Iran Nuclear Deal: USA remains out under Biden after failed 2022 JCPOA talks; Russia and Iran collaborating on nuclear items

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
29,891
Reputation
4,711
Daps
66,381
Netanyahu and his ilk are pissed off because Iran has been their excuse to commit human rights' abuses and pump lobbying dollars into the US Government. Fear and Western Sympathy have given his country a blank check to do as they wish. The problem is people are starting to wake up to that nonsense.
This isn't true. The first sentence is fair enough, but Israel has faced criticism from the entire world including the West dating back to the 70s. There have been more formal condemnations about Israel's human rights abuses and actions by international bodies than there have been of nearly every other regime that has been committing human rights abuses over the past 20+ years (which is probably wrong when you think about what has happened in Africa and Asia). No one was been asleep about anything. The vast majority of world opinion has been on the side of the Palestinians for decades. However, Israel is the US' biggest partner in that part of the world and so it became up to the US to broker a deal. It was only two administrations ago that Clinton tried to broker that deal. But when you had the right wing take over in Israel after those failed talks and a hard right wing regime in the US, peace talks stalled and criticizing Israel in anyway = :no:. The battles in the middle of the last decade didn't help either.

You simply have an administration now that is willing to at least make the effort, unfortunately Netanyahu's coalition was elected again so the level of change required probably will not occur. The waking up that has to occur is not on the part of the Western world, it is upon the Israeli people and whether they can be convinced to believe again as they did in the late 90s. With Netanyahu's coalition weakening during the last election, I'd surmise that it's only a matter of time (and before I thought they would all fight forever).
 

Techniec

Drugs and Kalashnikovs
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
9,855
Reputation
1,938
Daps
23,291
Reppin
W/S 416
The GCC is a token group established to further the so-called "Muslim" agendas, it has nothing to do with regional power. It is a prime example of the western world picking a country they are comfortable with to "lead" the other nations in the right direction. Look at their members breh, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. These are all countries who solely rely on their oil exports and therefore are in dire need of SA's support/approval. Now, I agree that SA has an economic dominance, I never refuted that, but to say that SA can shift sentiment towards Iran is ridiculous and points out how ill-informed many posters on HL are.

Pakistan: First of all, we specifically said middle-eastern countries but let's entertain this topic. Pakistan and Iran's differences stemmed recently due to the previous Iran leadership believing Pakistan was betraying them by allowing U.S. interferences. It might get worse, who knows, although I strongly believe it will get back to how it was. They have Free Trade Agreement, have aided each other in many matters such as Pakistan vouching for Iran during the height of the nuclear talk, being allowed to share the Pakistan embassy in Washington, energy security agreements for the IPI pipeline etc. Also, to deny history and overlook the immense support they had for each other during the India-Pakistan war and then Iran-Iraq war should be proof that Shi'ite and Sunni differences have never been a major issue. SA are trying to influence Pakistan to regard the differences as vital and stop supporting Iran, but again, their limited influence is shown.

Azerbaijan: Again, historically a Persian territory where the division is only based on ethical and cultural differences, neither to be major issue. This is close to a country not being in favor of Iranian political expansion but if we're talking about major playmakers then are we really going to include Azerbaijan? But yes, I give you this since the tension has definitely risen after 2012.

So again, "plenty" of nations being against Iran is false and propaganda spread by western nations.

I dont think the "leadership" of the Gulf can be solely attributed to American backing, although I agree that is a significant factor. The fact that the Arabian peninsula holds the Islamic holy lands, plus their significant economic power, and their ideology are just as significant if not more.

As for shifting sentiment, I think throughout the Islamic world, the battle lines pro and anti Iran are fairly drawn with no need for external influence except for a few cases.

I think post 79, with the Zia Ul Haq and Khomeinist regimes, that while Pakistan and Iran do maintain a cordial relationship at the surface level, there is significant strategic differences between the country. Both countries have Islamist tentacles through their intelligence services that are ideologically opposed, both have competing interests in Central Asia/Afghanistan, etc.

Azerbaijani/Iranian relations have been frayed since the 19th century.

