BRKG P5+1 + Iran Announces Reaching Solutions on Key Parameters for Agreement

[night driver]

One of the NatSec/FP wags I follow on Twitter said this about the "framework"

Kid: "Dad, can I have a puppy?"

Dad: "When hell freezes over."

Kid:"Cool!"

Press release:"Framework for getting a puppy agreed upon."

 

[mzkitty]

Forgot these two:


38m
President Obama directs national security team to increase consultations with Israeli government to attempt to strengthen security cooperation with Israel and counter Iran's threats - @WhiteHouse
End of alert

41m
In call with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama underscores progress in nuclear talks doesn't diminish concerns over Iran's threats towards Israel - @WhiteHouse
End of alert

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20150403-iran-nuclear-deal-step-very-dangerous-direction-israel/

03 April 2015 - 10H45
Iran nuclear deal step in 'very dangerous' direction: Israel

JERUSALEM (AFP) -
Israel warned on Friday that a framework deal with the West over Iran's controversial nuclear programme was "very dangerous," accusing Tehran of seeking an atomic weapon.

"This framework (agreement) is a step in a very, very dangerous direction," government spokesman Mark Regev told journalists, adding that Iran's "single goal" behind the accord was to build a nuclear bomb.

Iran and Western powers struck an outline agreement in Switzerland Thursday paving the way for Tehran to curtail its nuclear activity in exchange for relief from punishing economic sanctions.

? 2015 AFP

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150403/iran-nuclear_talks-94c30c66fb.html

Nuke deal: World powers, Iran seal breakthrough framework

Apr 3, 1:11 AM (ET)
By GEORGE JAHN and MATTHEW LEE

(AP) Iranians celebrate on a street in northern Tehran, Iran, Thursday, April 2, 2015,...
Full Image

LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Capping exhausting and contentious talks, Iran and world powers sealed a breakthrough agreement Thursday outlining limits on Iran's nuclear program to keep it from being able to produce atomic weapons. The Islamic Republic was promised an end to years of crippling economic sanctions, but only if negotiators transform the plan into a comprehensive pact.

They will try to do that in the next three months.

The United States and Iran, long-time adversaries who hashed out much of the agreement, each hailed the efforts of their diplomats over days of sleepless nights in Switzerland. Speaking at the White House, President Barack Obama called it a "good deal" that would address concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called it a "win-win outcome."

Those involved have spent 18 months in broader negotiations that were extended twice since an interim accord was reached shortly after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani entered office. That deal itself was the product of more than a year of secret negotiations between the Obama administration and Iran, a country the U.S. still considers the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.

(AP) From left, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica...
Full Image

Opponents of the emerging accord, including Israel and Republican leaders in Congress, reacted with skepticism. They criticized the outline for failing to do enough to curb Iran's potential to produce nuclear weapons or to mandate intrusive enough inspections. Obama disagreed.

"This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon," he declared. "This deal is not based on trust. It's based on unprecedented verification."

If implemented, the understandings reached Thursday would mark the first time in more than a decade of diplomatic efforts that Iran's nuclear efforts would be rolled back.

It commits Tehran to significant cuts in centrifuges, the machines that can spin uranium gas to levels used in nuclear warheads. Of the nearly 20,000 centrifuges Iran now has installed or running at its main enrichment site, the country would be allowed to operate just over 5,000. Much of its enriched stockpiles would be neutralized. A planned reactor would be reconstructed so it produced no weapons-grade plutonium. Monitoring and inspections by the U.N. nuclear agency would be enhanced.

America's negotiating partners in Europe strongly backed the result. President Francois Hollande of France, which had pushed the U.S. for a tougher stance, endorsed the accord while warning that "sanctions lifted can be re-established if the agreement is not applied."

(AP) President Barack Obama speaks the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington,...
Full Image

Obama sought to frame the deal as a salve that reduces the chances of the combustible Middle East becoming even more unstable with the introduction of a nuclear-armed Iran. Many fear that would spark an arms race that could spiral out of control in a region rife with sectarian rivalry, terrorist threats and weak or failed states.

Obama said he had spoken with Saudi Arabia's King Salman and that he'd invite him and other Arab leaders to Camp David this spring to discuss security strategy. The Sunni majority Saudis have made veiled threats about creating their own nuclear program to counter Shia-led Iran.

The American leader also spoke by telephone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, perhaps the sharpest critic of the diplomacy with Iran. Netanyahu told Obama a deal based on the agreement "would threaten the survival of Israel." The White House said Obama assured Netanyahu that the agreement would not diminish U.S. concerns about Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and threats toward Israel.

Obama saved his sharpest words for members of Congress who have threatened to either try to kill the agreement or approve new sanctions against Iran. Appearing in the Rose Garden, Obama said the issues at stake are "bigger than politics."

"These are matters of war and peace," he said, and if Congress kills the agreement "international unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen."

(AP) President Barack Obama boards Air Force One, Thursday, April 2, 2015, at Andrews Air...
Full Image

Hawks on Capitol Hill reacted slowly to the news from the Swiss city of Lausanne, perhaps because the framework was far more detailed than many diplomats had predicted over a topsy-turvy week of negotiation.

House Speaker John Boehner said it would be "naive to suggest the Iranian regime will not continue to use its nuclear program, and any economic relief, to further destabilize the region."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said his panel would vote this month on legislation giving Congress the right to vote on a final deal. Freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who penned a letter that many GOP senators signed last month to Iran's leaders, said he would work "to protect America from this very dangerous proposal."

Many of the nuclear limits on Iran would be in place for a decade, while others would last 15 or 20 years. Sanctions related to Iran's nuclear programs would be suspended by the U.S., the United Nations and the European Union after the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Iran's compliance.

In a joint statement, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and Iran's Zarif called the agreement a "decisive step." Highlighting Iran's effort to show a new face of its government, Zarif then held a news conference, answering many questions in English, and Obama's statement was carried live and uncensored on Iranian state TV.

(AP) President Barack Obama walks to the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington,...
Full Image

Still, all sides spoke with a sense of caution.

"We have taken a major step, but are still some way away from where we want to be," Zarif told reporters, even as he voiced hope that a final agreement might ease suspicion between the U.S. and Iran, which haven't had diplomatic relations since the 1979 overthrow of the shah and the subsequent U.S. Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran.

Zarif said the agreement would show "our program is exclusively peaceful, has always been and always will remain exclusively peaceful." But he also said it would not hinder the country's pursuit of atomic energy for civilian purposes. "We will continue enriching," he said. "We will continue research and development." He said the heavy water reactor would be "modernized."

In India, Syed Akbaruddin, a spokesman for the External Affairs Ministry, said Friday his country welcomed the deal.

"The announcement yesterday underlines the success of diplomacy and dialogue, which India has always supported and which we hope would lead to a comprehensive agreement by June 30," he said.

(AP) Graphic locates known sites related to nuclear research and production in Iran; 3c x...
Full Image

Kerry lashed out at critics who have demanded that Iran halt all uranium enrichment and completely close a deeply buried underground facility that may be impervious to an air attack.

"Simply demanding that Iran capitulate makes a nice sound bite, but it is not a policy, it is not a realistic plan," Kerry said.

The final breakthrough came a day after a flurry of overnight sessions between Kerry and Zarif, and meetings involving the six powers at a luxury hotel in Lausanne.

As late as Thursday afternoon, it still appeared an agreement might be beyond reach as the U.S. pushed to spell out concrete commitments and Iran adamantly demanded that only a vague statement be presented. In an apparent compromise, some details were noted in the general statement and others were saved for a more detailed position paper issued by the White House and State Department.

Some of that tension remained.

"There is no need to spin using 'fact sheets' so early on," Zarif tweeted. He also questioned some of the assertions contained in the document, such as the speed of a U.S. sanctions drawdown.

---

Associated Press writers Julie Pace and Bradley Klapper contributed to this report from Washington.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150403/ml-iran-2f9205db13.html

Iranian hardliners criticize nuclear deal

Apr 3, 7:13 AM (ET)

(AP) Iranians celebrate on a street in northern Tehran, Iran, Thursday, April 2, 2015,...
Full Image

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's hard-liners on Friday criticized a tentative nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers — saying the deal was a bargain for the West and a disaster for Iran. Meanwhile supporters of the deal compared Iran's conservative opposition to the Israeli government — which remains heavily critical of the agreement.

Hossein Shariatmadari, an adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and editor of the hard-line Kayhan daily, told the semi-official Fars news agency on Friday that Iran exchanged its "ready-to-race horse with a broken bridle."

Another conservative analyst, Mahdi Mohammad, referred to the Fordo underground uranium enrichment facility and told the news outlet that under the deal, "A disaster happened in Fordo."

As part of the deal, Iran agreed to stop enrichment at Fordo, changing the facility to a nuclear research center. The preliminary agreement places various limits on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for an end to crippling economic sanctions.

(AP) Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who is also Iran's top nuclear...
Full Image

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who signed the agreement, received a hero's welcome upon his arrival back to Tehran on Friday from the latest round of talks in Lausanne, Switzerland. Crowds of cheering supporters surrounded Zarif's vehicle and chanted slogans supporting him and President Hassan Rouhani. One of the chants also offered sarcastic "condolences" to both Israel and to the Kayhan newspaper — which has opposed the negotiations from the start.

Zarif tried to reassure Iranians that the country's nuclear program will continue but said any negotiation requires give and take. "It is not supposed to be one party receiving all the concessions and the other party surrendering," he said.

Zarif also expressed his gratitude for Khamenei's support for his team and said Thursday's agreement, will be a "base for drafting the final agreement," in July.

Another member of the negotiating team — Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's atomic agency — said, "I see the future very bright and shining."

The criticism from conservatives is part of a pattern of longstanding opposition by hard-liners against the policies of moderate President Hassan Rouhani, who has promised improved relations with the outside world.

Earlier on Thursday, Ahmad Tavakkoli, a prominent conservative lawmaker, wrote a letter to Rouhani saying the agreement needs ratification by the country's conservative-dominated parliament. But supporters of the negotiations have claimed that the nuclear talks have been conducted under the direct supervision of Khamenei, and therefore don't require parliamentary approval. Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, has not made any public comment on the deal.

