Iranian Agreement goes through

BBC article

World powers have reached a deal with Iran on limiting Iranian nuclear activity in return for the lifting of international economic sanctions.

US President Barack Obama said that with the deal, "every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off" for Iran.

His Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani, said it opened a "new chapter" in Iran's relations with the world.

Negotiations between Iran and six world powers - the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany - began in 2006.

The so-called P5+1 want Iran to scale back its sensitive nuclear activities to ensure that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.

Iran, which wants crippling international sanctions lifted, has always insisted that its nuclear work is peaceful.

Mr Obama, who is trying to persuade a sceptical US Congress of the benefits, said it would oblige Iran to:

remove two-thirds of installed centrifuges and store them under international supervision
get rid of 98% of its enriched uranium
accept that sanctions would be rapidly restored if the deal was violated
permanently give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access "where necessary when necessary"
Sanctions relief would be gradual, Mr Obama said, with an arms embargo remaining in place for five years and an embargo on missiles for eight years.

Separately, the IAEA and Iran said they had signed a roadmap to resolve outstanding issues.

IAEA head Yukiya Amano told reporters in Vienna, Austria, that his organisation had signed a roadmap "for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear programme".

He called the agreement a "significant step forward", saying it would allow the agency to "make an assessment of issues relating to possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme by the end of 2015".

It's about time 🙂

While Republicans object, they seem to not get that no deal means Iran would have a much easier time to get a nuke- 50x as much enriched uranium available, more centrifuges, no inspectors.

There doesn't seem to be much benefit to not making the deal that I can see, and that's why an international coalition- who, by the way, we need to do the sanctions anyway, so if they ever gave up on sanctions we'd have neither treaty nor that limiter- was so in favor of it. So if the US alone doesn't ratify the treaty, it's not like the sanctions are necessarily going to stay up either.

All in all it strikes me as a good deal, and the objections to be fairly questionable.

We won't know if the agreement is a success for another few years at least.

It's an encouraging result at the moment. The P5+1 didn't give up as much as conservatives feared they would.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
We won't know if the agreement is a success for another few years at least.

It's an encouraging result at the moment. The P5+1 didn't give up as much as conservatives feared they would.

This deal gives them a full nuclear arsenal in less then 10 years.

Lol, encouraging.. Are you in the clouds?

After talks were over the day, just 4 days ago Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was going to rallies that were burning flags and chanting death to America and Israel. He said after this deal was reached he would continue to fight against America.

While Republicans object, they seem to not get that no deal means Iran would have a much easier time to get a nuke- 50x as much enriched uranium available, more centrifuges, no inspectors.

It seems like you're saying any deal is better than no deal at all, a position the Democrats are known to accept. This isn't a valid argument and even a less valid reason to make this deal. So yes, the Republicans' objections are well founded.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This deal gives them a full nuclear arsenal in less then 10 years.

Nooo, no it doesn't. It has 15 years of inspectors, plus a reduction in the amount of gear needed to make a bomb.

Also, you do realize that, no restrictions, they could make a bomb in under 6 months, right?

It's like people are just re-writing the deal in their heads to make it the opposite of the reality. Is there a reason you want Iran to have less restrictions to making a nuclear weapon?

If I understand correctly, inspectors have to apply for permission from Iran if they want to inspect their facilities, and Iran has the choice to grant it and can take up to 2 weeks? Why would you think this is a good deal? This gives them most of the leverage.

My understanding is the inspectors will have more free access than that. They have to let the inspectors there or the deal's off or sanctions pop back on.... but you do realize there's no access right now, right? As in zero? That would entirely be an increase in access? As in you are literally arguing for there to be less access to Iranian nuclear facilities? Significantly less access?

Even that is secondary, it drastically reduces their physical capability to make a nuclear weapon and removes 98% of their fuel stockpile that could go to making such a weapon.

Right now, the lead-up time to bomb is measured in months. With fewer centrifuges and the stockpiles gone, they'd be years away from the time they started. Meaning all the watchers would have to pick up is a multi-year process. And this is not small stuff that can be picked up and moved around, at that, this is significant large facilities.

The centrifuges is easily the big thing here, it means they are physically far further from making a nuke.

Meaning, we're going from months from start with nothing to prevent them from starting but their judgement call, to 2 years from start with watches to show they aren't even trying to start for 15 years.

The "Do nothing" policy- you know, what the Republicans are advocating- saw their lead-up from start to bomb time drop from 5 years to a matter of months. How close do they have to be in terms of bomb lead-up time does it take for people to realize it's not working?

"Well, their centrifuges means they can make the materials for it in a few weeks... but I'm sure the sanctions will work any day now!"

Would that make you happy?

Time-Immemorial, psmith, why do you want Iran to have an easy path to nuclear weaponry with no restrictions?

It seems like you're saying any deal is better than no deal at all, a position the Democrats are known to accept. This isn't a valid argument and even a less valid reason to make this deal. So yes, the Republicans' objections are well founded.

