Why isn't Obama getting more credit for the Iran breakthrough? (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

I think the bolded probably answers your question.

As far as the deal itself, Iran has already diluted and destroyed enough of its weapons-grade uranium to make it impossible to build a nuclear warhead at the moment. I'd call that already at least a mild success even if it fell apart later.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

I think the bolded probably answers your question.

As far as the deal itself, Iran has already diluted and destroyed enough of its weapons-grade uranium to make it impossible to build a nuclear warhead at the moment. I'd call that already at least a mild success even if it fell apart later.

Good points.

Remember the conservative claim that Obama was no friend to Israel? Remember how Netanyahu and members of his cabinet threatened that if Obama didn't help them with Iran, Israel would be forced to "go it alone"? Where is Netanyahu now? Why isn't he giving any credit to Obama for this? The silence is deafening.

 

[T Bell]

It's not a done deal yet. Even Kerry has said that.

Also, this represents decades of concerted effort to isolate Iran, spanning back multiple presidencies. It's also involved the significant efforts of other nations. Obama's administration has not really varied the existing policy. In other words, Obama's standing on some pretty tall shoulders here, even if it does succeed.

 

[timschochet]

It's not a done deal yet. Even Kerry has said that.

Also, this represents decades of concerted effort to isolate Iran, spanning back multiple presidencies. It's also involved the significant efforts of other nations. Obama's administration has not really varied the existing policy. In other words, Obama's standing on some pretty tall shoulders here, even if it does succeed.

Yet Ronald Reagan deserves credit for bringing about the end to the Soviet Union?

Besides, I don't believe what you wrote is true. President Obama proposed to move in a different direction, to engage Iran, much as Nixon chose to engage China. He was heavily attacked by conservatives in both election cycles for suggesting this.

 

[Henry Ford]

It's not a done deal yet. Even Kerry has said that.

Also, this represents decades of concerted effort to isolate Iran, spanning back multiple presidencies. It's also involved the significant efforts of other nations. Obama's administration has not really varied the existing policy. In other words, Obama's standing on some pretty tall shoulders here, even if it does succeed.

There was, however, a pretty solid backlash against Obama for failing to threaten and/or utilize military force as a result of the Iranian nuclear program, at which time Obama's administration made a solid policy decision to help the U.N. strengthen sanctions and search for a diplomatic solution. Lots of people considered this an example of weak foreign policy. However, as it turns out, looks like it was a solid choice.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Inflation is running at close to 50% in Iran due to the sanctions and the price of basic items like bread has gone through the roof. That seems to be the driving factor in getting Iran to the table. Congrats to the Obama Administration for getting to this current point but you don't say good game after the 2nd inning.

 

[Henry Ford]

Inflation is running at close to 50% in Iran due to the sanctions and the price of basic items like bread has gone through the roof. That seems to be the driving factor in getting Iran to the table. Congrats to the Obama Administration for getting to this current point but you don't say good game after the 2nd inning.

Absolutely not. But if you're up 8-1 after the 2nd inning, you can give the team a little credit.

 

[Buckfast 1]

Because conservatives couldn't even bring themselves to give Obama credit for directly ordering the strike on Osama Bin Ladin's compound because he wasn't on the ground with the Seals in Pakistan?

I'm not exactly holding my breathe waiting for conservatives to recognize Obama's foreign policy successes.

 

[timschochet]

Because conservatives couldn't even bring themselves to give Obama credit for directly ordering the strike on Osama Bin Ladin's compound because he wasn't on the ground with the Seals in Pakistan?

I'm not exactly holding my breathe waiting for conservatives to recognize Obama's foreign policy successes.

It's not just conservatives though. I don't see the so-called "mainstream" media trumpeting this news.

It strikes me that when good things happen internationally, especially when they are achieved through diplomatic efforts, they get very little attention unless an immediate crisis was brewing.

 

[Henry Ford]

Because conservatives couldn't even bring themselves to give Obama credit for directly ordering the strike on Osama Bin Ladin's compound because he wasn't on the ground with the Seals in Pakistan?

I'm not exactly holding my breathe waiting for conservatives to recognize Obama's foreign policy successes.

It's not just conservatives though. I don't see the so-called "mainstream" media trumpeting this news.

It strikes me that when good things happen internationally, especially when they are achieved through diplomatic efforts, they get very little attention unless an immediate crisis was brewing.

