Iran nuclear deal: Fine 'new chapter' or 'historic mistake'?

[webfact]

Iran nuclear deal: Fine 'new chapter' or 'historic mistake'?
By JULIE PACE, MATTHEW LEE and GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA (AP) — Overcoming decades of hostility, Iran, the United States, and five other world powers struck a historic accord Tuesday to check Tehran's nuclear efforts short of building a bomb. The agreement could give Iran access to billions in frozen assets and oil revenue, stave off more U.S. military action in the Middle East and reshape the tumultuous region.

The deal sets in motion a years-long test of Iran's willingness to keep its promises to the world — and the ability of international inspectors to monitor compliance. It also sets the White House up for a contentious fight with a wary Congress and more rocky relations with Israel, whose leaders furiously opposed the agreement.

Appealing to skeptics, President Barack Obama declared that the accord "offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it."

Under terms of the deal, the culmination of 20 months of arduous diplomacy, Iran must dismantle much of its nuclear program in order to secure relief from biting sanctions that have battered its economy. International inspectors can now press for visits to Iran's military facilities, though access is not guaranteed. Centrifuges will keep spinning, though in lesser quantities, and uranium can still be enriched, though at lower levels.

In a key compromise, Iran agreed to continuation of the U.N.'s arms embargo on the country for up to five more years and ballistic missile restrictions for up to eight years. Washington had sought to keep the arms ban in place, while Russia and China joined Iran in pushing for an immediate suspension.

On the streets of Tehran, Iranians honked their horns and celebrated in the city's main square. President Hassan Rouhani said a "new chapter" had begun in his nation's relations with the world, even as he denied Iran had ever pursued a nuclear weapon.

While the U.S. partnered in the talks with Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, the decades of tensions between the U.S. and Iran put the two countries at the forefront of the negotiations.

Whether the nuclear rapprochement will spark a broader thaw is unclear. Nearly 40 years after Iran's Islamic revolution and the hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, the country's hardliners remain hostile toward Washington. The U.S. and its allies also have deep concerns about Iran's support for terrorism in the Middle East and its detention of several American citizens.

With key restrictions on Iran's nuclear program required for only a decade, opponents of the deal say it simply delays Tehran's pursuit of the bomb. Critics also say Iran will use new wealth from sanctions relief to double-down other destabilizing activities in the region.

Iran stands to receive more than $100 billion in assets that have been frozen overseas and benefit from an end to various financial restrictions on Iranian banks. Iran could also sell more oil, bringing down crude prices.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who lobbied unceasingly against a deal, called it a "stunning historic mistake" and warned that his country would not be bound by it. Netanyahu strongly hinted that Israeli military action to destroy Tehran's nuclear program remains an option.

Obama and Netanyahu, who have long had a cool relationship, spoke by phone Tuesday. White House officials said Obama also called King Salman of Saudi Arabia, one of the many Sunni Arab rivals of Shiite Iran who have expressed concerns about the deal.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans accused Obama of making too many concessions. House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said lawmakers "will fight a bad deal that is wrong for our national security and wrong for our country." GOP presidential hopefuls also panned the deal, some vowing to scrap it if elected to succeed Obama.

Obama did get a crucial show of support from Hillary Rodham Clinton, his former secretary of state and the likely Democratic presidential nominee. She praised the deal as an important step toward "putting the lid on Iran's nuclear program."

Clinton's support could give some Democratic lawmakers more confidence in standing with Obama as he tries to hold off congressional efforts to disrupt the deal. Congress has 60 days to review it and can try to prevent Obama from waiving sanctions on Iran as promised in the negotiations.

The president reiterated that he would veto any legislation aimed at upending the agreement. Defending it, he said, "No deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East."

The deal comes after years of international diplomacy that until recently were defined by failure. Breaks in the talks sometimes lasted for months, and Iran's nascent nuclear program expanded into one that Western intelligence agencies saw as only months away from weapons capacity. The U.S. and Israel both threatened military action.

Obama took office in 2009 promising to keep the door open for greater engagement with Iran, even as he ratcheted up economic sanctions. In 2012, he authorized secret talks that helped lay the groundwork for the formal negotiations that stretched over the past two years.

