Iran Accuses U.S. of Lying About New Nuke Agreement

[homersapien 11,357]

Maybe not but this damn sure ain't gonna do it. But I thought they didn't want nukes. That's what we've been told. At the very minimum Iran used these "negotiations" to get the sanctions lifted which just gives them a whole lot more money to use for sponsoring terrorism around the world. At the worst it only delays their getting nukes. Once the restrictions sunset they're free to do what they want. Don't forget that Russia will be glad to run interference for them. Any attempt by the U.S. or anyone else to restore sanctions will go nowhere. This framework is so full of holes that if it were a ship it would be at the bottom of the ocean. Our side is desperate for a deal. That is a terrible spot to be negotiating from.

Well, if that's the "worst", then I'll take it!

In fact, I'd take it if it were the best it did.

[DKW 86 7,419]

We will just sit back and watch as this not signed, only a loosely agreed to document, that may not be legally binding on anyone, may or may not get signed.

The Iranian Government has broken agreements in the past. They will almost certainly break this one. I HOPE THEY DONT, but the record is there.

That is a nihilistic approach to negotiating. Let's at least give them the chance to prove you wrong.

And again, it begs the question of what is the alternative? I could understand your attitude if you are proposing we go to war with them. Is that what you propose?

No, but we dont give the option of anything else. Keep the Economic sanctions clamped down on them until we get what we want, no nukes nor the ability to build them to Iran. They either comply or we go tactical. Sometimes the best policy is a straight forward approach where there is no chance for weaseling or misunderstanding.

Iran’s Continued Defiance of the International Community

Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear program was first made public in 2002. In the decade since, the United States and its European allies have offered Iran a wide variety of inducements for halting uranium enrichment and other activities that bring it closer to nuclear weapons capability. Yet at every turn, the international community has been repeatedly and systematically rebuffed by the Iranian regime. Despite global condemnation, increased isolation, and international sanctions, the Islamic Republic continues to use negotiations to further the development of its rogue nuclear program.

• Iran Rebuffs Diplomacy by the EU-3 (2003-2005). Seeking to avoid sanctions in the U.N. Security Council, Iran began negotiations with Britain, France, and Germany (known collectively as the EU-3) and agreed in October 2003 to “voluntarily suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities as defined by the IAEA [international Atomic Energy Agency],” and in 2004, Tehran agreed to enter into negotiations with the EU-3. The following month, on November 10, 2003, the IAEA declared that Iran had agreed to “a policy of full disclosure and had decided to provide the Agency with a full picture of all of its nuclear activities.”
  

Over the next two years, Iran and the EU-3 exchanged numerous proposals, including economic incentives, to entice the Iranian regime. No agreement was reached, and in 2005, evidence undermining Iran’s pledge to halt uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities began to emerge. Finally, on February 4, 2006, the IAEA Board of Governors officially referred Iran’s continued noncompliance to the U.N. Security Council.

• Iran Rebuffs Diplomacy by the P5-Plus-1 (2006-2007). In an effort to salvage nuclear diplomacy with Iran, the United States and other world powers joined the EU-3’s negotiations. In mid-2006, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany (known collectively as the P5-Plus-1) proposed a comprehensive long-term agreement that mirrored the EU-3’s earlier proposal, but also offered to jointly build light water nuclear reactors (LWRs) with Iran, and strong economic cooperation on civil aviation, telecommunications, and other sectors. However, Iran rejected the P5-Plus-1’s proposal.
  

• Iran Rebuffs the IAEA Work Plan (2007-2008). In a surprise move, IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei worked with Iran in mid-2007 to create a so-called “Work Plan” to address the international community’s “outstanding concerns” regarding Iran’s nuclear program. ElBaradei claimed the IAEA Work Plan would provide a “litmus test” for Iran to come clean about its nuclear intentions, but it effectively undermined the U.N. Security Council’s position of requiring Iran to suspend uranium enrichment as a confidence-building measure.
  

Iran, however, refused to answer the IAEA’s questions about activities related to uranium conversion, the testing of high-explosives relevant to detonating a nuclear warhead, and research relevant to delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. In June 2008, El Baradei conceded to the IAEA Board of Governors that while the IAEA Work Plan had clarified certain concerns about Iran, it had failed to make progress on “the cluster of allegations and Secretariat questions relevant to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.” Although efforts to implement the IAEA Work Plan would continue for several years, Iran would consistently refuse to provide the level of transparency and information necessary to end concerns about the military dimensions of its nuclear program.

