BRKG P5+1 + Iran Announces Reaching Solutions on Key Parameters for Agreement
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/still-no-deal-in-iran-nuclear-talks-31358637.html
Still no deal in Iran nuclear talks
Published
07/07/2015 | 14:56
Iran nuclear talks ran through their second deadline in a week today, raising new questions about the ability of world powers to cut off all Iranian pathways to a bomb through diplomacy.
The talks, already in their 12th day, were prolonged until possibly Friday.
"We knew it would have been difficult, challenging, and sometimes hard," said Federica Mogherini, the European Union's foreign policy chief.
She said the negotiations would continue despite hitting some "tense" moments, and the US state department declared the current interim nuclear arrangement with Iran extended through until July 10.
As the latest target date arrived for a deal setting a decade of restrictions on Iran's nuclear programme, US secretary of state John Kerry, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and other top diplomats huddled in Vienna in search of a breakthrough.
All had spoken of deep differences remaining, and there was no public indication they had resolved disputes ranging from inspection rules on suspicious Iranian sites to limits on Tehran's research and development of advanced nuclear technology. Still, no one was speaking yet on Tuesday of a long-term extension.
"The last difficult political issues we have to solve," Ms Mogherini said.
And as he left the talks for an economic summit at home, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said fewer than 10 major differences needed to be ironed out, including access to Iranian sites for international monitors. He said questions related to the easing of sanctions on Iran had been decided, Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported. Mr Lavrov said he could return to the talks later in the week.
Diplomats had extended their discussions by a week when they missed their goal of a pact by June 30, after passing previous deadlines in July 2014 and last November. For Mr Kerry and his team, pressure is increasing from sceptical US allies and members of Congress. If the accord is not sent over to American politicians by Thursday, their month-long review period would be doubled to 60 days, hampering the ability of the Obama administration to offer speedy economic benefits to Iran for nuclear concessions.
In Tehran, Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation declared it had reached a "general understanding" in parallel talks with the UN nuclear agency on "joint co-operation". The Iranians have made similar claims previously, and it was unclear if any process was established for the International Atomic Energy Agency's long-stymied investigation of past nuclear weapons work by the Islamic Republic - a demand of Washington and its partners in negotiations in Austria's capital.
There, in a baroque 19th-century palace, Mr Kerry gathered early today with the foreign ministers of Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. The larger group was to meet with Mr Zarif at some point later in the day. Russia's Mr Lavrov and China's Wang Yi had to leave for a gathering of emerging economies in the Russian city of Ufa starting tomorrow, and the EU's Ms Mogherini said different ministers were likely to depart and return.
"We are taking these negotiations day to day to see if we can conclude a comprehensive agreement," state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a statement, adding that Mr Kerry would remain in Vienna.
"We've made substantial progress in every area, but this work is highly technical and high stakes for all of the countries involved," Ms Harf said. "We're frankly more concerned about the quality of the deal than we are about the clock, though we also know that difficult decisions won't get any easier with time. That is why we are continuing to negotiate."
The US is in a tough spot. President Barack Obama has expended significant political capital on finalising an agreement that has prompted suspicion from Iran's regional rival, Saudi Arabia, outright hostility from America's closest Middle East ally, Israel, and deep ambivalence even among Mr Obama's Democratic allies in Congress. They are concerned that the accord would leave Iran's nuclear infrastructure largely intact and compel the West to provide the leading US-designated state sponsor of terrorism with potentially hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of economic relief from international sanctions.
To ease their concerns, Mr Obama and Mr Kerry have vowed to hold out for a "good deal" that verifiably keeps Iran at least a year away from a nuclear weapons capability for at least a decade. Current intelligence estimates put the Iranians only two to three months away from amassing enough material for a nuclear warhead, if they pursued such a course. As part of the guarantee, the administration has repeatedly threatened to abandon negotiations if they prove fruitless or appear as an Iranian stall for time.
On-and-off talks with Tehran have been going on for more than a decade, though this incarnation has come closest to any resolution. The latest effort began in secret a couple of years ago and gained speed after the election of moderate-leaning Iranian president Hassan Rouhani in 2013. By November that year, Iran and the six world powers clinched an interim nuclear agreement and began the process for a comprehensive accord.
Over the weekend, a cautious Mr Kerry told reporters that talks on the final package "could go either way".
Republicans hostile to compromise with Iran have been urging the US to pull back from the talks. Their refrain has been that Mr Obama and Mr Kerry want a deal more than the Iranians do, and have let red lines erode on Iranian enrichment capacity, inspections and providing limited sanctions relief. The president and his top advisers vehemently reject such claims.
Iran has its own red lines, defiantly outlined in recent weeks by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation's supreme leader. They include a quick easing of sanctions, and rejection of any inspections of military sites or interviews with Iranian nuclear scientists.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/still-no-deal-in-iran-nuclear-talks-31358637.html
Still no deal in Iran nuclear talks
Published
07/07/2015 | 14:56
Iran nuclear talks ran through their second deadline in a week today, raising new questions about the ability of world powers to cut off all Iranian pathways to a bomb through diplomacy.
The talks, already in their 12th day, were prolonged until possibly Friday.
"We knew it would have been difficult, challenging, and sometimes hard," said Federica Mogherini, the European Union's foreign policy chief.
She said the negotiations would continue despite hitting some "tense" moments, and the US state department declared the current interim nuclear arrangement with Iran extended through until July 10.
As the latest target date arrived for a deal setting a decade of restrictions on Iran's nuclear programme, US secretary of state John Kerry, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and other top diplomats huddled in Vienna in search of a breakthrough.
All had spoken of deep differences remaining, and there was no public indication they had resolved disputes ranging from inspection rules on suspicious Iranian sites to limits on Tehran's research and development of advanced nuclear technology. Still, no one was speaking yet on Tuesday of a long-term extension.
"The last difficult political issues we have to solve," Ms Mogherini said.
And as he left the talks for an economic summit at home, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said fewer than 10 major differences needed to be ironed out, including access to Iranian sites for international monitors. He said questions related to the easing of sanctions on Iran had been decided, Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported. Mr Lavrov said he could return to the talks later in the week.
Diplomats had extended their discussions by a week when they missed their goal of a pact by June 30, after passing previous deadlines in July 2014 and last November. For Mr Kerry and his team, pressure is increasing from sceptical US allies and members of Congress. If the accord is not sent over to American politicians by Thursday, their month-long review period would be doubled to 60 days, hampering the ability of the Obama administration to offer speedy economic benefits to Iran for nuclear concessions.
In Tehran, Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation declared it had reached a "general understanding" in parallel talks with the UN nuclear agency on "joint co-operation". The Iranians have made similar claims previously, and it was unclear if any process was established for the International Atomic Energy Agency's long-stymied investigation of past nuclear weapons work by the Islamic Republic - a demand of Washington and its partners in negotiations in Austria's capital.
There, in a baroque 19th-century palace, Mr Kerry gathered early today with the foreign ministers of Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. The larger group was to meet with Mr Zarif at some point later in the day. Russia's Mr Lavrov and China's Wang Yi had to leave for a gathering of emerging economies in the Russian city of Ufa starting tomorrow, and the EU's Ms Mogherini said different ministers were likely to depart and return.
"We are taking these negotiations day to day to see if we can conclude a comprehensive agreement," state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a statement, adding that Mr Kerry would remain in Vienna.
"We've made substantial progress in every area, but this work is highly technical and high stakes for all of the countries involved," Ms Harf said. "We're frankly more concerned about the quality of the deal than we are about the clock, though we also know that difficult decisions won't get any easier with time. That is why we are continuing to negotiate."
The US is in a tough spot. President Barack Obama has expended significant political capital on finalising an agreement that has prompted suspicion from Iran's regional rival, Saudi Arabia, outright hostility from America's closest Middle East ally, Israel, and deep ambivalence even among Mr Obama's Democratic allies in Congress. They are concerned that the accord would leave Iran's nuclear infrastructure largely intact and compel the West to provide the leading US-designated state sponsor of terrorism with potentially hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of economic relief from international sanctions.
To ease their concerns, Mr Obama and Mr Kerry have vowed to hold out for a "good deal" that verifiably keeps Iran at least a year away from a nuclear weapons capability for at least a decade. Current intelligence estimates put the Iranians only two to three months away from amassing enough material for a nuclear warhead, if they pursued such a course. As part of the guarantee, the administration has repeatedly threatened to abandon negotiations if they prove fruitless or appear as an Iranian stall for time.
On-and-off talks with Tehran have been going on for more than a decade, though this incarnation has come closest to any resolution. The latest effort began in secret a couple of years ago and gained speed after the election of moderate-leaning Iranian president Hassan Rouhani in 2013. By November that year, Iran and the six world powers clinched an interim nuclear agreement and began the process for a comprehensive accord.
Over the weekend, a cautious Mr Kerry told reporters that talks on the final package "could go either way".
Republicans hostile to compromise with Iran have been urging the US to pull back from the talks. Their refrain has been that Mr Obama and Mr Kerry want a deal more than the Iranians do, and have let red lines erode on Iranian enrichment capacity, inspections and providing limited sanctions relief. The president and his top advisers vehemently reject such claims.
Iran has its own red lines, defiantly outlined in recent weeks by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation's supreme leader. They include a quick easing of sanctions, and rejection of any inspections of military sites or interviews with Iranian nuclear scientists.
Lilbitsnana
On TB every waking moment
Conflict News @rConflictNews 45m45 minutes ago
#Iran has a right to have conventional missiles: US Official - @zerohedge
#Iran has a right to have conventional missiles: US Official - @zerohedge
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com/iran...r-program-that-nobody-is-talking-about-2015-7
Here's the most critical part of Iran's nuclear program that nobody is talking about
Michael Eisenstadt, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy
Jul. 7, 2015, 12:05 PM
According to the latest reports stemming from the P5+1 talks, Iran is now insisting that UN sanctions on its ballistic missile program be lifted as part of a long-term nuclear accord.
In addition to further complicating already fraught negotiations, this development highlights the importance Tehran attaches to its missile arsenal, as well as the need to answer unresolved questions about possible links between its missile and nuclear programs.
Iran is believed to have the largest strategic missile force in the Middle East, producing short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, a long-range cruise missile, and long-range rockets. Although all of its missiles are conventionally armed at present, its medium-range ballistic missiles could deliver a nuclear weapon if Iran were to build such a device.
Early in the P5+1 negotiations, US officials stated that "every issue," including the missile program, would be on the table. In February 2014, however, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman stated, "If we are successful in assuring ourselves and the world community that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon," then that "makes delivery systems ... almost irrelevant."
Yet many observers remain concerned that personnel and facilities tied to Iran's missile program were, and may still be, engaged in work related to possible military dimensions (PMD) of the nuclear program. These concerns underscore the need to effectively address the missile issue as part of the UN Security Council resolution that will backstop the long-term nuclear accord now being negotiated, if it will not be dealt with in the accord itself.
http://static6.businessinsider.com/...screen shot 2015-06-11 at 8.47.42 am copy.png
Estimated Range of Iranian Long-Range Missile Forces
Deterrence, warfighting, and propaganda
The Iran-Iraq War convinced Tehran that a strong missile force is critical to the country's security, and it has given the highest priority to procuring and developing various types of missiles and rockets. Missiles played an important role throughout that war and a decisive role in its denouement.
During the February-April 1988 "War of the Cities," Iraq was able to hit Tehran with extended-range missiles for the first time. Iranian morale was devastated: more than a quarter of Tehran's population fled the city, contributing to the leadership's decision to end the war.
Since then, missiles have been central to Iran's "way of war," which emphasizes the need to avoid or deter conventional conflict while advancing its anti-status quo agenda via proxy operations and propaganda activities.
Iran's deterrence triad rests on its ability to (1) threaten navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, (2) undertake terrorist attacks on multiple continents, and (3) conduct long-range strikes, primarily by missiles (or with rockets owned by proxies such as Hezbollah).
Yet the first two options carry limitations.
Closing the strait would be a last resort because nearly all of Iran's oil exports go through it and Tehran's ability to wage terror has atrophied in recent years (as demonstrated by a series of bungled attacks on Israeli targets in February 2012). Therefore, Iran's missile force is the backbone of its strategic deterrent.
Missiles enable Iran to mass fires against civilian population centers and undermine enemy morale. If their accuracy increases in the future, they could further stress enemy defenses (as every incoming missile would have to be intercepted) and enable Iran to target military facilities and critical infrastructure.
Although terrorist attacks afford a degree of standoff and deniability, missiles permit a quicker, more flexible response in a rapidly moving crisis — for example, after an initial series of preplanned terrorist attacks, Tehran or its proxies might need weeks to organize follow-on operations. Missile salvos can also generate greater cumulative effects in a shorter period than terrorist attacks.
Indeed, missiles are ideally suited to Iran's "resistance doctrine," which states that achieving victory entails demoralizing one's enemies by bleeding their civilian population and denying them success on the battlefield. In this context, rockets are as important as missiles, since they yield the same psychological effect on the targeted population.
The manner in which Hezbollah and Hamas used rockets in their recent wars with Israel provides a useful template for understanding the role of conventionally armed missiles in Iran's warfighting doctrine.
Missiles are also Iran's most potent psychological weapon. They are a central fixture of just about every regime military parade, frequently dressed with banners calling for "death to America" and declaring that "Israel should be wiped off the map."
They are used as symbols of Iran's growing military power and reach. And as the delivery system of choice for nuclear weapons states, they are a key element of Iran's nascent doctrine of nuclear ambiguity and its attempts at "nuclear intimidation without the bomb."
Finally, while most nuclear weapons states created their missile forces years after joining the "nuclear club" (due to the significant R&D challenges involved), Iran will already have a sophisticated missile force and infrastructure in place if or when it opts to go that route.
This ensures that a nuclear breakout would produce a dramatic and rapid transformation in Iran's military stature and capabilities.
Iran's missle force
Iran has a large, capable missile force, with a likely inventory of more than 800 short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
These include single-stage liquid-fuel missiles such as the Shahab-1 (300 km range), Shahab-2 (500 km), Qiam (500-750 km), Shahab-3 (1,000-1,300 km), and Qadr (1,500-2,000 km).
Nearly all of them can reach US military targets in the Persian Gulf, and the latter two can reach Israel. These missiles, which include several subvariants, are believed to be conventionally armed with unitary high-explosive or submunition (cluster) warheads.
Additionally, Iran has tested a two-stage solid-fuel missile, the Sejjil-2, whose range of over 2,000 km would allow it to target southeastern Europe — though it is apparently still not operational. In a June 28, 2011, press statement, Tehran claimed that it was capping the range of its missiles at 2,000 km (sufficient to reach Israel but not Western Europe), implicitly eschewing the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles in a presumed bid to deflect US and European concerns.
Yet its Safir launch vehicle, which has put four satellites into orbit since 2009, could provide the experience and knowhow needed to build an ICBM. (According to a May 2010 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Safir struggled to put a very small satellite into low-earth orbit and has probably reached the outer limits of its performance envelope, so it could not serve as an ICBM itself.) In 2010, Iran displayed a mockup of a larger two-stage satellite launch vehicle, the Simorgh, which it has not yet flown.
Tehran has also claimed an antiship ballistic missile capability that it probably intends for potential use against U.S. aircraft carriers: the Khalij-e Fars and its derivatives, the Hormuz-1/2, each with a claimed range of 300 km. Yet it is not clear that these systems are sufficiently accurate or effective to pose a credible threat to U.S. surface elements in the Gulf.
In addition, Iran recently unveiled the Soumar land-attack cruise missile, which is reportedly a reverse-engineered version of the Russian Raduga Kh-55. It has a claimed range of 2,500-3,000 km, though it may not be operational yet.
The Kh-55 was the Soviet air force's primary nuclear delivery system.
Iran also fields a very large number of rockets, including the Noor 122 mm (with a range of 20 km), the Fajr-3 and -5 (45 and 75 km), and the Zelzal-1, -2, and -3 (with claimed ranges of 125 to 400 km). During the Iran-Iraq War, rockets played a major role in bombarding Iraqi cities along the border, and they are central to the "way of war" of Iranian proxies and allies such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
Tehran has built this massive inventory so that it can saturate and thereby overwhelm enemy missile defenses in any conflict. It would likely use such tactics whether its missile force remains conventional or becomes nuclear-armed, since conventional missiles could serve as decoys that enable nuclear missiles to penetrate defenses. Numbers would also enable Iran to achieve cumulative strategic effects on enemy morale and staying power by conventional means.
Finally, many of Iran's missiles are mounted on mobile launchers, and a growing number are based in silo fields located mainly in the northwest and toward the frontier with Iraq.
This mix of launch options is likely intended to impede preemptive enemy targeting of its missile force. The resources invested in this effort are unprecedented for a conventionally armed force, which indicates that at least some of these missiles would likely be nuclear armed if Iran eventually goes that route.
Nuclear connections
In the annex of a November 8, 2011, report regarding the nuclear program's possible military dimensions, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it possessed credible information and documents connecting Iran's missile and nuclear programs. These indicated that, prior to the end of 2003, Iran had:
conducted engineering studies on integrating a spherical payload (possibly a nuclear implosion device) into a Shahab-3 reentry vehicle (RV);
tested a multipoint initiation system to set off a hemisphere-shaped high-explosive charge whose dimensions were consistent with the Shahab-3's payload chamber; and worked on a prototype firing system that would enable detonation upon impact or in an airburst 600 meters above a target (a suitable height for a nuclear device).
Moreover, in 2004, Iran began deploying triconic (or "stepped") RVs — a design almost exclusively associated with nuclear missiles — on its Shahab variants.
Some experts (including Uzi Rubin and Michael Elleman) believe that Iran may have deployed the triconic RV to enhance the stability and thus the accuracy of its conventional warheads, and perhaps to achieve higher terminal velocities that could reduce reaction time for missile defenses.
But if Iran were able to build a miniaturized nuclear device, its experience in designing, testing, and operating missiles with triconic RVs could expedite deployment of this weapon. Indeed, David Albright claimed in his 2010 book Peddling Peril that members of the A. Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network possessed plans for smaller, more advanced nuclear weapon designs that might have found their way to Iran, though most experts doubt the regime's ability to build such a compact device at this time.
These reports underscore why Washington and its partners must insist that Tehran respond to the IAEA's questions about past engineering studies, design work, tests, and other elements of the PMD file prior to the lifting of sanctions.
They also highlight the need for a UN Security Council resolution (as called for in the Lausanne parameters) that would impose limitations on Iran's missile R&D work and threaten real consequences for those who assist Iran's missile program.
Failure to do so would signal tacit acceptance of activities that could enable Iran to deploy its first nuclear weapon atop a medium-range missile — an achievement that took most nuclear weapons states, including the United States and Soviet Union, about a decade to accomplish.
This development would in turn magnify the destabilizing impact of an Iranian breakout, while incentivizing other regional states to either take preventive action or move toward nuclear capabilities of their own before Iran crosses that threshold.
Read the original article on The Washington Institute For Near East Policy. Copyright 2015. Follow The Washington Institute For Near East Policy on Twitter.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com/iran...r-program-that-nobody-is-talking-about-2015-7
Here's the most critical part of Iran's nuclear program that nobody is talking about
Michael Eisenstadt, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy
Jul. 7, 2015, 12:05 PM
According to the latest reports stemming from the P5+1 talks, Iran is now insisting that UN sanctions on its ballistic missile program be lifted as part of a long-term nuclear accord.
In addition to further complicating already fraught negotiations, this development highlights the importance Tehran attaches to its missile arsenal, as well as the need to answer unresolved questions about possible links between its missile and nuclear programs.
Iran is believed to have the largest strategic missile force in the Middle East, producing short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, a long-range cruise missile, and long-range rockets. Although all of its missiles are conventionally armed at present, its medium-range ballistic missiles could deliver a nuclear weapon if Iran were to build such a device.
Early in the P5+1 negotiations, US officials stated that "every issue," including the missile program, would be on the table. In February 2014, however, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman stated, "If we are successful in assuring ourselves and the world community that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon," then that "makes delivery systems ... almost irrelevant."
Yet many observers remain concerned that personnel and facilities tied to Iran's missile program were, and may still be, engaged in work related to possible military dimensions (PMD) of the nuclear program. These concerns underscore the need to effectively address the missile issue as part of the UN Security Council resolution that will backstop the long-term nuclear accord now being negotiated, if it will not be dealt with in the accord itself.
http://static6.businessinsider.com/...screen shot 2015-06-11 at 8.47.42 am copy.png
Estimated Range of Iranian Long-Range Missile Forces
Deterrence, warfighting, and propaganda
The Iran-Iraq War convinced Tehran that a strong missile force is critical to the country's security, and it has given the highest priority to procuring and developing various types of missiles and rockets. Missiles played an important role throughout that war and a decisive role in its denouement.
During the February-April 1988 "War of the Cities," Iraq was able to hit Tehran with extended-range missiles for the first time. Iranian morale was devastated: more than a quarter of Tehran's population fled the city, contributing to the leadership's decision to end the war.
Since then, missiles have been central to Iran's "way of war," which emphasizes the need to avoid or deter conventional conflict while advancing its anti-status quo agenda via proxy operations and propaganda activities.
Iran's deterrence triad rests on its ability to (1) threaten navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, (2) undertake terrorist attacks on multiple continents, and (3) conduct long-range strikes, primarily by missiles (or with rockets owned by proxies such as Hezbollah).
Yet the first two options carry limitations.
