The Iran nuclear deal, translated into plain English

[ksen]

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8336219/iran-nuclear-deal-plain-english

This deal looks much better than going to war.

 

[laughing dog]

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8336219/iran-nuclear-deal-plain-english

This deal looks much better than going to war.

Of course, we just gave them the keys to a nuclear arsenal. [/conservoauthoritandupeofIsrael]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, the equipment to get enough material for a bomb in less than a year:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-a-fact-sheet


And that's assuming they don't have anything else hidden.

 

[Axulus]

The exports say it's a good deal, about the best we could've hoped for, and heavily tilted in favor of the West:

When Aaron Stein was studying nuclear non-proliferation at Middlebury University's Monterey graduate program, the students would sometimes construct what they thought would be the best possible nuclear inspection and monitoring regimes.

Years later, Stein is now a Middle East and nuclear proliferation expert with the Royal United Services Institute. And he says that the Iran nuclear framework agreement, announced on Thursday, look an awful lot like those ideal hypotheticals he'd put together in grad school.

"When I was doing my non-proliferation training at Monterey, this is the type of inspection regime that we would dream up in our heads," he said. "We would hope that this would be the way to actually verify all enrichment programs, but thought that would never be feasible."

"If these are the parameters by which the [final agreement] will be signed, then this is an excellent deal," Stein concluded.

The framework nuclear deal establishes only the very basics; negotiators will continue to meet to try to turn them into a complete, detailed agreement by the end of June. Still, the terms in the framework, unveiled to the world after a series of late- and all-night sessions, are remarkably detailed, and almost astoundingly favorable to the United States.

...

"I would give it an A," Stein said of the framework. When I asked why: "Because of the inspections and transparency."

...

Stein pointed out two details in the framework that I'd missed, both of which appeared to be pretty significant concessions by the Iranians.

First, Iran has finally agreed to comply by a rule known as Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to Iran's Safeguards Agreement, shorthanded as Modified Code 3.1. It says that Iran has to notify inspectors immediately on its decision to build any new facility where it plans to do nuclear work — long before construction starts.

Iran in the past has either rejected this rule or stated that it would only notify inspectors a few months before introducing nuclear material at a facility — a "cover your ass" move in case the world caught them building a new nuclear site. Tehran's promise to comply may signal that it intends to stop building such covert facilities.

Second, Stein reads the framework as including Iran's ballistic missile program — something that critics of the deal warned would be left out. Indeed, even many supporters of the negotiations have said that it would be unlikely that American negotiators could get the deal to cover ballistic missiles or other conventional weapons programs; it would simply be asking for too much in one agreement.

"It looks like they were able to expand the scope beyond just nuclear issues," Stein said. He pointed to a line in the section that explains that the UN Security Council would replace its old resolutions imposing sanctions on the nuclear program with a new resolution that incorporated the finalized deal.

The line reads, "Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution."

"The way I read that is that they address the ballistic missile issue, that that will remain in the new UN Security Council resolution," Stein said. "So you're going to keep the restrictions on ballistic missiles that are already present."

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good

 

[Axulus]

In other words, the equipment to get enough material for a bomb in less than a year:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-a-fact-sheet


And that's assuming they don't have anything else hidden.

It's currently at two to three months. This deal extends the time required to almost twelve months, plus gives us information on when they begin the process. In other words, plenty of time to re implement sanctions and prepare for the war you so desperately want (if necessary) if they violate the deal and start trying to go for the bomb.

 

[Frikki]

In other words, the equipment to get enough material for a bomb in less than a year:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-a-fact-sheet


And that's assuming they don't have anything else hidden.

OK then you just have to go and sign up to fight this one.

 

[Ford]

In other words, the equipment to get enough material for a bomb in less than a year.

Well the "OMG Iran is only a year away from the bomb" crowd has been saying that for at least 20 years now, so if you add that into the mix, then this new deal means Iran will absolutely have a bomb in 21 years time, rather than 20 years and 3 months.


But as you say, we have no way of knowing what they're hiding. Personally, I think they're hiding an entire aircraft carrier underground, along with all the support ships and a full complement of aircraft as well. I mean, just think of the damage Iran could do to poor, helpless Israel if they suddenly unburied their secret carrier group and launched it against Tel Aviv.


Better bomb 'em just to be safe, eh?

 

[dismal]

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8336219/iran-nuclear-deal-plain-english

This deal looks much better than going to war.

Does it look better than having no deal at all?

 

[ksen]

yes

 

[maxparrish]

In other words, the equipment to get enough material for a bomb in less than a year:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-a-fact-sheet


And that's assuming they don't have anything else hidden.

It's currently at two to three months. This deal extends the time required to almost twelve months, plus gives us information on when they begin the process. In other words, plenty of time to re implement sanctions and prepare for the war you so desperately want (if necessary) if they violate the deal and start trying to go for the bomb.

And how is it that Obama has let the Iranians get to that point? Two months? And we have already lifted some sanctions last year.