Iran and the global powers sealed a breakthrough agreement Thursday outlining limits on Iran's nuclear program designed to prevent the country from developing atomic weapons. The West has long suspected Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear research is focused on peaceful purposes like power generation and cancer treatment.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150403/ml--israel-iran-nuclear-ce871cb0a9.html

Israeli spokesman calls emerging Iran nuclear deal dangerous

Apr 3, 7:09 AM (ET)

JERUSALEM (AP) — A preliminary agreement on curbing Iran's nuclear program is a "step in a very, very dangerous direction," leaving much of Tehran's nuclear infrastructure intact, Israel's government spokesman said Friday.

Iran and six world powers announced a series of understandings Thursday, with a final agreement to be reached by June 30. An agreement is meant to cut significantly into Iran's bomb-capable technology while giving Tehran quick access to assets and markets blocked by international sanctions.

Israel has harshly criticized the negotiations, demanding instead that the Iranian program be dismantled. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes Iran cannot be trusted, and that leaving certain facilities intact would allow the Iranians to build a bomb eventually. Iran denies it wants to produce nuclear weapons, claiming its nuclear research is for purely peaceful purposes.

Netanyahu told U.S. President Barack Obama in a phone call that a final deal based on the understandings announced Thursday would "threaten the survival of Israel."

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said Friday that the framework agreement "is a step in a very, very dangerous direction."

"It leaves Iran with an expansive nuclear infrastructure intact, doesn't even close down one Iranian nuclear facility, not one," Regev told The Associated Press.

"It leaves Iran with thousands of centrifuges to continue to enrich uranium, and allows Iran to continue research and development on better and faster centrifuges," he said, referring to machines that can spin uranium gas to levels used in nuclear warheads.

"So what we have here is a deal that unfortunately gives legitimacy to Iran's nuclear program and the sole purpose of that program is to get nuclear weapons," he added.

Cabinet minister Yuval Steinitz, speaking on Israel Army Radio, said Israel would "fight in the coming three or four months to prevent a bad deal or at least make sure that it will be less bad."

If implemented, the commitments announced Thursday would substantially pare back some Iranian nuclear assets for a decade and restrict others for an additional five years.

According to a U.S. document listing those commitments, Tehran is ready to reduce its number of centrifuges. Of the nearly 20,000 centrifuges Iran now has installed or running at its main enrichment site, the country would be allowed to operate just over 5,000. Much of its enriched stockpiles would be neutralized. A planned reactor would be reconstructed so it can't produce weapons-grade plutonium. Monitoring and inspections by the U.N. nuclear agency would be enhanced.

 

[Dosadi]

And this morning on the radio I hear "Iran says ObaMao Lied"

Who would have thought that?

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/02/this-is-not-a-deal/

This Is Not a Deal

Abe Greenwald | @abegreenwald
04.02.2015 - 5:40 PM

Today in Lausanne, Switzerland, officials from the United States, Iran, and other world powers delivered big news about the negotiations aimed at halting Iran’s quest for a nuclear bomb. But they didn’t announce a deal. In fact, they didn’t even announce an agreement. Rather, they revealed, according to the New York Times, a “specific and comprehensive general understanding about the next steps in limiting Tehran’s nuclear program.” There’s a lot of padding in that description for a reason: the P5+1 powers are far off from anything resembling a nuclear deal with Tehran.

What we now have is confirmation that negotiations will continue. There’s good reason to believe that this is what both sides were after above all else. For Tehran it means continued sanctions relief, and for the Obama administration it means its diplomacy cannot yet be judged a failure.

Going by social and professional media responses, the administration has achieved its goal in spades. Today’s announcement is largely being seen as cause for optimism. This is foremost a measure of how low Americans have set the bar for diplomatic progress in the Obama age. Today’s “understanding” is actually verification—on paper—of long-rumored American capitulations on Iran’s nuclear program.

The official American capitulations: First, Iran would be allowed to continue operating 5,060 uranium-enriching centrifuges for ten years. Experts agree that’s enough to fuel one nuclear bomb per year. Before the Obama administration began talks with Iran, United Nations resolutions had prohibited Iran from enriching uranium, period.

Second, Iran is permitted to keep its underground enrichment facility at Fordow. The administration claims it will be transformed into a “nuclear, physics, technology, research center” that won’t enrich uranium for 15 years. But as Barack Obama has previously said, “We know they [Iran] don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful program.”

Third, any nuclear deal would not be indefinite, but time-limited. Today, John Kerry assured the American people that a deal would not include “sunsets,” but that’s precisely what these 10-year and 15-year limits are. Extending a deal would require that the Iranians choose to extend it.

Fourth, according to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif, all American and European nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will terminate at the start of a deal, not in response to Iranian compliance. If this is true, it is a dangerous American capitulation: What incentive would Iran have for keeping up its side of the bargain? If Zarif is lying, it goes to show just how far from a good-faith deal we are.

Fifth, the framework includes only the vaguest of language about Iran’s responsibility to detail the possible military dimensions (PMD) of its nuclear program to date. This is important because without a baseline understanding of Iran’s nuclear weaponization efforts, the United States cannot accurately confirm any progress on this front.

In exchange for all this, the administration wants Americans to believe that Iran will enrich uranium to only 3.67 percent (for 15 years), allow vigorous international inspections, refrain from future nuclear-weapons work, ship out a good deal of enriched nuclear material, and generally abide by the terms of an eventual deal with the United States. Will any of that even happen? Considering that Zarif is already publicly questioning the administration’s account of the “understanding” on Twitter, it seems unlikely. No, we don’t have a deal, but we have a fuller understanding of Barack Obama’s desperation for one.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/iran-deal-the-end-the-beginning-not-the-beginning-the-end-12534

Iran Deal: The End of the Beginning, Not the Beginning of the End [1]

The emerging deal doesn't look bad, but its proponents will have to work hard at home and abroad to bring it forth. And that's just the start!

John Allen Gay [2] [3]
April 2, 2015

Today’s joint statement on a final nuclear deal between Iran and the world powers is a pleasant surprise for the United States. The past several days had seen warning signs that the March 31 deadline for a political agreement outlining the final deal would be breached, and that the political agreement would be very vague—a token gesture. Given that the March 31 deadline was widely seen as a U.S. initiative, this would have been an embarrassment. The deadline did have to be extended a few days—the Iranians seemed to be using it [4] to press the Americans for more concessions—but the final statement [5] offers a clear outline of how the vast majority of the remaining questions will be resolved.

Did our negotiators do a good job? There are two ways of answering this question. The first answer is relative: did we get as much as we could? Did we get a better bargain than the Iranians? The second answer is absolute: Did we make a deal that protects our interests? The second is vastly more important than the first: an outcome in which we make lots of concessions but still get what we need is a better deal than one in which we play the tactics of the negotiations well but end up worse overall. Still, the relative question matters: we don’t want to concede more than we must, and we don’t want other states to think they can set the terms of negotiations with us.

On the relative question, the final number of centrifuges—about six thousand, with about five thousand engaged in uranium enrichment—is in the ballpark of what had seemed likely for some time. It’s far short of the tenfold increase in centrifuge counts that Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had endorsed, it’s a reduction from the nearly twenty thousand [6] Iran has installed as of now, and it’s a reduction from the nearly ten thousand of those that Iran is actually using now. However, it’s also many more than zero, which had long been America’s goal.

Within that number is a big win for the United States: enrichment of uranium will no longer be conducted at Fordow, a deeply buried, long-secret enrichment facility that is much less vulnerable to attack than Iran’s primary enrichment facilities at Natanz. What centrifuges remain in Fordow will be fewer in number. The facility, like Natanz, was illegal, but a root of our concern about Fordow is that it is harder to bomb. Convincing the Iranians to make their nuclear program more vulnerable to attack—indeed, to an attack that would likely be a severe breach of international law—was never going to be easy. Allowing them to keep centrifuges there for nonenrichment activities is smart diplomacy: we gave them a way out that let them save face but cost us little.

There are other relative wins in the deal on Iran’s plutonium path to the bomb (effectively closed for at least [7] fifteen years) and on advanced centrifuges, which will not be used to enrich uranium for ten years and which will be developed under agreed conditions for the same period.

In absolute terms, the deal will, if adhered to, keep Iran far from the bomb for a decade and put new obstacles in the path to a bomb that will last longer and which were not previously on the table. Those are wins for the security of the United States and its allies and for the stability of the Middle East. There is less danger with this deal then there would be without any deal.

However, many questions remain. One of the biggest is ensuring the deal is honored. The State Department’s “fact sheet” (which is not an agreed document) makes vague reference to “a dispute resolution process” being created in the event of disagreements, and says that the failure of this process may lead to the reactivation of UN sanctions. There’s little else. It’s unlikely that the Iranians, if they intend to break the deal, will give the world the benefit of an indisputable violation on a scale large enough that ending the entire deal will be the only option. If only. It would be craftier to nibble away at the deal, to make breaches small, temporary, legally ambiguous or hard to prove. This will sow disunion among the parties of the agreement. Would the West really throw the whole thing away, creating an immediate international crisis, on uncertain evidence or over a minor offense? This dynamic will be present in any deal, but Iran’s past behavior suggests that it will resist the simplest resolutions to these disputes.

That leads us to a second question. One of the long-outstanding issues in the confrontation with Iran has been the possible military dimensions (“PMD”) of its nuclear program. While Iran’s declared nuclear activities have civilian applications, there is a body of evidence suggesting that Iran conducted research for a nuclear weapon. If true, Iran’s fig-leaf claims that its nuclear program has always been entirely peaceful would become much less plausible, and the international pressure on it would be much greater. Iran has long stonewalled investigations into these allegations, restricting access to and even destroying sites where the alleged activities took place and preventing the International Atomic Energy Agency from interviewing the scientists accused of involvement. Most of the activities in question took place a decade ago or more and were relatively basic, so the PMD issue is not the most crucial in the talks. The restrictions on the rest of the nuclear program will also make it much harder to put any research to use—you can’t make a nuclear bomb without the right nuclear material. Still, the resolution of the PMD issue would be a sign of good faith by the Iranians and would increase confidence that the deal really will prevent a nuclear Iran. Unfortunately, both the joint statement and the State Department fact sheet offer little detail on how the issue will be resolved.