The final weeks were marked by marathon meetings in Vienna, three blown deadlines and threats by top American and Iranian diplomats to walk away.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who did most of the bargaining with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, said persistence paid off. "Believe me, had we been willing to settle for a lesser deal we would have finished this negotiation a long time ago," he said.

The breakthrough came after several key compromises.

Iran agreed to a continuation of the arms embargo for up to five more years, though it could end earlier if the International Atomic Energy Agency clears Iran of any current work on nuclear weapons. A similar condition was put on U.N. restrictions on the transfer of ballistic missile technology to Tehran, which could last for up to eight more years, according to diplomats.

Washington had sought to maintain the ban on Iran importing and exporting weapons, concerned that an Islamic Republic flush with cash from sanctions relief would expand its military assistance for Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, Yemen's Houthi rebels, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and other forces opposing America's Mideast allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Another significant agreement will allow U.N. inspectors to press for visits to Iranian military sites as part of their monitoring duties, something Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has opposed. However, access isn't guaranteed and could be delayed, a condition that critics of the deal are sure to seize on.

Under the accord, Tehran would have the right to challenge U.N requests, and an arbitration board composed of Iran and the six world powers would then decide. The IAEA also wants to complete its long-stymied investigation of past weapons work by Iran, and the U.S. says Iranian cooperation is needed for all economic sanctions to be lifted.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said Tuesday his agency and Iran had signed a "roadmap" to resolve outstanding concerns, hopefully by mid-December.
___

Julie Pace reported from Washington. AP writers Bradley Klapper, Josh Lederman, Darlene Superville and Connie Cass in Washington, Josef Federman in Jerusalem and Nasser Karimi in Tehran contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-07-15

[ABCer]

During my long life I have seen many Leaders from many countries inviting me and the World to "move in a new direction".

I always try to verify what is the direction and where it leads first.

Some Leaders tend to stand at the edge of an abyss and call "Forward!".

Iranian Leaders call for "Death to America" - this is a clear call leaving me unaffected.

Obama's call to move in a new direction is not clear, not safe and leaves me cautious.

This is the only way to a long life.

Edited July 15, 2015 by ABCer

[ezzra]

Every politician and his dog knows that Iran want a nuclear capabilities on tap, they themselves made

no secret of it, Iran will have that weapon, everything they did in the last 30 years was striving towards

that goal, now they exercises minds over matters, Iran don't mind and the

world doesn't matter... Iran will have launchable nukes with in the next few years and there is nothing

that will stop them from achieving it....

Edited July 15, 2015 by ezzra

[johna]

Our allies in the region gave us 9/11 and IS, Iran on the other hand is fighting against these murderers savages, Israel, who we are constantly told is our greatest friend has contributed nothing to peace in the ME but illegal settlements in occupied territories. Perhaps its time we tried something new , because everything we tried in the past has turned into a disaster.

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory post removed.

[Thakkar]

Hardliners in Iran: It's a bad deal.

Hardliners in USA: It's a bad deal.

Netanyahu: It's a bad deal.

Conclusion: It's a good deal.

[Seastallion]

Every politician and his dog knows that Iran want a nuclear capabilities on tap, they themselves made

no secret of it, Iran will have that weapon, everything they did in the last 30 years was striving towards

that goal, now they exercises minds over matters, Iran don't mind and the

world doesn't matter... Iran will have launchable nukes with in the next few years and there is nothing

that will stop them from achieving it....

And that's a good thing, isn't it. Iran is a huge country with millions of very nice, well-educated people. There is one country that want's Iran crippled, and that country already has nukes and has attacked Iran in the past and has threatened to do so again (albeit with subtlety).

MAD is the only way to save Iran from a rogue, aggressive state that wants to cripple it.

Let them have the bomb, for their self-defence.

[Seastallion]

Hardliners in Iran: It's a bad deal.

Hardliners in USA: It's a bad deal.

Netanyahu: It's a bad deal.

Conclusion: It's a good deal.

You sum it up nicely.

Whackos here, whackos there, hawks here and there....they all don't want it, so it's a good bet that the world is better off with it.

[Thakkar]

Hardliners in Iran: It's a bad deal.

