Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Government The Military United States Politics

Iran Has Signed a Nuclear Accord 459

New submitter divide overflow writes: According to the New York Times, 'Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States have agreed to a historic accord to significantly limit Tehran's nuclear ability for more than a decade in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions against Iran, a senior Western diplomat involved in the negotiations said on Tuesday. The deal, which President Obama had long sought as the biggest diplomatic achievement of his presidency, culminates 20 months of negotiations.' Not everyone approves.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iran Has Signed a Nuclear Accord

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @02:05PM (#50109963)
    THE U.S. SHOULDN’T BE CELEBRATING, EITHER: Michael Oren: Why Israel Won’t be Celebrating the Iran Deal. []

    Back in 1994, American negotiators promised a “good deal” with North Korea. Its nuclear plants were supposed to be frozen and dismantled. International inspectors would “carefully monitor” North Korea’s compliance with the agreement and ensure the country’s return to the “community of nations.” The world, we were told, would be a safer place. . . .

    Iran is not North Korea. It’s far worse. Pyonyang’s dictators never plotted terrorist attacks across five continents and in thirty cities, including Washington, D.C. Tehran’s Ayatollahs did. North Korea is not actively undermining pro-Western governments in its region or planting agents in South America. Iran is.

    So why, then, are only Israelis united in opposing this deal? The answer is that we have the most to lose, at least in the short run. We know that the deal allows Iran to break out and create nuclear bombs in as little as three months, too quickly for the world to react. We know that the Ayatollahs, who have secretly constructed fortified nuclear facilities that have no peaceful purpose and have violated all of their international commitments, will break this deal in steps too small to precipitate a powerful global response. And we know that the sanctions, once lifted, cannot be swiftly revived, and that hundreds of billions of dollars Iran will soon receive will not be spent on better roads and schools. That treasure will fund the shedding of blood – of Israelis but also of many others.

    Israelis know that, while the world might weather its deception by North Korea, they cannot afford to be duped by Iran. But neither, in fact, can the United States. Just last week, Iran’s President attended a rally in Tehran where tens of thousands of protesters chanted “Death to America.” The deal will better enable them to carry out that attack – if not today, then against future generations. And Iran’s Supreme Leader has publicly pledged to do just that.

    I literally feel nauseous about this Iran deal. I feel nauseous because my daughter’s future is being seriously jeopardized by a deal that lifts sanctions that have been well designed to stop a state sponsor of terrorism from obtaining nuclear weapons, in return for virtually nothing. Somehow, President Obama has convinced his fellow Democrats that infusing Iran with billions of dollars []will make the world a safer place. But all it will do is exacerbate Iran’s aggression in the Middle East, and perversely enable western civilization to fund terrorism activities aimed at it.

    We have given concessions to a country that has repeatedly lied, hidden, deceived, and repeatedly and boldly declared its intention to wipe out both Israel and the United States. Any member of Congress who votes for this deal must have a death wish. But of course Congress, in typical fashion, gave away its constitutional power to ratify this as a treaty (with 2/3 of Senate support) when it passed the Corker legislation []. Assuming the Republican-controlled Congress votes down the Iran deal and the President vetoes it, I cannot imagine that there are enough Democrats (13 Democrats in the Senate and 43 in the House) to join the Republicans in overriding Obama’s inevitable veto.

    There’s enough political cover and ambiguity in the agreement that the real risks to U.S. and Israel will become known only incrementally, after the passage of years, and most likely only after President Obama leaves office. By the time the western world realizes what a mistake the Obama Administration has made, it will be too late. I guess that, once again, we have to pass it to reallyfind out what’s in it.

    • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @02:09PM (#50110009)

      Choose one:

      1) Iran/Syria
      2) ISIS

      • by bigpat ( 158134 )
        Choose A)Iran - Not Assad's Syria (which is as bad or worse than ISIS) And C) Recognize Kurdistan And D) De facto or by international agreement (ya right) partition both Iraq and Syria to create a new non-ISIS dominate Sunni state as reward for Sunnis to help overthrow ISIS.
    • by dywolf ( 2673597 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @02:39PM (#50110473)

      Oh boy. This thread is sure to break my all time high score for playing Spot The Nutjob.

    • by prefec2 ( 875483 )

      We celebrate too in Europe. And if the US is not ratifying the treaty, we will. So will China and Russia. Are you really willing to ignore such a big opportunity for trade? Well your loss. Of course the controls must be in place and as long as Iran confirm to the regulations trade can go on. If they violate it. The thing is off.

    • by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @04:07PM (#50111395)

      There are two key objectives in the agreement

      1. 1. Prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. At least Saudi Arabia and possibly other states in the region would have started their own programs if Iran's nuclear program had been allowed to progress towards nuclear weapons. The choices were
        • * The international community does nothing, leading to this arms race
        • * Military attacks on Iran, probably by Israel, further destabilizing the region, and strengthening extremist groups
        • * A negotiated agreement that inhibits nuclear weapons development by Iran, and gives the international community clear warning if Iran moves in that direction.
      2. 2. Make it easier to partner with Iran in combating Islamic extremist groups in the region, such as ISIS.

      Iran, while no friend of Israel and the US, is no worse than most governments in the region and better than many. With the current mayhem being created by Islamic State and other extremist groups, we cannot afford further destabilization of the region. Hold you nose and support the agreement. It is the best option available.

  • News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @02:09PM (#50110015)

    Humm, shall we discuss the half life of Plutonium? More interesting

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @02:19PM (#50110143)

    Let's look at the great list of broken promises and bullshit by which America exists today as we know it?

