UN endorses Iran nuclear deal with 6 world powers

[webfact]

UN endorses Iran nuclear deal with 6 world powers
By EDITH M. LEDERER

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council on Monday unanimously endorsed the landmark deal to rein in Iran's nuclear program and authorized measures leading to the end of U.N. sanctions, but also approved a provision that would automatically reinstate the harsh measures if Tehran reneges on its promises.

European Union foreign ministers meeting in Brussels immediately followed suit, endorsing the agreement between Iran and six major powers and taking the first step to lift EU sanctions.

President Barack Obama told reporters he hopes the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress, where there is strong opposition to the deal, will pay attention to the "broad international consensus," stressing that the deal is "by far our strongest approach to ensuring that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon."

But House Speaker John Boehner accused Obama of "ignoring the concerns of the American people" by allowing "such a consequential vote" to go ahead in the U.N. just 24 hours after submitting the agreement to Congress, which has 60 days to consider it. "This is a bad start for a bad deal," he said.

While sharp differences remain between the United States and Iran, ambassadors from both countries called the agreement an important achievement for diplomacy.

Under the agreement, Iran's nuclear program will be curbed for a decade in exchange for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of relief from international sanctions. Many key penalties on the Iranian economy, such as those related to the energy and financial sectors, could be lifted by the end of the year.

Iran insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful, aimed at producing nuclear energy and medical isotopes, but the United States and its Western allies believe Tehran's real goal is to build atomic weapons. Iran's U.N. Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo reiterated that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared nuclear weapons "Haram," which means forbidden by the Muslim faith in Arabic.

Khoshroo said Iran promises to be "resolute in fulfilling its obligations" and expects all other parties to the agreement to meet their commitments. This is the only way diplomacy can "prevail over conflict and war in a world that is replete with violence, suffering and oppression," he said.

The Iranian ambassador said the agreement "provides a solid foundation for further and more effective diplomatic interaction." And he expressed hope that the agreement heralds "a new chapter" in the country's relations with the Security Council and the six powers that negotiated the deal — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said the deal gives Iran "an opportunity to prove to the world that it intends to pursue a nuclear program solely for peaceful purposes."

"If Iran seizes that opportunity ... then it will find the international community and the United States willing to provide a path out of isolation and toward greater engagement," she said.

But Power said the nuclear deal doesn't change the United States' "profound concern about human rights violations committed by the Iranian government or about the instability Iran fuels beyond its nuclear program, from its support for terrorist proxies to repeated threats against Israel to its other destabilizing activities in the region."

She urged Iran to release three "unjustly imprisoned" Americans and to determine the whereabouts of Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent who vanished in Iran in 2007.

Khoshroo departed from his prepared speech to react to what he called "baseless accusations" from Power.

He accused the United States of "feckless and reckless acts" by invading Iraq and Afghanistan. These invasions "created favorable ground for the growth of terrorism and extremism" and are at the root of many challenges facing the unstable region, he said

Obama has stressed that all of Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon are cut off for the duration of the agreement and Iran is obliged to remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges and get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of uranium.

But Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the Security Council "has confirmed the inalienable right of Iran to develop its peaceful nuclear program, including to enrich uranium" under supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The resolution specifies that seven previous resolutions related to U.N. sanctions will be terminated when Iran has completed a series of major steps to curb its nuclear program and the IAEA has concluded that "all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities."

All provisions of the U.N. resolution will terminate in 10 years, including the "snap back" provision that would make it easier to reimpose sanctions.

But last week the six major powers and the European Union informed U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that they have agreed to extend the snap back mechanism for an additional five years. They asked Ban to send their letter to the Security Council.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-07-21

[sdanielmcev]

A lot of thens and ifs there.

[hawker9000]

Much less than meets the eye with this deal. I'm sure Iranians are all dancing in the streets, and who can blame them? Half are just happy because of the lifting of sanctions. The other half are in hysterics over Obama.

[Srikcir]

Republicans fear WW III slipping away and they're not happy about it.

[Seastallion]

A lot of thens and ifs there.

A lot of global consensus.

Overwhelming global consensus.

[Pakboong]

Much less than meets the eye with this deal. I'm sure Iranians are all dancing in the streets, and who can blame them? Half are just happy because of the lifting of sanctions. The other half are in hysterics over Obama.

The Iranians are not happy. They want unrestricted conventional weapons development. The US included an 8 year restriction on the development of certain missiles.

[hawker9000]

Much less than meets the eye with this deal. I'm sure Iranians are all dancing in the streets, and who can blame them? Half are just happy because of the lifting of sanctions. The other half are in hysterics over Obama.

The Iranians are not happy. They want unrestricted conventional weapons development. The US included an 8 year restriction on the development of certain missiles.

The government overlords assuredly wanted that. Not sure the average guy in the street cares about it nearly as much as relief from the hardships imposed by the sanctions though. Besides, whatever the mad theocracy wants it'll continue to get; they'll just have to do it clandestinely. That's hardly anything new for them though.

