|
- Iran: Eight Prisoners Hanged on Drug Charges
- Daughter of late Iranian president jailed for ‘spreading lies’ - IRAN: Annual report on the death penalty 2016 - Taheri Facing the Death Penalty Again - Dedicated team seeking return of missing agent in Iran - Iran Arrests 2, Seizes Bibles During Catholic Crackdown
- Trump to welcome Netanyahu as Palestinians fear U.S. shift
- Details of Iran nuclear deal still secret as US-Tehran relations unravel - Will Trump's Next Iran Sanctions Target China's Banks? - Don’t ‘tear up’ the Iran deal. Let it fail on its own. - Iran Has Changed, But For The Worse - Iran nuclear deal ‘on life support,’ Priebus says
- Female Activist Criticizes Rouhani’s Failure to Protect Citizens
- Iran’s 1st female bodybuilder tells her story - Iranian lady becomes a Dollar Millionaire on Valentine’s Day - Two women arrested after being filmed riding motorbike in Iran - 43,000 Cases of Child Marriage in Iran - Woman Investigating Clinton Foundation Child Trafficking KILLED!
- Senior Senators, ex-US officials urge firm policy on Iran
- In backing Syria's Assad, Russia looks to outdo Iran - Six out of 10 People in France ‘Don’t Feel Safe Anywhere’ - The liberal narrative is in denial about Iran - Netanyahu urges Putin to block Iranian power corridor - Iran Poses ‘Greatest Long Term Threat’ To Mid-East Security |
Wednesday 25 February 2015An Emerging Nuclear Deal With Iran
Iran and the six major powers may be within reach of an agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program. After months of little apparent progress, the quickening pace of talks suggests that negotiators in Geneva might be able to complete a framework by the end of March, with a final accord reached at the end of June. This isn’t certain, but it offers hope that the protracted nuclear threat from Iran can be resolved peacefully. If it comes together, any agreement would have to establish verifiable limits on the nuclear program and ensure that Iran cannot quickly produce enough weapons-usable material for a bomb. A pact would not end Iran’s nuclear program outright, which it says it needs for power generation and medical purposes, or erase the nuclear know-how Iran and its scientists have acquired over the nearly 60 years since an agreement between President Eisenhower and Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi for the United States to provide Iran with nuclear technology. Critics of any deal — including those in Congress, such as Senator Mark Kirk, a Republican of Illinois, and Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat of New Jersey; and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel — demand complete dismantlement of Iran’s program given the country’s history of lying about its efforts to produce nuclear fuel and pursue other weapons-related activities. But their desired outcome simply cannot be achieved. President George W. Bush wasn’t able to secure that goal in 2003 when Iran had only a few dozen centrifuges, the machines that enrich uranium for nuclear fuel. Now, 12 years later, Iran has an estimated 19,000 centrifuges, not to mention scores of other facilities, including some that have been hardened to withstand a military attack. Bombing Iran might delay the nuclear program for a couple of years but it wouldn’t eradicate it, and the blowback — provoking Iran to speed up production of a nuclear weapon, fueling regional tensions — would be severe. The United States and its partners (Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) have properly focused in the negotiations on curbing Iran’s activities, especially uranium enrichment for weapon purposes. They are trying to structure the agreement so they would know at least a year in advance if Iran moved to speed up its program to build a nuclear bomb. That would allow plenty of time to re-impose sanctions, interrupt the program through cyberwarfare or take military action. During talks in Geneva this week, progress was reportedly made on the time frame of a deal. The idea is to establish a 10-year period in which Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel would be strictly limited, with restrictions eased gradually in the following five years. The lure for the Iranians is that reaching a deal would result in an easing of crippling economic sanctions that have been imposed by the United Nations and Western nations, and that after the deal runs its course they would be able to pursue nuclear enrichment for energy and medical purposes without constraints. Some Iranians had wanted to restrict the deal to seven years, while some Americans had wanted 15 years or longer. The central factor in any deal is how to limit Iran’s ability to enrich weapons-grade uranium, which means barring it from enriching uranium above the 5 percent grade for normal power reactors, reducing the number of operating centrifuges from 10,200, limiting the number of advanced centrifuges, and cutting the amount of low-enriched uranium stockpiled in Iran. Iran has not shown itself to be trustworthy. The only deterrent to such situation would be for immediate and strict sanctions upon the... Are we proposing to give Iran a nuclear weapon? I don't know if that's the smartest form of reparations for a century of American oppression... Every NYT Editorial and OpEd has that fatal line about "Bombing Iran", a line that has no place in discussions of present negotiations.If... See All Comments Iran’s major nuclear installations are already monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency and watched by the United States. But any agreement would also have to require Iran’s ratification of the international agency’s additional protocol, an agreement that allows for even more aggressive inspections to ensure materials are not diverted to a covert nuclear weapons program. The nuclear threat has dominated Iran’s relations with the United States for more than a decade. If this can be resolved, the two countries may be able to tackle other differences, including Iran’s missile program and its growing involvement in regional conflicts. It won’t be easy, but it could open up space for cooperation. Mr. Netanyahu, who is scheduled to address Congress next week, has already denounced the deal. The agreement must be judged on the complete package, not on any single provision. Even if the deal is not perfect, the greater risk could well be walking away and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear activities unfettered. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/opinion/an-emerging-nuclear-deal-with-iran.html?_r=0 |
