Is Obama's "Historic" Deal With Iran Already Broken?

[dandh]

There seem to be some pretty mixed messages out there. From the linked story:

Iran will begin using its latest generation IR-8 centrifuges as soon as its nuclear deal with the world powers goes into effect, Iran's foreign minister and nuclear chief told members of parliament on Tuesday, according to Iran's semi-official FARS news agency.

If accurate, the report appears to make a mockery of the world powers' much-hailed framework agreement with Iran, since such a move clearly breaches the US-published terms of the deal, and would dramatically accelerate Iran's potential progress to the bomb.

Later, the story states:



"Iran will only enrich uranium at the Natanz facility, with only 5,060 IR-1 first-generation centrifuges for ten years," the US parameters state. "Iran has agreed to only enrich uranium using its first generation (IR-1 models) centrifuges at Natanz for ten years, removing its more advanced centrifuges… Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 models to produce enriched uranium for at least ten years," the US document adds. "For ten years, enrichment and enrichment research and development will be limited to ensure a breakout timeline of at least 1 year. Beyond 10 years, Iran will abide by its enrichment and enrichment R&D plan submitted to the IAEA, and pursuant to the JCPOA, under the Additional Protocol resulting in certain limitations on enrichment capacity."



A French fact-sheet seen by The Times of Israel takes a similar position. It provides for Iran to gradually introduce the use of IR-2 and IR-4 centrifuges to enrich uranium after 12 years. It does not provide for the use of IR-8 centrifuges. The French fact sheet does specify that Iran will be allowed to continue R&D work on the advanced IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges.


So, what's going on here? Are Iranian leaders lying to their Parliament, or to us?

Any chance our leaders are lying to us about what the agreement means?

Does anyone seriously think that Iran will follow what we're claiming the agreement says?


Tehran to Immediately Use Fastest Centrifuges

 

[naturalmwa]

Impossible, it's not a deal yet. It's an outline. You can rip it apart and lobby for war in the summer.

 

[dandh]

Why do you feel the need to insult me by claiming I will lobby for war?

Are you just trying to be insulting, or is it merely an attempt at deflection?

 

[Pepperman]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Impossible, it's not a deal yet. It's an outline. You can rip it apart and lobby for war in the summer.

You do realize, or maybe you don't, that Iran's whole negotiating standpoint on this is "The United States, as lead by Barack Obama, will not have the stomach for a war with us, so we don't have to concede anything".

If you don't understand this very simple point, then it is not possible to discuss this.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by dandh:

Why do you feel the need to insult me by claiming I will lobby for war?

Are you just trying to be insulting, or is it merely an attempt at deflection?

Apologies if that seemed personal, but it was intended as simply the general charitoriation of the oppositite side in this debate.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Pepperman:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Impossible, it's not a deal yet. It's an outline. You can rip it apart and lobby for war in the summer.

You do realize, or maybe you don't, that Iran's whole negotiating standpoint on this is "The United States, as lead by Barack Obama, will not have the stomach for a war with us, so we don't have to concede anything".

If you don't understand this very simple point, then it is not possible to discuss this.

That works, that's my position too. I do not want to go to war to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. I doubt Obama is as grounded, but I hope you are correct.

 

[Pepperman]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

That works, that's my position too. I do not want to go to war to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. I doubt Obama is as grounded, but I hope you are correct.

Then why are we flying people around "negotiating" something? If both sides know one has no backbone, how can there be a negotiation? Well, there can't be. People in other countries are watching and analyzing this.

Which makes the next question - do you think anybody is giving the United States more credibility because of this?

These things do matter. Obama is effectively telling the world we are total fools who can be pushed around, and that if you are ever sitting across the table from us, you don't have to budge.

 

[h-hawk]

I think attempting to make a deal is better than the alternative of war but it is concerning when even France is said to have thought the pending deal should be tougher.
China, Germany, Russia and the UK are the other parties involved.

 

[dandh]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by dandh:

Why do you feel the need to insult me by claiming I will lobby for war?

Are you just trying to be insulting, or is it merely an attempt at deflection?

