Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

[ScottL]

Iran’s Persian statement on ‘deal’ contradicts Obama’s claims

By Amir Taheri

April 4, 2015 | 4:35pm

Iran’s Persian statement on ‘deal’ contradicts Obama’s claims

“Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline,” The New York Times headline claimed on Friday. That found an echo in the Washington Post headline of the same day: “Iran agrees to nuclear restrictions in framework deal with world powers.”

But the first thing to know about the highly hyped “historic achievement” that President Obama is trying to sell is that there has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that led to international concern about Iran’s secret nuclear activities and led to six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and 13 years of diplomatic seesaw.

All we have is a number of contradictory statements by various participants in the latest round of talks in Switzerland, which together amount to a diplomatic dog’s dinner.

First, we have a joint statement in English in 291 words by Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif and the European Union foreign policy point-woman Federica Mogherini, who led the so-called P5+1 group of nations including the US in the negotiations.

Next we have the official Iranian text, in Persian, which runs into 512 words. The text put out by the French comes with 231 words. The prize for “spinner-in-chief” goes to US Secretary of State John Kerry who has put out a text in 1,318 words and acts as if we have a done deal.

It is not only in their length that the texts differ.

They amount to different, at times starkly contradictory, narratives.

The Mogherini and French texts are vague enough to be ultimately meaningless, even as spin.

The Persian text carefully avoids words that might give the impression that anything has been agreed by the Iranian side or that the Islamic Republic has offered any concessions.

The Iranian text is labelled as a press statement only. The American text, however, pretends to enumerate “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” and claims key points have been “decided.” What remains to be done is work out “implementation details.”

When referring to what Iran is supposed to do, the Iranian text uses a device of Persian grammar known as “nakarah,” a form of verbs in which the authorship of a deed remains open to speculation.

For example: “ It then happened that . . .” or “that is to be done.”

But when it comes to things the US and allies are supposed to do, the grammatical form used is “maerfah” which means the precise identification of the author.

This is an example of the first form: “The nuclear facilities at Fordow shall be developed into a center for nuclear research and advanced Physics.” It is not clear who is going to do those things, over what length of time, and whether that would be subject to any international supervision.

An example of the second form: “The United Nations shall abrogate its previous resolutions while the United States and the European Union will immediately lift sanctions [imposed on] financial, banking, insurance, investment and all services related to oil, gas, petrochemicals and car industry.”

The Iranian text opens by insisting that it has absolutely no “legal aspect” and is intended only as “a guideline for drafting future accords.”

The American text claims that Iran has agreed to do this or that, for example reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,500.

The Iranian text, however, says that Iran “shall be able to . . .” or “qader khahad boud” in Farsi to do such a thing. The same is true about enrichment in Fordow. The Americans say Iran has agreed to stop enrichment there for 15 years. The Iranian text, however, refers to this as something that Iran “will be able to do,” if it so wished.

Sometimes the two texts are diametrically opposed.

The American statement claims that Iran has agreed not to use advanced centrifuges, each of which could do the work of 10 old ones. The Iranian text, however, insists that “on the basis of solutions found, work on advanced centrifuges shall continue on the basis of a 10-year plan.”

The American text claims that Iran has agreed to dismantle the core of the heavy water plutonium plant in Arak. The Iranian text says the opposite. The plant shall remain and be updated and modernized.

In the past two days Kerry and Obama and their apologists have been all over the place claiming that the Iranian nuclear project and its military-industrial offshoots would be put under a kind of international tutelage for 10, 15 or even 25 years.

However, the Persian, Italian and French texts contain no such figures.

The US talks of sanctions “ relief” while Iran claims the sanctions would be “immediately terminated.”

The American text claims Tehran has agreed to take measures to reassure the international community on military aspects of its nuclear project, an oblique reference to Iran’s development, with help from North Korea, of missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. There is absolutely no echo of that in the Iranian and other non-American texts.

In his jubilatory remarks in the Rose Garden Thursday, Obama tried to sell the Americans a bill of goods.

He made three outrageous claims.

The first was that when he became president Iran had “ thousands of centrifuges” which would now be cut down to around 6,000. In fact, in 2008, Iran had only 800 centrifuges. It was on Obama’s watch and because of his perceived weakness that Iran speeded up its nuclear program.

The second claim was that thanks to the scheme he is peddling “all of Iran’s paths” to developing a nuclear arsenal would be blocked. And, yet, in the same remarks he admitted that even if the claimed deal is fully implemented, Iran would still be able to build a bomb in just a year, presumably jumping over the “blocked paths.”

Obama’s worst claim was that the only alternative to his attempts at surrendering to the obnoxious Khomeinist regime would be US involvement in “another ground war in the Middle East.”

He ignores the fact that forcing Iran through diplomatic action, sanctions and proximity pressures to abide by six UN resolutions could also be regarded as an alternative. In other words, preemptive surrender is not the only alternative to war.

Obama is playing a bizarre game that could endanger regional peace and threaten the national security of the US and its allies. He insisted that Kerry secure “something, anything” before April 14 to forestall the US Congress’ planned moves on Iran.

He also wanted to stick it to Netanyahu, settle scores with Republicans, and please his faction within the Democratic Party; in other words, taking strategic risks with national security and international peace in the pursuit of dubious partisan gains.

