Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on April 6, 2015
Iran, U.S. interpret nuclear deal differently
The recent breakthrough in the Iranian nuclear talks has raised hopes of a once-and-for-all solution for the 12-year-old standoff between Iran and the West.
However, there is still a tough road ahead before a comprehensive final accord could be reached as Tehran and Washington seem to have different interpretations on some details outlined in the framework nuclear deal reached Thursday.
A STEP IN RIGHT DIRECTION
After eight days of marathon talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, a framework nuclear agreement was reached on Thursday between Tehran and six major world powers, clearing the way for negotiators to work out technical details ahead of a June 30 deadline for a final deal.
U.S. President Barack Obama has hailed the agreement as “a good deal,” which met America’s core objectives, including strict limitations on Iran’s program and cutting off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.
In a weekend interview with The New York Times published Sunday, Obama also strongly defended the preliminary agreement with Iran as a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to prevent a nuclear bomb and bring longer-term stability to the Middle East.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Friday that the solutions meet Iran’s national interests, hailing it as pragmatic and a victory of his administration.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Friday made a telephone call with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on the breakthrough made in the just concluded Iranian nuclear talks.
In the phone call, Wang said the important agreement reached in the latest round of Iranian nuclear talks attended by top diplomats of Iran and the P5+1 countries, namely the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany, is attributed to all sides seizing the historic opportunity through concerted efforts.
However, despite the breakthrough made, the road ahead is clearly bumpy as there is still a great number of technical details to be worked out before a final deal could be sealed.
ONE ACTION PLAN, TWO INTERPRETATIONS?
For example, Iran and the United States have somewhat different interpretations on the details of the sanctions relief policy outlined in Thursday’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The different interpretations of Tehran and Washington have once again demonstrated their great chasm of differences.
Iran’s version stressed the benefits to Iran of this week’s negotiations, anticipating sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program “will be lifted immediately if a final deal is agreed.”
In the U.S. narrative, however, the U.S. and EU nuclear-related sanctions “will be suspended after the IAEA has verified” that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps, and these sanctions will “snap back into place if at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitment.”
A subtle difference can also be detected in their understandings about the nature of the action plan reached.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif has stressed repeatedly that the action plan is not legally binding, and instead, it only offers a path to a final solution, a comprehensive accord.
But in the text of the U.S. “fact sheet” on the action plan, expressions and terms such as “Iran has agreed that,” “Iran will be required to” and “Iran will not” are used very frequently, which gave people the impression that Iran has already made very specific commitments.
The United States published a full text on the preliminary accord, while the version released by the Iranian side is much more like a concise guide to action, which fell short of mentioning some specific terms of agreements, such as “Iran has agreed to not build any new facilities for the purpose of enriching uranium for 15 years” and “Iran will only enrich uranium at the Natanz facility, with only 5,060 IR-1 first-generation centrifuges for 10 years.”
Zarif disputed on Thursday the U.S. “fact sheet” that emphasized Iranian concessions and that referred to sanctions being suspended rather than lifted and only after confirmation that Tehran has complied with the terms of the agreement.
“The Americans put what they wanted in the fact sheet…I even protested this issue with (U.S. Secretary of State John) Kerry himself,” he said in a television interview cited by the Fars news agency, adding that the U.N. Security Council would oversee any deal.
“Either side in this agreement can, in the case of the other side violating the agreement, cease its own steps,” Zarif said. He mirrored earlier comments by Obama that sanctions could be reapplied if Iran did not stick to its word.
MISTRUST & DOMESTIC PRESSURE
In fact, the deep-rooted cause of the Iranian crisis is a lack of political trust between Tehran and Washington, while prospects for a final solution remain murkier, factoring in the tremendous domestic pressure from both Iran and the United States.
Rouhani is quite determined in getting the economic sanctions on Iran removed through the talks. But he has very limited room to make concessions in the following horse-trading, facing great pressure from Iran’s conservative powers.
Moreover, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is still skeptical and wary about Western countries, is not very optimistic about the outcome of the nuclear talks.
Obama, on his part, is also facing pressure and even obstructions from the pro-Israel elements at home including some Congressmen, especially those from among the Republicans.
Meanwhile, the strong opposition of Israel is by no means neglectable.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday denounced the agreement between Tehran and world powers as a “bad deal.”
“It doesn’t roll back Iran’s nuclear program,” Netanyahu said.
“It keeps a vast nuclear infrastructure in place. Not a single centrifuge is destroyed. Not a single nuclear facility is shut down, including the underground facilities that they built illicitly. Thousands of centrifuges will keep spinning enriching uranium. That’s a bad deal,” he said.
15 Comments on "Iran, U.S. interpret nuclear deal differently"
Plantagenet on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 11:22 am
Iran is already in violation of the UN nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Only Obama would be so naive as to believe that they’ll follow the rules in a new treaty after breaking every rule in the preceding treaty.
peakyeast on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 12:04 pm
Well.. There was inspections in Iraq and the swedish inspector Hans Blix confirmed that there was no nuclear weapons there. It didnt stop the US from trying to blackmail him into saying otherwise. But Hans Blix is a beacon of light and truth and they couldnt touch him – so they replaced him. When kofi annan tried to stand against the US blackmail – corruption scandals involving his family suddenly arose and he had to give in to save his (corrupt) family.
That is the way the US does business. They threaten, extort, blackmail and lie using U.N, NATO and other completely corrupted organisations of evil powermongering.
So why is it so bad that Iran gets nuclear weapons? Because it makes them much more impervious to US aggressions and gives them more control over their resources – thats why.
Israel doesnt even try to sign the NPT – but that is not a problem even though they are also rabidly insane.
I fully support Iran in this case – against a proven blackmailer, liar, extortionist state like the US.
