centrifuges to 6,000, using only those built back in the 1970s. The Arak reactor - the one Israel always regarded as its main threat -- gets broken down and refitted so that it cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. And the underground Fordow facility, which bombs cannot reach, is out of the uranium enrichment business - forever.
The likely outcome: Every nuclear card Iraq can play is voided for at least a decade, and all of it is verifiable by inspectors who will not only monitor facilities, mining, and processing, but also track the move of every scientist and engineer in the country.
Yes, honest skeptics will oppose this. But the loudest protests will be heard from jingoistic war-mongers who favor military strikes and regime change, as Iraq War champion John Bolton did last week in the New York Times, where he spouted propaganda that sounded more like Göring at Nuremberg.

Consider that ludicrous alternative. The Iran Project -- a bipartisan group of statesmen, academics, economists, and military - already did that for us: A sustained strike will set back Iran's nuclear program by only four years; and if regime change was sought, the necessary occupation "would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined."
It would also destroy the global solidarity that took years to develop against Iran, expose the U.S. and Israel to direct retaliation, further destabilize the region, cause a spike in oil prices, cost the U.S. economy more than $1 trillion, and, in the end, "increase the likelihood of Iran becoming a nuclear state."

That is the only alternative espoused by the Endless War cheerleaders in Congress, who would reflexively disagree with this president if he called for a national campaign to condemn puppy torture.

But a nuclear Iran can be averted. It can soon be in the purview of regulators, though we also wait to learn whether our elected officials sabotage the deal. If that is their aim, it must be based on substance and the earnest desire to improve the agreement, not on phony outrage scripted by AIPAC. Because on matters of war and peace, the purveyors of politics should not be rewarded for their relentless cynicism.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
toddler-ride-on-trucks.jpg
proxy.jpg
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]Iran Deal: A Game-Changer For The Middle East – OpEd[/h] April 3, 2015 FPIF Leave a comment
By FPIF

By Phyllis Bennis*
Negotiators in Lausanne, Switzerland won a huge victory for diplomacy over war.
The hard-fought first-stage negotiations resulted in the outlines of an agreement that will significantly limit Iran’s nuclear program in return for significant relief from crippling economic sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations.
Both sides made major concessions, though it appears Iran’s are far greater.

Tehran accepted that U.S. and EU sanctions will not be lifted until after the UN’s watchdog agency verifies that Iran has fully implemented its new nuclear obligations — which could be years down the line. It agreed to severe cuts in its nuclear infrastructure, including the reduction of its current 19,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium to just over 6,000.
Tehran also consented to rebuild its heavy water reactor at Arak so that it will have no reprocessing capacity and thus cannot produce plutonium. Its spent fuel will be exported. The Fordow nuclear plant, moreover, will be turned into a technology research center without fissile material. And crucially, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency will be allowed to conduct unannounced inspections.
In return, the United States and its partners — the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China — agreed that the UN resolution imposing international sanctions on Iran would be replaced by a new resolution that would end those sanctions but maintain some restrictions.
The framework didn’t specify whether the new resolution would be enforceable by military force, but it did reject an earlier demand by the United States and some of the Europeans for a “snap-back” trigger that would automatically re-impose sanctions if they claimed Iran wasn’t keeping its part of the bargain. Without that, a new Security Council decision — one subject to potential vetoes by at least Russia or China — will have to be voted on.
Additionally, while it didn’t explicitly reaffirm Iran’s explicit rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue “nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination,” the agreement did acknowledge Iran’s “peaceful nuclear program” and sought to limit, not to end, Iran’s enrichment capacity.
Most importantly for skeptics of the talks, there’s no question that the broad parameters announced in Lausanne would qualitatively prevent any future Iranian decision — which all U.S. intelligence agencies still agree Iran hasn’t ever made — to try to build a nuclear bomb.
The restrictions impose a year-long “break-out” period, meaning it would take at least that long for Iran to even theoretically enrich enough uranium to build a bomb. And, as my colleague Stephen Myles at Win Without War reminds us, “The Iranians would still have to, ya know, build a bomb, figure out a way to hide it all from the inspectors all over their country, and convince the international community to sit idly by without responding while they broke the terms of a deal for one whole year.”
[h=2]Reshaping the Middle East[/h] Hardliners in both the United States and Iran opposed the agreement, but so far it appears that the pro-war faction in the U.S. Congress (mainly though not only Republicans) poses a far greater threat to the survival of the accord than the hawkish factions in Iran — especially since Ayatollah Ali Khameini, Iran’s Supreme Leader, has continued to support the nuclear negotiators.

