Nuclear Deal With Iran

Is there any discussion about this on these forums? I'm surprised to come here and not see it's own topic. What do you guys think about Obama making a deal with Iran? What do you think about the deal itself? Why is there so much opposition against it?

Simply becase there is a generic politics topic and this was discussed there briefly.

Obama, and people that still think he's a Kenyan born Muslim terrorist.




For the rest:


^

though you can hardly tell it's a P&R thread from reading it.

The main points of the Vienna agreement on Iran's nuclear ambitions are:
1) Iran will sacrifice two-thirds of its ability to enrich uranium, the vital process that could be used to make the core of a nuclear bomb. All but 6,000 of Iran’s 19,500 centrifuges will be placed in storage, monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

2) Iran will export all but 300kg of its entire stockpile of eight tonnes of low-enriched uranium.

3) The combined effect of these measures will be to place Iran about 12 months away from having enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear bomb – compared with its current “breakout” time of three or four months.

4) The Fordow enrichment plant, which was built in secret inside a hollowed-out mountain, will be converted into a research centre. Almost two-thirds of the centrifuges in Fordow will be removed and the remaining 1,000 will not be used to enrich uranium.

5)Iran’s heavy water plant at Arak will be redesigned and rebuilt to make it impossible to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

6) Iran will implement the “Additional Protocol” safeguards agreement, giving IAEA inspectors more powers to monitor its nuclear plants and other facilities.

7) Once the IAEA has confirmed that Iran has taken these steps, America and its allies will lift all nuclear-related economic sanctions, including oil embargos and financial restrictions. This could release over $100 billion (£65 billion) of frozen Iranian assets.

8) America and its allies will also recognise Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, as guaranteed by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

9) Iran will remain subject to a UN arms embargo for five years. Restrictions will stay on its ballistic missile programme for another eight.

I believe this deal is fine. Besides, Iran can literally have a "Backyard Sale" with the low-grade enrich uranium and sell it the nuclear power industries of the world to generate electricity for those countries.

Here's a statement from a Senate Democrat, Nita Lowey:

15 years from now we can worry about that !

This isn't a good sign:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-u-s-banned-from-knowing-details-of-iran-nuke-agreement/

Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the nuclear inspection organization is barred from revealing to the United States any details of deals it has inked with Tehran to inspect its contested nuclear program going forward, according to regional reports.

Recent disclosures by Iran indicate that the recently inked nuclear accord includes a series of side deals on critical inspections regimes that are neither public nor subject to review by the United States.

Reza Najafi, Iran’s ambassador and permanent envoy to the IAEA, stated over the weekend that no country is permitted to know the details of future inspections conducted by the IAEA. In addition, no U.S. inspectors will be permitted to enter Iran’s nuclear sites.

“The provisions of a deal to which the IAEA and a second country are parties are confidential and should not be divulged to any third country, and as Mr. Kerry discussed it in the Congress, even the U.S. government had not been informed about the deal between IAEA and Iran,” Najafi was quoted as saying by Iran’s Mehr News Agency.

Under-the-table, shady side deals are a problem? No, we only think there's something wrong because our president is brown. Yup.

How is this considered a "under-the-table, shade side deal" ?

We're striking the deal, and we can't even know the details of how Iranian facilities will be inspected. Sounds legit.

We can trust Iran though !

Since when do you believe Iranian diplomats?

He's Iran's ambassador to the agency doing the inspecting. Also, implying that Iranian diplomats are liars doesn't do much to support your claim that the nuclear deal is actually a good thing.

also considering iran has a good chunk of debt that "100 billion" is gonna be more like 50.


sauce


Without providing detailed explanation, Lew said that $20 billion of the original $100 billion estimate is committed to projects with China, which cannot be spent for other purposes, while “tens of billions in additional funds” constitute unpaid or “non-performing loans” that somehow must be accounted for by the Iranian government.


