Seems we are at odds with Iran before the agreement is eve negotiated. A few key discrepancies:
US:
U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA
has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps.
If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions
will snap back into place.
Iran:
"All of the sanctions will be immediately removed after reaching a comprehensive agreement."
US:
Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 models to produce
enriched uranium for at least ten years. Iran will engage in limited
research and development with its advanced centrifuges, according to a
schedule and parameters which have been agreed to by the P5+1.
Iran:
"Iran will continue its research and development on advanced machines
and will continue the initiation and completion phases of the research
and development process of IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, and IR-8 centrifuges during
the 10 year period of the Comprehensive Plan for Joint Action."
US:
"Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for at least 15
years," and to "reduce its current stockpile of about 10,000 kg of
low-enriched uranium (LEU) to 300 kg of 3.67 percent LEU for 15 years."
Iran:
Iran's statement does not appear to make the distinction between 10 and
15 years, saying: "The time frame of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint
Action regarding Iran's enrichment program will be 10 years." It then
refers to the enrichment at Natanz occurring during this period.
US:
"The original core of the reactor, which would have enabled the
production of significant quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, will be
destroyed or removed from the country."
Iran:
Iran statement says the Arak reactor "will remain" and will be enhanced
and updated, including so it produces less plutonium. It does not
mention the core being destroyed.
When the rest of the story is told, who will be right? IS it an interpretation issue? IS the US being misled or is the US padding the story? How many more differences will we find in the rest of the story?
Here is what the agreement says:
ReplyDelete• Iran has agreed to redesign and rebuild a heavy water research reactor in Arak, based on a design that is agreed to by the P5+1, which will not produce weapons grade plutonium, and which will support peaceful nuclear research and radioisotope production.
• The original core of the reactor, which would have enabled the production of significant quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, will be destroyed or removed from the country.
• Iran will ship all of its spent fuel from the reactor out of the country for the reactor's lifetime.
• Iran has committed indefinitely to not conduct reprocessing or reprocessing research and development on spent nuclear fuel.
• Iran will not accumulate heavy water in excess of the needs of the modified Arak reactor, and will sell any remaining heavy water on the international market for 15 years.
• Iran will not build any additional heavy water reactors for 15 years.
That's what your government says. The Iranians say different. Hence the topic.
DeleteIs the US government telling a story or is Iran? Both have been known to lie.
If we agree Obama is lying, the only alternative plan to me seem to be that we bomb Iran and possibly go to war with them. Are you okay with that outcome?
DeleteLying or not, I see an attempt by Obama and several other nations to come up with an agreement that prevents taking military action against Iran. Israel seems to badly want to go the military route as do seemingly most of the Republican base. No matter who is POTUS, I want them to do what is best for the United States. I'm not currently convinced it is in our interest to take military action against them.
Did the negotiations include the people most affected by the decision? The other people in the middle east? What gives obama or any other nation toe right to negotiate nuclear arms, power with a nation without including the people most affected?
DeleteDo you stand on the premise a bad deal is better than no deal at all? If Iran develops the bomb and nuc's Saudi Arabia, Israel, what ever will we do. Draw a line in the sand? A little late after the detonation wouldn't you say.
People think the Iranians are just like us. The are not. They do not value life as we do. What makes you or anyone else think they can be trusted?
A series of imams was appointed to carry on the Prophet Muhammad's message, they believe, ranking above all other prophets except for Muhammad himself. The 12th, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Twelvers -- not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims -- believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.
The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.
The Twelver beliefs have raised concern in conjunction with Iran's steeped interest in furiously pressing forward with its nuclear program, combined with threats against Israel and the West. Critics of the Islamic Republic allege that Ahmadinejad and the supreme leader would even go so far as to hasten a nuclear showdown and cataclysmic strike -- perhaps an attack on Israel and inevitable retaliation -- to hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam. Ahmadinejad has even called for the reappearance of the 12th Imam from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly. During his speeches within Iran, Ahmadinejad has said that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam.
Just a little history.
Lou,
DeleteRespectfully, I appreciate your use of context. But, In fairness, I have to ask why gives the nations outside of the middle east the right to tell the people of the middle east anything? What gave those outside the middle east the right to create Israel out of nothing, along with most of the other borders? For decades, we have treated the people of the middle east as being completely inconsequential and secondary to our interests and for as long as we live on oil, we will continue to do so. What gives us that power is the size of our nation and the strength of our military. It's not remotely just, but it's reality. The bottom line remains the same, either we find some agreement or we go to war. Considering how badly Iraq went, I'm still genuinely asking what good will come of war with Iran.
