Well I think it's a decent deal...anything that's a positive move in the region.
Exactly, time for a change and new direction. It hasn't worked for all these years, let's try diplomacy. Like real diplomacy.
good luck with that. today, israel said military strikes on iran are still on the table.
Unreal I'm convinced Israel will never be satisfied ....
If Iran can play the "whose balls are bigger" game, it's only natural that Israel should play the same one, given that Israel does that naturally even without antagonism.
In addition, Israel would be threatened by loss of American support if it were to respond in such a way about an American-brokered deal, and therefore I don't see that happening (given that, without mass immigration of global Jewry, the state risks losing its predominantly Jewish status, based on Jewish procreation rates compared to Muslim procreation rates). If you believe the world's non-Jewish population answers to the Jewish lobby to some degree, I'd also argue that Israel answers to the Jewish lobby as well. Said Jewish lobby needs to present itself as pro-American, as well as pro-Israeli, in order to advocate in favour of pro-Israeli policies back in America. They're incapable of being pro-both unless Israeli and American goals are aligned. I think this would be seen as a betrayal of that alignment and bipartisanship relationship.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor The Fruits of Diplomacy With Iran
By WILLIAM J. BURNS APRIL 2, 2015
WASHINGTON — IN a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran, and its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We can’t wish or bomb away the basic know-how and enrichment capability that Iran has developed. What we can do is sharply constrain it over a long duration, monitor it with unprecedented intrusiveness, and prevent the Iranian leadership from enriching material to weapons grade and building a bomb.
Those are the goals that have animated recent American diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear issue, including during the back-channel talks with Iran that I led in Oman and other quiet venues in 2013. Against a backdrop of 35 years without sustained diplomatic contact, filled with mutual suspicion and grievance, it was hardly surprising that our discussions were difficult, and our Iranian counterparts as tough-minded and skeptical as they were professionally skilled. But our efforts helped set the stage for the interim agreement, or Joint Plan of Action, concluded in November 2013.
Much maligned at the time, the J.P.O.A. has proved its value, freezing and rolling back Iran’s nuclear program for the first time in a decade, applying innovative inspections measures, allowing only modest sanctions relief and keeping substantial pressure on Iran.
The understanding announced in Lausanne, Switzerland, on Thursday is an important step forward. Many crucial details still have to be resolved. But the understanding outlines a solid comprehensive agreement that would increase, for at least a decade, the time it would take Iran to enrich enough weapons-grade material for a single bomb from the current two-to-three-month timeline to at least one year. It would significantly reduce Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium, substantially limit the country’s enrichment capacity and constrain Iranian research and development on more advanced centrifuges. And it would cut off Iran’s other possible pathways to a bomb, including by effectively eliminating Iran’s potential capacity to produce weapons-grade plutonium at its planned Arak reactor and banning enrichment at the underground Fordow facility for at least 15 years.
In addition to these significant limitations, we would create an inspection regime unparalleled in intensity, going well beyond current international standards and ensuring that any breakout effort would be quickly detected. Only a negotiated deal gets us the verification and monitoring we need to close off any covert path to a weapon.
Through carefully phased sanctions relief with built-in procedures to reimpose sanctions immediately in case of Iranian noncompliance, we would also preserve ample enforcement leverage. With more eyes on less material in fewer places, and clarity about the harsh costs of cheating, we would be well positioned to deter and prevent Iranian breakout.
As consequential as this understanding is, much more remains to be done. Three challenges loom largest.
The first is the most obvious and immediate: the difficult, painstaking work of negotiating the details of a comprehensive agreement. Rigorous execution of such an agreement will be a critical priority for this administration and its successor, and that will depend on the quality of its verification and enforcement provisions. There is no reason to rush this effort, especially given the continued freeze on Iran’s program under the J.P.O.A. What’s crucial is to get it right.
The second and third challenges are more long-term, but equally important. Completing this comprehensive nuclear accord with Iran must be one part of a clear-eyed strategy for a Middle East in deep disarray. I do not assume that progress on the nuclear issue will lead anytime soon to relaxation of tensions with Tehran on other regional problems, or to normalization of United States-Iranian relations. Nor do I assume that the Iranian leadership will make an overnight transformation from a revolutionary, regionally disruptive force to a more “normal” role as another ambitious regional power.