• Iran Again Rebuffs Diplomacy by the P5-Plus-1 (2008). As the IAEA Work Plan began to stall in June 2008, the P5-Plus-1 offered Iran a revised version of its mid-2006 comprehensive long-term agreement that added financial assistance for Iran’s energy programs, the promise of fully normalizing economic and trade relations, support for Iran’s inclusion in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and other incentives. Negotiations in Geneva began soon thereafter, but effectively broke down when Iran’s various counterproposals ignored any substantial concessions on its controversial nuclear activities. Speaking days before the deadline set by world powers for Iran's reply, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, defiantly declared that Iran would “continue with its path” of nuclear development.
  

• Iran Rebuffs “Fuel Swap” Proposals (2009-2010). After taking office, President Obama sought to reinvigorate nuclear diplomacy with Iran, urging “better relations” through a recorded message to the Iranian people and government in March 2009, and letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, in May and September 2009. The President’s desire for “better relations” with the Iranian regime apparently led him to keep the United States on the sidelines as mass anti-regime protests erupted throughout Iran in June 2009, leading the regime to launch violent and bloody crackdown on the opposition.
  

Nonetheless, the Obama administration sought to advance nuclear diplomacy with Iran by proposing a “fuel swap” agreement in which Iran would receive a special form of enriched uranium fuel for its research reactor to produce medical isotopes, if it shipped the majority of Iran’s low-enriched uranium (LEU) to a neutral third-country. In October 2009, Iran tentatively agreed to the “fuel swap” plan during a meeting in Geneva, and the P5-Plus-1 subsequently offered incentives to facilitate the agreement. However, Iran refused to definitively accept the plan, and then offered counterproposals that eroded or negated the plan’s confidence-building measures. By February 2010, Iran began to further enrich its own low enriched uranium fuel to provocative levels.

- See more at: http://www.foreignpo...h.hZBUnglc.dpuf

[AUUSN 823]

It is absolutely true, as a Washington Post editorial alleges, that Obama had demanded a tougher deal three years ago. However, it is also true that Obama couldn’t have gotten that deal then — or now. People who say he should have held out for more concessions –including Netanyahu — are really saying that he should only have accepted the kind of deal to which Iran would never have agreed. For example, the Emergency Committee for Israel — i.e., William Kristol and the crowd at The Weekly Standard — complain that the framework agreement gives Iran’s nuclear program “international legitimacy” by virtue of not destroying it altogether. That’s true, too. That was the price to be paid to get a deal at all.

And, yes, it is also true that while the deal will end the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran for a decade and, one hopes, for much longer than that, it will not bring peace to the Middle East. Iran will remain a state sponsor of terrorism, an indispensable backer of Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad, an open wallet for Shiite militants in Lebanon and Iraq. Iran’s adventurism will continue to provoke Saudi Arabia into turning the region into a cockpit of sectarian struggle. And yet the best hope for a less militant Iran lies in a less isolated Iran, an Iran that increasingly answers to the aspirations of its growing middle class, not its zealots. The nuclear agreement will allow those aspirations to flourish — as the early news from Tehran, where citizens have already begun fantasizing about direct flights to New York, plainly shows.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/03/washingtons-headbanging-diplomatic-duo-success-iran-nuclear-deal/?utm_content=buffer4d563&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[WarTim 3,456]

Only a naive fool would believe we could make any workable deal with these people.

Sadly. THAT is what we have in the WH.

[homersapien 11,357]

Only a naive fool would believe we could make any workable deal with these people.

Sadly. THAT is what we have in the WH.

Again, what other options are available?

WHY would an agreement that provides for adequate verification be a bad thing?

Just saying it will never work is not really deciding on a course of action. Even if we could reinstitute a tough sanctions regime - which we can't do by ourselves - it would buy us nothing regarding stopping their program.

Ya'll are just butt hurt because this is going to boost Obama's status as a POTUS.

[WarTim 3,456]

No need for worry. Israel WILL deal with this situation. Bank on it!!! ; - )

[alexava 6,973]

No need for worry. Israel WILL deal with this situation. Bank on it!!! ; - )

that is the best news I have ever seen!

[AURaptor 1,122]

No need for worry. Israel WILL deal with this situation. Bank on it!!! ; - )

that is the best news I have ever seen!

Been hearing THAT line since at least 2008.

:-\

[alexava 6,973]

No need for worry. Israel WILL deal with this situation. Bank on it!!! ; - )

that is the best news I have ever seen!

Been hearing THAT line since at least 2008.

:-\

Yea really. They can handle it all by themselves, right. Let's get the hell out of the way then.