The third question—a big one—is how much the State Department’s fact sheet will reflect the final deal. There’s evidence that the claims it presents do reflect underlying agreements that the two sides have made—similar claims have been made in Iranian and European sources. Yet a previous U.S. fact sheet drew criticism [8] from Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, who rejected its characterization of the underlying deal; Zarif has already obliquely accused [9] today’s fact sheet of “spin.” By interpreting the deal in public, the Obama administration clearly hopes to convince skeptics in Congress that the deal is good. And the administration seems confident that the fact sheet is on target—President Obama himself has already warned [10] against Iranian “backsliding” in a speech that drew on the same claims that appear on the fact sheet. But good domestic politics may prove to be bad international politics. A statement that emphasizes what Iran must give up and downplays the concessions it gets will naturally put Zarif and his colleagues on the defensive and may alter the negotiations that follow. We don’t want to find ourselves making new concessions.

The fight is hardly over—as Obama said in his speech, the talks operate on the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The joint statement today has no force. A final deal must still be made and then implemented; even if this happens, massive, likely intractable issues will remain in the broader U.S.-Iranian relationship. The administration now begins a great domestic battle—a battle that it merely needs to not lose, but one where defeat would come at a high price for America’s international standing. At the same time, it must also work to reassure allies on the Persian Gulf and in Israel; it is too soon to tell whether it will be successful. But on all these fronts, the administration’s record is not promising. Today’s deal was not the beginning of the end of the Iran nuclear dispute, but the end of the beginning.

John Allen Gay, an assistant managing editor at The National Interest [11], is coauthor of War with Iran: Political, Military, and Economic Consequences [12] (Rowman and Littlefield, 2013). He tweets at @JohnAllenGay [13].

Topics
Nuclear Proliferation [14]
Regions
Iran [15] [3]

Source URL (retrieved on April 3, 2015): http://nationalinterest.org/feature/iran-deal-the-end-the-beginning-not-the-beginning-the-end-12534

Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/iran-deal-the-end-the-beginning-not-the-beginning-the-end-12534
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/john-gay
[3] http://twitter.com/share
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-talks.html
[5] http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/150402_03_en.htm
[6] http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis...alysis_IAEA_Report_19February2015_Final_1.pdf
[7] http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/parameters-of-plan-on-iran-nuclear-program/1507/
[8] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/
[9] https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/583723860522115072
[10] http://www.euronews.com/2015/04/02/iran-nuclear-agreement-is-good-deal-says-obama/
[11] http://nationalinterest.org/
[12] http://t.co/dF1gJkUM9V
[13] https://twitter.com/JohnAllenGay
[14] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security/nuclear-proliferation
[15] http://nationalinterest.org/region/middle-east/persian-gulf/iran

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/the-gray-areas-in-the-iran-deal-116641.html?hp=t4_r

The gray areas in the Iran deal

How a pre-dawn meeting in Switzerland produced one of the Iran deal's many fuzzy areas.

By Michael Crowley
4/2/15 7:03 PM EDT
Updated 4/3/15 8:23 AM EDT
Comments 3049

In the dead of night Wednesday night in Lausanne, Switzerland, Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz and his Iranian counterpart haggled over one of the last issues holding up a nuclear agreement with world powers: Iran’s future research into next-generation new centrifuge designs that can accelerate its path to a nuclear weapon.

The meeting finally wrapped up at 6 a.m., said a senior administration official, “and that is not because we were up early.”


An Iranian oil worker walks at Tehran's oil refinery south of the capital in Iran. | AP Photo


Also on POLITICO

Iran deal's long-term impact on oil prices uncertain

DARREN GOODE


But how that key issue was resolved remains fuzzy. An Obama administration fact sheet on the deal says only that Iran will be able to conduct “limited research and development” into the centrifuges — which are far more efficient than the relatively crude devices Iran now operates — “according to a schedule and parameters which have been agreed to” by Iran, the United States, and five other world powers.

Although Iran will be barred for a decade from enriching uranium with the advanced devices, that schedule and those parameters remain otherwise unknown.

Critics of the agreement were quick to zero in on the question. “This is a bad framework that will lead to a bad and dangerous deal,” said an Israeli government source in Jerusalem, who cited as a key complaint the fact that Iran “will continue its centrifuge research and development.”

The research-and-development question is just one of a handful of key issues left unresolved, at least in public, and which could endanger the agreement’s survival.

There was much for Obama officials — and their negotiating partners in France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia — to be happy about in the framework deal, whose details must be nailed down by June 30. It requires Iran to uninstall more of its centrifuges than earlier reports had suggested would be required. It subjects Iran to extensive snooping by international inspectors, with some surveillance extending for 25 years. It mandates the redesign of a nuclear reactor so that its spent fuel can’t be used to make a bomb.

But the White House and State Department will find themselves defending some questions the agreement essentially fudged.

Also on POLITICO

Kerry’s Last Grasp at Greatness

TOM KEANE

In addition to the centrifuge research, another key issue is the fate of Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium. That is material which has been enriched much of the way toward the purity needed for a nuclear weapon, therefore making it dangerous for Iran to possess.

The administration’s fact sheet says Iran must “reduce” that supply of nuclear material, from more than 10 tons currently on hand to just a few hundred pounds — less than enough to create a bomb.

But it doesn’t specify how that will happen. U.S. officials had long expected that Iran would agree to export most of its low-enriched uranium out of the country, ensuring that it can’t be diverted to military use. Late in the talks this week, Iran toughened its position, insisting that it would merely dilute that uranium on its own soil to a form unsuitable for weapons use.

Thursday’s deal punts that question for later. At a news conference in Lausanne, Secretary of State John Kerry said Iran had committed to selling the material on the international market or diluting it to a harmless state. But critics of the deal noted that diluted uranium can still be converted to a more dangerous form.

Some nuclear experts downplayed the stockpile issue, however.

Jofi Joseph, a former national security council aide in the Obama White House who handled nuclear nonproliferation issues, said it would be laborious for Iran to reconvert its uranium.

“It’s more a question of political optics,” Joseph said. ““Remember, it’s important politically for Iranian leaders to not be seen as ‘surrendering’ anything, which is why they fought so hard against export.”

That point was echoed by a senior Obama official on Thursday, speaking more generally about the deal: “There is no doubt that [Iranian Foreign Minister] Javad Zarif will have to sell this deal just as we will. And his task is hard and complicated.”


WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 02: U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks in the Rose Garden of the White House on negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program on April 2, 2015 in Washington, DC. In exchange for Iran's agreement to curb their country's nuclear proliferation, the United States would lift some of the crippling sanctions imposed. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)


Also on POLITICO

Obama's told-you-so moment

EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE


Likely to be most problematic of all is Iran’s response to questions about its past research into nuclear weapons production, including bomb designs and detonators. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran has stonewalled on all but one of a dozen questions the agency has posed. Iran has denied the IAEA access to its Parchin military base, where the United Nations nuclear watchdog group suspects it tested explosives that could be used to detonate a bomb.

Iran denies it has ever pursued a military application to its nuclear program. But U.S. intelligence officials say they are confident Iran aggressively researched bomb-making until 2003, when that aspect of its program was halted.

Thursday’s agreement is vague on this score. The fact sheet says only that Iran “will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns,” but those measures aren’t detailed.

The past research into bomb-making “appears to be one of the few Achilles’ heels here,” said Joseph. On that point, he added: “It doesn’t appear as if Iran agreed to do anything specific.”

 

[mzkitty]

3m
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says his cabinet is united in 'strongly opposing' proposed Iran nuclear deal - @AP
End of alert

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-iran-nuclear-talks-to-framework-deal-report/

Alliances

US reportedly backed down on initial goals in Iran talks

Published April 03, 2015 · FoxNews.com
Comments 3011

U.S. negotiators reportedly lowered the bar for their own goals during talks over Iran's nuclear program in response to resistance from the Tehran team. And, on the heels of a framework deal being announced in Switzerland, France's top diplomat on Friday admitted his country had initially held out for firmer terms.

The emerging reports indicate the U.S. team, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, gradually backed down over the course of the talks as Iran's delegation dug in. The Wall Street Journal, citing current and former U.S. representatives at the discussions, claimed the White House had initially hoped to persuade Iran to dismantle much of the country's nuclear infrastructure when talks started in late 2013, only to be told categorically that Iran would not do so.

The Journal reported that one Iranian diplomat called the nuclear program "our moon shot," comparing it to the U.S. space program in the 1960s as a symbol of national pride and advancement. From that point, the Journal reports, the U.S. accepted that any possible deal would likely enable Iran to continue to enrich some uranium to produce nuclear fuel and turned their focus to extending Iran's so-called "breakout time" or the minimum period that Iran would need to build a nuclear weapon.

The framework of an agreement was announced Thursday after marathon talks in Switzerland that stretched two days past their original deadline.

The plan, containing dozens of provisions, would effectively require Iran to wind down or suspend parts of its nuclear program that could be used for nuclear weapon development in exchange for sweeping sanctions relief. The preliminary agreement allows all sides -- the U.S., Iran and five other world powers -- to continue working toward a final deal by a June 30 deadline.

More on this...

Will agreement with Iran pave way to a nuclear bomb?

However, not all of the Western powers appeared completely pleased with the agreement. On Friday, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Europe 1 radio that France had rejected an original of the deal outline as "not solid enough", and had held out for firmer conditions. However, Fabius told the radio station that the Iranian delegation had responded by threatening to walk out of the talks.

The French delegation was considered by observers to be one of the hardest bargainers of the P5+1 countries, a group which also included the U.S., Britain, Germany, Russia and China. Fabius told Europe 1 that France wants a firm deal "to prevent other countries in the Gulf such as Saudi Arabia from embarking on nuclear proliferation."

As for the framework itself, Fabius called it a "very important" step, but noted that "the end of the road is the end of June."

According to the Journal, U.S. scientists concluded that a year was enough time for the West to detect any move by Iran to build a nuclear bomb and execute a response. As part of keeping Iran at the table, the paper reports the U.S. made more concessions to Tehran. Some of which reportedly angered their negotiating partners, most notably the French.

What resulted, according to a fact sheet released by negotiators Thursday, was an agreement that called for Iran to reduce the number of its centrifuges from 19,000 to around 6,100, with most enriching uranium for 10 years.

Iran also agreed not to enrich uranium at its contentious Fordo facility for at least 15 years, and would not build any new facilities for enrichment for the same time period. The framework would allow international inspectors to have "regular access" to nuclear sites. In exchange, U.S. and European Union sanctions would be suspended after inspectors verify Iran "has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps." Sanctions, the document said, would "snap back" if Iran breaches the commitments.