That means we must work to reassure our partners in the region, whose concerns about both Iranian threats and the impact of a nuclear deal are palpable. We should urgently pursue new forms of security assurances and cooperation. Taking a firm stance against threatening Iranian actions in the region, from Syria to Yemen, not only shores up anxious longtime friends. It also is the best way to produce Iranian restraint, much as a firm stance on sanctions helped persuade Iran to reassess its nuclear strategy.
Similarly, it’s important to embed a comprehensive Iranian nuclear agreement in a wider effort to strengthen the global nuclear order. New inspection and monitoring measures applied through an Iran agreement may create useful future benchmarks. The Iranian problem has exposed significant vulnerabilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, especially the absence of a clear divide between civilian and military programs. The Iran case makes clear that the gray zone in the treaty between the right to use nuclear energy and the prohibition against manufacturing nuclear weapons is too wide. As nuclear technology and know-how become more diffuse and states turn to nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, building a sturdy firewall between military and peaceful activities will be an increasingly important task.
None of this will be easy. But the prospect of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran in the next few months, if executed rigorously and embedded in wider strategies for regional order and global nuclear order, can be a significant turning point. It can also be a much-needed demonstration of the enduring value of diplomacy.
The history of the Iranian nuclear issue is littered with missed opportunities. It is a history in which fixation on the perfect crowded out the good, and in whose rearview mirror we can see deals that look a lot better now than they seemed then. With all its inevitable imperfections, we can’t afford to miss this one.
William J. Burns, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was deputy secretary of state from 2011 to 2014 and continues to advise the government on the Iran talks.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is the best."
~ FZ ~
Israeli leader voices anger over Lausanne agreement with Iran in phone conversation with Barack Obama
Benjamin Netanyahu has denounced the framework agreement over Iran’s nuclear programme as a “bad and dangerous deal” that threatens Israel’s existence.
The Israeli prime minister launched his expected backlash against the settlement hatched between Tehran and six world powers almost immediately after details emerged from the Swiss town of Lausanne on Thursday, criticising it in a late night phone conversation with President Barack Obama.
Mr Netanyahu told the US leader that he “vehemently opposed” the agreement, saying it posed a “grave danger to Israel, the region and the world”.
A statement issued by the prime minister’s office afterwards was even more scathing, calling it a deal that “kowtows to Iranian dictates” and would pave the way to a “military nuclear programme”.
“This is a bad framework that will lead to a bad and dangerous deal,” the statement said. “If an agreement is reached based on the guidelines of this framework that would be a historic mistake which will transform the world into a much more dangerous place. The framework gives Iran’s nuclear programme, the sole purpose of which is to produce nuclear bombs, international legitimacy.”
Mr Netanyahu convened his security cabinet on Friday to discuss the issue.
His negative response had been widely predicted. As negotiations unfolded in Lausanne, the Israeli prime minister had compared the event to the infamous 1938 Munich conference at which the Western allies colluded with Adolf Hitler to dismember Czechoslovakia in an effort to avert war.
He also pointed to a quote attributed to an Iranian general who was reported to have said this week that Israel’s destruction was non-negotiable.
“An Iranian official said that Israel’s destruction is non-negotiable,” Mr Netanyahu said. “However, giving Iran’s murderous regime, the bomb is negotiable.”
While Mr Netanyahu’s strident approach has put him in the forefront of Israeli opposition to attempts at negotiating a deal, his stance on a nuclear-armed Iran reflects a broad consensus of Israel’s political spectrum.
Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, joint founders of the centre-Left Zionist Union opposition, reacted to Thursday’s agreement by calling for close cooperation with America to “roll back Iran’s nuclear programme and prevent it from getting nuclear weapons”.
Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist Yesh Atid party who was sacked last year as finance minister by Mr Netanyahu, said domestic political differences were set aside when it came to Iran.
“On the Iranian nuclear issue there is no opposition and coalition,” he said. “We are all concerned that the Iranians will circumvent the deal and Israel must protect its own security interests.”