    None the least of which, the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran's government to install a western puppet and which precipitated the Iranian Islamic Revolution directly,
    or the 1990 visit to Saddam Hussein by US Diplomat April Glaspie, who informed him that "The US isn't interested" were he to invade Kuwait, among others.

    Considering the sheer volume of lies that the US is built upon, self contradictions with its own Constitution to say nothing of agreements like the Geneva Conventions that it makes pretense of being in accord with but only in semantics, to the UN's failure to reign in "acceptable" war criminals like Israel via US veto?

    Considering all that, we're the ones wagging fingers at IRAN, who is at war with nobody but the terrorists that US regime change in Iraq left for the region to absorb?

    Wake me from this sea of rhetorical bullshit and Israeli war drums. This deal is better than ANYTHING Israel ever agreed to.

  • Part of the agreement is that they hand over their spent fuel. My question... what do we do with it?

  • Should I expect Obama to resolve the North and South Korean war?
  • by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @02:22PM (#50110201) Homepage Journal

    Hans, Hans, you're breaking my balls!

  • by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @02:34PM (#50110389)

    Damn, and I was waiting for their electrical model. Honda is moving forward!

  • Seems weird that this is only 10 years.
    It makes sense that it should be about monitoring (in spite of what neo-cons/tea* scream), but, what does not make sense is why 10 years only? Seems like 20 or more would be better.
    I suspect that Saudi Arabia will now start THEIR program with Russia's help.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    What everyone needs to understand about this deal is that it is NOT about the geopolitics. It is about limiting the ability of Iran to rapidly produce the fuel for a nuclear weapon. Even with the ability to delay an inspector for a short amount of time it still meets the goals (and yes, 25 days is short when compared to the time needed to design, build, test, and implement an uranium processing facility). Iran has long been able to move money on the black and gray markets, though not as easily as if they we

  • No, really.
  • Optimism (Score:4, Informative)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @02:46PM (#50110571) Journal

    I'm sure that this will work out at least as well as it did the last time a Dem US president made a deal to "stop the development of nuclear weapons".

    I'm sure Japan, South Korea, and others in the region still remember that agreement with pride and joy.

  • by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @02:48PM (#50110597)

    So, what does the agreement say about verification?

    Is this another "national technical means" (read: spying) situation? Or does this have some other verification measure(s) that aren't mentioned in TFA?

    And on an unrelated note - no, Iran did not "sign" the agreement. Anymore than the US did. They "initialed" it (read: the negotiators on all sides agreed to hand this back to their respective governments for ratification/whatever)....

  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @03:03PM (#50110817)

    What possible use are nukes for Iran anyway? Their ability to manufacture a large number of them or deliver a lot of them at once over any distance (especially intercontinental) makes them less than useful.

    Any actual use of them against the US or Israel would result in a retaliation that would seriously threaten the existence of Iranian civilization as its now known. Any US president in office when an American city was targeted by an Iranian nuke who did not turn Iran into the world's largest open air supply of Trinitite might seriously be deposed if not lynched in the streets like Mussolini.

    I've read that the Israelis have a standing threat that if Israel is targeted by a nuke, they are retaliating against all major Arab capitals and Mecca, regardless of who's at fault. Ironically or not, the Israelis do collective punishment like nobody since Imperial Rome.

    They might get some short-term mileage out of stunts with the Straits of Hormuz, but it only works if they are willing to risk a catastrophic retaliation from which recovery is all but unlikely except on geological timelines. And the more serious their threat, the more likely they might face a preemptive strike. Even a conventional preemptive strike would force them to either capitulate or go nuclear. If they capitulate, they lose and future threats will go nowhere. If they go nuclear? Game over. All your base are glassed over.

  • Those who think we need to choose between ISIS and Iran, just as those who say the only alternative to the current deal with Iran is war -- are being dangerously simplistic. Sort of reminds me of the whole Democrat-Republican dynamic here in the USA of late. It's one line of BS or another -- both of which turn out to be politically motivated; that is, in the self-interest of the politician. I'm tired of hearing how: "This is Bush's fault" and "No, it's Obama's fault" At some point it's our fault.
  • by almechist ( 1366403 ) on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @03:29PM (#50111091)
    Sure, "not everyone agrees", and in particular conservative Republicans are foaming at the mouth, but... The thing is, for all their talk about how this agreement is going to be a disaster for America, I have yet to hear those on the right propose anything that sounds remotely like a workable alternative to the current deal. Say we end up with the deal stopped cold by congress, which could well happen, what then? Sanctions continue, and Iran no longer feels any reason not to go ahead with work on a bomb. Why wouldn't they? How would we stop them? Military force?? Don't make me laugh, that ain't gonna happen. So what's left, increasing the severity of the economic sanctions? We're pretty much doing all we can in that area now, and indeed it has brought Iran to the bargaining table. You want to just toss away the one chance we have to make a deal? It seems to me that if you're going to just say "well, screw that!" in regard to the current agreement, you have to have a better alternative in mind, and I mean something that stands a chance of working. We've got a deal, it's better than what we've had with sanctions in place, why not go with it? If Iran decides to cheat, well, that's the time to start talking tough. All I see now is people wanting to throw away this deal because, well, it might make Obama look good. And it might, but what else is there? I'm waiting to hear of any other plan of action that sounds remotely feasible.

"An open mind has but one disadvantage: it collects dirt." -- a saying at RPI