Iran nuclear talks extended; Iranians meet key obligation

[webfact]

Iran nuclear talks extended; Iranians meet key obligation
By MATTHEW LEE and BRADLEY KLAPPER

VIENNA (AP) — Pushing past a Tuesday deadline, world powers and Iran extended negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear agreement by a week as the U.N. nuclear agency prepared to announce Tehran had met a key condition — significantly reducing its stocks of enriched uranium that could be used for atomic weapons.

Iran's failure to comply would have severely undermined the negotiations, which are aimed at curbing the Iranians' nuclear program for a decade in exchange for tens of billions of dollars in relief from international economic sanctions

The State Department announced the extra days of talks only hours before the expiration of the target date for their completion. Thoughts of meeting the deadline had been long-abandoned, but the extension has added significance as it holds in place nuclear restrictions that Iran agreed to some 20 months ago as well as slightly eased conditions for Iranian business with the world.

Those preliminary measures have been prolonged to next Tuesday "to allow more time for negotiations to reach a long-term solution," spokeswoman Marie Harf said.? The statement came after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry held a day of meetings in Vienna with the foreign ministers of Iran and Russia, and other key officials.

The day originally had been envisioned as the culmination of almost two years of secret and then public negotiations aimed at assuring the world Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons and providing the Iranian people a path of out of their international isolation. But officials said over the weekend they were nowhere near a final accord, and Iran's foreign minister had flown back to his capital for further consultations amid increased signs of backtracking by his country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In Washington, President Barack Obama said Tuesday there will be no nuclear deal with Iran if inspections and verification requirements are inadequate.

"I will walk away from the negotiations if, in fact, it's a bad deal," Obama said during a news conference with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.

Obama said it's still unclear whether Tehran can meet the commitments made in a preliminary deal struck in Switzerland in April.

"There has been a lot of talk on the other side from the Iranian negotiators about whether in fact they can abide by some of the terms that came up in Lausanne," Obama said. "If they cannot, that's going to be a problem."

As for Iran's reduction in its stockpile of enriched uranium, diplomats said the country had removed a potential hurdle that nuclear experts had been watching closely over the past several weeks.

Uranium can be used to generate energy, or as the fissile core of a nuclear weapon, depending on its enrichment level. Under the preliminary deal from November 2013, Iran agreed to cap its stockpile of lower-enriched uranium at a little more than 7.6 tons and transform any remainder into a form that would be difficult to reconvert for arms use.

Although amounts were permitted to fluctuate, Iran had to come under the cap by Tuesday. And as of only a month ago, the U.N. nuclear agency reported the stockpile at more than 8 tons.

Iran's compliance will be officially made public Wednesday in a report by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, said the diplomats, who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the still-confidential report and demanded anonymity.

The weeklong extension has political overtones as well. An agreement by July 7 would give the Obama administration time to submit the deal to Congress by July 9. Congress would then have 30 days to review it, during which time President Barack Obama would not be able to ease sanctions.

If negotiations drag on past July 9 without a deal, that congressional review period would extend to 60 days. If lawmakers were to build a veto-proof majority behind new legislation enacting new economic sanctions or preventing Obama from suspending existing ones, the administration would be prevented from living up to an accord.

Iran, for its part, warned about consequences if the West fails to hold up its end of the bargain.

The official IRNA news agency reported that President Hassan Rouhani cautioned Tuesday that Iran will intensify its nuclear activities if it detects violations from the countries negotiating the deal.

Talks in Austria's capital restarted Tuesday after a one-day interruption, with Iran's chief diplomat returning from Tehran and insisting he had a mandate to finalize a nuclear agreement. The promise came despite statements by supreme leader Khamenei in recent weeks that appeared to renege on a framework that his representatives agreed to three months ago in Lausanne.

The diplomacy has reached a "very sensitive stage" but progress is possible, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said. Asked by a reporter about his day of meetings at home, he said: "I already had a mandate to negotiate, and I am here to get a final deal and I think we can." He returned with Iranian atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi, who missed earlier sessions due to illness. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov joined the gathering later Tuesday.

Significant disagreements persist, not least over the level of inspections on Iranian sites, how quickly the West would roll back sanctions and what types of research and development Iran would be permitted to conduct on advanced nuclear technology.
___

Associated Press writers George Jahn in Vienna, Nasser Karimi in Tehran and Julie Pace and Jim Kuhnhenn in Washington contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-07-01

[ezzra]

While the east is ' negotiating ' back in Iran's bunkers the work to build a nuclear weapon is going

on in earnest and triple speed, until Iran having a workable version of a nuclear weapon is a foregone

conclusion....

