Historic US-Iran nuclear deal could be taking shape

[webfact]

Historic US-Iran nuclear deal could be taking shape
By GEORGE JAHN and BRADLEY KLAPPER

GENEVA (AP) — Edging toward a historic compromise, the U.S. and Iran reported progress Monday on a deal that would clamp down on Tehran's nuclear activities for at least 10 years but then slowly ease restrictions on programs that could be used to make atomic arms.

Officials said there were still obstacles to overcome before a March 31 deadline, and any deal will face harsh opposition in both countries. It also would be sure to further strain already-tense U.S. relations with Israel, whose leaders oppose any agreement that doesn't end Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to strongly criticize the deal in an address before Congress next week.

Still, a comprehensive pact could ease 35 years of U.S-Iranian enmity — and seems within reach for the first time in more than a decade of negotiations.

"We made progress," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said as he bade farewell to members of the American delegation at the table with Iran. More discussions between Iran and the six nations engaging it were set for next Monday, a senior U.S. official said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the sides found "a better understanding" at the negotiating table.

Western officials familiar with the talks cited movement but also described the discussions as a moving target, meaning changes in any one area would have repercussions for other parts of the negotiation.

The core idea would be to reward Iran for good behavior over the last years of any agreement, gradually lifting constraints on its uranium enrichment and slowly easing economic sanctions.

Iran says it does not want nuclear arms and needs enrichment only for energy, medical and scientific purposes, but the U.S. fears Tehran could re-engineer the program to produce the fissile core of a nuclear weapon.

The U.S. initially sought restrictions lasting up to 20 years; Iran has pushed for less than a decade. The prospective deal appears to be somewhere in the middle.

One variation being discussed would place at least a 10-year regime of strict controls on Iran's uranium enrichment. If Iran complied, the restrictions would be gradually lifted over the final five years.

One issue critics are certain to focus on: Once the deal expired, Iran could theoretically ramp up enrichment to whatever level it wanted.

Experts say Iran already could produce the equivalent of one weapon's worth of enriched uranium with its present operating 10,000 centrifuges. Several officials spoke of 6,500 centrifuges as a potential point of compromise, with the U.S. trying to restrict them to Iran's mainstay IR-1 model instead of more advanced machines.

However, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said last year that his country needed to increase its output equivalent to at least 190,000 of its present-day centrifuges.

Under a possible agreement, Iran also would be forced to ship out most of the enriched uranium it produced or change it to a form that would be difficult to convert for weapons use. It takes about one ton of low-enriched uranium to process into a nuclear weapon, and officials said that Tehran could be restricted to an enriched stockpile of no more than about 700 pounds.

The officials represent different countries among the six world powers negotiating with Iran — the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the negotiations.

Formal relations between the U.S. and Iran, severed during the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis in 1979, have progressively improved since moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani took office in 2013. Further reconciliation would help the West in a region where Iran holds considerable sway and the U.S. is increasingly involved in the struggle against Islamic extremists.

But even if the two sides agree to a preliminary deal in March and a follow-up pact in June, such a two-phase arrangement will face fierce criticism from Congress and Israel, both of which will argue it fails to significantly curb Tehran's nuclear weapons potential.

Israel was already weighing in.

Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon warned that such a deal would represent "a great danger" to the Western world and said it "will allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state."

In Washington, President Barack Obama has been trying to keep Congress from passing new sanctions against Iran that he says could scuttle further diplomacy and rekindle the threat of a new Mideast war.

Iranian hardliners fearing a sellout of their country's nuclear program may also pressure Rouhani, although he appears secure as long as a deal is supported by Khamenei.

The U.N's International Atomic Energy Agency would have responsibility for monitoring, and any deal would depend on technical safeguards rather than Iranian guarantees.

The IAEA already is monitoring Iranian compliance with an interim agreement that came into force a year ago and has given Tehran good marks. Separately, it also oversees Tehran's nuclear programs to ensure they remain peaceful.

Its attempts to follow up on suspicions that Iran once worked on nuclear arms are deadlocked however, with Iran saying such allegations are based on phony evidence from the U.S. and Israel.