Iraq is a powder keg. Its Sunnis despise Iran (although I will agree that in this case, Saudi impotence has been exposed in terms of support for its Sunnis), and its traditional Shias institutions are thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian ideology, clerics and finances.

I dont necessarily disagree with you that Saudis do have some degree of "emperor with no clothes" syndrome, to an extent. But I also disagree with the notion that anti Iranian hostility on the part of the Islamic world, especially its neighbours, is an American construct
 

Black smoke and cac jokes

Your daps are mine
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
2,695
Reputation
700
Daps
7,024
I dont think the "leadership" of the Gulf can be solely attributed to American backing, although I agree that is a significant factor. The fact that the Arabian peninsula holds the Islamic holy lands, plus their significant economic power, and their ideology are just as significant if not more.

As for shifting sentiment, I think throughout the Islamic world, the battle lines pro and anti Iran are fairly drawn with no need for external influence except for a few cases.

I think post 79, with the Zia Ul Haq and Khomeinist regimes, that while Pakistan and Iran do maintain a cordial relationship at the surface level, there is significant strategic differences between the country. Both countries have Islamist tentacles through their intelligence services that are ideologically opposed, both have competing interests in Central Asia/Afghanistan, etc.

Azerbaijani/Iranian relations have been frayed since the 19th century.

Iraq is a powder keg. Its Sunnis despise Iran (although I will agree that in this case, Saudi impotence has been exposed in terms of support for its Sunnis), and its traditional Shias institutions are thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian ideology, clerics and finances.

I dont necessarily disagree with you that Saudis do have some degree of "emperor with no clothes" syndrome, to an extent. But I also disagree with the notion that anti Iranian hostility on the part of the Islamic world, especially its neighbours, is an American construct


I don't believe it is solely American backing either, but a huge part of SA's ability to be a staple in the region is because of US backing. The holy cities you speak of have historical and religious impact, nothing else. Mind you, before the 70's Iran intended to separate Mosque from state and Rouhani is doing his best to reinvigorate the same thinking.

But this is what I am trying to get at and no one has proven me wrong, where are these major countries that are against Iran?


Well, I don't know what Pakistan "really feels" since I am not behind close doors where the discussions take place, all I can see is what they portray to the world and what they've shown is support from day one.

This Sunni/Shi'a battle is enforced by the same power claiming that monarch ruling isn't outdated, so what should keep me from thinking that they don't want to maintain a religious rift when it benefits them?
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-145
Daps
65,108
Reppin
NULL
Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-forces-fighting-iranians-in-iraq/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/world/middleeast/12policy.html?_r=0

They also sent their people to Syria
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special...s-foreign-legion-in-Syria/UPI-63771378245501/
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...-recruiting-more-fighters-from-Iraq-Iran.html


These are both just the top news articles when I google searched them. I remember back in 08 or 09 the news was saying they were finding explosive devices and artillery belonging to the Revolutionary Guard.

The first 2 articles have no cites, no sources and no proof that Iran was involved in Iraq. That's a U.S. wet-dream to blame Iran in Iraq. The truth is much farther than the fiction. Syria is an ally why wouldn't they provide people for it?
 

Kritic

Banned
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
8,937
Reputation
505
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NULL
no deal reached. barack lies again.

An Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as “invalid” and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham told the Iranian press on Tuesday.

Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, is fully recognized under the draft released by Tehran. “This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein,” the agreement reads, according to a copy released to Iranian state-run media.

The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
88,030
Reputation
3,616
Daps
156,930
Reppin
Brooklyn
Like many observers, I doubted in recent months that Iran and world powers would ever reach this stage; the setbacks and delays had simply been too many. Now, here we are, and the terms are far better than expected. There are a number of details still to be worked out, including one very big unresolved issue that could potentially sink everything. This is not over. But if this framework does indeed become a full nuclear deal in July, it would be a huge success and a great deal.