 

[superbeets]

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took his protest of the Iran nuclear agreement to the U.S. airwaves on Sunday.
"This deal will both threaten us and threaten our neighbors," Netanyahu said on CNN's State of the Union.
Netanyahu, who also appeared on NBC's Meet The Press and ABC's This Week, said the proposal will leave Iran's nuclear infrastructure in place.
The Israeli leader spoke days after the U.S., allies and Iran reached the framework of an agreement in which the allies would reduce sanctions on Iran if it gives up the means to make nuclear weapons.
The parties will now try to work out the details of a final agreement, with a deadline of June 30.
President Obama and aides said diplomacy is the only alternative to military action against Iran's nuclear program.
In his weekend radio address, Obama said the agreement would deny Iran the plutonium and enriched uranium needed to build a nuclear weapon.
"Moreover," Obama said, "international inspectors will have unprecedented access to Iran's nuclear program because Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world, If Iran cheats, the world will know it."
In his television appearances, Netanyahu said the United States and its allies should intensify economic sanctions on Iran in order to force it to give up more of its nuclear program. He also questioned the effectiveness of inspections, saying Iran has cheated in the past.
"I'm not trying to kill any deal," Netanyahu said on NBC. "I'm trying to kill a bad deal."
Netanyahu also said the framework will lift sanctions on Iran too quickly, improving its economy. He told ABC that Iranian leaders will use the new money "to pump up their terror machine worldwide."
Republican members of Congress have expressed similar skepticism.
Iran, meanwhile, says its nuclear program is designed for peaceful energy purposes, not weapons.
In his radio address, Obama said he is looking forward to the debate with critics over Iran.
"As president and commander in chief, I firmly believe that the diplomatic option — a comprehensive, long-term deal like this — is by far the best option," Obama said. "For the United States. For our allies. And for the world."

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]The Obama Doctrine and Iran[/h]

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Verifying Iran Nuclear Deal Not Possible, Experts Say[/h]Past Iranian cheating to be codified by future accord


EMAIL

Iranians in northern Tehran celebrate the announcement of a nuclear agreement with Western powers. / AP​

BY: Bill Gertz
April 6, 2015 5:00 am

Despite promises by President Obama that Iranian cheating on a new treaty will be detected, verifying Tehran’s compliance with a future nuclear accord will be very difficult if not impossible, arms experts say.
“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will not be effectively verifiable,” said Paula DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance, and implementation from 2002 to 2009.
Obama said Saturday that the framework nuclear deal reached in Switzerland would provide “unprecedented verification.”
International inspectors “will have unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear program because Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world,” he said in a Saturday radio address.
“If Iran cheats, the world will know it,” Obama said. “If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. So this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification.”
But arms control experts challenged the administration’s assertions that a final deal to be hammered out in detail between now and June can be verified, based on Iran’s past cheating and the failure of similar arms verification procedures.
A White House fact sheet on the outline of the future agreement states that the new accord will not require Iran to dismantle centrifuges, or to remove stockpiled nuclear material from the country or convert such material into less dangerous fuel rods.
The agreement also would permit continued nuclear research at facilities built in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran signed in 1970 but has violated repeatedly since at least the early 2000s.
The centerpiece for verifying Iranian compliance will be a document called the Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to the White House.
However, the State Department’s most recent report on arms compliance, made public in July, states that Iran signed an IAEA Additional Protocol in 2003 but “implemented it provisionally and selectively from 2003 to 2006,” when Tehran stopped complying altogether.
“The framework claims that Iran will once again execute an Additional Protocol with IAEA,” said William R. Harris, an international lawyer who formerly took part in drafting and verifying U.S. arms control agreements. “This might yield unprecedented verification opportunities, but can the international community count on faithful implementation?”
Harris also said Iran could cheat by shipping secretly built nuclear arms to North Korea, based on published reports indicating Iran co-financed North Korea’s nuclear tests, and that Iranian ballistic missile test signals reportedly showed “earmarks” of North Korean guidance systems.
“So what would prevent storage of Iranian nuclear weapons at underground North Korean sites?” he asked. “If there is to be full-scope inspection in Iran, the incentives for extraterritorial R&D and storage increase.”
U.S. intelligence agencies, which will be called on to verify the agreement, also have a spotty record for estimating foreign arms programs. After erroneously claiming Iraq had large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, the intelligence community produced a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that falsely concluded that Iran halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003.
The IAEA, in a restricted 2011 report, contradicted the estimate by stating that Iran continued nuclear arms work past 2003, including work on computer modeling used in building nuclear warheads.
White House officials who briefed reporters last week on the new framework agreement said the key to verification of the future pact will be the new IAEA protocol. The protocol will provide greater access and information on the Iranian nuclear program, including its hidden and secret sites, they said.
The nuclear facilities at Fordow, an underground facility where centrifuges will be removed, and Natanz, another major centrifuge facility, were both built in violation of the NPT and will not be dismantled.
Additionally, the nuclear facility at Parchin, where Iran is believed to have carried out most of its nuclear weapons work, is not mentioned in any of the fact sheets by name.
The sole reference to Iran’s work on nuclear arms is the reference in the fact sheet to a requirement that Iran address “the possible military dimensions” of its nuclear program.
Officials who briefed reporters also said that under the new agreement inspectors would have access to Iran’s nuclear “supply chain”—the covert system used to circumvent global sanctions and procure materials and equipment.
DeSutter, the former State Department arms verification official, said the transparency measures announced after talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, on Thursday at best could detect quantitative excesses at known locations, but not secret illegal activities, like those that Iran carried out on a large scale in violation of its obligations under the NPT.
The transparency regime for the new deal also will “undermine the already challenging verifiability of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by legitimizing Iran’s illegal enrichment and reprocessing programs,” DeSutter said.
Thomas Moore, former professional staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who specialized in arms control matters, also said Iran’s past cheating on the NPT makes verifying a new agreement nearly impossible.
Iran, in its statement on the framework, also denied it would sign a new IAEA protocol. Tehran said of the protocol that it will be implemented on a “voluntary and temporary basis” for transparency and confidence-building.
The imprecise language is a sign “Iran is keeping its weapon option open but refuses required openness to confirm it no longer wants one,” Moore said.
“Iran would not divert centrifuges or the material they make from a declared site,” Moore said. “Rather, it will instead cheat at an undeclared site.”
Because Iran will not ratify the new protocol, the IAEA will be unable to verify the completeness and correctness of Iran’s declarations, Moore said, both declared and undeclared materials and activities.
Iran is already the single most IAEA-inspected nation in the world and additional IAEA inspections are not expected to be better, although Iran’s nuclear expertise will grow, he added.
“The deal is silent on Iran’s actual military dimensions, except to the extent that its supporters claim the IAEA will be able to verify the absence of a weapons program in Iran. They won’t,” Moore said.
“Contrary to the imprecise political rhetoric, this deal does not yet contain the ‘most intrusive’ inspections ever tried,” he said.
David S. Sullivan, a former CIA arms verification specialist and also a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee arms expert, said confirming Iran’s compliance with new nuclear obligations will be difficult.
“U.S. national technical means of verification is always difficult, fraught with the political process of monitoring, collecting, analyzing, and [achieving] consensus on usually ambiguous evidence of cheating that opponents are trying to hide,” Sullivan said.
“These difficulties are even greater for the UN’s IAEA, which is a multinational political agency.”
Past cheating by Iran, confirmed as recently as July 2014 raised questions about why there are negotiations with Tehran, Sullivan said.
“Why are we negotiating for a new agreement, when existing Iranian NPT violations remain in effect, ongoing, and unresolved, suggesting that Iran is unlikely to comply with any new agreement?” Sullivan said.
“Iran alarmingly is officially within three months of having nuclear warheads, according to the international negotiators, and is therefore about to become another nuclear-armed North Korea,” he said, noting that Pyongyang also cheated on the NPT and now has nuclear-tipped missiles.
By not requiring Iran to correct past violations of the NPT, the new agreement will in effect codify its current cheating. “The negotiations started as an attempt to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, but now they have legitimized it,” Sullivan said.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