Nahaum Barnea, one of Israel’s most experienced commentators, suggested Mr Netanyahu’s efforts to pressure Mr Obama over Iran – which reached a peak when he addressed the US congress last month in a clear affront to the US president – meant that the Lausanne deal amounted to a personal defeat.
“The truth should be told: this was a resounding failure for Israel,” Mr Barnea wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth. “As the clash between Netanyahu and Obama on the Iranian issue heightened, Israel’s influence on the course of the negotiations and its outcome lessened.”
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Doesn't work that way.
Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Doesn't work that way.
Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
Interesting, but not definitive. This reads alot like propaganda: "The US which was seeking to change Iran's political behavior was forced to change its political behavior towards our people," "The comments made after the Lausanne negotiations once again showed the United States' strong grudge against the Iranians and proved that the US officials are liars and untrustworthy,"
Sounds like a bunch of "talkin out the ass", much like the way folks like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin push ballsy rhetoric that is more about inflammatory language than reality or truth.
It will be interesting to see what the agreement that is signed will say, until then it's hard to say who's the liar, probably both sides. Of course, the radical right says there will never be a piece of paper signed, and even if there were, we wouldn't see it because Obama is a tyrant.
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Doesn't work that way.
Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
That is what Obama is trying to do. You are arguing that Iran should have a bomb as a counterweight to Israel. You two are not on the same page.
Interesting, but not definitive. This reads alot like propaganda: "The US which was seeking to change Iran's political behavior was forced to change its political behavior towards our people," "The comments made after the Lausanne negotiations once again showed the United States' strong grudge against the Iranians and proved that the US officials are liars and untrustworthy,"
Sounds like a bunch of "talkin out the ass", much like the way folks like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin push ballsy rhetoric that is more about inflammatory language than reality or truth.
It will be interesting to see what the agreement that is signed will say, until then it's hard to say who's the liar, probably both sides. Of course, the radical right says there will never be a piece of paper signed, and even if there were, we wouldn't see it because Obama is a tyrant.
You are right that both sides are probably lying. That is my whole point. How can anyone be cheering an agreement when there doesn't appear to be an agreement at all?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Doesn't work that way.
Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
That is what Obama is trying to do. You are arguing that Iran should have a bomb as a counterweight to Israel. You two are not on the same page.
Oh so now you're speaking for me too? I never said iran SHOULD have a fucken nuke you fucken dellusional? You just can't seem to see the hypocrisy of you supporting a regime that's crying all over the world about iran "trying" to get a nuke all the while they themselves have over 200 said nukes. Do you not understand that everyone knows this and sees this? As smart as you claim to be, you do post some dumb shit. And I can careless if I'm on the same page as obama. I'm sure he can give 2 shits where any of us stand. Wake the fuck up. Stop being dellusional and filled with hate towards a religion and people.
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Doesn't work that way.
Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
That is what Obama is trying to do. You are arguing that Iran should have a bomb as a counterweight to Israel. You two are not on the same page.
Oh so now you're speaking for me too? I never said iran SHOULD have a fucken nuke you fucken dellusional? You just can't seem to see the hypocrisy of you supporting a regime that's crying all over the world about iran "trying" to get a nuke all the while they themselves have over 200 said nukes. Do you not understand that everyone knows this and sees this? As smart as you claim to be, you do post some dumb shit. And I can careless if I'm on the same page as obama. I'm sure he can give 2 shits where any of us stand. Wake the fuck up. Stop being dellusional and filled with hate towards a religion and people.
Well should they or shouldn't they? You keep dodging that by bringing up Israel. Israel has them. We know that. Now what are your thoughts on Iran? Should they be stopped from getting one? Do you care?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Doesn't work that way.
Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
That is what Obama is trying to do. You are arguing that Iran should have a bomb as a counterweight to Israel. You two are not on the same page.
Oh so now you're speaking for me too? I never said iran SHOULD have a fucken nuke you fucken dellusional? You just can't seem to see the hypocrisy of you supporting a regime that's crying all over the world about iran "trying" to get a nuke all the while they themselves have over 200 said nukes. Do you not understand that everyone knows this and sees this? As smart as you claim to be, you do post some dumb shit. And I can careless if I'm on the same page as obama. I'm sure he can give 2 shits where any of us stand. Wake the fuck up. Stop being dellusional and filled with hate towards a religion and people.