Diplomatic resolutions don't sell ad time. No one tunes in to see the details of a 300-page treaty, they tune in to see bullets and bombs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

Ok I have a question.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

In its monthly update, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has a pivotal role in verifying that Iran is living up to its part of the accord, said that Iran so far was undertaking the agreed steps to curb its nuclear program.

So given that Russia has maximum leverage on the USA and the west right now and given that they have been selling Iran material, services and knowledge on this, to the extent Iran like Syria has become a client state, and given that Obama seems to be totally unwilling to use the kind of force to ensure full inspections like we saw Bush use in Iraq, what kind of deal is being brokered, exactly?

I don't think anyone ever said that Obama would not enter such negotiations, only that if and when he did they would be unenforceable on-paper only accomplishments, resulting in something even more dangerous than the status quo. That may very well be in the course of being proven true.

 

[jonessed]

Not only is a long-term deal not done, but nobody even knows what the deal is going to be. Iran has already come out and said they won't give in to several of the concessions we want. A deal for the sake of making a deal could do more harm than good. It has to be the right deal.

If the media applauds Obama on this now they set him up to take it on the chin if it doesn't work out. I doubt they would ever do that intentionally.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, you seem to be ignoring facts on the ground in favor of suppositions. I can't go along with your analysis. As Henry Ford had pointed out, the evidence is that Iran has already done much to dismantle her nuclear program.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

Ok I have a question.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

In its monthly update, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has a pivotal role in verifying that Iran is living up to its part of the accord, said that Iran so far was undertaking the agreed steps to curb its nuclear program.

So given that Russia has maximum leverage on the USA and the west right now and given that they have been selling Iran material, services and knowledge on this, to the extent Iran like Syria has become a client state, and given that Obama seems to be totally unwilling to use the kind of force to ensure full inspections like we saw Bush use in Iraq, what kind of deal is being brokered, exactly?

I don't think anyone ever said that Obama would not enter such negotiations, only that if and when he did they would be unenforceable on-paper only accomplishments, resulting in something even more dangerous than the status quo. That may very well be in the course of being proven true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_interim_agreement_on_Iranian_nuclear_program

According to U.N. monitors, since implementation in January, Iran has already rendered useless for weapons-grade applications roughly 75% of its heavily enriched uranium.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not only is a long-term deal not done, but nobody even knows what the deal is going to be. Iran has already come out and said they give in to several of the concessions we want. A deal for the sake of making a deal could do more harm than good. It has to be the right deal.

If the media applauds Obama on this now they set him up to take it on the chin if it doesn't work out. I doubt they would ever do that intentionally.

Syria has been quite the rope-a-dope.

What Russia and Putin did to Obama and the US on that little scenario has got to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in modern times.

Doesn't leave one with a lot of faith of our ability to negotiate our way out of a paper bag. I sense a big announcement hailed as a victory by the administration with absolutely zero substance behind it. We release the sanctions on Iran and its economy and have little to no provision for real or long term inspections or punitive measures for failure to adhere to them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, you seem to be ignoring facts on the ground in favor of suppositions. I can't go along with your analysis. As Henry Ford had pointed out, the evidence is that Iran has already done much to dismantle her nuclear program.

Iran has already diluted and destroyed enough of its weapons-grade uranium to make it impossible to build a nuclear warhead at the moment.

As verified by whom and where?

+++++++

I will say this for Obama, Iran has been btching and moaning enough about the implanted viruses that wreaked havoc on them that there may be some truth to that aspect of things.

 

[timschochet]

Not only is a long-term deal not done, but nobody even knows what the deal is going to be. Iran has already come out and said they give in to several of the concessions we want. A deal for the sake of making a deal could do more harm than good. It has to be the right deal.

If the media applauds Obama on this now they set him up to take it on the chin if it doesn't work out. I doubt they would ever do that intentionally.

Syria has been quite the rope-a-dope.

What Russia and Putin did to Obama and the US on that little scenario has got to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in modern times.

Given the events of the last decade, this is an absolutely incredible statement.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

Ok I have a question.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

In its monthly update, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has a pivotal role in verifying that Iran is living up to its part of the accord, said that Iran so far was undertaking the agreed steps to curb its nuclear program.

