Aa
The Iran Deal in 200 Words
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-deal-qa.html
"Can Iran keep enriching uranium?
Yes. It can produce a small stock of uranium enriched at low levels — not suitable for a bomb without further processing. This limit lasts 15 years.
Can Iran still make a bomb?
If it abides by the deal, no, for at least a decade. It would not have enough material, or centrifuges running, to make a bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium in less than a year.
Will inspectors have access to military facilities?
Inspectors can ask to visit sites of suspected nuclear activity. But the provision is short of “anywhere, anytime,” because the inspectors first need to present evidence.
When will sanctions lift?
Major oil and financial sanctions could lift this year if Iran complies with the principal requirements in the deal.
How can the U.S. be sure Iran won't cheat?
It can’t. Iran agreed to provide inspectors more access to its nuclear program and allow investigation of suspicious sites, but there are no guarantees.
How long will the deal last?
The deal limits Iran’s enrichment for 15 years. Caps on research and development loosen in about 10 years, but some restrictions will remain for up to 25 years."
"Can Iran keep enriching uranium?
Yes. It can produce a small stock of uranium enriched at low levels — not suitable for a bomb without further processing. This limit lasts 15 years.
Can Iran still make a bomb?
If it abides by the deal, no, for at least a decade. It would not have enough material, or centrifuges running, to make a bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium in less than a year.
Will inspectors have access to military facilities?
Inspectors can ask to visit sites of suspected nuclear activity. But the provision is short of “anywhere, anytime,” because the inspectors first need to present evidence.
When will sanctions lift?
Major oil and financial sanctions could lift this year if Iran complies with the principal requirements in the deal.
How can the U.S. be sure Iran won't cheat?
It can’t. Iran agreed to provide inspectors more access to its nuclear program and allow investigation of suspicious sites, but there are no guarantees.
How long will the deal last?
The deal limits Iran’s enrichment for 15 years. Caps on research and development loosen in about 10 years, but some restrictions will remain for up to 25 years."
Have faith in a county and its leaders whose consistently proven that they cannot be trusted. Of course, they'll come around this time. What are their alternatives? I guess they could always remain the distrustful folks they are..... The part about them having their own inspectors is especially rich.
You'll see. That one will pay off for sure.
You'll see. That one will pay off for sure.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/21/copy-iran-side-deal-backs-reports-iran-would-have-major-role-in-nuke-site/?vgnextrefresh=1&intcmp=hpbt3
Great deal mikey
Copy of Iran ‘side deal’ backs reports Tehran would have major role in nuke site inspections
Great deal mikey
Copy of Iran ‘side deal’ backs reports Tehran would have major role in nuke site inspections
"Menendez Is 2nd Dem to Oppose Iran Deal: ‘Hope…Is Not a National Security Strategy’
By Patrick Goodenough | August 19, 2015 | 4:12 AM EDT
(CNSNews.com) – Twelve days after Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) became the lone Democratic senator to declare opposition to the administration’s Iran nuclear agreement, a second senior Democrat has joined him, with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) announcing Tuesday that he too will vote against the deal.
In a speech laying out in detail his reasons for opposing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Menendez said ultimately the agreement between the P5+1 – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany – and Tehran was “based on hope.”
“Hope that when the [10-15 year] nuclear sunset clause expires Iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration; hope that the hardliners will have lost their power and the revolution will end its hegemonic goals; hope that the regime will allow the Iranian people to decide their fate.”
“And hope is part of human nature,” he said, “but … unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.”
Menendez said he will support a resolution to disapprove the agreement – which is due to come to a vote by mid-September – and if President Obama vetoes the measure, he will vote to override the veto.
“My devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it.”
Schumer’s announcement of the same stance earlier this month did not lead to the uptick in declared opposition among Democrats that some predicted.
Currently 23 have voiced public support for the JCPOA, two their opposition, and 21 are undeclared. At least 13 Senate Democrats, along with 44 in the House, will have to join their Republican colleagues to override the veto. (An updated whip list appears below.)