It’s settled. Israel has nothing to worry about.

During an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, President Barack Obama said that his “absolute commitment” that if Israel were “attacked by any state, that we would stand by them” and that it “should be sufficient” for them “to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” and accept his Iran nuclear deal as a good step forward.

Obama said, “Now, what you might hear from Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, which I respect, is the notion, ‘Look, Israel is more vulnerable. We don’t have the luxury of testing these propositions the way you do,’ and I completely understand that. And further, I completely understand Israel’s belief that given the tragic history of the Jewish people, they can’t be dependent solely on us for their own security.”

“But what I would say to them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks,” he continued. “But what I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them. And that, I think, should be sufficient to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the
table.”

Well there it is, Obama says if you like your country you can keep your country.

Any Israeli who believes that crock needs to look no further than:

If you like your doctor…

 

[The Guesser]

Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)

Home > The P5+1 Nuclear Agreement With Iran: A Net-Plus for Nonproliferation

---

[h=2]The P5+1 Nuclear Agreement With Iran: A Net-Plus for Nonproliferation[/h] [h=1]

• Press Room

[/h]

Leading Nuclear Security Experts, Former Negotiators Call P5+1 Nuclear Framework Agreement With Iran "A Net-Plus for Nonproliferation"​

For Immediate Release: April 6, 2015​

Media Contacts: Daryl G. Kimball, Arms Control Association, 202-463-8270 ext. 107​

(Washington, D.C.)--A group of 30 leading nuclear nonproliferation specialists, primarily from the United States, issued a joint statement today assessing the framework deal announced by the P5+1 and Iran on April 2 as a "vitally important step forward" for nonproliferation and international security.​

"When implemented, it will put in place an effective, verifiable, enforceable, long-term plan to guard against the possibility of a new nuclear-armed state in the Middle East," the statement reads.​

In their statement, the signatories, who include former U.S. nuclear negotiators and leading nuclear specialists, "...urge the P5+1 and Iranian negotiators to promptly finalize the remaining technical details and we urge policy makers in key capitals to support the deal and the steps necessary to ensure timely implementation and rigorous compliance with the agreement."​

The "Parameters for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran's Nuclear Program" announced April 2 would establish long-term, verifiable restrictions on Iran's sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities, many of which will last for 10 years, some for 15 years, some for 25 years, with enhanced International Atomic Energy Agency inspections under the Additional Protocol and modified code 3.1 safeguards provisions lasting indefinitely.​

The full text of the statement is available below.​

--------------------------------​

The P5+1 Nuclear Agreement With Iran: A Net-Plus for Nonproliferation​

Statement from Nuclear Nonproliferation Specialists​

April 6, 2015​

The framework agreement announced by the P5+1 and Iran is--from a nuclear nonproliferation and security standpoint--a vitally important step forward. When implemented, it will put in place an effective, verifiable, enforceable, long-term plan to guard against the possibility of a new nuclear-armed state in the Middle East.​

The agreement comprehensively addresses the key routes by which Iran could acquire material for nuclear weapons. Among other steps, the framework agreement will:​

• significantly reduce Iran's capacity to enrich uranium to the point that it would take at least 12 months to amass enough uranium enriched to weapons grade for one bomb;
• require Iran to modify its Arak heavy water reactor to meaningfully reduce its proliferation potential and bar Iran from developing any capability for separating plutonium from spent fuel for weapons;
• put in place enhanced international inspections and monitoring that would help to deter Iran from attempting to violate the agreement, but if Iran did, increase the international community's ability to detect promptly and, if necessary, disrupt future efforts by Iran to build nuclear weapons, including at potential undeclared sites; and
• require Iran to cooperate with the IAEA to conclude the investigation of Iran's past efforts to develop a nuclear warhead and provide transparency sufficient to help ensure that any such effort remains in abeyance.

The agreement will strengthen U.S. security and that of our partners in the region.​

Rigorous monitoring measures will remain in place not just throughout the long duration of the agreement but even after the core limits of the agreement expire, helping ensure that any movement toward nuclear weapons will be detected and providing the opportunity to intervene decisively to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.​

Moreover, the agreement reduces the likelihood of destabilizing nuclear weapons competition in the Middle East, and strengthens global efforts to prevent proliferation, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.​

We urge the P5+1 and Iranian negotiators to promptly finalize the remaining technical details and we urge policy makers in key capitals to support the deal and the steps necessary to ensure timely implementation and rigorous compliance with the agreement.​

Endorsed by:​

James Acton, Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace*​

Amb. Brooke D. Anderson, former Chief of Staff and Counselor for the White House National Security Council, and former Alternative Representative to the United Nations for Special Political Affairs​

Dr. Bruce Blair, Research Scholar, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University*​