Closing the strait would be a last resort because nearly all of Iran's oil exports go through it and Tehran's ability to wage terror has atrophied in recent years (as demonstrated by a series of bungled attacks on Israeli targets in February 2012). Therefore, Iran's missile force is the backbone of its strategic deterrent.
Missiles enable Iran to mass fires against civilian population centers and undermine enemy morale. If their accuracy increases in the future, they could further stress enemy defenses (as every incoming missile would have to be intercepted) and enable Iran to target military facilities and critical infrastructure.
Although terrorist attacks afford a degree of standoff and deniability, missiles permit a quicker, more flexible response in a rapidly moving crisis — for example, after an initial series of preplanned terrorist attacks, Tehran or its proxies might need weeks to organize follow-on operations. Missile salvos can also generate greater cumulative effects in a shorter period than terrorist attacks.
Indeed, missiles are ideally suited to Iran's "resistance doctrine," which states that achieving victory entails demoralizing one's enemies by bleeding their civilian population and denying them success on the battlefield. In this context, rockets are as important as missiles, since they yield the same psychological effect on the targeted population.
The manner in which Hezbollah and Hamas used rockets in their recent wars with Israel provides a useful template for understanding the role of conventionally armed missiles in Iran's warfighting doctrine.
Missiles are also Iran's most potent psychological weapon. They are a central fixture of just about every regime military parade, frequently dressed with banners calling for "death to America" and declaring that "Israel should be wiped off the map."
They are used as symbols of Iran's growing military power and reach. And as the delivery system of choice for nuclear weapons states, they are a key element of Iran's nascent doctrine of nuclear ambiguity and its attempts at "nuclear intimidation without the bomb."
Finally, while most nuclear weapons states created their missile forces years after joining the "nuclear club" (due to the significant R&D challenges involved), Iran will already have a sophisticated missile force and infrastructure in place if or when it opts to go that route.
This ensures that a nuclear breakout would produce a dramatic and rapid transformation in Iran's military stature and capabilities.
Iran's missle force
Iran has a large, capable missile force, with a likely inventory of more than 800 short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
These include single-stage liquid-fuel missiles such as the Shahab-1 (300 km range), Shahab-2 (500 km), Qiam (500-750 km), Shahab-3 (1,000-1,300 km), and Qadr (1,500-2,000 km).
Nearly all of them can reach US military targets in the Persian Gulf, and the latter two can reach Israel. These missiles, which include several subvariants, are believed to be conventionally armed with unitary high-explosive or submunition (cluster) warheads.
Additionally, Iran has tested a two-stage solid-fuel missile, the Sejjil-2, whose range of over 2,000 km would allow it to target southeastern Europe — though it is apparently still not operational. In a June 28, 2011, press statement, Tehran claimed that it was capping the range of its missiles at 2,000 km (sufficient to reach Israel but not Western Europe), implicitly eschewing the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles in a presumed bid to deflect US and European concerns.
Yet its Safir launch vehicle, which has put four satellites into orbit since 2009, could provide the experience and knowhow needed to build an ICBM. (According to a May 2010 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Safir struggled to put a very small satellite into low-earth orbit and has probably reached the outer limits of its performance envelope, so it could not serve as an ICBM itself.) In 2010, Iran displayed a mockup of a larger two-stage satellite launch vehicle, the Simorgh, which it has not yet flown.
Tehran has also claimed an antiship ballistic missile capability that it probably intends for potential use against U.S. aircraft carriers: the Khalij-e Fars and its derivatives, the Hormuz-1/2, each with a claimed range of 300 km. Yet it is not clear that these systems are sufficiently accurate or effective to pose a credible threat to U.S. surface elements in the Gulf.
In addition, Iran recently unveiled the Soumar land-attack cruise missile, which is reportedly a reverse-engineered version of the Russian Raduga Kh-55. It has a claimed range of 2,500-3,000 km, though it may not be operational yet.
The Kh-55 was the Soviet air force's primary nuclear delivery system.
Iran also fields a very large number of rockets, including the Noor 122 mm (with a range of 20 km), the Fajr-3 and -5 (45 and 75 km), and the Zelzal-1, -2, and -3 (with claimed ranges of 125 to 400 km). During the Iran-Iraq War, rockets played a major role in bombarding Iraqi cities along the border, and they are central to the "way of war" of Iranian proxies and allies such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
Tehran has built this massive inventory so that it can saturate and thereby overwhelm enemy missile defenses in any conflict. It would likely use such tactics whether its missile force remains conventional or becomes nuclear-armed, since conventional missiles could serve as decoys that enable nuclear missiles to penetrate defenses. Numbers would also enable Iran to achieve cumulative strategic effects on enemy morale and staying power by conventional means.
Finally, many of Iran's missiles are mounted on mobile launchers, and a growing number are based in silo fields located mainly in the northwest and toward the frontier with Iraq.
This mix of launch options is likely intended to impede preemptive enemy targeting of its missile force. The resources invested in this effort are unprecedented for a conventionally armed force, which indicates that at least some of these missiles would likely be nuclear armed if Iran eventually goes that route.
Nuclear connections
In the annex of a November 8, 2011, report regarding the nuclear program's possible military dimensions, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it possessed credible information and documents connecting Iran's missile and nuclear programs. These indicated that, prior to the end of 2003, Iran had:
conducted engineering studies on integrating a spherical payload (possibly a nuclear implosion device) into a Shahab-3 reentry vehicle (RV);
tested a multipoint initiation system to set off a hemisphere-shaped high-explosive charge whose dimensions were consistent with the Shahab-3's payload chamber; and worked on a prototype firing system that would enable detonation upon impact or in an airburst 600 meters above a target (a suitable height for a nuclear device).
Moreover, in 2004, Iran began deploying triconic (or "stepped") RVs — a design almost exclusively associated with nuclear missiles — on its Shahab variants.
Some experts (including Uzi Rubin and Michael Elleman) believe that Iran may have deployed the triconic RV to enhance the stability and thus the accuracy of its conventional warheads, and perhaps to achieve higher terminal velocities that could reduce reaction time for missile defenses.
But if Iran were able to build a miniaturized nuclear device, its experience in designing, testing, and operating missiles with triconic RVs could expedite deployment of this weapon. Indeed, David Albright claimed in his 2010 book Peddling Peril that members of the A. Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network possessed plans for smaller, more advanced nuclear weapon designs that might have found their way to Iran, though most experts doubt the regime's ability to build such a compact device at this time.
These reports underscore why Washington and its partners must insist that Tehran respond to the IAEA's questions about past engineering studies, design work, tests, and other elements of the PMD file prior to the lifting of sanctions.
They also highlight the need for a UN Security Council resolution (as called for in the Lausanne parameters) that would impose limitations on Iran's missile R&D work and threaten real consequences for those who assist Iran's missile program.
Failure to do so would signal tacit acceptance of activities that could enable Iran to deploy its first nuclear weapon atop a medium-range missile — an achievement that took most nuclear weapons states, including the United States and Soviet Union, about a decade to accomplish.
This development would in turn magnify the destabilizing impact of an Iranian breakout, while incentivizing other regional states to either take preventive action or move toward nuclear capabilities of their own before Iran crosses that threshold.
Read the original article on The Washington Institute For Near East Policy. Copyright 2015. Follow The Washington Institute For Near East Policy on Twitter.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/iran-pushes-end-arms-embargo-nuke-deal-32267502
Iran Now Pushes for an End to Arms Embargo in Nuclear Deal
VIENNA — Jul 7, 2015, 1:30 AM ET
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press
As negotiators braced for yet another possible extension of nuclear talks, Iran demanded on Monday that any deal should include the end to a U.N. arms embargo as well — a condition backed by Russia but opposed by the United States as it seeks to limit Tehran's Mideast influence.
Late last month, Iran and six world powers gave themselves an extra week past June 30 after it became clear that that original deadline could not be met. The sides now are trying to work out a deal that would limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the easing of tens of billions of dollars in economic penalties on the Islamic Republic.
But disagreements persisted as the sides moved close to the new Tuesday deadline, and White House spokesman Josh Earnest said another extension was "certainly possible."
Negotiators had previously mentioned the mechanics of curbing Iran's nuclear programs and the time and pacing of economic sanctions relief as the most contentious problems. But an Iranian official — briefing reporters on condition of anonymity — said Monday that ending the arms embargo was an important part of the deal.
The Iranian decision to publicly bring that issue into the mix suggested that disputes ran deeper than just over the most widely aired issues.
A preliminary nuclear deal reached in April did not specifically name the arms embargo on Iran as part of the long-term accord. But a U.S. fact-sheet issued at the time said that the deal now being worked on would result in "the comprehensive lifting of all U.N. Security Council sanctions" on the Islamic Republic, which could be interpreted to include the arms embargo.
Still, the U.S. also said at the time that "important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles" would be incorporated in any new U.N. guidelines for Iran.
Both Russia and China have expressed support for at least a partial lifting of the arms embargo. Moscow, in particular, is interested in military cooperation and in Russian arms sales to Tehran, including the long-delayed transfer of S-300 advanced air defense systems — something long opposed by Washington.
The U.S. doesn't want the arms ban ended because it fears Tehran could expand its military assistance for Syrian President Bashar Assad, for Houthi rebels in Yemen fighting a U.S. backed Arab coalition and for Lebanon-based Hezbollah, which opposes Israel. Lifting the embargo also would increase already strong opposition to the deal in Congress and in Israel.
With the arms embargo prohibiting both exports of weapons to Iran and exports by Iran — and Russia wanting to sell arms to Tehran — one possible solution would be lifting the ban only on importing weapons to the Islamic Republic and not on exports.
Iran also wants to have a hand in shaping any Security Council resolution that would endorse a comprehensive nuclear deal, if one is reached, the Iranian official said.
He offered no details but told reporters that Iran and Security Council members at the nuclear talks are drafting language for a proposed U.N. resolution and that Tehran is seeking a shift from the critical tone of previous resolutions on its nuclear program. All five Security Council members — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — are at the table with Iran, along with Germany.
A U.S. official confirmed that a resolution text was being discussed at the talks. Both the Iranian and the U.S. officials demanded anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly.
The Iranian official spoke of good progress on some previously divisive topics. At the same time, he said some disputes may have to be resolved by the foreign ministers of the nations at the talks. All seven were either in Vienna or arriving by day's end.
Over the weekend, diplomats reported tentative agreement on the speed and scope of sanctions relief for Iran in the potential accord, even as issues such as inspection guidelines and limits on Iran's nuclear research and development remained contentious.
Iran says its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, but the U.S. and its allies fear the program could be turned toward making weapons.
With the deadline nearing, negotiators prepared Monday for a late-night session that diplomats said could extend into early Tuesday.
It's in the Obama administration's interest to have a deal by Thursday — if one is to be had. After Thursday, Congress' time to review the deal grows from 30 to 60 days. President Barack Obama would have to await that review before being able to ease sanctions agreed to in a deal. Also in that period, lawmakers could try to build a veto-proof majority behind new legislation that could impose new sanctions on Iran or prevent Obama from suspending existing ones.
———
AP Diplomatic Writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/iran-pushes-end-arms-embargo-nuke-deal-32267502
Iran Now Pushes for an End to Arms Embargo in Nuclear Deal
VIENNA — Jul 7, 2015, 1:30 AM ET
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press
As negotiators braced for yet another possible extension of nuclear talks, Iran demanded on Monday that any deal should include the end to a U.N. arms embargo as well — a condition backed by Russia but opposed by the United States as it seeks to limit Tehran's Mideast influence.
Late last month, Iran and six world powers gave themselves an extra week past June 30 after it became clear that that original deadline could not be met. The sides now are trying to work out a deal that would limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the easing of tens of billions of dollars in economic penalties on the Islamic Republic.
But disagreements persisted as the sides moved close to the new Tuesday deadline, and White House spokesman Josh Earnest said another extension was "certainly possible."
Negotiators had previously mentioned the mechanics of curbing Iran's nuclear programs and the time and pacing of economic sanctions relief as the most contentious problems. But an Iranian official — briefing reporters on condition of anonymity — said Monday that ending the arms embargo was an important part of the deal.
The Iranian decision to publicly bring that issue into the mix suggested that disputes ran deeper than just over the most widely aired issues.
A preliminary nuclear deal reached in April did not specifically name the arms embargo on Iran as part of the long-term accord. But a U.S. fact-sheet issued at the time said that the deal now being worked on would result in "the comprehensive lifting of all U.N. Security Council sanctions" on the Islamic Republic, which could be interpreted to include the arms embargo.
Still, the U.S. also said at the time that "important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles" would be incorporated in any new U.N. guidelines for Iran.
Both Russia and China have expressed support for at least a partial lifting of the arms embargo. Moscow, in particular, is interested in military cooperation and in Russian arms sales to Tehran, including the long-delayed transfer of S-300 advanced air defense systems — something long opposed by Washington.
The U.S. doesn't want the arms ban ended because it fears Tehran could expand its military assistance for Syrian President Bashar Assad, for Houthi rebels in Yemen fighting a U.S. backed Arab coalition and for Lebanon-based Hezbollah, which opposes Israel. Lifting the embargo also would increase already strong opposition to the deal in Congress and in Israel.
With the arms embargo prohibiting both exports of weapons to Iran and exports by Iran — and Russia wanting to sell arms to Tehran — one possible solution would be lifting the ban only on importing weapons to the Islamic Republic and not on exports.
Iran also wants to have a hand in shaping any Security Council resolution that would endorse a comprehensive nuclear deal, if one is reached, the Iranian official said.
He offered no details but told reporters that Iran and Security Council members at the nuclear talks are drafting language for a proposed U.N. resolution and that Tehran is seeking a shift from the critical tone of previous resolutions on its nuclear program. All five Security Council members — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — are at the table with Iran, along with Germany.
A U.S. official confirmed that a resolution text was being discussed at the talks. Both the Iranian and the U.S. officials demanded anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly.
The Iranian official spoke of good progress on some previously divisive topics. At the same time, he said some disputes may have to be resolved by the foreign ministers of the nations at the talks. All seven were either in Vienna or arriving by day's end.
Over the weekend, diplomats reported tentative agreement on the speed and scope of sanctions relief for Iran in the potential accord, even as issues such as inspection guidelines and limits on Iran's nuclear research and development remained contentious.
Iran says its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, but the U.S. and its allies fear the program could be turned toward making weapons.
With the deadline nearing, negotiators prepared Monday for a late-night session that diplomats said could extend into early Tuesday.
It's in the Obama administration's interest to have a deal by Thursday — if one is to be had. After Thursday, Congress' time to review the deal grows from 30 to 60 days. President Barack Obama would have to await that review before being able to ease sanctions agreed to in a deal. Also in that period, lawmakers could try to build a veto-proof majority behind new legislation that could impose new sanctions on Iran or prevent Obama from suspending existing ones.
———
AP Diplomatic Writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-nuclear-talks-what-you-need-to-know-1.3140710
Iran nuclear talks: What you need to know
Deadline extended on negotiations around deal that could lift sanctions against Iran
CBC News Posted: Jul 07, 2015 10:59 AM ET| Last Updated: Jul 07, 2015 12:32 PM ET
International news media are focusing on Vienna this week, where negotiators are trying to hammer out an agreement in the Iran nuclear talks. Already extended from June 30 to tonight, the deadline for the talks has now been changed to July 10.
Like most long-running negotiations, following the developments coming out of the talks has been a challenge. Here's a synopsis of the primary issues, the major sticking points, and what's at stake.
■Iran nuclear talks will continue through Friday, U.S. says
Why are the talks happening?
The United States and other Western governments fear that Iran wants the capability to build nuclear weapons, something Tehran denies. The deal is supposed to allay those suspicions.
In July 2006, the UN Security Council demanded Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program, adding sanctions would follow if Iran didn't comply. That December, the Security Council banned the sale of nuclear-related technology to Iran and froze assets belonging to key companies and individuals involved in Iran's nuclear program.
Uranium enrichment continued in Iran, and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency complained about insufficient co-operation from Tehran and expressed concerns about potential military uses of Iran's nuclear program. The UN, the U.S. and the EU imposed further sanctions, including ones on individuals and companies tied to Iran's nuclear program.
Iran wanted the sanctions, which have cost the Iranian economy tens of billions of dollars, lifted. By 2013 Iran was sitting across the negotiating table from the U.K., France and Germany (with whom they had been negotiating since 2003), as well as the U.S., Russia and China.
Didn't they already reach a deal?
Austria Iran Nuclear Talks
Journalists wait in front of Palais Coburg where closed-door nuclear talks with Iran take place in Vienna, Austria, July 6. (Ronald Zak/Associated Press)
There have been several agreements reached in relation to Iran's nuclear program.
In November 2013, the two sides reached a Joint Plan of Action under which Iran agreed to curb its nuclear work in exchange for modest sanctions relief.
Iran said it would stop enriching uranium above five per cent — weapons-grade uranium is enriched to 90 per cent — and neutralize its uranium stockpile that had been enriched above five per cent. Tehran also agreed to halt construction of a heavy water nuclear reactor at Arak.
The two sides committed to reaching a comprehensive agreement within a year, but that deadline has since been extended four times, and now stands at July 10.
In April they reached agreement on the framework for a Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action, or final agreement.
The U.S. says it would take Iran around two to three months to build a nuclear weapon now. Under the terms of the new deal, it would take Iran at least a year to build an atomic bomb.
What are the terms of agreement?
In addition to the limits on enrichment levels, agreement has been reached on:
■Centrifuges: Iran can only keep installed 6,104 centrifuges for uranium enrichment and they must be the least efficient model. Iran has about 19,000 installed now at two locations.
■Fordow fuel enrichment plant: At this underground facility near Qom, Iran cannot enrich uranium or conduct uranium-related research and development for at least 15 years. The site becomes a nuclear physics and technology research centre instead.
■Arak heavy water reactor: It will be rebuilt so Iran cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium, and it cannot build another heavy water reactor for 15 years.
■Inspections: The IAEA will continue inspections in Iran and will be allowed to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of covert nuclear work. Suspicions about past Iranian nuclear weapons work will be investigated.
■Sanctions: The U.S. and the EU will suspend nuclear-related sanctions after the IAEA verifies Iranian compliance. If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be re-imposed. UN Security Council resolutions on Iran will be lifted simultaneously with Iran fulfilling its commitments under the deal. Disagreements will go to a dispute resolution process.
What remains to be resolved?
■When the sanctions get lifted: Iran wants that to happen as soon as there's a deal. The Western governments want the sanctions removed gradually, as Iran takes steps to constrain its nuclear program.
■Which sanctions get lifted: Iran is apparently pushing for the lifting of more than just the sanctions imposed in response to its nuclear program. The U.S. wants to keep the separate block of sanctions against Iran's ballistic missile program, unless Iran suspends the program, and keep punishing Iran for its human rights and terrorism records.
■Inspections: Iran won't agree to inspections of military installations or allow Iranian scientists to be interviewed. The U.S. wants monitors to be able to investigate, within a reasonable time, whatever they deem necessary.
■Uranium stockpile: Iran agreed to reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. Iran wants to do that by converting it to a level of enrichment that cannot easily be weaponized, but the IAEA says Iran cannot succeed in doing that in time unless it ships most of that uranium out of the country, which Iran doesn't want to do.
■Uranium enrichment: In April 2015, Iran agreed to limits on its uranium enrichment program that would last up to 15 years. Iran appears to be trying to back away from what it agreed to in April, according to Western sources.
■Research and development: The April agreement is vague about what research and development involving uranium enrichment Iran can undertake. The U.S. wants limits Iran says it won't accept.
■Redesign of the Arak reactor: Iran agreed to rebuild the Arak heavy-water reactor based on a design agreed to by both sides, so the reactor will be used for peaceful research. An agreement hasn't been reached on the new design.
What's the rush?
Under the terms of that U.S. law, President Barack Obama would eventually be able to get the treaty through Congress with the support of just one-third of the U.S. Senate. So Congress will require a veto-proof two-thirds majority to enact new sanctions or prevent Obama from suspending existing ones. If that happens, the U.S. cannot live up to the agreement with Iran, if one is reached.
After the April 2015 agreement was reached, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that included a clause that could affect the approval process in that country.
Should the negotiators somehow reach a deal by July 9 (a day before the newly extended deadline), Congress gets 30 days to review the agreement. But after that date it gets 60 days in which to conduct the review, twice the time for the agreement's opponents to find a way to unravel the deal.
Under the terms of that U.S. law, President Barack Obama would eventually be able to get the treaty through Congress with the support of just one-third of the U.S. Senate. So Congress will require a veto-proof two-thirds majority to enact new sanctions or prevent Obama from suspending existing ones. If that happens, the U.S. cannot live up to the agreement with Iran, if one is reached.
Obama cannot remove sanctions on Iran during the review.
■Iran nuclear talks: 5 questions if the negotiations collapse
■How an Iranian nuclear deal could reshape the Middle East
With files from AP and Reuters
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-nuclear-talks-what-you-need-to-know-1.3140710
Iran nuclear talks: What you need to know
Deadline extended on negotiations around deal that could lift sanctions against Iran
CBC News Posted: Jul 07, 2015 10:59 AM ET| Last Updated: Jul 07, 2015 12:32 PM ET
International news media are focusing on Vienna this week, where negotiators are trying to hammer out an agreement in the Iran nuclear talks. Already extended from June 30 to tonight, the deadline for the talks has now been changed to July 10.
Like most long-running negotiations, following the developments coming out of the talks has been a challenge. Here's a synopsis of the primary issues, the major sticking points, and what's at stake.