Well should they or shouldn't they? You keep dodging that by bringing up Israel. Israel has them. We know that. Now what are your thoughts on Iran? Should they be stopped from getting one? Do you care?
Who am I to say what another country should or should not do. In my opinion iran and the entire world should NOT have any nukes. Is that clear enough for you? Here, I'll say it again. Iran and the entire world should NOT have any nukes period. As for do I care? I care more then you'll ever know and more then you'll ever care. Remember, I'm not the one advocating for the us to drop bombs on Iran. Can u say the same?
As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
Doesn't work that way.
Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
That is what Obama is trying to do. You are arguing that Iran should have a bomb as a counterweight to Israel. You two are not on the same page.
Oh so now you're speaking for me too? I never said iran SHOULD have a fucken nuke you fucken dellusional? You just can't seem to see the hypocrisy of you supporting a regime that's crying all over the world about iran "trying" to get a nuke all the while they themselves have over 200 said nukes. Do you not understand that everyone knows this and sees this? As smart as you claim to be, you do post some dumb shit. And I can careless if I'm on the same page as obama. I'm sure he can give 2 shits where any of us stand. Wake the fuck up. Stop being dellusional and filled with hate towards a religion and people.
Well should they or shouldn't they? You keep dodging that by bringing up Israel. Israel has them. We know that. Now what are your thoughts on Iran? Should they be stopped from getting one? Do you care?
Who am I to say what another country should or should not do. In my opinion iran and the entire world should NOT have any nukes. Is that clear enough for you? Here, I'll say it again. Iran and the entire world should NOT have any nukes period. As for do I care? I care more then you'll ever know and more then you'll ever care. Remember, I'm not the one advocating for the us to drop bombs on Iran. Can u say the same?
I can say the same...for now. My problem is that I think "the deal" pushes the world much closer to confrontation. The Saudi's are now calling in Pakistani back-up against the houthis. A major sunni-shia flare up is far more likely then an Israeli-Iranian flare up. This would be a disaster.
no deal means they continue on the path they were clearly already on at greater capacity for enrichment of not only uranium but plutonium as well. well beyond the 20% enrichment levels they are reported to be at now.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
no deal means they continue on the path they were clearly already on at greater capacity for enrichment of not only uranium but plutonium as well. well beyond the 20% enrichment levels they are reported to be at now.
so lets just call the whole thing off , shall we?
Yes. That and crushing sanctions. Complete economic isolation. Naval blockade. Roll back of current expansion in Iraq and Yemen. Promote the Green revolution.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
no deal means they continue on the path they were clearly already on at greater capacity for enrichment of not only uranium but plutonium as well. well beyond the 20% enrichment levels they are reported to be at now.
so lets just call the whole thing off , shall we?
Yes. That and crushing sanctions. Complete economic isolation. Naval blockade. Roll back of current expansion in Iraq and Yemen. Promote the Green revolution.
Crushing sanctions in Iraq killed Over half a million children, and culminated in war anyway. That's the best you can come up with?
no deal means they continue on the path they were clearly already on at greater capacity for enrichment of not only uranium but plutonium as well. well beyond the 20% enrichment levels they are reported to be at now.
so lets just call the whole thing off , shall we?
Yes. That and crushing sanctions. Complete economic isolation. Naval blockade. Roll back of current expansion in Iraq and Yemen. Promote the Green revolution.
Crushing sanctions in Iraq killed Over half a million children, and culminated in war anyway. That's the best you can come up with?
His other option is to have the U.S. Bomb the shit out of them. That'll solve everything.
no deal means they continue on the path they were clearly already on at greater capacity for enrichment of not only uranium but plutonium as well. well beyond the 20% enrichment levels they are reported to be at now.
so lets just call the whole thing off , shall we?
Yes. That and crushing sanctions. Complete economic isolation. Naval blockade. Roll back of current expansion in Iraq and Yemen. Promote the Green revolution.
Crushing sanctions in Iraq killed Over half a million children, and culminated in war anyway. That's the best you can come up with?