[IAMHERE]

"...reinstate the harsh measures if Tehran reneges on its promises. "

Give me a break, part of the deal is to un-freeze about 110 Billion dollars held in banks around the world, You wanna bet that 110 billion never comes back to be frozen again ?

A crap deal to get this off Obama's desk and unto the next POTUS desk. OR perhaps there is already a real plan for harsh measures that can be carried out successfully, it wouldn't surprise me if those Iranians screwed up and nuked themselves, wink wink.

[sdanielmcev]

A lot of thens and ifs there.

A lot of global consensus.

Overwhelming global consensus.

Since this article doesn't show any consensus, you mind filling the rest of us in?

[hawker9000]

A lot of thens and ifs there.

A lot of global consensus.

Overwhelming global consensus.

Since this article doesn't show any consensus, you mind filling the rest of us in?

To the extent that the "global consensus" consists of EU nations, I think it's all Greek to them ...

[Ulysses G.]

Republicans fear WW III slipping away and they're not happy about it.

They fear WW III with a nuclear armed Iran. Neville Chamberlain had nothing on Obama.

[mjef]

A lot of thens and ifs there.

FYI, that is called a deal.

If you do something you get something otherwise you will be punished!

[Seastallion]

A lot of thens and ifs there.

A lot of global consensus.

Overwhelming global consensus.

Since this article doesn't show any consensus, you mind filling the rest of us in?

Heh? Read it again.

Unanimous UNSC... that's 15 countries.

Unanimous EU.... that's 28 countries...less Spain as it's already counted in the UNSC, so 27.

Taking what the 5+1 represent, plus what the rest of the EU and UNSC represent, it is indeed as Obamas put it (also in the OP) "broad international consensus,"

And no doubt there are many other countries that also agree....but yes, that's not mentioned in the OP.

[Seastallion]

A lot of thens and ifs there.

A lot of global consensus.

Overwhelming global consensus.

Since this article doesn't show any consensus, you mind filling the rest of us in?

Would you be able to list the dissenters in the world?

1. Israel.

2. Saudi Arabia, maybe.

3. The GOP.

4. AIPAC.

5. we're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel with organisations instead of countries.....

[Thorgal]

All quiet on the Washington/Jerusalem parliamentary fronts...!

[Thorgal]

A lot of thens and ifs there.

A lot of global consensus.

Overwhelming global consensus.

Since this article doesn't show any consensus, you mind filling the rest of us in?

Would you be able to list the dissenters in the world?

1. Israel.

2. Saudi Arabia, maybe.

3. The GOP.

4. AIPAC.

5. we're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel with organisations instead of countries.....

And Micronesia...

[Seastallion]

A lot of global consensus.

Overwhelming global consensus.

Since this article doesn't show any consensus, you mind filling the rest of us in?

Would you be able to list the dissenters in the world?

1. Israel.

2. Saudi Arabia, maybe.

3. The GOP.

4. AIPAC.

5. we're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel with organisations instead of countries.....

And Micronesia...

If so...IF..then it is because Micronesian countries are beholden to US Republicans OR because of the US's nuclear testing there, they just hate all nukes.

[retarius]

But the Senate and Congress in thrall to Israel will vote it down....and where does that leave the deal? 5 countries in the negotiations accept the deal and one doesn't...US diplomatically isolated again and having to lean on a reluctant EU to allow NATO to use airstrikes against Iran at Israel's behest? The poodle UK changing its mind to align with the US using sophistry to convince the Daily Mail reader? Will Russia and EU ignore US sanctions? Interesting times ahead and unfortunately the threat of war has increased rather than decreased because of the 'deal'.

[hawker9000]

But the Senate and Congress in thrall to Israel will vote it down....and where does that leave the deal? 5 countries in the negotiations accept the deal and one doesn't...US diplomatically isolated again and having to lean on a reluctant EU to allow NATO to use airstrikes against Iran at Israel's behest? The poodle UK changing its mind to align with the US using sophistry to convince the Daily Mail reader? Will Russia and EU ignore US sanctions? Interesting times ahead and unfortunately the threat of war has increased rather than decreased because of the 'deal'.

Even the Senate & House, assuming they had the votes to override Obama's veto, which they don't, can't keep the other signatories, and other supporting nations of the World, from going ahead with this deal. So everyone who wants to see Iran get its nukes is going to be very happy. And Obama will laugh all the way to his speaking tours, 'cause the inevitable coming train wreck won't land in his lap. ('Course the dems will find some way to still be lamely blaming Bush...)

[Thorgal]

Quote from OP :

"But House Speaker John Boehner accused Obama of "ignoring the concerns of the American people" by allowing "such a consequential vote" to go ahead in the U.N. just 24 hours after submitting the agreement to Congress, which has 60 days to consider it. "This is a bad start for a bad deal," he said."

Must be Iranophobia...

[kamahele]

Republicans fear WW III slipping away and they're not happy about it.

They fear WW III with a nuclear armed Iran. Neville Chamberlain had nothing on Obama.