That stalled probe and other issues that the U.S. says must be part of any final deal could remain unresolved by June, opening any agreement to further criticism.

For the United States, the goal is to extend to at least a year the period that Iran would need to surreptitiously "break out" toward nuclear weapons development. Daryl Kimball of the Washington-based Arms Control Association said that with the IAEA's additional monitoring, the deal taking shape leaves "more than enough time to detect and disrupt any effort to pursue nuclear weapons in the future."

In exchange, Iran wants relief from sanctions crippling its economy and the U.S. is talking about phasing in such measures.
____

Associated Press writers Ian Deitch in Jerusalem and Josh Lederman in Washington contributed


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-24

[Publicus]

The hard liners in Iran and the hard liners in the US and in Israel want to kill this treaty agreement between Iran and the P5+1, which are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council....USA, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany.

The hard liners in the US preach that the US got taken to the woods by Iran when nothing could be further from the fact and reality.

Iran began to negotiate only after it was ejected in 2012 from the SWIFT electronic banking system in Belgium that facilitates 6 Trillion in global financial transactions daily.

The ayatollahs need a deal and they need it desperately. Sign now special for you today only.

[Ulysses G.]

"For the United States, the goal is to extend to at least a year the period that Iran would need to surreptitiously "break out" toward nuclear weapons development."

What is wrong with this president? Putting off Iran developing nukes for a year - or even 10 years - is not worth signing a deal that will legitimize Iran's nuclear weapons program in the long run. Benjamin Netanyahu is correct. This is a STUPID DEAL!

[siampolee]

Now might this action be viewed as a little bit of leverage,a move designed to bring Iran on side and thus ensure that Iranian assistance is solid in assisting in containing and ultimately destroying the ISIS movement?

A wise political move and on the face of it a positive one, that could well be the catalyst that hopefully will a ensure a more peaceful world and a lack of religious terrorist groups of all persuasions..

[Publicus]

Bibi does not determine the international relations or the foreign policy of the United States, not in the short run and not in the long run.

The ayatollahs are desperate for a deal and now is the time to give 'em the pen and the executive agreement that the P5+1 have been pursuing.

[siampolee]

Ulysses post # 3

"For the United States, the goal is to extend to at least a year the period that Iran would need to surreptitiously "break out" toward nuclear weapons development."

What is wrong with this president? Putting off Iran developing nukes for a year - or even 10 years - is not worth signing a deal that will legitimize Iran's nuclear weapons program in the long run. Benjamin Netanyahu is correct. This is a STUPID DEAL!

Samson option ring any bells,?

Seems as if there is one rule for one and one rule for another.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

[johna]

It must be said again and again that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, nor has it made any decision to build such a weapon, this is all bulls**t propaganda by the Israeli lobby. Iran is not a threat to anyone. On the other hand Israel has a reported 150 nuclear weapons.

Israel has not signed the treaty (Non Proliferation Treaty) it is under no legal obligation to submit its major nuclear facility at Dimona to International Energy Agency inspections. Iran in contrast, did sign the treaty and thus agrees to periodic inspections

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/israel/nuclear/

[Publicus]

*Deleted post edited out*

The P5+1 have bee negotiating with the ayatollahs since 2012 because the entire UN is against Iran having the bomb. Iran is cut out of the global financial system and is regarded as a dangerous state. Iran needs to assure the world it is serious about an agreement, which is what we are now coming down to.

The Iranian central bank needs desperately to access global financial markets. The ayatollahs are crazy but not stupid. They came to the negotiating table when they were cut out of global financial transactions. Now the hurt in Iran is acutely severe. The ayatollahs will make a lot of noise about it but they know they have to sign on terms they never wanted and still don't want.

[joesanunu]

"For the United States, the goal is to extend to at least a year the period that Iran would need to surreptitiously "break out" toward nuclear weapons development."

What is wrong with this president? Putting off Iran developing nukes for a year - or even 10 years - is not worth signing a deal that will legitimize Iran's nuclear weapons program in the long run. Benjamin Netanyahu is correct. This is a STUPID DEAL!

