Iran nuclear deal

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Iran lawmakers threaten nuclear speed-up if Congress adds sanctions
In a gesture apparently intended as retaliation for congressional sanctions legislation, 100 members of Iran's parliament have signed on to a resolution calling for an increase in uranium enrichment to 60% purity from a current 20%. The bill also would order activation of the partially built Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor, which could generate plutonium that could be used as bomb fuel.

The lawmakers signed the bill and presented it to the parliament's governing body, which could still block the bill.

Some U.S. advocates of sanctions maintain the Iranian threats are hollow. They say that because of the economic pressure created by past Western sanctions, Tehran can't afford to walk away from the upcoming negotiations to restrain its nuclear program.

But the legislation was another sign of the continuing tensions between the two sides one month after Iran and six world powers, including the United States, signed a preliminary agreement to freeze some aspects of its nuclear program.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Third round of Iran's nuclear talks: hardliners strike back
Iran and the P5+1 (the U.S., Russia, France, China, Britain and Germany) launched the third round of nuclear negotiations with expert-level talks in Geneva this week.

These rounds of nuclear talks will likely address the broader scheme of the Joint Plan of Action, signed by Iran and the P5+1, which would allow the IAEA inspectors to inspect nuclear sites and oblige Tehran to suspend its most sensitive nuclear work. Though the main issues on the interpretation of the statement indicate that "Iran will continue its safeguarded R&D practices, including its current enrichment R&D practices which are not designed for accumulation of the enriched uranium," the issue will likely be discussed much later, in the future round of nuclear negotiations.

It should be positive news for Tehran that Iran has already gained back almost 20 percent of its currency in just the last seven months, since Hassan Rowhani assumed office. While one U.S. dollar equaled approximately 31,000 Rials a few months ago, the currency exchange is now about 24,100 Rials to the dollar.
The most immediate challenge to Iran's nuclear deal does not emanate from the six world powers (P5+1) but in making a deal with the hardliners who have made advances in their cause over the past few weeks.

Additionally, in the Majlis (the Iranian parliament), lawmakers have proposed a bill to enrich uranium up to 60 percent, which falls beyond the current level agreed upon between Iran and the P5+1.

This level of nuclear enrichment can produce weapons-grade nuclear material. This bill was introduced into parliament by approximately 105 lawmakers, with a "double urgency" status (usually meant to be discussed within a week). According to Iran's Press TV website, hardline lawmaker Mehdi Mousavinejad pointed out that this bill "if approved, will oblige the government to... enrich uranium to 60 percent level in order to provide fuel for submarine engines if the sanctions are tightened and Iran's nuclear rights are ignored (by major powers) ."
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
@Haman10

Currently discussions are going on between P5+ and iran on nuclear deal. So to what extent can rouhani make concessions. How is he perceived by general public there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Nuclear deal implementation talks: Iranian negotiator says all disputes resolved; US says deal not finalised
Iran and the European Union appeared to make progress in resolving outstanding differences on how to implement a landmark nuclear deal in talks in Geneva on Friday but the US said discussions were not yet finalised.

Deputy foreign minister Abbas Araqchi met a senior EU official in Geneva to iron out remaining practical details of the 24 November accord under which Iran agreed to curb its most sensitive nuclear work in return for some sanctions relief. After the meeting, he told Reuters that the sides have found "solutions for every difference" but more consultations were needed before an agreement could be announced.
What does he mean by have found solutions for every difference but still want more discussions??:confused:
The agreement is designed to last six months and the six powers hope to use the time to negotiate a final, broad settlement over Iran's nuclear ambitions
 

Haman10

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
158
Likes
307
@Haman10

Currently discussions are going on between P5+ and iran on nuclear deal. So to what extent can rouhani make concessions. How is he perceived by general public there.
quite the contrary he is loosing his approval rating back in iran !!

you know about the deal which we had with P5+1 or better said (3+3) ..... the deal was :

1- iran turns its 20% enriched uranium into fuel pods

2-iran continues the work on arak reactor but refuses to fuel it

2- they start to scrap the sanctions immediately after the talks

but west didnt even pay an iota of respect to the deal !!! so he is loosing his approval rating as we speak ......

yes , he favors talk with west and he thinks that US can be talked with ! but how can you trust a country that ignores all the international regulations whenever it wants but meanwhile ask others to respect it ? isnt that hypocrisy ?

take the indian diplomat issue for example ..... how can they ignore all the laws whenever they wish ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Iran agrees to explain nuclear detonators to UN
Iran agreed Sunday to clarify to the UN atomic agency its need for detonators used in nuclear devices, as part of a probe into allegations of its past weapons work.

The move is part of seven new steps agreed between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency to increase transparency over Tehran's controversial nuclear drive.