"Our work is not yet done," Obama said in a Rose Garden speech Thursday, after promising, "If Iran cheats, the world will know it."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193636#.VR6Tm5t_nIU

France Says it Wanted a Better Deal

French FM says he originally rejected the deal but then Iran threatened to walk; report shows Obama gave up on original goal of the talks.

By Ari Yashar
First Publish: 4/3/2015, 3:08 PM

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who represented France in the nuclear talks between Iran and world powers, revealed on Friday that his nation had rejected an original version of the deal reached the day before for not being "solid enough."

In an interview with Europe 1 radio cited by Fox News, Fabius said he had tried to hold out for stronger terms, but when the Iranian delegation threatened to leave the talks he was forced to capitulate.

France wants a strong deal "to prevent other countries in the Gulf such as Saudi Arabia from embarking on nuclear proliferation," Fabius said.

Speaking about the framework deal that was reached in Lausanne, Switzerland on Thursday, the foreign minister called it a "very important" step, but said "the end of the road is the end of June," by which time a final deal is to be reached.

Fabius's comments come after the Wall Street Journal released an in-depth report Thursday night, citing numerous current and former US representatives in the negotiations, and showing how US President Barack Obama's administration gradually gave up on its goals during the course of the talks from September 2013.

The White House originally aimed at convincing Iran to take apart much of its nuclear infrastructure, but Iran responded firmly in the negative.

Adopting the Iranian position

One Iranian official said the nuclear program is his country's "moon shot," likening it to the US space program of the 1960s in symbolizing national advancement.

After that point, the report indicates the US conceded to the notion that a deal would allow Iran to keep enriching uranium, even though as Israel has pointed out none of the 17 states with peaceful nuclear programs enrich uranium, a process needed in creating nuclear bombs.

Having resigned itself to enrichment, the US focused its efforts on extending Iran's breakout time needed to attain a nuclear weapon, with a year being settled upon as a safe enough time frame according to the report.

Therefore America made great concessions to Iran, with some of them angering their negotiating partners - particularly the French.

As a result, the deal has Iran keep all its nuclear facilities and continue enriching uranium, albeit at a reduced rate.

Experts have warned Iran will be able to continue developing its centrifuges in the deal, and threatens to be able to produce nuclear weapons in a mere three weeks.

The talk of America making concessions and adopting Iranian demands confirms the reports of an aide to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani who defected, and said "he US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal."

 

[TerryK]

No "snap" (unannounced) inspections will be allowed. The only inspections allowed will be requested and scheduled in advance.

They will convert the enriched uranium into an oxide. This can be rapidly reconverted (in a matter of days) back into normal enriched uranium. It is for show only.

The agreement only mentions known sites. Can anyone actually believe that is all the sites Iran currently has??

This is Korea all over again, only worse.

Ruining the US was not good enough for Obama, he wants to create chaos in the whole world.
Generations will curse his name, but he doesn't care as long as they remember his name.

 

[mzkitty]

I bet it does. Gag me wif a spoon:


6m
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani praises progress toward nuclear deal, says it opens 'new phase' for Iran and the entire world - @AlArabiya_Eng

 

[mzkitty]

1m
More: Rouhani says world powers accept that uranium can be enriched in Iran - @Reuters
End of alert

 

[mzkitty]

17m
Rouhani says if other nations honor promises in Iraq nuclear deal, 'we will as well' - @BBCBreaking

"Iran nuclear talks: Hardliners criticise nuclear deal"

37 minutes ago


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32174258

 

[Lilbitsnana]

News_Executive @News_Executive · 1h 1 hour ago

Breaking: Iranian President Rouhani speaking to the Nation "This is a day that will remain in our history,safeguarding our national interest

News_Executive @News_Executive · 1h 1 hour ago

More "We have preserved our nuclear rights &we will see lifting of sanctions and better relations with the world, all 3 are important to us"

News_Executive @News_Executive · 1h 1 hour ago

More: So thought Fordo will be closed but Fordo will remain open for good and it will have 1000 centrifuges.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/news/world/2015/04/02/iran-deal-good-or-bad/70856786/

Analysis: Iran deal's missing details spell trouble

Oren Dorell, USA TODAY 7:56 a.m. EDT April 3, 2015

The landmark nuclear deal reached Thursday between world powers and Iran is being touted as a victory by both Iran and President Obama. But missing details could spell trouble ahead.

According to a four-page fact sheet released by the White House, the framework agreement would curtail Iran's nuclear program enough so that the White House can make sure it doesn't produce a bomb.

"Iran will never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon," Obama said after the arrangement was announced.


USA TODAY
U.S., Iran reach historic nuclear framework agreement


The fact sheet goes into great detail on how Iran's nuclear program would be restricted over a decade to make sure Obama achieves his goal of a minimum one-year "breakout" period — the time it would take for Iran to produce enough fuel for a bomb should it renege on the deal. Obama says that would give the international community enough time to detect Iran's cheating and respond.

Here are five major issues at the center of Iran's nuclear deal. VPC

Missing, however, are details on when sanctions would be lifted based on Iran's compliance with the deal. That is important because the sanctions have strangled Iran's economy and brought the government to the negotiating table. Yet international leverage to enforce compliance dissipates as the sanctions are lifted.

A determined Iran, desperate to sell its oil on the open market again, could meet the terms necessary to gain significant sanctions relief in just two or three years, says Jofi Joseph, a former director for non-proliferation in Obama's National Security Council.


USA TODAY
Iran nuclear agreement means more wrangling ahead


"The Iranians certainly want sanctions removed as fast as possible," Joseph said. Once the international sanctions are suspended, they become very difficult to restore, he said. Russia, China and many European Union countries are keen on resuming trade with oil-rich Iran, whose 81 million people are hungry for Western and Chinese products.

Omri Ceren, an analyst at The Israel Project, a strong critic of the agreement, said the lack of specificity on when the sanctions would be lifted already is creating conflicting statements between the White House and Iran on the timing.

Another problematic omission, Joseph and others say, is how Iran will explain evidence uncovered by U.N. inspectors that it worked toward developing nuclear weapons in the past, something it has consistently denied.

The evidence was a key rationale for U.N. sanctions, but the framework agreement does not say whether the sanctions would be lifted before Iran addresses the issue. It's also unclear how the IAEA inspectors will look for any remaining covert nuclear facilities without such an accounting, Joseph said.

The White House description doesn't clearly address whether Iran's military sites would be included in inspections, something the Iranian government has flatly ruled out. "If there's a covert program" at those sites, "the (U.N. inspectors) won't be able to inspect them," said Michael Rubin, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.

Congress, which has been skeptical of a deal with Iran, is sure to raise questions about these missing details. Obama has promised to give lawmakers a full account of the terms, many of which may not have been disclosed.

Despite its shortcomings, Joseph, who participated in Iran planning before he left government work, said the deal as described by the White House could still accomplish its goals:

• Iran must reduce its installed centrifuges by two-thirds and its 11-ton stockpile of enriched uranium fuel by 98%, modify its heavy water reactor at Arak so it cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium, and stop producing uranium fuel at its underground facility at Fordow.

• Iran will give the United Nations inspectors access to its nuclear supply chain, with continuous surveillance of certain facilities and access to suspicious sites.

• A "snap back" provision restores sanctions if Iran is caught cheating.

• Restrictions range from 10 to 25 years, longer than expected.

That amounts to "a definite victory" for Obama, Joseph said, "a much stronger agreement than what any of us thought we'd get."

 

[Housecarl]

Michael Savage mentioned this Op-Ed on his show this afternoon and though it is from the 31st, I think is it pertinent enough to add to this thread.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://observer.com/2015/03/president-obama-must-not-complete-a-disastrous-deal-with-iran/

President Obama Must Not Complete a Disastrous Deal With Iran

Forget Churchill—Obama Isn't Measuring up to Neville Chamberlain

By The Editors | 03/31/15 3:32pm

With the US on the brink of signing an agreement that will lift the crippling economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for alleged guarantees that Iran will limit its nuclear ambitions to peaceful means, the Observer urges President Obama not to place his personal hunger for a legacy issue ahead of his most solemn duty – protecting America’s national security.

Barack Obama has been compared to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain , who concluded the ill-fated Munich Pact with Hitler in 1938. But Chamberlain acted out of a sincere belief that he was avoiding a greater evil. Chamberlain was not thinking of his place in history. He was thinking only of the Britain that he loved, a Britain that was all but disarmed, exhausted, and vulnerable. He was dealing with a nation that had been decimated by the Great War, a nation whose “best and brightest” five years earlier had declared in the infamous Oxford Oath that they would not fight for king or country, and a nation that was as materially unprepared for war as Germany was prepared to fight. Chamberlain dealt from a position of weakness, one that Hitler continually exploited in the negotiations, even by changing the time and place to make it more inconvenient for the British leader to attend them.

In sharp contrast, Mr. Obama is acting out of personal aggrandizement. He believes he is replicating President Richard Nixon’s historic opening of China. For Mr. Obama, the Iranian nuclear arms deal is about his place in history. Mr. Obama is dealing from a position of strength that he refuses to use. The sanctions have hurt Iran. Falling oil prices only add to Iran’s vulnerability. Instead of using the sanctions to pursue his original promise that Iran would not get the bomb, Mr. Obama has moved the goal post. Iran would not get the bomb immediately. It would be permitted to enrich uranium well beyond the 5 percent need for generating nuclear energy and be left with a breakout capacity to create a bomb.

Meanwhile, Iran is refusing surprise inspections, the hallmark of any such agreement, and has ruled its military facilities, such as the enrichment plant at Fordo, off limits to any inspections, period. Iran continues to showcase public displays of Israel being obliterated by an Iranian nuclear bomb, and even in the midst of negotiations government-orchestrated mass rallies cry out, “Death to America.”

If Chamberlain possessed America’s strength and was dealing with Iran’s weakness, would he be negotiating as Mr. Obama is? Would he be more concerned about a Jew building an extra bedroom in Jerusalem than an Iranian building a bomb at Fordo?

Before becoming prime minister, Chamberlain held two ministerial portfolios. He was considered a thoughtful and effective cabinet member. Upon becoming Prime Minister in 1940, Winston Churchill appointed Chamberlain to the new War Cabinet.