■Iran nuclear talks will continue through Friday, U.S. says
Why are the talks happening?
The United States and other Western governments fear that Iran wants the capability to build nuclear weapons, something Tehran denies. The deal is supposed to allay those suspicions.
In July 2006, the UN Security Council demanded Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program, adding sanctions would follow if Iran didn't comply. That December, the Security Council banned the sale of nuclear-related technology to Iran and froze assets belonging to key companies and individuals involved in Iran's nuclear program.
Uranium enrichment continued in Iran, and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency complained about insufficient co-operation from Tehran and expressed concerns about potential military uses of Iran's nuclear program. The UN, the U.S. and the EU imposed further sanctions, including ones on individuals and companies tied to Iran's nuclear program.
Iran wanted the sanctions, which have cost the Iranian economy tens of billions of dollars, lifted. By 2013 Iran was sitting across the negotiating table from the U.K., France and Germany (with whom they had been negotiating since 2003), as well as the U.S., Russia and China.
Didn't they already reach a deal?
Austria Iran Nuclear Talks
Journalists wait in front of Palais Coburg where closed-door nuclear talks with Iran take place in Vienna, Austria, July 6. (Ronald Zak/Associated Press)
There have been several agreements reached in relation to Iran's nuclear program.
In November 2013, the two sides reached a Joint Plan of Action under which Iran agreed to curb its nuclear work in exchange for modest sanctions relief.
Iran said it would stop enriching uranium above five per cent — weapons-grade uranium is enriched to 90 per cent — and neutralize its uranium stockpile that had been enriched above five per cent. Tehran also agreed to halt construction of a heavy water nuclear reactor at Arak.
The two sides committed to reaching a comprehensive agreement within a year, but that deadline has since been extended four times, and now stands at July 10.
In April they reached agreement on the framework for a Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action, or final agreement.
The U.S. says it would take Iran around two to three months to build a nuclear weapon now. Under the terms of the new deal, it would take Iran at least a year to build an atomic bomb.
What are the terms of agreement?
In addition to the limits on enrichment levels, agreement has been reached on:
■Centrifuges: Iran can only keep installed 6,104 centrifuges for uranium enrichment and they must be the least efficient model. Iran has about 19,000 installed now at two locations.
■Fordow fuel enrichment plant: At this underground facility near Qom, Iran cannot enrich uranium or conduct uranium-related research and development for at least 15 years. The site becomes a nuclear physics and technology research centre instead.
■Arak heavy water reactor: It will be rebuilt so Iran cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium, and it cannot build another heavy water reactor for 15 years.
■Inspections: The IAEA will continue inspections in Iran and will be allowed to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of covert nuclear work. Suspicions about past Iranian nuclear weapons work will be investigated.
■Sanctions: The U.S. and the EU will suspend nuclear-related sanctions after the IAEA verifies Iranian compliance. If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be re-imposed. UN Security Council resolutions on Iran will be lifted simultaneously with Iran fulfilling its commitments under the deal. Disagreements will go to a dispute resolution process.
What remains to be resolved?
■When the sanctions get lifted: Iran wants that to happen as soon as there's a deal. The Western governments want the sanctions removed gradually, as Iran takes steps to constrain its nuclear program.
■Which sanctions get lifted: Iran is apparently pushing for the lifting of more than just the sanctions imposed in response to its nuclear program. The U.S. wants to keep the separate block of sanctions against Iran's ballistic missile program, unless Iran suspends the program, and keep punishing Iran for its human rights and terrorism records.
■Inspections: Iran won't agree to inspections of military installations or allow Iranian scientists to be interviewed. The U.S. wants monitors to be able to investigate, within a reasonable time, whatever they deem necessary.
■Uranium stockpile: Iran agreed to reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. Iran wants to do that by converting it to a level of enrichment that cannot easily be weaponized, but the IAEA says Iran cannot succeed in doing that in time unless it ships most of that uranium out of the country, which Iran doesn't want to do.
■Uranium enrichment: In April 2015, Iran agreed to limits on its uranium enrichment program that would last up to 15 years. Iran appears to be trying to back away from what it agreed to in April, according to Western sources.
■Research and development: The April agreement is vague about what research and development involving uranium enrichment Iran can undertake. The U.S. wants limits Iran says it won't accept.
■Redesign of the Arak reactor: Iran agreed to rebuild the Arak heavy-water reactor based on a design agreed to by both sides, so the reactor will be used for peaceful research. An agreement hasn't been reached on the new design.
What's the rush?
Under the terms of that U.S. law, President Barack Obama would eventually be able to get the treaty through Congress with the support of just one-third of the U.S. Senate. So Congress will require a veto-proof two-thirds majority to enact new sanctions or prevent Obama from suspending existing ones. If that happens, the U.S. cannot live up to the agreement with Iran, if one is reached.
After the April 2015 agreement was reached, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that included a clause that could affect the approval process in that country.
Should the negotiators somehow reach a deal by July 9 (a day before the newly extended deadline), Congress gets 30 days to review the agreement. But after that date it gets 60 days in which to conduct the review, twice the time for the agreement's opponents to find a way to unravel the deal.
Under the terms of that U.S. law, President Barack Obama would eventually be able to get the treaty through Congress with the support of just one-third of the U.S. Senate. So Congress will require a veto-proof two-thirds majority to enact new sanctions or prevent Obama from suspending existing ones. If that happens, the U.S. cannot live up to the agreement with Iran, if one is reached.
Obama cannot remove sanctions on Iran during the review.
■Iran nuclear talks: 5 questions if the negotiations collapse
■How an Iranian nuclear deal could reshape the Middle East
With files from AP and Reuters
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/i...it-happens-in-the-next-48-hours-or-not-2015-7
Iran nuclear talks source: 'Either it happens in the next 48 hours, or not'
John Irish Tomorrow at 4:50 AM
VIENNA (Reuters) – Talks between Iran and six major powers cannot continue indefinitely and there must be an agreement soon if there is to be an accord to end sanctions in exchange for curbs on Tehran’s atomic program, a source close to the talks said on Tuesday.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that contrary to statements made by Iranian officials, the negotiations were not open-ended or without a deadline.
“We’ve come to the end,” the source added. “We have just made one, final extension. It is hard to see how or why we would go beyond this. Either it happens in the next 48 hours, or not.”
(Writing Louis Charbonneau)
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/i...it-happens-in-the-next-48-hours-or-not-2015-7
Iran nuclear talks source: 'Either it happens in the next 48 hours, or not'
John Irish Tomorrow at 4:50 AM
VIENNA (Reuters) – Talks between Iran and six major powers cannot continue indefinitely and there must be an agreement soon if there is to be an accord to end sanctions in exchange for curbs on Tehran’s atomic program, a source close to the talks said on Tuesday.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that contrary to statements made by Iranian officials, the negotiations were not open-ended or without a deadline.
“We’ve come to the end,” the source added. “We have just made one, final extension. It is hard to see how or why we would go beyond this. Either it happens in the next 48 hours, or not.”
(Writing Louis Charbonneau)
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ran-deal-to-keep-un-restrictions-us/29824083/
US Official: Iran Deal Keeps UN Restrictions
By Agence France-Presse 3:10 p.m. EDT July 7, 2015
VIENNA — UN sanctions on arms trade and missile sales that are related to nuclear activity will remain in place in any Iran deal, a US official said Tuesday.
"There will be an ongoing restriction on arms just like there will be ongoing restrictions regarding missiles," the senior administration official said.
But the official refused to be drawn on specifics and couched words carefully, suggesting there could be amendments to existing UN Security Council resolutions.
An Iranian official revealed Monday that Tehran was pushing for removal of any mention of a UN arms embargo in any final nuclear agreement.
"There is no evidence that the arms embargo has any relation with the nuclear issue," the Iranian official said.
The US official acknowledged the Iran nuclear talks were "not a missile negotiation," and that "countries are allowed to have a conventional missile program."
But under UN Security Council resolutions there are "provisions ... that address both technology and missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons as part of the nuclear-related bases of those resolutions. And that is what we are addressing," the official said.
Negotiators were drafting a new resolution which will go before the UN Security Council to endorse the Iran nuclear deal.
"What this means [is that] there will be continued restrictions in this area and we've always said that," the official said.
Since 2006, the UN Security Council has passed six resolutions critical of Iran for its controversial nuclear drive, designed to increase pressure on Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment and ballistic missiles development programs.
Resolution 1929 adopted in 2010 after revelations that Iran had built a secret nuclear facility at Qom required UN member states to prevent the transfer of missile-related technology to Iran.
It also banned the sales of such things as tanks, armored vehicles, attack helicopters and warships to the Islamic republic.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ran-deal-to-keep-un-restrictions-us/29824083/
US Official: Iran Deal Keeps UN Restrictions
By Agence France-Presse 3:10 p.m. EDT July 7, 2015
VIENNA — UN sanctions on arms trade and missile sales that are related to nuclear activity will remain in place in any Iran deal, a US official said Tuesday.
"There will be an ongoing restriction on arms just like there will be ongoing restrictions regarding missiles," the senior administration official said.
But the official refused to be drawn on specifics and couched words carefully, suggesting there could be amendments to existing UN Security Council resolutions.
An Iranian official revealed Monday that Tehran was pushing for removal of any mention of a UN arms embargo in any final nuclear agreement.
"There is no evidence that the arms embargo has any relation with the nuclear issue," the Iranian official said.
The US official acknowledged the Iran nuclear talks were "not a missile negotiation," and that "countries are allowed to have a conventional missile program."
But under UN Security Council resolutions there are "provisions ... that address both technology and missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons as part of the nuclear-related bases of those resolutions. And that is what we are addressing," the official said.
Negotiators were drafting a new resolution which will go before the UN Security Council to endorse the Iran nuclear deal.
"What this means [is that] there will be continued restrictions in this area and we've always said that," the official said.
Since 2006, the UN Security Council has passed six resolutions critical of Iran for its controversial nuclear drive, designed to increase pressure on Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment and ballistic missiles development programs.
Resolution 1929 adopted in 2010 after revelations that Iran had built a secret nuclear facility at Qom required UN member states to prevent the transfer of missile-related technology to Iran.
It also banned the sales of such things as tanks, armored vehicles, attack helicopters and warships to the Islamic republic.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/08/why-irans-irrationality-matters/
Right Turn
Why Iran’s irrationality matters
By Jennifer Rubin July 8 at 1:30 PM
Comments 26
As the Obama administration tiptoes closer to a deal with Iran and continues to defend the behavior of the Islamic fundamentalist regime, it bears repeating how dangerous is the president’s misunderstanding of our enemy — and there is no other way to describe a regime responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans that wages proxy wars against our allies and keeps Americans hostage. The president flat-out dismissed the idea that the Iranian regime’s deeply ingrained anti-Semitism renders it irrational.
Jeffrey Herf recently explained exactly why this is wrongheaded and why it matters:
Perhaps too many of our policymakers, politicians, and analysts still labor under the mistaken idea that radical anti-Semitism is merely another form of prejudice or, worse, an understandable (and hence excusable?) response to the conflict between Israel, the Arab states, and the Palestinians. In fact it is something far more dangerous, and far less compatible with a system of nuclear deterrence, which assumes that all parties place a premium on their own survival. Iran’s radical anti-Semitism is not in the slightest bit rational; it is a paranoid conspiracy theory that proposes to make sense (or rather nonsense) of the world by claiming that the powerful and evil “Jew” is the driving force in global politics. Leaders who attribute enormous evil and power to the 13 million Jews in the world and to a tiny Middle Eastern state with about eight million citizens have demonstrated that they don’t have a suitable disposition for playing nuclear chess.
In other words, assuming that Iran won’t violate an agreement or won’t use an industrial-sized nuclear weapons program when it gets one in 10 years, is wrong and dangerous. The president says he is not relying on “trust” but by definition every agreement — especially one that gives up leverage and frees billions of dollars — is based on the assumption the other party will live up to the deal. If the administration knew (and it should) that Iran would block inspectors when push comes to shove, would he be in favor of a deal? (He might for legacy purposes, but he could not honestly conclude it is in the United States’ interests.)
The idea that Iran won’t renege on its agreements for fear of sanctions is based on a misunderstanding of the regime. As Herf puts it:
When policymakers fail to consider the core beliefs of the Iranian leadership, they foster the impression that Iran is a smaller, Islamic version of the Soviet Union — that is, a state which would act in its own self-interest if it had nuclear weapons. Yet the Soviet Union was governed by atheists who disdained notions of a life after death and would have laughed at the idea of a “12th Imam” descending to earth after an apocalyptic disaster. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would likely be the first such state not to be deterred by the prospect of nuclear retaliation. Yet the irrationality of Iran’s government has received scant attention in the United States government, which seems unable to believe that people could put their faith in a post-apocalyptic messiah. That is both a failure of imagination and a failure of policy.
The president, it seems, is heading for a deal appropriate for, say, Denmark.
So is any deal useless and dangerous? Well, the one the president is coming up with certainly is. A deal that forced Iran to give up its nuclear weapons infrastructure, dismantle its facilities and ship out its fissile material before obtaining relief, would at the very least, have the benefit of setting back Iran’s program considerably, rather than freezing it in place. But that is not possible, says the administration. Well, that is only because it has so bollixed up the negotiations so as to become a future example of “how never to negotiate anything.”
Herf concludes:
The United States has the economic and military resources to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. If it becomes necessary to use force to achieve that end, the Administration must present the full range of reasons for that decision. A regime animated by radical anti-Semitism not only poses a threat of a second Holocaust, but due to its dangerous irrationality, poses a threat to the whole world. President Obama and his leading officials insist that their policy remains one of prevention, yet they do not seem to understand the very people they are seeking to deter. Iran’s ideological extremism has become lost in the fog of technical details. If we are to have an effective policy on Iran, we must first understand what makes the country tick, as well as its bombs.
The next president had better understand the regime with which are dealing and be ready to base U.S. policy on the nature of the Islamic fundamentalist state of Iran.
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/08/why-irans-irrationality-matters/
Right Turn
Why Iran’s irrationality matters
By Jennifer Rubin July 8 at 1:30 PM
Comments 26
As the Obama administration tiptoes closer to a deal with Iran and continues to defend the behavior of the Islamic fundamentalist regime, it bears repeating how dangerous is the president’s misunderstanding of our enemy — and there is no other way to describe a regime responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans that wages proxy wars against our allies and keeps Americans hostage. The president flat-out dismissed the idea that the Iranian regime’s deeply ingrained anti-Semitism renders it irrational.
Jeffrey Herf recently explained exactly why this is wrongheaded and why it matters:
Perhaps too many of our policymakers, politicians, and analysts still labor under the mistaken idea that radical anti-Semitism is merely another form of prejudice or, worse, an understandable (and hence excusable?) response to the conflict between Israel, the Arab states, and the Palestinians. In fact it is something far more dangerous, and far less compatible with a system of nuclear deterrence, which assumes that all parties place a premium on their own survival. Iran’s radical anti-Semitism is not in the slightest bit rational; it is a paranoid conspiracy theory that proposes to make sense (or rather nonsense) of the world by claiming that the powerful and evil “Jew” is the driving force in global politics. Leaders who attribute enormous evil and power to the 13 million Jews in the world and to a tiny Middle Eastern state with about eight million citizens have demonstrated that they don’t have a suitable disposition for playing nuclear chess.
In other words, assuming that Iran won’t violate an agreement or won’t use an industrial-sized nuclear weapons program when it gets one in 10 years, is wrong and dangerous. The president says he is not relying on “trust” but by definition every agreement — especially one that gives up leverage and frees billions of dollars — is based on the assumption the other party will live up to the deal. If the administration knew (and it should) that Iran would block inspectors when push comes to shove, would he be in favor of a deal? (He might for legacy purposes, but he could not honestly conclude it is in the United States’ interests.)
The idea that Iran won’t renege on its agreements for fear of sanctions is based on a misunderstanding of the regime. As Herf puts it:
When policymakers fail to consider the core beliefs of the Iranian leadership, they foster the impression that Iran is a smaller, Islamic version of the Soviet Union — that is, a state which would act in its own self-interest if it had nuclear weapons. Yet the Soviet Union was governed by atheists who disdained notions of a life after death and would have laughed at the idea of a “12th Imam” descending to earth after an apocalyptic disaster. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would likely be the first such state not to be deterred by the prospect of nuclear retaliation. Yet the irrationality of Iran’s government has received scant attention in the United States government, which seems unable to believe that people could put their faith in a post-apocalyptic messiah. That is both a failure of imagination and a failure of policy.
The president, it seems, is heading for a deal appropriate for, say, Denmark.
So is any deal useless and dangerous? Well, the one the president is coming up with certainly is. A deal that forced Iran to give up its nuclear weapons infrastructure, dismantle its facilities and ship out its fissile material before obtaining relief, would at the very least, have the benefit of setting back Iran’s program considerably, rather than freezing it in place. But that is not possible, says the administration. Well, that is only because it has so bollixed up the negotiations so as to become a future example of “how never to negotiate anything.”
Herf concludes:
The United States has the economic and military resources to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. If it becomes necessary to use force to achieve that end, the Administration must present the full range of reasons for that decision. A regime animated by radical anti-Semitism not only poses a threat of a second Holocaust, but due to its dangerous irrationality, poses a threat to the whole world. President Obama and his leading officials insist that their policy remains one of prevention, yet they do not seem to understand the very people they are seeking to deter. Iran’s ideological extremism has become lost in the fog of technical details. If we are to have an effective policy on Iran, we must first understand what makes the country tick, as well as its bombs.
The next president had better understand the regime with which are dealing and be ready to base U.S. policy on the nature of the Islamic fundamentalist state of Iran.
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective
Lilbitsnana
On TB every waking moment
Conflict News @rConflictNews 6m6 minutes ago
BREAKING: According to Senator Durbin, Obama told group of Democrat senators Tuesday chance of #IranDeal below 50% - @News_Executive
BREAKING: According to Senator Durbin, Obama told group of Democrat senators Tuesday chance of #IranDeal below 50% - @News_Executive
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/ap-t...march-in-pro-palestinian-rallies/2856192.html
Iran Official: US Exit From Nuclear Talks Would Be 'Strategic Mistake'
Associated Press
Last updated on: July 10, 2015 2:45 PM
TEHRAN, IRAN — Tens of thousands of Iranians chanted "Down with America'' and "Death to Israel'' during annual pro-Palestinian rallies nationwide Friday, as a top leader said the U.S. would be making a "strategic mistake'' if it pulled out of ongoing negotiations on Tehran's nuclear program.
The "Al-Quds Day'' rallies took place as Iran and six world powers were meeting in Vienna to work out a deal to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing tens of billions of dollars in economic penalties on the Islamic Republic.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appeared briefly at the rally in the capital, Tehran, but did not mention the nuclear talks that have run past two extensions and entered the 14th day of the current round on Friday. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Thursday that the Americans were ready to leave.
"If you drive the talks into a dead end, then it will be you who will be committing a strategic mistake,'' Iran's parliament speaker, Ali Larijani, said at Friday prayers following the rally in Tehran, addressing the U.S. "And its outcome will not benefit you, since Iran's nuclear staff are ready to accelerate nuclear technology at a higher speed than before.''
At the rally, the hard-line protesters wrapped America, British, Israeli and Saudi flags around pillars and set them ablaze.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has observed "Al-Quds Day'' during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Tehran says the occasion is meant to express support for Palestinians and emphasize the importance of Jerusalem for Muslims.
Iran does not recognize Israel and supports anti-Israeli militant groups like Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/ap-t...march-in-pro-palestinian-rallies/2856192.html
Iran Official: US Exit From Nuclear Talks Would Be 'Strategic Mistake'
Associated Press
Last updated on: July 10, 2015 2:45 PM
TEHRAN, IRAN — Tens of thousands of Iranians chanted "Down with America'' and "Death to Israel'' during annual pro-Palestinian rallies nationwide Friday, as a top leader said the U.S. would be making a "strategic mistake'' if it pulled out of ongoing negotiations on Tehran's nuclear program.
The "Al-Quds Day'' rallies took place as Iran and six world powers were meeting in Vienna to work out a deal to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing tens of billions of dollars in economic penalties on the Islamic Republic.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appeared briefly at the rally in the capital, Tehran, but did not mention the nuclear talks that have run past two extensions and entered the 14th day of the current round on Friday. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Thursday that the Americans were ready to leave.
"If you drive the talks into a dead end, then it will be you who will be committing a strategic mistake,'' Iran's parliament speaker, Ali Larijani, said at Friday prayers following the rally in Tehran, addressing the U.S. "And its outcome will not benefit you, since Iran's nuclear staff are ready to accelerate nuclear technology at a higher speed than before.''
At the rally, the hard-line protesters wrapped America, British, Israeli and Saudi flags around pillars and set them ablaze.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has observed "Al-Quds Day'' during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Tehran says the occasion is meant to express support for Palestinians and emphasize the importance of Jerusalem for Muslims.
Iran does not recognize Israel and supports anti-Israeli militant groups like Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.weeklystandard.com/blog...ear-weapons-technology-last-month_988067.html
Iran Made Illegal Purchases of Nuclear Technology Last Month Weapons
1:48 AM, Jul 10, 2015 • By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL and EMANUELE OTTOLENGHI
The question is not whether Iran can be trusted to uphold the nuclear deal now being negotiated in Vienna (it can’t), but whether the Obama administration and its P5+1 partners can be trusted to punish Iran when it violates the agreement?
Experience shows that unless Iran violates the deal egregiously, the temptation will be to ignore it. For instance, Iran got away with selling more oil than it should have under the interim agreement. More ominously, Tehran repeatedly pushed the envelope on technical aspects of the agreement—such as caps on its uranium stockpile—and got away with it. The Obama administration and other Western powers have so much invested in their diplomatic efforts that they’ll deny such violations ever occurred.
More evidence of Iranian violations has now surfaced. Two reports regarding Iran's attempts to illicitly and clandestinely procure technology for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs have recently been published. They show that Iran's procurement continues apace, if not faster than before the Joint Plan of Action was signed in November 2013. But fear of potentially embarrassing negotiators and derailing negotiations has made some states reluctant to report Tehran’s illegal efforts. If these countries have hesitated to expose Iran during the negotiations, it is more likely they will refrain from reporting after a deal is struck.
The first report was released last month by the U.N. panel of experts in charge of reporting compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iran. The panel noted that U.N. member states had not reported significant violations of U.N. sanctions and speculated as to why: either Iran was complying, or countries did not wish to interfere with negotiations.
The second report, released last week by Germany's domestic intelligence agency, is less ambiguous. The agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, confirmed to us that Iran continues to seek illicit technology for its nuclear and ballistic missiles programs.
Iran has had a long history of trying to obtain nuclear technology from German companies, particularly by seeking ways to transport merchandise in circumvention of international sanctions. Since November 2013, Tehran has sought industry computers, high-speed cameras, cable fiber, and pumps for its nuclear and missile program. It appears that Iran's readiness to negotiate does not reflect any substantive policy change. Rather, it is a diplomatic tactic retreat forced by economic distress, not a strategic rethinking of its priorities.
Iran's cheating should give Western negotiators additional resolve to impose ironclad guarantees in the agreement. They should compel Iran to reveal its past activities, including its post-JPOA procurement efforts, and impose tough, intrusive, "anytime, anywhere" inspections before sanctions are suspended, let alone lifted.
Instead, the lack of reporting to the U.N. despite evidence of cheating suggests a lack of resolve on the part of Western nations, and their willingness to downplay all but the most egregious violations. This does not bode well for the future. If Western powers are reluctant to penalize Iran for trying to evade sanctions because they’re afraid of spoiling the negotiations, what will happen in the future when Western powers have even more invested in preserving an agreement?
Emanuele Ottolenghi is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Benjamin Weinthal is a research fellow.
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.weeklystandard.com/blog...ear-weapons-technology-last-month_988067.html
Iran Made Illegal Purchases of Nuclear Technology Last Month Weapons
1:48 AM, Jul 10, 2015 • By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL and EMANUELE OTTOLENGHI
The question is not whether Iran can be trusted to uphold the nuclear deal now being negotiated in Vienna (it can’t), but whether the Obama administration and its P5+1 partners can be trusted to punish Iran when it violates the agreement?
Experience shows that unless Iran violates the deal egregiously, the temptation will be to ignore it. For instance, Iran got away with selling more oil than it should have under the interim agreement. More ominously, Tehran repeatedly pushed the envelope on technical aspects of the agreement—such as caps on its uranium stockpile—and got away with it. The Obama administration and other Western powers have so much invested in their diplomatic efforts that they’ll deny such violations ever occurred.
More evidence of Iranian violations has now surfaced. Two reports regarding Iran's attempts to illicitly and clandestinely procure technology for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs have recently been published. They show that Iran's procurement continues apace, if not faster than before the Joint Plan of Action was signed in November 2013. But fear of potentially embarrassing negotiators and derailing negotiations has made some states reluctant to report Tehran’s illegal efforts. If these countries have hesitated to expose Iran during the negotiations, it is more likely they will refrain from reporting after a deal is struck.
The first report was released last month by the U.N. panel of experts in charge of reporting compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iran. The panel noted that U.N. member states had not reported significant violations of U.N. sanctions and speculated as to why: either Iran was complying, or countries did not wish to interfere with negotiations.
The second report, released last week by Germany's domestic intelligence agency, is less ambiguous. The agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, confirmed to us that Iran continues to seek illicit technology for its nuclear and ballistic missiles programs.
Iran has had a long history of trying to obtain nuclear technology from German companies, particularly by seeking ways to transport merchandise in circumvention of international sanctions. Since November 2013, Tehran has sought industry computers, high-speed cameras, cable fiber, and pumps for its nuclear and missile program. It appears that Iran's readiness to negotiate does not reflect any substantive policy change. Rather, it is a diplomatic tactic retreat forced by economic distress, not a strategic rethinking of its priorities.
Iran's cheating should give Western negotiators additional resolve to impose ironclad guarantees in the agreement. They should compel Iran to reveal its past activities, including its post-JPOA procurement efforts, and impose tough, intrusive, "anytime, anywhere" inspections before sanctions are suspended, let alone lifted.
Instead, the lack of reporting to the U.N. despite evidence of cheating suggests a lack of resolve on the part of Western nations, and their willingness to downplay all but the most egregious violations. This does not bode well for the future. If Western powers are reluctant to penalize Iran for trying to evade sanctions because they’re afraid of spoiling the negotiations, what will happen in the future when Western powers have even more invested in preserving an agreement?
Emanuele Ottolenghi is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Benjamin Weinthal is a research fellow.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...deal-with-iran-hits-snag-over-weapons-buildup
Nuclear Deal With Iran Hits Snag Over Weapons Buildup
by Jonathan Tirone and Henry Meyer
July 8, 2015 — 5:57 AM PDT
Updated on July 10, 2015 — 3:18 AM PDT
Iran’s military will gain powerful new conventional weapons in a nuclear deal if Russia has its way, making it tougher than ever for President Barack Obama to sell an accord to an already skeptical Congress.
Russia is pressing to end a United Nations arms embargo on Iran at a time when the Islamic Republic is already poised to add potent offensive weapons to its arsenal, with or without a deal. Analysts, citing satellite imagery, say the Iranian military is on the cusp of producing armor-busting bombs, a capability few nations can claim.
“Part of the reason the administration is going to care about this a great deal is that Congress will use it,” Gary Sick, a former National Security Council official under three U.S. presidents, said of the Russian bid. “Opponents of the deal will say Iran has a free hand to develop anything it wants.”
Negotiators of six world powers and Iran are in the 12th day of their latest bid to craft a final agreement, having given themselves an extension beyond Tuesday’s deadline. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said ending the UN weapons ban was the only major sticking point on the sanctions relief Iran demands as the price of a nuclear pact.
“It is essential to reach an agreement on lifting the arms embargo as soon as possible,” he told reporters at talks in Vienna. Giving Iran access to weapons to combat terrorism “is a very important task,” he said.
Russia also plans to start supplying S-300 anti-aircraft defense systems to Iran this year over U.S. and Israeli objections, ending a self-imposed ban from 2010.
‘Serious Concerns’
In Washington on Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter staked out a tough stand when asked about ending the UN ban on selling or buying seven categories of weapons, including tanks, fighter aircraft and missiles.
“We have serious concerns with Iranian malign activities outside of the nuclear issue,” he said in Senate testimony. “We want them to continue to be isolated as a military and limited in terms of the kind of equipment and material” they possess.
A U.S. administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested greater flexibility, saying Tuesday that while an arms embargo should be retained, its nature and duration were subject to negotiation.
Russia is poised to reap $7 billion from arms sales to Iran over the next decade in the event of a nuclear deal, according to Ruslan Pukhov, head of the Moscow-based Center of Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, which advises the defense ministry. The Islamic Republic needs a “huge upgrade” of its fighter jets, navy and air defense systems, he said.
Armor-Piercing
Exports of military goods and technology from Russia came to more than $15.5 billion in 2014.
While Russia wants the UN embargo lifted to sell Iran more weapons, Iran doesn’t necessarily need imports to bolster its armaments and has “numerous channels” through which it can export weapons, said Karl Dewey, a London-based IHS Janes analyst.
With or without a deal, Iran’s military is likely to have the capacity to produce armor-piercing weapons made from either natural or depleted uranium, an ability shared by fewer than 20 countries worldwide, Dewey said. Armor-piercing weapons can also be made from tungsten and copper.
Although conventional and metallurgically dissimilar to nuclear weapons, uranium-penetrating shells are used against tanks and other vehicles. Their high heat and density can melt through thick alloys. Iran already has at least one armor-piercing weapons system, the Toophan anti-tank missile, according to U.S. military research.
‘Potent Capability’
“They’re not a game-changer but they’re a potent capability,” Dewey said in a telephone interview.
Iran is probably already testing armor-penetrating weapons systems and uranium can’t be exluded as possible source material of interest, according to Robert Kelley, a former director of the UN atomic watchdog and an ex-U.S. nuclear weapons scientist who used satellite images in February 2015 to analyze the Parchin military complex 30 kilometers (20 miles) south of Tehran
Iran’s ability to turn the leftovers, so-called “tails,” from its uranium enrichment program into armor-busting munitions has been a subject of the current nuclear talks, according to a U.S. administration official and an Iranian negotiator. They asked not to be identified in conformance with diplomatic rules.
A senior Western diplomat said Tuesday that the arms embargo was “one of the most sensitive issues” that would have to be resolved right at the end at a top political level.
A day earlier, a senior Iranian official said the arms embargo must be removed immediately because it’s “extraneous” to the nuclear issue.
A possible face-saving compromise would lift the arms embargo in a phased manner, said Sick.
“It’s not the U.S. negotiating with Iran. I think we’re negotiating with the Russians,” he said. “Although it’s a touchy issue, I doubt it will be a deal-breaker.”
(Corrects wording of Iran’s capability in 13th paragraph of story that was first published on July 8.)
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...deal-with-iran-hits-snag-over-weapons-buildup
Nuclear Deal With Iran Hits Snag Over Weapons Buildup
by Jonathan Tirone and Henry Meyer
July 8, 2015 — 5:57 AM PDT
Updated on July 10, 2015 — 3:18 AM PDT
Iran’s military will gain powerful new conventional weapons in a nuclear deal if Russia has its way, making it tougher than ever for President Barack Obama to sell an accord to an already skeptical Congress.
Russia is pressing to end a United Nations arms embargo on Iran at a time when the Islamic Republic is already poised to add potent offensive weapons to its arsenal, with or without a deal. Analysts, citing satellite imagery, say the Iranian military is on the cusp of producing armor-busting bombs, a capability few nations can claim.
“Part of the reason the administration is going to care about this a great deal is that Congress will use it,” Gary Sick, a former National Security Council official under three U.S. presidents, said of the Russian bid. “Opponents of the deal will say Iran has a free hand to develop anything it wants.”
Negotiators of six world powers and Iran are in the 12th day of their latest bid to craft a final agreement, having given themselves an extension beyond Tuesday’s deadline. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said ending the UN weapons ban was the only major sticking point on the sanctions relief Iran demands as the price of a nuclear pact.
“It is essential to reach an agreement on lifting the arms embargo as soon as possible,” he told reporters at talks in Vienna. Giving Iran access to weapons to combat terrorism “is a very important task,” he said.
Russia also plans to start supplying S-300 anti-aircraft defense systems to Iran this year over U.S. and Israeli objections, ending a self-imposed ban from 2010.
‘Serious Concerns’
In Washington on Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter staked out a tough stand when asked about ending the UN ban on selling or buying seven categories of weapons, including tanks, fighter aircraft and missiles.
“We have serious concerns with Iranian malign activities outside of the nuclear issue,” he said in Senate testimony. “We want them to continue to be isolated as a military and limited in terms of the kind of equipment and material” they possess.
A U.S. administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested greater flexibility, saying Tuesday that while an arms embargo should be retained, its nature and duration were subject to negotiation.
Russia is poised to reap $7 billion from arms sales to Iran over the next decade in the event of a nuclear deal, according to Ruslan Pukhov, head of the Moscow-based Center of Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, which advises the defense ministry. The Islamic Republic needs a “huge upgrade” of its fighter jets, navy and air defense systems, he said.
Armor-Piercing
Exports of military goods and technology from Russia came to more than $15.5 billion in 2014.
While Russia wants the UN embargo lifted to sell Iran more weapons, Iran doesn’t necessarily need imports to bolster its armaments and has “numerous channels” through which it can export weapons, said Karl Dewey, a London-based IHS Janes analyst.
With or without a deal, Iran’s military is likely to have the capacity to produce armor-piercing weapons made from either natural or depleted uranium, an ability shared by fewer than 20 countries worldwide, Dewey said. Armor-piercing weapons can also be made from tungsten and copper.
Although conventional and metallurgically dissimilar to nuclear weapons, uranium-penetrating shells are used against tanks and other vehicles. Their high heat and density can melt through thick alloys. Iran already has at least one armor-piercing weapons system, the Toophan anti-tank missile, according to U.S. military research.
‘Potent Capability’
“They’re not a game-changer but they’re a potent capability,” Dewey said in a telephone interview.
Iran is probably already testing armor-penetrating weapons systems and uranium can’t be exluded as possible source material of interest, according to Robert Kelley, a former director of the UN atomic watchdog and an ex-U.S. nuclear weapons scientist who used satellite images in February 2015 to analyze the Parchin military complex 30 kilometers (20 miles) south of Tehran
Iran’s ability to turn the leftovers, so-called “tails,” from its uranium enrichment program into armor-busting munitions has been a subject of the current nuclear talks, according to a U.S. administration official and an Iranian negotiator. They asked not to be identified in conformance with diplomatic rules.
A senior Western diplomat said Tuesday that the arms embargo was “one of the most sensitive issues” that would have to be resolved right at the end at a top political level.
A day earlier, a senior Iranian official said the arms embargo must be removed immediately because it’s “extraneous” to the nuclear issue.
A possible face-saving compromise would lift the arms embargo in a phased manner, said Sick.
“It’s not the U.S. negotiating with Iran. I think we’re negotiating with the Russians,” he said. “Although it’s a touchy issue, I doubt it will be a deal-breaker.”
(Corrects wording of Iran’s capability in 13th paragraph of story that was first published on July 8.)
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/w...an-remains-a-hurdle-to-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0
Middle East
U.N. Arms Ban on Iran Remains a Hurdle to Nuclear Deal
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID E. SANGER
JULY 10, 2015
VIENNA — One of the last major obstacles to concluding a historic nuclear deal with Iran is a dispute over a set of United Nations sanctions that appeared to be resolved months ago and only peripherally have to do with nuclear weapons.
The sanctions, passed in a series of resolutions by the United Nations Security Council beginning nine years ago, ban the shipment of conventional arms into and out of Iran.
For those worried about Iran’s continued muscle-flexing in the Middle East — supporting the forces of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, Palestinian terror groups and Shiite militias in Iraq — keeping the ban in place is critical for containing Tehran, even after a deal is reached.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
People attending demonstrations for Qds Day, or Jerusalem Day, in Tehran on Friday.
Iran Blames U.S. for Delays on Nuclear Deal
JULY 10, 2015
A protester held up an anti-American sign at a funeral procession in June for 270 Iranian servicemen killed in the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq returned the remains to Iran in May.
Iran’s Hard-Liners Sharpen Attacks on U.S. as Nuclear Talks Continue
JULY 8, 2015
Mohammad Javad Zarif, center, the foreign minister of Iran, sat next to Federica Mogherini, the European Union's foreign policy chief as they meet with other foreign ministers in Vienna on Tuesday.
Arms Embargo Takes on Larger Meaning as Iran Nuclear Talks Enter Endgame
JULY 6, 2015
President Obama’s secretary of defense, Ashton B. Carter, even told Congress this week that part of the ban, on technology for ballistic missiles, was critical to America’s own security, especially since Iran’s ballistic missiles would be dangerous weapons if they were ever equipped with chemical, biological or even nuclear warheads.
Continue reading the main story
Key Developments on Iran Nuclear Negotiations
An outline of major developments since the framework agreement in April that could influence the final round of talks.
“The reason that we want to stop Iran from having an I.C.B.M. program is that the ‘I’ in I.C.B.M. stands for ‘intercontinental,’ which means having the capability of flying from Iran to the United States,” he said, adding with a bit of understatement, “We don’t want that.”
But to the Iranians, this is a matter of reciprocity and national pride. The sanctions were imposed over Iran’s nuclear program, they say, so they should be lifted as part of any deal. More broadly, it crystallizes the issue of whether a nuclear deal will mean that Iran is no longer treated as a pariah and is accepted as a major power in the region.
Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has also sought to use the issue to split the six-nation coalition he is negotiating with. He has tried to slice off Russia and China, two countries that are eager to resume a highly profitable arms trade with Iran, and has made little secret of how much he has enjoyed touching off a bit of infighting on the other side of the negotiating table.
It is far from clear that the arms embargo will be a deal stopper. Secretary of State John Kerry, asked Friday afternoon about progress during a meeting with some of his staff in the garden of the Coburg Palace here, where the negotiations are underway, said: “A couple differences have been decided. It’s safe to say we have made progress.” He did not specify on which issues.
To Mr. Zarif, the arms embargo, including on ballistic missile technology, is part of the “nuclear–related sanctions” imposed on Iran starting in 2006, as the United States slowly assembled partners to force Iran to limit its then-nascent nuclear enrichment program. And the key trade-off contained in the still-fluid 80 pages of agreements and annexes being drafted here is that Iran’s program will be constrained for more than 10 years in return for the lifting of those sanctions around the globe.
“That’s been our position, that’s been Russia’s position, that’s been China’s position, and that is the requirement,” a senior Iranian official told American reporters on Thursday night. “And one way or another, something of that nature needs to be achieved. “
Then the official, unable to contain himself, added that when he looked across the table at Mr. Kerry and others, “our friends spend more time coordinating their positions than negotiating with us.”
Continue reading the main story
Graphic
A Simple Guide to the Nuclear Negotiations With Iran
A guide to help you navigate the talks between Western powers and Tehran.
OPEN Graphic
“That tells you about the state of play,” he said.
The arms embargo issue is not a new one to American officials, but they thought it had been worked out, or at least finessed, when negotiators completed an earlier round of talks in Lausanne, Switzerland.
A fact sheet describing the main provisions of an eventual accord — distributed by the American government in early April, when the outlines of a potential deal were ostensibly agreed to with Iran — suggested that the nuclear accord itself would not specify the continuation of the arms ban.
But a United Nations Security Council resolution that would endorse whatever final deal is negotiated here would incorporate “important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles,” the fact sheet said. It did not say for how long the ban would be in effect or under what circumstances it might be relaxed.
American officials insist that all of the elements in the text they issued in April were agreed to behind closed doors with the Iranians. But the Iranian summary of what was agreed to in Lausanne made no mention of the arms issue.
That, it turned out, was a portent of problems to come. When talks resumed here in late June, the Iranians reopened the question, adding yet another issue for negotiators, who were already dealing with tough questions about inspections and what kind of nuclear research and development the Iranians could conduct.
The issue is important politically to both sides. For the Obama administration, the idea of allowing Iran to use the billions of dollars it would obtain through sanctions relief to buy missiles and weapons from Russia is a nonstarter.
Continue reading the main story
Graphic
What Leaders Are Saying About the Greek Proposal
European leaders weighed the latest measures from Athens.
OPEN Graphic
It could doom the ultimate agreement in Congress, which will take an up-or-down vote (which the president can veto) on the accord. White House officials fear that any suggestion that the arms embargo would be lifted could turn Democrats in Congress against the agreement — votes Mr. Obama desperately needs.
Moreover, lifting the embargo would allow Iran to ship arms openly to Mr. Assad, just as Russia does. While Iran is supplying Mr. Assad now, the supplies are sent covertly.
The issue raises such strong feelings that Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the soon-to-depart chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was adamant on the issue when, alongside Mr. Carter, he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking,” he said.
It is possible that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Zarif, who met briefly Friday morning, will find a way out of the quandary this weekend. And some Iranian officials have floated a compromise that could ease the restrictions over time. But because the language of the Security Council resolution will be made public, it might be difficult for either side to spin.
“It is a really hard issue to compromise on because of the political resonance on both sides,” said Robert J. Einhorn, a former State Department official now at the Brookings Institution.
“For the U.S., allowing the embargo to be lifted would be attacked as giving Iran license to send arms to its proxies and Russia license to sell advanced weapons to Iran,” Mr. Einhorn added. “For Iran, allowing the embargo to be preserved would be attacked for maintaining restrictions on capabilities unrelated to the nuclear issue.”
“While the remaining issues are politically sensitive, both sides need to prioritize what is intrinsically most important to them and not lose track of the value of the overall deal,” Mr. Einhorn said.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/w...an-remains-a-hurdle-to-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0
Middle East
U.N. Arms Ban on Iran Remains a Hurdle to Nuclear Deal
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID E. SANGER
JULY 10, 2015
VIENNA — One of the last major obstacles to concluding a historic nuclear deal with Iran is a dispute over a set of United Nations sanctions that appeared to be resolved months ago and only peripherally have to do with nuclear weapons.
The sanctions, passed in a series of resolutions by the United Nations Security Council beginning nine years ago, ban the shipment of conventional arms into and out of Iran.
For those worried about Iran’s continued muscle-flexing in the Middle East — supporting the forces of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, Palestinian terror groups and Shiite militias in Iraq — keeping the ban in place is critical for containing Tehran, even after a deal is reached.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
People attending demonstrations for Qds Day, or Jerusalem Day, in Tehran on Friday.