Iran gives up the bulk of its nuclear program in these terms


80566007.0.jpg

Iran's then–President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad looks over centrifuges at the nuclear facility at Natanz. (The Office of the Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran via Getty)

The framework deal requires Iran to surrender some crucial components of its nuclear program, in part or even in whole. Here are the highlights:

  • Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
  • Iran will give up all but its most rudimentary, outdated centrifuges: its first-generation IR-1s, knockoffs of 1970s European models, are all it gets to keep. It will not be allowed to build or develop newer models.
  • Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms of its 10,000-kilogram stockpile in its current form.
  • Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.
Iran would simply not have much of its nuclear program left after all this.

A shorthand people sometimes use to evaluate the size of Iran's nuclear program is its "breakout time." If Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei woke up tomorrow morning and decided to kick out all of the inspectors and set his entire nuclear program toward building a nuclear warhead — to "break out" to a bomb — right now it would take him two or three months. Under the terms of the framework, his program would be so much smaller that it would take him an entire year to build a single nuclear warhead.

These terms are not abject surrender. Iran is allowed to keep a small nuclear program, and it won some concessions of its own. For example, what little uranium enrichment is allowed will be done at Iran's facility at Natanz — a hardened, reinforced-concrete structure that was once used for covert enrichment and that the US had hoped to close.

Iran will also be allowed to do some research at Fordow, another hardened facility the US had wanted to close, though the research is restricted and will be barred from using fissile material. These are not big concessions, and they matter mostly for their symbolic value, but it's something.

Still, when you look at many of the specifics laid out in the framework, the hard numbers and timetables and the detailed proscriptions, those all tend to be quite favorable to the United States.

The core issue that the framework really nails


464050403.0.jpg

IAEA nuclear inspectors at Iran's nuclear facility at Natanz in 2014. (KAZEM GHANE/AFP/Getty)

Even though the agreement is only a framework, the summary released on Thursday goes into striking detail on an issue that was always going to be among the most crucial: inspections.

Whatever number of centrifuges Iran has or doesn't have, whatever amount of uranium it's allowed to keep or forced to give up, none of it matters unless inspectors have enough authority to hold Tehran to its end of the deal — and to convince the Iranians that they could never get away with cheating. To say the US got favorable terms here would be quite an understatement; the Iranians, when it comes to inspections, practically gave away the farm.

"I would give it an A," Stein said of the framework. When I asked why: "Because of the inspections and transparency."

There are two reasons inspections are so important. The first is that super-stringent inspections are a deterrent: if the Iranians know that any deviation is going to be quickly caught, they have much less incentive to try to cheat, and much more incentive to uphold their side of the deal.

The second is that if Iran were to try a build a nuclear weapon now, it likely wouldn't use the material that's already known to the world and being monitored. Rather, the Iranians would secretly manufacture some off-the-books centrifuges, secretly mine some off-the-books uranium, and squirrel it all away to a new, secret underground facility somewhere. That would be the only way for Iran to build up enough of an arsenal such that by the time the world found out, it would be too late to do anything about it.

Really robust inspections would be the best way stop that from happening. They would prevent Iran from sneaking off centrifuges or siphoning away uranium that could be used to build an off-the-grid nuclear weapons program, without the world finding out.

The inspections issue has not gotten much political attention. When I spoke to Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at Middlebury's Monterey Institute of International Studies, on Tuesday before the framework was announced, he seemed worried that negotiators would not focus on it much. Rather, overwhelming political focus in Washington and Tehran on issues like Iran's number of allowed centrifuges seemed likely to push inspections from the top priorities.

Lewis suggested that a top item on his wish list would be inspections so robust that inspectors don't just get to visit enrichment sites like Natanz and Fordow, but also centrifuge factories. That, he said, "would be a big achievement."

Sure enough, come Thursday, Lewis got his wish and then some: centrifuge factory inspections is one of the terms in the framework, and it's pretty robust. For the next 20 years, inspectors would have "continuous surveillance at Iran's centrifuge rotors and bellows production and storage facilities."

"I was shocked to read that they got them to agree to let us walk around their centrifuge production facilities. That's amazing," Stein said.

