|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:41 pm Post subject: Iran nuclear deal reached |
|
|
Geneva, Switzerland (CNN) -- A historic deal was struck early Sunday between Iran and six world powers over Tehran's nuclear program, a first step in ending a decades-long standoff over the country's nuclear intentions.
The agreement was expected to be signed within hours, capping days of marathon talks in which diplomats worked to overcome issues surrounding the wording of an initial agreement that reportedly would temporarily freeze Iran's nuclear development program and lift some sanctions while a more formal deal is worked out.
"At three o'clock in the morning on the fifth day, white smoke in the negotiations!" Iran Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in a post on Twitter.
The spokesman for the European Union, Michael Mann, also took to Twitter to tout the success: "We have reached agreement."
Catherine Ashton, the EU's foreign policy chief, formally announced the agreement in Geneva where the foreign ministers representing Iran, the United States, Britain, China, Russia, France and Germany were meeting.
The Iran nuclear deal is a first step requiring actions by both sides, which have "a strong commitment to negotiate a final comprehensive solution," Ashton said.
According to a senior U.S. administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, the deal halts Tehran's nuclear program, including halting the development at the Arak reactor and requiring all of the uranium enriched to 20 percent -- close to weapons-grade -- to be diluted so it cannot be converted for military purposes.
But there were conflicting reports about whether Iran's right to enrich uranium had been recognized.
The senior administration official said the deal does not recognize the right, while Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi -- on a Twitter feed commonly attributed to him by Iranian media -- said that "our enrichment program was recognized."
"Congratulation to my nation which stood tall and resisted for the last 10 years," Araghchi said in the post.
For years, Iran and Western powers have left negotiating tables in disagreement, frustration and at times open animosity.
But the diplomatic tone changed with the transfer of power after Iran's election this year, which saw President Hassan Rouhani replace Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Caustic jabs at the United States and bellicose threats toward Israel were a hallmark of Ahmadinejad's foreign policy rhetoric.
He lambasted the West over the economic sanctions crippling Iran's economy and at the same time, pushed the advancement of nuclear technology in Iran.
Rouhani has struck up a more conciliatory tone and made the lifting sanctions against his country a priority. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The freeze would last six months, with the aim of giving international negotiators time to pursue the far more challenging task of drafting a comprehensive accord that would ratchet back much of Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it could be used only for peaceful purposes...
According to the accord, Iran would agree to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent. To make good on that pledge, Iran would dismantle the links between networks of centrifuges.
All of Iran’s stockpile of uranium that has been enriched to 20 percent, a short hop to weapons-grade fuel, would be diluted or converted into oxide so that it could not be readily used for military purposes.
No new centrifuges, neither old models nor newer more efficient ones, could be installed. Centrifuges that have been installed but which are not currently operating — Iran has more than 8,000 such centrifuges — could not be started up. No new enrichment facilities could be established.
The agreement, however, would not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a level of 3.5 percent or dismantle any of its existing centrifuges.
Iran’s stockpile of such low-enriched uranium would be allowed to temporarily increase to about eight tons from seven tons currently. But Tehran would be required to shrink this stockpile by the end of the six-month agreement back to seven tons. This would be done by installing equipment to covert some of that stockpile to oxide.
To guard against cheating, international monitors would be allowed to visit the Natanz enrichment facility and the underground nuclear enrichment plant at Fordo on a daily basis to check the film from cameras installed there.
In return for the initial agreement, the United States has agreed to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief, American officials said. This limited sanctions relief can be accomplished by executive order, allowing the Obama administration to make the deal without having to appeal to Congress, where there is strong criticism of any agreement that does not fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear program...
The agreement reflected compromises on key issues.
Iran would agree not to produce fuel for its heavy water reactor it is building near Arak or put it into operation. But it would not be required to stop all construction at the plant.
In a nod to Iran, the agreement does not preclude Tehran from making new centrifuges. But it allows international inspectors to monitor the assembly and production of centrifuges to guard against the possibility that Iran might stockpile the machines so it could vastly expand its enrichment capability as soon as the agreement lapsed...
To guard against cheating, international monitors would be allowed to visit the Natanz enrichment facility and the underground nuclear enrichment plant at Fordo daily to check the film from cameras installed there.
But Iran did not agree to all of the intrusive inspection that the International Atomic Energy Agency had said is needed to ensure that the Iranian program is peaceful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/world/middleeast/talks-with-iran-on-nuclear-deal-hang-in-balance.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Setting aside the hair-on-fire outrage from the Rapture/Armaggedon/Apocalypse crowd that we will no doubt hear from over the next few weeks, this sounds like a good deal. I can't claim to be any kind of expert on the Iranian nuke issue, but if professional diplomats from 6 countries can agree on something, then it's most likely a sound deal.
