Nuclear Deal

[liberty]

Does anyone here have any faith this? Excuse my cynicism. I would like to be wrong but I don’t think so.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-nuclear-deal ... 22943.html


Iran, six world powers clinch breakthrough nuclear deal

Iran commits to limit uranium, plutonium programs: U.S. Reuters
Iran seen getting gold, petrochemicals, autos sanctions relief Reuters
Iran nuclear deal halts progress on Iran nuclear program -senior U.S. official Reuters
Obama to make statement on Iran at 10:15 p.m. EST: White House Reuters
Iran to get access to $4.2 billion in nuclear deal: diplomat Reuters
GENEVA (Reuters) - Iran and six world powers reached a breakthrough agreement early on Sunday to curb Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief, in a first step towards resolving a dangerous decade-old standoff.
The deal between the Islamic state and the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia was nailed down after more than four days of negotiations.
"We have reached an agreement," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif announced on his Twitter feed. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius also confirmed the deal.
Iran will get access to $4.2 billion in foreign exchange as part of the accord, a Western diplomat said. No other details of the agreement were immediately available.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and foreign ministers of the five other world powers joined the negotiations with Iran early on Saturday as the two sides appeared to be edging closer to a long-sought preliminary agreement.



U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (3rd R) hugs European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton …
The talks were aimed at finding a package of confidence-building steps to ease decades of tensions and banish the specter of a Middle East war over Tehran's nuclear aspirations.
The Western powers' goal had been to cap Iran's nuclear energy program, which has a history of evading U.N. inspections and investigations, to remove any risk of Tehran covertly refining uranium to a level suitable for bombs.
Tehran denies it would ever "weaponise" enrichment.
The draft deal that had been under discussion in Geneva would see Iran suspend its higher-grade uranium enrichment in exchange for the release of billions of dollars in Iranian funds frozen in foreign bank accounts, and renewed trade in precious metals, petrochemicals and aircraft parts.
Refined uranium can be used to fuel nuclear power plants - Iran's stated goal - but also provide the fissile core of an atomic bomb if refined much further.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (R) shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zar …
Diplomacy was stepped up after the landslide election of Hassan Rouhani, a relative moderate, as Iranian president in June, replacing bellicose nationalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Rouhani aims to mend fences with big powers and get sanctions lifted. He obtained crucial public backing from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, keeping powerful hardline critics at bay.
On a Twitter account widely recognized as representing Rouhani, a message said after the agreement was announced, "Iranian people's vote for moderation & constructive engagement + tireless efforts by negotiating teams are to open new horizons."
The OPEC producer rejects suspicions it is trying covertly to develop the means to produce nuclear weapons, saying it is stockpiling nuclear material for future atomic power plants.
Israel says the deal being offered would give Iran more time to master nuclear technology and amass potential bomb fuel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told local media in Moscow that Iran was essentially given an "unbelievable Christmas present - the capacity to maintain this (nuclear) breakout capability for practically no concessions at all".
(Additional reporting by Stephanie Nebehay, Fredrik Dahl, John Irish, Arshad Mohammed, Louis Charbonneau in Geneva, Katya Golubkova in Moscow, Isabel Coles in Dubai; Writing by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Peter Cooney)

[rubato]

A well-crafted treaty is structured so that the interests of parties to the treaty in keeping the agreement are greater than in breaking it. Given the far greater power of the parties on our side than the Iranians and average intelligence on both sides I think there is a good chance they will comply to the degree that they believe we are able to detect non-compliance.

They have only come to the table because the sanctions created a level of pain greater than their resentment of past interference in Iran's politics and a psychological need to assert their automony. They are still angry about the US coup which installed the Shah's father as absolute dictator and US support of the Shah.

I'd give it 75:25 odds of success over the next 4 years.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

This agreement seems to incorporate old Russian maxim, "TRUST, BUT VERIFY" (Doveryai, no proveryai [Доверяй, но проверяй ]) often quoted approvingly by some old dead U.S. President who has fairly good reputation in the minds of some Americans.

It will be interesting to see whether the anti-American hardliners in Iran will also, like the hardliners in the U.S. and Israel, denounce this deal as a sell-out. If they do, it will be a good indication that the negotiators did a good job.

[Lord Jim]

I don't see why they wouldn't comply since the agreement basically doesn't require them to do anything of tangible significance. They get something real and tangible that can't be taken back, (cash) and in exchange they agree to "suspend" part of their high grade enrichment program (at least whatever part of it we can find) a decision they can reverse at any time. (Most likely after they figure they've milked as much money out of the deal as they can.)

