'Moment of truth' nears in Iran nuclear talks

[Lite Beer]

'Moment of truth' nears in Iran nuclear talks

US Secretary of State John Kerry, former EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif meet in Vienna on November 22. Photo Pedro Szekely.

VIENNA: Iran and world powers still appeared a long way off from a nuclear deal late last night (November 22) with US Secretary of State John Kerry and officials on both sides warning of major gaps two days before a deadline.

"We're working hard," Kerry said in Vienna, "and we hope we're making careful progress, but we have big gaps, we still have some serious gaps, which we're working to close."

Kerry, who on Friday (November 21) postponed a trip to Paris to remain in Vienna, met Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Saturday afternoon, their fourth meeting in three days.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in the Austrian capital since Saturday midday, called this final weekend of talks, after months of negotiations, a "moment of truth".

At stake is a historic deal in which Iran would curb its nuclear activities in exchange for broad relief from years of heavy international economic sanctions.

It could end a 12-year standoff that has even raised the prospect of Israeli military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Kerry spoke to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Saturday by phone.

"The gap remains big... There now needs to be a political decision," an Iranian source said on condition of anonymity, putting the onus on the world powers to make concessions.

A European source in the talks said Saturday there has been "no significant progress" and "the chances of getting a deal are pretty reduced".

"In order to get a deal the Iranians will have to budge in a rather substantial manner," he said. Discussions about an extension could begin as early as today (November 23), he said.

Many experts believe that the deadline may be extended, as happened with an earlier cut-off point of July 20, but officials insist that this is not on the table – yet.

However a senior US official said late yesterday that the aim remained getting a deal by Monday night (November 24) "but we are discussing both internally and with our partners a range of options".

The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany have been locked in talks with Iran since February to turn an interim accord reached a year ago into a lasting agreement by November 24.

Such a deal is aimed at easing fears that Tehran will develop nuclear weapons under the guise of its civilian activities.

The Islamic Republic hotly denies such an aim and insists its programme is entirely peaceful.

British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and his French counterpart Laurent Fabius also joined the talks on Friday. Both have since left but were expected to return.

It was unclear when or whether Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, a key player in the talks, might also arrive.

Earlier this week the head of the Russian delegation said Lavrov would come only if there was serious progress.

Lavrov said from Moscow on Friday that "all the elements are already on the table" for a deal and that all that was missing was "political will".

Source: http://www.thephuketnews.com/moment-of-truth-nears-in-iran-nuclear-talks-49777.php

-- Phuket News 2014-11-23

[NeverSure]

Since they do their developing in underground bunkers, they need a dose of this:

"The biggest conventional bomb ever developed is ready to wreak destruction upon the enemies of the US. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said its record-breaking bunker-buster has become operational after years of testing.

“If it needed to go today, we would be ready to do that,” told Donley Air Force Times. “We continue to do testing on the bomb to refine its capabilities, and that is ongoing. We also have the capability to go with existing configuration today.”

The Pentagon has spent $330 million to develop and deliver more than 20 of the precision-guided Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-busters, which are designed to blast through up to 200 feet of concrete.

[rickirs]

There will be no extension to July 2015. The USA must get an agreement before end of December 2014, including the time for congressional approval. And it may be already too late.

A binding nuclear agreement with the USA requires approval from 2/3’s of the United States Senate or 67 Senators. There are now 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans in the Senate.

There has been a steadfast resistence by 43 Republicans against anything short of Iran's unconditional surrender of any and all nuclear related activities, including electrical generation and manufacture of isotopes for medical purposes. So currently all the Democrats and 12 Republican Senators must vote for the agreement. Until the mid-term senatorial elections, it was possible that President Obama could get those 12 votes with a reasonable agreement. However, now given the recent elections wherein the Republicans will have a majority of Senate seats in 2015 and President Obama's announced strategy to aggressively use executive orders through the remainder of his presidency into 2016, it seems doubtful that 12 Republican Senators would now go against their party to vote for the agreement.

Of course, after December 2014 the Republicans will have 58 Senate seats. And they will not care to see President Obama add anything favorable to his presidential legacy and most likely will sue the President this year for abuse of executive orders relating to immigration laws. An extension of treaty negotiations beyond December 2015 without Republican Party support now is inrealistic.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Since they do their developing in underground bunkers, they need a dose of this:

"The biggest conventional bomb ever developed is ready to wreak destruction upon the enemies of the US. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said its record-breaking bunker-buster has become operational after years of testing.

“If it needed to go today, we would be ready to do that,” told Donley Air Force Times. “We continue to do testing on the bomb to refine its capabilities, and that is ongoing. We also have the capability to go with existing configuration today.”