And it appears to be the first time in years Iran has agreed to tackle IAEA suspicions that its nuclear work prior to 2003 had "possible military dimensions".

The development comes with Iran set to resume nuclear talks with world powers later this month, after an initial accord in November imposed curbs on its uranium enrichment to allay concerns that it seeks to acquire atomic weapons.

Capping two-days of talks in Tehran with Iranian officials, the IAEA said Iran agreed to provide "information and explanations for the agency to assess Iran's stated need or application for the development of Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW) detonators".

According to the IAEA, Iran told the agency in 2008 that it had developed EBWs for "civilian and conventional military applications" but has yet to explain its "need or application for such detonators".

Such fast, high-precision detonators could be used in some civilian applications but are mostly known for triggering a nuclear chain reaction. The IAEA believes they form "an integral part of a programme to develop an implosion type nuclear device."

Mark Hibbs, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the detonators are "fine wires... designed to perform with exceeding precision and reliability. Without that dependability, the detonations would fail."

Citing an unnamed Iranian nuclear official, the ISNA news agency said Tehran would "provide information beyond what it had already provided to the agency" on the EBWs.

It did not elaborate.

Earlier, Iran's envoy to the Vienna-based IAEA, Reza Najafi, said "seven more practical steps" had been agreed between the two sides in a deal that would be implemented by May 15.

Six other steps were agreed under a framework deal struck on November 11.

In the latest agreement, the IAEA will also have "managed access" to the Saghand uranium mine and the Ardakan yellowcake facility where an impure form of uranium oxide is prepared to be fed into centrifuges for enrichment.

Officially unveiled in April 2013, the plant in Ardakan receives raw material from Saghand, some 120 kilometres (75 miles) away. It can reportedly produce up to 60 tonnes of yellowcake annually.

Arak reactor in spotlight

Iran also agreed to submit updated design information and finalise a safeguards mechanism for the so-called heavy water reactor under construction in Arak.

The reactor is of international concern because it could theoretically give Iran a second route to a nuclear bomb -- an alternative to highly enriched uranium -- through extraction of weapons-grade plutonium from spent fuel if it also builds a reprocessing facility.

IAEA director general Yukiya Amano is reportedly expected to brief the agency's board of governors on the details of the latest agreement.

Last month he raised expectations that alleged weaponisation studies would be broached in future talks with Iran, telling AFP the time was ripe to ask "more difficult" questions.

Najafi said the weekend talks with IAEA experts were "constructive" and focused on "the progress in implementation of practical steps" required of Iran in the November deal.

Iran's enrichment activities are in defiance of repeated UN Security Council demands and resolutions, amid suspicions in the West and Israel that Tehran's nuclear drive masks military objectives, a claim it has repeatedly denied.

A sore issue in long-running discussions with the IAEA has been the Parchin military site near Tehran, which the UN agency suspects was used for research on weapons development.

Iran argues that Parchin is not a nuclear-declared site and therefore not subject to inspection.

A visit to Parchin was not included in the new seven-step deal.

The IAEA says it needs to examine Parchin, pointing to new information received since its last visits in 2005.

Iran and six world powers are due to resume nuclear talks on February 18 on reaching a long-term nuclear deal.

Full cooperation with the IAEA is a key demand of the P5+1 -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States plus Germany.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Iran nuclear deal framework 'agreed' in Vienna
Iran is reported to have agreed a framework for talks with six world powers in Vienna on a comprehensive agreement to limit its controversial nuclear programme.



A top Iranian representative was quoted as saying that agreement was reached after two days of talks.

But correspondents say the two sides remain far apart on a final resolution.

Iran is accused by Western countries of trying to develop nuclear weapons, something it denies.

Teheran insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

Interim deal
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told Iran's IRNA news agency: "The involved parties have agreed on an agenda and a framework and the next round of talks will be in the second half of March in Vienna."

A senior US state department official was earlier quoted by Reuters as describing the second day of talks on Wednesday as "constructive and useful".

Both Iran and the United States have publicly stated it may not be possible to reach a final agreement.

Iran's announcement came ahead of the third day of talks between it and representatives of the so-called P5+1 - the US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany.

The Vienna meeting seeks to build on an interim deal signed in November that saw Iran curb uranium enrichment in return for partial sanctions relief.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Monday that he believed a long-term agreement was possible but it will "take time".

Mr Zarif's remarks came after Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has final say in nuclear matters, was pessimistic about the prospects of a long-term deal.

'Red lines'
The West wants Iran to scale back permanently its sensitive nuclear activities to ensure that it cannot assemble a nuclear weapon. But Iran says its nuclear work will continue and wants an end to the sanctions that have battered its economy.