Iran Blames U.S. for Delays on Nuclear Deal
JULY 10, 2015
A protester held up an anti-American sign at a funeral procession in June for 270 Iranian servicemen killed in the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq returned the remains to Iran in May.
Iran’s Hard-Liners Sharpen Attacks on U.S. as Nuclear Talks Continue
JULY 8, 2015
Mohammad Javad Zarif, center, the foreign minister of Iran, sat next to Federica Mogherini, the European Union's foreign policy chief as they meet with other foreign ministers in Vienna on Tuesday.
Arms Embargo Takes on Larger Meaning as Iran Nuclear Talks Enter Endgame
JULY 6, 2015
President Obama’s secretary of defense, Ashton B. Carter, even told Congress this week that part of the ban, on technology for ballistic missiles, was critical to America’s own security, especially since Iran’s ballistic missiles would be dangerous weapons if they were ever equipped with chemical, biological or even nuclear warheads.
Continue reading the main story
Key Developments on Iran Nuclear Negotiations
An outline of major developments since the framework agreement in April that could influence the final round of talks.
“The reason that we want to stop Iran from having an I.C.B.M. program is that the ‘I’ in I.C.B.M. stands for ‘intercontinental,’ which means having the capability of flying from Iran to the United States,” he said, adding with a bit of understatement, “We don’t want that.”
But to the Iranians, this is a matter of reciprocity and national pride. The sanctions were imposed over Iran’s nuclear program, they say, so they should be lifted as part of any deal. More broadly, it crystallizes the issue of whether a nuclear deal will mean that Iran is no longer treated as a pariah and is accepted as a major power in the region.
Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has also sought to use the issue to split the six-nation coalition he is negotiating with. He has tried to slice off Russia and China, two countries that are eager to resume a highly profitable arms trade with Iran, and has made little secret of how much he has enjoyed touching off a bit of infighting on the other side of the negotiating table.
It is far from clear that the arms embargo will be a deal stopper. Secretary of State John Kerry, asked Friday afternoon about progress during a meeting with some of his staff in the garden of the Coburg Palace here, where the negotiations are underway, said: “A couple differences have been decided. It’s safe to say we have made progress.” He did not specify on which issues.
To Mr. Zarif, the arms embargo, including on ballistic missile technology, is part of the “nuclear–related sanctions” imposed on Iran starting in 2006, as the United States slowly assembled partners to force Iran to limit its then-nascent nuclear enrichment program. And the key trade-off contained in the still-fluid 80 pages of agreements and annexes being drafted here is that Iran’s program will be constrained for more than 10 years in return for the lifting of those sanctions around the globe.
“That’s been our position, that’s been Russia’s position, that’s been China’s position, and that is the requirement,” a senior Iranian official told American reporters on Thursday night. “And one way or another, something of that nature needs to be achieved. “
Then the official, unable to contain himself, added that when he looked across the table at Mr. Kerry and others, “our friends spend more time coordinating their positions than negotiating with us.”
Continue reading the main story
Graphic
A Simple Guide to the Nuclear Negotiations With Iran
A guide to help you navigate the talks between Western powers and Tehran.
OPEN Graphic
“That tells you about the state of play,” he said.
The arms embargo issue is not a new one to American officials, but they thought it had been worked out, or at least finessed, when negotiators completed an earlier round of talks in Lausanne, Switzerland.
A fact sheet describing the main provisions of an eventual accord — distributed by the American government in early April, when the outlines of a potential deal were ostensibly agreed to with Iran — suggested that the nuclear accord itself would not specify the continuation of the arms ban.
But a United Nations Security Council resolution that would endorse whatever final deal is negotiated here would incorporate “important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles,” the fact sheet said. It did not say for how long the ban would be in effect or under what circumstances it might be relaxed.
American officials insist that all of the elements in the text they issued in April were agreed to behind closed doors with the Iranians. But the Iranian summary of what was agreed to in Lausanne made no mention of the arms issue.
That, it turned out, was a portent of problems to come. When talks resumed here in late June, the Iranians reopened the question, adding yet another issue for negotiators, who were already dealing with tough questions about inspections and what kind of nuclear research and development the Iranians could conduct.
The issue is important politically to both sides. For the Obama administration, the idea of allowing Iran to use the billions of dollars it would obtain through sanctions relief to buy missiles and weapons from Russia is a nonstarter.
Continue reading the main story
Graphic
What Leaders Are Saying About the Greek Proposal
European leaders weighed the latest measures from Athens.
OPEN Graphic
It could doom the ultimate agreement in Congress, which will take an up-or-down vote (which the president can veto) on the accord. White House officials fear that any suggestion that the arms embargo would be lifted could turn Democrats in Congress against the agreement — votes Mr. Obama desperately needs.
Moreover, lifting the embargo would allow Iran to ship arms openly to Mr. Assad, just as Russia does. While Iran is supplying Mr. Assad now, the supplies are sent covertly.
The issue raises such strong feelings that Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the soon-to-depart chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was adamant on the issue when, alongside Mr. Carter, he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking,” he said.
It is possible that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Zarif, who met briefly Friday morning, will find a way out of the quandary this weekend. And some Iranian officials have floated a compromise that could ease the restrictions over time. But because the language of the Security Council resolution will be made public, it might be difficult for either side to spin.
“It is a really hard issue to compromise on because of the political resonance on both sides,” said Robert J. Einhorn, a former State Department official now at the Brookings Institution.
“For the U.S., allowing the embargo to be lifted would be attacked as giving Iran license to send arms to its proxies and Russia license to sell advanced weapons to Iran,” Mr. Einhorn added. “For Iran, allowing the embargo to be preserved would be attacked for maintaining restrictions on capabilities unrelated to the nuclear issue.”
“While the remaining issues are politically sensitive, both sides need to prioritize what is intrinsically most important to them and not lose track of the value of the overall deal,” Mr. Einhorn said.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/iran-nuclear-idUKL8N0ZQ2DP20150711
Commodities | Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:25am BST
UPDATE 4-Iran, powers give themselves to Monday for nuclear deal
* Third extension in two weeks
* 'Painfully slow,' Britain's Hammond
* Major powers hold inconclusive meeting (Adds Chinese comment)
By John Irish and Arshad Mohammed
VIENNA, July 10 (Reuters) - Iran and major powers gave themselves until Monday to reach a nuclear agreement, their third extension in two weeks, as Tehran accused the West of throwing up new stumbling blocks to a deal.
Both sides say there has been progress in two weeks of talks, but British Secretary Philip Hammond called it "painfully slow" and he and his French counterpart, Laurent Fabius, left Vienna saying they would return on Saturday.
Having missed a Friday morning U.S. congressional deadline, U.S. and European Union officials said they were extending sanctions relief for Iran under an interim deal through Monday to provide more time for talks on a final deal.
Iran and six powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - are trying to end a more than 12-year dispute over Iran's atomic program by negotiating limits on its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.
The sides remain divided over issues that include a U.N. arms embargo on Iran which Western powers want to keep in place, access for inspectors to military sites in Iran and answers from Tehran over past activity suspected of military aims.
Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said a deal was unlikely to be reached on Friday and negotiators would probably spend the weekend in Vienna. He sought to blame the West for the impasse.
"Now, they have excessive demands," he said of the major powers' negotiating position.
Britain's Hammond said ministers would regroup on Saturday to see if they could overcome the remaining hurdles.
"We are making progress, it's painfully slow," he told reporters before leaving Vienna.
Zarif has been holding intense meetings for two weeks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to try to hammer out a deal limiting Iran's nuclear programme in return for withdrawing economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.
An agreement would be the biggest step towards rapprochement between Iran and the West since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
But the negotiations have become bogged down, with final deadlines extended three times in the past 10 days and diplomats speaking of a shouting match between Kerry and Zarif.
The White House said on Friday the United States and its negotiating partners "have never been closer" to agreement with Iran but that the U.S. delegation would not wait indefinitely.
China's official Xinhua news agency quoted a diplomatic source as saying the West and Tehran had almost agreed on the clarification of Iran's alleged past nuclear weapon programme, so called possible military dimensions (PMDs) issues and big progress was also made over capping Iran's nuclear capability in the deal.
DEADLINE MISSED
The negotiators missed a Friday morning deadline set by the U.S. Congress for an expedited 30-day review of the deal. Any deal sent to Congress before Sept. 7 would now be subject to a 60 day review period, accounting for lawmakers' summer recess.
U.S. officials had previously expressed concern that the extended review would provide more time for any deal to unravel, but have played down that risk in the last few days as it became increasingly likely that the deadline would not be met.
On Thursday, Kerry suggested Washington's patience was running out: "We can't wait forever," he told reporters. "If the tough decisions don't get made, we are absolutely prepared to call an end to this."
Ali Akbar Velayati, top adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Kerry's remarks "part of America's psychological warfare against Iran".
A senior Iranian official speaking on condition of anonymity said the United States and the other powers were shifting their positions and backtracking on an April 2 interim agreement that was meant to lay the ground for a final deal.
"Suddenly everyone has their own red lines. Britain has its red line, the U.S. has its red line, France, Germany," the official said.
Back in Iran, Friday provided a reminder of the depth of more than three decades of enmity between Iran and the West that a deal could help overcome.
Iranians rallied for the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan, observed in Iran as "Qods Day" or "Death to Israel day", to show support for Palestinians, protest against Israel and chant slogans against the "Great Satan" United States.
OPTIMISTS
Western countries suspect Iran of seeking the capability to make nuclear weapons. Iran says it has the right to peaceful nuclear technology.
Over the past two years, the nuclear talks have brought about the first intensive direct diplomacy between the United States and Iran since Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held hostages for over a year.
A successful outcome would be a triumph both for U.S. President Barack Obama and Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist elected in 2013 on a pledge to reduce Iran's international isolation. Optimists say a deal could help reshape Middle East alliances at a time when Washington and Tehran face a common foe in the Sunni militant group Islamic State.
But both presidents face scepticism from powerful hardliners at home, making it difficult to bridge final differences. (Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau, Parisa Hafezi, Shadia Nasralla, Doina Chiacu and Roberta Rampton; writing by Parisa Hafezi, John Irish and Arshad Mohammed; editing by Peter Graff and Philippa Fletcher)
Posted for fair use.....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/iran-nuclear-idUKL8N0ZQ2DP20150711
Commodities | Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:25am BST
UPDATE 4-Iran, powers give themselves to Monday for nuclear deal
* Third extension in two weeks
* 'Painfully slow,' Britain's Hammond
* Major powers hold inconclusive meeting (Adds Chinese comment)
By John Irish and Arshad Mohammed
VIENNA, July 10 (Reuters) - Iran and major powers gave themselves until Monday to reach a nuclear agreement, their third extension in two weeks, as Tehran accused the West of throwing up new stumbling blocks to a deal.
Both sides say there has been progress in two weeks of talks, but British Secretary Philip Hammond called it "painfully slow" and he and his French counterpart, Laurent Fabius, left Vienna saying they would return on Saturday.
Having missed a Friday morning U.S. congressional deadline, U.S. and European Union officials said they were extending sanctions relief for Iran under an interim deal through Monday to provide more time for talks on a final deal.
Iran and six powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - are trying to end a more than 12-year dispute over Iran's atomic program by negotiating limits on its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.
The sides remain divided over issues that include a U.N. arms embargo on Iran which Western powers want to keep in place, access for inspectors to military sites in Iran and answers from Tehran over past activity suspected of military aims.
Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said a deal was unlikely to be reached on Friday and negotiators would probably spend the weekend in Vienna. He sought to blame the West for the impasse.
"Now, they have excessive demands," he said of the major powers' negotiating position.
Britain's Hammond said ministers would regroup on Saturday to see if they could overcome the remaining hurdles.
"We are making progress, it's painfully slow," he told reporters before leaving Vienna.
Zarif has been holding intense meetings for two weeks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to try to hammer out a deal limiting Iran's nuclear programme in return for withdrawing economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.
An agreement would be the biggest step towards rapprochement between Iran and the West since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
But the negotiations have become bogged down, with final deadlines extended three times in the past 10 days and diplomats speaking of a shouting match between Kerry and Zarif.
The White House said on Friday the United States and its negotiating partners "have never been closer" to agreement with Iran but that the U.S. delegation would not wait indefinitely.
China's official Xinhua news agency quoted a diplomatic source as saying the West and Tehran had almost agreed on the clarification of Iran's alleged past nuclear weapon programme, so called possible military dimensions (PMDs) issues and big progress was also made over capping Iran's nuclear capability in the deal.
DEADLINE MISSED
The negotiators missed a Friday morning deadline set by the U.S. Congress for an expedited 30-day review of the deal. Any deal sent to Congress before Sept. 7 would now be subject to a 60 day review period, accounting for lawmakers' summer recess.
U.S. officials had previously expressed concern that the extended review would provide more time for any deal to unravel, but have played down that risk in the last few days as it became increasingly likely that the deadline would not be met.
On Thursday, Kerry suggested Washington's patience was running out: "We can't wait forever," he told reporters. "If the tough decisions don't get made, we are absolutely prepared to call an end to this."
Ali Akbar Velayati, top adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Kerry's remarks "part of America's psychological warfare against Iran".
A senior Iranian official speaking on condition of anonymity said the United States and the other powers were shifting their positions and backtracking on an April 2 interim agreement that was meant to lay the ground for a final deal.
"Suddenly everyone has their own red lines. Britain has its red line, the U.S. has its red line, France, Germany," the official said.
Back in Iran, Friday provided a reminder of the depth of more than three decades of enmity between Iran and the West that a deal could help overcome.
Iranians rallied for the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan, observed in Iran as "Qods Day" or "Death to Israel day", to show support for Palestinians, protest against Israel and chant slogans against the "Great Satan" United States.
OPTIMISTS
Western countries suspect Iran of seeking the capability to make nuclear weapons. Iran says it has the right to peaceful nuclear technology.
Over the past two years, the nuclear talks have brought about the first intensive direct diplomacy between the United States and Iran since Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held hostages for over a year.
A successful outcome would be a triumph both for U.S. President Barack Obama and Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist elected in 2013 on a pledge to reduce Iran's international isolation. Optimists say a deal could help reshape Middle East alliances at a time when Washington and Tehran face a common foe in the Sunni militant group Islamic State.
But both presidents face scepticism from powerful hardliners at home, making it difficult to bridge final differences. (Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau, Parisa Hafezi, Shadia Nasralla, Doina Chiacu and Roberta Rampton; writing by Parisa Hafezi, John Irish and Arshad Mohammed; editing by Peter Graff and Philippa Fletcher)
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/10/the-myth-of-the-iranian-military-giant/
The Myth of the Iranian Military Giant
Saudi Arabia’s military outspends the Islamic Republic's 5-to-1; the UAE's does by 50 percent. And ending the arms embargo after a nuclear deal won't change that.
By Trita Parsi, Tyler Cullis
July 10, 2015
You’d be forgiven for thinking that Iran, unshackled from economic sanctions, would have free rein to domineer its vulnerable Persian Gulf Arab neighbors and cause trouble for Israel. As the fearful refrain goes, if an Iran restrained by crippling sanctions has managed to assert its influence over four Arab capitals — those of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen — what will an Iran freed from sanctions and a global arms embargo do? As noted Iran hawk Ray Takeyh recently wrote, “the most important legacy of the prospective agreement [may be that it] enable[d] the Islamic Republic’s imperial surge.” This same line has been pushed so hard that it has become accepted fact in Washington.
The problem is, the line isn’t true. But, nonetheless, it is threatening to upend a lasting nuclear deal with Iran.
As the nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 countries head down to the wire in Vienna, the issue has arisen in the question of whether the arms embargo imposed on Iran as part of the U.N. Security Council resolutions would be maintained following a nuclear deal. The United States and its European partners say yes; Russia, China, and Iran say no.
The timing is troubling to say the least. Just as solutions have been found to constrain and roll back elements of Iran’s nuclear program, this issue — one that’s outside the scope of the nuclear talks — is now taking on such exaggerated importance that it threatens to undo the serious progress of the past 18 months. Having performed so well at insulating the nuclear talks from outside complications, U.S. and Iranian negotiators have nearly reached agreement only to come to a standstill over this regional dimension. Of course, no one imagined back in 2010 that a conventional arms embargo — part of what was otherwise a U.N. Security Council resolution focused squarely on Iran’s nuclear-proliferation activities — would rear its ugly head in quite this manner.
The Russian and Iranian position is that the Security Council resolutions rested on the understanding that the arms embargo would be lifted once concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program were resolved. Provided that a deal is reached on Iran’s nuclear program, Russia and Iran thus argue, the arms embargo loses its legal justification. The current U.S. position, however, may be less interested in maintaining coherence with past policy than it is with ensuring that it mitigates regional allies’ concern as much as possible as part of a nuclear deal with Iran. Understandably, U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration fears that undoing the arms embargo on Iran would be a step too far for some of the United States’ key regional allies, all of which — but particularly Saudi Arabia — threaten to undermine the administration’s case for a nuclear deal should they perceive their interests to dictate in favor of doing so.
The problem is that the exaggerated tales, now running rampant in Washington, of Iranian regional ascendancy in the wake of a nuclear deal don’t jibe with reality.
Far from being a hegemonic power, able to domineer and subdue its regional rivals with impunity, Iran has a regional position that remains untenable, all while its regional rivals procure weapons systems that make themselves increasingly invulnerable.
Indeed, sober assessment shows that — both quantitatively and qualitatively — Iran’s regional rivals are well positioned not just to counter a “rising” Iran but to compete with it as well. Moreover, this has been true for some time. According to an April report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), interrogating the relevant “data make a conclusive case that the Arab Gulf states have … an overwhelming advantage of Iran in both military spending and access to modern arms.”
Quantitatively, Iran’s military expenditures have sunk far below those of its Gulf rivals. In 2014, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), more than 25 percent of Saudi government spending was devoted to beefing up its military assets — expenditures that totaled more than $80 billion. Along with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which spent nearly $23 billion, the two Gulf Arab countries comprise well over half the $173 billion in military expenditures spent by all Middle Eastern countries that year.
Comparatively, Iran’s military expenditures failed to measure up. During 2014, Iran’s military spending was about $15 billion, which comprised about 9 percent of total military spending in the Middle East. That’s a mere fraction of Saudi military spending and about two-thirds of the UAE’s. The Gulf Cooperation Council states — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — outspend Iran on arms by a factor of 13.
This imbalance is also not merely a current phenomenon. In fact, according to SIPRI’s database, even prior to the arms embargo on Iran, which went into effect in 2010, Saudi Arabia’s military expenditures in the past two decades consistently doubled or tripled the amounts Iran was outlaying to its own military. The new trend, then, is not that Saudi spending has overtaken that of Iran (which has historically been the case during the era of the Islamic Republic), but rather that Saudi military spending has skyrocketed since 2005 to the point where it now dwarfs that of its regional rival — Iran.
Qualitatively, the story’s the same. As one CSIS report notes, “The Arab Gulf states have acquired and are acquiring some of the most advanced and effective weapons in the world. Iran has essentially been forced to live in the past, often relying on systems originally delivered at the time of the Shah.” Saudi spending is used to procure the most modern weapons systems, while Iran is left with beleaguered and aging weapons systems ill-suited for state conflict.
For the Gulf Arab countries, this includes some of the most modern American military hardware, such as the latest fighter jets from Boeing and Lockheed Martin, Predator drones, Apache attack helicopters, Patriot air-defense systems, and stockpiles of the latest missiles, bombs, and other weapons. As the Christian Science Monitor reported in May, there is a virtual rush to buy high-tech American weapons systems to protect against a rival Iran.
Meanwhile, Iran is left with weapons systems that border on obsolete. Relying on Shah-era military hardware and unable to find a reliable partner overseas for weapons purchases, Iran has been forced to rely on its own industrial base to make any substantive advancements to its military weapons programs. While it does retain the region’s largest stockpile of ballistic missiles, expert opinion remains that Iran has been less than successful in doing so, leaving it in the disadvantageous position of being both outspent and outarmed by its regional adversaries.
Based on the trend lines, too, this situation is unlikely to change even in the wake of a nuclear deal. Indeed, a look at SIPRI’s accounting of the Islamic Republic’s past military spending shows that its expenditures have consistently been within 3 percent of its GDP. As much as sanctions have at times been cited as the reason for Iran’s paltry outlays to its military, the fact is that Iran’s military spending has moderately risen — not decreased — during the sanctions era. This can be chalked up to the fact that Iran’s security crises were exacerbated as a result of the ongoing nuclear dispute, not ameliorated by it. Following a deal, the incentive structure for Iran does not thus tilt in favor of increased military spending, but decreased spending.
Add to all this the fact that outside powers — including the United States, France, and Britain — either maintain or have increased their presence in the Gulf region in ways favorable to Gulf Arab state interests, and the balance of conventional capabilities is starkly opposed to the Iranians.
Despite all this, though, the perception in Washington remains of a domineering Iran towering over its Gulf Arab rivals following a nuclear deal.
In simpler times, such exaggerated tales of an adversary’s ascendancy would risk distorting our field of perception and make it much more difficult to adopt sensible strategies for protecting our core security interests. But at this moment, with the outcome of the nuclear talks in the balance, these tall tales of future Iranian capabilities threaten to implode the negotiations while they rest on the cusp of success. Whether ill-informed or with malign intent, talking heads in Washington are portraying what is ultimately a false picture of the regional balance of power.