The Pentagon has spent $330 million to develop and deliver more than 20 of the precision-guided Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-busters, which are designed to blast through up to 200 feet of concrete.

The decision to use these bombs must also include the complete US dominance of Iranian airspace and seaways to defend against Iranian retribution against the US, its middle east allies, and commercial shipping; and embargo of any military assistance (ie., from Russia and China) into Iran including overland routes. For an unknown period.

So it's not just a matter of using a specialized weapon to stop Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.

[ggt]

The Iranians have been using lies and deception as an important tool in their negotiations for centuries before America became a country...John Kerry will come away with nothing that the Iranians do not want him to have...most likely a promise...which will never be kept...

[Ulysses G.]

A binding nuclear agreement with the USA requires approval from 2/3’s of the United States Senate or 67 Senators. There are now 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans in the Senate.

Thank heaven for that. Even many democrats don't trust Obama on this issue. I just hope there is no way he can get away with another bogus executive order to push through some really bad deal.

[lungbing]

The Iranians have been using lies and deception as an important tool in their negotiations for centuries before America became a country...John Kerry will come away with nothing that the Iranians do not want him to have...most likely a promise...which will never be kept...

And America doesn't do that?

[cup-O-coffee]

The Iranians have been using lies and deception as an important tool in their negotiations for centuries before America became a country...John Kerry will come away with nothing that the Iranians do not want him to have...most likely a promise...which will never be kept...

And America doesn't do that?

That is exactly what crossed my mind when I read the OP.

Until the dollar loses hegemony (likely) and the USA loses military superiority (unlikely), then our best hope is for the USA to be crippled economically, and for another nation to emerge with good sense and morals about all this. But I simply do not see how even this view(riddled with holes) would ever be, and this view is not perfect by far. I just think there are too many bullies in the kitchen and no one else has been invited, and no one else has the clout to crash the party and tell the bullies to stop, ...or else. I am not even certain that there is any nation or group of nations that could add up to a power that would be for the betterment of mankind. I say "mankind" because any time "nuclear" is mentioned, it has every bit to do with mankind.

[OZEMADE]

I see Israel did not get a mention at the talks. 'O' that's right they said if they find out Iran has a Nuke they will flatten the place. Now that's the way to keep them in place.

[Ulysses G.]

It sure worked in Iraq and Syria and nether one ever developed a nuclear weapon.

[up-country_sinclair]

Iran is a sovereign state and has the right to defend itself against the rogue element in the region.

[Chicog]

Iran is a sovereign state and has the right to defend itself against the rogue element in the region.

It's also a hideous oligarchy that supports terrorist groups and foments unrest across the region.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are chucking Thailands Southern terrorists a few quid as well.

[up-country_sinclair]

I wouldn't be surprised if they are chucking Thailands Southern terrorists a few quid as well.

I would.

99% of Thai Muslims are Sunni, and about 90% of Iranians are Shi'a.

It's likely Saudi and Qatari money that is flowing into the hands of the separatists in Southern Thailand.

[konying]

Probably was not a wise decision to piss off Russia, who so happens to be the only one with some some influence over Iran

[Morch]

I see Israel did not get a mention at the talks. 'O' that's right they said if they find out Iran has a Nuke they will flatten the place. Now that's the way to keep them in place.

Was there an official Israeli statement to that effect? Sort of doubt it.

Regardless, Israel is not part of the negotiations, even though it is obviously concerned about/to developments.

[OZEMADE]

I see Israel did not get a mention at the talks. 'O' that's right they said if they find out Iran has a Nuke they will flatten the place. Now that's the way to keep them in place.

Was there an official Israeli statement to that effect? Sort of doubt it.

Regardless, Israel is not part of the negotiations, even though it is obviously concerned about/to developments.

Words to that effect.

news.nationalpost.com/.../israel-threatens-to-strike-irans-nuclear-facilities...

Mar 21, 2014 - A rising chorus of Israeli voices is again raising the possibility of carrying out a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalpost.com%2F2014%2F03%2F21%2Fisrael-threatens-to-strike-irans-nuclear-facilities-in-attempt-to-ratchet-up-international-pressure-on-tehran%2F&ei=6BRzVJnaDdC1uASTuYCIDA&usg=AFQjCNGmXPrtFysvODHwPC4Qpqhbqv1-bw

[Ulysses G.]

Maybe you should read more carefully. Saying that a military option remains on the table, last year, is a far cry from threatening to "flatten the place." However, most of the world - including the Arabs - would support targeted bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

An off-topic, inflammatory post has been removed.

