• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Text of agreement with Iran on its nuclear program

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,660
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Text of agreement with Iran on its nuclear program

By The Associated Press | April 3, 2015

The United States, Iran and five other world powers announced a deal Thursday outlining limits on Iran's nuclear program so it cannot lead to atomic weapons. Negotiators now have to take that deal and shape it into a final accord by June 30. The agreement says that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

At the link above, the parameters of the P5+1/Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) are published in 7 SECTIONS:

ENRICHMENT
FORDO CONVERSION
NATANZ FACILITY
INSPECTIONS AND TRANSPARENCY
REACTORS AND REPROCESSING
SANCTIONS
PHASING
 
On the whole, I consider the JCPOA a fairly robust framework. As the agreement mentions however, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"

There remains much to be worked out in detail. I am not happy with the 1 year breakout period. I think this should be 18 months minimum. I am also not happy that a new UN Security Council resolution will have to be implemented. This allows Russia and China, who oftentimes take the Iranian position, to act as Iranian UNSC proxies. A murky "dispute resolution process" regarding significant non-compliance issues will also be implemented. What exactly does "significant" allude to in this regard?

The Iranians have already termed a fact sheet published by the US State Department (OP link) spin ... because details have not yet been negotiated and wholly agreed upon.
 
Simpleχity;1064490997 said:
On the whole, I consider the JCPOA a fairly robust framework. As the agreement mentions however, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"

There remains much to be worked out in detail. I am not happy with the 1 year breakout period. I think this should be 18 months minimum. I am also not happy that a new UN Security Council resolution will have to be implemented. This allows Russia and China, who oftentimes take the Iranian position, to act as Iranian UNSC proxies. A murky "dispute resolution process" regarding significant non-compliance issues will also be implemented. What exactly does "significant" allude to in this regard?

The Iranians have already termed a fact sheet published by the US State Department (OP link) spin ... because details have not yet been negotiated and wholly agreed upon.

There is no doubt that there are still some major points to fix. And you are absolutely right that the 1 year breakout clause is disturbing, as a future President would have to act within a time frame that would make unilateral war almost inevitable, should Iran decide to go off course at some later date. This problem could easily be exacerbated by the sweeteners of automatic kick-in of sanctions. Russia and Germany would invariably argue to wait and see, how the sanctions worked giving Iran the time it needed. There are other things as well.

But I must admit that I am surprised at the quality of the deal framework, as it is shaping up. And, though, I would want points like the above worked on, I at present think the thing could be much better than I had expected. I am still thinking about it.

But the main thing is whether the Persians really mean it.
 
But I must admit that I am surprised at the quality of the deal framework, as it is shaping up. And, though, I would want points like the above worked on, I at present think the thing could be much better than I had expected. I am still thinking about it.
I am also surprised at what Iran has tentatively accepted in the framework. There are things that need tweaking and better definition, but this is far more than I originally envisioned.

But the main thing is whether the Persians really mean it.
Agreed. Even this initial framework will be a tough sell to Iranian hard-liners.
 
The understanding also needs to be compared to the initial U.S. goals and the terms set forth in UNSC Res. 1696. It falls short of both. Contrary to some arguments that the understanding is "thorough," vital points are not specified. They include how Iran will reduce its LEU stockpile, what R&D is deemed "peaceful," what will preclude Iran for pursuing a nuclear breakout once the agreement's timeframe passes, etc.

The Washington Post wrote in its editorial on the understanding:

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.


Obama
 
Anyone willing to put money that the only thing agreed to by June 30th is to keep working till September 30th?
 
Anyone willing to put money that the only thing agreed to by June 30th is to keep working till September 30th?

Is that what you are hoping for?
 
Simpleχity;1064491048 said:
I am also surprised at what Iran has tentatively accepted in the framework. There are things that need tweaking and better definition, but this is far more than I originally envisioned.


Agreed. Even this initial framework will be a tough sell to Iranian hard-liners.

You speak as though the "hard liners" were out of the loop in the negotiations. I appreciate your acknowledgement in the robust nature of the framework. FOX was incapable of the same, despite their "fair and balanced" nature.
 
You speak as though the "hard liners" were out of the loop in the negotiations. I appreciate your acknowledgement in the robust nature of the framework. FOX was incapable of the same, despite their "fair and balanced" nature.
I'm fairly sure Khamenei was appraised. Beyond that however, is a guessing game.

It's not much of a stretch to speculate that not everyone in the regime will be thrilled with the framework parameters.
 
Simpleχity;1064492740 said:
I'm fairly sure Khamenei was appraised. Beyond that however, is a guessing game.

It's not much of a stretch to speculate that not everyone in the regime will be thrilled with the framework parameters.

How do you know this?
 
Simpleχity;1064492900 said:
I don't know anything for certain. Just sensible guesses using deductive reasoning and basic logic.

But to me basic logic would be that the Ayatollahs are directing the negotiations. If they aren't, then apparently there's more hope for Iran than people give credit.
 
Simpleχity;1064490997 said:
On the whole, I consider the JCPOA a fairly robust framework. As the agreement mentions however, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"

There remains much to be worked out in detail. I am not happy with the 1 year breakout period. I think this should be 18 months minimum. I am also not happy that a new UN Security Council resolution will have to be implemented. This allows Russia and China, who oftentimes take the Iranian position, to act as Iranian UNSC proxies. A murky "dispute resolution process" regarding significant non-compliance issues will also be implemented. What exactly does "significant" allude to in this regard?