Apologies if that seemed personal, but it was intended as simply the general charitoriation of the oppositite side in this debate.

When someone says "You can rip it apart and lobby for war in the summer", then yes, I do hear that as being aimed at me personally.

Apology accepted.

I also wonder if it's the right to wait until things are a done deal to discuss them. That's what you're suggesting, and I don't think that's always the best approach. Especially when the stakes are so high.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Pepperman:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

That works, that's my position too. I do not want to go to war to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. I doubt Obama is as grounded, but I hope you are correct.

Then why are we flying people around "negotiating" something? If both sides know one has no backbone, how can there be a negotiation? Well, there can't be. People in other countries are watching and analyzing this.

Which makes the next question - do you think anybody is giving the United States more credibility because of this?

These things do matter. Obama is effectively telling the world we are total fools who can be pushed around, and that if you are ever sitting across the table from us, you don't have to budge.

That probably points to a flaw with your initial premise.
This post was edited on 4/8 2:46 PM by naturalmwa

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by dandh:

When someone says "You can rip it apart and lobby for war in the summer", then yes, I do hear that as being aimed at me personally.

Apology accepted.

I also wonder if it's the right to wait until things are a done deal to discuss them. That's what you're suggesting, and I don't think that's always the best approach. Especially when the stakes are so high.

I'm not one to shy away from debate either, but I do think it's a bit premature to get down in the weeds about the technical specifications of their centrifuges before the deal is even inked. Making a general point like all sides agree Iran is giving up something like ~70% of its centrifuges and ~90% of it's uranium seems fine however.

 

[dandh]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by dandh:

When someone says "You can rip it apart and lobby for war in the summer", then yes, I do hear that as being aimed at me personally.

Apology accepted.

I also wonder if it's the right to wait until things are a done deal to discuss them. That's what you're suggesting, and I don't think that's always the best approach. Especially when the stakes are so high.

I'm not one to shy away from debate either, but I do think it's a bit premature to get down in the weeds about the technical specifications of their centrifuges before the deal is even inked. Making a general point like all sides agree Iran is giving up something like ~70% of its centrifuges and ~90% of it's uranium seems fine however.

I don't know how long they've been enriching uranium, but I think it's 5-6 years or so. If your figures are correct, they would reduce their supply from 5-6 years worth to 6 or 7 months worth. If they reduce their centrifuges to 30% and keep using the old centrifuges, they'd only be able to produce about 3.6 months worth per year in the future. They'd take forever to get back where they are now.

However, if they move to the new centrifuges described in the linked article, that can produce 20 times what the old centrifuges produced, they could now produce 6 years worth each year with only 30% of the number of centrifuges used previously. They'd catch up to current levels in just 11 months, and double the current(before 90% reduction) stockpile in 23 months, triple it in 35 months,etc.

That's why it's worth worrying about the "technical specifications", as you put it, of the centrifuges now instead of after a deal is finalized. In fact, I'd argue that it's much more important than the numbers you raised.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by h-hawk:
I think attempting to make a deal is better than the alternative of war but it is concerning when even France is said to have thought the pending deal should be tougher.
China, Germany, Russia and the UK are the other parties involved.

Today's France is not the France that (correctly) opposed Bush's illegal war in Iraq.

 

[Pepperman]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Pepperman:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

That works, that's my position too. I do not want to go to war to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. I doubt Obama is as grounded, but I hope you are correct.

Then why are we flying people around "negotiating" something? If both sides know one has no backbone, how can there be a negotiation? Well, there can't be. People in other countries are watching and analyzing this.

Which makes the next question - do you think anybody is giving the United States more credibility because of this?

These things do matter. Obama is effectively telling the world we are total fools who can be pushed around, and that if you are ever sitting across the table from us, you don't have to budge.

That probably points to a flaw with your initial premise.

This post was edited on 4/8 2:46 PM by naturalmwa

I saw the original response (yeah, I realize this is 8 hours ago) about how I made an argument for you. I honestly didn't understand what you meant, but whatever.