[Seastallion]

While the east is ' negotiating ' back in Iran's bunkers the work to build a nuclear weapon is going

on in earnest and triple speed, until Iran having a workable version of a nuclear weapon is a foregone

conclusion....

That would be fair...they could then defend themselves against a nuclear armed aggressor.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, right?

[sdanielmcev]

While the east is ' negotiating ' back in Iran's bunkers the work to build a nuclear weapon is going

on in earnest and triple speed, until Iran having a workable version of a nuclear weapon is a foregone

conclusion....

That would be fair...they could then defend themselves against a nuclear armed aggressor.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, right?

I don't see Iran as wanting a nuclear weapon as a defensive measure.

[Steely Dan]

The gaslighting continues. The Iranians have run rings round the P5.

http://www.thetower.org/2237-10-ways-in-30-days-how-iran-outmaneuvered-the-west-as-the-nuclear-deadline-approached/

And it gets even worse the fairy stories told by the state department are being demonstrated as the fiction they are. P.s A Free Beacon journalist was ejected from the recent briefing about Iran's nuclear stockpile at the insistence of the U.S team even though he was on the E.U officially accredited list.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/191883/obamas-unicorn-deal-with-iran

Edited July 1, 2015 by Steely Dan

[chuckd]

Q. When is a red line not a red line?

Q. When is a deadline not a deadline?

A. When dealing with the Obama administration.

Edited July 1, 2015 by chuckd

[Jay Sata]

Iran has not caused conflict in the middle east like other nations.

As for the threat of building nuclear weapons i seem to recall Bush invading Iraq because he thought Saddam was doing the same and we all know where that got us.

[h90]

While the east is ' negotiating ' back in Iran's bunkers the work to build a nuclear weapon is going

on in earnest and triple speed, until Iran having a workable version of a nuclear weapon is a foregone

conclusion....

That would be fair...they could then defend themselves against a nuclear armed aggressor.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, right?

I don't see Iran as wanting a nuclear weapon as a defensive measure.

With Israel which is pretty aggressive having many nukes and Saudi Arabia tried to buy some, having nukes is a necessary insurance.

Nukes kept the cold war cold and ensures peace between Pakistan and India.

[Jay Sata]

While the east is ' negotiating ' back in Iran's bunkers the work to build a nuclear weapon is going

on in earnest and triple speed, until Iran having a workable version of a nuclear weapon is a foregone

conclusion....

That would be fair...they could then defend themselves against a nuclear armed aggressor.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, right?

I don't see Iran as wanting a nuclear weapon as a defensive measure.

With Israel which is pretty aggressive having many nukes and Saudi Arabia tried to buy some, having nukes is a necessary insurance.

Nukes kept the cold war cold and ensures peace between Pakistan and India.

And some of the biggest critics of Iran are those supporting Israel,a country with nuclear weapons not open to inspection.

[chuckd]

Iran has not caused conflict in the middle east like other nations.

As for the threat of building nuclear weapons i seem to recall Bush invading Iraq because he thought Saddam was doing the same and we all know where that got us.

I guess if one overlooks Iran arming Hamas, Hezbollah, the Yemeni insurrection, Khobar Towers bombing, USS Cole

bombing, aiding the insurgency in Iraq and many others, then they could be considered as peace loving as their religion implies.

Check this out for a few more items of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

PS: Carter has more to do with the problem with Iran than Bush.

[chuckd]

That would be fair...they could then defend themselves against a nuclear armed aggressor.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, right?

I don't see Iran as wanting a nuclear weapon as a defensive measure.

With Israel which is pretty aggressive having many nukes and Saudi Arabia tried to buy some, having nukes is a necessary insurance.

Nukes kept the cold war cold and ensures peace between Pakistan and India.

And some of the biggest critics of Iran are those supporting Israel,a country with nuclear weapons not open to inspection.

Since I don't follow the Palestinian web sites, perhaps somebody could explain to me why Iran thinks they need a nuclear weapon.

Exactly when did Israel ever make a threat to nuke anybody?

I would love to read the main stream media report about it.

Anybody?

[Steely Dan]

The latest fudge removes the IAEA right to inspect all Iranian sites whenever they want. The U.S team waive away this as a concern reasoning that the U.S would not grant anyone the right to get into every military site. So there it is an argument based on moral equivalence between Iran and the U.S, the left is really showing its true colors here. This alone should sink the deal once the implications are examined.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sentence-could-doom-iran-deal_981294.html

[Chicog]

Exactly when did Israel ever make a threat to nuke anybody?

I would love to read the main stream media report about it.

Anybody?

