Basis for Iran nuclear agreement reached, EU official says

[Valin]

Fox News:

April 2, 2015

 

LAUSANNE, Switzerland (CNN) — Latest developments:

 

• The basis for an agreement for a peaceful Iranian nuclear program and a lifting of sanctions against that nation has been reached, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini announced in Switzerland. “We have reached solutions on key parameters of a joint comprehensive plan of action,” she said.

 

• Iran’s enrichment capacity and stockpile will be limited, and Iran’s sole enrichment facility will be at the Natanz nuclear facility, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said. Other nuclear facilities will be converted for other uses, she said.

 

• Before Mogherini’s statement, a Western diplomat told CNN that a “broad political agreement with some specifics” would be announced in a joint statement from the parties involved in Iran’s nuclear program talks. The agreement puts significant curbs on Iran’s nuclear program, but leaves much of it intact, the diplomat said.

 

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sent a tweet saying that “parameters to resolve major issues” have been reached.

 

(Snip)

[Cyber_Liberty]

Just to be clear, the parties to these negotiations were Iran and the US on one side, the rest of the P5 + 1 on the other. Every account I've heard or read indicates Kerry was slugging it out for Iran against our friends. I never thought I'd see the day when I would be praying for France's success in matters of war and peace.

[Valin]

Revealed: U.S. releases “fact sheet” on nuclear deal; Update: No need to spin with “fact sheets,” says Iran
Allahpundit
April 2, 2015

The other thread’s too cluttered and too full of speculation about what was and wasn’t actually agreed upon. Here’s the answer from the parties themselves: A “fact sheet” of what the embryonic agreement requires. It’s more detailed than I thought it’d be. And needless to say, this is only the English-language version, prepared for the consumption of western readers eager to see Iran held to account. I’m keen to see an English translation of Iran’s version of the “fact” sheet.

If you’re looking for good news, here you go: Starting at the bottom of page two, not only has Iran agreed to “regular access” by inspectors to all of its nuclear facilities, including the fortified plant inside the mountain at Fordo, but they’ve agreed to the IAEA’s “Additional Protocol,” which authorizes “snap inspections.” That had been a sticking point during the home stretch of the talks; eight days ago, Iran’s chief spokesman called snap inspections “illegal.” Unless there’s a legal wrinkle I’m missing, they ended up caving on that. They also supposedly agreed to let UN inspectors investigate suspected nuclear sites, not just sites that are already known. That’ll be useful when, not if, they eventually try to cheat by building covert enrichment sites under the IAEA’s nose. Iran, meanwhile, gets to sell this as a victory back home insofar as they haven’t agreed to close any site that’s already operating. (They have, however, agreed not to build any new ones, another important point when they inevitably try to cheat.) Even Fordo will keep operating with centrifuges in place, albeit as a monitored “research” facility with no uranium allowed on the premises.

(Snip)

Update: My apologies. I thought the fact sheet was a joint U.S./Iran production and said so in my original headline for this post. Nope:

Javad Zarif ✔ @JZarif Follow


The solutions are good for all, as they stand. There is no need to spin using "fact sheets" so early on.



3:13 PM - 2 Apr 2015

So Iran’s so insistent on not being held to concrete terms that they object to the U.S. even putting out a recitation of the points of agreement, huh? Belated exit question: Which provisions here does Zarif regard as unfair/inaccurate “spin”? Kind of important to know that as the White House starts celebrating peace in our time.

[clearvision]

Revealed: U.S. releases “fact sheet” on nuclear deal; Update: No need to spin with “fact sheets,” says Iran

Allahpundit

April 2, 2015

 

The other thread’s too cluttered and too full of speculation about what was and wasn’t actually agreed upon. Here’s the answer from the parties themselves: A “fact sheet” of what the embryonic agreement requires. It’s more detailed than I thought it’d be. And needless to say, this is only the English-language version, prepared for the consumption of western readers eager to see Iran held to account. I’m keen to see an English translation of Iran’s version of the “fact” sheet.

 

If you’re looking for good news, here you go: Starting at the bottom of page two, not only has Iran agreed to “regular access” by inspectors to all of its nuclear facilities, including the fortified plant inside the mountain at Fordo, but they’ve agreed to the IAEA’s “Additional Protocol,” which authorizes “snap inspections.” That had been a sticking point during the home stretch of the talks; eight days ago, Iran’s chief spokesman called snap inspections “illegal.” Unless there’s a legal wrinkle I’m missing, they ended up caving on that. They also supposedly agreed to let UN inspectors investigate suspected nuclear sites, not just sites that are already known. That’ll be useful when, not if, they eventually try to cheat by building covert enrichment sites under the IAEA’s nose. Iran, meanwhile, gets to sell this as a victory back home insofar as they haven’t agreed to close any site that’s already operating. (They have, however, agreed not to build any new ones, another important point when they inevitably try to cheat.) Even Fordo will keep operating with centrifuges in place, albeit as a monitored “research” facility with no uranium allowed on the premises.