History has debated whether Chamberlain was the reckless appeaser that he is stereotyped as or the man who dealt from a position of extreme weakness against a foe he was unprepared to go to war against and who sacrificed part of Czechoslovakia to buy Britain time to rearm. Even Churchill, who filleted Chamberlain with his famous “choice between war and dishonor and now will get both” zinger, understood that Chamberlain was acting in good faith and kept his vanquished predecessor in his War cabinet.

On Iran, No Deal Is Better Than A Good Deal

It is unrealistic to hope that Mr. Obama could emerge as a modern Churchill in this chaotic and dangerous chapter in human history. But even Chamberlain would not have made the disastrous agreement that Mr. Obama seems so eager to conclude.

Mr. Obama is an amateur who is enthralled with the sound of his own voice and is incapable of coming to grips with the consequences of his actions. He is surrounded by sycophants, second-rate intellectuals, and a media that remains compliant and uncritical in the face of repeated foreign policy disasters. As country after country in the world’s most dangerous region fall into chaos—Libya and Yemen are essentially anarchic states, even as Syria and Iraq continue to devolve—Mr. Obama puzzlingly focuses much of his attention and rhetoric on Israel, childishly refusing to accept the mandate its people have given their prime minister in an election that, by the way, added three additional seats to the country’s Arab minority.

We can debate whether we should ever have been in Iraq, but Mr. Obama’s hasty withdrawal to make good on a campaign promise created the power vacuum filled by the Islamic State. In Syria, he vacillated over the enforcement of red lines and whom to arm. There too, he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State.

In Egypt, he withdrew support for President Hosni Mubarack, who for thirty years kept the peace with Israel and turned Egypt into a stable and reliable ally. Obama permitted the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood to come to power failing to realize that one election, one time, resulting in a tyranny is not democracy.

In Libya, President Muammar al-Gaddafi, once an international pariah, had reversed course as far back as 1999 and attempted to reenter the community of nations, even giving up his nuclear program. Libya was a stable dictatorship that was willing to engage in economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Its revolutionary ambitions of pan-Arabism and its expansionist tendencies had abated. When revolutionary forces rose up against Gaddafi, Mr. Obama not only verbally supported the revolutionaries, he sent NATO war planes to assist them. Gaddafi was defeated and murdered. Libya is now in chaos and another hot house for Islamic extremism.

The deal with Iran follows in the wake of these foreign policy disasters. Among our traditional Sunni allies in the region, it is seen as a betrayal not simply because it advances Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also because it encourages Iran’s support for the Houthi Shiite militia in Yemen and Iran’s adventurism in Iraq. The lifting of sanctions means more resources for Iran to transfer to its meddlesome proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the assassin of Lebanon’s democratic aspirations. The nuclear deal gives Iran an unacceptable nuclear umbrella that will compel the Gulf State Sunnis to launch their own nuclear programs, setting off a disastrous proliferation in the region.

The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with the world’s largest exporter of terrorism– the patron of Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi militias in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and operatives killing Jews in Argentina. Regrettably, a naïve, petulant President Obama sees this as a crowning part of his legacy and nothing will stand in his way.

Until Mr. Obama released a 1987 classified report detailing Israel’s nuclear program, we believed that the president’s Iranian policy was motivated by a different vision of America’s interests in the Middle East. Admittedly, it is one that would be difficult to dissect, let alone to explain.

But Mr. Obama’s latest petulant act shows that this is not a president motivated by policy but by personal feelings. He sacrificed the security of our close ally and its seven million citizens because he felt slighted. How else does one explain that Israel’s nuclear program is made public while the report’s description of the programs of our NATO partners is redacted?

We might call for Mr. Obama to find his inner Churchill and walk away from this tragedy, but we would be happy if he would simply find the character of the “real” Neville Chamberlain, who when dealing from a position of America’s strength would never have signed a deal with the devil. Ultimately, this deal will come back to haunt Mr. Obama’s legacy far more than Munich haunted Chamberlain’s.

SEE ALSO: The Amateur in the White House: Obama’s Iranian Folly

Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook

 

[Be Well]

No "snap" (unannounced) inspections will be allowed. The only inspections allowed will be requested and scheduled in advance.

They will convert the enriched uranium into an oxide. This can be rapidly reconverted (in a matter of days) back into normal enriched uranium. It is for show only.

The agreement only mentions known sites. Can anyone actually believe that is all the sites Iran currently has??

This is Korea all over again, only worse.

Ruining the US was not good enough for Obama, he wants to create chaos in the whole world.
Generations will curse his name, but he doesn't care as long as they remember his name.

Thanks for the details about enriching uranium. And of course there are hidden sites.

I curse his fake name right now.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://observer.com/2015/04/the-answer-to-president-obamas-insincere-question-on-the-iran-deal/

The Answer to President Obama’s Insincere Question on the Iran Deal

By Jonathan Greenberg | 04/03/15 11:36am

Well. There’s now a framework for a deal on Iran’s nuclear program. It outlines a deal that would be, truly, atrocious, but the statements made by Federica Mogherini of the European Union, President Obama, and Secretary of State Kerry indicated such a thorough capitulation that one hardly knows where to start damning it.

But you have to start somewhere.

In his statement shortly after Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif completed his remarks, the President issued a challenge to “the inevitable critics” of his handiwork:

“Do you really think that this verifiable deal – if fully implemented, backed by the world’s major powers – is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East? Is it worse than doing what we’ve done for almost two decades; with Iran moving forward with its nuclear program and without robust inspections? I think the answer will be clear.”

First of all, those questions are loaded, disingenuous, and provide nothing more than a false choice. The President assumes that the only options are his flawed approach or military conflict. As he has consistently done, he plays this game for domestic political consumption and seems entirely unaware that, if you publicly blurt out that we don’t have a feasible military option (which is, to begin with, false), the other guys can hear you. One wonders if anyone in this White House thinks about anything beyond American politics.

But, if we were to take seriously that which is not posed seriously, then yes. This deal, even if fully implemented (we’ll get back to that), is actually worse than the risk of another war.

But, no, it is not worse than doing what we’ve done for two decades; an option which, of course, a grand total of zero people are suggesting. Along those same lines, this deal is also not worse than treating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders to an evening of fine dining and theatre.

Why is the fully implemented deal worse than the risk of war? Because it virtually guarantees a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Because it obviates any remaining meaning to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. Because it defangs the United Nations Security Council – the only body at the UN that has any fangs to begin with or any modicum of credibility. Because the details, which rely – even for IAEA inspections – on a regime that managed to build its plant at Fordo almost to completion before it was caught, of the fully-implemented agreement are, in and of themselves, altogether appalling.

Which brings us back to the coup de grace: even without all of those problems, it would still be worse than the risk of war because relying on the Iranians to fully implement this deal is just this side of criminally negligent.

Supporters of the president – and it’s worth noting that there are very few supporters of this policy, only supporters of the man crafting it – will respond, as the president indicated in his statement, that, if the Iranians are caught violating the deal, the sanctions can be brought back to bear. Today’s statements suggest exactly the opposite. The P5+1 have already sent the clear signal – and the President’s statement confirmed as much – that there is no stomach for a long-term continuation of sanctions on the part of our allies or partners. Far more likely is that the P5+1 will get comfortable with both the idea of an Iranian nuke and the quiet of the period between now and whenever we catch them cheating (and we will catch them cheating). When that day comes, what will we do? Go to the UN Security Council that Iran ignored for a decade and that doesn’t even believe in its own resolutions enough to enforce them? We’ll spend another year negotiating over reimposition of sanctions?

All of that is worse than the risk of war; perhaps not worse than the certainty of war, but doubtless worse than its risk.

Jonathan Greenberg is a Middle East analyst, public policy expert, and former staffer at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He is a senior fellow with the

Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...or-iran-deal-to-affirm-israel-right-to-exist/

Alliances

State Department rejects call for Iran deal to affirm Israel's 'right to exist'

Published April 03, 2015 · FoxNews.com
Comments 1501

A State Department official dismissed a plea Friday from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Iran nuclear agreement include clear recognition of his nation's "right to exist," declaring negotiations are "only about the nuclear issue."

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, in a terse response to a question about Netanyahu's concerns, told reporters, "This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue" -- a comment that indicates the Obama administration is not looking to enshrine Israel's security into a final agreement.

Harf, for her part, suggested the talks are complicated enough already.

"This is an agreement that doesn't deal with any other issues, nor should it," she said.

Obama administration officials have insisted all along that despite their public disagreement with Netanyahu over the Iran deal framework, the U.S. commitment to Israel's security is unwavering. Further, White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters on Air Force One on Friday that the U.S. would not agree to any deal that would threaten Israel.


The Israeli prime minister, though, made the call for the "right to exist" measure during brief remarks early Friday. He blasted the Iran framework deal and said his Cabinet is uniformly opposed to it. He closed his brief address by demanding that any final agreement include "a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to exist."

The statement was prompted by reported statements from a top Iranian military official, who was quoted saying "erasing Israel" off the map is "non-negotiable."

To that, Netanyahu said: "The survival of Israel is non-negotiable."

Israel's objections promise to be a major hurdle for the Obama administration as its representatives huddle with those from Iran and five other world powers in pursuit of a final deal by a June 30 deadline.

Last month, Netanyahu railed against the pending agreement in an address before the U.S. Congress. He repeated many of those concerns again, on Thursday and Friday, after the framework was unveiled.

Netanyahu said it would not shut down a single nuclear facility or destroy a single centrifuge.

"The deal would legitimize Iran's illegal nuclear program," Netanyahu said. "It would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure."

President Obama and Netanyahu spoke by phone late Thursday.

In a statement on that conversation, the White House said Obama "underscored that progress on the nuclear issue in no way diminishes our concerns with respect to Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and threats towards Israel and emphasized that the United States remains steadfast in our commitment to the security of Israel. "

According to the White House, Obama told his Israeli counterpart he has directed his national security team to "increase consultations with the new Israeli government about how we can further strengthen our long-term security cooperation with Israel and remain vigilant in countering Iran's threats."

 

[Doomer Doug]

Point One: Iran has now been given a free hand to continue uranium enrichment to get NUCLEAR WARHEADS FOR ITS PRE-EXISTING LONG RANGE MISSILES. Anybody who says that isn't what this so called "deal" means doesn't understand the enriching ability Iran now has.