I think your problem is that since the US invaded Iraq without any justifiable pretext, they most likely felt they could be next.

[chuckd]

Exactly when did Israel ever make a threat to nuke anybody?

I would love to read the main stream media report about it.

Anybody?

I think your problem is that since the US invaded Iraq without any justifiable pretext, they most likely felt they could be next.

I presume you have no documentation to support this left wing theory so I am writing it off as a wild guess.

All their apologists claim the nukes are for defensive purposes and then you propose the nuke might be used as a defense against an imaginary US invasion.

In Iran's wildest wet dreams, how could they possibly consider striking the US with a defensive retaliatory nuclear strike?

They want them to upset any semblance of a balance of power between the Sunni nations and Shiite nations.

What I can't figure out is why Obama is so intent on seeing that Iran gets the weapons.

[Publicus]

Exactly when did Israel ever make a threat to nuke anybody?

I would love to read the main stream media report about it.

Anybody?

I think your problem is that since the US invaded Iraq without any justifiable pretext, they most likely felt they could be next.

I presume you have no documentation to support this left wing theory so I am writing it off as a wild guess.

All their apologists claim the nukes are for defensive purposes and then you propose the nuke might be used as a defense against an imaginary US invasion.

In Iran's wildest wet dreams, how could they possibly consider striking the US with a defensive retaliatory nuclear strike?

They want them to upset any semblance of a balance of power between the Sunni nations and Shiite nations.

What I can't figure out is why Obama is so intent on seeing that Iran gets the weapons.

What I can't figure out is why Obama is so intent on seeing that Iran gets the weapons.

That's because of the distorted right angle view from out there in a constant lunar orbit, especially during each rotation on the dark side.

Reality is POTUS is not handing out nuclear weapons to anyone nor is he intent on such a nefarious purpose.

The only nefarious purposes or intents rest with those agents of the dark side who assign a nefarious nuclear purpose or intent to POTUS.

[Chicog]

Exactly when did Israel ever make a threat to nuke anybody?

I would love to read the main stream media report about it.

Anybody?

I think your problem is that since the US invaded Iraq without any justifiable pretext, they most likely felt they could be next.

I presume you have no documentation to support this left wing theory so I am writing it off as a wild guess.

All their apologists claim the nukes are for defensive purposes and then you propose the nuke might be used as a defense against an imaginary US invasion.

In Iran's wildest wet dreams, how could they possibly consider striking the US with a defensive retaliatory nuclear strike?

They want them to upset any semblance of a balance of power between the Sunni nations and Shiite nations.

What I can't figure out is why Obama is so intent on seeing that Iran gets the weapons.

Are you still clinging on to this "We invaded Iraq because they were a threat to us/had WMD's" tosh Chuck?

Really? And you accuse me of a "wild guess"?

And it is worth pointing out that the US has never invaded a country that has nuclear weapons.

It's also worth pointing out that America does have a track record of invading countries it falls out with, including two that border Iran.

So it's quite comical that you would refer to "an imaginary US invasion"!

Edited July 2, 2015 by Chicog

[ABCer]

Can somebody explain to me the Big Problem with Iran, please!

What are all these Nuke negotiations for?

And why Khamenei cannot get the same treatment as Saddam?

If in the aftermath there will be no evidence of Nukes found - Obama could shrug his shoulders just like Bush did.

[sdanielmcev]

Exactly when did Israel ever make a threat to nuke anybody?

I would love to read the main stream media report about it.

Anybody?

I think your problem is that since the US invaded Iraq without any justifiable pretext, they most likely felt they could be next.

I presume you have no documentation to support this left wing theory so I am writing it off as a wild guess.

All their apologists claim the nukes are for defensive purposes and then you propose the nuke might be used as a defense against an imaginary US invasion.

In Iran's wildest wet dreams, how could they possibly consider striking the US with a defensive retaliatory nuclear strike?

They want them to upset any semblance of a balance of power between the Sunni nations and Shiite nations.

What I can't figure out is why Obama is so intent on seeing that Iran gets the weapons.

Are you still clinging on to this "We invaded Iraq because they were a threat to us/had WMD's" tosh Chuck?

Really? And you accuse me of a "wild guess"?

And it is worth pointing out that the US has never invaded a country that has nuclear weapons.

It's also worth pointing out that America does have a track record of invading countries it falls out with, including two that border Iran.

So it's quite comical that you would refer to "an imaginary US invasion"!

One of those two countries that border Iran was Afghanistan. Or did you forget 9/11?

[Chicog]

Yes, and most of the attackers were Saudi.

[sdanielmcev]

Exactly when did Israel ever make a threat to nuke anybody?