My point, and original premise, is Obama has a support base that does NOT want another war anywhere, but especially in the Middle East. That is all fine and dandy, and in fact, I'd rather not get into one myself - but I don't think it helps our cause to show that hand during negotiations... To be clear, the problem becomes when you "rule" with pre-determined "obligations" (no war), then you try to sit across the table from some nutjobs who sort of know the corner you're painted in, they realize they can push you around without any consequence.

At this point our position with Iran is one of saying "STOP YOU BAD GUYS... OR WE'LL SAY STOP AGAIN!"

I'm curious how one can disagree with that? You know, based on what has happened and such.

 

[ihhawk]

The Iran deal is starting to feel more and more like a political play by Obama to have a signature foreign policy acheivement during this term. Iran needed the sanctions lifted...the world did not. It looked like the USA gave up the leverage in the negotiations for some reason and caved on a lot of issues. We didnt need to do that. We could have easily just sat back and let the sanctions destroy the Iran economy...or, we should have pushed for worse sanctions to leverage our position.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

Originally posted by montross:
The Iran deal is starting to feel more and more like a political play by Obama to have a signature foreign policy acheivement during this term.  Iran needed the sanctions lifted...the world did not.  It looked like the USA gave up the leverage in the negotiations for some reason and caved on a lot of issues.  We didnt need to do that.  We could have easily just sat back and let the sanctions destroy the Iran economy...or, we should have pushed for worse sanctions to leverage our position.

Just thinking aloud here. Any chance Obama sees a potential conflict being very likely regardless of any deal we make? If so, it would be smart for our reputation to show we went beyond where we had to on concessions in order to preserve peace?

If we go all in on compromise and Iran doesn't follow through, I'd think the world would agree with any subsequent action taken by US or Israel.

It seems like many R's here want war anyway...why not make a rock solid case? We've seen how well our half ass, rushed sales presentations go.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[86Hawkeye]

Originally posted by KennyPowers_96:

Originally posted by montross:
The Iran deal is starting to feel more and more like a political play by Obama to have a signature foreign policy acheivement during this term. Iran needed the sanctions lifted...the world did not. It looked like the USA gave up the leverage in the negotiations for some reason and caved on a lot of issues. We didnt need to do that. We could have easily just sat back and let the sanctions destroy the Iran economy...or, we should have pushed for worse sanctions to leverage our position.

Just thinking aloud here. Any chance Obama sees a potential conflict being very likely regardless of any deal we make? If so, it would be smart for our reputation to show we went beyond where we had to on concessions in order to preserve peace?

If we go all in on compromise and Iran doesn't follow through, I'd think the world would agree with any subsequent action taken by US or Israel.

I think you're naive.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Iran's "supreme leader" is now saying that all sanctions must be lifted when a deal is signed.

I see this as a non-starter. Sanction can only be suspended (never lifted) in proportion to Iran's actions in living up to an agreement.

In others words, good deeds = suspended sanctions.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:

Originally posted by KennyPowers_96:

Originally posted by montross:
The Iran deal is starting to feel more and more like a political play by Obama to have a signature foreign policy acheivement during this term.  Iran needed the sanctions lifted...the world did not.  It looked like the USA gave up the leverage in the negotiations for some reason and caved on a lot of issues.  We didnt need to do that.  We could have easily just sat back and let the sanctions destroy the Iran economy...or, we should have pushed for worse sanctions to leverage our position.

Just thinking aloud here. Any chance Obama sees a potential conflict being very likely regardless of any deal we make? If so, it would be smart for our reputation to show we went beyond where we had to on concessions in order to preserve peace?

If we go all in on compromise and Iran doesn't follow through, I'd think the world would agree with any subsequent action taken by US or Israel.

I think you're naive.

You do?!? So would it be worse than Iraq? How about say something that adds to this so I know how naive I am.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
Iran's "supreme leader" is now saying that all sanctions must be lifted when a deal is signed.

I see this as a non-starter. Sanction can only be suspended (never lifted) in proportion to Iran's actions in living up to an agreement.

In others words, good deeds = suspended sanctions.

You're down to quibbling about the difference between "lifted" and "suspended"?

After weeks of bloviation about how disastrous a deal would be, and still without the details, this is all you have left?