The interim deal, which was struck in November but only took effect on 20 January, gives Iran and the P5+1 six months to negotiate a "comprehensive solution", although it can be extended.

It obliges Iran to: halt production of near-20% enriched uranium, which could be further enriched to weapons-grade relatively quickly; dilute half of its stockpile; commit not to commission or fuel the Arak heavy-water reactor, from where spent fuel plutonium could be extracted; and submit to daily inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In return, the P5+1 has eased sanctions on trade in petrochemicals, precious metals and on the provision of insurance for oil shipments. It has also committed to give Iran access to $4.2bn of oil revenue frozen in foreign banks at monthly intervals.

The issues for the permanent deal are said to include the level of Iran's ongoing enrichment of uranium; the underground enrichment facility at Fordo; the Arak reactor; and Tehran's willingness to let inspectors visit the Parchin military complex, where the IAEA suspects activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device" were carried out.

Iran has a number of "red lines", including not dismantling any facilities.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
The Iran Interim Nuclear Deal Is Three Months Old -- How Is It Going?
Iran's nuclear progress has been halted for three months, and Iran has received some limited relief from sanctions under the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) agreed on November 24, 2013 and implemented on January 20, 2014. Three months after taking effect, all sides report that the agreement is being fairly implemented. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that Iran's stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium has been dramatically reduced and all sides report private ongoing negotiations among Iran, the UN Security Council Permanent members, Germany and the European Union are making progress.

A number of key issues have emerged, however, as analysts look ahead to what a final comprehensive agreement among the parties might look like. It remains hard to see precisely how an agreement can be crafted that allows Iran to pursue uranium enrichment while providing the United States and others confidence that Iran will remain a non-nuclear weapon state. Trust, despite three months of progress, remains in short supply. This is not surprising after 30 plus years of isolation and hostility.

However, the fact that both the Iranian and American leaders are pursuing such an agreement offers hope that a final settlement might be negotiated. As the parties pursue such a deal, there are a number of issues that analysis should keep in mind and are very much on the table in these talks.

Iran's Future Uranium Enrichment Program

The parties have endorsed, for now, Iran's ability to continue enriching uranium, as long as the enrichment product does not exceed 5 percent U-235. Iranian officials have insisted that they will not give up their enrichment program and continue to press for maintaining a very large enrichment capability. Several officials have sought to use the operation of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant as a basis for sizing Iran's future enrichment program, something that would make meaningful limited on Tehran's enrichment capabilities all but impossible to construct. For their part, western officials have been pushing Iran to abandon its enrichment program altogether, or at the very least to accept major numerical and technical constraints on its enrichment capacity to ensure that a significant amount of time would be required for Iran to produce enough weapon-usable uranium should it choose to do so. Few continue to deny that Iran has the technical skill to enrich uranium to a high enough level and to build a basic bomb, should it choose to do so. As such, built in time constraints on Iran's break out capability are the basis for any future assurances. Building in a lot of lead time will require severely limiting Iran's enrichment program to no more than a few thousand first generation centrifuges and a cap on the amount of 5% enriched materials that can be in the country at any time. Intrusive inspections will be a must, something Iran appears ready to accept through the IAEA Additional Protocol process.

Such a deal would be a major reduction from the 20,000 some odd centrifuges Iran now has at Natanz and Fordow, and far less than needed to produce fuel for Bushehr, something Russia is already contractually obligated to do. Other states not directly engaged in the negotiations like Israel are pushing for Iran to be kept from having any enrichment capability at all, and it remains unclear if and how they can be convinced to accept anything more than this absolutist position.

Thus, key to any final agreement will be whether Iran will be allowed to maintain any enrichment capacity and, if so, at what level. If the parties can square this circle - a major question - then they will have the even more difficult job of selling such an agreement back home and explaining why such a deal is better than reaching no agreement at all. In the United States and Iran, this will be very challenging as both have strong critics of their leadership negotiating over the nuclear issue in the first place. Israel is likely to use its political influence in the United States to encourage the US Congress to oppose and, if possible, scuttle such a deal.

Iran's Nuclear Past


There is a lot of evidence that Iran pursued a nuclear weapon program until at least 2003. While not conclusive, there is a lot of credible information to support this claim. (See Fact Sheet the Possible Military Dimensions of Iran's Nuclear Program). These weapon-related allegations have been the basis for a prolonged dialogue between Iran and the IAEA for many years and the IAEA has yet to resolve all of its outstanding concerns. At the very least, Iran has not done all that it can to resolve these outstanding questions, allowing mistrust to linger.

It remains unclear whether the ongoing P5+1 negotiations with Iran can achieve a final comprehensive settlement if Iran does not fully satisfy the IAEA's investigation on alleged past nuclear weapons work in Iran. At some point, the IAEA may be asked to assess whether any of the unresolved issue would impede its ability to implement full inspections under a future agreement. That answer will obviously depend on the nature and content of the final agreement.

