Page 1 of 14 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 196

Thread: Geneva deal reached

  1. #1
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608

    Geneva deal reached

    Iran and the P5+1 have agreed on a deal that would curtail Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some international sanctions. This deal is considered an initial phase and would last for six months. Iran will be allowed to continue producing low-enriched uranium suitable for energy generation and will not be required to send its nuclear byproduct material out of the country. Sanctions on the use of gold and other precious metals in trading will be lifted as will sanctions on insurance and the transportation industry. Iran insists it has the right to enrich uranium but has agreed to:

    - Stop producing medium-grade uranium and neutralize stocks of medium-grade uranium on hand

    - Limit its stockpile of low-enriched uranium

    - Cease development of new centrifuges

    - Halt progress at nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz and the partially built heavy-water reactor at Arak

    - Allow international inspections to monitor the above restrictions

    In return, Iran will reap $7 billion dollars of sanctions relief

  2. #2
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,214
    Good, seems like the cap-for-cap strategy worked better than the erstwhile freeze-for-freeze.

    Suggest people take a look at the agreement, its only 4 pages and any deviations (or allegations thereof) in the future will stem from the initial agreement made on this day.

    Joint plan of action (text) | farsnews | Nov 24 2013

    This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is
    agreed until everything is agreed
    .
    This is one of the pitfalls that has dogged previous Israel-Pal peace talks. if the drumbeat to conflict follows a ratchet, going in the opposite direction should be the same. Lock in the gains made and not squander them.

    The first step would be time-bound, with a duration of 6 months, and renewable by mutual consent, during which all parties will work to maintain a constructive atmosphere for negotiations in good faith.
    6 months of wait and see.

    The final step of a comprehensive solution, which the parties aim to conclude negotiating and commence implementing no more than one year after the adoption of this document
    1 year to normalisation. This will be one very long year.

    The question of on whose side time is on. Obama has two years. Rouhani has 4 years. But Rouhani staked his candidature on finding a resolution to the current impasse. His former experience as a negotiator made him the prime candidate for president.

    In reality Rouhani has one year to deliver to the Iranian people & the Ayatollah before he starts to get sidelined .
    Last edited by Double Edge; 24 Nov 13, at 09:35.

  3. #3
    Global Moderator Defense Professional JAD_333's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 07
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    11,201
    To put it mildly, Israel is not happy with the deal.

    Israel Minister: Iran Deal Based on 'Deceit' - ABC News


    Home> International
    Israel Minister: Iran Deal Based on 'Deceit'
    JERUSALEM November 24, 2013 (AP)
    Associated Press

    Israel on Sunday harshly criticized the international community's nuclear deal with Iran, accusing the world of "self-delusion" and saying the first-stage agreement would not halt Tehran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

    But officials acknowledged there was nothing they could do to stop the agreement, and said that Israel would do everything it could to shape the final deal that is to be negotiated during the next six months.

    Israel believes Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and in the weeks leading up to Sunday's agreement, had warned the emerging deal was insufficient. It had called for increased pressure on Iran, and warned that any relief from economic sanctions would make Iran less willing to compromise down the road.

    Israel's Cabinet minister for intelligence issues, Yuval Steinitz, said the last-minute changes to the deal were "far from satisfactory" and did nothing to change Israel's position.

    "This agreement is still bad and will make it more difficult than before to achieve an appropriate solution in the future," he said. Instead, he compared it to a failed 2007 international deal with North Korea and said it "is more likely to bring Iran closer to having a bomb."

    "Israel cannot participate in the international celebration, which is based on Iranian deception and (international) self-delusion," said Steinitz, whose responsibilities include monitoring Iran's nuclear program.

    The exact details of Sunday's deal, hammered out in Geneva between six world powers and Iran, were not immediately known. Israel was not a participant in the talks but remained in close touch with the U.S. and other allies during the negotiations.

    In a statement, the White House called the nuclear agreement an "initial, six-month step."

    It said the deal limits Iran's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium, a key ingredient in making a nuclear bomb. It said the accord also curbs the number and capabilities of the centrifuges used to enrich and would limit Iran's ability to produce "weapons-grade plutonium" from a reactor in the advanced stages of construction. It also said there would be "intrusive monitoring" of Iran's nuclear program.

    The statement also played down the extent of the relief from international sanctions, noting the "key oil, banking and financial sanctions architecture remains in place." It said any relief would be revoked if Iran did not keep its commitments.

    Israel had called for far tougher measures, saying that stockpiles of enriched uranium should be removed from the country, all enrichment activity be halted and that the plutonium-producing facility be dismantled.

    There was no immediate response from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had spent the past two weeks furiously lobbying against the deal. But an official in his office called Sunday's deal a "bad agreement."

    "It grants Iran exactly what it wanted, a significant easing of sanctions while preserving the most significant parts of its nuclear program," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity pending a formal statement from Netanyahu. The prime minister was expected to address his Cabinet later Sunday.

    Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to its very survival, citing Iranian calls for Israel's destruction, its development of long-range missiles capable of striking Israel and Iran's support for hostile militant groups along Israel's borders. It dismisses Iranian claims that the nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

    Israel has repeatedly threatened to carry out a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities if it concludes international diplomacy has failed to curb the Iranian nuclear program.

    But Israeli officials all but acknowledged that an Israeli attack is not in the works, and that the focus would now turn to influencing the final deal.

    "Those that support this agreement only say one good thing about it, and that's that we win time en route to a final agreement," Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin told Channel 2 TV. "Our main activity is now directed at a very clear destination — what will be in the final agreement."
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  4. #4
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD_333 View Post
    To put it mildly, Israel is not happy with the deal.
    I would probably add Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf States.

  5. #5
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,214
    No initial agreement = bigger stockpiles, more centrifuges and plutonium track.

  6. #6
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Minskaya View Post
    I would probably add Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf States.
    They do have a valid point... this deal is far removed from the terms of prior United Nations Security Council resolutions which require the complete suspension of Iranian nuclear production. In this initial six month phase, Iran gets the better of the deal. Any final agreement should be far more restrictive than this current temporary agreement.

  7. #7
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    I'm just gonna put this here....

    Attachment 34446
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  8. #8
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,214
    heh, an allusion to neville chamberlain, time obtained was to arm so as to better fight nazi germany which they were not ready for in '36 but in '39.

    I'm hoping there isn't going to be need for a war to begin with

  9. #9
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    And at the same time, sacrificing those being threatened and egging on a tyrant, proving to him that he can do whatever evil he wants, the world will stand by and look the other way. This of course ended up leading to millions dead and a world embroiled in war.

    Yeah, an allusion to Neville Chamberlain...
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  10. #10
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,214
    Iran is not Libya
    Iran is not Nazi Germany

    If one door shuts then maybe another opens.

    Where is Kissinger ? Can he turn Bibi into Nixon.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 24 Nov 13, at 15:00.

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    heh, an allusion to neville chamberlain, time obtained was to arm so as to better fight nazi germany which they were not ready for in '36 but in '39.

    I'm hoping there isn't going to be need for a war to begin with
    Who is not ready for war with Iran? In '36 terms.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  12. #12
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,214
    The UK was not ready for war in '36.

    This is about the agreement, not war. Ignore the FUD, read the agreement.

    The biggest loophole i see in it is this nothing is agreed until everything is agreed business.

    'Everything' can be as big as you want it to be. That's a recipe to add things to the list at each and every turn and sabotage it.

    So it's good an agreement was reached but the momentum needs to be sustained. And that will be difficult.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 24 Nov 13, at 14:16.

  13. #13
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    The UK was not ready for war in '36.
    Since Ben turned it in UK (USA) vs Reich (Iran), and you added the Chamberlain's rationale, I beg to ask which party is not ready today?

    This is about the agreement, not war. Ignore the FUD, read the agreement.

    The biggest loophole i see in it is this nothing is agreed until everything is agreed business.

    'Everything' can be as big as you want it to be. That's a recipe to add things to the list at each and every turn and sabotage it.

    So it's good an agreement was reached but the momentum needs to be sustained. And that will be difficult.
    It's a nice step forward. I bet there are many who are pissed with the deal, but if done according to what's written, it's way better then situation at hand.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  14. #14
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Since Ben turned it in UK (USA) vs Reich (Iran), and you added the Chamberlain's rationale, I beg to ask which party is not ready today?
    Yeah so maybe i shoudn't have taken the bait.

    Both parties are ready today. They will also be ready tomorrow & the day after.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    It's a nice step forward. I bet there are many who are pissed with the deal, but if done according to what's written, it's way better then situation at hand.
    Just wait and see how each one of those points is going to be spun, misinterpreted & sabotaged. At this early stage in time its impossible to predict how things will go.

    Better would be to have 'what is agreed upon is implemented' to lock in gains --Baker institute

    Another example with the WTO Doha round.

    Imagine there are ten steps to normalisation. We falter on the ninth. The whole thing just went up in smoke (!)
    Last edited by Double Edge; 24 Nov 13, at 15:49.

  15. #15
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    As I alluded to in other posts, the wild card...

    New US sanctions would spell 'end of deal' to limit nuclear program: Iran foreign minister
    24 November 2013

    GENEVA - Iran will not honor the nuclear agreement it just signed with the United States and other world powers if Congress imposes new sanctions, Iran’s foreign minister told NBC News after the deal was announced. “If there are new sanctions, then there is no deal. It’s very clear. End of the deal. Because of the inability of one party to maintain their side of the bargain,” Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said during an exclusive interview with NBC News.
    Source

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shotguns and the Geneva Convention
    By Ironduke in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06 Aug 17,, 20:43
  2. Iran @ Geneva
    By Minskaya in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 22 Nov 13,, 13:12
  3. New Deal on Bush tax cuts reached............
    By MIKEMUN in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 13 Dec 10,, 00:52
  4. Geneva Convention Turns 60
    By Merlin in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12 Aug 09,, 17:52
  5. US detainees to get Geneva rights
    By troung in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Jul 06,, 06:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •