World powers reach deal with Iran on nuclear program

[News_Editor]

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND (BNO NEWS) -- World powers have reached a major breakthrough agreement with Iran on Tehran's disputed nuclear program, officials said on early Sunday, but exact details were not immediately released pending a televised statement from U.S. President Barack Obama.

"We have reached an agreement," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said after he ended talks with the 5+1 group, which includes the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany. European Union (EU) foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton also said an agreement had been reached.

The first-stage agreement aimed at capping Tehran's nuclear program will likely reward Iran with an easing of international economic sanctions, but details were not immediately released. The White House said Obama would deliver a televised statement at 0315 GMT (10:15 p.m. EST Saturday) to discuss the deal.

The Wall Street Journal, which provided no source for its information, said the agreement calls for Iran to stop its production of near-weapons grade nuclear fuel -- which is uranium enriched to 20 percent purity -- and for the removal of Tehran's stockpile of the fissile material, which is estimated to be nearly enough to produce one nuclear bomb.

In return, the easing of international economic sanctions will provide between $6 billion and $7 billion in badly needed foreign exchange for Tehran over the next 6 months, the newspaper said. It said the first-stage agreement is for about six months, allowing world powers to negotiate a second phase or a permanent pact.

International concerns regarding Iran's nuclear activities have been increasing for decades, but Iran's newly-elected president, Hassan Rouhani, is seeking to reduce tensions with the West. The Iranian government has repeatedly stated that its nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy, but many countries contend Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and may be close to obtain them.

(Copyright 2013 by BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. Info: [email protected].)

[Lite Beer]

Six powers, Iran ink initial deal to solve nuclear dispute

Geneva - Iran and six world powers reached agreement on a nuclear deal, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton says.

"We have reached agreement between E3+3 and Iran," she says, referring to Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and the United States.

Ashton has chief negotiator for the six powers in their effort to reach a deal to temporarily curb Iran’s nuclear programme in return for suspension of sanctions.

-- The Nation 2013-11-24

[NeverSure]

"...a deal to temporarily curb Iran’s nuclear programme..."

"in return for suspension of sanctions."

Right, suckas.

[Chicog]

Sounds like they are somewhat overstating what they have actually achieved.

[Asiantravel]

As a non-American spectator is this urgency nothing more than a deflection from the Obama care disaster or is that simplistic?

[Ulysses G.]

This legitimizes Iran's quest to enrich nuclear fuel even though the United Nations has forbidden it, It is based on Iranian deception and international self-delusion and likely will end up like North Korea. Netenyahu is right, it is a bad deal.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

The deal is yet another bare faced lie born out of short term political expedience. Two quotes come to mind,

This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine.... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. - Neville Chamberlain

You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.” - Winston Churchill

But at least U.S and European companies will be able to engage in an unseemly dash to reestablish commercial deals with Iran.

[Jay Sata]

Iran is offering a lot more than other powers in the region who already have nuclear weapons but deny access to inspectors.

[DiamondKing]

Taquiyya is working as Iran fool the INFIDELS into believing them

Lets hope the only Smart country ( ISRAEL) that has not been fooled by a blatant use islamic Taquiyya, to move closer to a Nuke weapon

Israel will have to go it alone, well not alone they have my support

Edited November 24, 2013 by DiamondKing

[Jay Sata]

What about a bilateral deal.

After meeting with Putin, Netanyahu suggested Israel would be satisfied only if Iran ended all its nuclear work and cited a deal reached on the destruction of all Syria's chemical arms as a model to follow.

Source http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.559264

I doubt Netanyahu will have the UN inspectors in any time soon.

[Frank James]

Now watch the posturing in the US Senate when Kerry brings this deal back home. Some of those blowhards are dashing for the spotlight already, saying that the current sanctions are not harsh enough. They take their marching orders from AIPAC, along with big wads of cash.

[midas]

Now watch the posturing in the US Senate when Kerry brings this deal back home. Some of those blowhards are dashing for the spotlight already, saying that the current sanctions are not harsh enough. They take their marching orders from AIPAC, along with big wads of cash.

You mean tail wagging the dog?