It appears unlikely that Iran will be willing to publicly acknowledge any past pursuit of nuclear weapons, per se. The fact that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has issued a religious edict (Fatwah) that nuclear weapons are against Islam makes any admission of past pursuit problematic. However, the parties may be able to find a way for Iran to respond confidentially to the IAEA's investigation as long as they are not made fully public and Iran is assured that they will not face additional sanctions for doing so. This example has been a model for past settlements, including in key US allies such as South Korea and Taiwan. This may make the issues the IAEA needs to resolve to ensure it can pursue future safeguards easier to address and define.

Iran's Ballistic Missile Program

The United States and major European powers are interested in curtailing Iran's ballistic missile program, as well as in gaining assurances that Iran's nuclear activities are completely peaceful. Iran has denied any interest in developing nuclear weapons, but has a large and ambitious ballistic missile development program. Some of these systems, including the Shahab-3 (a variant of the North Korean No-Dong I missile) can reach parts of Europe and there are reports that Iran is continuing to expand the range of its missile systems.

Western officials have sought to include the ballistic missile issue - a topic included in multiple UN Security Council Resolutions sanctioning Iran - in the talks with Tehran. Iran, for its part, has resisted any merging of the nuclear and missile issue. It remains unclear whether the P5+1 will accept an agreement that does not address ballistic missiles, and whether Iran will agree to any deal that does. It is possible this issue may be tabled for further discussions after a final agreement on the nuclear issue is reached.

Nuclear Vs. Non-Nuclear Sanctions

Iran is the target of hundreds of nuclear-related sanctions by the United States, European countries and the European Union. Russia and China, as well as all UN states are also obligated to comply with sanctions levied against Iran for being in non-compliance with its inspection obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran, however, is also the subject of US and multilateral sanctions related to other issues, including support for terrorist groups and human rights abuses.

To accept limits on its nuclear program, Iranian officials are going to press hard for full and complete relief from these sanctions. If such a deal can be reached and sanctions lifted, the parties will have to confront the fact that Iran is sanctioned on multiple grounds,not just on the basis of its nuclear activities. If left in place, these other penalties will affect Iran's desire to increase its economic prospects if it complies with a possible nuclear deal.

US political officials are concerned not only with Iran's nuclear program, but with the full suite of actions pursued by Tehran that is widely seen as antagonistic to US interests in the region, including the threats posed against America's closest ally in the region, Israel. Any nuclear sanctions lifted could be re-imposed on other grounds. Even if he wanted to, no U.S. President could promise that other sanctions would not be levied by the U.S. Congress over his veto. There is no quick or easy answer to this issue, as witnessed by the recent move by the US to ban the entry into the United States of Iran's named UN Ambassador because of alleged terrorist ties.

It is Going To Get Interesting

By some measures, the implementation of the JPAO has been relatively smooth for the first three months. Now, however, things may be much more difficult. The issues listed above are raised not to dampen the prospects for a negotiated outcome, but to remind observers and analysts of the complexities confronting both the negotiators and the political leaders engaged in the current discussions. That an interim agreement has been established is remarkable. Achieving a sustainable final agreement will take an even more herculean effort. Both US and Iranian leaders have suggested the odds are against a final deal. But for now, at least, they continue to pursue such a pact.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
How a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal could help save Iraq - By Ryan Crocker, William Luers and Thomas Pickering
Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, is dean of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. William Luers, a former U.S. ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia, is director of the Iran Project. Thomas Pickering was U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs from 1997 to 2000 and ambassador to the United Nations from 1989 to 1992.



An Arab proverb advises, "A problem is solved when it gets tougher."

Illustrating that point, the advance in Iraq and Syria of the Islamic State poses a threat to the United States while clarifying choices for U.S. policymakers. The question confronting the United States and Iran is no longer whether to work together but how to do so. And in light of decades of distrust and animosity, communications between the two countries can be greatly facilitated by reaching a comprehensive nuclear agreement in talks underway in Vienna. Failure, however, would leave only bad options.

If the Islamic State is to be contained, the United States and other nations will have to reconsider past policies and manage enmities.

For Iran, the breakup of Iraq and the creation of a radical Islamist Sunni state next door would be catastrophic. Iranian leaders now must decide whether to join Iraqi Shiites in a bloody sectarian war or, along with the use of force, work with others to build a federalized Iraq in which ethnic groups share in the responsibilities and benefits of statehood.

Meanwhile, after years of clandestinely supporting radical Sunni Islamists throughout the Middle East, the Persian Gulf monarchies face a choice between denouncing the Islamic State, which poses a significant threat to them as well, or continuing to emphasize the sectarian struggle with the Shiites.