Menendez began his speech in New Jersey by distancing himself both from Obama’s portrayal of JCPOA opponents and from a position of reflexive opposition to the president.
“Unlike President Obama’s characterization of those who have raised serious questions about the agreement, or who have opposed it, I did not vote for the war in Iraq,’ he said, pointing out that while he had opposed the war Vice-President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry both supported it.
(“Some of the same politicians and pundits that are so quick to reject the possibility of a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program are the same folks who were so quick to go to war in Iraq,” Obama said in a July 21 speech. State Department spokesman John Kirby on Tuesday declined to comment on Menendez’ point that he had opposed the war while Kerry had supported it.)
“I also don’t come to this question as someone, unlike many of my Republican colleagues, who reflexively oppose everything the president proposes,” Menendez added, noting that he has been a “reliable supporter” of Obama in backing key policies.
“But my support is not – and has not been – driven by party loyalty, but rather by principled agreement,” he said. “And when I have disagreed it is also based on principled disagreement.”
“This is one of the most serious national security, nuclear nonproliferation, arms control issues of our time,” Menendez said. “It is not an issue of supporting or opposing the president. This issue is much greater, and graver than that.”
The New Jersey Democrat, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pushed back against the administration’s talking-point about war being the only alternative to the JCPOA.
“The president and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this agreement or war,” he said. “I reject that proposition, as have most witnesses – including past and present administration members involved in the Iran nuclear issue – who have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who support the deal but reject the binary choice between the agreement or war.”
“If the P5+1 had not achieved an agreement, would we be at war with Iran?” he asked. “I don’t believe that.”
“If there is a fear of war in the region,” Menendez said earlier in the speech, “it is fueled by Iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement that allows Iran to possess an industrial-sized nuclear program, and enough money in sanctions relief to continue to fund its hegemonic intentions throughout the region.”
'Recommendations for a ‘better deal’
In response to the administration’s repeated assertion that JCPOA opponents have not offered any realistic alternative to the negotiated deal, Menendez said the U.S. can still get “a better deal.”
Congress could disapprove the JCPOA, he said, and authorize the administration to continue negotiations under the original Joint Plan of Action – the interim understanding which granted Iran limited sanctions relief in exchange for limited curbs on its nuclear program.
Congress could then set out “specific parameters” for the continued negotiations, including:
---Insistence that Iran immediately ratifies the “additional protocol” of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, “to ensure that we have a permanent international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites.”
---A ban on centrifuge R&D for the duration of the agreement,
---Closure of the covertly-built underground enrichment facility at Fordow, whose sole purpose, Menendez said, “was to harden Iran’s nuclear program to a military attack. We need to close the facility and foreclose Iran’s future ability to use this facility. If Iran has nothing to hide they shouldn’t need to put it under a mountain.”
(The JCPOA allows the Iranian to keep Fordow, albeit with activities there heavily proscribed. In 2013, Obama said that if Iran’s nuclear program was peaceful as it claimed, it had no need for Fordow.)
---Full resolution of the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s program, rather than an arrangement “set up to whitewash this issue.”
(JCPOA critics in Congress are unhappy about the secrecy governing the International Atomic Energy Agency’s dealings with Iran about the so-called PMD issues, including suspicions that Iran carried out nuclear-related tests at Parchin, a military site it has refused to open to inspectors.
“The answer as to why we cannot see those documents, is because they have a confidentiality agreement between the IAEA and Iran, which they say is customary,” said Menendez. “But this issue is anything but customary.”)
---Extension of the duration of the agreement to “at least 20 years.”
---Agreement now on penalties to be collectively imposed by the P5+1 for Iranian violations.
Beyond those parameters, Menendez called for further steps, including:
---Congress must extend the authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act, which expires next year, “to ensure that we have an effective snapback option.” (Administration officials have said it is premature to discuss reauthorizing the ISA.)
