US, Iran press for nuke pact; lesser announcement on table?

[webfact]

US, Iran press for nuke pact; lesser announcement on table?
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and GEORGE JAHN

LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — The United States and Iran plunged back into negotiation Sunday, hoping to end once and for all a decades-long standoff that has raised the specter of an Iranian nuclear arsenal, a new atomic arms race in the Middle East and even a U.S. or Israeli military intervention. Two weeks out from a deadline for a framework accord, some officials said the awesomeness of the diplomatic task meant negotiators would likely settle for an announcement that they've made enough progress to justify further talks.

Such a declaration would hardly satisfy American critics of the Obama administration's diplomatic outreach to Iran and hardliners in the Islamic Republic, whose rumblings have grown more vociferous and threatening as the parties have narrowed many of their differences. And, officially, the United States and its partners insist their eyes are on a much bigger prize: "A deal that would protect the world," Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized this weekend, "from the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran could pose."

Yet as Kerry arrived in Switzerland for several days of discussions with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, no one was promising the breakthrough. One diplomat said new differences surfaced only in the last negotiating round of what has been a 15-month process, including a sudden Iranian demand that a nuclear facility buried deep underground be allowed to keep hundreds of centrifuges that are used for enriching uranium — material that can be used in a nuclear warhead. Previously, the Iranians had accepted the plant would be transformed into one solely for scientific research, that diplomat and others have said.

The deal that had been taking shape would see Iran freeze its nuclear program for at least a decade, with restrictions then gradually lifted over a period of perhaps the following five years. Washington and other world powers would similarly scale back sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy in several phases. Iran says it is only interested in peaceful energy generation and medical research, but much of the world has suspected it of maintaining covert nuclear weapons ambitions. And the U.S. and its ally Israel have at various times threatened military action if Iran's program advances too far.

Speaking Sunday on CBS News, Kerry said most of the differences between Iran and the negotiating group of the U.S., Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia were "political," not technical. He didn't elaborate, but political matters tend to include levels of inspections, Iran's past military work linked to its nuclear program and how quickly to scale back sanctions. Technical matters refer, for example, to how many centrifuges Iran can maintain, what types of those machines and how much plutonium it would be allowed to produce from a planned heavy water reactor.

Less than four months ago, senior officials talked optimistically about reaching a preliminary agreement by March, with three months of additional talks only for any remaining technical work. Back then, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said he expected "an agreement on substance" by March 31. Top Western and Iranian negotiators issued a joint statement vowing to use the time until June 30 only "if necessary ... to finalize any possible remaining technical and drafting work."

But two diplomats said ahead of this week's talks in the Swiss city of Lausanne that persistent differences at the negotiating table had diminished the chances of such a substantial agreement. Instead, they said, the sides were more likely to restrict themselves to a vague oral statement indicating that enough headway had been made to continue negotiations. They weren't authorized to speak publicly about the sensitive talks and demanded anonymity.

A senior U.S. official rejected that assessment. "We are working toward a framework of substance," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity citing similar constraints. Top diplomats and technical experts from the U.S. and Iran met Sunday. Kerry and Zarif were to hold their first discussion Monday.

Anything short of a written agreement will only encourage congressional critics of the Iran diplomacy, who've seized on various pieces that have leaked from the negotiation to press their case that the Obama administration is conceding too much. Republicans and some Democrats believe a deal would be insufficient and unenforceable, allowing Iran to eventually become a nuclear-armed state. And to that end, they've made a series of proposals to undercut or block an agreement, from requiring Senate say-so on a deal to ordering new sanctions against Iran while negotiations are ongoing.

Last week, 47 of the Senate's 54 Republicans signed an open letter to Iran's leaders warning that any nuclear pact they cut with President Barack Obama could expire the day he leaves office. The action prompted fierce criticism from top administration officials, who declared it an unprecedented interference in the president's conduct of U.S. foreign policy.

Appearing on CNN, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell defended the letter Sunday, accusing Democrats of selective outrage and predicting the emergence of a "very bad" nuclear deal. Its author, freshman Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas added that he had no regrets, saying the blowback only underscored that Obama wasn't negotiating for "the hardest deal possible."