Hardliners in USA: It's a bad deal.

Netanyahu: It's a bad deal.

Conclusion: It's a good deal.

You sum it up nicely.

Whackos here, whackos there, hawks here and there....they all don't want it, so it's a good bet that the world is better off with it.

Looking at the history of Iran/Persia/Shia Islam, I'd say that Iran is an inherently moderate country. The rise and sustenance of radicalism in Iran can be traced to British and American meddling--overthrowing an elected democratic government, installing a puppet Shah and his corrupt family and cronies, supporting him throughout his reign of brutal, sadistic repression and economic rape of Iranians, then arming and encouraging another brutal dictator--Saddam--throughout his ten year aggression and all the time subjecting the country to harsh, crippling sanctions for a generation even before they had any nuclear ambitions.

All countries have hardliners and kooks. Whether they ascend to any significance depends on whether they are fed. And the nutrition they thrive on is victimhood. This deal feeds the moderates, and starves the hardliners.

T

Edited July 15, 2015 by Thakkar

[geriatrickid]

Our allies in the region gave us 9/11 and IS, Iran on the other hand is fighting against these murderers savages, Israel, who we are constantly told is our greatest friend has contributed nothing to peace in the ME but illegal settlements in occupied territories. Perhaps its time we tried something new , because everything we tried in the past has turned into a disaster.

Nice baiting post.

Iran has supported Hamas, Hizbollah, Assad and various jihadis in the region. The only reason Iran opposes ISIS is because ISIS hates Shiites. ISIS is Sunni. Iran is Shiite. It is not because Iran wants peace or wishes to protect the world. It is a sectarian stuggle. Syria has been a vassal puppet state of Iran for quite some time.

The Arab world does not want Iran to grow stronger or to have access to nuclear missiles. If there is action against Iran, it will come from Arab countries, and if Israel is involved, it will have received the ok from the Arab world. You are naïve if you think the UAE, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, including Egypt and Jordan will accept the deal. Israel can not act alone and will need permission from Jordan and Saudi Arabia because it will need to use their airspace.

[otto69]

How naive can Obama and Kerry be. This Agreement is outright stupid.Within a few years Iran has nuclear weapons. Iran has outsmarted the Americans, but it is not the first time U.S.A. has ben outsmarted and it won"t be the last.

[otto69]

This Agreement is outright stupid.Within a few years Iran has nuclear weapons. Iran has outsmarted the Americans, but it is not the first time U.S.A. has ben outsmarted and it won"t be the last.

[samran]

Every politician and his dog knows that Iran want a nuclear capabilities on tap, they themselves made

no secret of it, Iran will have that weapon, everything they did in the last 30 years was striving towards

that goal, now they exercises minds over matters, Iran don't mind and the

world doesn't matter... Iran will have launchable nukes with in the next few years and there is nothing

that will stop them from achieving it....

And that's a good thing, isn't it. Iran is a huge country with millions of very nice, well-educated people. There is one country that want's Iran crippled, and that country already has nukes and has attacked Iran in the past and has threatened to do so again (albeit with subtlety).

MAD is the only way to save Iran from a rogue, aggressive state that wants to cripple it.

Let them have the bomb, for their self-defence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, though semi democratic, Iran is a more preferable ally in the region. More moderate and cosmopolitan than our gulf state partners.

The country still reserves seats in parliament for jews and allows them to practice their religion for starters. Try that in Saudi.

It isn't too far fetched to see that a country like Iran could figure out some sort of detente with Israel over time, especially given there is a sizeable Iranian Jewish diaspora there too with historical connections back to the place.

Moreover, the real peacemaker here, if it happens, will be trade. Educated and moderately well off nation. US firms should get right in there and fly the flag for all the rightly admirered things that most of the world look to the U.S. for anyway.

[Halion]

These idiots have opened the door to Armageddon is a vein attempt to appear competent. Iran has been on course for the development of nuclear capability over the past two decades History and common sense dictates that it is a deadly sin to trust this regime and to pander to them is truly reprehensible. We have Kerry and crew and the current US administration to thank for releasing the lock on Pandora's box.