Point Two: This is an act of TREASON BY OBAMA in order to cover his sorry ass until he is out of office.

Point Three: Israel clearly understands this is the case. I DO NOT RULE OUT ISRAEL USING ITS NUCLEAR TRIAD: SUBMARINE LAUNCH, BOMBER LAUNCH AND MISSILE LAUNCH TO NEUTRALIZE IRAN.

Point Four: Iran now has a FREE HAND TO DO WHATEVER IT WANTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST USING THEIR PROXIES: HEZZBOLLAH IN SOUTHERN LEBANON, THE SHIA MILITIAS IN SYRIA AND IRAQ AND THE HOUTHI TRIBAL MILITIAS IN YEMEN.

Iran now has complete military control of the entrances to both the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea to the Suez Canal.

Yep, Iran now controls both the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf plus it gets to enrich all the uranium for nuke warheads it can do on the sly. Montioring? GIVE DOOMER DOUG A BREAK. Inspection? SHEESH.
I GET OBAMA IS A TRAITOR AND MORON, BUT I MEAN JUST SHEESH.

 

[Doomer Doug]

SPIRITUAL SYMBOLISM?

Of course, we know something like this can't mean Obama has unleashed evil on a scale with his so called "Iran Nuke Deal." Nope, just a coincidence<G>


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11513960/Lightning-strikes-two-planes-over-Washington.html

 

[homecanner1]

This is the polar opposite of the Good Friday Agreement that ushered in a relative ceasefire in Northern Ireland. It will go down as the "no good" Friday Framework. The evil at play right now is just gargantuan. There does not have to be a naval skirmish in the Red Sea/Suez either, they could just scuttle one of their own and create global havoc. Worst potus ever.

 

[Doomer Doug]

I am personally surprised the US Marines aren't storming those islands as I write this. Obama has now allowed Iran's Houthi Proxies to put a knife/missile to the Suez Canal Cartoid Artery with impunity. This is exactly the kind of threat the US Marines were designed for back for.

One missile into one ship and it is all over. I am still saying the crews on those are stressed out beyond belief right now.

 

[Possible Impact]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193636#.VR6Tm5t_nIU

France Says it Wanted a Better Deal

French FM says he originally rejected the deal but then Iran
threatened to walk; report shows Obama gave up on original
goal of the talks.
<snip>

The talk of America making concessions and adopting Iranian demands confirms
the reports of an aide to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani who defected, and said
"he US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other
members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal."

David Burge @iowahawkblog · 10h
French negotiator: We wanted tougher Iran terms,
but the US was a bunch of cheeseburger-eating surrender monkeys.



Cheese-eating surrender monkeys (Simpsons TV Trope...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkeys

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Conflict News @rConflictNews · 17m 17 minutes ago

Russia says ready to process Iranian nuclear fuel - @AlArabiya_Eng



Russia says ready to process Iranian nuclear fuel
Under the deal Iran’s stocks of highly enriched uranium will be cut by 98 percent for 15 years (File photo: AP)
Text size A A A
By AFP | Moscow
Friday, 3 April 2015

Russian diplomats involved in the historic framework accord limiting Iran’s nuclear program said Friday Moscow’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, was ready to provide Tehran with new reactor fuel and process spent rods.

“The Russian Federation and Rosatom are ready to supply new fuel and process irradiated fuel in existing reactors, and those Iran will be building,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov according to Russia’s Interfax press agency.

Ryabkov added the offer applied “to reactors constructed in Iran with a Russian project involving Russian participation.”

“The question remains very difficult for other reactors (whose construction) Russia was not involved in, and we are not ready to provide our position on it.”

Last November Moscow concluded accords with Iran to build two new reactors at its Bushehr plant - which was officially delivered to Tehran in 2013 - and signed protocols to construct an additional four reactors on other sites.

Despite questions still hovering over that issue and several others in the framework accord concluded Thursday, Ryabkov hailed the accomplishment of hammering out agreements on most aspects of the deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program to strictly civil purposes.

“We can be proud of ourselves,” he said, urging that between now and the final accord due by July, economic sanctions against Iran should be lifted “immediately.”

The agreement marked a major breakthrough in a 12-year standoff between Iran and the West - which has long feared Tehran wants to build a nuclear bomb - and raised hopes the deal could help stability in the Middle East.

Under the deal Iran’s stocks of highly enriched uranium will be cut by 98 percent for 15 years, while its unfinished Arak reactor will not produce weapons-grade plutonium.

It will also commit Iran to reducing by roughly two-thirds - to 6,104 from around 19,000 - the number of uranium centrifuges, which can make fuel for nuclear power but also the core of a nuclear bomb.
Last Update: Friday, 3 April 2015 KSA 12:51 - GMT 09:51

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...ys-ready-to-process-Iranian-nuclear-fuel.html

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...5ec8a8-d8a3-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

Opinions

Iran’s grand strategy is become a regional powerhouse

By Michael Morell April 3 at 7:10 PM
Michael Morell was acting and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.

One of the interesting aspects of international affairs is that states and nonstate actors will occasionally say publicly exactly what they are thinking, doing and planning to do. No need for spies, no need for diplomats — just a need to listen.

In the mid-1990s, Osama bin Laden said repeatedly that he saw the United States as his most important enemy and therefore as his key target. Bin Laden delivered on these warnings in August 1998 in East Africa, in October 2000 in Yemen and in September 2001 in New York and Washington.

In a hotly contested election campaign in early 1998, India’s Bharatiya Janata Party told voters in its platform that, if elected, it would openly deploy nuclear weapons. Once the BJP was in office, analysts played down the nuclear plank as campaign rhetoric. They were proved wrong in May 1998 when India conducted multiple underground nuclear tests, becoming a declared nuclear weapons state.

The world recently witnessed another moment of such candor — and it came just weeks before Iran and world powers agreed to a framework for how to handle Iran’s nuclear program over the next 10 to 15 years. Last month, a senior adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani spoke at a conference in Tehran on “Iran, Nationalism, History, and Culture.” The adviser made clear that Iran’s ambition is to become a regional hegemon — in short, to reestablish the Persian empire.

The adviser, Ali Younesi — who was head of intelligence for former president Mohammad Khatami — told conference attendees, “Since its inception, Iran has [always] had a global [dimension]. It was born an empire. Iran’s leaders, officials and administrators have always thought in the global” dimension.

Younesi defined the territory of the Iranian empire, which he called “Greater Iran,” as reaching from the borders of China and including the Indian subcontinent, the north and south Caucasus and the Persian Gulf. He said Iraq is the capital of the Iranian Empire — a reference to the ancient city of Babylon, in present-day Iraq, which was the center of Persian life for centuries.

“We are protecting the interests of [all] the people in the region — because they are all Iran’s people,” he said. “We must try to once again spread the banner of Islamic-Iranian unity and peace in the region. Iran must bear this responsibility, as it did in the past.”

Younesi said that the aim of Iranian actions in “Greater Iran” was to ensure the security of the people there, adding that Saudi Arabia has nothing to fear from Iran’s actions because the Saudis are incapable of defending the people of the region. He also said that anything that enters Iran is improved by becoming Iranian, particularly Islam itself, adding that Islam in its Iranian-Shiite form is the pure Islam, since it has shed all traces of Arabism.

These are not the views of a single individual. They are shared widely among Iranian elites. They are also not new. They stretch back decades and are deeply rooted in Iranian society and Persian culture.

Younesi’s speech was an outline of Iran’s grand strategy. And, most important, it puts into context Iran’s behavior in the region — largely covert operations to undermine its Arab neighbors, Israel and the United States, the countries that stand in the way of its pursuit of hegemony.

Iran conducts terrorism as a tool of statecraft — it is one of the only countries in the world to do so — largely against its neighbors. An Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in a Georgetown restaurant was foiled in 2011. Iran supports international terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, which was behind the 1983 attacks on the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 258 Americans. These attacks are seen as the beginning of Islamic jihad against the United States as well as the start of the use of suicide car and truck bombs.

Hezbollah’s stated reason for its existence is to destroy Israel. This is also Iranian state policy. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the most powerful person in the country, said in a speech in Tehran in late 2013, “Zionist officials cannot be called humans; they are like animals, some of them. The Israeli regime is doomed to failure and annihilation.”

Iran also provides support to Shiite groups in the region with the intent of reinforcing Shiite-led governments or overthrowing Sunni Arab regimes. Tehran’s extensive support has assisted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s killing of more than 100,000 of his own citizens. Iran’s support to Shiite militia groups during the Iraq war resulted in the deaths of hundreds of U.S. servicemen there. One of Iran’s proxies, the Houthis, recently overthrew the popularly elected government in Yemen.

This grand strategy, of course, is inconsistent with U.S. interests, and Iran knows that. At the conference, Younesi said that Iran was operating in Greater Iran against Sunni Islamic extremism, as well as against the Saudi Wahhabis, Turkey, secularists, Western rule and Zionism.

The nuclear framework agreement announced Thursday is a good deal for the United States. If fully implemented by Iran, it will push Iran’s breakout time to produce a weapon from just a few months to beyond a year, while making it difficult for Iran to cheat. But it will also, once sanctions are lifted, give Iran more resources to pursue its grand strategy, as outlined so clearly by Younesi. It has always been important that the United States and our allies have a policy to counter this strategy and contain Iran — and now it is even more important that we do so.


Read more on this topic:

Fareed Zakaria: A nuclear deal with Iran is the best option

Michael Gerson: Iran’s remarkable achievement

The Post’s View: Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals

Charles Krauthammer: Netanyahu’s Churchillian warning

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Conflict News @rConflictNews · 5m 5 minutes ago

Pentagon improving bunker-buster bomb to destroy Iran nuclear facilities in case deal fails - WSJ

 

[Sacajawea]

Let's see... secret facilities - check
Inspectors not allowed into some areas - check

US bending over backwards to make a deal with Iran, even at the risk of ticking off Israel - check

Any possibility the reason a deal was so NECESSARY, right NOW... is because they already have a warhead? And the deal was to prevent them from using it?

 

[Housecarl]

Let's see... secret facilities - check
Inspectors not allowed into some areas - check

US bending over backwards to make a deal with Iran, even at the risk of ticking off Israel - check

Any possibility the reason a deal was so NECESSARY, right NOW... is because they already have a warhead? And the deal was to prevent them from using it ?