If it's that or a nuclear Iran then yes. A nuclear Iran will be far worse.
no deal means they continue on the path they were clearly already on at greater capacity for enrichment of not only uranium but plutonium as well. well beyond the 20% enrichment levels they are reported to be at now.
so lets just call the whole thing off , shall we?
Yes. That and crushing sanctions. Complete economic isolation. Naval blockade. Roll back of current expansion in Iraq and Yemen. Promote the Green revolution.
Crushing sanctions in Iraq killed Over half a million children, and culminated in war anyway. That's the best you can come up with?
If it's that or a nuclear Iran then yes. A nuclear Iran will be far worse.
Please tell me you're talking weapons and not energy. If you're talking weapons...You think killing half a million kids is justified against the possibility repeat possibility that Iran can circumvent inspections and build a bomb. And then, the possibility (possibility) that the Iranians will be the second nation with leaders stupid and psychotic enough to use a nuke...and the first to take that stupid psychosis to the next level by being the first nation to use a nuke since the MAD doctrine became reality? you have no faith whatsoever in the humanity of iran, and absolute faith that the motives of the west revolve around security, am I reading this correctly? This is your view, to the point that these incredibly low odds are worth the lives of a half million Iranian kids...is that what you're saying BS?
If you're talking energy...well...I'll keep the personal comments to myself.
no deal means they continue on the path they were clearly already on at greater capacity for enrichment of not only uranium but plutonium as well. well beyond the 20% enrichment levels they are reported to be at now.
so lets just call the whole thing off , shall we?
Yes. That and crushing sanctions. Complete economic isolation. Naval blockade. Roll back of current expansion in Iraq and Yemen. Promote the Green revolution.
Crushing sanctions in Iraq killed Over half a million children, and culminated in war anyway. That's the best you can come up with?
If it's that or a nuclear Iran then yes. A nuclear Iran will be far worse.
Please tell me you're talking weapons and not energy. If you're talking weapons...You think killing half a million kids is justified against the possibility repeat possibility that Iran can circumvent inspections and build a bomb. And then, the possibility (possibility) that the Iranians will be the second nation with leaders stupid and psychotic enough to use a nuke...and the first to take that stupid psychosis to the next level by being the first nation to use a nuke since the MAD doctrine became reality? you have no faith whatsoever in the humanity of iran, and absolute faith that the motives of the west revolve around security, am I reading this correctly? This is your view, to the point that these incredibly low odds are worth the lives of a half million Iranian kids...is that what you're saying BS?
If you're talking energy...well...I'll keep the personal comments to myself.
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
In addition, Israel would be threatened by loss of American support if it were to respond in such a way about an American-brokered deal, and therefore I don't see that happening (given that, without mass immigration of global Jewry, the state risks losing its predominantly Jewish status, based on Jewish procreation rates compared to Muslim procreation rates). If you believe the world's non-Jewish population answers to the Jewish lobby to some degree, I'd also argue that Israel answers to the Jewish lobby as well. Said Jewish lobby needs to present itself as pro-American, as well as pro-Israeli, in order to advocate in favour of pro-Israeli policies back in America. They're incapable of being pro-both unless Israeli and American goals are aligned. I think this would be seen as a betrayal of that alignment and bipartisanship relationship.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor
The Fruits of Diplomacy With Iran
By WILLIAM J. BURNS
APRIL 2, 2015
WASHINGTON — IN a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran, and its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We can’t wish or bomb away the basic know-how and enrichment capability that Iran has developed. What we can do is sharply constrain it over a long duration, monitor it with unprecedented intrusiveness, and prevent the Iranian leadership from enriching material to weapons grade and building a bomb.
Those are the goals that have animated recent American diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear issue, including during the back-channel talks with Iran that I led in Oman and other quiet venues in 2013. Against a backdrop of 35 years without sustained diplomatic contact, filled with mutual suspicion and grievance, it was hardly surprising that our discussions were difficult, and our Iranian counterparts as tough-minded and skeptical as they were professionally skilled. But our efforts helped set the stage for the interim agreement, or Joint Plan of Action, concluded in November 2013.