Sheesh.

 

[coffhawk]

Liberals still fail to understand that President Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. That is what is behind this whole deal.

He thinks they need to be on equal footing with Israel.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

Originally posted by coffhawk:

Liberals still fail to understand that President Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.  That is what is behind this whole deal. 

He thinks they need to be on equal footing with Israel. 

What's his motive for that?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[coffhawk]

Originally posted by KennyPowers_96:

Originally posted by coffhawk:

Liberals still fail to understand that President Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. That is what is behind this whole deal.Â

He thinks they need to be on equal footing with Israel.Â

What's his motive for that?


Posted from Rivals Mobile

JFC are you serious? Have you been in a coma lately? He does not like Israel, and thinks that it is the problem in the Mid-East. He favors the Palestinians and wants Israel taken down. I guess I hope you were kidding.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

Originally posted by coffhawk:

Originally posted by KennyPowers_96:

Originally posted by coffhawk:

Liberals still fail to understand that President Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.  That is what is behind this whole deal. 

He thinks they need to be on equal footing with Israel. 

What's his motive for that?


Posted from Rivals Mobile

JFC are you serious?   Have you been in a coma lately?   He does not like Israel, and thinks that it is the problem in the Mid-East.  He favors the Palestinians and wants Israel taken down.  I guess I hope you were kidding.

I was. I like to see you angry, but sometimes a question like that will bring out amusing responses from others.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[coffhawk]

Originally posted by KennyPowers_96:

Originally posted by coffhawk:

Originally posted by KennyPowers_96:

Originally posted by coffhawk:

Liberals still fail to understand that President Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. That is what is behind this whole deal.ÂÂ

He thinks they need to be on equal footing with Israel.ÂÂ

What's his motive for that?



Posted from Rivals Mobile

Have you been in a coma lately?

I was.


Posted from Rivals Mobile

OK that explains a lot.

 

[IMCC965]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Pepperman:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Impossible, it's not a deal yet. It's an outline. You can rip it apart and lobby for war in the summer.

You do realize, or maybe you don't, that Iran's whole negotiating standpoint on this is "The United States, as lead by Barack Obama, will not have the stomach for a war with us, so we don't have to concede anything".

If you don't understand this very simple point, then it is not possible to discuss this.

That works, that's my position too. I do not want to go to war to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. I doubt Obama is as grounded, but I hope you are correct.

So what happens when Iran launches a nuke on Israel and blows them away? They've promised to do it. Do you just ignore it and hope the fallout doesn't hurt anybody? I'm going to assume you didn't give a crap about Chernobyl because it was so far away.

 

[Nat Algren]

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Pepperman:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Impossible, it's not a deal yet. It's an outline. You can rip it apart and lobby for war in the summer.

You do realize, or maybe you don't, that Iran's whole negotiating standpoint on this is "The United States, as lead by Barack Obama, will not have the stomach for a war with us, so we don't have to concede anything".

If you don't understand this very simple point, then it is not possible to discuss this.

That works, that's my position too. I do not want to go to war to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. I doubt Obama is as grounded, but I hope you are correct.

So what happens when Iran launches a nuke on Israel and blows them away? They've promised to do it. Do you just ignore it and hope the fallout doesn't hurt anybody? I'm going to assume you didn't give a crap about Chernobyl because it was so far away.

Iran has NOT promised to do so. That is a mis-translation. If Iran fires one nuke, it would result in Israel raining the 200 plus nukes that they possess, not to mention our nukes. It would result in annihilation.

You're a neocon who believes in the 2nd amendment. Doesn't Iran have a right to self-defense? Our politicians told Libya to disarm. They did and Washington blew them up. If Iran has nukes, the U.S. and Israel won't be able to make Iran et al bend their knee. They desire to be the world hegemon. That's what scares our leaders, not that Iran will bomb anyone. Just look at a map and see all the bases surrounding them.

 

[aflachawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Impossible, it's not a deal yet. It's an outline. You can rip it apart and lobby for war in the summer.

Correct answer. My fear is BHO will accept any agreement because the only alternative is all out world war😉
Posted from Rivals Mobile