Draft Nuclear Deal By U.S. Would Give Iranians Immediate Relief From Sanctions

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

By GEORGE JAHN AND BRADLEY KLAPPER Published MARCH 19, 2015, 9:03 AM EDT

Updated: March 19, 2015, 9:10 AM

LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Officials tell The Associated Press that a draft nuclear accord being negotiated between the U.S. and Iran would force Iran to cut hardware it could use to make an atomic bomb by about 40 percent for at least a decade.

Officials say the draft deal would also offer the Iranians immediate relief from sanctions that have crippled their economy.

The deal would cap Iran's uranium centrifuges at 6,000 for decade or more. The centrifuge number is less than the 10,000 such machines Tehran now runs. But it's substantially more than the 500 to 1,500 that Washington originally wanted as a ceiling.

The existence of a draft in circulation may be the clearest indication the sides were nearing a written agreement before a March 31 deadline.

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/world-news/nuclear-deal-iran-uranium-centrifuges

[leftynyc]

1. Well, I think it's a terrible deal

and it will be broken the very second Pres Obama is out of office which also makes it useless.

[truthisfreedom]

2. Don't drink the kool-aide! International

Law applies to treaties. And there are exactly zero repuke candidates who can win.

[leftynyc]

5. Don't you realize

that congress can upend ANY agreement? It doesn't matter who is in the white house.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Congress can't stop the Europeans, Russians and Chinese from stopping sanctions on Iran

Obama can also use executive authority to temporarily reduce some US sanctions.

This is not an agreement between Iran and America. It's an international agreement.

Also, Obama can have his UN Ambassador vote yea to the deal at the UN Security Council which would give it the force of international law.

The world does not revolve around America/Israel.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. France is on the security council and they are part of the P5+1

Congress cannot stop other UN countries from reducing sanctions.

Understand that.

Also, if France doesn't like the deal, they can reject it and vote nay at the security council, which I doubt they would do.

Again, Congress cannot stop other nations from stopping sanctions. If the Europeans, Russians and Chinese stop sanctions, the sanctions regime is essentially over and America would be left pissing in the wind.

Obama can bless this via a security council vote and congress is powerless to stop it.

The world doesn't revolve around America/Israel.

[leveymg]

29. Is that you, Bibi? Or, is it Senator Tom?

Either way, you are arguing for the war option. Thought you right-wingers were fans of Churchill, who said this about negotiation vs war with his bete noir, the Soviet Union, at the depths of the Cold War:

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." Remarks at a White House luncheon, June 26, 1954.

[geek tragedy]

37. note the website that person is linking to is run by the most bigoted, and insane elements

of the Neocon movement.

It's allied with people like John Bolton, David Horowitz, and Frank Gaffney.

[bananas]

53. War isn't the only option, that's just fear-mongering.

From the Federation of American Scientists and Carnegie Endowment for Peace,
links posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6366797

Economic pressure or military force cannot “end” Iran’s nuclear program. It is entangled with too much pride—however misguided—and sunk costs simply to be abandoned.

The nuclear issue will never be fully resolved absent a broader political settlement. The only sustainable solution for assuring that Iran’s nuclear program remains purely peaceful is a mutually agreeable diplomatic solution. Given that political reconciliation is unlikely, the goal should be détente.

Alternative options exist and should be highlighted. For example, Iran’s solar energy potential is estimated to be thirteen times higher than its total energy needs. By offering Iran cutting-edge alternative energy technologies, a positive precedent could be set for other nuclear-hopefuls.

Public diplomacy should complement nuclear diplomacy. Efforts should make clear to Iranians that a prosperous, integrated Iran—as opposed to a weakened and isolated Iran—is in America’s interests. Washington should clarify what Iranians would collectively gain by a nuclear compromise (other than a reduction of sanctions and war threats) and explain how a more conciliatory Iranian approach would improve the country’s economy and advance its technological—including peaceful nuclear—prowess.

And from a Reuters article on the report:

"No sound strategic energy planning would prioritize nuclear energy in a country like Iran," the report said.

"Instead of enhancing Iran's energy security, the nuclear program has diminished the country's ability to diversify and achieve real energy independence."

[geek tragedy]

30. You have linked to John Bolton's war cheerleading website three times in this thread.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/about/

Ambassador John R. Bolton, Chairman

Nina Rosenwald, President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President

Board of Governors (in formation)
◾The Viscountess Bearsted
◾Baroness Caroline Cox
◾Alan Dershowitz
◾The Lord Finkelstein OBE
◾Jack Fowler
◾Robert Immerman
◾Lawrence Kadish
◾Ingeborg Rennert
◾Rebecca Sugar
◾Merryl Tisch

Amir Taheri, Chairman, Europe Board of Governors

Board of Governors, Gatestone Europe
◾Chairman, Amir Taheri
◾Anne-Elisabeth Moutet

Board of Advisors (in formation)
◾Ahmed Charai
◾Rev. Dr. Petr Heldt
◾M. Zuhdi Jasser
◾Richard Kemp
◾Michael Mukasey
◾Elie Wiesel
◾R. James Woolsey

Have you no shame?

[blm]

3. I don't. I think people here are mostly unaware that people of Iran were ready

for this deal, and have been pressuring their leadership for changes, too.

The lifting of sanctions for a nation that is now working in partnership with our allies fighting against ISIS is appropriate.

[geek tragedy]

11. Congress can't reinstate UN sanctions

Sorry you're not getting a war with Iran

[geek tragedy]

27. "spare me the bullshit" says a guy who gets his news from John Bolton

Quite an illustrious website you're linking to there.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/about/

Ambassador John R. Bolton, Chairman

Nina Rosenwald, President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President

Board of Governors (in formation)
◾The Viscountess Bearsted
◾Baroness Caroline Cox
◾Alan Dershowitz
◾The Lord Finkelstein OBE
◾Jack Fowler
◾Robert Immerman
◾Lawrence Kadish
◾Ingeborg Rennert
◾Rebecca Sugar
◾Merryl Tisch

Amir Taheri, Chairman, Europe Board of Governors

Board of Governors, Gatestone Europe
◾Chairman, Amir Taheri
◾Anne-Elisabeth Moutet

Board of Advisors (in formation)
◾Ahmed Charai
◾Rev. Dr. Petr Heldt
◾M. Zuhdi Jasser
◾Richard Kemp
◾Michael Mukasey
◾Elie Wiesel
◾R. James Woolsey

Thanks for outing yourself as a hardcore neocon.

[leftynyc]

36. Awwwwww

HOw adorable to ignore the facts in the story - the same exact story Yahoo is posting because you don't like the original source. That would embarrass me but whatever.

http://news.yahoo.com/france-says-issues-remain-unresolved-iran-talks-162158448.html

[geek tragedy]

39. the yahoo story is two paragraphs that just say they are still negotiating

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Monday that "important points" are still unresolved in talks with Iran over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, although he still hoped for a solid agreement.

"We want an agreement, but only if the agreement is very solid. There has been progress but important points remain which are not resolved," he told reporters in Brussels.

All of the rightwing gibberish about the deal being a cave in to Iran, and how naïve Obama is, is editorial content added by yourself and the John Bolton crowd at the hate site you're linking to.

That you're aligned with the people who still think invading Iraq was a good idea, and that this doesn't embarrass you, indicates that your username is very much inappropriate.

[geek tragedy]

32. More about the rightwing hate site you're linking to

Its founder is Nina Rosenwald.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/biography/Nina+Rosenwald

Nina Rosenwald

Nina Rosenwald, a human rights activist, is Founder and President of Gatestone Institute.

Who is she?

http://www.thenation.com/article/168374/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate

Over the past decade, Rosenwald’s generosity has helped sustain the pet projects of “Islamofascism Awareness Week” organizer and Stalinist apostate David Horowitz. Her largesse has also supported former Lebanese Maronite TV anchor Brigitte Gabriel, who told an evangelical audience in 2006 that Muslims “have no souls—they are dead set on killing and destruction.” The Center for Security Policy (CSP), a Washington-based think tank directed by neoconservative former Pentagon official Frank Gaffney, has also thrived as a result of Rosenwald’s beneficence. The $437,000 in donations Gaffney reaped from the Rosenwald family enabled him to churn out conspiratorial pamphlets like his 2010 “Shariah: The Threat to America,” in which he warned that American Muslims were engaged in a “stealth jihad” to place the country under the control of Sharia, or Islamic law. At the Conservative Political Action Conference the following year, Gaffney sent his cadres to distribute fliers accusing top Republican anti-tax activists Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan of organizing a secret campaign dedicated to “the replacement of our constitutional republic…with a theocratic Islamic caliphate governing according to Shari’ah.” (David Steinmann, president of the Fund, sits on the board of Gaffney’s CSP.) Norquist is married to an Arab-American, and Khan, a former Republican Party official, is a fellow for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Institute for Global Engagement. The American Conservative Union investigated Gaffney’s charges and declared them “reprehensible.”

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Who do you expect to be the next president?

[karynnj]

18. Too much listening to Netanyahu there

Assume that this is 100% accurate. Now consider that by January 2017, one of two things will have happened - either Iran complies or it doesn't. (Yes I know that it is not 100% black or white, but there will be an international consensus on which case we are in.

In the case they don't comply, NOTHING in the agreement prevents the OBAMA administartion from taking actions - including putting all the sanctions back in place.

In the case they are complying, as Secretary Kerry said on Face the Nation - it is not likely the world would agree to return to where we are.

Note that it is INTERNATIONAL sanctions that have crippled Iran - if Iran is complying and a Republican - for ideological reasons - decided that the agreement was wrong, all he/she could do is reverse the US actions taken. US sanctions alone will have a huge effect.

(Frankly the US media is giving WAY too much consideration to Netanyahu's position.)

[leftynyc]

21. How about listening to France?

Is that okay with you?

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5391/france-iran-talks

http://news.yahoo.com/france-says-issues-remain-unresolved-iran-talks-162158448.html

[geek tragedy]

28. Why are you linking to John Bolton's propaganda outfit?

You could just put "Cheney-Netanyahu 2016" in your signature and spare us the trouble.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/about/

Ambassador John R. Bolton, Chairman

Nina Rosenwald, President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President

Board of Governors (in formation)
◾The Viscountess Bearsted
◾Baroness Caroline Cox
◾Alan Dershowitz
◾The Lord Finkelstein OBE
◾Jack Fowler
◾Robert Immerman
◾Lawrence Kadish
◾Ingeborg Rennert
◾Rebecca Sugar
◾Merryl Tisch

Amir Taheri, Chairman, Europe Board of Governors

Board of Governors, Gatestone Europe
◾Chairman, Amir Taheri
◾Anne-Elisabeth Moutet

Board of Advisors (in formation)
◾Ahmed Charai
◾Rev. Dr. Petr Heldt
◾M. Zuhdi Jasser
◾Richard Kemp
◾Michael Mukasey
◾Elie Wiesel
◾R. James Woolsey

Rosenwald, Woolsey, Mukasey, Bolton, various aristocrats and plutocrats, that's a real doozy of news source you have there.

[leftynyc]

35. How about yahoo?

Is yahoo okay with you or are you going to continue to ignore facts because of the source?

http://news.yahoo.com/france-says-issues-remain-unresolved-iran-talks-162158448.html

[geek tragedy]

38. yahoo story doesn't have the neocon spin you and John Bolton added

All it says is that there are important terms to work out.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Monday that "important points" are still unresolved in talks with Iran over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, although he still hoped for a solid agreement.

"We want an agreement, but only if the agreement is very solid. There has been progress but important points remain which are not resolved," he told reporters in Brussels.

Nothing in there about thinking Obama is naïve. Or opposing the deal.

[karynnj]

48. There will not be a deal unless France agrees -- not to mention there are also links

that both Kerry and Zarif say there are still gaps.

I think that before YOU sign off on saying it is a bad deal - you wait until there is a deal and the world knows what it is. Otherwise you seem to just be following Netanyahu's lead. (In his case, he is being consistent because he has says NO deal can be a good deal. )

[Calista241]

4. Didn't Congress pass the sanctions? Doesn't that mean Congress would have to act to lift them?

[leftynyc]

6. Yes

But it seems DU thinks the President signing a deal will make everything else go away. Delusional.

[geek tragedy]

12. You realize other countries are included in the

UN sanctions, right?

[leftynyc]

22. Yes, including France

who also think it's way to premature to sign this deal:

http://news.yahoo.com/france-says-issues-remain-unresolved-iran-talks-162158448.html

[geek tragedy]

31. The deal has not been signed. nt

[karynnj]

24. Not just DU - the original legislation allows the President to WAIVE many of them

In addition, there are 5 other countries negotiating. The entire permanent UN security council. Note the President controls our UN vote. If there is an agreement, it will be ratified by the UN security council as it has the votes of all the countries with a veto.

This is an executive agreement - just like the SOFA on Iraq or Afghanistan was. It is not a treaty. Note that even if the US later (after it does not veto this in the UN) were to reject it -- it would be delusional to think that unilateral US sanctions on Iran (the only thing we could impose) would have much impact -- other than making the US look untrustworthy.

[bobclark86]

7. Treaties override federal laws.

Here's how it goes:

1) Constitution

2) Foreign treaties

3) Federal law

4) State law

It's also the reason the U.S. won't sign an arms treaty that bans private ownership of guns (assuming one were passed, because regardless of what the NRA says, that's not what the UN small arms treaty is about).

[Calista241]

8. The Senate has to approve treaties.

I find it difficult to believe the UN can do an end run around Congress.

[leftynyc]

23. I see somebody else

already pointed out that treaties need Senate approval.

[karynnj]

49. No one disputes that treaties are approved by the Senate - this is NOT a treaty

and it binds the US to nothing. It is an executive agreement.

[quadrature]

54. wrong.. a treaty is a half baked 'federal-statute-law'.

don't be confused by
'supreme law of the land'
..that is code speak for a federal law.

on top of that,
a treaty cannot spend money from the US Treasury

[geek tragedy]

15. Congress passed the US sanctions. The UN also has its own sanctions that apply

to everyone, including the EU, Russia, China, and Japan.

Under a deal with Iran, the UN Security Council would lift UN sanctions.

Congress gets no say in that. The next President would also get no say in that, ever.

[starroute]

16. Any agreement would lift the United Nations sanctions

It would allow the rest of the world to resume normal trade with Iran, including oil imports. And it would probably allow even US companies to deal with Iran legally through third parties.

The sanctions passed by the US itself are only a small part of the picture and mainly seem to affect Iranian access to funds held in US banks and spare parts for Iranian aircraft. Those things do have an effect on the Iranian economy, but only to a relatively minor extent. So Congress can keep them on the books forever, but it won't matter all that much.

At least, that's what I get from my efforts to google around on the question. It seems surprisingly difficult to get a clear account of what the US sanctions actually mean in a global context.

[bigdarryl]

10. I thought Congress was the only ones who can lift sanctions

[geek tragedy]

13. Folks: there are UN sanctions as well as USA ones.

If the UN sanctions get lifted by the security council, there is nothing Congress or future presidents can do to reverse it.

[pampango]

14. Which is one reason that conservatives hate the UN. It preempts the US from being #1 in the world

and doing whatever we want to whomever we want for whatever reason we want.

Sometimes we do those things anyway but the UN impedes our "sovereign" right to rule the world at least sometimes.

[cosmicone]

25. It's a great deal

It is face-saving for Iran.

Between stringent inspections and the 6,000 centrifuge limit, it cripples their ability to make weapons-grade material. Even if they start after 10 years, it will take them another 5 years to make enough for 1 or 2 bombs.

This will be the best slap in the face to Netanyahu and his repuke cheerleaders.

[B2G]

33. It's a great deal for Iran,

who has a long history of trashing treaties and agreements with the West.

From 2010:

In April 2010, during the signing of the U.S.-Russia New START Treaty, President Obama said that the United States, Russia, and other nations are demanding that Iran face consequences for failing to fulfill their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that "we will not tolerate actions that flout the NPT, risk an arms race in a vital region, and threaten the credibility of the international community and our collective security."

[geek tragedy]

34. shocking to see you agree with the Republicans on this.

Well, no, actually.

[B2G]

40. Fuck that. I don't trust Iran.

And I don't give a shit if you do.

They have a long history of trashing agreements and treaties. And last I checked, their human rights abuses were absolutely horrific in regards to women, gays, journalists and any one else who happens to offends their whacked out religious sensibilities.

So you go right cheerlead for this deal, which I can only surmise is based on your hatred of Israel rather than common sense.

[geek tragedy]

41. So you think President Obama has a "hatred of Israel" because he doesn't want war. That's nuts

Note that favoring negotiations over war does not mean one trusts the other side.

Go sit next to Tom Cotton.

[B2G]

42. I am saying I think this is a bad deal

They get to keep 6000 operational centrifuges (we wanted under 1500) and they get immediate sanction relief.

[geek tragedy]

43. So you would prefer they keep 10,000 centrifuges, because obviously people

who would want them to have 6,000 instead of 10,000 must hate Israel in your world.

Have you been briefed on all of the deal's details?

If so, please tell us where you got your time machine, as it has not been signed yet.

[cosmicone]

45. 1500 was our starting position and 10,000 was theirs

Have you never bought a car or watched "Pawn Stars?" That is called "negotiation"

By the way, your nuclear knowledge seems a bit challenged.

With 6,000 centrifuges, it will take 18 years to make enough uranium for ONE bomb. With 12,000 about 5 years.

Lastly, uranium is not the preferred element for fission bombs anymore. It is plutonium and Iran does not have that capability at all.

[cosmicone]

44. Sorry to rain on your parade

but Iran DID NOT breach the NPT.

Under NPT, signatories are allowed to process Uranium for energy. Iran has never said it was making a bomb and just because we don't want anyone else to have even an iota of nuclear technology because we want to bully the whole world.

Iran has not breached a single treaty with any country so far.

Lastly, Netanyahu - is that you?

[B2G]

46. Iran has not breached a single treaty?

In April 2010, during the signing of the U.S.-Russia New START Treaty, President Obama said that the United States, Russia, and other nations are demanding that Iran face consequences for failing to fulfill their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that "we will not tolerate actions that flout the NPT, risk an arms race in a vital region, and threaten the credibility of the international community and our collective security."

[cosmicone]

47. It is posturing.

Legally, Iran has not breached the NPT.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0504/NPT-101-Is-Iran-violating-the-nuclear-treaty

A lot of the disagreements come from the inspections regime. The inspections regime under NPT is conditional and IAEA failed to meet Iran's conditions for inspections -- i.e. no American or Israeli inspectors.

[bananas]

51. Iran did violate the NPT - several times

Here's one example:

http://carnegieendowment.org/2009/09/25/iran-violated-international-obligations-on-qom-facility

Iran Violated International Obligations on Qom Facility
James M. Acton Proliferation Analysis September 25, 2009

Update: On 30 September, speaking in New Delhi, the IAEA Director General confirmed that Iran has violated its obligations.[1]

<snip>

And the IAEA chief also said he believed Iran wanted nuclear weapons:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3928432

Jun-18-09 05:47 AM
Original message

U.N. Atomic Energy Chief Says Iran Wants Bomb Technology

Source: NY Times

PARIS — Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, said it was his “gut feeling” that Iran’s leaders wanted the technology to build nuclear weapons “to send a message to their neighbors, to the rest of the world: ‘Don’t mess with us.’ ”

He spoke in a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday and Wednesday as protesters took to the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities, demanding that last Friday’s disputed election result be overturned and confronting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the leadership’s biggest domestic challenge since the Islamic Revolution three decades ago.

Dr. ElBaradei has made similar points in the past, officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which he is director general, said Wednesday, but his latest remarks were less hedged with diplomatic caveats than previously.

Dr. ElBaradei, whose term of office is to expire in November, said in the interview that countries in possession of nuclear weapons were treated differently from others, citing the example of North Korea, which was invited to negotiations while Iraq under Saddam Hussein — which did not have a nuclear capacity — was “pulverized.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/world/18nuke.html

[karynnj]

50. Nothing stops the world from reimposing sanctions if Iran breaks the rules

The interim agreement itself froze Iran at a level below which they were before agreeing to it. The new agreement moves them back further. It also will keep monitoring. It is very hard to suggest that this is a worse situation for us then where we would be if the talks fail.

If they fail, even if the US then were to raise our sanctions, what we lose is the agreement to freeze, the monitoring, and ongoing talks. Many have suggested that if it seen as failing because of Israel and the US, some countries may drop their sanctions.

I don't get how anyone thinks that the agreement gives Iran more freedom to get a nuclear weapon. Unless - the desire is to move to "other options on the table" -- ie war.

[Xolodno]

52. Looking at the arguements in this thread about US Sanctions....

....think they are pretty worthless. As we had a level of sanctions against them every since the Shah fled.

Its the International Sanctions that have the bite. And if all other partners agree, then....they go bye-bye.

The US is just lucky to have a seat at the table.

[Jefferson23]

55. The blatant lies told about Iran, once and for all, let this stupid hawk approach be

done with. Obama is changing what needs to be done. Iran was not going to
bend to the sanctions..they ADJUSTED.
That is why Obama changed tactics and put behind him the approach
recommended to him..which was not working...it would lead to a war
which he wanted nothing to do with.

The bullshit on the boogeyman should be almost over. AIPAC and the other loser hawks
will have to find themselves another war somewhere else.