Much maligned at the time, the J.P.O.A. has proved its value, freezing and rolling back Iran’s nuclear program for the first time in a decade, applying innovative inspections measures, allowing only modest sanctions relief and keeping substantial pressure on Iran.
The understanding announced in Lausanne, Switzerland, on Thursday is an important step forward. Many crucial details still have to be resolved. But the understanding outlines a solid comprehensive agreement that would increase, for at least a decade, the time it would take Iran to enrich enough weapons-grade material for a single bomb from the current two-to-three-month timeline to at least one year. It would significantly reduce Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium, substantially limit the country’s enrichment capacity and constrain Iranian research and development on more advanced centrifuges. And it would cut off Iran’s other possible pathways to a bomb, including by effectively eliminating Iran’s potential capacity to produce weapons-grade plutonium at its planned Arak reactor and banning enrichment at the underground Fordow facility for at least 15 years.
In addition to these significant limitations, we would create an inspection regime unparalleled in intensity, going well beyond current international standards and ensuring that any breakout effort would be quickly detected. Only a negotiated deal gets us the verification and monitoring we need to close off any covert path to a weapon.
Through carefully phased sanctions relief with built-in procedures to reimpose sanctions immediately in case of Iranian noncompliance, we would also preserve ample enforcement leverage. With more eyes on less material in fewer places, and clarity about the harsh costs of cheating, we would be well positioned to deter and prevent Iranian breakout.
As consequential as this understanding is, much more remains to be done. Three challenges loom largest.
The first is the most obvious and immediate: the difficult, painstaking work of negotiating the details of a comprehensive agreement. Rigorous execution of such an agreement will be a critical priority for this administration and its successor, and that will depend on the quality of its verification and enforcement provisions. There is no reason to rush this effort, especially given the continued freeze on Iran’s program under the J.P.O.A. What’s crucial is to get it right.
The second and third challenges are more long-term, but equally important. Completing this comprehensive nuclear accord with Iran must be one part of a clear-eyed strategy for a Middle East in deep disarray. I do not assume that progress on the nuclear issue will lead anytime soon to relaxation of tensions with Tehran on other regional problems, or to normalization of United States-Iranian relations. Nor do I assume that the Iranian leadership will make an overnight transformation from a revolutionary, regionally disruptive force to a more “normal” role as another ambitious regional power.
That means we must work to reassure our partners in the region, whose concerns about both Iranian threats and the impact of a nuclear deal are palpable. We should urgently pursue new forms of security assurances and cooperation. Taking a firm stance against threatening Iranian actions in the region, from Syria to Yemen, not only shores up anxious longtime friends. It also is the best way to produce Iranian restraint, much as a firm stance on sanctions helped persuade Iran to reassess its nuclear strategy.
Similarly, it’s important to embed a comprehensive Iranian nuclear agreement in a wider effort to strengthen the global nuclear order. New inspection and monitoring measures applied through an Iran agreement may create useful future benchmarks. The Iranian problem has exposed significant vulnerabilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, especially the absence of a clear divide between civilian and military programs. The Iran case makes clear that the gray zone in the treaty between the right to use nuclear energy and the prohibition against manufacturing nuclear weapons is too wide. As nuclear technology and know-how become more diffuse and states turn to nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, building a sturdy firewall between military and peaceful activities will be an increasingly important task.
None of this will be easy. But the prospect of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran in the next few months, if executed rigorously and embedded in wider strategies for regional order and global nuclear order, can be a significant turning point. It can also be a much-needed demonstration of the enduring value of diplomacy.
The history of the Iranian nuclear issue is littered with missed opportunities. It is a history in which fixation on the perfect crowded out the good, and in whose rearview mirror we can see deals that look a lot better now than they seemed then. With all its inevitable imperfections, we can’t afford to miss this one.
William J. Burns, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was deputy secretary of state from 2011 to 2014 and continues to advise the government on the Iran talks.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is the best."
~ FZ ~
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11513971/Nuclear-deal-threatens-Israels-existence-Benjamin-Netanyahu-says.html
Israeli leader voices anger over Lausanne agreement with Iran in phone conversation with Barack Obama
Benjamin Netanyahu has denounced the framework agreement over Iran’s nuclear programme as a “bad and dangerous deal” that threatens Israel’s existence.