In his interview, Kerry said Tehran "to its credit" has entirely lived up to an interim agreement reached in November 2013.

But that understanding was only a stopgap measure, not doing nearly enough to satisfy the long-term concerns of Israel or Iran's Sunni Arab rivals in the Middle East, or the United States. Experts say the combination of limits on Iran's uranium program only gives the world two to three months to react if the country tries to surreptitiously "break out" toward nuclear weapons development. The U.S. says it needs at least a year of cushion time, lasting for at least a decade, in a comprehensive agreement.

It's unclear if negotiators will reach that point, putting the United States in a difficult spot. Fearful Iran could be playing for time, Obama, Kerry and various officials have vowed to walk away from the talks if they show no sign of pointing toward a satisfactory agreement. And they've repeatedly stressed that "no deal is better than a bad deal." But none of them have spelled out what the U.S. strategy for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran would be then.
___

Jahn reported from Vienna.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-16

[Publicus]

The report omits that Iran's uranium would be processed outside of Iran, in Russia, which then would provide the one year breakout time the P5+1 require of Iran. Russia is firmly onboard the negotiations.

Iran anyway would be limited to 3500 to 6000 centrifuges, from its present 20,000 that would be arranged to make enriching uranium exceedingly difficult, which is the contribution of nuclear expert Dr. Ernest Moniz, the US Energy Secretary who joined the talks two months ago as a part of the final push to a viable agreement.

The report omits that the March 30 Framework Agreement the P5+1 require does one principal thing, which is for Iran to state publicly and in writing it is not making nuclear weapons. Anything else is secondary to March 30th as a progress date.

The March 30th date is an interim date toward the June 30th date for a final agreement....a final agreement likely will be reached a bit beyond June 30th. The OP wrote a couple of thousand words that said very little about the actual negotiations. The OP spends a lot of time highlighting anti-agreement politics, which will cheer the usual suspects.

[Seastallion]

": "A deal that would protect the world," Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized this weekend, "from the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran could pose.""

What threat to the world? A nuclear armed Iran would lower the threat of conflict as Israel, the only one really making threats, would have to think twice and hard before it exported it's aggression.

[Ulysses G.]

A nuclear armed Iran would lower the threat of conflict as Israel, the only one really making threats, would have to think twice and hard before it exported it's aggression.

Nonsense. Iran has made numerous threats to destroy Israel. The Iranian nuclear weapons program must be stopped.

In the Iranian system, the highest-ranking political authority is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Khamenei has been calling for Israel’s destruction for many years. José María Aznar, a former prime minister of Spain, recalled meeting Khamenei during his time in office in Oct. 2000. “Israel, to him, was a kind of historical cancer, an anomaly, a country to be put in flames and condemned to disappear,” Aznar said. “Khamenei said very clearly that Iran must eliminate Israel and wipe it off the map.” In a Friday sermon on Dec. 15, 2000, Khamenei declared, “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini]…is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.” A month later, he repeated his message. “The foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.” - See more at: http://jcpa.org/article/20-threats-iranian-leaders-made-in-2013/#sthash.QPr9VPhl.dpuf

Edited March 16, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

The Iranian nuclear weapons program must be stopped.

And how exactly does that happen? Provide specific, step-by-step details on how it is "stopped".

While it's evident that Israel Firsters are more than willing to sacrifice members of the US military and countless billions of dollars in a war of choice that only Israel wants, I can assure you that Americans loyal to America and its best interests do not.

[FangFerang]

The whole US/Iran mess closely mirrors the Israeli/Palestinian mess -- both messes fully supported as permanent messes by the Israelis.

Polls have found that the American public has grown weary of Israel telling US citizens how they should feel about Israeli policies, which runs contrary to Israel's political and economic clout in the US. The previous verbal tar and feather -- that anyone who disagrees with Israel is anti-Semitic, has worn to the thinness of rice paper, and is laughed off by the public despite the best efforts of any concerned spin-doctors.