Jeeezuz. Iran does not have a Nuke and that's still not good enough.

President Obama did run for office promising to do something about Iran. Now, the deal is almost done.

Iran developed a nuke in the last 6 years? Obama has sabotaged their Nuke program by killing off their scientists, sending in computer viruses, disabling complex equipment, effective sanctions and sending diplomats to numerous countries requesting they blockade Iran..Make no mistake about it. The US is running a war against Iran's Nuke program.

Secretary of Defence says " Iran has not made the decision to go forward with developing a Nuke and the USA WILL NOT allow them to do so"

Can you imagine the carnage if McCain had won presidency?

Good work Obama I say.

Every day that goes by without those fanatics having the bomb or Israel not running sorties with bunker busters is a good day.

Edited February 24, 2015 by joesanunu

[Ulysses G.]

You are comparing, denying that Iran is trying to develop nukes, to not agreeing with Obama's failed foreign policy? Sorry, but It sounds like you don't read any news AT ALL.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[joesanunu]

You are comparing, denying that Iran is trying to develop nukes, to not agreeing with Obama's failed foreign policy? Sorry, but It sounds like you don't read any news AT ALL.

They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke.

The U.S. says it will not allow them to build a nuke.

Obama is hashing out a deal right now.

Still not good enough for the chronic cases here.

[dexterm]

It appears from leaked Mossad cables that Israeli PM Netanyahu has been exaggerating Iran's nuclear capability.

Leaked cables show Netanyahu’s Iran bomb claim contradicted by Mossad

Binyamin Netanyahu’s dramatic declaration to world leaders in 2012 that Iran was about a year away from making a nuclear bomb was contradicted by his own secret service, according to a top-secret Mossad document.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

[Ulysses G.]

The time of one year is what they (supposedly) contradicted and that was in 2012 - THREE YEARS AGO.

In a report shared with South African spies on 22 October 2012 – but likely written earlier – it conceded that Iran was “working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate, such as enrichment reactors, which will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given”.

[Chicog]

Netanyahu is a warmongerer and Obama is right to show him the door. Boehner on the other hand is a gibbering orange glove puppet.

[Choctastic]

"For the United States, the goal is to extend to at least a year the period that Iran would need to surreptitiously "break out" toward nuclear weapons development."

What is wrong with this president? Putting off Iran developing nukes for a year - or even 10 years - is not worth signing a deal that will legitimize Iran's nuclear weapons program in the long run.

Err... what nuclear weapons program?

Cue cartoon bomb..

[DeaconJohn]

The Israelis and US Zionists don't want a deal with Iran.

They want to bomb the country back to the stone age.

[DeaconJohn]

Netanyahu is a warmongerer and Obama is right to show him the door. Boehner on the other hand is a gibbering orange glove puppet.

Agreed.

Boehner is Bibi's poodle.

[Ulysses G.]

They have not decided to build a nuke.

Yeah. Sure.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

- Carl Sagan

[DeaconJohn]

They have not decided to build a nuke.

Yeah. Sure.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

- Carl Sagan

The universe as it really is according to whom? ...Zionist propagandists?

Edited February 24, 2015 by DeaconJohn

[Ulysses G.]

Beware. Carl Sagan was Jewish.

[Asiantravel]

"For the United States, the goal is to extend to at least a year the period that Iran would need to surreptitiously "break out" toward nuclear weapons development."

What is wrong with this president? Putting off Iran developing nukes for a year - or even 10 years - is not worth signing a deal that will legitimize Iran's nuclear weapons program in the long run. Benjamin Netanyahu is correct. This is a STUPID DEAL!

Yes it must be potentially quite embarrassing to Israel if Iran ends up with a legitimate nuclear weapons program compared to the one Israel has developed surreptitiously which is so secret that it even locks away its own citizens for years just for mentioning it

[DeaconJohn]

Beware. Carl Sagan was Jewish.

So was Jesus Christ.

What's your point?

Come out and say it... don't talk in riddles.