[Thakkar]

I've been watching the Fox News coverage of this issue and see that the naysayers on this forum (and other forum) are mouthing the same objections and half truths, cutting off the historical references at exactly the point that suits their bias.

I'd recommend going outside the Right Wing Echo chamber for some additional news and perspective. You'll be doing yourselves a favour. Constant, unwarranted outrage is no way to go through life.

T

[h90]

Our allies in the region gave us 9/11 and IS, Iran on the other hand is fighting against these murderers savages, Israel, who we are constantly told is our greatest friend has contributed nothing to peace in the ME but illegal settlements in occupied territories. Perhaps its time we tried something new , because everything we tried in the past has turned into a disaster.

Nice baiting post.

Iran has supported Hamas, Hizbollah, Assad and various jihadis in the region. The only reason Iran opposes ISIS is because ISIS hates Shiites. ISIS is Sunni. Iran is Shiite. It is not because Iran wants peace or wishes to protect the world. It is a sectarian stuggle. Syria has been a vassal puppet state of Iran for quite some time.

The Arab world does not want Iran to grow stronger or to have access to nuclear missiles. If there is action against Iran, it will come from Arab countries, and if Israel is involved, it will have received the ok from the Arab world. You are naïve if you think the UAE, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, including Egypt and Jordan will accept the deal. Israel can not act alone and will need permission from Jordan and Saudi Arabia because it will need to use their airspace.

Assad is a moderate socialist....the best thing you can have in this area...

[h90]

Hardliners in Iran: It's a bad deal.

Hardliners in USA: It's a bad deal.

Netanyahu: It's a bad deal.

Conclusion: It's a good deal.

You sum it up nicely.

Whackos here, whackos there, hawks here and there....they all don't want it, so it's a good bet that the world is better off with it.

Looking at the history of Iran/Persia/Shia Islam, I'd say that Iran is an inherently moderate country. The rise and sustenance of radicalism in Iran can be traced to British and American meddling--overthrowing an elected democratic government, installing a puppet Shah and his corrupt family and cronies, supporting him throughout his reign of brutal, sadistic repression and economic rape of Iranians, then arming and encouraging another brutal dictator--Saddam--throughout his ten year aggression and all the time subjecting the country to harsh, crippling sanctions for a generation even before they had any nuclear ambitions.

All countries have hardliners and kooks. Whether they ascend to any significance depends on whether they are fed. And the nutrition they thrive on is victimhood. This deal feeds the moderates, and starves the hardliners.

T

with that history it is more than logic to seek nuclear weapon to prevent the next attack...

[F430murci]

OMG, Obama is beyond an idiot and has set a course for World War III. Wow, just wow. Speechless. I though Bush was bad, but one really has to wonder what Obama's true agenda truly is. Wow.

And, and why has Obama not voiced outrage over the pretty blind young girl killed by the illegal immigrant in San Francisco. Oh yea, she is white.

[JakeSully]

Clearly the right wing nuts everywhere hate this but the ones who have common sense appreciate a chance for not charging head first into another war unless we absolutely are forced to. Besides Israel is not a state of the United States so Israel if you want to go attack Iran, go for it yourself and by yourself. I'll enjoy a nice Texas style brisket in the mean time as I for one would not like to see these are the names of the men and women who died this week serving in Iran because of a stupid war of Jeb Bush & Tom Cotton.

[arjunadawn]

Every politician and his dog knows that Iran want a nuclear capabilities on tap, they themselves made

no secret of it, Iran will have that weapon, everything they did in the last 30 years was striving towards

that goal, now they exercises minds over matters, Iran don't mind and the

world doesn't matter... Iran will have launchable nukes with in the next few years and there is nothing

that will stop them from achieving it....

Ahh, "Peace in our time."

The parallel are hardly hyperbole.

(Animated gif-click)

Edited July 15, 2015 by arjunadawn

[JakeSully]

OMG, Obama is beyond an idiot and has set a course for World War III. Wow, just wow. Speechless. I though Bush was bad, but one really has to wonder what Obama's true agenda truly is. Wow.

The people had enough for Bush so they voted in Obama.

He said in his debates before his first term, this is what he would do and it's what he's done. Not surprising at all. Just like he said he would go into Pakistan and take out Bin Laden.