In Syria, the choice for Bashar al-Assad's government is either to turn its military power against the Islamic State or to continue to kill fellow Syrians. It makes no sense for the West to support a war against Assad as well as a war against the Islamic State. Assad is evil, but in this case he is certainly the lesser evil.

The Turkish leadership seems to have decided already to support Kurdish military action against the Islamic State, choosing to risk enabling more independence for the Kurds given that the alternative is a radical Islamist regime on its border. Israel, too, must see that this violent Islamist turbulence requires it to reconsider which foreign power represents its most serious threat.

Iran and the United States share interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's intelligence network, religious identity, political influence, history and geography give it a pre eminent role in both countries. At the same time, U.S. air power, special forces, military advisers, recent history and a commitment not to waste the lives and money the United States invested in both places likewise assure that it has a major part to play. While some direct, low-key talks on Iraq have already taken place, the nuclear negotiations must be resolved before the United States and Iran will agree to have regular talks on the issue. Any such discussions must also be sensitive to the reactions of Sunnis, particularly those in Iraq who loathe Iran.

Both sides are clearly committed to making a maximum effort to get a nuclear agreement by July 20, and a good accord is within reach. Despite the expectations of many observers, remarkable headway has been made. Iran has already met most of the demands of the six nations involved in the talks, and the sides are working to establish a practical time frame for Iran to comply with limits on its nuclear program under extraordinary monitoring and safeguards. The negotiations have been more civil than anyone imagined a year ago. But important — perhaps deal-breaking — details regarding the ultimate size and scope of Iran's peaceful nuclear program remain unresolved.

A breakdown of the talks — still a possibility — would revive the specter of military conflict and result in the collapse of the worldwide alliance that helped bring Iran to the table. It would make bilateral communications impossible, with both sides blaming the other. As the U.S.-built coalition crumbled, Iran might succeed in establishing its own trade and political relationships with Russia, China and Western Europe.

Failure would also undermine the hopes for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's government and could lead to the removal from office of those Iranian leaders who have sought to put the confrontational Ahmadinejad era behind them.

A new strategic relationship between the United States and Iran may seem impossible and risky, yet it is also necessary and in the interests of both. While an alliance is out of the question, mutually informed parallel action is essential.

Another Arab proverb advises, "At the narrow passage there is no brother or friend." Indeed, as we enter a new era of Middle East conflict, the path is narrow and fraught, and the United States will have to work with many strange bedfellows. But with the right nuclear agreement and pragmatic strategic decisions by Tehran and Washington, there is a way forward.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Explained: 10 short answers to 5 key points on Iran nuclear deal

Uranium enrichment – Iran has agreed to only enrich uranium to 3.67%

What is it? The process of turning uranium found in the ground into nuclear fuel that can be used to create nuclear energy, or potentially a nuclear bomb.

Why is it important? To build a nuclear bomb, uranium needs to be enriched to about 90 percent. The 3.67 percent agreed by Tehran means it would be practically impossible for Iran to build a nuclear weapon, but would allow it to use nuclear material for peaceful purposes.

The outcome: Iran gets to keep its nuclear program, albeit a limited one, while the likes of the US now know it will be much harder for Tehran to build a bomb.

Centrifuges – Iran cuts centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104, with 5,060 for enrichment

What are they? Centrifuges are vital to extract nuclear fuel from uranium in its mineral form. They work by spinning around at high speeds, which separate the different particles, eventually just leaving enriched uranium

Why are they important? The 6,000 or so centrifuges Iran has been allowed to keep are first generation and not the technically-advanced modern versions. This is like comparing a regular family car with a Formula 1 car, with Iran getting the former. If Tehran wanted to build a bomb now, it would take a very long time.

The outcome: Israel and US Republicans wanted Iran to give up all its centrifuges, while Barack Obama was originally prepared to let it keep 6,500.

Uranium stockpiles – Iran to cut the amount it keeps from 10,000kg to just 300kg

What are they? Uranium is the key ingredient necessary in order to operate a nuclear program. Once it has been enriched, it can be used to generate power or create a nuclear weapon.

Why are they important? By giving up 97 percent of its uranium stockpiles, Tehran has effectively given up any possibility to create a nuclear bomb.

The outcome: By reducing its stockpiles, Iran has increased transparency with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), while also making a commitment to use its nuclear program for peaceful purposes.

Inspections – IAEA will have access to all Iran's nuclear facilities

What is it? The IAEA is an organization that promotes the peaceful use of nuclear power and is against the building of nuclear weapons that are used for military purposes.

Why is it important?
This will allow the international community to see if Iran is keeping its end of the bargain. The IAEA will be able to monitor everything concerning Tehran's nuclear program – from the reactors to the materials, such as uranium and centrifuges.