[Steely Dan]

It's not just Obama's fault, the EU have their own idiot in Catherine Ashton, ex CND who backed the Soviet Union during the cold war.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4387/an_iran_deal_brokered_by_eu_s_catherine_ashton_former_apologist_for_communism_has_to_be_suspect

The lavish praise over the Iran nuclear deal being heaped on EU foreign policy supremo Catherine Ashton, who failed to back the West during the Cold War, is itself a signal we should be deeply worried

[folium]

It's not just Obama's fault, the EU have their own idiot in Catherine Ashton, ex CND who backed the Soviet Union during the cold war.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4387/an_iran_deal_brokered_by_eu_s_catherine_ashton_former_apologist_for_communism_has_to_be_suspect

The lavish praise over the Iran nuclear deal being heaped on EU foreign policy supremo Catherine Ashton, who failed to back the West during the Cold War, is itself a signal we should be deeply worried

So which options will we be seeing next, having ticked option 3?

1) Hush up the news

2) Criticize the source, as if doing so magically alters material facts.

3) Attempt to change the subject by straw man arguments, name calling.

4) Make misleading and inappropriate moral equivalence comparisons.

5) Well this is a payback for historic wrongs/ The people who did it were themselves victims of racism or discrimination.

6) Appeal to authority to censor debate - Go to 1 rinse spin repeat.

Doing deals always involves compromise and necessitates dealing with people you often have little time for. However while few deals are ever 100% perfection, the key point is are they better than the alternative for both sides?

Edited November 24, 2013 by folium

[sustento]

Is there anything apart from complete subjugation of the whole of Iran that will satisfy Netanyahu and his puppets in the US?

[Jingthing]

I think this is an OK way to go for six months, and then let's see.

Iran would have been progressing anyway.

Without giving talks a chance the only real possibilities are Iran getting nukes, war, or both.

This seems to add at least a little hope of a compromise.

Not disagreeing with Netanyahu really, but I doubt Iran would have given a better deal.

[lemoncake]

Iran is offering a lot more than other powers in the region who already have nuclear weapons but deny access to inspectors.

Only other powers do not threaten its neighbors, nor do they send their army to fight someone else war or finance it

[Morch]

"...a deal to temporarily curb Iran’s nuclear programme..."

"in return for suspension of sanctions."

Right, suckas.

The suspension of the sanctions is very limited in scope and easily reversible, not to mention it is temporary as well..

Most of the restrictions are in still firmly in place.

[Ulysses G.]

Is there anything apart from complete subjugation of the whole of Iran that will satisfy Netanyahu and his puppets in the US?

Abandoning enrichment of uranium per the UN Security Council sanctions.

[Steely Dan]

It's not just Obama's fault, the EU have their own idiot in Catherine Ashton, ex CND who backed the Soviet Union during the cold war.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4387/an_iran_deal_brokered_by_eu_s_catherine_ashton_former_apologist_for_communism_has_to_be_suspect

The lavish praise over the Iran nuclear deal being heaped on EU foreign policy supremo Catherine Ashton, who failed to back the West during the Cold War, is itself a signal we should be deeply worried

So which options will we be seeing next, having ticked option 3?

1) Hush up the news

2) Criticize the source, as if doing so magically alters material facts.

3) Attempt to change the subject by straw man arguments, name calling.

4) Make misleading and inappropriate moral equivalence comparisons.

5) Well this is a payback for historic wrongs/ The people who did it were themselves victims of racism or discrimination.

6) Appeal to authority to censor debate - Go to 1 rinse spin repeat.

Doing deals always involves compromise and necessitates dealing with people you often have little time for. However while few deals are ever 100% perfection, the key point is are they better than the alternative for both sides?

Kindly explain how mentioning Ashton's role in the deal is off topic? I see my six point summary of progressive 'debating' strategy must have really got under your skin.

The deal is a nonsense and you know it. First in allowing Iran to enrich Uranium it sets a precedent that any other unstable autocratic regime will invoke. This alone would put a nation 95% of the way towards having nuclear weapons, not to mention exactly what is being done to search for Iran's hidden nuclear sites?

Of course neither Israel or Saudi Arabia can or will accept it. What does Iran do for example if Saudi Arabia accordingly takes delivery of a bomb from Pakistan? Let's hope the epitaph of this smokescreen from morally bankrupt western leaders is not a suitcase atomic bomb going off in New York or Madrid in 5 years time.

[NeverSure]

I don't know the outcome, but rather than assure peace, this may have assured war.

I don't see Saudi Arabia or Israel allowing Iran to get the bomb. Israel will think the West has abandoned it...