It's not just centrifuge factories. Inspectors will have access to all parts of Iran's nuclear supply chain, including its uranium mines and the mills where it processes uranium ore. Inspectors will also not just monitor but be required to pre-approve all sales to Iran of nuclear-related equipment. This provision also applies to something called "dual-use" materials, which means any equipment that could be used toward a nuclear program.

"The inspections and transparency on the rotors, and the bellows, and the uranium mines is more than I ever thought would be in this agreement," Stein added.

Other favorable items buried in the terms


GettyImages_458443250.0.jpg

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks in Tehran in 2004. (BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty)

Stein pointed out two details in the framework that I'd missed, both of which appeared to be pretty significant concessions by the Iranians.

First, Iran has finally agreed to comply by a rule known as Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to Iran's Safeguards Agreement, shorthanded as Modified Code 3.1. It says that Iran has to notify inspectors immediately on its decision to build any new facility where it plans to do nuclear work — long before construction starts.

Iran in the past has either rejected this rule or stated that it would only notify inspectors a few months before introducing nuclear material at a facility — a "cover your ass" move in case the world caught them building a new nuclear site. Tehran's promise to comply may signal that it intends to stop building such covert facilities.

Second, Stein reads the framework as including Iran's ballistic missile program — something that critics of the deal warned would be left out. Indeed, even many supporters of the negotiations have said that it would be unlikely that American negotiators could get the deal to cover ballistic missiles or other conventional weapons programs; it would simply be asking for too much in one agreement.

"It looks like they were able to expand the scope beyond just nuclear issues," Stein said. He pointed to a line in the sectionthat explains the UN Security Council would replace its old resolutions imposing sanctions on the nuclear program with a new resolution that incorporated the finalized deal.

The line reads, "Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution."

"The way I read that is that they address the ballistic missile issue, that that will remain in the new UN Security Council resolution," Stein said. "So you're going to keep the restrictions on ballistic missiles that are already present."

The giant gaping hole in the framework terms


459459228.0.jpg

Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif at nuclear negotiations. (RONALD ZAK/AFP/Getty)

Still, this is just a framework deal on the basic terms; it covers a lot, but not everything. And there is one really important topic that is referenced only vaguely: how and when the world will lift its economic sanctions on Iran.

This has been a major sticking point throughout negotiations. The Iranians demand that all sanctions be lifted right away; their country needs a functioning economy, they say, and if they're complying with all of the restrictions as of day one then they shouldn't have to endure crippling sanctions on day two. But the US and others worry, with good reason, that if they lift all sanctions immediately then Iran will have far less incentive to follow through on its commitments, as it would be very difficult to re-impose those sanctions. And Iran has cheated on such agreements before.

This is a really difficult issue; each side has to trust, to some degree, that the other side will uphold its end of the deal. And someone has to go first. After decades of enmity, that's hard.

The terms in the framework do not come near solving this issue. Iran and the world powers, apparently failing to find a solution, have largely punted.



:blessed:
 

Liu Kang

KING KILLAYAN MBRRRAPPÉ
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
13,602
Reputation
5,465
Daps
29,482
Iran nuclear talks: 'framework' deal agreed - live updates
  • Obama: ‘It is a good deal’
  • ‘Key parameters’ for nuclear deal with Iran reached
  • Deal to be concluded by 30 June
  • EU and US will terminate economic sanctions
  • Fordow converted into nuclear physics site
LIVE Updated 0s ago

41a9532d-fb35-465e-9500-999d689b165d-300x180.jpeg

EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini (second left) and Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Lausanne. Photograph: FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images
Raya Jalabi and Paul Owen in New York

Thursday 2 April 2015 19.50 BSTLast modified on Thursday 2 April 201519.53 BST

2m ago19:51
Under this arrangement, the international community will have confidence Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful, he says. And if it isn't, they will have powers to deal with that.

2m ago19:51
He says another point has been misrepresented. There will be no sunset to the deal we are working to finalize - the paramters of this agreement will be implemented in phases. Some provisions will be in place for 10 years, some 15, some 20 - but certain provisions will be in place indefinitely, Kerry says. “They will never expire.”