[daveAustin]

I don't see the issue. Tell them stop enriching uranium to this level by this date or else. Giving them another 7 month extension to stick two fingers up to the rest of the world, again, will achieve exactly what?

[frollywolly]

Iran and nuclear weapons. Be fearful.

It is bad enough pakistan has them.

[canman]

Iran is also on the verge of ICBM capability. There is no reason to have this capability unless you have a nuke to stick on top of it.

[frollywolly]

Iran is a sovereign state and has the right to defend itself against the rogue element in the region.

That sounds good in theory.

In reality, those in charge, are nutters and having a nuclear weapon in their hands. Dangerous.

[simple1]

Does anyone think that if successful, Iran would trigger a nuclear arms race in the M.E.

On March 21, Haaretz correspondent Ari Shavit wrote a powerful op-ed in the New York Times that began with this stark and stunning claim: "An Iranian atom bomb will force Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt to acquire their own atom bombs."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/02/don_t_fear_a_nuclear_arms_race

[mania]

Kind of a Pandora's Box isn't it?

I mean who decides?

It is understandable that a country would want to be nuclear capable.

They look around & see for the most part those with nukes are left alone

even if they have an obviously deranged leader.

They look & see there are some that are allowed to have nukes who do not have clean track records themselves

& have no qualms about threatening their neighbors with attack if the neighbors should ever have the audacity to

want/have the same insurance.

I read many comments of how the world should be very afraid if this should come to pass.

Yet if we look at the historic facts maybe we should already have long been scared of those who have always had nukes

& used weaponry such as this on non military targets.

What does the actual scorecard really show about which countries have historically wreaked the most havoc?

Lastly back to the Pandora's Box.... Who opened it? Who promised thru Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty agreements to

wind down existing stores of thousands of Nukes & yet has done nothing of the sort? Yet now make bold demands of others

to follow such treaties they signed on to in good faith others thinking would also abide by their promises? Not to mention if they

did not sign were likely threatened with economic sanctions.

Who has not even signed such treaties at all yet has untold amounts of nukes because they do not even allow

anyone including their benefactors to inspect THEIR facilities? Yet they too have the audacity to tell others

who can & cannot have the same????

Perhaps cleaning their own homes before telling others how to would be a start to closing the box?

But as we know this is usually not the case & especially so with these others that wish to remain

the main powers. But really who decides? Based on what?

Words/claims vs actual deeds historically are quite opposite from reality & when trying to pick the good guys from the bad.

does not make it easy especially when we have only a likely control fed media then feeding us information.

If I had a say I would like to see it all stopped. No Nukes Period for Anyone

Edited November 26, 2014 by mania

[Ulysses G.]

If I had a say I would like to see it all stopped. No Nukes Period for Anyone

Most people would but it is very likely to happen and is no reason to allow any more Islamic religious fanatics to develop nukes than have them already. Iran should be stopped before it is too late.

[dexterm]

There is only one state of religious fanatics in the Middle East that currently and hypocritically possesses nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them.

It is only when one state has the superiority that there is a danger of their use. When the other side has them too, there is a deterrence and a balance of power.

The only other solution is neither side has them... a nuclear free zone. At the moment there is no honest superpower broker around willing to impose or police that..

[Seastallion]

There is only one state of religious fanatics in the Middle East that currently and hypocritically possesses nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them.

It is only when one state has the superiority that there is a danger of their use. When the other side has them too, there is a deterrence and a balance of power.

The only other solution is neither side has them... a nuclear free zone. At the moment there is no honest superpower broker around willing to impose or police that..

MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction worked to end the Cold War.

The only way to bring peace in the area is for Iran to be armed (amongst other things).

[Ulysses G.]

MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction worked to end the Cold War.

MAD only worked, because none the powers was willing to commit suicide. The Mullahs of Iran practice a religion that encourages it. Letting them get a bomb would be a major disaster.

[Lissos]

I read many comments of how the world should be very afraid if this should come to pass. Yet if we look at the historic facts maybe we should already have long been scared of those who have always had nukes & used weaponry such as this on non military targets.What does the actual scorecard really show about which countries have historically wreaked the most havoc?

It isn't a question about who is the most trusted with the weapons (even if that may be how world leaders try to spin it), nor is it a question of fairness and equality for all to be considered, it is simply a question of who you personally would rather have holding major power in the world and who you'd rather not be. I for one, would want western nations to be in the ascendancy, I have no quarms about saying so and the fact that Pakistan and North Korea both have nuclear weapons, is already a flippin' disaster in my opinion. India's arsenal is also worrisome, less due to the kind of political instability and fundamentalism found in Pakistan or the nuttiness of North Korea's ruling dynasty, but because India is often incompetent from the top to the bottom and so corrupt and prone to taking short cuts on many things that I question the safety factor.