I think it's a terrible deal, and moreover as I said earlier, I am extremely uncomfortable with this Administration negotiating anything with Iran in light of the amateurish bungling of the Syrian situation. That fiasco did enormous damage to our credibility and prestige with our friends in the region. (understandably so) We will probably continue to pay a price for that boneheaded misfire at least through the balance of the Obama's Presidency. That was so bad it was "Carter-bad"...

And I am now doubly concerned about it, in light of the fact that the Administration is now clearly politically wounded, and desperate to find anything it can try to claim as a success. That is the absolute worst possible time to be negotiating with the regime of a wily enemy state.

You can count me among the hardest of the hardliners on this. I don't know if it's possible to block US participation in this agreement legislatively, but if so it should be done. We ought to be looking at increasing sanctions, not loosening them. (Including the one sanction that might actually yield positive tangible results; an embargo on refined petroleum. At the very least, this would force the regime to divert resources to developing a refining capability.)

[Big RR]

Jim--let's say we followed your procedure; how long would the sanctions remain in place, forever? Until there was some regime change? Or until there was a verifiable cessation of the activities we wanted stopped? Because the latter is what I see this agreement achieving, even if only temporarily. Further sanction, at best, would achieve the same thing minus verifiability. That just doesn't make sense.

[Econoline]

BTW, let's not lose sight of the fact that this is just a first step, a 6-month interim agreement while the negotiators work on a real agreement.

From the reporting I heard on NPR this morning, it appears that only a tiny fraction of the current sanctions are affected by this deal; that it allows real, robust inspection and verification so that if Iran cheats it is quite certain they will be caught; and that if that happens (or if Iran interferes with the inspections) we can immediately reinstate or even increase the sanctions.

[Scooter]

I don't see why they wouldn't comply since the agreement basically doesn't require them to do anything of tangible significance. They get something real and tangible that can't be taken back, (cash) and in exchange they agree to "suspend" part of their high grade enrichment program (at least whatever part of it we can find) a decision they can reverse at any time. (Most likely after they figure they've milked as much money out of the deal as they can.)

Nothing of tangible significance? Hmmm:

Iran has committed to:

· Halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%.

· Dilute below 5% or convert to a form not suitable for further enrichment its entire stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium before the end of the initial phase.

· Not install additional centrifuges of any type.

· Not install or use any next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium.

· Leave inoperable roughly half of installed centrifuges at Natanz and three-quarters of installed centrifuges at Fordow, so they cannot be used to enrich uranium.

· Limit its centrifuge production to those needed to replace damaged machines, so Iran cannot use the six months to stockpile centrifuges.

· Not construct additional enrichment facilities.

· Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low enriched uranium, so that the amount is not greater at the end of the six months than it is at the beginning, and any newly enriched 3.5% enriched uranium is converted into oxide.

· Not commission the Arak reactor.

· Not fuel the Arak reactor.

· Halt the production of fuel for the Arak reactor.

· No additional testing of fuel for the Arak reactor.

- Not install any additional reactor components at Arak.

· Not transfer fuel and heavy water to the reactor site.

· Not construct a facility capable of reprocessing. Without reprocessing, Iran cannot separate plutonium from spent fuel.


· Provide daily access by IAEA inspectors at Natanz and Fordow. This daily access will permit inspectors to review surveillance camera footage to ensure comprehensive monitoring. This access will provide even greater transparency into enrichment at these sites and shorten detection time for any non-compliance.

· Provide IAEA access to centrifuge assembly facilities.

· Provide IAEA access to centrifuge rotor component production and storage facilities.

· Provide IAEA access to uranium mines and mills.

· Provide long-sought design information for the Arak reactor. This will provide critical insight into the reactor that has not previously been available.

· Provide more frequent inspector access to the Arak reactor.

· Provide certain key data and information called for in the Additional Protocol to Iran’s IAEA Safeguards Agreement and Modified Code 3.1.

The IAEA will be called upon to perform many of these verification steps, consistent with their ongoing inspection role in Iran. In addition, the P5+1 and Iran have committed to establishing a Joint Commission to work with the IAEA to monitor implementation and address issues that may arise. The Joint Commission will also work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present concerns with respect to Iran’s nuclear program, including the possible military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s activities at Parchin.