Your third para there reminds me of the talk I used to hear when I was in the army in the late 80's. Only then it was the Russians who did not value life. They were deemed every bit as crazy and the spoke with exactly the same bombast that they would destroy us. I'll concede that when you introduce religion into the mix, rationality goes out the window. There are many in this country who have a Christian belief that objectively seems just as incredulous. What about the left behind people? I don't believe, however, that the entirety of Iran is full of nothing but cultists. Like any other nation, however, they are proud of their sovereignty. We invaded Iraq, we kicked out the people we didn't like, we installed puppets and it's been a shit show ever since.
I bring that up because it is the bottom line. We do something like sign a treaty, or we go to war. I'm not being disrespectful to the context you put there, but I feel like you are saying, "I'm not saying lets go to war, I'm just telling you something about the people there to make you less opposed to attacking them." What we are being sold piece by piece is a premise that nothing short of attacking Iran and making them submit to us is acceptable. What isn't being well described is how this will work and how it benefits us. We are already, allegedly, supporting Iranian troops against Isis. If this is true, it's a reality of how the middle east works. What seems to be in our best interest is to not let any one nation there become powerful enough to dominate all the others.
No, the Iranians do not say different, they say this is the preliminary deal which may change before the final deal is struck.
DeleteIran, to me, is doing what every nation does. I'll concede that perhaps they are so whacked that they want nothing more than to build a bomb to destroy Israel even though it would clearly mean their own annihilation. On the other hand, perhaps they are using the only bargaining chip they have to get the sanctions on them lifted. I don't have a firm conviction one way or the other. That said, the rest of my point stands. The nations outside of the middle east have imposed their will for decades on the people who live there. As much as I support the reality that we always will and always should support Israel, I also believe it is in our best interest once in awhile to show a little daylight between both nations.
DeleteHey Max.
DeleteSeems to be a bit of a disagreement as to what is in the initial agreement. As always, the deal is a deal until it isn't.
Will the US capitulate in order to maintain the illusion of peace?
Will Iran capitulate in order to begin a peace process?
The people are not crazy, they are mostly just people. Their leadership, another thing.
The use of the word capitulate, to me, means that there must be a winner and a loser. I'm not trying to be an obstinate dick, but this is one of the few times I see something black and white. Either we find a deal that no one will be totally happy with, or we go to war and live with the consequences. The stuff about the Imams and everything else seems like noise to me. Bibi wants air strikes. Most of the Rebpulican base seems to be on that page as well. In my opinion, the basis for that opinion is a belief that we can make the entire middle east bow to us. I suppose we can probably slug it out pretty well with Iran, but at what cost to us? At what cost to the people who live there, who, like Iraq civilians, will be absorbing our missiles. There is no doubt in my mind that once a deal is struck, both sides willl circumvent it when it suits them. This is how the world works. Quite honestly, I'm not sure we doing Israel any favors either to attack Iran for them, or let them attack Iran and tell the rest of the middle to stand down or deal with us. There are not a lot of really good options here, but determining that Iran must walk away a loser is not going to help us much, IMO.
DeleteThe supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in his first public comments on the diplomacy, said on Thursday the U.S. and its negotiating partners must lift all sanctions on his country immediately upon a final deal being signed. The Obama administration has been demanding a phased repeal of the penalties, conditional on Iran’s continuing compliance.
DeleteThe 75-year-old cleric also said Iran’s government and security forces wouldn’t permit outside inspections of the country’s military sites, which are officially nonnuclear but where United Nations investigators suspect Tehran conducted tests related to atomic weapons development.
Khamenei said he didn’t support or oppose the parameters of the deal at this stage, arguing they were still a work in progress.
“Everything done so far neither guarantees an agreement in principle nor its contents, nor does it guarantee that the negotiations will continue to the end,” he said in a speech broadcast on state television and posted on his website.
“The whole problem comes now that the details should be discussed, because the other side is stubborn, difficult to deal with, breaks promises and is a backstabber,” he said.
Marketwatch
at what cost to us.
There is no cost to the US. We are not their next door neighbor.
You have to shake your head at the politics of it all.
The Iranians claim the US lies.
The US claims the Iranians lie.
The Congress says WTF, this is a treaty and you need to consult us.
The Administration says to congress, sorry none of your business.
The Saudi's, Israelis say excuse me but your negotiating our future.
The US says, but out, it's none of your business.
As the world turns. Yet another soap opera.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe Iran is padding the story?
ReplyDeleteDid it ever occur to you that Obama and Kerry are misleading the American public?
DeleteI didn't get to keep my insurance as promised. You can keep your insurance was certainly misleading.
These negotiations remind me of a game of liars poker.
ReplyDeleteHere is a clearly written and seemingly unbiased review of what is and what isn't included in this preliminary deal. Iran has clearly stated that this is not the final agreement and they will not sign that until the bans are lifted.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/04/economist-explains-3
Another Obama legacy opportunity down the drain.
Delete