Finishing the negotiations has proved tougher than many had predicted, with diplomats blowing through a third deadline this past week. The issue of the arms embargo on Iran is one of the few remaining sticking points — and it’s a tricky one because Russia has officially broken with the P5+1 and called for the embargo to be lifted. The entire nuclear deal could fall on this one single issue.
That’s why it’s so essential to correct this common but false wisdom and adopt a more sober view of what the region might look like the day after a nuclear deal. It’s not just a matter of missiles — it’s a matter of war and peace.
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/10/the-myth-of-the-iranian-military-giant/
The Myth of the Iranian Military Giant
Saudi Arabia’s military outspends the Islamic Republic's 5-to-1; the UAE's does by 50 percent. And ending the arms embargo after a nuclear deal won't change that.
By Trita Parsi, Tyler Cullis
July 10, 2015
You’d be forgiven for thinking that Iran, unshackled from economic sanctions, would have free rein to domineer its vulnerable Persian Gulf Arab neighbors and cause trouble for Israel. As the fearful refrain goes, if an Iran restrained by crippling sanctions has managed to assert its influence over four Arab capitals — those of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen — what will an Iran freed from sanctions and a global arms embargo do? As noted Iran hawk Ray Takeyh recently wrote, “the most important legacy of the prospective agreement [may be that it] enable[d] the Islamic Republic’s imperial surge.” This same line has been pushed so hard that it has become accepted fact in Washington.
The problem is, the line isn’t true. But, nonetheless, it is threatening to upend a lasting nuclear deal with Iran.
As the nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 countries head down to the wire in Vienna, the issue has arisen in the question of whether the arms embargo imposed on Iran as part of the U.N. Security Council resolutions would be maintained following a nuclear deal. The United States and its European partners say yes; Russia, China, and Iran say no.
The timing is troubling to say the least. Just as solutions have been found to constrain and roll back elements of Iran’s nuclear program, this issue — one that’s outside the scope of the nuclear talks — is now taking on such exaggerated importance that it threatens to undo the serious progress of the past 18 months. Having performed so well at insulating the nuclear talks from outside complications, U.S. and Iranian negotiators have nearly reached agreement only to come to a standstill over this regional dimension. Of course, no one imagined back in 2010 that a conventional arms embargo — part of what was otherwise a U.N. Security Council resolution focused squarely on Iran’s nuclear-proliferation activities — would rear its ugly head in quite this manner.
The Russian and Iranian position is that the Security Council resolutions rested on the understanding that the arms embargo would be lifted once concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program were resolved. Provided that a deal is reached on Iran’s nuclear program, Russia and Iran thus argue, the arms embargo loses its legal justification. The current U.S. position, however, may be less interested in maintaining coherence with past policy than it is with ensuring that it mitigates regional allies’ concern as much as possible as part of a nuclear deal with Iran. Understandably, U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration fears that undoing the arms embargo on Iran would be a step too far for some of the United States’ key regional allies, all of which — but particularly Saudi Arabia — threaten to undermine the administration’s case for a nuclear deal should they perceive their interests to dictate in favor of doing so.
The problem is that the exaggerated tales, now running rampant in Washington, of Iranian regional ascendancy in the wake of a nuclear deal don’t jibe with reality.
Far from being a hegemonic power, able to domineer and subdue its regional rivals with impunity, Iran has a regional position that remains untenable, all while its regional rivals procure weapons systems that make themselves increasingly invulnerable.
Indeed, sober assessment shows that — both quantitatively and qualitatively — Iran’s regional rivals are well positioned not just to counter a “rising” Iran but to compete with it as well. Moreover, this has been true for some time. According to an April report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), interrogating the relevant “data make
Quantitatively, Iran’s military expenditures have sunk far below those of its Gulf rivals. In 2014, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), more than 25 percent of Saudi government spending was devoted to beefing up its military assets — expenditures that totaled more than $80 billion. Along with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which spent nearly $23 billion, the two Gulf Arab countries comprise well over half the $173 billion in military expenditures spent by all Middle Eastern countries that year.
Comparatively, Iran’s military expenditures failed to measure up. During 2014, Iran’s military spending was about $15 billion, which comprised about 9 percent of total military spending in the Middle East. That’s a mere fraction of Saudi military spending and about two-thirds of the UAE’s. The Gulf Cooperation Council states — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — outspend Iran on arms by a factor of 13.
This imbalance is also not merely a current phenomenon. In fact, according to SIPRI’s database, even prior to the arms embargo on Iran, which went into effect in 2010, Saudi Arabia’s military expenditures in the past two decades consistently doubled or tripled the amounts Iran was outlaying to its own military. The new trend, then, is not that Saudi spending has overtaken that of Iran (which has historically been the case during the era of the Islamic Republic), but rather that Saudi military spending has skyrocketed since 2005 to the point where it now dwarfs that of its regional rival — Iran.
Qualitatively, the story’s the same. As one CSIS report notes, “The Arab Gulf states have acquired and are acquiring some of the most advanced and effective weapons in the world. Iran has essentially been forced to live in the past, often relying on systems originally delivered at the time of the Shah.” Saudi spending is used to procure the most modern weapons systems, while Iran is left with beleaguered and aging weapons systems ill-suited for state conflict.
For the Gulf Arab countries, this includes some of the most modern American military hardware, such as the latest fighter jets from Boeing and Lockheed Martin, Predator drones, Apache attack helicopters, Patriot air-defense systems, and stockpiles of the latest missiles, bombs, and other weapons. As the Christian Science Monitor reported in May, there is a virtual rush to buy high-tech American weapons systems to protect against a rival Iran.
Meanwhile, Iran is left with weapons systems that border on obsolete. Relying on Shah-era military hardware and unable to find a reliable partner overseas for weapons purchases, Iran has been forced to rely on its own industrial base to make any substantive advancements to its military weapons programs. While it does retain the region’s largest stockpile of ballistic missiles, expert opinion remains that Iran has been less than successful in doing so, leaving it in the disadvantageous position of being both outspent and outarmed by its regional adversaries.
Based on the trend lines, too, this situation is unlikely to change even in the wake of a nuclear deal. Indeed, a look at SIPRI’s accounting of the Islamic Republic’s past military spending shows that its expenditures have consistently been within 3 percent of its GDP. As much as sanctions have at times been cited as the reason for Iran’s paltry outlays to its military, the fact is that Iran’s military spending has moderately risen — not decreased — during the sanctions era. This can be chalked up to the fact that Iran’s security crises were exacerbated as a result of the ongoing nuclear dispute, not ameliorated by it. Following a deal, the incentive structure for Iran does not thus tilt in favor of increased military spending, but decreased spending.
Add to all this the fact that outside powers — including the United States, France, and Britain — either maintain or have increased their presence in the Gulf region in ways favorable to Gulf Arab state interests, and the balance of conventional capabilities is starkly opposed to the Iranians.
Despite all this, though, the perception in Washington remains of a domineering Iran towering over its Gulf Arab rivals following a nuclear deal.
In simpler times, such exaggerated tales of an adversary’s ascendancy would risk distorting our field of perception and make it much more difficult to adopt sensible strategies for protecting our core security interests. But at this moment, with the outcome of the nuclear talks in the balance, these tall tales of future Iranian capabilities threaten to implode the negotiations while they rest on the cusp of success. Whether ill-informed or with malign intent, talking heads in Washington are portraying what is ultimately a false picture of the regional balance of power.
Finishing the negotiations has proved tougher than many had predicted, with diplomats blowing through a third deadline this past week. The issue of the arms embargo on Iran is one of the few remaining sticking points — and it’s a tricky one because Russia has officially broken with the P5+1 and called for the embargo to be lifted. The entire nuclear deal could fall on this one single issue.
That’s why it’s so essential to correct this common but false wisdom and adopt a more sober view of what the region might look like the day after a nuclear deal. It’s not just a matter of missiles — it’s a matter of war and peace.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150711/iran-nuclear_talks-c71854b2aa.html
Top US -Iranian meeting amid new nuke deal target date
Jul 11, 4:57 AM (ET)
VIENNA (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are using their first full day of renewed overtime at nuclear talks to whittle away at disputes that have led to four extensions of the latest round.
All seven nations at the talks agreed to set a new target day of Monday for an accord after realizing that they could not wrap up the talks as they hoped to do by Friday.
Negotiators had originally hoped to come up with a deal by June 30. Kerry and Zarif met as talks entered their 15th straight day Saturday.
Any deal is meant to clamp long-term restrictions on Iranian nuclear programs that are technically adaptable to make weapons in exchange for sanctions relief for Tehran.
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150711/iran-nuclear_talks-c71854b2aa.html
Top US -Iranian meeting amid new nuke deal target date
Jul 11, 4:57 AM (ET)
VIENNA (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are using their first full day of renewed overtime at nuclear talks to whittle away at disputes that have led to four extensions of the latest round.
All seven nations at the talks agreed to set a new target day of Monday for an accord after realizing that they could not wrap up the talks as they hoped to do by Friday.
Negotiators had originally hoped to come up with a deal by June 30. Kerry and Zarif met as talks entered their 15th straight day Saturday.
Any deal is meant to clamp long-term restrictions on Iranian nuclear programs that are technically adaptable to make weapons in exchange for sanctions relief for Tehran.
Lilbitsnana
On TB every waking moment
Laura Rozen @lrozen 21m21 minutes ago
Not finished yet, but progress on some points even in last day, an Iranian official said . 1/2
Laura Rozen @lrozen 21m21 minutes ago
Solved many things but it's a 100 page text, 20 agreement, 80 annexes, so it takes some time 2/2
Laura Rozen retweeted
Michael Wilner @mawilner 23m23 minutes ago Vienna, Austria
"Now that everything is on the table, the moment has come to decide," #France's Fabius says— at long last— at #IranTalksVienna.
Laura Rozen @lrozen 20m20 minutes ago
Definitely not tomight, will see about tomorrow, or ..... Official said
Laura Rozen @lrozen 18m18 minutes ago
There are some points still to solve, Iranian official said.
Laura Rozen retweeted
Homa Lezgee @HomaLezgee 16m16 minutes ago
Zarif holds separate meetings with Russian deputy FM and Fabius at #IranTalksVienna
Laura Rozen retweeted
Abas Aslani @abasinfo 16m16 minutes ago
#Iran FM Zarif met #France FM Fabius & #Russia DepFM separately. #IranTalks #IranTalksVienna
Laura Rozen @lrozen 10m10 minutes ago
Fabius also reportedly had a phone call with Lavrov. #irantalks
Laura Rozen @lrozen 7m7 minutes ago
Some colleagues hear there should be a 5+1 meeting tonight and then with the Iranians at which everyone should decide yes or no.
Not finished yet, but progress on some points even in last day, an Iranian official said . 1/2
Laura Rozen @lrozen 21m21 minutes ago
Solved many things but it's a 100 page text, 20 agreement, 80 annexes, so it takes some time 2/2
Laura Rozen retweeted
Michael Wilner @mawilner 23m23 minutes ago Vienna, Austria
"Now that everything is on the table, the moment has come to decide," #France's Fabius says— at long last— at #IranTalksVienna.
Laura Rozen @lrozen 20m20 minutes ago
Definitely not tomight, will see about tomorrow, or ..... Official said
Laura Rozen @lrozen 18m18 minutes ago
There are some points still to solve, Iranian official said.
Laura Rozen retweeted
Homa Lezgee @HomaLezgee 16m16 minutes ago
Zarif holds separate meetings with Russian deputy FM and Fabius at #IranTalksVienna
Laura Rozen retweeted
Abas Aslani @abasinfo 16m16 minutes ago
#Iran FM Zarif met #France FM Fabius & #Russia DepFM separately. #IranTalks #IranTalksVienna
Laura Rozen @lrozen 10m10 minutes ago
Fabius also reportedly had a phone call with Lavrov. #irantalks
Laura Rozen @lrozen 7m7 minutes ago
Some colleagues hear there should be a 5+1 meeting tonight and then with the Iranians at which everyone should decide yes or no.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PL0F420150711
World | Sat Jul 11, 2015 4:36pm EDT
Related: World, United Nations, France, Davos
France says 'decision time' has come in Iran nuclear talks
VIENNA | By Louis Charbonneau and John Irish
France's foreign minister appeared to put pressure on the United States and Iran on Saturday to speed up nuclear talks, saying all issues were now on the table and that the time had come to make a decision.
Western and Iranian diplomats close to the talks said they expected to work well into the night in hopes of a breakthrough, perhaps as early as on Sunday, on a deal to bring sanctions relief for Tehran in exchange for curbs on its atomic program.
Iran and the six powers involved in the talks - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - have given themselves until Monday to reach a deal, their third extension in two weeks, as the Iranian delegation accused the West of throwing up new stumbling blocks to an accord.
"Now that everything is on the table, the moment has come to decide," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in a statement sent to Reuters after speaking to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond.
Among the biggest sticking points this week has been Iran's insistence that a United Nations Security Council arms embargo and ban on its ballistic missile program dating from 2006 be lifted immediately if an agreement is reached.
Russia, which sells weapons to Iran, has publicly supported Tehran on the issue.
However, a senior Western diplomat said earlier in the week the six powers remained united, despite Moscow's and Beijing's well-known dislike of the embargos.
Western powers have long suspected Iran of aiming to build nuclear bombs and using its civilian atomic energy program to cloak its intention - an accusation Iran strongly denies.
Other problematic issues in the talks are access for inspectors to military sites in Iran, answers from Tehran over past activity and the overall speed of sanctions relief.
"Still have difficult issues to resolve," Kerry tweeted on Saturday after meeting Zarif.
The two men have met nearly every day since Kerry arrived in Vienna more than two weeks ago for what was intended to be the final phase in a negotiation process lasting more than year and a half aimed at securing a long-term deal with Iran.
An agreement would be the biggest step towards rapprochement between Iran and the West since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, although both sides are likely to remain wary of each other even if a deal is concluded.
"GLOBAL ARROGANCE"
In separate comments, Iran's President Hassan Rouhani suggested the talks could go either way while Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said Tehran would continue its fight against "global arrogance" - referring to the United States.
According to his website, Khamenei was asked by a student what would happen to the "fight against global arrogance" after the completion of the nuclear talks and the supreme leader replied that fight must go on.
"Fighting global arrogance is the core of our revolution and we cannot put it on hold. Get ready to continue your fight against the global arrogance," Khamenei was quoted as saying. "The U.S. is the true embodiment of the global arrogance."
Rouhani, who was elected president in 2013 on a platform of improving Iran's relations with the world as well as its sickly oil-based economy, was quoted by Iran's Nasim news agency as suggesting talks could succeed or fail.
"Even if the nuclear talks fail, our diplomacy showed the world that we are logical. We never left the negotiation table and always provided the best answer," Nasim quoted Rouhani as saying during a meeting with Iranian artists.
"Twenty-two months of negotiation means we have managed to charm the world, and it’s an art," he was quoted as saying.
Kerry told reporters late on Friday the atmosphere in the talks was constructive.
"A couple of differences have been decided ... It's safe to say we have made progress," he said, without giving any details.
Fabius and Hammond returned to Vienna on Saturday and a U.S. official said that Kerry had spoken by telephone with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who was not in Vienna.
In the last few days the talks have become bogged down, with diplomats speaking of a shouting match between Kerry and Zarif.
The White House said on Friday that the United States and its partners "have never been closer" to agreement with Iran but that the U.S. delegation would not wait indefinitely.
A senior Iranian official speaking on condition of anonymity said on Thursday the United States and other Western powers were shifting their positions and backtracking on an April 2 interim accord that was meant to lay the foundations for a final deal.
(Additional Reporting by Parisa Hafezi, Arshad Mohammed and Shadia Nasralla in Vienna and Bozorgmehr Sharafedin in Dubai; Writing by Louis Charbonneau, John Irish and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PL0F420150711
World | Sat Jul 11, 2015 4:36pm EDT
Related: World, United Nations, France, Davos
France says 'decision time' has come in Iran nuclear talks
VIENNA | By Louis Charbonneau and John Irish
France's foreign minister appeared to put pressure on the United States and Iran on Saturday to speed up nuclear talks, saying all issues were now on the table and that the time had come to make a decision.
Western and Iranian diplomats close to the talks said they expected to work well into the night in hopes of a breakthrough, perhaps as early as on Sunday, on a deal to bring sanctions relief for Tehran in exchange for curbs on its atomic program.
Iran and the six powers involved in the talks - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - have given themselves until Monday to reach a deal, their third extension in two weeks, as the Iranian delegation accused the West of throwing up new stumbling blocks to an accord.
"Now that everything is on the table, the moment has come to decide," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in a statement sent to Reuters after speaking to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond.
Among the biggest sticking points this week has been Iran's insistence that a United Nations Security Council arms embargo and ban on its ballistic missile program dating from 2006 be lifted immediately if an agreement is reached.
Russia, which sells weapons to Iran, has publicly supported Tehran on the issue.
However, a senior Western diplomat said earlier in the week the six powers remained united, despite Moscow's and Beijing's well-known dislike of the embargos.
Western powers have long suspected Iran of aiming to build nuclear bombs and using its civilian atomic energy program to cloak its intention - an accusation Iran strongly denies.
Other problematic issues in the talks are access for inspectors to military sites in Iran, answers from Tehran over past activity and the overall speed of sanctions relief.
"Still have difficult issues to resolve," Kerry tweeted on Saturday after meeting Zarif.
The two men have met nearly every day since Kerry arrived in Vienna more than two weeks ago for what was intended to be the final phase in a negotiation process lasting more than year and a half aimed at securing a long-term deal with Iran.
An agreement would be the biggest step towards rapprochement between Iran and the West since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, although both sides are likely to remain wary of each other even if a deal is concluded.
"GLOBAL ARROGANCE"
In separate comments, Iran's President Hassan Rouhani suggested the talks could go either way while Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said Tehran would continue its fight against "global arrogance" - referring to the United States.
According to his website, Khamenei was asked by a student what would happen to the "fight against global arrogance" after the completion of the nuclear talks and the supreme leader replied that fight must go on.
"Fighting global arrogance is the core of our revolution and we cannot put it on hold. Get ready to continue your fight against the global arrogance," Khamenei was quoted as saying. "The U.S. is the true embodiment of the global arrogance."
Rouhani, who was elected president in 2013 on a platform of improving Iran's relations with the world as well as its sickly oil-based economy, was quoted by Iran's Nasim news agency as suggesting talks could succeed or fail.
"Even if the nuclear talks fail, our diplomacy showed the world that we are logical. We never left the negotiation table and always provided the best answer," Nasim quoted Rouhani as saying during a meeting with Iranian artists.
"Twenty-two months of negotiation means we have managed to charm the world, and it’s an art," he was quoted as saying.
Kerry told reporters late on Friday the atmosphere in the talks was constructive.
"A couple of differences have been decided ... It's safe to say we have made progress," he said, without giving any details.
Fabius and Hammond returned to Vienna on Saturday and a U.S. official said that Kerry had spoken by telephone with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who was not in Vienna.
In the last few days the talks have become bogged down, with diplomats speaking of a shouting match between Kerry and Zarif.
The White House said on Friday that the United States and its partners "have never been closer" to agreement with Iran but that the U.S. delegation would not wait indefinitely.
A senior Iranian official speaking on condition of anonymity said on Thursday the United States and other Western powers were shifting their positions and backtracking on an April 2 interim accord that was meant to lay the foundations for a final deal.
(Additional Reporting by Parisa Hafezi, Arshad Mohammed and Shadia Nasralla in Vienna and Bozorgmehr Sharafedin in Dubai; Writing by Louis Charbonneau, John Irish and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
Hummm.......
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150712/iran-nuclear_talks-6cf045aec0.html
AP News Break: Diplomats: Iran announcement planned Monday
Jul 12, 4:25 PM (ET)
By GEORGE JAHN and MATTHEW LEE
(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry leaves his hotel on the way to mass at the St....
Full Image
VIENNA (AP) — Negotiators at the Iran nuclear talks plan to announce Monday that they've reached a historic deal capping nearly a decade of diplomacy that would curb the country's atomic program in return for sanctions relief, two diplomats told The Associated Press on Sunday.
The envoys said a provisional agreement may be reached even earlier — by late Sunday. But they cautioned that final details of the pact were still being worked out. Once it is complete, a formal, final agreement would be open to review by officials in the capitals of Iran and the six world powers at the talks, they said.
Senior U.S. and Iranian officials suggested, however, there might not be enough time to reach a deal by the end of Sunday and that the drafting of documents could bleed into Monday.
All of the officials, who are at the talks in Vienna, demanded anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly.
(AP) Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, right, talks to journalist from a...
Full Image
"We are working hard, but a deal tonight is simply logistically impossible," the Iranian official said, noting that the agreement will run roughly 100 pages.
The senior U.S. official declined to speculate as to the timing of any agreement or announcement but said "major issues remain to be resolved."
Despite the caution, the negotiators appeared to be on the cusp of an agreement.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who on Thursday had threatened to walk away from the negotiations, said Sunday that "a few tough things" remain in the way but added "we're getting to some real decisions."
En route to Mass at Vienna's gothic St. Stephens Cathedral, Kerry said twice he was "hopeful" after a "very good meeting" Saturday with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who had Muslim services Friday. The two met again early Saturday evening.
(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry walks in the garden of Coburg where closed-door...
Full Image
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius also was cautiously optimistic, telling reporters Sunday: "I hope that we are finally entering the last phase of this negotiation."
In Iran, President Hassan Rouhani said an agreement was close, but not quite done, describing the negotiations as "still steps away from reaching the intended peak."