Note to self: Check back in in 6 months. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Popocatepetl
Joined: 14 Oct 2013 Location: Winter in Korea: One Perfect day after another
|
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Setting aside the hair-on-fire outrage from the Rapture/Armaggedon/Apocalypse crowd that we will no doubt hear from over the next few weeks, this sounds like a good deal. I can't claim to be any kind of expert on the Iranian nuke issue, but if professional diplomats from 6 countries can agree on something, then it's most likely a sound deal.
Note to self: Check back in in 6 months. |
The sanctions worked.
Irans leaders know that to remain in power they have to improve the economy. Thus a temporary maneouvre like this became necessary.
But have Iranian attitudes to America or Israel fundamentally changed? Of course not.
Hate to dampen your enthusiasm Yata but you seem to be overlooking the fact that e.g the Ayatollah just called Netanyahu a "rabid dog" and that we've been here before: Iran reneged on a 2005 agreement to suspend uranium enrichment. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010 Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That relief aid is just frozen Iranian Money. The US isn't providing any actual aid, just giving back what they've taken.
If anything this is just a count down to invasion. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is something of what I mentioned:
Quote: |
Obama has pursued policies that are not in the Jewish state’s best interest, the Republican from Texas [Rep. Gohmert] argued, pointing to Genesis 12 as evidence that encouraging Israel to sign an international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an act of betrayal. “There are many who have been aware of Scripture, and it has often been a guide in our relations to Israel,” Gohmert told his fellow U.S. Representatives. “Some of us believe that the Bible is accurate. Certainly, so many prophecies have been fulfilled, and if that is true, this administration, unless they can find a verse that accurately says that those who betray Israel will be blessed, then this country is being dug into a deeper hole by this administration, and its betrayals of Israel’s trust and Israel’s friendship.” |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Popocatepetl wrote: |
the Ayatollah just called Netanyahu a "rabid dog" |
That sounds about right. Netanyahu opposed this deal.
Quote: |
we've been here before: Iran reneged on a 2005 agreement to suspend uranium enrichment. |
That was before crippling sanctions and during the Iraq War. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Popocatepetl wrote: |
The sanctions worked.
Irans leaders know that to remain in power they have to improve the economy. Thus a temporary maneouvre like this became necessary.
But have Iranian attitudes to America or Israel fundamentally changed? Of course not.
Hate to dampen your enthusiasm Yata but you seem to be overlooking the fact that e.g the Ayatollah just called Netanyahu a "rabid dog" and that we've been here before: Iran reneged on a 2005 agreement to suspend uranium enrichment. |
Shouldn't the US (and the rest of the international community) be trying to nurture better relations between 'friends and people' as you yourself pointed out?
The US was founded on, and has prospered on, values vastly different to those of Machiavelli I'm afraid.
Relations between states are essentially no different to relations between friends and people...
Statecraft involves nurturing friendships. Sounds like your leaders are in need of basic, basic, social skills. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Zionistan will do everything it can to destroy the deal. I am going to enjoy watching the media melt-downs and freakouts. The hysteria has already started. Better tv than the Dolphins game.
The sole hope I had for Hope and Change was that he'd ignore the Zion warmongering machine and not attack Iran. I can not think of a POTUS that has defied Jewish demands so strongly.
But this is the future. The Obama Coalition will not be BFF's with Israel. That was a WASP thing and the WASP are all but gone.
On to the next sucker. http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/07/china-first-india-next-japan-last.html |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Popocatepetl
Joined: 14 Oct 2013 Location: Winter in Korea: One Perfect day after another
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Shouldn't the US (and the rest of the international community) be trying to nurture better relations between 'friends and people' as you yourself pointed out? |
Whatever progress you make with the people or government of Iran is meaningless.. because they are politically insignificant. The fact that most Iranians want a free democracy and better relations with the west is not important because its the Ayatollah- one man- that makes all the decisions. The supreme leader is the one you need to watch and he has not shifted his position.
In the process of making a risky new friend that has proven themselves untrustworthy you are alienting two reliable friends that have already proven themselves trustworthy (Saudi Arabia and Israel).
Iran is not a natural ally of America and likely never will be. They still sponsor terrorism, they still commit human rights abuses, they still crush democracy. Is that your idea of a friend?