I would love to read the main stream media report about it.

Anybody?

I think your problem is that since the US invaded Iraq without any justifiable pretext, they most likely felt they could be next.

I presume you have no documentation to support this left wing theory so I am writing it off as a wild guess.

All their apologists claim the nukes are for defensive purposes and then you propose the nuke might be used as a defense against an imaginary US invasion.

In Iran's wildest wet dreams, how could they possibly consider striking the US with a defensive retaliatory nuclear strike?

They want them to upset any semblance of a balance of power between the Sunni nations and Shiite nations.

What I can't figure out is why Obama is so intent on seeing that Iran gets the weapons.

His legacy, since for 6 years he's been a bystander on the world stage. Also to fulfill his campaign for the presidency by 'sitting down' and talking with Iran. He needs now to allow the Europeans to handle this before Lurch throws a monkey wrench into the works.

[sdanielmcev]

Yes, and most of the attackers were Saudi.

Your point is what?

[Chicog]

Yes, and most of the attackers were Saudi.

Your point is what?

That the US invade countries they don't like. Can't you read?

[dexterm]

While the east is ' negotiating ' back in Iran's bunkers the work to build a nuclear weapon is going

on in earnest and triple speed, until Iran having a workable version of a nuclear weapon is a foregone

conclusion....

That would be fair...they could then defend themselves against a nuclear armed aggressor.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, right?

I don't see Iran as wanting a nuclear weapon as a defensive measure.

What else could it be but for defense? They are not stupid. They realize that a first strike would be suicide.

Anyway, the whole point of these talks is to have some control to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. If they fail, you would see an arms race in the Middle East to develop them, Israel attacking Iran and possibly Saudi, Iran retaliating by blocking Straits of Hormuz with the world suffering, Hezbollah raining missiles on Israel...a nightmare that no-one wants.

Jaw jaw is better than war war, as Churchill once said.

Edited July 2, 2015 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

What else could it be but for defense?

Offense. The Iranian Mullahs are perfectly happy to commit suicide to bring forth the 12th Mahdi. That is their religion and that is why the world would be crazy to allow them to develop nukes.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/iran-supreme-leader-the-shiite-islamic-messiah-is-coming-to-free-the-world/

Edited July 2, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Seastallion]

The latest fudge removes the IAEA right to inspect all Iranian sites whenever they want. The U.S team waive away this as a concern reasoning that the U.S would not grant anyone the right to get into every military site. So there it is an argument based on moral equivalence between Iran and the U.S, the left is really showing its true colors here. This alone should sink the deal once the implications are examined.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sentence-could-doom-iran-deal_981294.html

Heaven forbid moral equivalence! We can't treat people the same way that we expect to be treated.

[Ulysses G.]

When you are dealing with radical Islam and the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, you don't expect to be treated fairly, if you have any common sense.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

What else could it be but for defense?

It is for offense. The Iranian Mullahs are perfectly happy to commit suicide to bring forth the 12th Mahdi. That is their religion and that is why the world would be crazy to allow them to develop nukes.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/iran-supreme-leader-the-shiite-islamic-messiah-is-coming-to-free-the-world/

Well, if you view the world through paranoia tinted spectacles I suppose it all makes sense. Thankfully, cooler heads are prevailing at the conferences.

[Seastallion]

What else could it be but for defense?

It is for offense. The Iranian Mullahs are perfectly happy to commit suicide to bring forth the 12th Mahdi. That is their religion and that is why the world would be crazy to allow them to develop nukes.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/iran-supreme-leader-the-shiite-islamic-messiah-is-coming-to-free-the-world/

I can't even justify the rolling on the floor laughing emoji for this one. Do you really read this stuff? The same issue from your link has a photo of Obama with the headline "Barack Obama, Wife Beater", Say hello to the "bro"."

[Chicog]

What else could it be but for defense?

Offense. The Iranian Mullahs are perfectly happy to commit suicide to bring forth the 12th Mahdi. That is their religion and that is why the world would be crazy to allow them to develop nukes.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/iran-supreme-leader-the-shiite-islamic-messiah-is-coming-to-free-the-world/

Now we truly are entering the realms of farce.

[Ulysses G.]

What else could it be but for defense?

Offense. The Iranian Mullahs are perfectly happy to commit suicide to bring forth the 12th Mahdi. That is their religion and that is why the world would be crazy to allow them to develop nukes.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/iran-supreme-leader-the-shiite-islamic-messiah-is-coming-to-free-the-world/

Now we truly are entering the realms of farce.

It is a factual part of their religion and the Iranian government have done their own video on the 12th Mahdi that is available on YouTube.