Dr. Barry Blechman, co-founder, Stimson Center*​

Prof. Matthew Bunn, Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom,Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University​

Joseph Cirincione, President, Ploughshares Fund​

Toby Dalton, Co-Director, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace*​

Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy, Arms Control Association​

Dr. Sidney Drell, Stanford University*​

Robert J. Einhorn, former U.S. Department of State Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control and former negotiator on the Iran nuclear talks​

Prof. Steve Fetter, former Assistant Director at-large, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy​

Robert L. Gallucci, Georgetown University​

Ellie Geranmayeh, Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations*​

Ilan Goldenberg, former Iran Team Chief, Office of the Secretary of Defense​

R. Scott Kemp, assistant professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, former science advisor to the State Department's Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control​

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, Arms Control Association​

Michael Krepon, co-founder, The Stimson Center*​

Dr. Edward P. Levine, retired senior professional staff member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee​

Richard Nephew, former Principal Deputy Coordinator for Sanctions Policy at the Department of State, and Director for Iran on the National Security Staff​

Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey*​

Amb. Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the Russian Federation, India, Israel, and Jordan​

George Perkovich, Vice President for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace*​

Paul R. Pillar, Former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia​

William Potter, Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar Professor of Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey*​

Prof. Scott D. Sagan, Senior Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University​

Sharon Squassoni, Senior Fellow and Director, Proliferation Prevention Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies*​

Tariq Rauf, Director Disarmament, Arms Control & Non-Proliferation Programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)* and former Head of Verification & Security Policy Coordination reporting to the IAEA Director General​

Dr. James Walsh, Research Associate at the Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology​

Dr. Ali Vaez, Senior Analyst on Iran, International Crisis Group​

Prof. Frank von Hippel, former Assistant Director for National Security, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
​

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Saudi Arabia cautiously endorses Iran deal[/h] By Adam B. Lerner
4/6/15 10:56 AM EDT
Updated 4/6/15 12:05 PM EDT

Saudi Arabia released a cautious statement Monday endorsing the nuclear “framework” agreement reached last week between Iran and six world powers.
“The council of ministers,” a top governing body within the Saudi system, “expressed hope for attaining a binding and definitive agreement that would lead to the strengthening of security and stability in the region and the world,” read the statement, first published by the Saudi state news agency.


The careful Saudi embrace of the Iran deal stands in contrast to that of Israel, whose officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, have lashed out at the negotiations in a serious of interviews and statements.

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Netanyahu reiterated his concerns about the framework agreement and said there is “still time to get a better deal.”
[h=3]Obama: Iran deal a 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity'[/h] JENNIFER SHUTT

Officials in U.S. and Israeli governments have openly expressed concern that if Iran secures a nuclear weapon, a nuclear arms race between the Shiite nation and its Sunni regional rivals — including not only Saudi Arabia, but also Egypt, Turkey, and potentially even Jordan and Qatar — might ensue.
The U.S. concern about Saudi Arabia’s reaction to the deal is reflected in the fact that even before speaking about it in the Rose Garden on Thursday or calling Netanyahu, Obama spoke with Saudi King Salman to discuss the outline being announced. He has also invited the leaders of Saudi Arabia and its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain — to a summit at Camp David this spring.
In its statement, Saudi Arabia expressed its hope that the agreement would lead to a “Middle East and the Arabian Gulf region free of all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons,” a possible reference to Israel’s undeclared nuclear program.

For nearly two weeks, the Saudi military has been conducting airstrikes against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in its southern neighbor, Yemen. Monday’s statement encouraged “good neighborliness” from the Iranian regime, as well as “non-interference in the affairs of Arab states,” an allusion to the conflicts in Yemen and in Syria, to which Iran has sent advisers to shore up Bashar Assad’s embattled regime. In a briefing Sunday, Saudi Arabia’s defense ministry said it continued to pound Houthi positions: “Air operations are still going, targeting military sites, ammunition and arms stores controlled by the Houthi militias.”
Obama, in an interview with The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman published Sunday evening, alluded to Saudi concerns about Iran’s rising power in the region, but said he was more worried about internal threats to the stability of Arab Gulf monarchies: “Populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances.”
[h=3]The Fantasy of a Better Iran Deal[/h] SAMUEL R. BERGER

“When it comes to external aggression,” Obama said, “I think we’re going to be there for our [Arab] friends — and I want to see how we can formalize that a little bit more than we currently have, and also help build their capacity so that they feel more confident about their ability to protect themselves from external aggression.”
“The biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading,” he said. “It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries. Now disentangling that from real terrorist activity inside their country, how we sort that out, how we engage in the counterterrorism cooperation that’s been so important to our own security — without automatically legitimizing or validating whatever repressive tactics they may employ — I think that’s a tough conversation to have, but it’s one that we have to have.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/saudi-arabia-iran-nuclear-deal-116694.html#ixzz3Wag38p78
​

 

[The Guesser]

Obama was right, Iran capitulated

Netanyahu should accept the American offer of dialogue on the draft agreement reached in Lausanne, instead of signalling his intent to scupper it out of hand.
Efraim HalevyThe document approved in Lausanne is full of loopholes and lacks numerous details. There's a great deal of exhausting work to be done before the talks are completed, and we can expect some tough battles over the coming months before the formulation of a final agreement.

• Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter

Nevertheless, US President Barack Obama was right in labeling the document a "historic" one – and for the following reasons:
1. For decades, Iran rejected the international community's demand to hold talks of any kind with respect to its nuclear program. The interim agreement reached in Lausanne proves that Tehran capitulated, by agreeing to conduct negotiations about its plans and the nuclear infrastructure it has built up for years, primarily in secret.

2. Iran was forced to agree to the curtailment of its programs, the destruction of valuable equipment at some of its facilities, and a drastic reduction in the number of centrifuges that will remain in operation. The vast majority of the centrifuges will be removed from the production sites and stored in known locations under international supervision. The new centrifuges will be removed from the existing facilities and stored under international supervision


3. The Fordow facility will be left with just 1,000 of its more than 6,000 centrifuges, and these will be used for research and development for civilian purposes only, under international supervision. No fissile material will remain in Fordow, and uranium-enrichment operations will not take place there for a period of 15 years.