Looking at this issue of Iran and Nuclear capability through a lens of fairness and equality in the world (as some do) isn't the way to consider this (imo). Initially, years ago, I viewed this through a lens of - "If A,B,C and D own them, then it's not fair if E can't own them too". One day I sat down and asked myself if the thought of a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran in the future made me feel content. It didn't.

It may well be true that (if) Iran's regime is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons rather than solely domestic nuclear power, that they may only want them as a major defensive deterrent to any attempt at future regime change by direct external forces. However, that's a major gamble to allow to go ahead with simply by looking at scorecards, and I fully understand why Israel is not willing to gamble that Iran's word on this issue is transparent. For me, my issue is not with Iranians, it is with a Shia Islamic theocracy posessing such devastating weaponry too (if it is proved that they are simultaneously building a nuclear warhead capability along with the domestic nuclear power program).

For the rulers of the Islamic theocracy (not the suits who they get to parade at banquets and international events to make it all seem so much more moderate and modern) , the U.S is still the Great Satan and Britain is the Little Satan. Israel, well we all know how the Islamic theocracy in Iran views Israel (it doesn't even refer to it by name, officially).

Many point at Israel as an example of a state that cleverly developed its nuclear capability under the radar, going to great lengths to conceal the work and getting away with it. So, for those who think that a nation developing under the radar like that is something to be avoided in the future, I would hope that they will be show full cooperation in asking for 100% transparency from the current rulers in Iran, and questioning incidents of delay and obstruction about where inspectors can visit and so on.

[Seastallion]

I read many comments of how the world should be very afraid if this should come to pass. Yet if we look at the historic facts maybe we should already have long been scared of those who have always had nukes & used weaponry such as this on non military targets.What does the actual scorecard really show about which countries have historically wreaked the most havoc?

It isn't a question about who is the most trusted with the weapons (even if that may be how world leaders try to spin it), nor is it a question of fairness and equality for all to be considered, it is simply a question of who you personally would rather have holding major power in the world and who you'd rather not be. I for one, would want western nations to be in the ascendancy, I have no quarms about saying so and the fact that Pakistan and North Korea both have nuclear weapons, is already a flippin' disaster in my opinion. India's arsenal is also worrisome, less due to the kind of political instability and fundamentalism found in Pakistan or the nuttiness of North Korea's ruling dynasty, but because India is often incompetent from the top to the bottom and so corrupt and prone to taking short cuts on many things that I question the safety factor.

Looking at this issue of Iran and Nuclear capability through a lens of fairness and equality in the world (as some do) isn't the way to consider this (imo). Initially, years ago, I viewed this through a lens of - "If A,B,C and D own them, then it's not fair if E can't own them too". One day I sat down and asked myself if the thought of a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran in the future made me feel content. It didn't.

It may well be true that (if) Iran's regime is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons rather than solely domestic nuclear power, that they may only want them as a major defensive deterrent to any attempt at future regime change by direct external forces. However, that's a major gamble to allow to go ahead with simply by looking at scorecards, and I fully understand why Israel is not willing to gamble that Iran's word on this issue is transparent. For me, my issue is not with Iranians, it is with a Shia Islamic theocracy posessing such devastating weaponry too (if it is proved that they are simultaneously building a nuclear warhead capability along with the domestic nuclear power program).

For the rulers of the Islamic theocracy (not the suits who they get to parade at banquets and international events to make it all seem so much more moderate and modern) , the U.S is still the Great Satan and Britain is the Little Satan. Israel, well we all know how the Islamic theocracy in Iran views Israel (it doesn't even refer to it by name, officially).

Many point at Israel as an example of a state that cleverly developed its nuclear capability under the radar, going to great lengths to conceal the work and getting away with it. So, for those who think that a nation developing under the radar like that is something to be avoided in the future, I would hope that they will be show full cooperation in asking for 100% transparency from the current rulers in Iran, and questioning incidents of delay and obstruction about where inspectors can visit and so on.

A measured and thoughtful view.

I do not accept, though, that a theocracy, even an Islamic Shia theocracy, if nuclear armed, would unleash their power in the full knowledge that retribution would be swift and tenfold devastating. It's the state that did develop their arsenal surreptitiously that is most likely to make an attack because retribution from the West would likely be only political in nature.

This is why Iran needs a deterrent.