3m ago19:50
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, is speaking now in Switzerland.

In the coming weeks, from this moment forward, our experts will continue to work hard to build on the parameters we have worked out today and finalize a comprehensive deal by the end of June, he says.

We will not accept just any deal - we will only accept a good deal, he says.

This is a solid foundation of the good deal we are seeking, Kerry says.

This is a deal by which Iran will cut its centrifuges by two thirds and cut Iran's break-out time from what was confirmed today to be two to three months to one year.

8m ago19:45

8m ago19:45
It’s no secret he and Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu do not agree, he says. But this is the best option for Israel, Obama says.

There is no daylight when it comes to our support for Israel’s security, Obama says.

He says he also spoke to the king of Saudi Arabia about the issue, and is inviting the leaders of the Gulf Co-operation Council to meet him at Camp David this spring to discuss the issue of Iran and the wider Middle East.

Congress has played a critical role shaping these crucial sanctions, Obama says.

His administration will now engage Congress about how it can play a constructive oversight role, he says.

He will underscore that the issues at stake here are bigger than politics. These are matters of war and peace. And they should be evaluated based on the facts.

This is not a deal between the Obama administration and Iran, he says. It is a deal between Iran, the US and major world powers.

If Congress kills this deal, the international community will blame the United States, he says. The American people support a negotiated solution.

He quotes John F Kennedy: “Let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate.”

Ronald Reagan struck deals with the USSR - “a far more dangerous adversary”. That made the world safer. “A good deal with Iran will do the same.”

He thanks his western allies. And he thanks the secretary of state, John Kerry, and his negotiating team.

“Our work is not yet done and success is not yet guaranteed,” but this is a historic opportunity to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and we should seize it.

With that the press conference ends.

Updated at 7.51pm BST

9m ago19:44
Obama says the P5+1 has achieved the framework of “a good deal that meets our core objectives.”

The president reiterated a line spoken often of late, that nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed, and outlined the basics of the deal:

  • Iran will not be able to pursue a bomb using plutonium since it will not be develop weapons-grade plutonium;
  • The core will be dismantled and displaced out of the Arak facility. It will be shipped out of Iran for the duraiton of the life of the reactor;
  • Iran will not process fuel from surviving reactors;
  • The vast majority of the stockpile of enriched Uranium will be neutralized;
  • Iran will not stockpile ingredients needed for a bomb. The strict limitations on stockpiles will last for 15 years.
Obama said international monitors will have access to Iran’s program for observation. “If Iran cheats, the world will know it.” He adds that Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world.

Obama said this will be a long-term deal, with a strict limit for a decade. Limits on stockpiles will last 15 years and inspections will be for 20 years or more if not permanently.

The international community, the US and EU will reduce certain sanctions but he said sanctions can be reinstated if Iran violates terms.

Obama addressed the Iranian people, saying the US is willing to “engage you with mutual respect.” The president then said, since Iran’s supreme leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, this deal will give Iran the opportunity to verify this. If Iran complies, it can fully rejoin the community of nations, thereby fulfilling the wishes of Iran and its people, he said adding that this deal will not end the deep divisions and mistrust.

Updated at 7.47pm BST
 

notPsychosiz

I started this gangsta sh-
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
7,638
Reputation
2,910
Daps
21,911
Reppin
dogbornwolf
(From Iran)
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/04/02/404427/Iran-P51-adopt-joint-statement

Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers have adopted a joint statement after marathon talks in the Swiss city of Lausanne calling, among other things, for the removal of UNSC resolutions and sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

The statement was read out in a joint press conference in the Swiss city by the EU high representative, Federica Mogherini, and Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Thursday.

In the framework of the agreement, none of Iran’s nuclear facilities as well as the previous activities will be stopped, shut down or suspended and Iran’s nuclear activities in all its nuclear facilities including Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan and Arak will continue.

These comprehensive solutions will guarantee the continued enrichment program inside the Iranian territory and according to this, Iran will be allowed to go on with industrial production of nuclear fuel which is meant for running its nuclear power plants.

