Iran, world powers reach historic nuclear deal

GENEVA — Iran and six major powers agreed early Sunday on a historic deal that freezes key parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions, diplomats confirmed.

The deal was reached after four days of marathon bargaining and an eleventh-hour intervention by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and foreign ministers from Europe, Russia and China, the sources said.

The agreement, sealed at a 3 a.m. signing ceremony in Geneva’s Palace of Nations, requires Iran to halt or scale back parts of its nuclear infrastructure, the first such pause in more than a decade.

“We have reached an agreement,” Michael Mann, spokesman for European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, said in a Twitter posting that was echoed by a separate posting by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

The deal, intended as a first step toward a more comprehensive nuclear pact to be completed in six months, freezes or reverses progress at all of Iran’s major nuclear facilities, according to Western officials familiar with the details. It halts the installation of new centrifuges used to enrich uranium and caps the amount and type of enriched uranium that Iran is allowed to produce.

Iran also agreed to halt work on key components of a heavy-water reactor that could someday provide Iran with a source of plutonium. In addition, Iran accepted a dramatic increase in oversight, including daily monitoring by international nuclear inspectors, the officials said.

The concessions not only halt Iran’s nuclear advances but also make it virtually impossible for Tehran to build a nuclear weapon without being detected, the officials said. In return, Iran will receive modest relief of trade sanctions and access to some of its frozen currency accounts overseas, concessions said to be valued at less than $7 billion over the six-month term of the deal. The sanctions would be reinstated if Iran violates the agreement’s terms.

Speaking at the White House after the deal with announced, President Obama praised the negotiators. “We have pursued intensive diplomacy,” he said. “Today that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that’s more secure.” he said.

“For the first time in nearly a decade we have halted parts of Iran’s nuclear program.”

The agreement is a long-sought victory for the Obama administration, which from its earliest days made the Iranian nuclear program one of its top foreign policy priorities. The administration, helped by its overseas allies as well as Congress, achieved unprecedented success in imposing harsh economic sanctions that cut Iran’s oil exports in half and decimated the country’s currency. It was hoping to quickly finalize an agreement in the face of threats by Congress to impose additional economic sanctions on Iran.

The deal is also a victory for Kerry, who traveled to Geneva twice in two weeks to participate in the negotiations.

Still, the agreement is likely to face heavy opposition from key allies — chiefly Israel and Saudi Arabia — as well as congressional skeptics who have demanded much greater concessions from Iran, including the dismantling of its enrichment program.

 Seaward wrote:
It's a roundly worthless deal with a six month expiration date that gets the Iranians far, far more than it costs them, especially considering it could cost them absolutely nothing if they choose. If this is a foreign policy victory, I have no idea what you could possibly classify as a defeat.

And Israel's been a solid friend to the US, though whoever takes office after Obama is going to have some serious fences to mend.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Doesn't Congress have to approve easing of sanctions?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Yeah, the Israeli's aren't too happy about it (though they wouldn't be satisfied even with total nuclear development closure).

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Or the Israelis could toss them a couple of Jerichos. Youknow, considering that they don't officially exist, so nobody can call them on them. ...That's how politics works right?

 Ouze wrote:
And like that, we smoothly move from Obama as a bloody-handed warmonger to the Neville Chamberlain allegories.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
This agreement could work, provided Iran actually does dilute its uranium AND inspectors are allowed to verify it.
.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
Perhaps, but in Iraq and North Korea, inspectors were never fully allowed to carry out their duties.

IIRC, Hussein was a little testy with inspectors so Bush declared Iraq non-compliant and launched the war. And North Korea expelled their inspectors.

While this agreement could certainly fail, I wouldn't peg it as a dog and pony show just yet. Getting inspectors into the country was a major step.

Even if this fails, it gives the US important cover from a foreign relations standpoint if things do escalate. It's tougher for Russia and the like to defend Iran if they've been non-compliant with an actual agreement, than if we escalate without there having ever been an agreement in place.

 generalgrog wrote:

7) Iran says how dare you insult us...the program is over you infidel.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
Yes, that could happen, but if it does they'd be in violation of the agreement, which would allow the US to have the moral high ground with the international community, something we'll need if things escalate. It's much easier to get the international community behind us if we tried negotiating before fighting.

I'm also more optimistic about Iran today than before. The previous Iranian leaders would have never wished Jews a happy Rosh Hashanah, but this new President did.

 Seaward wrote:

 DogofWar1 wrote:
Yes, that could happen, but if it does they'd be in violation of the agreement, which would allow the US to have the moral high ground with the international community, something we'll need if things escalate. It's much easier to get the international community behind us if we tried negotiating before fighting.

I find it rather odd that the belief we've never attempted to negotiate with Iran over the issue before is so prevalent.

I'm also more optimistic about Iran today than before. The previous Iranian leaders would have never wished Jews a happy Rosh Hashanah, but this new President did.

Yeah, but the Ayatollah runs the country, not the president.

 Seaward wrote:
It's not really at the cost of Iran's nuclear program though, is it? It's at the cost of Iran saying that it is.

 Maddermax wrote:


The thing is, if you believe it is completely impossible to either trust or verify the claims of the Iranians under any conditions, then there is only one answer left - war. And that didn't work out so well in Iraq, which actually didn't have useable WMDs anyway.

 CptJake wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:


The thing is, if you believe it is completely impossible to either trust or verify the claims of the Iranians under any conditions, then there is only one answer left - war. And that didn't work out so well in Iraq, which actually didn't have useable WMDs anyway.

A couple of points.

1. You have more than the war option. You could also decide to accept a nuclear Iran, you could keep or increase sanctions, you could strengthen regional allies. There are always other options.

2. The 2003 Iraq thing is relatively useless as a comparison. Strikes against the Al Kabar facility in Syria or the Osirak facility in Iraq may be much better models, or even the 1998 strikes against Iraq. Destroying Iranian nuclear capability should not necessitate much of an invasion let alone an occupation. A solid air campaign coupled with select raids would suffice.