The Iranians have already termed a fact sheet published by the US State Department (OP link) spin ... because details have not yet been negotiated and wholly agreed upon.

France has already said they were expecting stronger controls on Iran and, as you implied, Iran seems to be fully prepared to act on their version of the eventual deal.
Their negotiator has been hailed a hero and given a damn parade.

Under no reading or interpretation of these terms can anyone conclude Iran has committed to not developing a nuclear weapon.

Postponement of a breakout is hardly of much comfort, especially when the sanctions will be effectively gone (any sanctions the USA may have kept in place will be laughed at) and Iran can just say nevermind we built one anyway at any time since inspections are a joke too.
 
Simpleχity;1064492740 said:
I'm fairly sure Khamenei was appraised. Beyond that however, is a guessing game.

It's not much of a stretch to speculate that not everyone in the regime will be thrilled with the framework parameters.

You must be joking.
You really believe Zarif is some kind of renegade?
 
France has already said they were expecting stronger controls on Iran and, as you implied, Iran seems to be fully prepared to act on their version of the eventual deal.
Their negotiator has been hailed a hero and given a damn parade.

Under no reading or interpretation of these terms can anyone conclude Iran has committed to not developing a nuclear weapon.

Postponement of a breakout is hardly of much comfort, especially when the sanctions will be effectively gone (any sanctions the USA may have kept in place will be laughed at) and Iran can just say nevermind we built one anyway at any time since inspections are a joke too.

Yes, the Iranians gave him a parade because they're thrilled that he played a role in ensuring that their country does not become a nuclear weapons power. Seems like a good thing. They also realise that without a deal, that freak in Israel begins bombing them. Of course he may well do that anyway.
 
Seems like a good place to work from, hopefully they'll actually agree to it.
 
But to me basic logic would be that the Ayatollahs are directing the negotiations. If they aren't, then apparently there's more hope for Iran than people give credit.
Are you telling us that *everyone* in the regime is aware of all negotiation nuances? Are you telling us that there are no regime hard-liners who oppose any concessions? Are you telling us that there are no hard-liners who prefer enduring the sanctions if the end result is an Iranian nuclear weapon? Are you telling us that the Iranian political spectrum is a unitary monolith?

The regime hard-liners will have to be convinced to accept whatever Khamenei decides upon ... either by reason or by fiat.
 
Seems like a good place to work from, hopefully they'll actually agree to it.
Despite the naysayers and novitiates above, the framework is indeed a good platform to build upon.
 
The ultimate question I suppose, is whether Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei will drink from the "poisoned cup" of peace in 2015 as his predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini claimed he did in 1989 to end the Iran/Iraq War.
 
Simpleχity;1064494669 said:
Are you telling us that *everyone* in the regime is aware of all negotiation nuances? Are you telling us that there are no regime hard-liners who oppose any concessions? Are you telling us that there are no hard-liners who prefer enduring the sanctions if the end result is an Iranian nuclear weapon? Are you telling us that the Iranian political spectrum is a unitary monolith?

The regime hard-liners will have to be convinced to accept whatever Khamenei decides upon ... either by reason or by fiat.

Of course not. Not everyone in government is on board with all the actions that any nation takes. But sense we're both going by our guts, or basic common sense as you stated, who ever counts or has the final say in Iran is directing the negotiations.
 
But sense we're both going by our guts, or basic common sense as you stated, who ever counts or has the final say in Iran is directing the negotiations.
I wouldn't say directing negotiations like a conductor commands an orchestra. As negotiations enter each different phase, there is probably a home-consultation regarding a minimalist position, but everything above this bottom-line position is available to the negotiator. This sort of latitude methodology is probably true for Kerry also.
 
It's a good milestone. If Iran is key to peace in the ME then it's stupid not to talk to them. And now, a lot of skeptics and critics are surprised at how good the deal really is.....the Saudi king, for one....

'...Saudi Arabia’s King Salman staked out less confrontational ground, telling President Obama that he hoped it would strengthen “stability and security” in the region.

The remarks by Salman suggested no major policy shifts by Saudi Arabia or its Persian Gulf Arab partners after the announcement Thursday of a framework that would place limits on Iran’s nuclear program — but allow some level of uranium enrichment — in exchange for easing international sanctions...."

Iran nuclear pact stirs hope


It was just last week the Saudi's were threatening a nuclear arms race if the Iran deal was agreed on.....today...meh, not so much.
 
There is no doubt that there are still some major points to fix. And you are absolutely right that the 1 year breakout clause is disturbing, as a future President would have to act within a time frame that would make unilateral war almost inevitable, should Iran decide to go off course at some later date. This problem could easily be exacerbated by the sweeteners of automatic kick-in of sanctions. Russia and Germany would invariably argue to wait and see, how the sanctions worked giving Iran the time it needed. There are other things as well.

But I must admit that I am surprised at the quality of the deal framework, as it is shaping up. And, though, I would want points like the above worked on, I at present think the thing could be much better than I had expected. I am still thinking about it.

But the main thing is whether the Persians really mean it.

Good grief, of course they don't mean it. They are still chanting "death to America", and have stated the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable. How ****ing gullible can some people be? You gotta be Shiite'n me. :shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom