Breaking: Framework Reached on Iran Nuke Deal
Sounds like a decent deal. Much more likely to work than bombing.
If this framework results in a completed agreement, this will be one of the most historic agreements of the past few decades.
Should the anticipated final agreement prove successful, this will be considered in the same league as Reagan's START treaty.
Should the anticipated final agreement prove unsuccessful, this will be compaired to Chamberlain's capitulation.
I'm guardedly optimistic this will be the start of a new epcoh.
Should the anticipated final agreement prove successful, this will be considered in the same league as Reagan's START treaty.
Should the anticipated final agreement prove unsuccessful, this will be compaired to Chamberlain's capitulation.
I'm guardedly optimistic this will be the start of a new epcoh.
Apr 3, 2015 at 3:23am Edited
Max - Thank you for starting the thread. Hopefully, it will stay constructive.
"Sanctions: After implementation of the agreement by Iran, all sanctions that applied on Iran by the U.S. and the EU on banking, insurance, and oil will be lifted immediately. The UN Security Council will make a decision that will replace six earlier decisions that leveled sanctions on Iran, and will decide which of the sanctions will remain in place. "
There seems to be a difference of opinion between Iran and the US about the timing of the sanctions relief.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/twitter-tiff-suggests-major-gaps-still-remain-over-nuclear-deal/
eta - France has been been firm that sanctions relief will only be done in phases, and not immediately, as Iran is saying, and has insisted upon from the beginning.
"Sanctions: After implementation of the agreement by Iran, all sanctions that applied on Iran by the U.S. and the EU on banking, insurance, and oil will be lifted immediately. The UN Security Council will make a decision that will replace six earlier decisions that leveled sanctions on Iran, and will decide which of the sanctions will remain in place. "
There seems to be a difference of opinion between Iran and the US about the timing of the sanctions relief.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/twitter-tiff-suggests-major-gaps-still-remain-over-nuclear-deal/
eta - France has been been firm that sanctions relief will only be done in phases, and not immediately, as Iran is saying, and has insisted upon from the beginning.
It is also being generally reported that the sanctions will still exist in a "snap-back" format, so they can be reimposed after a violation without a political process needed first.
Without commenting on the agreement itself- Iran can do an additional 500k- 1mm bbl a day almost immediately.
Speculators are losing places to store the stuff. Oil prices may skid even lower if the deal goes through.
Speculators are losing places to store the stuff. Oil prices may skid even lower if the deal goes through.
Tom Friedman's interview with Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-obama-doctrine-and-iran-interview.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-obama-doctrine-and-iran-interview.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Apr 6, 2015 at 4:21am Edited
Jackson_Fusion said:
Without commenting on the agreement itself- Iran can do an additional 500k- 1mm bbl a day almost immediately.
Speculators are losing places to store the stuff. Oil prices may skid even lower if the deal goes through.
Although oil prices dropped on Thursday after the announcement of the framework, they're up today because many traders say that there won't be any increased Iranian production until 2016.
Also, Saudi Arabia increased its prices to Asia for the second time in a month because of increased demand.
Apr 7, 2015 at 12:58pm Edited
In an interview on NPR yesterday, Obama said that after 13 years the breakout time would be zero years.
"What is a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.
Keep in mind, though, currently, the breakout times are only about two to three months by our intelligence estimates. So essentially, we're purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year ... that — that if they decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we'd have over a year to respond. And we have those assurances for at least well over a decade.
And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter, but at that point we have much better ideas about what it is that their program involves. We have much more insight into their capabilities. And the option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-deal-to-give-iran-zero-breakout-time-in-13-years/
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/29/372485968/transcript-president-obamas-full-npr-interview
Today, the State Department walked-back Obama's statement that the breakout time would be zero years in 13-15 years in the emerging deal, and said that Obama was referring to a scenario in which there was no deal. As pointed out in the TOI article, it's difficult to understand why Obama would put the breakout time at zero in 13-15 years when the US has said at present the breakout time is 2-3 months. Obama said this in his NPR interview, as quoted above.
"But according to State Department acting spokesperson Marie Harf, Obama “was referring to a scenario in which there was no deal. And if you go back and look at the transcript – I know it’s a little confusing, I spoke to the folks at the White House and read it a few times – it’s my understanding he was referring to — even though it was a little muddled in the words — a scenario in which there was no deal.
In a briefing Tuesday, Harf noted that some of the restrictions that would be in place during those years have not yet been negotiated.
“Part of the negotiations remains what happens to some of those pieces in those further-on years. I don’t have a specific breakout time to put on to those years at this point, but obviously we want as long of a breakout time for as long as possible. So it would not be zero,” Harf said.