4. Iran was forced to agree to an unprecedented regime of international supervision and monitoring of its nuclear facilities and the dismantling of critical systems. The facility in Natanz will be left with approximately 5,000 old-model centrifuges, and 1,000 new ones will be removed from the site and stored under supervision. The Arak reactor will cease production of plutonium, the original core of the reactor will be destroyed or removed from the country, and the facility will be used for research and development programs only with the approval of the superpowers.

5. Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for at least 15 years. It has also agreed to reduce its current stockpile of about 10,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to just 300 kilograms. The surplus quantities will be removed from the country or handled in a different manner, but will not remain under Iranian control.

6. Iran has agreed to implement measures, the details of which have yet to be finalized, to meet the demands for clarification with respect to trials it has carried out in the field of nuclear weapons systems.

7. Obama's speech following the signing of the framework agreement was broadcast live on Iranian state television without any censorship or breaks in the middle. Never before, since the Islamic Revolution, has an American president been afforded such a stage, and on such a sensitive subject to boot.

And thus President Obama could say there is a historical dimension to the agreement that was reached. Anyone who has followed events in Iran in recent decades or has studied the matter has to admit truthfully that he never believed Iran would ever agree to discuss these issues, let alone agree to each of the clauses I have mentioned.

According to the introduction to the understandings reached, "Important implementation details are still subject to negotiation, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

Israel's lessons from Lausanne / Shimon Shiffer Analysis: At this point, Israel has two choices: Keep fighting the Obama administration or repair the damage and try to make the most of the punitive clauses in Iran deal. Click here for full article

​

This statement, along with Obama's open invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to enter into an intensive dialogue, affords the Israeli government the opportunity to improve the agreement in its final version. However, Israel's hasty response – its total rejection of the memorandum of understanding – seems to herald the beginning of an Israeli campaign designed to thwart the deal. Scrapping the deal would of course mean scrapping all the understandings already achieved.

You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't conduct an all-out war against the president to thwart his historic achievement and, in the same breath, hold talks with him to improve the product. Moreover, taking the fight to Congress would require deeper Israeli intervention in the approaching elections in the United States.

One of the arguments being voiced against the continuation of the talks is that Iran has a history of lies and cunning, and can thus be expected to breach the agreement and deceive the world. True, the Iranians have a tendency to deceive, but they could do so even if they agreed to zero centrifuges, the closure of all their nuclear facilities, and supervision on the part of the Mossad itself. Loopholes can always be found, so there is no such thing as a "good agreement." The Iranians will uphold an agreement only if it is worth their while.

Netanyahu has raised a new demand – that the framework agreement should include Iran's recognition of Israel's right to exist. Clearly, Iran is not going to change its spots; therefore, anyone who voices such a demand is signaling that he doesn't want the agreement and has his eyes on an aggressive solution.

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Former Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy Slams Netanyahu For Nuke Deal Criticism[/h] The Huffington Post | By Eline Gordts



Posted: 04/06/2015




The former head of Israel's intelligence agency harshly critiqued Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rejection of a framework agreement between Iran and six world powers on Tehran's nuclear program.
In a scathing op-ed published Monday, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy argued that U.S. President Barack Obama was right to call the agreement with Iran "historic" and that Iran made important and significant concessions during the negotiations.
"For decades, Iran rejected the international community's demand to hold talks of any kind with respect to its nuclear program," Halevy wrote on Israeli news website Ynet. "The interim agreement reached in Lausanne proves that Tehran capitulated, by agreeing to conduct negotiations about its plans and the nuclear infrastructure it has built up for years, primarily in secret."

Iran and six nations agreed on Thursday to a framework for an agreement that would restrict Tehran's controversial nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. The framework paves the way for a second phase of negotiations that needs to lead to a final agreement by June 30.
Netanyahu harshly criticized the terms of the framework in the wake of Thursday's agreement, arguing the measures currently on the table would not curb Iran's path to nuclear weapons. Netanyahu also demanded that Iran should recognize Israel's right to exist as part of a final deal.
Halevy, whose op-ed was published in English on the site, urged Netanyahu and his government to accept Obama's invitation for a dialogue on the negotiations and contribute to improvements ahead of the June 30 deal. "However, Israel's hasty response -- its total rejection of the memorandum of understanding -- seems to herald the beginning of an Israeli campaign designed to thwart the deal. Scrapping the deal would of course mean scrapping all the understandings already achieved," Halevy argued.
Halevy also slammed Netanyahu's additional request to include Iranian recognition of the state of Israel as part of a deal. "Clearly, Iran is not going to change its spots," the ex-Mossad chief wrote. "Therefore, anyone who voices such a demand is signaling that he doesn't want the agreement and has his eyes on an aggressive solution."
Halevy led Israel's intelligence agency from 1998 until 2002. He was appointed Israel's ambassador to the European Union in 1996 and also worked as security chief for former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Halevy has been a longtime proponent of diplomacy as a means to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Click here to read Efraim Halevy's full op-ed, published in Ynet.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Expert: Still ‘Very Serious Gaps’ Between U.S., Iran[/h]6 major rifts remain in framework nuclear deal


EMAIL

John Kerry / AP​

BY: Brent Scher
April 6, 2015 10:23 am

Despite announcing that the framework for a deal has been reached, the United States and Iran are still far apart on six issues crucial to the nuclear agreement, according to Israel expert Ehud Ya’ari.
Ya’ari, an international fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said “very serious gaps” became apparent after the sides released competing fact sheets following the announcement of the framework deal.
Ya’ari noted six publicly apparent rifts between the sides, according to the Times of Israel:

1. Sanctions: Ya’ari said the US has made clear that economic sanctions will be lifted in phases, whereas the Iranian fact sheet provides for the immediate lifting of all sanctions as soon as a final agreement is signed, which is set for June 30.
(In fact, the US parameters state that sanctions will be suspended only after Iran has fulfilled all its obligations: “US and EU nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps.” By contrast, the Iranian fact sheet states: “all of the sanctions will be immediately removed after reaching a comprehensive agreement.”)
2. Enrichment: The American parameters provide for restrictions on enrichment for 15 years, while the Iranian fact sheet speaks of 10 years.
3. Development of advanced centrifuges at Fordo: The US says the framework rules out such development, said Ya’ari, while the Iranians say they are free to continue this work.
4. Inspections: The US says that Iran has agreed to surprise inspections, while the Iranians say that such consent is only temporary, Ya’ari said.
5. Stockpile of already enriched uranium: Contrary to the US account, Iran is making clear that its stockpile of already enriched uranium — “enough for seven bombs” if sufficiently enriched, Ya’ari said — will not be shipped out of the country, although it may be converted.
6. PMD: The issue of the Possible Military Dimensions of the Iranian program, central to the effort to thwart Iran, has not been resolved, Ya’ari said.
(The US parameters make two references to PMD. They state, first: “Iran will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns regarding the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of its program.” And they subsequently add: “All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordo, Arak, PMD, and transparency).” The Iranian fact sheet does not address PMD.)

​

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]Pitfalls lie ahead in the Iran nuclear talks[/h]Ali Ansari


Obama seems to have a struck a very good deal. The problem is, both sides are interpreting it differently



Though almost a week has passed since President Obama unveiled the framework understanding with Iran, the casual observer may be confused as to its value. And little wonder. The president has said it could be a game-changer – a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table”. But the stated parameters of this framework are already fraying at the edges. So where do we stand?
On the face of it, this is a good deal, a very good deal indeed. Supporters on either side have understandably spared no time in heralding it as a “historic breakthrough” achieved against the backdrop of negotiations that appeared agonisingly close to failure. There is nothing like a prolonged period of tension to generate euphoria when the precipice is avoided and success snatched from the jaws of defeat. Much the same happened with the announcement of the interim agreement in 2013 – also hailed as a historic breakthrough. The difference is that this framework “understanding” gives us a much-needed peek at the light at the end of what has seemed like a very long tunnel. After myriad leaks, we have a sense of what the final agreement may look like.


But there is some way to go, and the journey is unlikely to be smooth. That much is clear if one examines the US state department fact sheet issued to complementthe announcement made by the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and the EU high representative for foreign affairs, Federica Mogherini. The formal announcement was somewhat vague, representing a collective attempt to satisfy all parties, but the fact sheet was more precise, containing specific details about the reduction in the number of centrifuges and the nature and pace of sanctions relief as well as the extent of the “unprecedented” inspections regime that Iran would face for up to 25 years. Anyone who feared the United States was giving too much away would have had those fears allayed. Not only would sanctions relief be phased subject to verifiable compliance by Iran of its obligations, but sanctions would “snap back” if at any time Iran was seen to have reneged. Meanwhile, UN security council sanctions – a particularly sore point with the Iranians – would be lifted with the completion by Iran of nuclear-related actions addressing all the key concerns.
The problem is that this fact sheet was not part of any agreement. It has similarities with the appendices that appeared on the Iranian foreign ministry website, but there are also significant differences. Zarif himself was quick to denounce the fact sheet as American “spin”, rejecting any notion of phased relief of sanctions, which Iranian officials have repeatedly stressed must be lifted on the first day of the implementation of the agreement. He said he had protested to the Americans, and that the agreement was effectively an “understanding” with no legal force whatsoever other than to indicate the direction of travel (thus taking care to fall in line with the supreme leader’s injunction that there be no two-stage agreement). From the Iranian point of view, the great achievement was not just that they had achieved official recognition of enrichment on Iranian soil, but that – according to their understanding – not a single nuclear activity would be suspended or closed.
Here there is much scope for disagreement. The Iranian position clearly conflicts with the mooted reduction in centrifuges and has since been softened.
The most obvious symbol of difference is the Arak heavy water reactor, 320km south of Tehran. While the Iranians claim the reactor will be modified and “updated” with international assistance under the management of Iran, the fact sheet states categorically that the current reactor will be redesigned and rebuilt subject to specifications agreed by the P5+1, and the original core “will be destroyed or removed from the country”. The Iranian documentation envisages a 10-year limit on the enrichment of uranium at the Natanz nuclear facility in central Iran, but otherwise there is little detail on time frames envisaged or the proposed inspections regime, and there is no reference to the reduction in the stockpile of enriched uranium.



We may not have the whole picture. There may be private agreements held back by both sides for domestic political purposes. But the public statements suggest a great divergence of opinion beyond the niceties of diplomatic interpretation, and that each has endorsed the deal in accordance with how they perceive it. The cautious support by Friday prayer leaders – said to reflect the views of the supreme leader – are unlikely to have been for the American version of what transpired.
There is a path, but there are also pitfalls, and in establishing a narrative to suit the domestic agenda – a narrative enthusiastically reinforced by much of the western media – the Americans may have made life a little harder for their Iranian interlocutors.
Moreover, the irony will not have been lost on congressional critics that Iranian parliamentarians have insisted, and have received assurances, that they will have to ratify any final agreement. Diplomats on both sides have seized on the re-energised mood to stress that the June deadline can be met. But if experience is any guide, there is a good deal of work to be done. It is not at all clear that we will be witnessing a sprint to the finish.

 

[superbeets]

Netanyahu: Deal Will Give Iran Money For Its 'Worldwide Terror Machine'

 

[superbeets]

WND EXCLUSIVE
OBAMA'S IRAN DEAL FALLS ON OMINOUS BIBLE DATE
'When it looks as if there's no deliverance for the Jewish people, the hand of God begins to move'
Published: 1 day ago




When President Obama announced a “framework” nuclear agreement with Iran – which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns threatens the very existence of his nation – few noticed the significance of the date.


On the Jewish calendar this year, April 1 coincided with Nisan 13, the date in history when a Persian king signed an agreement calling for the destruction of the Jews.


“King Obama has issued his decree putting the Jewish nation at risk of annihilation on the very same day that King Ahasuerus’ scribes came together and issued their statement to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language and sent letters by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day.”


The ominous historical reference comes from Mark Biltz, pastor of El-Shaddai Ministries in Bonney Lake, Washington, and author of “The Feasts of the Lord,” “Blood Moons” and “Studies in our Hebrew Roots.”


The Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran have been shrouded in secrecy for months, and even now, only the broad outline of a proposed agreement has been disclosed. At one point the administration suggested there was not even a written agreement in place but rather a “gentlemen’s agreement.”


Already, another development in the attempt to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has fallen on a significant date in Jewish history.


On the eve of the Purim holiday, March 3, Netanyahu addressed a rare joint session of Congress to discuss the Iran deal, warning it could lead to the destruction of Israel.


He told Congress that in just a short time the Jewish people would begin the celebration of a holiday established while they were in captivity to a Persian king.


“We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther,” Netanyahu told Congress. “We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.”


After Netanyahu’s speech, the Obama administration strongly rebuked the prime minister and concerned Congress members, insisting that a deal would take place by March 31.


At the last minute, the administration announced the deadline would be postponed for a day. On April 2, President Obama announced in a ceremony from the Rose Garden that a tentative deal had been reached the day before, Nisan 13.




The book of Esther declares, in Esther 3:12, 13, that on Nisan 13 the Persian king Ahasuerus was tricked by a viceroy by the name of Haman into signing an agreement to destroy all the Jews in the land at a future date.


Coincidental?


Joel Richardson, author of “End Times Eyewitness,” “When a Jew Rules the World,” “The Islamic AntiChrist,” “Mideast Beast” and more, said it might be a message from God.


“The God of Heaven and Earth frequently orchestrates world events in such a way as to demonstrate His perspective,” Richardson explained. “Those who are quick to brush aside the correspondence of profound global events, particularly as they affect the state of Israel, with important biblical dates often miss what may very well be purposeful thunderclaps from heaven.


“It is the cynic that dismisses the possibility of a divine hint as mere coincidence. I think we need to be looking at this very seriously and asking ourselves what it is indicating.”


Jonathan Cahn, author of “The Harbinger,” the inspiration behind “The Isaiah 9:30 Judgment,” and the creator of “The Mystery of the Leper King,” “The Hanukkah Endtime Mystery” and more, told WND that while the conflict between Iran and Israel is not new, it is noteworthy that America has chosen to intervene at this time and appears to be on the side of the Iranians.


“It’s an ancient war that begins when the Hebrews emerge out of Egypt and are attacked by the armies of Amalek,” Cahn said. “The war has continued down through the centuries through the Book of Esther and Haman and, amazingly, into modern times, even right now.


“Again we find the existence of the Jewish people is in jeopardy, and there are forces plotting their destruction. Again, the powers that be seem oblivious to the existential danger. And, amazingly, again, it all focuses on the land of Haman, Persia, and Iran. Only this time, America is involved and, unfortunately, it appears as if our government is placing Israel in danger.”


Franklin Graham, president of both the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the Samaritan’s Purse relief organization, confirmed as much.


In a Facebook posting, he said: “In an interview with the New York Times, President Barack Obama said he is committed to seeing that Israel maintains a military edge over Iran. With the possibility of nuclear weapons at stake, there’s a lot more to this than a military edge. Iran does not recognize the right of Israel to exist. In previous speeches their mullahs have said they would burn Tel Aviv. One nuclear weapon can wipe out this city of 400,000+ people. It’s not about maintaining a military edge, Mr. President; it’s about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of people who have said they would use them.”


Graham noted Iran already has its soldiers in southern Lebanon serving with Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border and in Syria on Israel’s northeastern border.


“Iran already has its soldiers serving with the Iraqi army and now has controlling influence in much of the Iraqi government. Mr. President, the Iranian government is in many ways as brutal as ISIS and to give them an opportunity to possibly produce nuclear weapons would be devastating, not only to Israel, but to the Iranian people who would suffer their own nuclear holocaust when Israel would be forced to retaliate in their own defense. I pray that you will listen to Israel on this issue.




Critics contend Obama’s deal only delays Iran from getting the bomb.


Nevertheless, Netanyahu told Congress that despite the agreement to destroy Israel in Esther’s time, the “plot was foiled.”


“Our people were saved,” he said.


Cahn had similar sentiments.


“We must remember, that the war is an ancient one, and God has sworn to be involved. As in the Book of Esther, when it looks as if there’s no deliverance for the Jewish people, the hand of God begins to move.”


Blitz told WND that the outcome may already be written down.


“History repeats itself, so may we keep the nation of Israel in our prayers!”


The Bible records Haman was hanged on the very scaffold he had prepared for Mordecai, a Jew, and the king dispatched a letter exposing Haman’s plot, instructing Jews to defend themselves.


The result, the site explains, is that 75,000 enemies of the Jews were slain.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

(CNSNews.com) – President Obama appeared to concede this week that under a final nuclear deal, Iran -- after 13 or so years -- would be able to build a nuclear bomb quickly if it chooses to do so. But State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf insisted later that the words had been misread.

Harf told a daily briefing that Obama’s words “were a little mixed up” and “a little muddled,” saying they had referred to a hypothetical state of affairs in which an agreement had not been reached, rather than the situation as it will be in 13 years’ time under a negotiated agreement.

 

[Acebb]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

[h=1]Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Noncommittal on Nuclear Deal[/h]
Maybe this dipshit sewer rat spammer can post again how Iran 'capitulated'

LMFAO

 

[Acebb]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan categorically rejected as a "lie" a Guardian report alleging that Tehran has granted access to its military facilities under the recent framework agreement with the world powers.