---Obama should affirm, and Congress endorse, a policy declaration that the U.S. “will use all means necessary to prevent Iran from producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, as well as building or buying one, both during and after any agreement.”
Follow the link and there's a list of democrats who support or don't support this agreemeny... Senator Bill Nelson from FL supports it; he probably won't get my vote again... that's unfortunat...
By Patrick Goodenough | August 19, 2015 | 4:12 AM EDT
(CNSNews.com) – Twelve days after Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) became the lone Democratic senator to declare opposition to the administration’s Iran nuclear agreement, a second senior Democrat has joined him, with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) announcing Tuesday that he too will vote against the deal.
In a speech laying out in detail his reasons for opposing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Menendez said ultimately the agreement between the P5+1 – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany – and Tehran was “based on hope.”
“Hope that when the [10-15 year] nuclear sunset clause expires Iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration; hope that the hardliners will have lost their power and the revolution will end its hegemonic goals; hope that the regime will allow the Iranian people to decide their fate.”
“And hope is part of human nature,” he said, “but … unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.”
Menendez said he will support a resolution to disapprove the agreement – which is due to come to a vote by mid-September – and if President Obama vetoes the measure, he will vote to override the veto.
“My devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it.”
Schumer’s announcement of the same stance earlier this month did not lead to the uptick in declared opposition among Democrats that some predicted.
Currently 23 have voiced public support for the JCPOA, two their opposition, and 21 are undeclared. At least 13 Senate Democrats, along with 44 in the House, will have to join their Republican colleagues to override the veto. (An updated whip list appears below.)
Menendez began his speech in New Jersey by distancing himself both from Obama’s portrayal of JCPOA opponents and from a position of reflexive opposition to the president.
“Unlike President Obama’s characterization of those who have raised serious questions about the agreement, or who have opposed it, I did not vote for the war in Iraq,’ he said, pointing out that while he had opposed the war Vice-President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry both supported it.
(“Some of the same politicians and pundits that are so quick to reject the possibility of a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program are the same folks who were so quick to go to war in Iraq,” Obama said in a July 21 speech. State Department spokesman John Kirby on Tuesday declined to comment on Menendez’ point that he had opposed the war while Kerry had supported it.)
“I also don’t come to this question as someone, unlike many of my Republican colleagues, who reflexively oppose everything the president proposes,” Menendez added, noting that he has been a “reliable supporter” of Obama in backing key policies.
“But my support is not – and has not been – driven by party loyalty, but rather by principled agreement,” he said. “And when I have disagreed it is also based on principled disagreement.”
“This is one of the most serious national security, nuclear nonproliferation, arms control issues of our time,” Menendez said. “It is not an issue of supporting or opposing the president. This issue is much greater, and graver than that.”
The New Jersey Democrat, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pushed back against the administration’s talking-point about war being the only alternative to the JCPOA.
“The president and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this agreement or war,” he said. “I reject that proposition, as have most witnesses – including past and present administration members involved in the Iran nuclear issue – who have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who support the deal but reject the binary choice between the agreement or war.”
“If the P5+1 had not achieved an agreement, would we be at war with Iran?” he asked. “I don’t believe that.”
“If there is a fear of war in the region,” Menendez said earlier in the speech, “it is fueled by Iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement that allows Iran to possess an industrial-sized nuclear program, and enough money in sanctions relief to continue to fund its hegemonic intentions throughout the region.”
'Recommendations for a ‘better deal’
In response to the administration’s repeated assertion that JCPOA opponents have not offered any realistic alternative to the negotiated deal, Menendez said the U.S. can still get “a better deal.”
Congress could disapprove the JCPOA, he said, and authorize the administration to continue negotiations under the original Joint Plan of Action – the interim understanding which granted Iran limited sanctions relief in exchange for limited curbs on its nuclear program.
Congress could then set out “specific parameters” for the continued negotiations, including:
---Insistence that Iran immediately ratifies the “additional protocol” of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, “to ensure that we have a permanent international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites.”
---A ban on centrifuge R&D for the duration of the agreement,
---Closure of the covertly-built underground enrichment facility at Fordow, whose sole purpose, Menendez said, “was to harden Iran’s nuclear program to a military attack. We need to close the facility and foreclose Iran’s future ability to use this facility. If Iran has nothing to hide they shouldn’t need to put it under a mountain.”
(The JCPOA allows the Iranian to keep Fordow, albeit with activities there heavily proscribed. In 2013, Obama said that if Iran’s nuclear program was peaceful as it claimed, it had no need for Fordow.)
---Full resolution of the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s program, rather than an arrangement “set up to whitewash this issue.”
(JCPOA critics in Congress are unhappy about the secrecy governing the International Atomic Energy Agency’s dealings with Iran about the so-called PMD issues, including suspicions that Iran carried out nuclear-related tests at Parchin, a military site it has refused to open to inspectors.
“The answer as to why we cannot see those documents, is because they have a confidentiality agreement between the IAEA and Iran, which they say is customary,” said Menendez. “But this issue is anything but customary.”)
---Extension of the duration of the agreement to “at least 20 years.”
---Agreement now on penalties to be collectively imposed by the P5+1 for Iranian violations.
Beyond those parameters, Menendez called for further steps, including:
---Congress must extend the authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act, which expires next year, “to ensure that we have an effective snapback option.” (Administration officials have said it is premature to discuss reauthorizing the ISA.)
---Obama should affirm, and Congress endorse, a policy declaration that the U.S. “will use all means necessary to prevent Iran from producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, as well as building or buying one, both during and after any agreement.”
Follow the link and there's a list of democrats who support or don't support this agreemeny... Senator Bill Nelson from FL supports it; he probably won't get my vote again... that's unfortunat...
Oh, ye of little faith
Smoking deal for Iran, It's pretty convenient that they get to have their own inspectors inspect a suspect site that has increased activity, confirmed by satellite imagery, yet they claim it is only road work.
Don't worry because Obama, John F Kerry and mike said it's a good deal.
VIENNA (AP) — Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-un-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-165604071.html
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-un-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-165604071.html
"How can the U.S. be sure Iran won't cheat?
It can’t........."
If you start with the proposition that Iran will cheat then no deal would be good regardless of the terms. So what if we have anytime/anyplace inspections - Iran could just refuse and then what?
If the issue is the money/sanctions then I get that. But this cheating stuff is just silly. With the deal we would be in a much better position to know if Iran cheated and then all the options are still available. I see no downside other than the lifting of some sanctions but they're going to erode away anyway - whether or not we sign the deal. And we break with our "allies" who apparently think the deal is worth doing. We'll find ourselves further isolated and our prestige diminished.
It can’t........."
If you start with the proposition that Iran will cheat then no deal would be good regardless of the terms. So what if we have anytime/anyplace inspections - Iran could just refuse and then what?
If the issue is the money/sanctions then I get that. But this cheating stuff is just silly. With the deal we would be in a much better position to know if Iran cheated and then all the options are still available. I see no downside other than the lifting of some sanctions but they're going to erode away anyway - whether or not we sign the deal. And we break with our "allies" who apparently think the deal is worth doing. We'll find ourselves further isolated and our prestige diminished.
"How can the U.S. be sure Iran won't cheat?
It can’t........."
All the upcoming rhetoric in Congress is going to boil down to "Is a bad deal better than no deal?" But I'm sure our representatives will use a few more words and take a lot more time to say that. Especially if they're expecting to see their name on a ballot next year.
It can’t........."
All the upcoming rhetoric in Congress is going to boil down to "Is a bad deal better than no deal?" But I'm sure our representatives will use a few more words and take a lot more time to say that. Especially if they're expecting to see their name on a ballot next year.
One of the best posts/links you have done.
Thank you
Thank you
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
