After several years of negotiations, an historic agreement was reached between western powers and Iran regarding it's nuclear ambitions. Is it good or bad? The consensus is that it's good, at least, better than nothing. However, there are many 'ifs' that will only be revealed over time.
Mr Obama, who is trying to persuade a skeptical 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 road map to resolve outstanding issues.
Read the 3 possible scenarios that could come out of this deal, listed by a former head of Israeli military intelligence, Amos Yadlin, in my previous post. Look for the second area of blue text.
The question of technical monitoring is particularly important in light of last-minute Western concessions over access to Iranian military sites. The old standard of "anytime, anywhere" inspections has now been replaced with "managed access," meaning Iran will have a say in how, when and where international inspectors will gain access to its military facilities. (see Obama's 3rd point above).
In addition to his skepticism that the nuclear deal will actually stop Iran's program, Nunes noted that Obama's pursuit of the deal has united Israel with its traditional Arab rivals. “The Obama administration has achieved the rare feat of uniting Israel with a wide array of Arab nations. Unfortunately, the issue that unites them is opposition to the Iran deal," he said.
Early signs that Israel and Sunni Arab monarchies are working together emerged last month when Israeli and Saudi officials told the public they had held series of covert discussions to discuss the threat posed by Iran. The leader of the Israeli delegation, Dore Gold, last month rejoined government as the director-general of the foreign ministry.
Responses around the world are remarkably self-centered and short-term in perspective:
For Israel's reaction see my previous post.
France, UK, and Germany hail the deal as the best thing since sliced bread, but they were half the team that negotiated it - what else could they say.
Most Muslim countries, even Sunni countries, looked forward to the economic benefits the $100 billion in sanctions relief would have on their countries.
Perhaps, only Saudi Arabia put the deal into a reasonable perspective -
Iran's nuclear deal with world powers will mean "a happy day" if it stops the country gaining a nuclear arsenal, but the agreement would prove bad if it allowed Tehran to "wreak havoc in the region", a Saudi official said.
The official said Iran had destabilised the whole Middle East through its activities in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen and added that if the deal allowed it concessions, the region would become more dangerous.
Mr Obama, who is trying to persuade a skeptical 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 road map to resolve outstanding issues.
 |
| Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Plant |
The question of technical monitoring is particularly important in light of last-minute Western concessions over access to Iranian military sites. The old standard of "anytime, anywhere" inspections has now been replaced with "managed access," meaning Iran will have a say in how, when and where international inspectors will gain access to its military facilities. (see Obama's 3rd point above).
In addition to his skepticism that the nuclear deal will actually stop Iran's program, Nunes noted that Obama's pursuit of the deal has united Israel with its traditional Arab rivals. “The Obama administration has achieved the rare feat of uniting Israel with a wide array of Arab nations. Unfortunately, the issue that unites them is opposition to the Iran deal," he said.
Early signs that Israel and Sunni Arab monarchies are working together emerged last month when Israeli and Saudi officials told the public they had held series of covert discussions to discuss the threat posed by Iran. The leader of the Israeli delegation, Dore Gold, last month rejoined government as the director-general of the foreign ministry.
Responses around the world are remarkably self-centered and short-term in perspective:
For Israel's reaction see my previous post.
France, UK, and Germany hail the deal as the best thing since sliced bread, but they were half the team that negotiated it - what else could they say.
Most Muslim countries, even Sunni countries, looked forward to the economic benefits the $100 billion in sanctions relief would have on their countries.
Perhaps, only Saudi Arabia put the deal into a reasonable perspective -
Iran's nuclear deal with world powers will mean "a happy day" if it stops the country gaining a nuclear arsenal, but the agreement would prove bad if it allowed Tehran to "wreak havoc in the region", a Saudi official said.
The official said Iran had destabilised the whole Middle East through its activities in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen and added that if the deal allowed it concessions, the region would become more dangerous.
No comments:
Post a Comment