So given that Russia has maximum leverage on the USA and the west right now and given that they have been selling Iran material, services and knowledge on this, to the extent Iran like Syria has become a client state, and given that Obama seems to be totally unwilling to use the kind of force to ensure full inspections like we saw Bush use in Iraq, what kind of deal is being brokered, exactly?

I don't think anyone ever said that Obama would not enter such negotiations, only that if and when he did they would be unenforceable on-paper only accomplishments, resulting in something even more dangerous than the status quo. That may very well be in the course of being proven true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_interim_agreement_on_Iranian_nuclear_program

According to U.N. monitors, since implementation in January, Iran has already rendered useless for weapons-grade applications roughly 75% of its heavily enriched uranium.

50% of the centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility and 75% at the Fordow enrichment facility will be left inoperable. Iran will not use its advanced IR-2 centrifuges for enrichment.

For one thing that's 50% and 75%.

For another, if you notice in the root sources for those points, these are things that Iran has agreed to do, that they have done them has not been verified.

A deal without inspections and enforcement of inspections, of the kind we saw in Iraq, is meaningless.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not only is a long-term deal not done, but nobody even knows what the deal is going to be. Iran has already come out and said they give in to several of the concessions we want. A deal for the sake of making a deal could do more harm than good. It has to be the right deal.

If the media applauds Obama on this now they set him up to take it on the chin if it doesn't work out. I doubt they would ever do that intentionally.

Syria has been quite the rope-a-dope.

What Russia and Putin did to Obama and the US on that little scenario has got to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in modern times.

Given the events of the last decade, this is an absolutely incredible statement.

I did say "one of."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

I think the bolded probably answers your question.

As far as the deal itself, Iran has already diluted and destroyed enough of its weapons-grade uranium to make it impossible to build a nuclear warhead at the moment. I'd call that already at least a mild success even if it fell apart later.

Good points.

Remember the conservative claim that Obama was no friend to Israel? Remember how Netanyahu and members of his cabinet threatened that if Obama didn't help them with Iran, Israel would be forced to "go it alone"? Where is Netanyahu now? Why isn't he giving any credit to Obama for this? The silence is deafening.

Remember the conservative claim that Obama was no friend to Israel?

This is from one of the root articles sourced in Henry's wiki:

But the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet it was a "historic mistake" and that his country reserved the right to defend itself.

"Today the world became a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world made a significant step in obtaining the most dangerous weapons in the world," he said.

At a later news conference, Mr Netanyahu said Israel would not be bound by the agreement.

"We cannot and will not allow a regime that calls for the destruction of Israel to obtain the means to achieve this goal.

"Israel has many friends and allies, but when they're mistaken, its my duty to speak out."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25074729

 

[Henry Ford]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

Ok I have a question.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

In its monthly update, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has a pivotal role in verifying that Iran is living up to its part of the accord, said that Iran so far was undertaking the agreed steps to curb its nuclear program.

So given that Russia has maximum leverage on the USA and the west right now and given that they have been selling Iran material, services and knowledge on this, to the extent Iran like Syria has become a client state, and given that Obama seems to be totally unwilling to use the kind of force to ensure full inspections like we saw Bush use in Iraq, what kind of deal is being brokered, exactly?

I don't think anyone ever said that Obama would not enter such negotiations, only that if and when he did they would be unenforceable on-paper only accomplishments, resulting in something even more dangerous than the status quo. That may very well be in the course of being proven true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_interim_agreement_on_Iranian_nuclear_program

According to U.N. monitors, since implementation in January, Iran has already rendered useless for weapons-grade applications roughly 75% of its heavily enriched uranium.

50% of the centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility and 75% at the Fordow enrichment facility will be left inoperable. Iran will not use its advanced IR-2 centrifuges for enrichment.

For one thing that's 50% and 75%.

For another, if you notice in the root sources for those points, these are things that Irtan has agreed to do, that they have done them has not been verified.

Those are centrifuges, not not uranium.

 

[Henry Ford]

I linked to the Wikipedia entry to show you what the actual agreement was. Which was signed many months ago.

Iran is ahead of schedule in compliance.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

Ok I have a question.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

In its monthly update, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has a pivotal role in verifying that Iran is living up to its part of the accord, said that Iran so far was undertaking the agreed steps to curb its nuclear program.

So given that Russia has maximum leverage on the USA and the west right now and given that they have been selling Iran material, services and knowledge on this, to the extent Iran like Syria has become a client state, and given that Obama seems to be totally unwilling to use the kind of force to ensure full inspections like we saw Bush use in Iraq, what kind of deal is being brokered, exactly?

I don't think anyone ever said that Obama would not enter such negotiations, only that if and when he did they would be unenforceable on-paper only accomplishments, resulting in something even more dangerous than the status quo. That may very well be in the course of being proven true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_interim_agreement_on_Iranian_nuclear_program

According to U.N. monitors, since implementation in January, Iran has already rendered useless for weapons-grade applications roughly 75% of its heavily enriched uranium.

50% of the centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility and 75% at the Fordow enrichment facility will be left inoperable. Iran will not use its advanced IR-2 centrifuges for enrichment.

For one thing that's 50% and 75%.

For another, if you notice in the root sources for those points, these are things that Irtan has agreed to do, that they have done them has not been verified.

Those are centrifuges, not not uranium.

Anad again from one of the source articles:

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the agreement was an opportunity for the "removal of any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme".

But he insisted that Iran had not given up its right to enrich uranium.

"We believe that the current agreement, the current plan of action as we call it, in two distinct places has a very clear reference to the fact that Iranian enrichment programme will continue and will be a part of any agreement, now and in the future," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25074729

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I linked to the Wikipedia entry to show you what the actual agreement was. Which was signed many months ago.

Iran is ahead of schedule in compliance.

In general I love wiki of course, it's great, but it's summaries written by people linking to sources.

If you notice there isn't even agreement on the enrichment provision, and again apparently nothing has been verified and we seemingly have no stomach for doing so now or in the future.

I will say this, if this happens...

Iran will give greater access to inspectors including daily access at Natanz and Fordo nuclear sitesIran will give greater access to inspectors including daily access at Natanz and Fordo nuclear sites

... I mean if that actually happens and continues to happen for years after a final agreement, then we can talk about success.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

I think the bolded probably answers your question.

As far as the deal itself, Iran has already diluted and destroyed enough of its weapons-grade uranium to make it impossible to build a nuclear warhead at the moment. I'd call that already at least a mild success even if it fell apart later.

Do we really know this for sure?.......I mean really. My guess is any hand we play the Iranians are going to always have a card up their sleeve.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

I think the bolded probably answers your question.

As far as the deal itself, Iran has already diluted and destroyed enough of its weapons-grade uranium to make it impossible to build a nuclear warhead at the moment. I'd call that already at least a mild success even if it fell apart later.

Do we really know this for sure?.......I mean really. My guess is any hand we play the Iranians are going to always have a card up their sleeve.

:yellowcake:

 

[BobbyLayne]

"Only Nixon could go to China"

Any chance this is the type of thing that could rehabilitate Obama's rep?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

I think the bolded probably answers your question.

As far as the deal itself, Iran has already diluted and destroyed enough of its weapons-grade uranium to make it impossible to build a nuclear warhead at the moment. I'd call that already at least a mild success even if it fell apart later.

Do we really know this for sure?.......I mean really. My guess is any hand we play the Iranians are going to always have a card up their sleeve.

:yellowcake:

Reminder:

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the agreement was an opportunity for the "removal of any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme".

But he insisted that Iran had not given up its right to enrich uranium.

"We believe that the current agreement, the current plan of action as we call it, in two distinct places has a very clear reference to the fact that Iranian enrichment programme will continue and will be a part of any agreement, now and in the future," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25074729

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Why no credit? Because he didn't kill anyone with his bare hands or blow some Middle Eastern #### into the stone age during prime time. Duh.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

For anyone looking for an even handed treatment of this, not a bad article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reaching-a-final-iran-deal-will-be-a-tough-road/2013/11/25/dcc2f752-55ef-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html

For instance:

Under these conditions, Iran’s nuclear “breakout” time would lengthen for the first time since its capability began approaching dangerous levels in the past year. If Iran used all of its installed centrifuges, the time it would need to produce a weapon would expand to at least 1.9 to 2.2 months, up from at least 1 month to 1.6 months. With IAEA monitors checking at Natanz and Fordow every day, this increase would allow the United States and its allies time to respond before Iran produces enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb.

Iran will also be delayed in reaching the point where it has sufficient centrifuges and enriched uranium to produce, undetected, enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb. The Institute for Science and International Security estimated in July that, absent a deal, Iran could achieve this critical capability in mid-2014. The interim deal will delay Iran from achieving this destabilizing threshold, even if the deal’s constraints end after six months.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why no credit? Because he didn't kill anyone with his bare hands or blow some Middle Eastern #### into the stone age during prime time. Duh.

Honestly I would love to see a real deal done.

The US needs it the world needs it. I thought the debate in 2008 with McCain over whether we should negotiate with Iran was dumb.

One problem I have with this however is that Obama has been president since 2008 and he seems to only be getting to this now. Iran is supposed to be nuke ready by this summer, even though we negotiated this in November it really feels last second, when it shoudl have been a priority when he came into office. Right now because of the timing Iran has all the leverage.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

Ok I have a question.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

In its monthly update, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has a pivotal role in verifying that Iran is living up to its part of the accord, said that Iran so far was undertaking the agreed steps to curb its nuclear program.

So given that Russia has maximum leverage on the USA and the west right now and given that they have been selling Iran material, services and knowledge on this, to the extent Iran like Syria has become a client state, and given that Obama seems to be totally unwilling to use the kind of force to ensure full inspections like we saw Bush use in Iraq, what kind of deal is being brokered, exactly?

I don't think anyone ever said that Obama would not enter such negotiations, only that if and when he did they would be unenforceable on-paper only accomplishments, resulting in something even more dangerous than the status quo. That may very well be in the course of being proven true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_interim_agreement_on_Iranian_nuclear_program

According to U.N. monitors, since implementation in January, Iran has already rendered useless for weapons-grade applications roughly 75% of its heavily enriched uranium.

50% of the centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility and 75% at the Fordow enrichment facility will be left inoperable. Iran will not use its advanced IR-2 centrifuges for enrichment.

For one thing that's 50% and 75%.

For another, if you notice in the root sources for those points, these are things that Irtan has agreed to do, that they have done them has not been verified.

Those are centrifuges, not not uranium.

Anad again from one of the source articles:

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the agreement was an opportunity for the "removal of any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme".

But he insisted that Iran had not given up its right to enrich uranium.

"We believe that the current agreement, the current plan of action as we call it, in two distinct places has a very clear reference to the fact that Iranian enrichment programme will continue and will be a part of any agreement, now and in the future," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25074729

There's a big difference between enriching uranium and enriching uranium to weapons-grade. They haven't given up on enriching for power purposes. The uranium you use for powering a nuclear reactor is useless for building a nuclear weapon.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

I think the bolded probably answers your question.

As far as the deal itself, Iran has already diluted and destroyed enough of its weapons-grade uranium to make it impossible to build a nuclear warhead at the moment. I'd call that already at least a mild success even if it fell apart later.

Do we really know this for sure?.......I mean really. My guess is any hand we play the Iranians are going to always have a card up their sleeve.

I mean, I didn't personally witness it, but inspectors have allegedly verified that it's been done.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Anad again from one of the source articles:

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the agreement was an opportunity for the "removal of any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme".

But he insisted that Iran had not given up its right to enrich uranium.

"We believe that the current agreement, the current plan of action as we call it, in two distinct places has a very clear reference to the fact that Iranian enrichment programme will continue and will be a part of any agreement, now and in the future," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25074729

There's a big difference between enriching uranium and enriching uranium to weapons-grade. They haven't given up on enriching for power purposes. The uranium you use for powering a nuclear reactor is useless for building a nuclear weapon.

And in teh same article the US disagreed and countered what Iran said as being wrong. I doubt they are disagreeing on a point of no moment.

 

[Spanky267]

My concern is that they dont necessarily need unranium enriched to weapons grade strength to cause havoc. They currently have missiles with the range to hit Israel and some parts of Europe. What would a missle tipped with basically a dirty bomb do to Tel Aviv or some other major city?

The Iranians know they dont need real nuclear missiles or bombs to do damage. They also know that they dont have to be the ones to strike the blow. They can farm it out.

I do believe the sanctions are taking their toll. But I think the Iranians are shrewd enough to say anything at this point to release a little of the pressure that has been applied on the regime.

 

[Henry Ford]

For anyone looking for an even handed treatment of this, not a bad article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reaching-a-final-iran-deal-will-be-a-tough-road/2013/11/25/dcc2f752-55ef-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html

For instance:

Under these conditions, Iran’s nuclear “breakout” time would lengthen for the first time since its capability began approaching dangerous levels in the past year. If Iran used all of its installed centrifuges, the time it would need to produce a weapon would expand to at least 1.9 to 2.2 months, up from at least 1 month to 1.6 months. With IAEA monitors checking at Natanz and Fordow every day, this increase would allow the United States and its allies time to respond before Iran produces enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb.

Iran will also be delayed in reaching the point where it has sufficient centrifuges and enriched uranium to produce, undetected, enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb. The Institute for Science and International Security estimated in July that, absent a deal, Iran could achieve this critical capability in mid-2014. The interim deal will delay Iran from achieving this destabilizing threshold, even if the deal’s constraints end after six months.

Right. Six months ago, everyone said "wait and see." That article was written in November, 2013.

It's April, 2014. What we're seeing is compliance (and quicker than anticipated, at that.) Which is why people are saying it's - so far - a limited success.

 

[Henry Ford]

Anad again from one of the source articles:

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the agreement was an opportunity for the "removal of any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme".

But he insisted that Iran had not given up its right to enrich uranium.

"We believe that the current agreement, the current plan of action as we call it, in two distinct places has a very clear reference to the fact that Iranian enrichment programme will continue and will be a part of any agreement, now and in the future," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25074729

There's a big difference between enriching uranium and enriching uranium to weapons-grade. They haven't given up on enriching for power purposes. The uranium you use for powering a nuclear reactor is useless for building a nuclear weapon.

And in teh same article the US disagreed and countered what Iran said as being wrong. I doubt they are disagreeing on a point of no moment.

The question is whether the agreement recognizes Iran's right to enrich uranium for energy production purposes. The U.S. says "just because we're allowing it doesn't mean Iran has a right to it." Iran says "this agreement means the world has recognized we are allowed to use nuclear energy."

It's not about whether they're allowed to build nuclear weapons. Everyone agrees the agreement does not allow them to enrich weapons-grade nuclear material.

 

[Henry Ford]

Honestly, John Kerry should be getting medals these days.

 

[jonessed]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/20/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3J0KE20140420?feedType=RSS

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers will begin work drafting a long-term settlement of Iran's disputed nuclear program at expert-level talks in New York next month, the official state news agency IRNA reported on Sunday.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

This is a major accomplishment, and President Obama was at the forefront. It deals with one of the biggest security issues we have faced in recent years. And it flies in the face of the claim that the Obama administration is ineffective in foreign affairs. This agreement represents success where the previous two administrations met nothing but failure. As far as I'm concerned, if it works out, it's President Obama's most important achievement, and will make him, finally, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he received early in his first term.

But nobody seems to want to give him credit for this.

Ok I have a question.

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic program.

In its monthly update, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has a pivotal role in verifying that Iran is living up to its part of the accord, said that Iran so far was undertaking the agreed steps to curb its nuclear program.

So given that Russia has maximum leverage on the USA and the west right now and given that they have been selling Iran material, services and knowledge on this, to the extent Iran like Syria has become a client state, and given that Obama seems to be totally unwilling to use the kind of force to ensure full inspections like we saw Bush use in Iraq, what kind of deal is being brokered, exactly?

I don't think anyone ever said that Obama would not enter such negotiations, only that if and when he did they would be unenforceable on-paper only accomplishments, resulting in something even more dangerous than the status quo. That may very well be in the course of being proven true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_interim_agreement_on_Iranian_nuclear_program

According to U.N. monitors, since implementation in January, Iran has already rendered useless for weapons-grade applications roughly 75% of its heavily enriched uranium.

50% of the centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility and 75% at the Fordow enrichment facility will be left inoperable. Iran will not use its advanced IR-2 centrifuges for enrichment.

For one thing that's 50% and 75%.

For another, if you notice in the root sources for those points, these are things that Irtan has agreed to do, that they have done them has not been verified.

Those are centrifuges, not not uranium.

Anad again from one of the source articles:

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the agreement was an opportunity for the "removal of any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme".But he insisted that Iran had not given up its right to enrich uranium.

"We believe that the current agreement, the current plan of action as we call it, in two distinct places has a very clear reference to the fact that Iranian enrichment programme will continue and will be a part of any agreement, now and in the future," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25074729

There's a big difference between enriching uranium and enriching uranium to weapons-grade. They haven't given up on enriching for power purposes. The uranium you use for powering a nuclear reactor is useless for building a nuclear weapon.

It's not useless. It's the material they would use to enrich further. If they have the technical understanding it wouldn't take long to enrich this stock up to weapons grade. At least enough to make a few weapons. Under their energy deal with Russia they actually don't need any nuclear material at all to run their plants. At least for the next decade.

It's taken a long time to get Iran to this point. We need to make sure we don't sell it for a token deal that may set them back a couple of months.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Honestly, John Kerry should be getting medals these days.

He would probably just throw them away anyway.

 

[fatness]

Iran has acted to cut its most sensitive nuclear stockpile by nearly 75 percent in implementing a landmark pact with world powers, but a planned facility it will need to fulfill the six-month deal has been delayed, a U.N. report showed on Thursday.

The monthly update by the International Atomic Energy Agency , which has a pivotal role in verifying that Iran is living up to its part of the accord, made clear that Iran so far is undertaking the agreed steps to curb its nuclear program.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3G0FL20140417

 

[Henry Ford]

It's not useless. It's the material they would use to enrich further. If they have the technical understanding it wouldn't take long to enrich this stock up to weapons grade. At least enough to make a few weapons. Under their energy deal with Russia they actually don't need any nuclear material at all to run their plants. At least for the next decade.It's taken a long time to get Iran to this point. We need to make sure we don't sell it for a token deal that may set them back a couple of months.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "long."

 

[timschochet]

It's not useless. It's the material they would use to enrich further. If they have the technical understanding it wouldn't take long to enrich this stock up to weapons grade. At least enough to make a few weapons. Under their energy deal with Russia they actually don't need any nuclear material at all to run their plants. At least for the next decade.It's taken a long time to get Iran to this point. We need to make sure we don't sell it for a token deal that may set them back a couple of months.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "long."

Can you unpack this? It seems like Saints and Jonessed would have us believe it's a relatively easy thing to convert nuclear material that is collected for peaceful purposes into nuclear weapons. For those of us uneducated in these matters (like me) what's the truth of this?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's not useless. It's the material they would use to enrich further. If they have the technical understanding it wouldn't take long to enrich this stock up to weapons grade. At least enough to make a few weapons. Under their energy deal with Russia they actually don't need any nuclear material at all to run their plants. At least for the next decade.It's taken a long time to get Iran to this point. We need to make sure we don't sell it for a token deal that may set them back a couple of months.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "long."

Can you unpack this? It seems like Saints and Jonessed would have us believe it's a relatively easy thing to convert nuclear material that is collected for peaceful purposes into nuclear weapons. For those of us uneducated in these matters (like me) what's the truth of this?

Tim this article is from Henry's wiki's sources:

Under these conditions, Iran’s nuclear “breakout” time would lengthen for the first time since its capability began approaching dangerous levels in the past year. If Iran used all of its installed centrifuges, the time it would need to produce a weapon would expand to at least 1.9 to 2.2 months, up from at least 1 month to 1.6 months. With IAEA monitors checking at Natanz and Fordow every day, this increase would allow the United States and its allies time to respond before Iran produces enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reaching-a-final-iran-deal-will-be-a-tough-road/2013/11/25/dcc2f752-55ef-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html

They've been delayed about 3-6 months.

The original expected date for ability to produce nukes was pretty much now, mid-2014.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Honestly, John Kerry should be getting medals these days.

He would probably just throw them away anyway.

They'd just give them back next time he was in the White House.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

For anyone looking for an even handed treatment of this, not a bad article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reaching-a-final-iran-deal-will-be-a-tough-road/2013/11/25/dcc2f752-55ef-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html

For instance:

Under these conditions, Iran’s nuclear “breakout” time would lengthen for the first time since its capability began approaching dangerous levels in the past year. If Iran used all of its installed centrifuges, the time it would need to produce a weapon would expand to at least 1.9 to 2.2 months, up from at least 1 month to 1.6 months. With IAEA monitors checking at Natanz and Fordow every day, this increase would allow the United States and its allies time to respond before Iran produces enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb.