In return for these steps, the P5+1 is to provide limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible relief while maintaining the vast bulk of our sanctions, including the oil, finance, and banking sanctions architecture. If Iran fails to meet its commitments, we will revoke the relief. Specifically the P5+1 has committed to:

· Not impose new nuclear-related sanctions for six months, if Iran abides by its commitments under this deal, to the extent permissible within their political systems.

· Suspend certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue.

· License safety-related repairs and inspections inside Iran for certain Iranian airlines.

· Allow purchases of Iranian oil to remain at their currently significantly reduced levels – levels that are 60% less than two years ago. $4.2 billion from these sales will be allowed to be transferred in installments if, and as, Iran fulfills its commitments.

· Allow $400 million in governmental tuition assistance to be transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students.

And yes, if they don't comply, it is possible to take the cash back. First, most of it is being released in instalments based on compliance. And if they don't comply, additional sanctions could be imposed that would negate the effect of whatever funds they thought they had gotten away with.

[Lord Jim]

The good news here is that there is such a wide gulf between what the two sides believe has actually been agreed to that the odds are good that this lousy deal could fall apart fairly quickly:

(CNN) -- To say reactions to the Iranian nuclear deal have been all over the place would be an understatement.

In one corner, ardent supporters, like the White House, touted it as a resolution in which they didn't waver from their core beliefs. Iranian officials boasted the same.

The United Nations and the European Union threw in their weight, saying the compromise is a huge step with tremendous potential.

Then you have Israel, which says the deal is based on global "self-delusion" and could help Iran get closer to having a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile, some U.S. Republicans are skeptical about the Obama administration's true intentions in helping strike the deal.
Obama reacts to Iran nuclear deal
Iran deal 'important step forward'
Iran happy with 'first step'

The six-month agreement slows Iran's nuclear development program in exchange for lifting some sanctions. The agreement came after months of buildup and four days of negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland, between Iranian officials and the P5+1 countries -- the United States, Britain, China, Russia, France and Germany. As predicted, each side claimed victory with the outcome.

Read the deal (.PDF)

Here's where each of the players stands:

The United States

President Barack Obama said the deal is a significant step forward.

"For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program, and key parts of the program will be rolled back," Obama said late Saturday night.

"Iran has committed to halting certain levels of enrichment and neutralizing part of its stockpiles. ... And new inspections will provide extensive access to Iran's nuclear facilities and allow the international community to verify whether Iran is keeping its commitments."

He said those limitations are among several that will cut off Iran's most likely paths to a nuclear bomb.

"The United States and our friends and allies have agreed to provide Iran with modest relief while continuing to apply our toughest sanctions," Obama said. "We will refrain from imposing new sanctions, and we will allow the Iranian government access to a portion of the revenue they have been denied through sanctions."

Russia

President Vladimir Putin said the deal was balanced and will be a positive factor in Middle East relations. He said Russia had "proposed earlier principles of gradualism and reciprocity."

But while the deal is a win-win agreement and a breakthrough, it is just a first step, he said in a written statement translated by CNN.

"We, together with our partners, are ready to continue a patient search for a mutually acceptable, wider integrated solution providing the inalienable right of Iran to develop a peaceful nuclear program under (International Atomic Energy Agency) control and security of all countries in the Middle East, including Israel," he said. [Well that settles it...If Vlad likes the deal, it must be a good one for the US; Vlad being such great friend of the United States...]


Iran

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also lauded the deal struck between the P5+1 countries and Iran. But that's pretty much where the similarities stop.

Contrary to what Obama said, Rouhani said "all sanctions will be lifted" as part of the deal.


That's not the only difference in wording. Earlier, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the written deal does not say that Iran can enrich uranium.

Rouhani, however, said the outcome means world powers have "recognized Iran's nuclear rights," including the right to enrich uranium.

"This right has been explicitly stipulated by this agreement, stressing that Iran will go on with enrichment," he said. "Enrichment will proceed similar to in the past."

According to the White House, Iran has agreed to stop enriching uranium above 5% purity. That's enough to produce electricity, but not enough to reach the level required to make a nuclear bomb.

On Sunday, Rouhani echoed a phrase often repeated in Tehran: "Iran has never sought to attain nuclear weapons."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/world/iran-deal-reaction/

[Lord Jim]

Jim--let's say we followed your procedure; how long would the sanctions remain in place, forever? Until there was some regime change? Or until there was a verifiable cessation of the activities we wanted stopped?