It’s unclear why Obama would put the zero-breakout point at 13-15 years hence in the absence of a deal, when the US currently believes Iran is only two to three months from breaking out to a nuclear weapon, and has thus set a goal for the nuclear negotiations of pushing that figure back to at least a year.
In addition, the terms of the outline deal would see many restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program expire after 10 years, long before the 13- to 15-year mark cited by Obama. Many of the terms of the nuclear deal have yet to be hammered out — negotiators face a June 30 deadline for a final accord — and the president, or Harf, could have been alluding to longer-term provisions that have yet to be agreed with the Iranians."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/washington-walks-back-obamas-zero-breakout-time-comment/
"What is a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.
Keep in mind, though, currently, the breakout times are only about two to three months by our intelligence estimates. So essentially, we're purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year ... that — that if they decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we'd have over a year to respond. And we have those assurances for at least well over a decade.
And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter, but at that point we have much better ideas about what it is that their program involves. We have much more insight into their capabilities. And the option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-deal-to-give-iran-zero-breakout-time-in-13-years/
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/29/372485968/transcript-president-obamas-full-npr-interview
Today, the State Department walked-back Obama's statement that the breakout time would be zero years in 13-15 years in the emerging deal, and said that Obama was referring to a scenario in which there was no deal. As pointed out in the TOI article, it's difficult to understand why Obama would put the breakout time at zero in 13-15 years when the US has said at present the breakout time is 2-3 months. Obama said this in his NPR interview, as quoted above.
"But according to State Department acting spokesperson Marie Harf, Obama “was referring to a scenario in which there was no deal. And if you go back and look at the transcript – I know it’s a little confusing, I spoke to the folks at the White House and read it a few times – it’s my understanding he was referring to — even though it was a little muddled in the words — a scenario in which there was no deal.
In a briefing Tuesday, Harf noted that some of the restrictions that would be in place during those years have not yet been negotiated.
“Part of the negotiations remains what happens to some of those pieces in those further-on years. I don’t have a specific breakout time to put on to those years at this point, but obviously we want as long of a breakout time for as long as possible. So it would not be zero,” Harf said.
It’s unclear why Obama would put the zero-breakout point at 13-15 years hence in the absence of a deal, when the US currently believes Iran is only two to three months from breaking out to a nuclear weapon, and has thus set a goal for the nuclear negotiations of pushing that figure back to at least a year.
In addition, the terms of the outline deal would see many restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program expire after 10 years, long before the 13- to 15-year mark cited by Obama. Many of the terms of the nuclear deal have yet to be hammered out — negotiators face a June 30 deadline for a final accord — and the president, or Harf, could have been alluding to longer-term provisions that have yet to be agreed with the Iranians."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/washington-walks-back-obamas-zero-breakout-time-comment/
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
The United States, Iran and five other world powers say they've reached an understanding that will direct them toward achieving a comprehensive nuclear agreement within three months. Here are the main points of the “framework agreement” reached between the two powers:
The term of the agreement: The agreement will be in effect for 10 to 15 years during which there will be strict limitations and oversight of the Iranian nuclear program. Some parts of the agreement will remain in effect for 20 to 25 years.
Uranium enrichment: Iran will continue to operate 6,104 out of the 19,000 centrifuges within its territory. 5,000 will continue functioning at the Natanz enrichment facility. 5,000 additional centrifuges located at Natanz will be collected and turned over to the IAEA. There will be no other enrichment facilities in Iran except for Natanz.
Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile: Most of Iran’s stockpile is enriched to the relatively low levels of between 3.5 and 5 percent. This stockpile, totaling roughly 8 tons, will be diluted to a level that cannot be used for making nuclear weapons, or will be taken out of the country.
The underground nuclear reactor at Fordo: This site will be converted from an enrichment facility into a nuclear physics research facility. 1,000 centrifuges will remain operational there, though not for enriching uranium. There will be no fissile nuclear material at the Fordo site.
The Arak heavy water reactor: The international community will assist Iran to refurbish the reactor so that it cannot produce material that could be used for nuclear weapons.
Oversight: The IAEA will receive access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran will sign and ratify the additional protocol of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which stipulates that IAEA inspectors can conduct unrestricted random searches at any suspicious facility in Iran. The IAEA can use advanced technology to oversee Iranian activity.
Research and development: Iran can continue its research and development of advanced centrifuges during the ten years the agreement will be in effect in accordance with agreements it will reach with world powers.
Sanctions: After implementation of the agreement by Iran, all sanctions that applied on Iran by the U.S. and the EU on banking, insurance, and oil will be lifted immediately. The UN Security Council will make a decision that will replace six earlier decisions that leveled sanctions on Iran, and will decide which of the sanctions will remain in place.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.650335