 

(Snip)

 

Update: My apologies. I thought the fact sheet was a joint U.S./Iran production and said so in my original headline for this post. Nope:

 

Javad Zarif ✔ @JZarif Follow

 

 

The solutions are good for all, as they stand. There is no need to spin using "fact sheets" so early on.

 

 

 

3:13 PM - 2 Apr 2015

 

 

So Iran’s so insistent on not being held to concrete terms that they object to the U.S. even putting out a recitation of the points of agreement, huh? Belated exit question: Which provisions here does Zarif regard as unfair/inaccurate “spin”? Kind of important to know that as the White House starts celebrating peace in our time.

 

I think they don't want to be pinned down on the meaning of "is". This IS a centrifuge. No this IS NOT a centrifuge. This IS nuclear material. No this IS NOT nuclear material.

[Valin]

Blah Blah Blah Clips

[Valin]

Iran Says Obama Lying

Stephen Green

4/2/15

 

Whelp. That didnt take long:

 

 

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

 

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

 

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.

 

Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerryand release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessionsZarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies.

(Snip)

[clearvision]

Have to get at the back of a long line of people accusing the Obama administration of lying...

[Valin]

Revealed: What You Need to Know About the Iranian Nuclear 'Framework'
Guy Benson

Apr 02, 2015

 

The deal is not done -- as the Iranians are eager to remind everyone -- because various particulars must still be hammered out between now and the end of June. The devil still lurks in crucial details, and potential sticking points abound. That said, the framework announced earlier today is more specific that many had expected. It contains elements that both sides will point to as meaningful wins, though Iran appears to have gotten the better of the agreement on the whole. Based on a State Department "fact sheet" summary -- worded, unsurprisingly, to reassure skeptical Americans -- and other reporting, here's what we know:

 

(Snip)

[Draggingtree]

Rouhani Throws Down the Gauntlet on Lifting Sanctions

Michael Rubin | @mrubin197104.03.2015 - 1:50 PM

Despite President Obama’s straw man argument positing a false choice between diplomacy and war, critics of Obama administration strategy object not to the idea of diplomacy with Iran, but rather the manner in which Team Obama carried it out. Whereas Ronald Reagan prefaced his diplomacy with the Soviet Union with a massive military buildup both to negotiate from a position of strength and, in hindsight, to bankrupt his Soviet adversary, President Obama’s willingness to unfreeze assets and offer sanctions relief suggested the White House considered leverage a dirty word.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/03/rouhani-throws-down-the-gauntlet-on-lifting-sanctions/

[Draggingtree]

Muslim nations are rubbing their hands together waiting for the next gift they will get from Obama and his global minions

When the Iran Deal Hits the Fan

By Douglas V. Gibbs Full Story

 

 

Neville Chamberlain’s name will live in infamy. Chamberlain was Prime Minister of Great Britain when the Nazis were on the rise in Germany prior to the Second World War. Neville was a pacifist, a guy that, if alive today, would have peace signs plastered throughout his office. His foreign policy was much like Barack Obama’s, filled with “negotiate first” and “appeasement” insertions to the point that it was disastrous.http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/70924

[Valin]

@Draggingtree

 

Muslim nations are rubbing their hands together waiting for the next gift they will get from Obama and his global minions.

Muslim Nations? Aside from the Click Bait of the sub headline....Yawn About what I have come to expect from CFP.

[SrWoodchuck]

 

StiltonJarlsberg via TheoSpark

[Valin]

Special Editorial: Kill the Deal

Apr 4, 2015 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

 

Commentators have exposed how bad the Iran deal is in various ways; the point, however, is to kill it.

 

Why? Because the deal can't be fixed. Even if sanctions relief were somewhat more gradual, even if the number of centrifuges were somewhat lower, even if the inspections regime were somewhat more robust—the basic facts would remain: Iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure, including the most sensitive parts of it. The sanctions come off. And the inspectors can be kicked out. So Iran, a state-sponsor of terror, an enemy of the United States, an aggressive jihadist power, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, will become a threshold nuclear weapons state.

 

(Snip)

[Draggingtree]

POSTED ON APRIL 4, 2015 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN THE WEEK IN PICTURES

THE WEEK IN PICTURES: DEAL OR NO DEAL EDITION

Listening to the Obama administration trying to spin their Iran “framework” faster than a uranium centrifuge makes me think we’d be better off with Woody Allen as secretary of state rather than John Kerry; at least when Allen tells us he’s looking for “a framework to turn a concept into an idea,” we know he’s pulling our leg. The Obama team really seem to believe their own B.S.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/the-week-in-pictures-deal-or-no-deal-edition.php