Hummm.....Now that's an interesting take on this. Considering that Iran could turn Saudi Arabia inside out with a couple dozen well placed cluster bomb armed ballistic missiles or cruise missiles into their tanker loading facilities, their support infrastructure and a couple of key Saudi military and national guard garrisons without "crossing that last threshold", if its an issue of negating a threat, the "real one" for Iran isn't Israel but neighboring nuclear Pakistan.

Going one step further out, how much do you think North Korea would be charging Iran per warhead pit, uranium or plutonium, if in fact Iran has been financing the North Koreans and their research?

 

[Sacajawea]

I dunno. When the thought crossed my mind, I immediately realized what a trump card it would be and the timing ain't bad either.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/are-iranian-nukes-inevitable-39070/

Are Iranian nukes inevitable?

by Jim Picht - Apr 3, 2015

Obama is right to seek a nuclear agreement with Iran, but not just any agreement. Without monitoring and verification, it will be worse than nothing.

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2015 — The nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran have settled some key parameters of a framework for a June 30 deal, according to Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

That announcement resulted in street celebrations last night in Tehran. The mood in Washington and Jerusalem is much less celebratory. Congress is divided on a deal, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is aghast.

He announced that his cabinet is unanimous in its opposition to the emerging framework, and he demanded that any final agreement include Tehran’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, while Western critics of the negotiations insist that it is not. This begs an important question: Can Iran be prevented from getting nuclear weapons if its leaders want them?

The short answer to that is no. Nuclear technology is not modern high-tech. The first nuclear bomb was detonated 70 years ago this summer. The principles behind the construction of the bomb are well-known and widely disseminated. Nuclear weapons are your grandfather’s top-secret, high technology. Today, any university with solid physics and engineering programs can produce graduates capable of designing bombs.

Iran is blessed with a number of excellent physicists and engineers, many trained at some of the best schools in America.

The hurdle to building a bomb hasn’t been the design of the weapon, not for decades. Designing small, compact devices that can fit in the nosecones of a MIRVed missile may be a technical challenge, but the design of a larger device that can be thrown at Tel Aviv or Rome is within the prowess of nuclear scientists from dozens of countries, including even North Korea.

The hurdle has been the industrial and technical base to produce the enriched uranium, plutonium, and other components of a bomb. There are still dozens of countries that could do it. Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Chile, Mexico, the Netherlands and South Africa (a former possessor of nuclear weapons) could all go nuclear in short order if they wanted to. Fortunately for the world, they have all decided until now that building nuclear weapons is not in their best interests.

The astounding thing about nuclear weapons isn’t that Pakistan, India and North Korea have them, but that many other countries don’t.

Iran has the industrial and technical base. Its engineers have designed and built centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to weapons grade. It can produce the triggers, it can build missiles to deliver the weapons to a target.

Iran also has the uranium, tons of it. That is one of the issues that has been discussed in the negotiations. The West wants Iran to send all but a few hundred pounds of that uranium out of the country. Iran has refused.

The hurdles Iran faces that the West wants to keep high are the amount of enriched uranium in Iranian hands, and the rate at which it can enrich it further – that is, the number of centrifuges it can run.

Enrichment capacity is measured in “separative work units,” or SWU. First generation Iranian centrifuges have a capacity of less than 1 SWU per year. Its newer designs are capable of five or more SWU per year.

It takes 227 SWU to enrich one ton of natural uranium—which contains less than 1 percent of the fissile isotope U235—into 5.6 kilograms of weapons grade—enriched to 90 percent U235—uranium, enough for a bomb.

The paradox of the Western position is that it wishes to hold Iran to just 5,000 centrifuges, while Iranian leaders want 19,000 or more. A large number of centrifuges would be necessary to run a civilian nuclear power program, which requires tons of enriched—3 or 4 percent U235—uranium. The number of centrifuges the West wants for Iran’s upper bound isn’t enough for that kind of program, but it is more than adequate to produce nuclear weapons.

The details of how many centrifuges Iran can have and the pace at which it can build a new generation of centrifuges have a bearing on how quickly Iran can build a bomb. The goal has been to ensure that, if Iran pulls out of an agreement, that it will take at least a year to enrich enough uranium for a bomb. Not just one bomb, of course. The bombs would need to be tested, and then an arsenal would need to be built. The goal is to keep Iran from breaking out as a nuclear power in less than a year.

That goal may be possible in the near term, but it won’t take that long for Iran to perfect its new centrifuges and to begin enriching uranium for a nuclear arsenal quickly, if that is what its leaders want to do.

The options open to the west are limited, and mostly unpalatable. A military strike could set back Iran’s nuclear program, but what then? Iran would be implacably hostile to the West after that. Some might argue that it already is, but after a military strike, its hostility would flare. And we’d have to strike again and again to keep it from rebuilding its nuclear facilities. In the end, Iran would get its weapon, and no discussion would be possible.

An alternative is war. Iran is larger, more powerful, and more unified than Iraq was. After American experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the odds of selling a war with Iran to Congress or the public are vanishingly small.

Economic sanctions won’t stop Iran from getting a weapon. North Korea, far smaller, far poorer, far less capable, and economically even more isolated than Iran managed to do it. And if North Korea had Chinese help, Iran could probably count on Russia’s President Putin for some material support. Putin has already made his desire to be a friend to Iran clear.

Our only hope to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons is to ensure that it is not in Iranian interests. In that light, talks with Iran with the goal of an agreement make sense. At issue isn’t whether we should talk, but what we should reasonably expect from Iran in exchange for the end of sanctions. An agreement that doesn’t include strong monitoring provisions, for instance, would be a disaster, especially given Iran’s history of concealing its nuclear efforts.

We make no claim to know what inducements would keep Iran’s leaders honest and engaged with the West, but only that it is essential that both things happen. It is hugely important that we negotiate with Iran, but if Secretary of State John Kerry comes up with an agreement that doesn’t bind Iran to tight and specific standards, then no agreement would be better, or at least more honest.

Iran must have a reasonable expectation that economic sanctions will end without requiring it to abandon its nuclear program. After that, it must find its interests sufficiently aligned with ours that it not seek a nuclear arsenal, or it will inevitably seek and get one.

The question isn’t whether Iran will have the means to build a nuclear arsenal, but when. The trick is to ensure that, like Brazil, Spain, Sweden and the other easy entrants to the nuclear club, that it not want to build it when it can.

Otherwise, Iran will only be the second regional nuclear power, not the last. That would really be a disaster.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/nuclear_breakout_by_iran_and_north_korea.html

April 4, 2015

Nuclear Breakout by Iran and North Korea

By James Lewis
Comments 45

This from Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post on April 3:

… we are now facing the unfolding disaster that Obama has wrought. … the US has just given the Iranians a green light to behave as if they have already built their nuclear umbrella. … [T]he US and its partners have just removed all significant obstacles from their path to nuclear capabilities. The Iranians know it. Their proxies know it. Their enemies know it.

… The surrounding Arab states led by Saudi Arabia are pursuing nuclear weapons.

Don’t look now, but North Korea is a nuclear power today, with missiles able to strike Japan, and soon Hawaii and California.

The Norks got a free pass, because Bill Clinton’s SecState, Madeleine Albright, faked an agreement with Kim Jong-il in 2000, supposedly to stop uranium enrichment and missile development.

Then the Norks violated it, as everybody knew they would. Today North Korea has nuclear bombs and missiles.

Naturally, the media celebrated Albright’s “accord” with Kim Jong-il, and said nothing about the North Korean breakout.

Obama is playing the same sucker game in collusion with the mullahs, and the biggest betrayal is against us – against Americans who want our nation and the world to survive. Obama is copying Clinton’s kabuki script, kicking that nuclear can down the road, so that ultimately Republicans will have to deal with it. Then the Democrats will scapegoat the Republicans when they try to deal with the fallout. Bill Clinton had eight years to stop al-Qaeda before 9/11/01, but the media blamed George W. Bush.

But the biggest victims of Obama’s surrender are our former allies. America’s nuclear shield protected the world from 1949 on, when Stalin exploded his first bomb. Today, in response to the North Korean threat, Japan is rearming for the first time since World War II. They don’t say if they are building nukes, but the North Koreans won’t take them seriously if they don’t.

Obama just pulled the same stunt with Iran.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt will now feel forced to get their own nuclear weapons – because we’ve left them exposed to Iran’s nuclear jihad. Israel will cooperate with the Saudis and Egyptians because they face the same enemy.

Obama had a six-year window to stop Iran, using the same strategy that worked against Saddam: a trade embargo and a no-fly zone to render his air force useless. Obama and Val Jarrett wasted six years in secret talks with the mullahs, while lying hundreds of times that “Iran will never get nuclear weapons.”

Until the mullahs were past the point of no return.

The current agreement is therefore a pure sucker play. It’s for the media only, since the facts are irreversible.

Obama has sacrificed the safety of our former allies, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the rest. They are arming up as fast as possible.

America’s nuclear umbrella, which kept the peace between the big powers since 1949 – six decades – is now in tatters. Nobody trusts us anymore, and there is no reason they should.

The duplicitous U.S. media will celebrate Obama’s surrender as a great victory.

A new nuclear arms race has already started in the Middle East. It’s anybody’s guess whether ultimately ISIS or al-Qaeda will end up with nukes. The Iranians are just as bad as ISIS, and they are so confident of their path to nuclear weapons that they are sending conventional forces into Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

When you have nukes, you don’t have to use them. All you have to do is threaten. Your home territory has become invulnerable, and you can just knock off any opposition by conventional means. That’s what Iran is now doing in Yemen, right next to Saudi Arabia, and with the ability to throttle the entrance to the Red Sea.

In effect, the United States has given up the effort to prevent nuclear breakout. Armageddon cults like the mullahs now have their weapon of choice.

Obama did not have to do this. He wanted to.

Chances are that he sees this farce as his chance to run for U.N. secretary general. His own glorious future will be bought by the proceeds of surrender.

North Korea is already selling weapons technology to other rogues, including Iran. Iranian officers have been spotted observing nuclear bomb experiments in North Korea. Future rogues no longer have to build their own super-bombs. They can simply import them, which narrows the warning window to months rather than years.

All the nations threatened by Iran and North Korea understand these facts.