The Israeli prime minister launched his expected backlash against the settlement hatched between Tehran and six world powers almost immediately after details emerged from the Swiss town of Lausanne on Thursday, criticising it in a late night phone conversation with President Barack Obama.
Mr Netanyahu told the US leader that he “vehemently opposed” the agreement, saying it posed a “grave danger to Israel, the region and the world”.
A statement issued by the prime minister’s office afterwards was even more scathing, calling it a deal that “kowtows to Iranian dictates” and would pave the way to a “military nuclear programme”.
“This is a bad framework that will lead to a bad and dangerous deal,” the statement said. “If an agreement is reached based on the guidelines of this framework that would be a historic mistake which will transform the world into a much more dangerous place. The framework gives Iran’s nuclear programme, the sole purpose of which is to produce nuclear bombs, international legitimacy.”
Mr Netanyahu convened his security cabinet on Friday to discuss the issue.
His negative response had been widely predicted. As negotiations unfolded in Lausanne, the Israeli prime minister had compared the event to the infamous 1938 Munich conference at which the Western allies colluded with Adolf Hitler to dismember Czechoslovakia in an effort to avert war.
He also pointed to a quote attributed to an Iranian general who was reported to have said this week that Israel’s destruction was non-negotiable.
“An Iranian official said that Israel’s destruction is non-negotiable,” Mr Netanyahu said. “However, giving Iran’s murderous regime, the bomb is negotiable.”
While Mr Netanyahu’s strident approach has put him in the forefront of Israeli opposition to attempts at negotiating a deal, his stance on a nuclear-armed Iran reflects a broad consensus of Israel’s political spectrum.
Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, joint founders of the centre-Left Zionist Union opposition, reacted to Thursday’s agreement by calling for close cooperation with America to “roll back Iran’s nuclear programme and prevent it from getting nuclear weapons”.
Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist Yesh Atid party who was sacked last year as finance minister by Mr Netanyahu, said domestic political differences were set aside when it came to Iran.
“On the Iranian nuclear issue there is no opposition and coalition,” he said. “We are all concerned that the Iranians will circumvent the deal and Israel must protect its own security interests.”
Nahaum Barnea, one of Israel’s most experienced commentators, suggested Mr Netanyahu’s efforts to pressure Mr Obama over Iran – which reached a peak when he addressed the US congress last month in a clear affront to the US president – meant that the Lausanne deal amounted to a personal defeat.
“The truth should be told: this was a resounding failure for Israel,” Mr Barnea wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth. “As the clash between Netanyahu and Obama on the Iranian issue heightened, Israel’s influence on the course of the negotiations and its outcome lessened.”
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940119001411
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/08/iran-military-sites-off-limits-to-inspectors/
The deal is a farce.
This reads alot like propaganda:
"The US which was seeking to change Iran's political behavior was forced to change its political behavior towards our people,"
"The comments made after the Lausanne negotiations once again showed the United States' strong grudge against the Iranians and proved that the US officials are liars and untrustworthy,"
Sounds like a bunch of "talkin out the ass", much like the way folks like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin push ballsy rhetoric that is more about inflammatory language than reality or truth.
It will be interesting to see what the agreement that is signed will say, until then it's hard to say who's the liar, probably both sides.
Of course, the radical right says there will never be a piece of paper signed, and even if there were, we wouldn't see it because Obama is a tyrant.
so lets just call the whole thing off , shall we?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If you're talking weapons...You think killing half a million kids is justified against the possibility repeat possibility that Iran can circumvent inspections and build a bomb. And then, the possibility (possibility) that the Iranians will be the second nation with leaders stupid and psychotic enough to use a nuke...and the first to take that stupid psychosis to the next level by being the first nation to use a nuke since the MAD doctrine became reality? you have no faith whatsoever in the humanity of iran, and absolute faith that the motives of the west revolve around security, am I reading this correctly? This is your view, to the point that these incredibly low odds are worth the lives of a half million Iranian kids...is that what you're saying BS?
If you're talking energy...well...I'll keep the personal comments to myself.
Match