The outcome: With such transparency in place, it would be almost impossible for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon without getting caught.

Sanctions – Iran will see crippling sanctions lifted, if it keeps its end of bargain

What are they? The latest sanctions were introduced against Iran in 2006 after Tehran refused to halt its uranium enrichment program.

Why are they important? Sanctions introduced against Iran have had a devastating effect on its economy. Areas such as oil and gas have been affected, while Tehran's finance sector was also hit. This made it difficult for to trade on the world market, while areas such as Iran's aviation industry suffered, as they were unable to get spare parts from the US and the West.

The outcome: The sanctions will only be fully lifted once Iran has proven it has stopped its nuclear enrichment program. Once they are lifted, it will be a massive boost to Tehran's economy as it will increase trade and see new investment into the country.

Fallout from Iran nuclear deal

If Iran keeps its end of the deal, the West will know Iran's nuclear program is peaceful. For Tehran, it will be able to produce nuclear energy, while also be showing to the Iranian public that it has not caved in to the demands of the US and its allies.

The nuclear deal reached between Iran and the P5+1 group (China, France, Russia, UK and US) and Germany is a victory in diplomacy. However, it has the potential to destabilize the region, with Saudi Arabia and Israel both wary of any thawing of relations between Iran and the West. Riyadh has already stated it wants its own nuclear program, while Israel's relations with Washington have hit their lowest point for years.
===============





================

MODS: Please merge the below thread here.
Iran and West reach parameters of Nuclear deal - DFI thread
 
Last edited:

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
A step-by-step guide to what the Iran agreement actually means - By Ishaan tharoor

At last, it's happened in Lausanne. Iranian diplomats and their counterparts from six world powers, including the United States, have emerged with a "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" regarding Iran's nuclear program. This framework of an agreement -- the final deal is supposed to be reached by June 30 -- has been the product of days of intense, closed-door negotiations.

WorldViews explained earlier this week the main sticking points to a deal, which needs to satisfy Western fears over Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon, while providing Iran sanctions relief and allowing it to maintain a peaceable nuclear program. There's still plenty of work to be done, but the diplomatic efforts of the United States and its interlocutors could now lead to a historic opening with the Islamic Republic, whose leadership -- at least some figures within it -- are desperate for closer ties with the West.

Analysts appear surprised by the thoroughness of this framework agreement, which gives proponents of a deal hope that a real pact may be sealed this summer. Here's what you need to know about what this current round of talks has set in place.

1. The main metric bandied about when calculating how to prevent an Iranian atomic bomb is "breakout time" -- that is, the time it would take for Iran to produce enough fissile material (highly enriched uranium) that could make one nuclear weapon. The importance of breakout time as the main criterion to understanding Iran's nuclear ambitions is a matter of debate, and some experts say it's a bit pointless to obsess over it.

But one of the chief goals of any U.S.-backed agreement has been to extend Iran's supposed breakout time from an estimated two to three months right now to at least a year. A larger window gives the international community more time to respond and take tougher action on Iran. And the assumption is that the harder it is for Iran to produce a weapon, the less likely the chance that it will.

2. As far as the United States and its partners are concerned, the measures announced Thursday are centered on making it difficult for Iran to both produce and maintain stocks of highly enriched uranium. Iran has already diluted its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20 percent and agreed to dramatically reduce other stockpiles of low-enriched uranium. But stricter measures are necessary to prevent any move toward a weapon. (You can see a diagram that shows how uranium gets enriched here.)

3. One way of controlling this is capping Iran's number of centrifuges -- the whirling devices that enrich uranium gas. Under terms outlined Thursday, Iran will reduce its centrifuges from some 19,000 to 6,104. According to a memorandum circulated by American officials, Iran has agreed that, for the next 10 years, it will enrich uranium at only one facility, in Natanz, which has 5,000 first-generation centrifuges. It will not enrich uranium at levels beyond 3.67 percent -- insufficient for a bomb, but useful for nuclear energy purposes -- for 15 years.

4. Iran appears willing also to suspend enrichment activity at the controversial Fordow nuclear facility for 15 years, and will apparently convert the site into a nuclear physics research center. Fordow, situated inside a mountain outside the holy city of Qom, has particularly worried American and Israeli officials. Iranian authorities will guarantee that the heavy-water reactor in Arak, a site where it's feared Iran intends to produce weapons-grade plutonium, will not do so.

5. A very tight regime of international inspections will be imposed. Inspectors from the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will continuously monitor Iran's centrifuges and nuclear storage facilities for two decades, will have regular access to uranium mines and mills for the next 25 years, and will be able to conduct regular checks on Iran's nuclear sites. "If Iran cheats, the world will know it," said President Obama on Thursday.