[RockyBeerbelly]

A nuclear armed Iran would lower the threat of conflict as Israel, the only one really making threats, would have to think twice and hard before it exported it's aggression.

Nonsense. Iran has made numerous threats to destroy Israel. The Iranian nuclear weapons program must be stopped.

In the Iranian system, the highest-ranking political authority is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Khamenei has been calling for Israel’s destruction for many years. José María Aznar, a former prime minister of Spain, recalled meeting Khamenei during his time in office in Oct. 2000. “Israel, to him, was a kind of historical cancer, an anomaly, a country to be put in flames and condemned to disappear,” Aznar said. “Khamenei said very clearly that Iran must eliminate Israel and wipe it off the map.” In a Friday sermon on Dec. 15, 2000, Khamenei declared, “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini]…is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.” A month later, he repeated his message. “The foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.” - See more at: http://jcpa.org/article/20-threats-iranian-leaders-made-in-2013/#sthash.QPr9VPhl.dpuf

There is however something which you conveniently overlook.....

If any sovereign state (Iran in this case) has nuclear weapons aimed at them (in this case by the state of Israel) for no specific or justifiable (if a word like this could ever be used in combination with nuclear weapons) reason what so ever, how would you expect the oppressed feel about the oppressor? Happy that the oppressor exists? Make friends with the oppressor? Or might it be that the oppressed would like the oppressor destroyed?

[Ulysses G.]

The "oppressor" would be the country threatening to to destroy another country for not being Islamic. Civilized countries don't really care about Iran's dishonest spin after realizing that.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[RockyBeerbelly]

The "oppressor" would be the country threatening to to destroy another country for not being Islamic. Civilized countries don't really care what Iran's opinion is after knowing that.

A civilized country like Israel you mean? Where the extreme right wing government not even threaten, but actually considers bombing the nuclear sites in Iran without any justification what-so-ever, except maybe for the fact that there are a lot of "civilized" idiots in the world that feel that only the fact that Iran is an Islamic state is reason enough to destroy it...

[Ulysses G.]

Considers bombing the nuclear weapons sites in Iran without any justification what-so-ever, except maybe for the fact that Iran is violating numerous resolutions against them enriching uranium as well as treaties that they have signed.

[Steely Dan]

A lesser announcement would serve to do nothing, except kick the can of failure further down the road. I fully expect such a by the Obama government, the O.P shows the spinning of such a 'deal' has already started. But the centrifuges would keep spinning and some of our esteemed members would sleep soundly in their beds cocooned by their own ignorance.

[Chicog]

A lesser announcement would serve to do nothing, except kick the can of failure further down the road. I fully expect such a by the Obama government, the O.P shows the spinning of such a 'deal' has already started. But the centrifuges would keep spinning and some of our esteemed members would sleep soundly in their beds cocooned by their own ignorance.

Care to share with us right now exactly what Iran is doing that should make me not sleep soundly at night (given that I'm well within the range of their existing missiles).

Bar a bit of stirring up among the various GCC Shi'a communities that is, something it's been doing for decades.

"The centrifuges spinning" could be making ice cream for all it is possible to tell from your latest deliberately vague assertion.

[Srikcir]

I expect a draft agreement by March 31, if only to take advantage of the June 30th deadline to resolve or stall more details.

An agreement by March 31st should provide the world with the first details of a deal but likely will not lull Republican Congressmen into lowering their rhetoric simply because they overcommitted themselves. On the other hand, if Netanyahu loses re-election, Republicans might be able to soften their stance with a new Israeli PM coming to power despite any of the agreement details. The next 60 days would give Obama time to maneuver congress into casual acceptance of a final agreement.

While the US leads the negotiations it is not the sole decider for any deal. The P4 nations have shared and separate economic sanctions separate from the US that could be terminated in acceptance of an Iranian agreement. The worst case would be the P4, having less sensitivity towards Israel's opposition to Iranian nuclear programs, making a separate agreement with Iran on its nuclear programs, leaving the US and Israel standing on the sidelines. Independent US sanctions become essentially unenforceable.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[Publicus]

Iran must be stopped because "they already control Tehran," says freshman Republican Dunderhead Senator Tom Terrible Cotton of the Ozarks down there in Arkansas.