One, it's a pretty reasonable deal just on it's own, this is a lot of restrictions, they're physically destroying a good amount of expensive equipment here and giving up large amounts of enriched uranium.

And two, if the objections are based on 'we don't want them to have nukes,' then heck yea their objections are downright stupid since the deal actually gets what they want to get via not-having the deal. If 'we don't want them to have nukes' is the reason, then what exactly is the objection to the argument that puts them much further from nuclear weapons?

There's no alternative, no suggested path, just doing exactly what has gotten Iran closer to a nuke for years.

The alternative isn't this or another deal after all, it's literally this or no restrictions whatsoever, and if your entire argument is based on you not wanting them having nukes, then it doesn't help that the other side of the argument has every advantage in preventing that from happening, and the objection side doesn't even have a vague suggestion how to make it happen.

It's like people are just re-writing the deal in their heads to make it the opposite of the reality. Is there a reason you want Iran to have less restrictions to making a nuclear weapon?

My understanding is the inspectors will have more free access than that.... but you do realize there's no access right now, right? As in zero? That would entirely be an increase in access? As in you are literally arguing for there to be less access to Iranian nuclear facilities? Significantly less access?

Even that is secondary, it drastically reduces their physical capability to make a nuclear weapon and removes 98% of their fuel stockpile that could go to making such a weapon.

The "Do nothing" policy- you know, what the Republicans are advocating- saw their lead-up from start to bomb time drop from 5 years to a matter of months. How close do they have to be in terms of bomb lead-up time does it take for people to realize it's not working?

The alternative isn't this or another deal after all, it's literally this or no restrictions whatsoever.

Time-Immemorial, psmith, why do you want Iran to have an easy path to nuclear weaponry with no restrictions?

Is there a reason you want Iran to have less restrictions to making a nuclear weapon?

Originally posted by psmith81992

No you're claiming we want no restrictions. Which one is it? It's irrelevant really. We want tighter restrictions that doesn't give Iran all the leverage. This idea that any deal is better than no deal, is false.

Oh, well your choice is this deal or no deal or a deal that gives Iran more than this, because this is about their limit and they give a heck of a lot in this one.

Iran has no reason to agree to something significantly more restrictive, and as has been abundantly clear, 'staying the course' only gets them closer to a bomb.

What's your pick there?

And/or how do you propose to get this mythological better deal? That seems rather vague in the objections. Vague in the 'completely unaddressed beyond "keep on the sanctions." '. Which has failed.

And, notably, as we are not the only ones involved, eventually the other countries involved will simply make a deal without us if 'keep up the sanctions' is your only option.

Personally, "On-site inspections for 15 years, plus a reduction in equipment so significant it'd multiple their time-to-bomb up to 2 years," strikes me as a rather good deal.

There's a saying, 'perfect is the enemy of good.'

If you're saying that you'll refuse a good deal while waiting for a perfect one, the real-life consequences of that is you do not get any deal.

If all you have as a counter-argument is a vague hand-wavy better deal, then yea, you got nothing, and I stand by "Why do you want them to have no restrictions to getting nukes?", because whether or not that's the intent, that's the practical result of such a stance.

I'm arguing that access is irrelevant if Iran has at least 2 weeks to stall inspectors, more than enough time to clear out evidence of impropriety.

Nope, that doesn't work. These are large facilities, they are not portable, and they're radioactive, you'd be able to tell if they were there anyway.

There are things where one can move in that time, but nuclear reactors are not one of them.

Also, I have been able to find no sources on this two-week thing in the final form of the deal. You couldn't hide stuff even if there was two week warning, but again, I can't find a source on that.

The actual terms of the deal that all the websites keep mentioning are more along the lines of 'access to the facilities 24/7'.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Or it's like people who think any deal is better than no deal.

I'm arguing that access is irrelevant if Iran has at least 2 weeks to stall inspectors, more than enough time to clear out evidence of impropriety.

How, exactly does it do that?

As opposed to the "do anything" policy that the Democrats are known for?

Uh why? You don't think the US could have pushed for tighter restrictions? I feel we gave them a lot of leverage just to say a deal was done.

This is a straw man. First you said this:

No you're claiming we want no restrictions. Which one is it? It's irrelevant really. We want tighter restrictions that doesn't give Iran all the leverage. This idea that any deal is better than no deal, is false.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Or it's like people who think any deal is better than no deal.

I'm arguing that access is irrelevant if Iran has at least 2 weeks to stall inspectors, more than enough time to clear out evidence of impropriety.

How, exactly does it do that?

As opposed to the "do anything" policy that the Democrats are known for?

Uh why? You don't think the US could have pushed for tighter restrictions? I feel we gave them a lot of leverage just to say a deal was done.

This is a straw man. First you said this:

No you're claiming we want no restrictions. Which one is it? It's irrelevant really. We want tighter restrictions that doesn't give Iran all the leverage. This idea that any deal is better than no deal, is false.

I put Q99 on ignore, he/she is delusional and a big time waster. Its like talking to a brick wall.