In another sign that a deal could soon be sealed, Russian news agencies reported that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had arrived in Vienna. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was also expected later in the day. The other foreign ministers of the six nations negotiating with Iran already are in the Austrian capital and in position to join Kerry and Zarif for an announcement.
Movement toward a deal has been marked by years of tough negotiations. The pact is meant to impose long-term, verifiable limits on nuclear programs that Tehran could modify to produce weapons. Iran, in return, would get tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief.
The current round of nuclear talks is now in its 16th day and has been extended three times since the first deadline of June 30 was missed. The mood among negotiators had turned more somber each time a new target date — first July 7, then July 10 and then July 13 — was set.
(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry leaves his hotel on the way to mass at the St....
Full Image
As the weekend approached, Kerry declared the talks couldn't go on indefinitely and warned that the U.S. could walk away from the negotiations.
Diplomats familiar with the talks said most of the nuts and bolts of implementing the deal have been agreed upon. But over the past week, issues that were previously on the back burner have led to new disputes. Among them is Iran's demand for a lifting of a U.N. arms embargo and its insistence that any U.N. Security Council resolution approving the nuclear deal be written in a way that stops describing Iran's nuclear activities as illegal.
A diplomat familiar with the negotiations said disagreements also persist on how long some of the restrictions on imports of nuclear technology and other embargos outlined in any new Security Council resolution will last. The diplomat, who demanded anonymity because the diplomat wasn't allowed to discuss the confidential talks, said restrictions will last for years, not months.
Meanwhile, Iranians were preparing to celebrate in the event of an agreement. Iran's semi-official ISNA news agency reported that deputy police chief Brigadier General Saeed Montazer al-Mahdi said the authorities are fully prepared for such celebrations.
Despite Kerry's relatively upbeat take, comments by Iran's supreme leader suggested that Tehran's mistrust of Washington would persist no matter what the outcome of the talks.
(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry uses crutches as he walks in the garden of Coburg...
Full Image
Iran's state-run Press TV cited Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday as calling the U.S. an "excellent example of arrogance." It said Khamenei told university students in Tehran to be "prepared to continue the struggle against arrogant powers."
His comments appeared to be a blow to U.S. hopes that an agreement will lead to improved bilateral relations that could translate into increased cooperation in a common cause— the fight against Islamic State radicals.
Zarif had hinted at just that last week, suggesting a deal acceptable to his country will open the door to joint efforts on that front.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a fierce opponent of what he considers a deal that is too lenient on Tehran, said Khamenei's comments showed that Western powers are "caving" in to Iran even as the Islamic republic keeps railing against them.
A nuclear deal will also face serious scrutiny from members of U.S. Congress.
"This is going to be a very hard sell for the administration," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said on "Fox News Sunday" when asked about the likelihood of Congress signing off on a deal.
---
Associated Press writer Ali Akbar Dareini contributed from Tehran.
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150712/iran-nuclear_talks-6cf045aec0.html
AP News Break: Diplomats: Iran announcement planned Monday
Jul 12, 4:25 PM (ET)
By GEORGE JAHN and MATTHEW LEE
(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry leaves his hotel on the way to mass at the St....
Full Image
VIENNA (AP) — Negotiators at the Iran nuclear talks plan to announce Monday that they've reached a historic deal capping nearly a decade of diplomacy that would curb the country's atomic program in return for sanctions relief, two diplomats told The Associated Press on Sunday.
The envoys said a provisional agreement may be reached even earlier — by late Sunday. But they cautioned that final details of the pact were still being worked out. Once it is complete, a formal, final agreement would be open to review by officials in the capitals of Iran and the six world powers at the talks, they said.
Senior U.S. and Iranian officials suggested, however, there might not be enough time to reach a deal by the end of Sunday and that the drafting of documents could bleed into Monday.
All of the officials, who are at the talks in Vienna, demanded anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly.
(AP) Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, right, talks to journalist from a...
Full Image
"We are working hard, but a deal tonight is simply logistically impossible," the Iranian official said, noting that the agreement will run roughly 100 pages.
The senior U.S. official declined to speculate as to the timing of any agreement or announcement but said "major issues remain to be resolved."
Despite the caution, the negotiators appeared to be on the cusp of an agreement.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who on Thursday had threatened to walk away from the negotiations, said Sunday that "a few tough things" remain in the way but added "we're getting to some real decisions."
En route to Mass at Vienna's gothic St. Stephens Cathedral, Kerry said twice he was "hopeful" after a "very good meeting" Saturday with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who had Muslim services Friday. The two met again early Saturday evening.
(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry walks in the garden of Coburg where closed-door...
Full Image
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius also was cautiously optimistic, telling reporters Sunday: "I hope that we are finally entering the last phase of this negotiation."
In Iran, President Hassan Rouhani said an agreement was close, but not quite done, describing the negotiations as "still steps away from reaching the intended peak."
In another sign that a deal could soon be sealed, Russian news agencies reported that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had arrived in Vienna. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was also expected later in the day. The other foreign ministers of the six nations negotiating with Iran already are in the Austrian capital and in position to join Kerry and Zarif for an announcement.
Movement toward a deal has been marked by years of tough negotiations. The pact is meant to impose long-term, verifiable limits on nuclear programs that Tehran could modify to produce weapons. Iran, in return, would get tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief.
The current round of nuclear talks is now in its 16th day and has been extended three times since the first deadline of June 30 was missed. The mood among negotiators had turned more somber each time a new target date — first July 7, then July 10 and then July 13 — was set.
(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry leaves his hotel on the way to mass at the St....
Full Image
As the weekend approached, Kerry declared the talks couldn't go on indefinitely and warned that the U.S. could walk away from the negotiations.
Diplomats familiar with the talks said most of the nuts and bolts of implementing the deal have been agreed upon. But over the past week, issues that were previously on the back burner have led to new disputes. Among them is Iran's demand for a lifting of a U.N. arms embargo and its insistence that any U.N. Security Council resolution approving the nuclear deal be written in a way that stops describing Iran's nuclear activities as illegal.
A diplomat familiar with the negotiations said disagreements also persist on how long some of the restrictions on imports of nuclear technology and other embargos outlined in any new Security Council resolution will last. The diplomat, who demanded anonymity because the diplomat wasn't allowed to discuss the confidential talks, said restrictions will last for years, not months.
Meanwhile, Iranians were preparing to celebrate in the event of an agreement. Iran's semi-official ISNA news agency reported that deputy police chief Brigadier General Saeed Montazer al-Mahdi said the authorities are fully prepared for such celebrations.
Despite Kerry's relatively upbeat take, comments by Iran's supreme leader suggested that Tehran's mistrust of Washington would persist no matter what the outcome of the talks.
(AP) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry uses crutches as he walks in the garden of Coburg...
Full Image
Iran's state-run Press TV cited Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday as calling the U.S. an "excellent example of arrogance." It said Khamenei told university students in Tehran to be "prepared to continue the struggle against arrogant powers."
His comments appeared to be a blow to U.S. hopes that an agreement will lead to improved bilateral relations that could translate into increased cooperation in a common cause— the fight against Islamic State radicals.
Zarif had hinted at just that last week, suggesting a deal acceptable to his country will open the door to joint efforts on that front.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a fierce opponent of what he considers a deal that is too lenient on Tehran, said Khamenei's comments showed that Western powers are "caving" in to Iran even as the Islamic republic keeps railing against them.
A nuclear deal will also face serious scrutiny from members of U.S. Congress.
"This is going to be a very hard sell for the administration," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said on "Fox News Sunday" when asked about the likelihood of Congress signing off on a deal.
---
Associated Press writer Ali Akbar Dareini contributed from Tehran.
Lilbitsnana
On TB every waking moment
Conflict News @rConflictNews 33m33 minutes ago
BREAKING 'Important issues' remain in nuclear talks: Iranian source - AFP
Conflict News @rConflictNews 21m21 minutes ago
BREAKING: Conditions 'in place' for Iran nuclear deal: China - AFP
Conflict News @rConflictNews 3m3 minutes ago
#Russia FM Lavrov arrived & went into Palais Coburg. Not a single word. Had said before he would only come if deal
BREAKING 'Important issues' remain in nuclear talks: Iranian source - AFP
Conflict News @rConflictNews 21m21 minutes ago
BREAKING: Conditions 'in place' for Iran nuclear deal: China - AFP
Conflict News @rConflictNews 3m3 minutes ago
#Russia FM Lavrov arrived & went into Palais Coburg. Not a single word. Had said before he would only come if deal
Lilbitsnana
On TB every waking moment
or not?
News_Executive @News_Executive 33m33 minutes ago
BREAKING: Iranian president Hassan Rouhani will address the nation at 1730 GMT.
News_Executive retweeted
Sanam Shantyaei @SanamF24 19m19 minutes ago
Iran State TV tells me there is no Rouhani address planned for this evening as per agency wire. #IranTalksVienna
News_Executive @News_Executive 33m33 minutes ago
BREAKING: Iranian president Hassan Rouhani will address the nation at 1730 GMT.
News_Executive retweeted
Sanam Shantyaei @SanamF24 19m19 minutes ago
Iran State TV tells me there is no Rouhani address planned for this evening as per agency wire. #IranTalksVienna
mzkitty
I give up.
12m
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani deletes tweet that read: 'Iran Deal is the victory of diplomacy and mutual respect over outdated paradigm of exclusion and coercion' - @BrettLoGiurato
https://twitter.com/BrettLoGiurato/status/620628289732804608/photo/1
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani deletes tweet that read: 'Iran Deal is the victory of diplomacy and mutual respect over outdated paradigm of exclusion and coercion' - @BrettLoGiurato
https://twitter.com/BrettLoGiurato/status/620628289732804608/photo/1
Attachments
mzkitty
I give up.
7m
Update: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweets statement similar to deleted tweet, but clarifies 'If' there's a deal; says, 'If Iran Deal, victory of diplomacy and mutual respect over outdated paradigm of exclusion and coercion. And this will be good beginning' - @HassanRouhani
Update: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweets statement similar to deleted tweet, but clarifies 'If' there's a deal; says, 'If Iran Deal, victory of diplomacy and mutual respect over outdated paradigm of exclusion and coercion. And this will be good beginning' - @HassanRouhani
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/13/give-the-mullahs-ballistic-missiles.html
World
07.13.151:00 AM ET
Give the Mullahs Ballistic Missiles?
Ending an arms embargo on Iran will only destabilize the Middle East and threaten U.S. national security.
By Andrew J. Bowen
Comments 8
A comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran is will reportedly be announced as early as Monday. And while it’s too soon so say what the parameters (and details) of such an agreement will be, one 11th-hour item of debate is obvious given what both Iranian negotiators and their surrogates in the Western press have argued—namely, that lifting the arms embargo on Tehran is but a minor concession to make in securing a historic diplomatic accord. On the contrary, lifting the embargo is major capitulation to Iran and one that directly threatens U.S. national security.
Advocates of this policy have three main arguments.
First, that the U.S. shouldn’t get preoccupied by this small snag, because Iran’s military is comparatively weaker than that of traditional American allies in the region; the Gulf States, for instance, will retain a substantial conventional power advantage against the Iranians.
Second, Washington’s concessions on the embargo aren’t a big deal because these negotiations are focused on Iran’s nuclear program and the UN sanctions that were put in place in 2007 and onwards to restrict their conventional programs were punishment for refusing to give up their nuclear program. As the Iranian negotiators and their Russian counterparts have argued, all sanctions, put in place because of this program, should be lifted with a deal. In their view, the U.S. is disingenuous to keep these sanctions in place after agreeing to lift all UN sanctions.
Finally, there’s a claim that Iran simply needs advanced weapons to help defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Tehran has argued that more advanced weaponry and weapon systems would aid their efforts to defeat ISIS. Advocates of a stronger U.S.-Iran partnership in fighting ISIS operates on the optimistic thinking that Tehran and the U.S. have a shared common enemy.
Matthew McInnis, a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former senior expert on Iran at the CENTCOM, argues, “these are all red herrings. They distract from Iran’s real threat to U.S. national security interests: an unfettered Iranian armed forces.”
Let’s start with the first argument—that Iran’s neighbors still outspend on their national defense programs. In 2014, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council collectively spent $114 billion on their militaries, far greater than the Iranian defense budget estimated at $16 billion—or $30 billion, according to President Obama, likely throwing in off-the-books funding for Iran’s proxy groups and partners. Riyadh’s spending on military equipment alone has skyrocketed in the past decade, dwarfing Tehran’s outlays. Money here is a lousy metric because while the Gulf States struggle with how to use their fancy new toys, the Iranians have learned how to fight better with less. With the exception of the United Arab Emirate’s Air Force, the Arab Gulf States are not in a favorable position to challenge Iranian sea dominance in the Persian Gulf. Iran has an aging navy but it can still deploy ships thousands of miles away.
It is true that Iran is not a conventional military behemoth. Tehran may have the largest ballistic missile force in the region but those missiles cannot hit their targets with much accuracy. Iran also lacks the ability establish air superiority or sustain a major land invasion beyond its borders.” (Iranian tanks will not be rolling through the streets of Riyadh anytime soon, even if the mullahs desperately want them to.)
Rather, the real threat from increased Iranian military might lies elsewhere. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — the Islamic Republic’s praetorian division designed to guarantee the safety and security of the regime — does not hesitate to remind the world through its harassment of commercial shipping, military exercises, and frequent rhetoric that it can control or shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which 30 percent of the world’s petroleum supplies passes.
Keeping the Strait open depends on the U.S. Navy being able to keep up with effective counter measures against improved Iranian cruise missiles (itself a fact belies the claim that the Gulf States can safeguard their own backyard by themselves), and so Tehran has invested in weapons such as cruise missiles, mines, submarines, and even swarming armed speedboats to specifically target U.S. naval vulnerabilities. Iran’s intent is to make it increasingly costly to operate in the Persian Gulf. ” Lifting the conventional arms embargo would allow Russia or China to sell Iran the latest generation cruise missiles and drones, which only increase Tehran’s ability to frustrate or harass America’s protectorate of this vital waterway.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposed the conventional weapons embargo in 2010, cut off Tehran’s trade with Russia, China and other suppliers in battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, and missiles as well. It’s unclear what Russia or China would sell to the Iranians after the embargo is lifted, but some estimates put Russian arms sales to Iran at potentially $7-8 billion a year if an embargo is lifted. A little more can go along way particularly by increasing the range and accuracy of their current systems.
Moreover, Iranian ballistic missiles outfitted with Russian or Chinese quality precision-guidance munitions could be devastating for U.S. and GCC naval and air bases if there are further relaxations on Iran’s acquisition of missile technology. McInnis argues, “Iran is even attempting to develop ballistic missiles to hit U.S. aircraft carriers from hundreds of miles offshore. With more Chinese help it could finally accomplish this goal.” The GCC states’ true fear is a nightmare scenario in which the United States becomes unable or unwilling to operate in the Persian Gulf or Gulf of Oman.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in recent statements has stressed that he has no interest in working with Washington beyond the terms of any nuclear agreement and that America should have no security role in the Middle East — a statement which constitutes a clear and present to U.S. interests which have an outsize security role in the region. Neither will there be any shift in his support of Iran’s regional proxies or allies.
Rather than promoting stability, greater access to advanced missiles, artillery, and combat vehicles could empower a range of Iranian proxy forces, partners and terrorist groups – from Lebanese Hezbollah to the Syrian National Defense Forces (a sectarian paramilitary organization tantamount to Iran’s Basij) to Palestinian Hamas— which remain a threat to U.S. interests and to our regional allies, most notably Israel. These forces could endanger U.S. personnel at regional diplomatic and military facilities and make it more difficult for Washington to secure a political solution in Syria and Iraq, let alone between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Also, American military advisors in Iraq could be further endangered by better-equipped Shia proxies — namely IRGC-backed militias now acting as the vanguard ground army against ISIS — seeking to stymie U.S. efforts to secure the long-term stability of the Iraqi government. Shi’a Popular Mobilization Forces, Hashd al-Shaabi, have proven to be viscous sectarian actors in many places in Iraq. If Iran decides to supply them with new air and ground missile equipment, it could be impossible for Baghdad to reintegrate them back into the Iraqi security services and escalate the sectarian violence in the country.
Washington’s bet on Tehran as a partner against ISIS then is rather dubious and questionable. In Syria, Iran has devoted more resources in supporting the Assad government’s efforts in fighting the Qatari, Turkish, and Saudi backed opposition than ISIS. From conversations with people close to the Assad regime in Damascus, Iran has sanctioned the Assad government’s usage of chlorine gas against their opponents. Tehran has avoided confronting ISIS in Syria, seeing the extremist group as a useful tool against the Syrian rebel opposition groups. Even though Iran is engaged in fighting ISIS in Iraq, their actions appear driven more by containing and managing ISIS in Iraq than defeating it in order to keep the Iraqi state weakened and the central government in Baghdad reliant on Tehran. Serious reform of the Iraqi political system, which would give Sunnis a say in their state’s future and arguably buy their participation in the state has been an initiative that Iran has blocked since the U.S. withdrawal in 2010. This marriage of convenience is prone to divorce.
The recent uncovering of the IRGC-backed plot to destabilize the monarchy in Jordan only underscores the myth that a better-equipped and wealthier Iran will somehow grow tamer with respect to regional ambitions and that IRGC is even active in places outside of Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq. We must not forget how Tehran sought to conduct a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C. with an attempted assassination of then Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Adel Jubeir, an operation that was to have been carried out on American soil.
Increased arms flowing into Hezbollah’s hands and like-minded groups in the Palestinian territories endanger the security of Israel.” Further equipping and training of Yemen's Houthis could position this group to threaten global trade through the Suez Canal if they are able to both establish a naval presence from the Red Sea port of Hodeida and further south at the Mandeb Strait. Increased IRGC armed shipments to the Houthis could lead to more stand-offs in the Gulf of Aden with the U.S. Navy.
Whether or not the conventional arms embargo should remain in a final nuclear deal with Iran is not a simple question of parsing U.S. Security Council Resolution language. This is a critical U.S. national security issue and therefore makes the Obama administration responsible for safeguarding it. Regardless of the Russian and Iranian interpretations of the words and spirit of the UN Resolutions and the emerging Joint Plan of Action, Washington can’t let such a debate become a distraction from enabling Iran to emerge from these negotiations as a credible conventional threat to the U.S. and its allies in the region.
In the coming months Washington should remain vigilant in monitoring and constraining Iran’s efforts to further develop its military and the IRGC. This is essential to protecting our interests and the security of our allies. Lifting the embargo would importantly undermine the commitments President Obama made to our GCC partners at the Camp David Summit this past Spring.
It is one of the great ironies with this potential deal that in trying to constrain Iran’s nuclear program for ten to 15 years, we may actually help create an Iranian military that puts the lives of American sailors, soldiers, and airmen at serious risk.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/13/give-the-mullahs-ballistic-missiles.html
World
07.13.151:00 AM ET
Give the Mullahs Ballistic Missiles?
Ending an arms embargo on Iran will only destabilize the Middle East and threaten U.S. national security.
By Andrew J. Bowen
Comments 8
A comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran is will reportedly be announced as early as Monday. And while it’s too soon so say what the parameters (and details) of such an agreement will be, one 11th-hour item of debate is obvious given what both Iranian negotiators and their surrogates in the Western press have argued—namely, that lifting the arms embargo on Tehran is but a minor concession to make in securing a historic diplomatic accord. On the contrary, lifting the embargo is major capitulation to Iran and one that directly threatens U.S. national security.
Advocates of this policy have three main arguments.
First, that the U.S. shouldn’t get preoccupied by this small snag, because Iran’s military is comparatively weaker than that of traditional American allies in the region; the Gulf States, for instance, will retain a substantial conventional power advantage against the Iranians.
Second, Washington’s concessions on the embargo aren’t a big deal because these negotiations are focused on Iran’s nuclear program and the UN sanctions that were put in place in 2007 and onwards to restrict their conventional programs were punishment for refusing to give up their nuclear program. As the Iranian negotiators and their Russian counterparts have argued, all sanctions, put in place because of this program, should be lifted with a deal. In their view, the U.S. is disingenuous to keep these sanctions in place after agreeing to lift all UN sanctions.
Finally, there’s a claim that Iran simply needs advanced weapons to help defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Tehran has argued that more advanced weaponry and weapon systems would aid their efforts to defeat ISIS. Advocates of a stronger U.S.-Iran partnership in fighting ISIS operates on the optimistic thinking that Tehran and the U.S. have a shared common enemy.
Matthew McInnis, a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former senior expert on Iran at the CENTCOM, argues, “these are all red herrings. They distract from Iran’s real threat to U.S. national security interests: an unfettered Iranian armed forces.”
Let’s start with the first argument—that Iran’s neighbors still outspend on their national defense programs. In 2014, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council collectively spent $114 billion on their militaries, far greater than the Iranian defense budget estimated at $16 billion—or $30 billion, according to President Obama, likely throwing in off-the-books funding for Iran’s proxy groups and partners. Riyadh’s spending on military equipment alone has skyrocketed in the past decade, dwarfing Tehran’s outlays. Money here is a lousy metric because while the Gulf States struggle with how to use their fancy new toys, the Iranians have learned how to fight better with less. With the exception of the United Arab Emirate’s Air Force, the Arab Gulf States are not in a favorable position to challenge Iranian sea dominance in the Persian Gulf. Iran has an aging navy but it can still deploy ships thousands of miles away.