Next time you vote for someone, listen to them on the issues first.. no flip flopping here.. the people got what they voted for.

[arjunadawn]

I've been watching the Fox News coverage of this issue and see that the naysayers on this forum (and other forum) are mouthing the same objections and half truths, cutting off the historical references at exactly the point that suits their bias.

I'd recommend going outside the Right Wing Echo chamber for some additional news and perspective. You'll be doing yourselves a favour. Constant, unwarranted outrage is no way to go through life.

T

You have noted you watch the news. You comment people on this forum say similar or exact things as some news channel in US you cite (Presumably the US). The connection is... what? These random association that exists only in your imagination concludes they speak 1/2 truths, both the news and TV posters equally impugning the others reputation by having an opinion opposite from your own, thus they are 1/2 correct? So, with no knowledge of a media target audience nor any knowledge of what TV posters watch generally, because they equally say something objectionable to you they are an echo chamber, and biased? Do you not see the vacancy of this assertion?

You make no point; you offer no premise, no deduction, not even a conclusion, only vague pejorative by imagined association. You only offer ad hominem at what you suggest are those who have a different point of view and by (created) association are biased. One could hardly offer a more foundationally bankrupt assertion.

Note regarding naysayers- it is not possible that Iran will abide by this fantasy creation (it is actually not possible!). By one definition this does make posters like me naysayers, as suggested. If that was your inferred point, you could have skipped the nonsense of suggesting historic and observationally based points of view are outrage because you either do not understand the material or cannot articulate a response. You see, unlike many posters here, you actually offer no meaningful information to distill thought; you only protest the light cast by others. You have stated nothing to support your view point, only insisted those who have are personally biased, raging, or echoes. In fact, on both sides of this issue great observations have been offered, you are not among those posters.

This uniquely defines the character of your argument- as inferior!

Edited July 15, 2015 by arjunadawn

[IAMHERE]

Some neighbors of Iran better be out shopping for nuclear weapons, maybe even buy some from North Korea or Pakistan or Isreal even. USA cannot protect those arab states once Iran gets the bomb.

[Jingthing]

Sure. Why shouldn't Saudi and Egypt get nukes.

Then what's next? ISIS with nukes?
Maybe these Armageddon-ready types are on to something.

Obama will be out of office by then. Legacy Schmegacy.

Oh well!

Edited July 15, 2015 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

Those who approve of the deal either approve of a nuclear Iran or have not even read the O.P. Inspections are at Iran's say so and nowhere are there details as to how or when the current state of Iran's nuclear developments will be verified, meaning there is no base line to measure compliance against. Recent flag burning, shouts of death to America and intercepting of merchant ships hardly point to a new era of cooperation. All in all this deal makes the fudge keeping Greece in the Euro look good by comparison.

Though as expected some of our esteemed members care not a jot.

[Jingthing]

It's beyond not caring.

It's more like some posting here and many in the world are on the side of the clearly stated Iranian leadership goals:

Death to USA

Death to Israel

... and also in favor of the OBVIOUS intent of the Iranian regime ... developing nuclear weapons.

As far as I'm concerned, the Iranian regime is an enemy state of the USA and yes a sponsor of terror.

This deal was NOT a peace deal between the USA and Iran but only about an attempt to slow down Iran's nuclear program in return for shiploads of cash.

That was made very clear and in case anyone didn't understand, the Islamofascists in Tehran continued with their Death to USA/Death to Israel chant rallies during the negotiations.

Cheeky buggers.

If accidentally this deal works out in a good way, great, but don't bet the house on it.

More like a North Korea situation but MUCH WORSE.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

The Arab world does not want Iran to grow stronger or to have access to nuclear missiles.

The Arab world needs Iran's help stopping IS and Saudi and Iran have had informal communications to that effect.

This is no big deal for Saudi. If they want their own nukes to "protect them" from Iran, they'll buy a few off Pakistan.

[JakeSully]

What do you expect with this mentality of the conservatives?

[Thakkar]

I've been watching the Fox News coverage of this issue and see that the naysayers on this forum (and other forum) are mouthing the same objections and half truths, cutting off the historical references at exactly the point that suits their bias.