Iran will also be delayed in reaching the point where it has sufficient centrifuges and enriched uranium to produce, undetected, enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb. The Institute for Science and International Security estimated in July that, absent a deal, Iran could achieve this critical capability in mid-2014. The interim deal will delay Iran from achieving this destabilizing threshold, even if the deal’s constraints end after six months.

Right. Six months ago, everyone said "wait and see." That article was written in November, 2013.

It's April, 2014. What we're seeing is compliance (and quicker than anticipated, at that.) Which is why people are saying it's - so far - a limited success.

Just to be clear on something:

- I'm totally in favor of this agreement and this process, in fact I'm pretty peeved it's taken Obama six years to get here, it feels like a kid who's procrastinated and is studying for his test on the bus on the way to school. I'm also not so confident in the outcomes or the grounds for saying there is compliance.

So for instance, from the posted Reuters article:

The IAEA report also pointed to a new delay in Iran's construction of a plant designed to turn low-enriched uranium gas (LEU) into an oxide powder that is not suitable for further processing into highly enriched bomb-grade uranium.

Iran told the IAEA last month that the site would be commissioned on April 9. But Thursday's update by the U.N. nuclear watchdog said the commissioning had been put off, without giving any reason.

Now it goes on to give varying views on whether this is a big deal or not, but no the Iranians are not in total compliance.

Also, about that "six months" reference - so is the deal being extended or is it about to end?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Honestly, John Kerry should be getting medals these days.

He would probably just throw them away anyway.

They'd just give them back next time he was in the White House.

Awe now.....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Iran has acted to cut its most sensitive nuclear stockpile by nearly 75 percent in implementing a landmark pact with world powers, but a planned facility it will need to fulfill the six-month deal has been delayed, a U.N. report showed on Thursday.

The monthly update by the International Atomic Energy Agency , which has a pivotal role in verifying that Iran is living up to its part of the accord, made clear that Iran so far is undertaking the agreed steps to curb its nuclear program.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBREA3G0FL20140417

As pointed out above, it's funny what gets highlighted, you could have easily said:

Iran has acted to cut its most sensitive nuclear stockpile by nearly 75 percent in implementing a landmark pact with world powers, but a planned facility it will need to fulfill the six-month deal has been delayed, a U.N. report showed on Thursday.

The monthly update by the International Atomic Energy Agency , which has a pivotal role in verifying that Iran is living up to its part of the accord, made clear that Iran so far is undertaking the agreed steps to curb its nuclear program.

And:

Tehran has also continued to convert the other half of its stock of uranium gas refined to a 20 percent fissile purity - a relatively short technical step from 90 percent weapons-grade material - into oxide for making reactor fuel.

Altogether, Iran has in the last three months either diluted or fed into the conversion process a total of almost 155 kg (340 pounds) of its higher-grade uranium gas, which amounted to 209 kg when the deal came into force, a bit less than the roughly 250 kg experts say would be needed for a bomb, if refined more.

And:

The IAEA report also pointed to a new delay in Iran's construction of a plant designed to turn low-enriched uranium gas (LEU) into an oxide powder that is not suitable for further processing into highly enriched bomb-grade uranium.

Iran told the IAEA last month that the site would be commissioned on April 9. But Thursday's update by the U.N. nuclear watchdog said the commissioning had been put off, without giving any reason.

However, "Iran has indicated to the agency that this will not have an adverse impact on the implementation of (its) undertaking" to convert the uranium gas, the agency said.

The delay means that Iran's LEU stockpile - which it agreed to limit under the Geneva pact - is almost certainly continuing to increase for the time being, simply because its production of the material has not stopped, unlike that of the 20 percent uranium gas.

Western diplomats said earlier that this matter was of no immediate consequence as Iran's commitment concerns the size of the reserve towards the end of the deal, in late July, meaning it has time both to complete the site and convert enough LEU.

But they also say that the Islamic Republic's progress in building the conversion line will be closely monitored. The longer it takes to complete it, the more material Iran will have to process to meet the target in three months' time.

I mean, this is quite the game of chicken we're playing here.

 

[T Bell]

"Only Nixon could go to China"

Any chance this is the type of thing that could rehabilitate Obama's rep?

Of course, Nixon opening up China has a whole new complexion nowadays anyway.