Here are some of the consequences.
1.Threatened nations will get their own nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles as soon as possible. Pakistan is thought to be the source for Saudi nukes, and the Saudis may simply provide them to Egypt, which has the manpower to protect the vast deserts of Arabia. The Iranians have just taken over the strategic chokepoint of Yemen, and while Arab powers are attacking, they will need boots on the ground to reconquer that territory.

2.Rogue powers can now attack. Without an American nuclear umbrella, Eastern Europe and the Baltic nations are directly threatened by Putin, who now has nothing to fear. In the Middle East, Iranian troops are already on the march, with the ultimate aim of conquering Mecca and Medina and overthrowing the Saudis, destroying Israel, and killing off the infidels unless they surrender.

3.For three centuries, since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, nation-states have controlled territories and societies, guaranteeing safety for their citizens against foreign attack. Today, territory is no longer the name of the game, since rogue states can launch nukes with ICBMs that can reach anywhere in the world. Bulgarian hackers can make Denial of Service attacks against American websites. Borders and territory may lose much of their meaning.

4.Anti-missile defenses will improve, but it will be years before defensive technology catches up with nuclear offense.

5.The temptation for pre-emptive strikes with cyber weapons or EMPs is therefore rising fast.

6.The biotechnology revolution is making many new powerful and hard-to-trace molecules that can be used in silent warfare. For example, the MAO-A gene, called “the warrior gene,” produces a protein that directly affects aggressiveness. Molecules can be designed to increase or decrease the expression of MAO-A. Hundreds of other molecules could be used.

7.While chemical weapons have been prohibited for decades, as soon as decision-makers are forced to decide between total war and insidious molecular weapons, they may well choose molecules. In Syria, Assad has been using chlorine bombs to suffocate and kill civilians. The taboo against these weapons has already been breached. Less murderous but more insidious molecules are now possible.

8.With the breakdown of privacy protections with Web 3.0, there are degrees of warfare that never existed before.

The future looks much more unstable. It is the price of Obama’s blind pursuit of personal glory.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/04/04/world/iran-nuclear-pact-leaves-questions/#.VSAouU1_nIU

World | ANALYSIS

On Iran’s nuclear pact, the big question is whether Tehran will cheat

Apr 4, 2015
AP

WASHINGTON – The framework nuclear deal sealed by world powers and Iran leaves major questions: Could Iran cheat? Possibly. Will the U.S. or anyone else be able to respond in time? In theory, yes. Are they prepared to use military force? Questionable.

Will a final deal settle global fears about Iran’s intentions? Almost certainly, no.

But the surprisingly detailed fact sheet released by the United States after Thursday’s diplomatic breakthrough in Switzerland provides U.S. President Barack Obama significant ammunition for the fight he will face selling an agreement to skeptical U.S. lawmakers and Middle East allies.

That is, if negotiators can get to that point over the next three months.

As Obama said from the White House, “Their work, our work, is not yet done and success is not guaranteed.” And the parameters for a comprehensive accord by June 30 still include big holes for Washington and its negotiating partners.

The limits are vague on Iran’s research and development of advanced technology that could be used for producing nuclear weapons. Inspectors still might not be able to enter Iranian military sites where nuclear work previously took place. The Americans and Iranians already are bickering over how fast economic sanctions on Iran will be relaxed. And Obama’s assertion that the penalties could always be snapped back into force is undermined by the U.S. fact sheet describing a “dispute resolution process” enshrined in the agreement.

But the biggest issue may be one U.S. officials have emphasized above all others: the “breakout time” Iran will need to surreptitiously produce a nuclear weapon. The framework imposes a combination of restrictions that will leave Iran needing to work for at least a year to accomplish that goal, rather than the current two or three months.

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have cited the longer breakout period as proof they’ve secured a “good deal” and say the one-year window is enough time for the U.S. to detect a covert Iranian push toward a bomb and to respond.

That standard will hold only for a decade, however. Over the following five years, it’s unclear how far Iran’s nuclear program will be kept from the bomb. And after the 15-year deal expires completely, there appear to be no constraints left to speak of — something congressional opponents and Iran’s regional rivals Israel and Saudi Arabia point to as evidence of a “bad deal.”

“This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the state of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after an Cabinet meeting Friday. “In a few years,” he said, “the deal would remove the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, enabling Iran to have a massive enrichment capacity that it could use to produce many nuclear bombs within a matter of months.”

These matters and many more will now be weighed by a Congress that has watched impatiently over 18 months of negotiations. Republicans are almost universally opposed to Obama’s diplomatic effort; Democrats are divided. Together they will look at two possible pathways for congressional intervention.

The first will give lawmakers an up-or-down vote on a deal, something Obama may be amenable to despite past opposition. He stated his confidence Thursday in being able to demonstrate that an accord will advance U.S. and world security, and said his aides will engage Congress on how it can “play a constructive oversight role.”

The second potential congressional action is more risky: imposing new sanctions on Iran’s economy. That could end the diplomacy altogether by jeopardizing the basic formula for a final pact: removal of Western sanctions in exchange for stricter nuclear limits.

But Obama has more working in his favor now than he did last year when the negotiations twice missed deadlines. Even then, his administration managed to hold off congressional pressure.

This week’s deal will compel Iran to cut in half the number of centrifuges it has spinning uranium. No bomb-making material can be fed into machines at a deeply buried underground facility that may be impervious to air attack. Advanced centrifuge models will be disconnected. A heavy water plant will not be allowed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, and inspections will increase.

And the long-term arc of Iran’s nuclear activity could well argue for continued diplomacy.

The administration and other supporters of the agreement note that in the years Washington refused to talk to Tehran, demanded that Iran stop all enrichment and sought a total dismantlement of its nuclear facilities, the Iranians expanded from several dozen centrifuges to a capacity of 20,000. They established a secondary site at a fortified underground bunker. They began enriching uranium to levels just below weapons-grade.

Since November 2013, Iran has been operating only 9,000 centrifuges and that number is to drop to just over 6,000. The Iranians are not producing any higher-enriched uranium anymore and are to ship out or neutralize most of their stockpiles. The threat of a plutonium bomb seems settled — at least for now.

The Iranians say they do not seek nuclear arms, with their program focused only on energy, medical and research objectives. Iran will “remain loyal and stand by promises,” President Hassan Rouhani said Friday.

Obama and his top advisers do not believe the Iranians on that front. But they say the agreement makes Iran’s claims at least verifiable and does far more than sanctions or military action to ensure Iran does not assemble an atomic arsenal.

“To be clear, there is no aspect of this agreement that is based on promises or trust,” Kerry said in an opinion piece in the Boston Globe Friday. “Every element is subject to proof.”

 

[Sacajawea]

“To be clear, there is no aspect of this agreement that is based on promises or trust,” Kerry said in an opinion piece in the Boston Globe Friday. “Every element is subject to proof.”

Yeah. Iran's track record of welcoming the AIEA and showing them everything is SOOO good. This is really rich, coming from an administration that wouldn't know the truth if it smacked 'em upside the head.

 

[Housecarl]

Well isn't this just "special"......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nypost.com/2015/04/04/translated-version-of-iran-deal-doesnt-say-what-obama-claims-it-does/

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

By Amir Taheri
April 4, 2015 | 4:35pm

“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.


Modal Trigger

Obama receives an update from John Kerry in Iran inside the Situation Room on April 1st.
Photo: Reuters

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.


Modal Trigger

John Kerry and his team watch from Lausanne, Switzerland as President Obama makes his state address on the status of the Iran nuclear program talks on April 2nd.
Photo: Reuters

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.


Modal Trigger

From left, Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations Wu Hailong, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarifat, Russian Deputy Political Director Alexey Karpov, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrive for nuclear talks at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne.
Photo: Reuters

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.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://atimes.com/2015/04/u-s-iran-...dimension-for-mideast-and-central-asia-sisci/

U.S.-Iran nuke deal creates new political dimension for Mideast and Central Asia: Sisci

Author: Francesco Sisci
April 4, 2015
1 Comment

Chatham House Rules

America’s nuclear deal with Iran creates a new political dimension in the Middle East and Central Asia. It’s important for the moment to focus on the general security picture for the region, leaving aside the existential concerns raised by Israel about the disruptive potential of lifting sanctions against a nation which is ultimately ruled by a clerical aristocracy whose reliability in following such an accord is uncertain.

Without a nuclear deal, Iran would likely to lean on Russia for its security and nuclear know-how. The U.S., on a collision course with Russia over Ukraine, was hardly in a position to let this happen . That would again massively involve Russia in Middle Eastern and Central Asian affairs after being pushed out in the 1990s with the fall of the Soviet Union.

In a vaguer, less immediately dangerous fashion, was the danger of having China’s continued involvement in Tehran, juggling Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel. All this would have been part of a very cautious power play by Beijing where the trump card is the promise of a grand Silk Road bonding all Eurasia.

In both these dealings, Russia and China dealt with all the countries in the region. The U.S. didn’t. Though the U.S. is the most powerful, this put Washington at a great disadvantage with respect to these other powers. The reason why Israel complains so much about the American rapprochement and is muted about Russia and China may also be complicated.

Russia’s full involvement with Iran is yet to occur, and China’s ties are very complex. It’s possible that Beijing is warmer to Jerusalem and the Saudis than to Tehran. And while Israel may be warming up to Moscow and Beijing, ties are not very hot, or not as hot as with the U.S. So we have a situation where geopolitical tensions are increasing on one hand, and decreasing on the other.

Besides these broad geopolitical concerns, the U.S. pushed its deal with Iran because America feels it can use Iran’s support against the Islamic State raging across Iraq and Syria. The other reason is that nobody, including Israel, managed to provide a convincing alternative to the U.S.-Iran nuke deal. At the end of the day, the crux of the matter hinges on nuclear capability, rather than the weapon itself. It’s the spectre of a little reliable anti-Jewish clergy in Tehran with their finger on the trigger of a bomb.

The big question is: What now? The possibility of Israel sabotaging the deal seems far fetched. But the ambitions of the Saudis, and perhaps Turkey, to go nuclear may have grown.

One possible avenue is for Israel to initiate rounds of confidential consultations with the Americans and Chinese on Iran. This would focus on Iran’s political evolution and development in the region. The U.S. would have the extra advantage of engaging China on a very practical project. Beijing, for its part, would be eager to proceed, because of its plan for the “One Belt, One Way,” Silk Road project. Joint Chinese and U.S. involvement could help assuage Israel’s legitimate existential fears, and help pressure Iran from another side.