The broader issue facing the Iranian government, said Rachel Ziemba a senior director for emerging markets with Roubini Global Economics in New York, is that any return to the global financial scene will have to be preceded by a period of “disentangling” the country’s banks and public institutions from the fallout of years of dubious lending practices and general economic stress.

“Iran’s banks are full of a lot of non-performing or under-performing assets … and in this period of greater sanctions and economic contraction, those probably became even less performing,” she said in an interview Friday. “Right now, the banks do not have the capacity to lend to support the real economy.”

“Let's be clear what those assets are,” Lew told members of the Foreign Relations Committee. “It’s not money we are giving to Iran. It’s Iran money that sits in other countries that was locked up because of international nuclear sanctions that were designed to bring them to the table to negotiate a nuclear agreement.”

“We think it’s about $50 billion” he continued. “There’s at least $500 billion of domestic demand. They can’t possibly scratch the surface of that need.”

So, worst case scenario is that the deal is symbolic and ineffectual, best case is we have to either strongarm them before we uphold our part and in the next 15 years, either renegotiate or help Israel defend itself. I fail to see the downside, even if I'm skeptical of the deal.

According to Fone's post you're getting your information 4th hand, not too reliable imo.

I was mostly just questioning your position though, don't really give a ***.

So, what really happens?

A couple of months from now Iran launches a nuke into Israel and starts WWIII, where most of the Middle East becomes a great big hole in the ground, America gets blamed for it all, and somehow during the whole mess, France becomes the hero and actually wins a few battles. Scary thought there!

Every part of that was believable up until the France winning a few battles thing.

Hey, this "may" be the chance France has been hoping for. They can't continue their losing streak forever, statistically speaking they got to win sometimes and it's not considered winning if you fight yourself.....

Viva la resistance ! Where is John McCain with his bomb Iran thing ? I love that !

Last bit about France, and back to Iran nuking the hell out of Israel

Which is what people really want, right? Never mind all the "love and peace" ***, all we really want is somebody to kill somebody else for our entertainment.....

WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

Alternative 1, Iran gets the bomb in way under 6 months.

Alternative 2, We go to war with Iran.

2 is preferred by Netanyahu and many Republicans.

Under 2 Iran's hardliners solidify control of the country and they have the bomb in less than 3 years.

Also remember this is NOT a bilateral deal. Five other countries are in on it.

But then again, what is more important to the GoP? Denying Obama a win or delaying Iran's ability to have nukes by 7 - 14 years?

Sorry kiddies, that's a no contest question. Remember many of them want a war.

P. S. Follow the money. Oil OWNS the GoP. What happens to the price of oil once Iran is able to sell legally on the world market? And do please remember that recently an oil exchange THAT DOES NOT TRADE IN US DOLLARS was set up.

Lordgrim would have a lot to say about that last sentence. Unfortunately, being Lordgrim, he would get at half of it wrong.

If we are going to bomb Iran at least keep the oil this time !

I hope we do go to war CNN has been boring lately...nothing like war porn to go with a nice craft beer.

No, the Republican ideal here isn't having no Iran deal at all, it's having an Iran deal that doesn't suck. The plan as it stands is too weak due to it being set up by people with no backbone.

Ravael, you are saying that neither Putin nor Merkel has a backbone?

I will agree on Obama.

Don't worry we will argue about the nuclear deal till Iran makes a bomb. Then we will decide what to do !

Technically speaking, Iran could have brokered better deals with other folks and we hold no real power to coerce them aside from illegally invading their country. The fact that a deal that lets inspectors in on any level, quantifiably lowers their capacity to enrich uranium, and sets down a timeframe and guidelines is an accomplishment. No Republican could have done measurably better. All this "we would have gotten a better deal" is just partisan ***. Don't forget, the Republican majority in the Senate sent a letter to Iran that was flat out wrong about their power and role in those types of negotiations specifically to sour them and was on board with giving Obama authority to fastrack the agreement without their approval. All this just so they could then say it's a bad deal. That's eerily similar to a kid saying they don't want iced cream just so they can complain that everyone else got iced cream.