[Choctastic]

They have not decided to build a nuke.

Yeah. Sure.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

- Carl Sagan

Zionists are masters of delusion, just ask Bibi. This great 'hero', protecting the world from the horror of Iranian mad Mullahs with nukes, knows all about clandestine nuclear weapons programs... look up 'Operation Pinto'.

'In 2012 the FBI declassified and released files of its investigation into how 800 nuclear weapons triggers were illegally smuggled from the US to Israel.'

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/poll-netanyahu-should-be-investigated-for-nuclear-weapons-tech-smuggling-before-us-visit-300027133.html

[Asiantravel]

Shameful if Israel has to lie about things to try to derail any agreement

U.S. and Israel Busted Lying About Iran’s Nuclear Program

A new leak of secret intelligence documents obtained by Al Jazeera shows that the Mossad expressed the belief that Tehran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon just a month after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the Islamic Republic was a year away from becoming nuclear-armed.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/u-s-israel-busted-lying-irans-nuclear-program.html

Edited February 24, 2015 by Asiantravel

[chuckd]

You are comparing, denying that Iran is trying to develop nukes, to not agreeing with Obama's failed foreign policy? Sorry, but It sounds like you don't read any news AT ALL.

They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke.

The U.S. says it will not allow them to build a nuke.

Obama is hashing out a deal right now.

Still not good enough for the chronic cases here.

"They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke."

These are wide sweeping comments without basis in fact. Provide some proof of your allegations.

Edited February 24, 2015 by chuckd

[joesanunu]

You are comparing, denying that Iran is trying to develop nukes, to not agreeing with Obama's failed foreign policy? Sorry, but It sounds like you don't read any news AT ALL.

They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke.

The U.S. says it will not allow them to build a nuke.

Obama is hashing out a deal right now.

Still not good enough for the chronic cases here.

"They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke."

This is a wide sweeping comment without basis in fact. Provide some proof of your allegations.

Secretary of Defence and former CIA Chief, Leon Panetta. The same guy that tracked down and had BinLaden killed.

Probably the most trusted guy in Washington.

[Asiantravel]

You are comparing, denying that Iran is trying to develop nukes, to not agreeing with Obama's failed foreign policy? Sorry, but It sounds like you don't read any news AT ALL.

They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke.

The U.S. says it will not allow them to build a nuke.

Obama is hashing out a deal right now.

Still not good enough for the chronic cases here.

"They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke."

These are wide sweeping comments without basis in fact. Provide some proof of your allegations.

How much plainer can it get?

" Iran “does not appear to be ready” to enrich uranium to the higher levels necessary for nuclear weapons " Mossad report

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

[chuckd]

You are comparing, denying that Iran is trying to develop nukes, to not agreeing with Obama's failed foreign policy? Sorry, but It sounds like you don't read any news AT ALL.

They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke.

The U.S. says it will not allow them to build a nuke.

Obama is hashing out a deal right now.

Still not good enough for the chronic cases here.

"They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke."

This is a wide sweeping comment without basis in fact. Provide some proof of your allegations.

Secretary of Defence and former CIA Chief, Leon Panetta. The same guy that tracked down and had BinLaden killed.

Probably the most trusted guy in Washington.

.

Where is the proof to back up your seeming statements of fact?

I didn't request another editorial comment.

[joesanunu]

You are comparing, denying that Iran is trying to develop nukes, to not agreeing with Obama's failed foreign policy? Sorry, but It sounds like you don't read any news AT ALL.

They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke.

The U.S. says it will not allow them to build a nuke.

Obama is hashing out a deal right now.

Still not good enough for the chronic cases here.

"They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke."

These are wide sweeping comments without basis in fact. Provide some proof of your allegations.

How much plainer can it get?

" Iran “does not appear to be ready” to enrich uranium to the higher levels necessary for nuclear weapons " Mossad report

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

No wonder the Iranians hate the Israelis. The Israelis have been trying to lure the US into Nuking Iran.

[IAMHERE]

Iran will not abide by any 'deal' they make, trust not the Persians.