Mind you – I do not like any governments – they are ALL corrupt to the core. But Iran has a fair and reasonable fear of the US and their despicable dogs of war.
Denmark was unfortunately a part of the Quandrant of abomination with spain, UK and the US against Iraq – and for that I will never forgive the Danish government.
Plantagenet on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 12:13 pm
@peakyeast
Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If Iran can ignore the NPT and get rewarded then why shouldn’t every other country abandon the NPT?
By conniving with Iran to destroy the NPT, Obama is paving the way for massive nuclear proliferation around the world.
Poordogabone on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 1:34 pm
What is brought by the wind will be carried away by the wind.
— Persian Proverb
peakyeast on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 2:14 pm
Now – why should anyone trust a nation like the U.S. that connives and lies for its own advantages – which has been proven again and again and again and again ad nauseam?
Please prove that Iran is breaking the NPT – I havent seen anything conclusive from a neutral source.
Not that they are neutral – but not everybody ascribes to the US propaganda:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=14265
“Since February 2003, Iran’s nuclear program has undergone what the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) itself admits to be the most intrusive inspection in its entire history. After thousands of hours of inspections by some of the most experienced IAEA experts, the Agency has verified time and again that (1) there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and (2) all the declared nuclear materials have been accounted for; there has been no diversion of such materials to non-peaceful purposes. Iran has a clean bill of health, as far as its nuclear program is concerned.”
And mind you – not evidence from the the proven corrupt liars like USA, NATO or countries like Denmark, Spain, U.K et al which are completely untrustworthy.
Plantagenet on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 2:19 pm
@peakyeast
If you don’t even know that Iran is in violation of the NPT, then you are very poorly informed about the facts.
I suggest you do more research this issue.
Cheers!
peakyeast on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 2:23 pm
It has been in cards for a long time that Iran should not and would not agree to NPT forever. Its reasonable that there should come a time when this should end and Iran can do whatever it wants.
I agree that the NPT is a good thing – except that the current nuclear powers themselves obviously are not adult enough to have nuclear weapons which is proven by their continuous abuses of power and priviledge – so why should they have any advantages over others?
I find it very reasonable that either the US, Russia and so forth discard their nukes – or stop abusing their powers – or accept that others want nukes to prevent the abuses against them.
Of the 3 – only the last is possible.
peakyeast on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 2:26 pm
Thanks plant – for your proof. – Or rather non-proof. Thats really convincing !
I suppose you dont have anything real to say from a neutral source, but you cannot admit that – can you?
Plantagenet on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 2:42 pm
@peakyeast
You are so poorly informed that you don’t even know that Iran is in violation of the NPT.—- the sanctions regime and the current negotiations all were instigated because Iran is in violation of the NPT.
I suggest you educate yourself on this subject—When you’re up to speed on the facts, let me know.
Cheers!
peakyeast on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 2:44 pm
While you obviously cannot show anything to support your ideas about Iran..
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/IranvIsrael.php#axzz3WYj2P4Jp
http://mic.com/articles/3867/u-s-wrongly-demonizes-iran-but-ignores-nuclear-weapons-countries-india-pakistan-and-israel
http://www.juancole.com/2014/02/breakthrough-ignoring-stockpile.html
Besides… It would not only be wise if Iran developed Nuclear weapons in secret. It would be mandatory since the US in its normal mode of operation would come up with anything to provoke a war. The US has proven that many times.
Besides Iran could retreat from the NPT any time it wants to – given the pressures put on it. The NPT gives that option to “members”. The fact that they havent done that is a good indication of their intent. Not that the US would believe anything anyone says.. After all a liar thinks everybody lies. (just look at the U.S. spying on EVERYBODY and the denial).
Now dont come with some CNN crap telling how bad Iran is… They have made so many translation mistakes already and propaganda tricks that they also are completely illegitimate as a source for anything but lies.
peakyeast on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 2:51 pm
Yeah.. you just repeat yourself. No content – no proof – no links – no argumentation..
Plant you are a poor sod.. I will leave you to your devices. You cling to some little straw – that has been cut away long ago while ignoring the splinter in your own eye(s).
But I know you now.. Its Obamas fault – that would be it, right? He is an Iranian agent, right? Its only Iran that must not do anything wrong because the US cannot do anything wrong by definition, right? And if Iran does anything wrong then its so bad that they must be destroyed, right? Never mind what the US does that are 100x worse – because that would be against the definition of who is right, right?
pffft… ridiculous..
Apneaman on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 3:03 pm
Shouldn’t the “sacred” right to bear arms apply to all peoples of the earth, Lil Planter?
dissident on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 3:28 pm
No deal with the US government is worth more than used toilet paper. Every single aboriginal group in the USA got screwed over big time by Uncle Sam. The mad Uncle does whatever he wants without any reservations or concern for consequences.
J-Gav on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 4:43 pm
Good one Poordog.
“Le vent l’emportera” as the French song goes (the wind will carry it all away)… Music by Manu Chao, lyrics and performed by Bernard Cantat, who ‘inadvertently’ (drugs and alcohol) killed his girlfriend, actress and daughter of famed French actor Jean-Louis Trintignant. Did 8 or 10 years in prison as I recollect.
The song’s still good and there are now several versions available on You
Tube. I’d recommend the one called ‘Le vent nous portera.’ (The wind will carry us).
Speculawyer on Mon, 6th Apr 2015 8:39 pm
So Plant . . . what is the alternative?
There are two other alternatives:
1)Just let them go ahead and do what they have been doing . . . growing their nuclear program like crazy and have no inspections at all. That seems objectively worse.
2) Start a war. That will cost billions, kill lots of people, and make them far more determined to build a nuke.
I’m so tired of people that complain non-stop but NEVER are able to provide any better ideas.