Actually they don't fear WW III with Iran. They keep people in fear as it works in getting them reelected and keeps the money from the arms dealers and Israeli lobby flowing into their campaign coffers. This deal which passed the UN security council unanimously curbs Iran's ability to make a bomb for decades. It doesn't solve all problems with Iran but with one success may come others.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Republicans fear WW III slipping away and they're not happy about it.

They fear WW III with a nuclear armed Iran. Neville Chamberlain had nothing on Obama.

you seem to be firmly in place on the fear bandwagon yourself. Enjoy your ride.

[wabothai]

Let go of your obsessions Israel and some of the guests here on TV.

Dare to trust and you may experience some "enlightment".

[lifeincnx]

Republicans fear WW III slipping away and they're not happy about it.

They fear WW III with a nuclear armed Iran. Neville Chamberlain had nothing on Obama.

Let's see, when Dubya came into office in 2001 Iran had 200 centrifuges. He put heavy sanctions in place, being the tough "no Neville Chamberlain' guy that he was. When he left office in January, 2009 Iran had approximately 4,000 working centrifuges. So much for that argument.

For a good read, Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, has probably one of the best, concise editorial synopses on this deal. Here's the link:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2015-07-15/turn-down-what?cid=nlc-fatoday-20150716&sp_mid=49116752&sp_rid=dGFkbWFsb25lQGdtYWlsLmNvbQS2

[Jingthing]

Let go of your obsessions Israel and some of the guests here on TV.

Dare to trust and you may experience some "enlightment".

There is no logical reason to "trust" the Iranian regime.

They have cheated before in nuclear agreements.

They lie about some BS "fatwa" about never developing nuclear weapons, when it is known for a fact they have indeed been working on them.

They are already making loud noises about reneging on the inspections aspect of this do called "deal" which has nothing to do with a peace deal.

This isn't peace.

Their leaders lead chants Death to the USA / Death to Israel.

Recently Germany asked them to recognize Israel and their reply was NO, we do not accept the right of Israel to exist.

Of course many fans of the hateful Iranian position posting here ...

[sammygood]

a country full of oil, but they need a nuclear plant for .... ???

[Seastallion]

a country full of oil, but they need a nuclear plant for .... ???

Cheaper energy so they can sell their oil. Makes perfect sense.

[Ulysses G.]

Republicans fear WW III slipping away and they're not happy about it.

They fear WW III with a nuclear armed Iran. Neville Chamberlain had nothing on Obama.

Let's see, when Dubya came into office in 2001 Iran had 200 centrifuges. He put heavy sanctions in place, being the tough "no Neville Chamberlain' guy that he was. When he left office in January, 2009 Iran had approximately 4,000 working centrifuges. So much for that argument.

Nope. Bush did not start putting strong sanctions into place till about 2006 after Iran reneged on an agreement to suspend uranium enrichment. The strongest sanctions - on international financial transactions - did not kick in until 2010. Most of the growth in Iran's nuclear program happened before all the sanctions went into effect and were successfully strangling the Iranian economy. Obama was the one that snatched defeat from victory with the worst "deal" since the Munich Agreement in 1938.

[lifeincnx]

Republicans fear WW III slipping away and they're not happy about it.

They fear WW III with a nuclear armed Iran. Neville Chamberlain had nothing on Obama.

Let's see, when Dubya came into office in 2001 Iran had 200 centrifuges. He put heavy sanctions in place, being the tough "no Neville Chamberlain' guy that he was. When he left office in January, 2009 Iran had approximately 4,000 working centrifuges. So much for that argument.

Nope. Bush did not start putting strong sanctions into place till about 2006 after Iran reneged on an agreement to suspend uranium enrichment. The strongest sanctions - on international financial transactions - did not kick in until 2010. Most of the growth in Iran's nuclear program happened before all the sanctions went into effect and were successfully strangling the Iranian economy. Obama was the one that snatched defeat from victory with the worst "deal" since the Munich Agreement in 1938.

Your opinion and yours to own, but you avoided the centrifuge issue. No big deal, huh? Gee, do you think Iran was helped by Halliburton as they continued to trade with them AFTER the Bush sanctions were in place by moving their HQ and using their Arab-friendly "shell" subsidiaries? The ghost of Cheney keeps on giving to this day (I know, he wasn't CEO, yada, yada).

Want a good, concise editorial on the deal to read? Foreign Affairs puts it is the right perspective, not just outlandish "1938" hyperbole. The article's last sentence fully sums up my opinion: "In the end, I can easily imagine a better deal, but in the world as it is, this one is quite good."

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2015-07-15/turn-down-what?cid=nlc-fatoday-20150716&sp_mid=49116752&sp_rid=dGFkbWFsb25lQGdtYWlsLmNvbQS2

[Jingthing]

a country full of oil, but they need a nuclear plant for .... ???

The reason the Mullahs want is to preserve their Islamofascist autocratic power. They see the success of North Korean leadership in staying in power and how getting a nuke weapons program ensures that. Then they see what happened in Libya and think the North Korean option is better.