I agree that steps should be taken to improve the situation but this particular deal is very weak and likely sends the wrong message to eg North Korea. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
But this is the future. The Obama Coalition will not be BFF's with Israel. That was a WASP thing and the WASP are all but gone. |
Elaborate please. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
But this is the future. The Obama Coalition will not be BFF's with Israel. That was a WASP thing and the WASP are all but gone. |
Elaborate please. |
The group in America who supports Israel the most (after Jews) are white Protestants. This group is no longer in charge. The Obama Coalition of blacks, Hispanics, gays, and white secular liberals is not going to support a Judaic racist ethno-state that abuses the neighboring poor Arabs. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Popocatepetl wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Shouldn't the US (and the rest of the international community) be trying to nurture better relations between 'friends and people' as you yourself pointed out? |
Whatever progress you make with the people or government of Iran is meaningless.. because they are politically insignificant. The fact that most Iranians want a free democracy and better relations with the west is not important because its the Ayatollah- one man- that makes all the decisions. The supreme leader is the one you need to watch and he has not shifted his position.
In the process of making a risky new friend that has proven themselves untrustworthy you are alienting two reliable friends that have already proven themselves trustworthy (Saudi Arabia and Israel).
Iran is not a natural ally of America and likely never will be. They still sponsor terrorism, they still commit human rights abuses, they still crush democracy. Is that your idea of a friend?
I agree that steps should be taken to improve the situation but this particular deal is very weak and likely sends the wrong message to eg North Korea. |
But yet an agreement was reached. Either the Ayatollah makes all the decisions that matter or he doesn't. You can't have it both ways. It seems clear to me that he has decided that an agreement is in the best interests of Iran. Things could change in the future, who's to say; after all we're less than 24 hours since the agreement was reached.
It's just for 6 months anyway.
'two reliable friends': States do not have friends. They have interests. 'Friendship' lasts only as long as interests coincide.
I wasn't aware that an alliance with Iran was under discussion. I thought the talks were about finding a first step toward an acceptable accommodation. Was I wrong?
I would assert that as long as Florida, Texas, et al are executing prisoners and the US is incarcerating people by the truckload, there is little room for criticizing Iran on that count; as long as North Carolina etc are busy suppressing the vote, the US has no business pointing a finger at anyone else for 'crushing democracy'.
Wrong message? Wrong message? The wrong message was sent to North Korea when they tested their first bomb and there were no consequences of any real note. The right message is being sent to the Norks: sit down for good-faith negotiations and good things might happen. Of course, we'll have to wait and see if everyone was negotiating in good faith--that's why this initial agreement is only for 6 months. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Titus wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
But this is the future. The Obama Coalition will not be BFF's with Israel. That was a WASP thing and the WASP are all but gone. |
Elaborate please. |
The group in America who supports Israel the most (after Jews) are white Protestants. This group is no longer in charge. The Obama Coalition of blacks, Hispanics, gays, and white secular liberals is not going to support a Judaic racist ethno-state that abuses the neighboring poor Arabs. |
Titus appears to be right.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161387/americans-sympathies-israel-match-time-high.aspx
Quote: |
Republicans are substantially more likely than Democrats to favor the Israelis, 78% vs. 55%, with the preferences of independents -- currently 63% -- more closely matching those of Democrats.
Support for Israel has increased among all three party groups since 2001, but particularly among Republicans and independents.
. . .
Older Americans are more likely to support Israel, with sympathy rising from 55% among 18- to 34-year-olds to 65% among 35- to 54-year-olds, and to 71% among those 55 and older. However, the diminished support among younger adults reflects higher proportions with no opinion or saying they favor neither side. Twelve percent of each age group favors the Palestinians. |
Gallup did not measure by race. But if we use Democrat and young as reasonable proxies for non-white, we are seeing the least support among non-whites. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Republicans are substantially more likely than Democrats to favor the Israelis, 78% vs. 55%, with the preferences of independents -- currently 63% -- more closely matching those of Democrats.
Support for Israel has increased among all three party groups since 2001, but particularly among Republicans and independents.
. . .
Older Americans are more likely to support Israel, with sympathy rising from 55% among 18- to 34-year-olds to 65% among 35- to 54-year-olds, and to 71% among those 55 and older. However, the diminished support among younger adults reflects higher proportions with no opinion or saying they favor neither side. Twelve percent of each age group favors the Palestinians. |
Somewhat surprisingly, Jewish Americans vote for Dems at about a 70% rate. It will be interesting to see if that cohort will support the administration or take a more pro-Israel line on this matter. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|