6. In return, Iran wins sanctions relief, depending on its ability to follow through with the commitments agreed upon in a final deal. This will likely not happen as swiftly as the Iranians would like, and there seems to be a mechanism by which the sanctions would automatically "snap back" in place should Iran violate the terms of an agreement.
But the promise of the United States and European Union eventually lifting oil and banking sanctions on Iran led to celebrations in Tehran and a dip in the global price of oil on Thursday.

7. Other issues -- including to what extent Iran can use and upgrade more advanced centrifuges, as well as what happens to other military dimensions of its nuclear program -- still need ironing out in the months ahead.

8. The optimism generated by this framework agreement will not be shared by hawks in the United States and Israel, as well as in the Arab states, who still consider Iran a dangerous regional threat. Opponents of a deal in the United States may step up efforts to derail the talks in the coming weeks in Congress.

But the Obama administration can point to a pretty solid agreement that keeps Iran's nuclear ambition "in an iron box," and establishes the means by which the international community may be able to ensure it stays there.
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,310
Country flag
This is good for India and its relation with Iran and access to middle east through Chabar port, Iran needs to focus on its economy and build its conventional military capabilities.
 

ShahryarHedayatiSHBA

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
238
Likes
177
Iran's power rises, with or without deal



By Stephen Collinson, CNN


Washington (CNN)Deal or no deal in the Iranian nuclear talks, Tehran is already behaving like it's made a killing.

Sure, U.S. and international sanctions inflicted staggering damage on Iran's economy, convincing the longtime American foe to join talks aimed at limiting its nuclear program. Those talks face an important Tuesday night deadline.

But it's not just Iran's nuclear aspirations that have everyone's attention -- though just the fact that Iranian officials are at the table with the world's most powerful countries has elevated Iran's international status.

Getting the bomb would greatly magnify its regional -- even global -- role, but Tehran is also making big moves in a tumultuous Great Game of Middle East geopolitics that is challenging U.S influence and prestige and chilling Washington's allies.


As it engages on its nuclear program, Tehran has exploited the divisions of the Arab Spring and the power vacuum of America's downgraded involvement in the region. It has also taken advantage of the leeway the United States offered in prioritizing a nuclear deal over attempts to restrain Tehran's proxies that could risk breaking up the negotiations.

The result is that Iran -- often through militant groups it sponsors -- has become a key player in conflicts in neighboring states all the way to the edge of the Mediterranean.

Its drive for regional pre-eminence is becoming an increasing problem for the Obama administration as it contemplates selling a nuclear deal -- which is already drawing considerable skepticism -- to opponents in Congress and to anxious allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, who are watching Iran's maneuvering up close.


Critics are accusing President Barack Obama of turning a blind eye toward Iran's nefarious motives and proxy wars in the Middle East to safeguard a legacy-enhancing push for a deal that could lift his presidency's historic potential after decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran.

They fear Iran is not only about to walk away with a deal that leaves its nuclear infrastructure intact, but that it is also playing the United States for a fool by using the talks to shield its hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East.

"They have completely schooled the American and European diplomats," said Michael Rubin, an Iran analyst and critic of the administration at the American Enterprise Institute.

"The Iranians used to brag that they play chess and we play checkers. It turns out that they play chess, while we play solitaire."




Iranian proxies

Iran has used its Revolutionary Guard Corps and a host of proxies to fill the power gap left by the U.S. departure from Iraq and the political tumult stirred by the collapse of authoritarian governments felled by now-defunct popular reform movements.

"Iran was destined to expand its influence one way or the other, and the U.S. was not going to prevent that, especially because of the cost involved in trying to pacify Iraq," said Reva Bhalla, vice president of global analysis at Stratfor, a global intelligence and advisory firm.

"Iran benefited from the Arab Spring as well."

Iran has also seen an opportunity in the U.S.'s shifting policies and interests in the region. The George W. Bush administration pushed out the regional strongman in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, who kept Iran in check through a hostile balance-of-power arrangement. The subsequent collapse of the Iraqi state left a festering sectarian stew that Tehran was quick to use to forge links in Shiite areas.

And Obama, in addition to withdrawing American forces from Iraq, has sought a lighter touch in hot spots like Syria, Yemen and Libya, where chaos has created an opening for outside fighters and radical domestic groups to swoop in.

The regional meltdown that has seen governance collapse and national borders redrawn on sectarian lines has provided a potent breeding ground for radical, stateless Islamic groups — like ISIS -- to grow and threaten both U.S. and Iranian national interests.

So the Obama administration also sees a common interest with Iran in fighting ISIS. But some critics say its desire to do so has blinded it to Iran's activities elsewhere.