According to the solutions, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for enrichment program will cover a 10-year period, during which more than 5,000 centrifuge machines will continue producing enriched material at Natanz facility up to the 3.67-percent level. Extra machines and the related infrastructure in the facility will be collected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to be replaced by new machines consistent with the allowed standards. Accordingly, Iran will be allowed to allocate the current stockpile of enriched materials for the purpose of producing nuclear fuel or swapping it with uranium in the international markets.

53f380d9-03b1-4943-bb18-0fa323ce3e5c.jpg


Iran will continue research and development program on advanced centrifuge machines and will be also able to keep initiating and completing its R & D program on IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 machines in the 10-year period of the agreement.

Fordow facility

According to the joint statement, Fordow nuclear facility will be turned into a research center for nuclear science and physics. More than 1,000 centrifuges will be maintained at this facility and two centrifuge cascades will keep operating. In cooperation with the P5+1 countries, about half of the Fordow facility will be dedicated to advanced nuclear research and production of stable isotopes which have important applications in industry, agriculture and medicine.

Arak heavy water reactor

According to the statement, the heavy water reactor in the Iranian city of Arak will remain in place but will be redesigned and updated. The redesigning process will greatly increase efficiency of the reactor while reducing the amount of plutonium produced in the facility. The redesigning process will be done according to defined scheduled as an international project with cooperation of Iran. Production of fuel for Arak reactor and awarding international nuclear fuel production certificate will be among international cooperation to be offered to Iran.

Additional Protocol

Iran will implement the Additional Protocol temporarily and voluntarily in line with its confidence-building measures and after that the protocol will be ratified in a time frame by the Iranian government and parliament (Majlis).

Removal of Sanctions

Following the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, all the UN Security Council sanctions as well as all economic and financial embargos by the US and the European Union, including bans on banks, insurance, investment, and all other related services in different fields, including petrochemical, oil, gas and automobile industries will be lifted. Besides, all nuclear-related sanctions against real and legal entities, state and private organizations and institutions, including those sanctions imposed against the Central Bank of Iran, other financial and banking institutions, SWIFT system, and the country’s shipping and aviation sectors, and Iran's tanker company will be immediately lifted all at once. Moreover, the P5+1 countries are committed to avoid imposing any new nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.

International Cooperation

Iran’s international nuclear cooperation, including with the member states of the P5+1 will be possible and promoted in the fields of building nuclear power plants, research reactors, nuclear fusion, stable isotopes, nuclear safety, nuclear medicine and agriculture. According to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran will be provided with access to global market as well as international trade, finance, technical knowledge and energy.

Schedule for implementing Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

At the end of these negotiations, the two sides will start drafting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in the near future to meet the July 1 deadline. Once the text is finalized, the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action will be adopted as a UN Security Council resolution. For the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to be binding for all UN member states, the resolution will be adopted under the Article 41 of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter to be able to render previous resolutions against Iran null and void.

The joint statement released at the end of eight days of intensive negotiations in Lausanne on Thursday is a sign that Iran and its negotiating partners have come to a mutual understanding over Iran’s nuclear program.

Representatives of Iran and the P5+1 group of countries -- the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia plus Germany – along with senior officials of the European Union have held talks over the past years to narrow the existing differences on Tehran’s nuclear activities.

MS/MAK/SS
 

hashmander

Hale End
Supporter
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
18,945
Reputation
4,538
Daps
81,014
Reppin
The Arsenal
like he says this is about war and peace. no deal and another war was going to be on the way and iran isn't a lightweight like iraq. i'm honestly just sick of this bouncing from one war to the next ... how does that help the homeland?
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,262
Daps
616,313
Reppin
The Deep State
Good.

stunning seeing these GOP cacs so openly cheer for war. Iran isn't Iraq. They have a very modern army, and more importantly have wide terrorist network connections. Any conflict with them would be very costly.
Doesn't matter. This shyt just pushes the Turks and Sauds to race to breakout.

This shyt was a terrible fukking deal.

These people don't fear us like they used to, and thats a MAJOR problem.
 
Top