Veteran CBS newsman Bob Schiefer, host of the 60 year old Sunday television interview program Face The Nation, treated Terrible Tom Cotton and the 47 Republican Duck Dynasty senators in the only proper and appropriate way for their letter of aid and comfort to the enemy.

Schiefer on Sunday asked Terrible Tom if he wuz going to be "contacting North Korea or any other of our adversaries in the future" concerning US foreign policy issues, international negotiations, considerations of war and peace.

This is not only appropriate, it is the fully deserved response to the letter to the ayatollahs that so many people believe weakens the United States in the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with the mullahs.

Here it is......

And here's Terrible Tom's statement that we have to stop the ayatollahs because "they already control Tehran."

I say again, these Republicans are the best news for the Democratic party going in to the general election next year since Herbert Hoover along with Joe McCarthy, Spiro Agnew, John Dean.

[GentlemanJim]

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

Considers bombing the nuclear weapons sites in Iran without any justification what-so-ever, except maybe for the fact that Iran is violating numerous resolutions against them enriching uranium as well as treaties that they have signed. alt=giggle.gif>

If you would like me to list the UN resolutions they are ignoring over Uranium enrichment and then list the UN resolutions that Israel is ignoring over Nuclear weapons you will see that there is a big big difference. I would need a full page for the resolutions Israel is ignoring, and it continues to refuse to sign any existing international nuclear treaties that every single other country has signed. And then of course that is just a fraction of the total number of resolutions Israel is ignoring. Would you now use your argument above to justify bombing Israeli facilities?

[Publicus]

I expect a draft agreement by March 31, if only to take advantage of the June 30th deadline to resolve or stall more details.

An agreement by March 31st should provide the world with the first details of a deal but likely will not lull Republican Congressmen into lowering their rhetoric simply because they overcommitted themselves. On the other hand, if Netanyahu loses re-election, Republicans might be able to soften their stance with a new Israeli PM coming to power despite any of the agreement details. The next 60 days would give Obama time to maneuver congress into casual acceptance of a final agreement.

While the US leads the negotiations it is not the sole decider for any deal. The P4 nations have shared and separate economic sanctions separate from the US that could be terminated in acceptance of an Iranian agreement. The worst case would be the P4, having less sensitivity towards Israel's opposition to Iranian nuclear programs, making a separate agreement with Iran on its nuclear programs, leaving the US and Israel standing on the sidelines. Independent US sanctions become essentially unenforceable.

The commonly held views expressed in the post merit only some attention to the last sentence.

The US is not the outsider in the P5+1 negotiations with Iran. PM Netanyahu is the outsider and, if he can't somehow pull out of a hat yet another creaky election outcome, and pull out of another hat yet another unsustainable coalition, Netanyahu will be a double outsider which will sideline him for good. The key to the Tuesday voting in Israel is just how much the center-left coalition can pull in voters at the polls....the trend is good but is it enough.

If by the end of March Netanyahu is forming a new government, then Bibi remains a player. If not, it's Bibi on the outside, himself, alone in his right wing fanatic militancy. Netanyahu's nine years as PM of Israel have produced a storm and a fury of nothingness, i.e., no results, no big developments, no breakthroughs, just bodies.

Prez Obama can lift some US sanctions on his own without having to go to the congress. And yes, congress can take that away from him but only if it can override his return veto, which as things in congress currently stand, it cannot. We know the P5 are the UN Security Council permanent five members which of course includes the United States, which will ease some of the UN sanctions that have been in place and accumulating since 2006.

The scorecard lineup in these negotiations and agreement are Israel alone versus Iran, the United States, China, UK, Germany, France, Russia. This is because Israel with Netanyahu as PM is against 'em all as evidenced by his personal and extraordinary campaign to put bombs in the negotiator's lunch packages.....not poison, bombs.

[Scott]

Off-topic post has been removed.