[Jingthing]

Israel does not have the bandwidth for a full on war with Iran nor do they have the technology to effectively crush Iran's nuclear program. They are right to feel threatened but a lot of the talk of acting without the USA is a show. Even the USA would be very challenged with a full on war with Iran. In the long run it is in Israel's interest for a global accommodation with Iran IF it is possible, which is far from certain.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

Israel does not have the bandwidth for a full on war with Iran nor do they have the technology to effectively crush Iran's nuclear program. They are right to feel threatened but a lot of the talk of acting without the USA is a show. Even the USA would be very challenged with a full on war with Iran. In the long run it is in Israel's interest for a global accommodation with Iran IF it is possible, which is far from certain.

Bandwidth?

[folium]

Israel does not have the bandwidth for a full on war with Iran nor do they have the technology to effectively crush Iran's nuclear program. They are right to feel threatened but a lot of the talk of acting without the USA is a show. Even the USA would be very challenged with a full on war with Iran. In the long run it is in Israel's interest for a global accommodation with Iran IF it is possible, which is far from certain.

And therein lies the rub...

Posturing is all very well but unless the US/Israel can guarantee a 100% strike removing every single vestige of Iran's nuclear hardware and capability, the consequences are beyond imaginable. Having lost strategic surprise months, if not years ago, the likelihood of Iran pre-positioning some asymmetric response to a likely strike or in the wake of one, either directly or via proxies, is quite high.

Sanctions have really had an impact on Iran, and a partial lifting for a limited period gives Iran the chance to show if it has the intention of being constructive.

There are no simple or perfect answers but this could well be the basis of an agreement that enables all parties to get the key things they are seeking.

Saudi's response will be very interesting and there remains the possibility that Iran steps out of the nuclear club to be replaced by Saudi and Israel as the 2 nuclear weapon nations in the Middle East.

[folium]

Israel does not have the bandwidth for a full on war with Iran nor do they have the technology to effectively crush Iran's nuclear program. They are right to feel threatened but a lot of the talk of acting without the USA is a show. Even the USA would be very challenged with a full on war with Iran. In the long run it is in Israel's interest for a global accommodation with Iran IF it is possible, which is far from certain.

Bandwidth?

Aka capability....

[liddelljohn]

All they have done is save face for 6 months and delayed the inevitable disaster , Iran makes a bomb and leases it out to Shia groups , israel is attacked and so is Sunnis ,saudi the Emirates ,europe and USA ,israel retaliates or takes pre emptive action ... it does not bear thinking about ,,,

the politicians are playing with fire literally .

[folium]

What also cannot be overlooked is how this deal plays out in terms of Iran's proxy war in Syria.

The next steps are vital and if the comprehensive agreement can address the key issues of transparency, verification and accountability, perhaps this could be the beginning of a much-needed de-escalation of tension in the Middle East.

[Jingthing]

Playing with fire? Oy vey. It's a fiery region whether they play with it or not. I'm not saying Obama via Kerry has finally won his already granted Nobel Peace Prize with this temporary agreement, he clearly has not, but I do think there is some degree of reasonableness to this current path. Yes, history will tell.

Yes yes I know a number of countries were involved in this agreement, but face it, if Obama and Rohani weren't finally communicating now, this would not and could not have happened.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Jingthing

[NeverSure]

Israel does not have the bandwidth for a full on war with Iran nor do they have the technology to effectively crush Iran's nuclear program. They are right to feel threatened but a lot of the talk of acting without the USA is a show. Even the USA would be very challenged with a full on war with Iran. In the long run it is in Israel's interest for a global accommodation with Iran IF it is possible, which is far from certain.

Israel does have the ability. It has the last generation US bunker buster which is guided with pinpoint accuracy and you know that Israel knows where those bunkers are. They can hit the same spot with more than one bomb and at the least deny access to the bunkers by severely caving in entrances, air vents, etc.

Iran has repeatedly threatened to "blow Israel off the map" and Israel believes them. I can't see Israel allowing Iran to have the bomb.

Israel would overfly Saudi Arabia, use mid-air refueling, and hit hard, fast, and continuously in an attempt to neutralize Iran. Israel has US equipment and Iran's is Soviet. 555

If Israel found itself losing, it has nukes and ICBM's. Because it now perceives itself as again standing all alone in the world, then if it has to go it alone it will. It won't pull any punches.

It's possible that this latest deal with Iran which Israel hates, guaranteed war rather than peace. Israel has repeatedly promised that it won't let Iran get the bomb.

Let's see how it plays out.

[Jingthing]

...

Let's see how it plays out.

Yes.

Lets.

Former army intel chief: Iran deal better than alternative - no deal

Israel must push for final deal that keeps Iran years rather than months away from a possible bomb, says Amos Yadlin.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.559925

Edited November 24, 2013 by Jingthing