Again, can we please cut out the no-value posts just attacking other members?

Originally posted by Q99
Oh, well your choice is this deal or no deal or a deal that gives Iran more than this, because this is about their limit and they give a heck of a lot in this one.

Iran has no reason to agree to something significantly more restrictive, and as has been abundantly clear, 'staying the course' only gets them closer to a bomb.

What's your pick there?

And/or how do you propose to get this mythological better deal? That seems rather vague in the objections. Vague in the 'completely unaddressed beyond "keep on the sanctions." '. Which has failed.

And, notably, as we are not the only ones involved, eventually the other countries involved will simply make a deal without us if 'keep up the sanctions' is your only option.

Personally, "On-site inspections for 15 years, plus a reduction in equipment so significant it'd multiple their time-to-bomb up to 2 years," strikes me as a rather good deal.

There's a saying, 'perfect is the enemy of good.'

If you're saying that you'll refuse a good deal while waiting for a perfect one, the real-life consequences of that is you do not get any deal.

If all you have as a counter-argument is a vague hand-wavy better deal, then yea, you got nothing, and I stand by "Why do you want them to have no restrictions to getting nukes?", because whether or not that's the intent, that's the practical result of such a stance.

Nope, that doesn't work. These are large facilities, they are not portable, and they're radioactive.

There are things where one can move in that time, but nuclear reactors are not one of them.

I put Q99 on ignore, he/she is delusional and a big time waster. Its like talking to a brick wall.

Hard to attack someone who you can't talk to, and saying someone is delusional/time waster is not attacking anyone.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Delusional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timewasting

Originally posted by psmith81992
You are saying that it's either the current deal or no deal. That's not necessarily true. Also, the mythical deal I'm talking about would shorten the "wait time", or at least start imposing sanctions if Iran refuses to allow initial inspections and/or drags the process, etc. There were many options that may have been discussed had the democrats not been so eager to just make a deal.

Your lack of tolerance to those who disagree with you and bring up valid points while doing so, is making us conservatives look bad. I suggest you stop.

I never said I was conservative. I suggest you get your facts in order. And cut out the self righteous attitude, no one is a fan.

I never said I was conservative. I suggest you get your facts in order. And cut out the self righteous attitude, no one is a fan.

The inspection lead times and other intel

"If the committee decides in a vote to reject the Iranian reservations, Iran will have three days to arrange the inspectors' visit to the suspicious facility. The inspectors who would be allowed access to the nuclear facilities and the suspicious sites in Iran will come only from states with which Iran has diplomatic relations. "

Three days after a vote, longer with no vote.

Three days does not strike me as particularly too long to grant.

Originally posted by Q99
Ok, found the inspection lead times

"If the committee decides in a vote to reject the Iranian reservations, Iran will have three days to arrange the inspectors' visit to the suspicious facility. The inspectors who would be allowed access to the nuclear facilities and the suspicious sites in Iran will come only from states with which Iran has diplomatic relations. "

Three days after a vote, longer with no vote.

Three days does not strike me as particularly too long to grant.

I don't understand. I read that Iran has up to 14 days to grant inspections..

Originally posted by psmith81992
This coming from someone who blocks anyone who doesn't agree with them. That's pretty hysterical. And let's be honest, you are conservative..

I take it, you think you know me cause you been posting here for what 2 weeks? You don't.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I take it, you think you know me cause you been posting here for what 2 weeks? You don't.

Sure thing Papi, don't get defensive.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Sure thing Papi, don't get defensive.

Now your just being stupid and trolling. You thought you knew me, you don't. Don't even try, junior.

Time-Immemorial's definition of 'time waster' is someone who disagrees with him and posts evidence that shows him wrong.

Apparently having his arguments blown out of the water repeatedly- not just by me, I think most people here can do so pretty easily- is a waste of his time 😉

Psmith, you bring up good arguments at times and seem to argue in good faith. T-I doesn't.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't understand. I read that Iran has up to 14 days to grant inspections..

Yeeea, I'm guessing that someone was feeding you bad intel.

Keep in mind also this is a multi-national effort agreed upon by multiple nations, Germany, Russia, and so on, it's not just the Democrats, we need those other countries on board for a deal to work, it comes after a many-year effort, and no one has actually suggested what could be done to get this better deal when the longer there's a wait, the closer Iran gets and the more *we* would likely have to concede to get a deal.

Stalling is not automatically to our favor.

If someone had a concrete plan for a better deal, that'd be another thing, but the Republicans haven't presented one.

And now that we have this one, even if you think it's not perfect, it definitely seems to me to get us a very good chunk of what we want for a pretty reasonable price.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hard to attack someone who you can't talk to, and saying someone is delusional/time waster is not attacking anyone.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Delusional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timewasting

Now you are being ridiculous- that was clearly an attack with no other purpose in the thread. You'll get an official warning if you keep this up.

Likewise, let's cut out this arguing. Take it to PM rather than derail the thread.