For some of the U.S. opponents, the issue is purely partisan. They want President Obama to fail, and they’ll oppose anything he supports.
For many others, military intervention and regime change remain the first choice towards Iran — Senator John McCain already urged Israel to “go rogue” and attack Iran. Republicans in the Senate, following their 47-strong letter to Iran threatening to undermine any agreement signed by Obama, continue to lead efforts to impose new sanctions and to demand a congressional vote to accept or reject the agreement.
But the global potential for this agreement is far more important than the partisan posturing of right-wing militarists and neoconservative ideologues. If it holds — and if the final agreement, with all its technical annexes, can be completed as scheduled in three months — Lausanne can set the stage for an entirely new set of diplomatic relationships and alliances in the Middle East.

Indeed, the region could be significantly transformed by an end to the decades of U.S.-Iran hostility. With Washington and Tehran maintaining normal if not chummy diplomatic relations, joint efforts to end the fighting in Iraq, stop the catastrophic escalation underway in Yemen, and create a real international diplomatic campaign to end the Syrian civil war all become possible. A U.S. diplomatic posture that recognizes Iran as a major regional power would make a whole set of current challenges much easier to resolve.
[h=2]Defending Progress[/h] Regardless of whether that kind of grand bargain in the Middle East becomes possible, the current diplomatic initiative must be defended.
Efforts to undermine the Lausanne agreement are already underway.
Senate Republicans are hoping to win over enough Democrats to override Obama’s certain veto of a bill that would let Congress vote to reject the agreement. Fortunately, Democratic opposition to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s blatant campaign to undermine the Iran negotiations has made that Republican effort more difficult. Defense of President Obama’s diplomacy by the Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus of Congress has pulled more Democrats away from the anti-negotiations, pro-war position.

But at the end of the day it will be public opinion that matters. A Washington Post poll in the last days before the agreement found 59-percent support for a negotiated settlement — with 70 percent of liberals, two-thirds of Democrats, and at least 60 percent of independents and self-described “moderates” all supporting a deal. Even Republicans — divided more or less evenly — are far more supportive than their party’s war-boostering representatives in Congress.
What’s required now is mobilizing that public support. That means strengthening the backbone of uncertain or wavering members of Congress, challenging extremist anti-diplomacy positions in the media, and most of all reminding everyone of the consequences of failure.
In Lausanne we saw a crucial victory of diplomacy over war. Now we’ve got to protect it.

*Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=2]Russia Says Iran Nuclear Program Deal Good for Middle East[/h]
  • Reuters
  • Apr. 03 2015 09:40
  • Last edited 09:40