White House assessments

This has left the White House in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why the United States appears to be tacitly cooperating with Iran, with which it has waged a de facto ideological war for 30 years.

Senior U.S. officials deny they are going soft on Iran to keep Tehran sweet on nuclear talks. They say the negotiations are walled off from concerns about Iran's aggressive moves elsewhere. And they point out that Tehran would be much more dangerous to its neighbors if it were able to build a bomb.


"Even if a nuclear deal is reached, our concerns about Iran's behavior in the region and around the world will endure," White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told the J Street policy conference last week, slamming Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, a proliferator and a gross violator of human rights that seeks to destabilize its neighbors.

Several U.S. allies in the region, watching Iran's growing influence, worry that whatever berth the United States is giving Iran, it goes well beyond the nuclear talks and the fight against ISIS.

Instead, they fear the beginning of a wider détente with Iran that some are calling a "Persian pivot."



Saudi concerns

Saudi Ambassador to the United States Adel al-Jubeir told CNN that Riyadh was "concerned about the interference by Iran in the affairs of other countries in the region, whether it is in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen."

Obama's domestic foes are less diplomatic.

"I heard repeatedly from leaders in the region that they believe we are forming some kind of Faustian bargain with the Iranians which would then lead to great danger to those countries," Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said last week.

"They believe that we are siding with Iran."

The former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, warned on Fox News on Sunday that Iran was "on the march" across the Middle East and that the administration response was one of "willful ignorance."

But a senior Obama administration official on Monday denied that Washington wanted the wider accommodation with Iran that its allies fear.


"The critics look at this as some part of a grand détente or reconciliation -- that by getting this deal we will turn another cheek or grant them carte blanche," said the official, who was not authorized to talk publicly about the nuclear talks.

"We have been and we remain just as concerned."

And at the same time that it holds marathon talks with Iran, Washington is backing its ally Saudi Arabia and a Sunni coalition that is bombarding Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi militias in Yemen.

In Syria, the United States wants close Iranian ally President Bashar al-Assad gone after his murderous rampage against his own people.

But many Washington observers believe the United States has stepped back from the region and interpret the increasingly assertive military actions of Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt as a sign that they feel Iran already has the upper hand. They see the Saudi coalition's assault on the Houthis as a signal, not just to Iran, but to Washington.

"Our traditional Arab allies are apoplectic. We are involved against ISIS in Syria but essentially did nothing in the past three years as the Houthis took over Yemen," said David Schenker, a former Bush administration official now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.


The Saudis are using Yemen to send messages "to Iran and to a lesser extent to us about their lack of confidence in the American security blanket being able to protect them from Iran's machinations in the region," said Stephen Seche, a former U.S. Ambassador to Yemen.

The White House said it has no illusions on Iran's motives, but argued that the painful lessons of the last decade show a huge U.S. military operation in the Middle East is unlikely to reshape its politics.

"It's definitely a regional power struggle," said the senior administration official, stressing that Iran's strategy dates from well before either the Arab Spring or the Iraq war, all the way back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution itself.

"It's a geostrategic play to use these groups as pressure points, in some cases playing on Shiite grievances but also just to increase pressure on the Saudi border," said the official.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been spearheading negotiations on a possible deal to rein in Iran's nuclear program.

The administration insists that a large-scale reintroduction of U.S. forces to the Middle East is not the correct policy response.

"It is going to be dictated by individual countries and the particular circumstances and what is the U.S. interest there," the official said.

And the administration is not alone in believing the United States has a limited ability to influence what happens in the region.

"We can do things at the margins to help this side, reinforce that side, train another, arm another. So the U.S. position is likely to be quite modest," said Richard Haass, chairman of the Council of Foreign Relations.

And Justin Logan, a specialist in geopolitics at the Cato Institute, warned that the United States must not get involved in the "pathological politics" of the region.

The idea that a proxy struggle between the Persian Gulf Arabs and the Iranians can be effectively managed by the United States defies both logic and history," he said.

Iran nuclear deal: Iran's power rises, with or without deal - CNN.com
 

ShahryarHedayatiSHBA

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
238
Likes
177
Deal reached on Iran nuclear program, diplomats say

Vienna (CNN)After 20 months of tortuous talks, negotiators have reached a historic deal aimed at reining in Iran's nuclear program, diplomats said Tuesday.

The agreement, a focal point of U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy, appears set to reshape relations between Iran and the West, with its effects likely to ripple across the volatile Middle East.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal/
YEAH!
:):):):)
 

ShahryarHedayatiSHBA

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
238
Likes
177
Bibi made a Farsi Twitter account yesterday Tweeting in Farsi to 'reach out' to Iranians. he was saying to Iranians that ending sanctions against your country is not in your interests and that it would end badly for you! :DAlthough, Iranians answered him properly :Din his page.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top