It is true that Iran is not a conventional military behemoth. Tehran may have the largest ballistic missile force in the region but those missiles cannot hit their targets with much accuracy. Iran also lacks the ability establish air superiority or sustain a major land invasion beyond its borders.” (Iranian tanks will not be rolling through the streets of Riyadh anytime soon, even if the mullahs desperately want them to.)
Rather, the real threat from increased Iranian military might lies elsewhere. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — the Islamic Republic’s praetorian division designed to guarantee the safety and security of the regime — does not hesitate to remind the world through its harassment of commercial shipping, military exercises, and frequent rhetoric that it can control or shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which 30 percent of the world’s petroleum supplies passes.
Keeping the Strait open depends on the U.S. Navy being able to keep up with effective counter measures against improved Iranian cruise missiles (itself a fact belies the claim that the Gulf States can safeguard their own backyard by themselves), and so Tehran has invested in weapons such as cruise missiles, mines, submarines, and even swarming armed speedboats to specifically target U.S. naval vulnerabilities. Iran’s intent is to make it increasingly costly to operate in the Persian Gulf. ” Lifting the conventional arms embargo would allow Russia or China to sell Iran the latest generation cruise missiles and drones, which only increase Tehran’s ability to frustrate or harass America’s protectorate of this vital waterway.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposed the conventional weapons embargo in 2010, cut off Tehran’s trade with Russia, China and other suppliers in battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, and missiles as well. It’s unclear what Russia or China would sell to the Iranians after the embargo is lifted, but some estimates put Russian arms sales to Iran at potentially $7-8 billion a year if an embargo is lifted. A little more can go along way particularly by increasing the range and accuracy of their current systems.
Moreover, Iranian ballistic missiles outfitted with Russian or Chinese quality precision-guidance munitions could be devastating for U.S. and GCC naval and air bases if there are further relaxations on Iran’s acquisition of missile technology. McInnis argues, “Iran is even attempting to develop ballistic missiles to hit U.S. aircraft carriers from hundreds of miles offshore. With more Chinese help it could finally accomplish this goal.” The GCC states’ true fear is a nightmare scenario in which the United States becomes unable or unwilling to operate in the Persian Gulf or Gulf of Oman.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in recent statements has stressed that he has no interest in working with Washington beyond the terms of any nuclear agreement and that America should have no security role in the Middle East — a statement which constitutes a clear and present to U.S. interests which have an outsize security role in the region. Neither will there be any shift in his support of Iran’s regional proxies or allies.
Rather than promoting stability, greater access to advanced missiles, artillery, and combat vehicles could empower a range of Iranian proxy forces, partners and terrorist groups – from Lebanese Hezbollah to the Syrian National Defense Forces (a sectarian paramilitary organization tantamount to Iran’s Basij) to Palestinian Hamas— which remain a threat to U.S. interests and to our regional allies, most notably Israel. These forces could endanger U.S. personnel at regional diplomatic and military facilities and make it more difficult for Washington to secure a political solution in Syria and Iraq, let alone between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Also, American military advisors in Iraq could be further endangered by better-equipped Shia proxies — namely IRGC-backed militias now acting as the vanguard ground army against ISIS — seeking to stymie U.S. efforts to secure the long-term stability of the Iraqi government. Shi’a Popular Mobilization Forces, Hashd al-Shaabi, have proven to be viscous sectarian actors in many places in Iraq. If Iran decides to supply them with new air and ground missile equipment, it could be impossible for Baghdad to reintegrate them back into the Iraqi security services and escalate the sectarian violence in the country.
Washington’s bet on Tehran as a partner against ISIS then is rather dubious and questionable. In Syria, Iran has devoted more resources in supporting the Assad government’s efforts in fighting the Qatari, Turkish, and Saudi backed opposition than ISIS. From conversations with people close to the Assad regime in Damascus, Iran has sanctioned the Assad government’s usage of chlorine gas against their opponents. Tehran has avoided confronting ISIS in Syria, seeing the extremist group as a useful tool against the Syrian rebel opposition groups. Even though Iran is engaged in fighting ISIS in Iraq, their actions appear driven more by containing and managing ISIS in Iraq than defeating it in order to keep the Iraqi state weakened and the central government in Baghdad reliant on Tehran. Serious reform of the Iraqi political system, which would give Sunnis a say in their state’s future and arguably buy their participation in the state has been an initiative that Iran has blocked since the U.S. withdrawal in 2010. This marriage of convenience is prone to divorce.
The recent uncovering of the IRGC-backed plot to destabilize the monarchy in Jordan only underscores the myth that a better-equipped and wealthier Iran will somehow grow tamer with respect to regional ambitions and that IRGC is even active in places outside of Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq. We must not forget how Tehran sought to conduct a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C. with an attempted assassination of then Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Adel Jubeir, an operation that was to have been carried out on American soil.
Increased arms flowing into Hezbollah’s hands and like-minded groups in the Palestinian territories endanger the security of Israel.” Further equipping and training of Yemen's Houthis could position this group to threaten global trade through the Suez Canal if they are able to both establish a naval presence from the Red Sea port of Hodeida and further south at the Mandeb Strait. Increased IRGC armed shipments to the Houthis could lead to more stand-offs in the Gulf of Aden with the U.S. Navy.
Whether or not the conventional arms embargo should remain in a final nuclear deal with Iran is not a simple question of parsing U.S. Security Council Resolution language. This is a critical U.S. national security issue and therefore makes the Obama administration responsible for safeguarding it. Regardless of the Russian and Iranian interpretations of the words and spirit of the UN Resolutions and the emerging Joint Plan of Action, Washington can’t let such a debate become a distraction from enabling Iran to emerge from these negotiations as a credible conventional threat to the U.S. and its allies in the region.
In the coming months Washington should remain vigilant in monitoring and constraining Iran’s efforts to further develop its military and the IRGC. This is essential to protecting our interests and the security of our allies. Lifting the embargo would importantly undermine the commitments President Obama made to our GCC partners at the Camp David Summit this past Spring.
It is one of the great ironies with this potential deal that in trying to constrain Iran’s nuclear program for ten to 15 years, we may actually help create an Iranian military that puts the lives of American sailors, soldiers, and airmen at serious risk.
Lilbitsnana
On TB every waking moment
Conflict News @rConflictNews 13m13 minutes ago
Conflict News retweeted Catherine Ray
BREAKING: #EU announces final meeting of P5+1 and Iran #IranDeal
Conflict News added,
Conflict News retweeted Catherine Ray
BREAKING: #EU announces final meeting of P5+1 and Iran #IranDeal
Conflict News added,
Lilbitsnana
On TB every waking moment
Conflict News @rConflictNews 2m2 minutes ago
BREAKING: #Iran, 6 major powers reach nuclear deal, says Iranian diplomat - @Reuters
BREAKING: #Iran, 6 major powers reach nuclear deal, says Iranian diplomat - @Reuters
Lilbitsnana
On TB every waking moment
I knew when I saw this tweet this morning. Zarif shouted out a wake-up call.
Conflict News @rConflictNews 41m41 minutes ago
Conflict News retweeted Negar نگار
Looks like #Zarif is awake #IranTalks
Conflict News added,
Conflict News @rConflictNews 41m41 minutes ago
Conflict News retweeted Negar نگار
Looks like #Zarif is awake #IranTalks
Conflict News added,
Negar نگار @NegarMortazavi
Zarif on his fave balcony: WAKE UP! #IranTalks
Lilbitsnana
On TB every waking moment
Juliette @Juliet777777 3h3 hours ago
US INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE IRAN 2-3 MONTHS OFF BULIDING NUCLEAR BOMB http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-talks-20150713-story.html#page=1 … @ritzy_jewels @MadJewessWoman @Abloorable #FRANCE
posted for fair use
Diplomats prepare to announce landmark deal on Iranian nuclear program
Iran nuclear talks
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, second from left, meets with foreign ministers and delegations from Germany, France, China, Britain, Russia and the European Union at a hotel in Vienna on July 13.
(Carlos Barria / Associated Press)
By Paul Richter contact the reporter
After 17 days of often-grueling negotiations, diplomats Monday night prepared to announce terms of a landmark deal aimed at preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon for at least a decade.
The two sides had remained divided on several issues until a final round of talks Monday, despite widespread predictions over the weekend that an agreement was near.
Terms of the deal, one of the most far-reaching diplomatic accords in decades, were expected to be announced early Tuesday morning here, barring any further last-minute snags.
Seven key questions about the Iran nuclear negotiations
Announcement of an agreement would be almost certain to set off a renewed round of intense debate in the U.S. and internationally. Critics in the U.S. and elsewhere have acknowledged they have little chance of blocking a nuclear deal – a move in Congress to vote it down after a 60-day review period would be vetoed by President Obama – but they aim to undermine it politically in hopes that a future president would abandon it.
Negotiators from Iran, the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China have spent the last two years seeking a deal. Its goal is to resolve a top-priority security threat by applying unprecedented scrutiny to Tehran’s nuclear complex and scaling back its most sensitive nuclear activities.
Currently, U.S. intelligence agencies estimate the Iranians are two to three months away from being able to build a nuclear bomb. The deal is designed to extend that period to a year by reducing Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, cutting its ability to enrich uranium or produce plutonium in the future and placing its known and suspected nuclear sites under international surveillance.
In exchange, Iran’s economy would get a boost worth billions of dollars.
In the final round of talks, issues that remained in dispute, according to officials from several nations, included details of the relief that Iran would receive from international economic sanctions; the wording of a United Nations Security Council resolution intended to put the deal in place; and Iran’s demand that, along with removing other sanctions, the U.N. should lift an embargo on its trade in missiles and conventional arms.
How those disputes were resolved will not be known until Tuesday, but many parts of the expected agreement are known.
Iran would be required to reduce its inventory of centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium, from 19,000 to 6,000 and cut its stockpile of low-enriched, reactor-grade uranium from 22,000 to 660 pounds. To block any effort to build a plutonium-fueled bomb, Iran would be required to remove the core of its heavy-water reactor at Arak and will not be allowed to produce any weapons-grade plutonium.
Iran’s nuclear sites will be under heavy scrutiny. United Nations inspectors will be entitled to gain access to sites and interview technicians if there is evidence that illegal activity might be taking place.
The agreement would be implemented in several stages. Over the next several months, Iran is expected to begin taking steps to scale back its nuclear activities, while the United States and Europe make arrangements to lift their sanctions. Once the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency has verified Iran’s steps, the U.S. and Europe would lift their sanctions.
Iran is expected to receive a quick boost from the deal from the release of some assets currently in frozen bank accounts in the West. When Iran’s compliance has been verified, a process likely to take several months, U.S. and European Union sanctions would be lifted.
Ultimately, Iran would be allowed to bring home overseas assets estimated to be worth $100 billion to $150 billion.
cComments
@Hiram A how many did we spend on the Iraq war under george, rummie, wolfie, and count dracula. estimates are three trillion. so please tell me what is your alternative. try and make a deal or start another war. by the way that iraq adventure really let to a lot of stabiity didn't it.
The agreement could improve America’s troubled relationship with Iran and is likely to have far-reaching effects in the Middle East. Already, oil prices have slumped, partially in anticipation of increased production from Iran, which has the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves. The country is expected to be able to pump as much as 1 million additional barrels a day once sanctions on its oil industry are removed.
Administration officials view the deal as Obama’s crowning foreign policy achievement.
But critics of the diplomacy, including most Republican lawmakers and some Democrats, as well as allies including Israel and Saudi Arabia, fear that the deal will fail to restrain Iran’s nuclear program because of many concessions.
The critics also fear that even if Iran complies with the deal, it will grow more powerful over the next decade because of the economic benefits the country will reap from the lifting of sanctions. When the deal expires, they say, a wealthier, stronger Iran could resume its pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
The deal is essentially a bet that it is safer to trade sanctions relief for curbs on Iran’s nuclear activities now rather than allow the Islamic Republic to continue a nuclear development program that was already on the threshold of weapons capability.
Administration officials argue that the alternatives to negotiations offered little hope of blocking Iran’s progress. Although economic sanctions and a determined campaign of sabotage by the U.S. and Israel have slowed Iran’s nuclear program, they have not stopped it. U.S. officials argue that the sanctions would be likely to have diminishing effect over time because the international coalition backing them would inevitably fray.
A military strike against Iran would also be a poor alternative, administration officials say. Although the U.S. has so-called bunker-buster bombs that could penetrate Iran’s deeply buried nuclear sites, even a sustained bombing campaign would halt the program for only a few years, they say. At the same time, an attack would probably strengthen the desire of Iran’s leaders to acquire a bomb.
The accord would cap a fitful diplomatic saga that reaches back to 2002, when disclosure of Iran’s secret construction of two nuclear enrichment plants raised fears that Tehran was planning a race to a bomb. Negotiations have broken down many times and succeeded only after both sides agreed in 2013 to painful compromises.
The deal is not a treaty, but a “political understanding” between the two sides. It will not be signed by the parties this week, but would be given international legitimacy when the United Nations Security Council votes on a resolution that would replace six previous sanctions measures and enshrine key elements of the deal.
Obama has the authority to issue waivers of many U.S. sanctions. The sanctions would remain on the books, however, unless Congress voted to end them. The deal is designed to preserve the ability of the U.S. to “snap back” the sanctions if Iran violates the terms of the agreement.
Critics have warned that improving Iran's economy and ties with the outside world will bolster the country’s authoritarian government and enable it to expand efforts to gain influence in such countries as Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. They predict that this economic boost will sharpen the conflict between Iran and its regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia.
But Obama has predicted that the deal, by strengthening relative moderates in Iran, could gradually point the country in a less bellicose direction. He has held out hope that a deal might improve relations between the U.S. and Iran, two countries that have carried on a bloody rivalry since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, though he’s said the deal would be worthwhile even if that does not happen.
For the latest on the nuclear negotiations, follow @RichtPau
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-talks-20150713-story.html#page=1
US INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE IRAN 2-3 MONTHS OFF BULIDING NUCLEAR BOMB http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-talks-20150713-story.html#page=1 … @ritzy_jewels @MadJewessWoman @Abloorable #FRANCE
posted for fair use
Diplomats prepare to announce landmark deal on Iranian nuclear program
Iran nuclear talks
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, second from left, meets with foreign ministers and delegations from Germany, France, China, Britain, Russia and the European Union at a hotel in Vienna on July 13.
(Carlos Barria / Associated Press)
By Paul Richter contact the reporter
After 17 days of often-grueling negotiations, diplomats Monday night prepared to announce terms of a landmark deal aimed at preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon for at least a decade.
The two sides had remained divided on several issues until a final round of talks Monday, despite widespread predictions over the weekend that an agreement was near.
Terms of the deal, one of the most far-reaching diplomatic accords in decades, were expected to be announced early Tuesday morning here, barring any further last-minute snags.
Seven key questions about the Iran nuclear negotiations
Announcement of an agreement would be almost certain to set off a renewed round of intense debate in the U.S. and internationally. Critics in the U.S. and elsewhere have acknowledged they have little chance of blocking a nuclear deal – a move in Congress to vote it down after a 60-day review period would be vetoed by President Obama – but they aim to undermine it politically in hopes that a future president would abandon it.
Negotiators from Iran, the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China have spent the last two years seeking a deal. Its goal is to resolve a top-priority security threat by applying unprecedented scrutiny to Tehran’s nuclear complex and scaling back its most sensitive nuclear activities.
Currently, U.S. intelligence agencies estimate the Iranians are two to three months away from being able to build a nuclear bomb. The deal is designed to extend that period to a year by reducing Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, cutting its ability to enrich uranium or produce plutonium in the future and placing its known and suspected nuclear sites under international surveillance.
In exchange, Iran’s economy would get a boost worth billions of dollars.
In the final round of talks, issues that remained in dispute, according to officials from several nations, included details of the relief that Iran would receive from international economic sanctions; the wording of a United Nations Security Council resolution intended to put the deal in place; and Iran’s demand that, along with removing other sanctions, the U.N. should lift an embargo on its trade in missiles and conventional arms.
How those disputes were resolved will not be known until Tuesday, but many parts of the expected agreement are known.
Iran would be required to reduce its inventory of centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium, from 19,000 to 6,000 and cut its stockpile of low-enriched, reactor-grade uranium from 22,000 to 660 pounds. To block any effort to build a plutonium-fueled bomb, Iran would be required to remove the core of its heavy-water reactor at Arak and will not be allowed to produce any weapons-grade plutonium.
Iran’s nuclear sites will be under heavy scrutiny. United Nations inspectors will be entitled to gain access to sites and interview technicians if there is evidence that illegal activity might be taking place.
The agreement would be implemented in several stages. Over the next several months, Iran is expected to begin taking steps to scale back its nuclear activities, while the United States and Europe make arrangements to lift their sanctions. Once the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency has verified Iran’s steps, the U.S. and Europe would lift their sanctions.
Iran is expected to receive a quick boost from the deal from the release of some assets currently in frozen bank accounts in the West. When Iran’s compliance has been verified, a process likely to take several months, U.S. and European Union sanctions would be lifted.
Ultimately, Iran would be allowed to bring home overseas assets estimated to be worth $100 billion to $150 billion.
cComments
@Hiram A how many did we spend on the Iraq war under george, rummie, wolfie, and count dracula. estimates are three trillion. so please tell me what is your alternative. try and make a deal or start another war. by the way that iraq adventure really let to a lot of stabiity didn't it.
The agreement could improve America’s troubled relationship with Iran and is likely to have far-reaching effects in the Middle East. Already, oil prices have slumped, partially in anticipation of increased production from Iran, which has the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves. The country is expected to be able to pump as much as 1 million additional barrels a day once sanctions on its oil industry are removed.
Administration officials view the deal as Obama’s crowning foreign policy achievement.
But critics of the diplomacy, including most Republican lawmakers and some Democrats, as well as allies including Israel and Saudi Arabia, fear that the deal will fail to restrain Iran’s nuclear program because of many concessions.
The critics also fear that even if Iran complies with the deal, it will grow more powerful over the next decade because of the economic benefits the country will reap from the lifting of sanctions. When the deal expires, they say, a wealthier, stronger Iran could resume its pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
The deal is essentially a bet that it is safer to trade sanctions relief for curbs on Iran’s nuclear activities now rather than allow the Islamic Republic to continue a nuclear development program that was already on the threshold of weapons capability.
Administration officials argue that the alternatives to negotiations offered little hope of blocking Iran’s progress. Although economic sanctions and a determined campaign of sabotage by the U.S. and Israel have slowed Iran’s nuclear program, they have not stopped it. U.S. officials argue that the sanctions would be likely to have diminishing effect over time because the international coalition backing them would inevitably fray.
A military strike against Iran would also be a poor alternative, administration officials say. Although the U.S. has so-called bunker-buster bombs that could penetrate Iran’s deeply buried nuclear sites, even a sustained bombing campaign would halt the program for only a few years, they say. At the same time, an attack would probably strengthen the desire of Iran’s leaders to acquire a bomb.
The accord would cap a fitful diplomatic saga that reaches back to 2002, when disclosure of Iran’s secret construction of two nuclear enrichment plants raised fears that Tehran was planning a race to a bomb. Negotiations have broken down many times and succeeded only after both sides agreed in 2013 to painful compromises.
The deal is not a treaty, but a “political understanding” between the two sides. It will not be signed by the parties this week, but would be given international legitimacy when the United Nations Security Council votes on a resolution that would replace six previous sanctions measures and enshrine key elements of the deal.
Obama has the authority to issue waivers of many U.S. sanctions. The sanctions would remain on the books, however, unless Congress voted to end them. The deal is designed to preserve the ability of the U.S. to “snap back” the sanctions if Iran violates the terms of the agreement.
Critics have warned that improving Iran's economy and ties with the outside world will bolster the country’s authoritarian government and enable it to expand efforts to gain influence in such countries as Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. They predict that this economic boost will sharpen the conflict between Iran and its regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia.
But Obama has predicted that the deal, by strengthening relative moderates in Iran, could gradually point the country in a less bellicose direction. He has held out hope that a deal might improve relations between the U.S. and Iran, two countries that have carried on a bloody rivalry since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, though he’s said the deal would be worthwhile even if that does not happen.
For the latest on the nuclear negotiations, follow @RichtPau
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-talks-20150713-story.html#page=1
Lilbitsnana
On TB every waking moment
Conflict News @rConflictNews 14m14 minutes ago
BREAKING: Western diplomat says formal nuclear deal has been reached with Iran - AP
Conflict News @rConflictNews 16m16 minutes ago
Iranian diplomat: "All the hard work has paid off and we sealed a deal. God bless our people" #IranDeal
BREAKING: Western diplomat says formal nuclear deal has been reached with Iran - AP
Conflict News @rConflictNews 16m16 minutes ago
Iranian diplomat: "All the hard work has paid off and we sealed a deal. God bless our people" #IranDeal
Lilbitsnana
On TB every waking moment
Conflict News @rConflictNews 14m14 minutes ago
Oil prices plunge following confirmation of #IranDeal - @Breaking3zeroUS
Conflict News retweeted
Gissur Simonarson @GissiSim 18m18 minutes ago
It's a deal! Looks like Obama and Rouhani were able to "connect" after all #IranTalks
Oil prices plunge following confirmation of #IranDeal - @Breaking3zeroUS
Conflict News retweeted
Gissur Simonarson @GissiSim 18m18 minutes ago
It's a deal! Looks like Obama and Rouhani were able to "connect" after all #IranTalks