The Russian Foreign Ministry said Thursday a deal in Lausanne over Iran's nuclear program would help the security situation in the Middle East, partly because Tehran would now be able to take more active part in efforts to solve conflicts there.
The tentative agreement, after eight days of marathon talks in Switzerland, clears the way for negotiations on a settlement aimed at allaying Western fears that Iran was seeking to build an atomic bomb and in return lift economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
The framework is contingent on reaching an agreement by June 30. All sanctions on Iran remain in place until a final deal.
Celebrations erupted in the Iranian capital Tehran. Videos and pictures posted on social media showed cars in Tehran honking horns as passengers clapped. In one video posted on Facebook, a group of women can be heard clapping and chanting "Thank you, Rouhani" in praise of President Hassan Rouhani.
President Barack Obama described the agreement as a "historic understanding with Iran" and compared it to nuclear arms control deals struck by his predecessors with the Soviet Union that "made our world safer" during the Cold War. He also cautioned, however, that "success is not guaranteed."
Many details still need to be worked out. Diplomats close to the negotiations said the deal was fragile. It could not be ruled out that the understandings reached could collapse between now and June 30. Experts believe it will be much harder to reach a final deal than it was to agree the framework accord.
Under the outline deal, Iran would shut more than two-thirds of its installed centrifuges capable of producing uranium that could be used to build a bomb, dismantle a reactor that could produce plutonium, and accept intrusive verification.
The negotiations between Iran and six powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — blew past a self-imposed March 31 deadline with no certainty that they would not end in failure.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said Thursday a deal in Lausanne over Iran's nuclear program would help the security situation in the Middle East, partly because Tehran would now be able to take more active part in efforts to solve conflicts there.
The tentative agreement, after eight days of marathon talks in Switzerland, clears the way for negotiations on a settlement aimed at allaying Western fears that Iran was seeking to build an atomic bomb and in return lift economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
The framework is contingent on reaching an agreement by June 30. All sanctions on Iran remain in place until a final deal.
Celebrations erupted in the Iranian capital Tehran. Videos and pictures posted on social media showed cars in Tehran honking horns as passengers clapped. In one video posted on Facebook, a group of women can be heard clapping and chanting "Thank you, Rouhani" in praise of President Hassan Rouhani.
President Barack Obama described the agreement as a "historic understanding with Iran" and compared it to nuclear arms control deals struck by his predecessors with the Soviet Union that "made our world safer" during the Cold War. He also cautioned, however, that "success is not guaranteed."
Many details still need to be worked out. Diplomats close to the negotiations said the deal was fragile. It could not be ruled out that the understandings reached could collapse between now and June 30. Experts believe it will be much harder to reach a final deal than it was to agree the framework accord.
Under the outline deal, Iran would shut more than two-thirds of its installed centrifuges capable of producing uranium that could be used to build a bomb, dismantle a reactor that could produce plutonium, and accept intrusive verification.
The negotiations between Iran and six powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — blew past a self-imposed March 31 deadline with no certainty that they would not end in failure.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
The UN Security Council is set to meet on Saturday to discuss a Russian proposal for "humanitarian pauses" in Saudi-led air strikes, which have targeted Houthi rebels over the past nine days.


Russia wants to help their Iranian buddies. Lets hope any resolution is vetoed and the Iranian backed scum are annihilated without pause.



Did Russia pause in Crimea or Eastern Ukraine.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
Iran, Russia, China the 3 amigos. They played their cards well in Switzerland.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,726
Tokens
Now spammy the rat is quoting Russia!

LMFAO!

Oh My God is he an idiot and asshole.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,726
Tokens
Gee, it is like the left doesn't learn from history or something:

Pres Clinton in 1994 announcing "framework" in which "North Korea will freeze & dismantle its nuclear program"

 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
51,797
Tokens
Senator Cotton VOWS to make sure Obama's shitty Iran deal doesn't see the light of day:

From the Hill:


Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who has emerged as a key critic of the Obama administration’s moves to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, vowed Friday to keep a framework agreement from materializing.

“I’m going to do everything I can to stop these terms from becoming a final deal,” Cotton said Friday on CNN’s “The Lead,” noting it is unclear when the deal would attempt to lift international sanctions.

Secretary of State John Kerry has suggested sanctions would be relaxed in phases, while Iran’s leaders have described them in more immediate terms, Cotton noted.

“That’s why this deal still may not be consummated by June,” Cotton said.

Cotton suggested lawmakers could counter the administration’s efforts by not allowing congressionally mandated sanctions to be waved, imposing new sanctions and pushing for legislation allowing Congress to review any deal reached with Iran.

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

Remember, if it's bad for Hussein, it's great for America!

w-thumbs!^


 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,118,614
Messages
13,557,484
Members
100,655
Latest member
nhacainbetbest
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com