I'd recommend going outside the Right Wing Echo chamber for some additional news and perspective. You'll be doing yourselves a favour. Constant, unwarranted outrage is no way to go through life.

T

You have noted you watch the news. You comment people on this forum say similar or exact things as some news channel in US you cite (Presumably the US). The connection is... what? These random association that exists only in your imagination concludes they speak 1/2 truths, both the news and TV posters equally impugning the others reputation by having an opinion opposite from your own, thus they are 1/2 correct? So, with no knowledge of a media target audience nor any knowledge of what TV posters watch generally, because they equally say something objectionable to you they are an echo chamber, and biased? Do you not see the vacancy of this assertion?

You make no point; you offer no premise, no deduction, not even a conclusion, only vague pejorative by imagined association. You only offer ad hominem at what you suggest are those who have a different point of view and by (created) association are biased. One could hardly offer a more foundationally bankrupt assertion.

Note regarding naysayers- it is not possible that Iran will abide by this fantasy creation (it is actually not possible!). By one definition this does make posters like me naysayers, as suggested. If that was your inferred point, you could have skipped the nonsense of suggesting historic and observationally based points of view are outrage because you either do not understand the material or cannot articulate a response. You see, unlike many posters here, you actually offer no meaningful information to distill thought; you only protest the light cast by others. You have stated nothing to support your view point, only insisted those who have are personally biased, raging, or echoes. In fact, on both sides of this issue great observations have been offered, you are not among those posters.

This uniquely defines the character of your argument- as inferior!

Calm down. Say it, don't spray it. Your unwarranted outrage is spitting all over my screen.

If you read my other posts on this thread, you'll see that I've provided some elaboration.

From your rant, I can respond only to the parts I think I've understood.

Naysayers: yes, because the only alternative they offer to the negotiated settlement we have now is the annihilation of Iran as an independent nation unless Iran tows the Israel/US line. That's not a viable solution. Is it a perfect deal? No deal ever is. But it does defuse some immediate threats to and from all sides. It lowers the temperature and allows breathing room to develop better relations, improve trust and reduce suspicions--a war monger's nightmare.

Fox gives voice to warmongers like Lindsey Graham and allows them to say outrageous things without challenge, like:

"Obama's taken the world's most destabilizing power, and he's guaranteed they will become a nuclear nation."

He's done no such thing. Iran's program has been on-going for three decades (right after Israel got its nukes). Obama was handed a live firecracker and has defused it, at least for the foreseeable future. And the "most destabilising power in the world"? In the last sixty years that would be The Soviet Union, Israel or The United States--take your pick. Iran isn't even in the top ten.

"This could be a death sentence for the State of Israel."

Israel is an upper income country with nukes and the most modern, best trained, best equipped army in the region. Iran is impoverished, has dilapidated thirty-year-old gear and a population exhausted from decades of sanctions. How are they going to kill Israel? With Pistachios?

"This is like taking a can of gasoline and throwing it on a fire."

No, bombing Iran would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. The agreement does the exact opposite.

"Instead of dismantling their program, we're ensuring that they become a nuclear nation. This is a deal for a deal's sake."

Read the details. In fact, this agreement dismantles much, much more of their program than two decades of sanctions ever did. If anything, American and Israeli belligerency strengthened Iran's resolve to go nuclear.

What Lindsey Graham asserts is repeated all around the right wing circle jerk that is Fox, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh et al. If all one does is stay in that circle, it's no wonder one gets outraged. But these guys are spraying fake outrage and they know it. The people getting sprayed don't have the wherewithal to know it.

Of course, I could be wrong. The fact that what some posters are saying on this thread is the same as what I've read/seen in U.S. Right wing media could be because those media quoting posters on Thaivisa.

T

Edited July 15, 2015 by Thakkar

[h90]

Sure. Why shouldn't Saudi and Egypt get nukes.

Then what's next? ISIS with nukes?

Maybe these Armageddon-ready types are on to something.

Obama will be out of office by then. Legacy Schmegacy.

Oh well!

Saudis are already looking for nukes, rumors say, but may stop if Iran stops.