Here's my take on that whole issue:

In the final analysis, there is only one acceptable end state for this; Iran must give up it's ambition to have a nuclear weapon, and it must dismantle all the production facilities related to building that weapon, and turn over all weapons grade nuclear material it all ready possesses. Period.

Now, there are two ways that this could happen. Either the existing regime comes to believe that pursuing a nuclear weapon is not worth the cost, or it is replaced by another regime that sees it that way.

In order for the former to happen, the regime must fear the latter. I am absolutely 100% convinced that the one and only thing that would have any chance of getting the Iranian Islamo-fascist regime to finally give up it's nuclear weapon ambition is if they have a realistic fear that if they do not do so, they would be driven from power. (Either by popular uprising, or a military coup or some combination of the two.)

The reason that this is the only thing that would work, is because holding on to power is the only thing this crowd values more than the development of a nuclear weapon. They've made that clear. We have to get them to the point where they have to make that choice.

So then the question becomes, "what is the best way to get them to that point?". I Think that's pretty obvious. The way you get there is by damaging the Iranian economy to the point that popular discontent rises to the level where a popular uprising or military coup becomes possible.

Clearly they aren't there yet. So what you need are harsher sanctions; loosening sanctions is going precisely in the wrong direction. (Particularly the one I mentioned about refined petroleum. That would hit the average Iranian hard and fast.)

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that the Iranians are doing anything other than what they have always done; tried ease the pressure on themselves and buy more time to complete their development of a nuclear bomb.

[Big RR]

Perhaps, but the alternative is to show their people they are acting in their best interest and making the concession before the sanctions hurt them too much. It gives them the added bonus of a little face saving. Often draconian sanctions have the opposite effect and galvanize a people against a common enemy.

[Big RR]

Perhaps, but the alternative is to show their people they are acting in their best interest and making the concession before the sanctions hurt them too much. It gives them the added bonus of a little face saving. Often draconian sanctions have the opposite effect and galvanize a people against a common enemy.

[Lord Jim]

What they're playing at now Big RR, (which is clear from what they are saying in the CNN article I pasted) is that they are trying to convince their people that they are clever enough to get the sanctions removed without having to abandon their nukes program....

And unfortunately this agreement gives them cover to do that, and to the extent that they increase their popularity by pushing that line, we are moving 180 degrees in the wrong direction...

And it 's not just the GOP on The Hill that Obama's got problems with on this:

The White House found broad bipartisan skepticism Sunday on the deal reached between six world powers and Iran, and top Democrats criticized the Obama administration for what they saw as a disproportional deal that favors Iran.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the White House's key Senate allies, said in a statement that the disproportional nature of the agreement made it "more likely" that the Senate would move to impose new sanctions on Iran.

"Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions," Schumer said.

"It was strong sanctions, not the goodness of the hearts of the Iranian leaders, that brought Iran to the table, and any reduction relieves the psychological pressure of future sanctions and gives them hope that they will be able to gain nuclear weapon capability while further sanctions are reduced. A fairer agreement would have coupled a reduction in sanctions with a proportionate reduction in Iranian nuclear capability."

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, similarly criticized what he perceived as a more one-sided deal that benefits Iran. However, he said that he expected any further sanctions legislation would provide for a six-month window on the interim agreement, allowing for negotiators to work on a permanent deal.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hasn't issued a statement on the deal. A spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday morning. Reid did say on the Senate floor last week that he was committed to moving forward on new sanctions legislation, putting pressure on negotiators in Geneva.

The White House also faced skepticism on the House side. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he was "concerned" the agreement does not "require Iran to completely halt its enrichment efforts or dismantle its centrifuges."

In a statement, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) also expressed his doubts about the deal, but he stopped short of outright opposition.

"The lingering question, however, is whether the negotiating partners will work equally hard to preserve the strong international sanctions regime until that goal is achieved," Boehner said.

"Otherwise, we will look back on the interim deal as a remarkably clever Iranian move to dismantle the international sanctions regime while maintaining its infrastructure and material to pursue a break-out nuclear capability."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-nuc ... z2lgauqjmp

Schumer and Menendez aren't exactly Democratic Senate back benchers...

Obama could easily find himself the uncomfortable position of having to decide whether or not to veto additional sanctions legislation that passes in both houses with wide bi-partisan majorities...