No such agreement has been made; principally speaking, visit to military centers is among our redlines and no such visit will be accepted,” Gen. Dehqan stressed on Wednesday, rejecting “the report by foreign media outlets, such as the Guardian” as “untruthful allegations”
===================

Maybe this dipshit sewer rat spammer can post again how Iran 'capitulated'

LMFAO

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Iran Framework Silent on Key Nuclear Site[/h]Parchin used for explosive tests for Tehran bomb program


EMAIL

Parchin site​

BY: Bill Gertz
April 9, 2015 5:00 am

The international framework nuclear agreement reached in Switzerland last week makes no specific mention of Iran’s Parchin military facility—a key location of suspected nuclear weapons work.
The omission of Parchin in the formal statements released by negotiators after the deal was reached is raising questions about whether Iran will agree to disclose all details of its work on building nuclear arms.
“Parchin has been the center of Iran’s weaponization efforts for decades,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
“There is simply no provision for adequate international inspections of Parchin or any other weaponization-related activities, including Iran’s ballistic-missile programs,” Bolton added. “We have only our own intelligence capabilities, which Iran and North Korea have repeatedly evaded.”
The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated in its February report on Iran that minor activity was detected recently at Parchin, located southeast of Tehran.
Satellite imagery revealed vehicles, equipment and construction materials at the site, the report said, noting that Iran has refused agency requests for access to the site since 2012.
Much of the complex was destroyed by the Iranians after Tehran was questioned about it in 2012.
Unlike two other nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz that are extensively covered by the framework nuclear accord, nothing in the framework specifically calls for access to Iran’s military facility at Parchin.
The Parchin military complex has been closely watched by U.S. intelligence for more than 15 years. It is known to be run by the Defense Industries Organization of Iran, Tehran’s main military manufacturer. It includes hundreds of buildings and test sites used for development of weapons, including rockets and fuel, and high explosives, including plastic explosives.
The White House fact sheet outlining the framework for what is being called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action specifies that Iran will provide access to all nuclear facilities. But the only two sites mentioned are Fordow and Natanz, both of which have been under video surveillance by the IAEA. The two centrifuge plants were built in violation of Iran’s commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
For places such as Parchin, the fact sheet states that Iran will implement “an agreed set of measures” to provide a full accounting of its “possible” nuclear arms work.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf did not say why Parchin was left out of the White House fact sheet, and an Iranian variant of the fact sheet on the Iran deal. In an email, she also did not say for certain Parchin will be inspected, only that it is expected to be part of any final agreement.
Parchin is part of what the negotiators call the “possible military dimensions” of the Iran nuclear program.
“We are still negotiating over all of the people and places where the IAEA will have access required when it comes to possible military dimensions,” Harf said at the State Department Friday.
Asked whether Parchin would be inspected as part of the agreement, Harf said: “Well, we would find it, I think, very difficult to imagine a JCPA that did not require such access at Parchin.”
Simon Henderson, a nuclear specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Parchin is included the framework “only by implication.” Iran may try to block access by claiming that the work done there was did not involve nuclear materials, he said.
“Strictly speaking Parchin may not be a nuclear site in the sense that Iran has not declared it to the IAEA as such,” Henderson said.
As a result, Parchin could be excluded from the framework’s provision requiring that the IAEA be granted access to all nuclear sites.
“A key question is whether there has ever been nuclear material there,” Henderson said. “The fear is that there has indeed been such material there.”
The conventional high-explosive tests suspected of taking place do not require nuclear material because ordinary uranium could be used for assessing the quality of an implosion designed to create a nuclear blast with enriched uranium in an actual nuclear bomb.
“To get to Parchin, the parameters [of a final agreement] need to include ‘anytime, anyplace’ inspections,” Henderson said. “At the moment it doesn’t look as though we are going to get those.”
Parchin became the focus of western efforts to expose Iran’s nuclear arms program in a November 2011 IAEA report. The report said Parchin was being used for explosive experiments that are “strong indicators of possible weapon development,” the IAEA said.
The report disclosed that Iran had conducted work on “modeling of spherical geometries, consisting of components of the core of a [high enriched uranium] nuclear device subjected to shock compression, for their neutronic behavior at high density, and a determination of the subsequent nuclear explosive yield.”
Additionally, the vessel was separated from a control building by an earthen barrier “indicating the probable use of high-explosives in the chamber,” the report said, noting the vessel could contain a detonation of up to 70 kilograms of high explosives.
Iran allowed inspectors to visit the area around the vessel in 2005 but not the building housing the container.
A 2012 IAEA report repeated the earlier 2011 assessment that Iran constructed a large explosives containment vessel for “hydrodynamic experiments”—conventional explosives tests used to create pressure on fissile material in setting off a nuclear blast.

The building around the large cylinder vessel was built in 2000 but U.S. intelligence only learned of it in March 2011.
Satellite imagery of the site revealed little activity between 2005 and January 2012—when Iran was notified the IAEA wanted access to the plant.
Shortly after the notification, Iran began dismantling it. Activities seen included run-off of fluid from the vessel, equipment moved outside the plant, removal of fixtures from the building and vehicle activity.
The Iranians then destroyed five buildings near the main facility, and the removal of power lines, fences, and paved roads.
IAEA Director Yukiya Amano said in June 2013 that Iran appears to have removed nuclear bomb-making equipment and materials from Parchin. He noted the “massive” removal of soil, paving, and possible removal of infrastructure.
“As our verification capacity has been negatively impacted because of the extensive activities by Iran [at Parchin], it may no longer be possible to find anything even if we have access,” Amano told reporters in Vienna at the time.
A State Department cable from 2008 disclosed by Wikileaks revealed that China supplied Parchin Chemical Industries with an industrial machine in violation of U.N. sanctions.
“Given Iran’s refusal to address international concerns about its nuclear programs and its record as a serial proliferator that supports international terrorism, the United States views with serious concern any export of items with potential WMD applications to end-users designated under UN Security Council Resolutions,” the cable stated in opposing the Chinese arms proliferation sale.

 

[ScottL]

Iran will continue to be a murderous regime that does bad things all over the world until either the regime is overthrown by the population, or the country is severely crippled by a US attack.

 

[The Guesser]

Amazing how these hypocritical idiots down here, who normally don't believe a word Iran says, suddenly think every word they say for propaganda purposes to their hardliners at home, who are the equivalent of the sick cult down here, believe them as 100% truth and fact.

 

[ScottL]

Iran is run by ONE GUY!