[dgs49]

The most important question is whether it is possible to confirm, with reasonable certainty, that Iran is living up to the commitments of this agreement. As a member of the general public, with information limited to that which is made available to major news media, it is not possible to assess the verification machinery, except to the extent that we can trust the negotiators not to give away the store.

Still, the ROW all benefits in the short run with the lifting of sanctions, since it will have the effect of lowering oil prices. So are they simply looking the other way to get the appearance of success?

I would feel so much better if Jimmy Carter were brokering this deal. He has such a solid record of getting commitments from the formerly-intransigent.

[Long Run]

And it is reasonable to ask if there is "wag the dog" going on in this announcement with the Administration in a near free-fall in public perception of competence. Combine the skepticism of the Administration trying to show it can accomplish something with no trust of the Iranian regime, leaves one hoping for the best but not having any confidence this treaty will be of any benefit.

[liberty]

The Iranian supreme leader, the only power in the country that matters, would like to keep the pain for Iranian people to a minimum for internal reasons. But don’t fool yourself nothing short of death will keep them from having nukes. And when that day comes our situation will change. This won’t end well for someone.

[Big RR]

I don't agree liberty, nuclear weapons are not an end unto themselves, they are a tool to obtain things the country wants. Except for someone who is crazy, and I don't really know about the Iranian leadership for certain, having nuclear weapons alone achieves very little. Hell, it hasn't exactly showered us with peace and prosperity. Against that backdrop, if they can achieve much of what they want without having the weapons, and with a face saving out to boot, all the better.

Jim--I don't think the CNN article makes it clear that Iranian leaders intend to continue their nuclear weapons program, allowing refinement for electric generation is just a face saving contrivance. If it is verifiable (and that's a big "if"), I don't see it as that bad of an idea--and grandstanders like Schumer and Menendez blustering doesn't change my views.

[Econoline]

From Andrew Sullivan at The Dish:

It is indeed mindless to denounce a temporary agreement for a six month negotiation to end the possibility of Iranian nuclear bombs without offering any feasible alternative. The one proffered – to actually tighten the sanctions that have already brought the Iranian regime to its knees – cannot work to achieve the desired result. Such sanctions would destroy Rouhani’s standing and credibility, split apart the global coalition on sanctions, help cement in Khamenei’s mind that no deal is possible with the West without national humiliation and regime change, and do nothing to, actually, you know, stop Iran’s nuclear program. It is a de facto argument for war as the only acceptable policy toward Iran.

So their policy is effectively another pre-emptive Middle East war on a country with no nuclear weapons with unknowable consequences and without any allies that would only delay, at best, an Iranian nuclear program. Does any of that sound familiar to you? Such a war would, moreover, strengthen the regime, dis-empower the opposition and all but guarantee that any Iranian regime would try even harder to get a nuclear deterrent. You will find nothing, nothing in the GOP analysis that even begins to absorb the fact that the Iranian opposition also supports a civilian nuclear program. So they are also intent on picking the one fight with Iran that would unite the regime and the people.

(Read the whole post here.)

It does seem strange to punish the Iranian people for having leaders who are unwilling to negotiate, and then to want to increase sanctions in order to punish them even worse after they elect a leader who *IS* willing to negotiate.

[Econoline]

More commentary (from The Daily Beast)...with this bit especially for the Reagan-worshippers:

If today’s conservatives actually studied Reagan, instead of deifying him, they might find a useful model in the way he handled the Soviet Union. Early in his presidency, Ronald Reagan brought massive pressure to bear on Moscow. But when that pressure helped bring to power Mikhail Gorbachev, a man genuinely interested in ending the Cold War, Reagan moved decisively to buttress Gorbachev at home. He did so even though it required American concessions in the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that outraged Reagan’s hawkish base. And Reagan’s strategy of supporting Gorbachev worked. “If Reagan had stuck to his hard-line policies in 1985 and 1986,” wrote longtime Soviet ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Dobrynin, “Gorbachev would have been accused by the rest of the Politburo of giving everything away to a fellow who does not want to negotiate. We would have been forced to tighten our belts and spend even more on defense.”

Today, America should make a similar investment in Hassan Rouhani, not because Rouhani will give America everything it wants, but because if he fails, America will get far less. Legislating new sanctions now, even if they don’t immediately take effect, could destroy Rouhani’s nuclear diplomacy. If that happens, we may have to wait years more for leaders willing to cap Iran’s nuclear program and end its cold war with the West. And by the time they come along, who knows how many centrifuges Iran will have?

Read the whole article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -iran.html