There is no reason to suppose this agreement is anything other than a pretend solution after years of lost opportunity in dithering and spineless waffling. R&D will continue, enrichment continues, heavy water (of which Iran has no serious need of, other than bomb making) at Arak will be modernized. The Fordow underground bunker for enrichment will not be closed and it will "be used for research". And it now seems the centrifuges will be kept working in the facility. In other words, the centrifuges will be out of reach of direct military intervention. And work will continue on developing new centrifuges.

Obama says "Don't worry, it will take a year to make a weapon" That is likely his most optimistic spin, but that is not a serious "deal". Iran kicks out the inspectors and the West will whine and dither (as they have in the Ukraine), and will be slow to impose sanctions and, by the time they do, it will be irrelevant. And in the meantime, the regime obtains 10s of billions of profit by the ending of sanctions...all the better to export arms and training to various terrorists and proxy forces.

And there remains lots of different views on the most of the specifics of what was agreed to. Iran seems to think that the sanctions will be fully terminated at the same time Iran begins to implement its part. Obama says it will be after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all steps. Zarif says Obama is lying.

Given Obama's track record with Iran, Zarif is most likely correct.

In short, Iranians have successfully played Obama since 2009 until we got to a point where nothing can be done, anyway.

​

 

[Ford]

In short, Iranians have successfully played Obama since 2009 until we got to a point where nothing can be done, anyway.

So we should kill all of them, then?

 

[maxparrish]

In short, Iranians have successfully played Obama since 2009 until we got to a point where nothing can be done, anyway.

So we should kill all of them, then?

Naw, people would get upset. Had we developed nuke bunker busters, glassing them and a few reactors would have done the job. At this point it may be best to just say "no" and put the sanctions back on. This agreement looks to be sham...as predicted by many.

 

[Ford]

So we should kill all of them, then?

Naw, people would get upset. Had we developed nuke bunker busters, glassing them and a few reactors would have done the job. At this point it may be best to just say "no" and put the sanctions back on. This agreement looks to be sham...as predicted by many.

I get it. You want to nuke brown people because...I don't know. Can you explain why you want 70 million Persians dead?


I'll wait.

 

[Tigers!]

The exports say it's a good deal, about the best we could've hoped for, and heavily tilted in favor of the West:

Which exports are the experts?

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently it is Obama's responsibility that Iran has been engaging in a nuclear program that started in the 1950s with US assistance. And it is Obama's responsibility that Russia started helping Iran in the 1970s. And it is Obama's responsibility to prevent all of Iran's geographical neighbors along with the rest of the world in aiding Iran in any way possible. And it is Obama's responsibility to insure that all the parties at the negotiating table adhere to the agenda of Israel US and ignore their own agenda.

In other words, the critics of this deal are literally living in a different reality than the rest of the world.

 

[maxparrish]

Naw, people would get upset. Had we developed nuke bunker busters, glassing them and a few reactors would have done the job. At this point it may be best to just say "no" and put the sanctions back on. This agreement looks to be sham...as predicted by many.

I get it. You want to nuke brown people because...I don't know. Can you explain why you want 70 million Persians dead?

The following map shows some of the sites needing nuked. But there are, at most, about 20 sites on the list for cooking. No way this kills 70 million... ten million, tops.

 

[Axulus]

I get it. You want to nuke brown people because...I don't know. Can you explain why you want 70 million Persians dead?

The following map shows some of the sites needing nuked. But there are, at most, about 20 sites on the list for cooking. No way this kills 70 million... ten million, tops.

And when nuclear armed China and Russia declare war on the US, how well does your mass murder plan turn out then?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Wait? Are nuclear weapons the only way to destroy a nuclear facility?

Because something sounds awfully stupid.

 

[arkirk]

In other words, the equipment to get enough material for a bomb in less than a year.

Well the "OMG Iran is only a year away from the bomb" crowd has been saying that for at least 20 years now, so if you add that into the mix, then this new deal means Iran will absolutely have a bomb in 21 years time, rather than 20 years and 3 months.


But as you say, we have no way of knowing what they're hiding. Personally, I think they're hiding an entire aircraft carrier underground, along with all the support ships and a full complement of aircraft as well. I mean, just think of the damage Iran could do to poor, helpless Israel if they suddenly unburied their secret carrier group and launched it against Tel Aviv.


Better bomb 'em just to be safe, eh?

Be careful, Mr. Ford. Loren is quite impressionable. I would say that is not a good suggestion....to Loren...or McCain! These guys really don't think of Iranians as human beings with feelings like you and me...well at least like themselves...so it is okay to bomb them. As I was looking at the Washington Institute link about breakout times, I noted two things.
1. The report ignored the fact the "Iran" is not a monolithic society of crazed Muslims.
2. The report also ignored the number of centrifuges the U.S. has, the number of warheads the U.S. has....also the number of McCains.

 

[arkirk]

I get it. You want to nuke brown people because...I don't know. Can you explain why you want 70 million Persians dead?

The following map shows some of the sites needing nuked. But there are, at most, about 20 sites on the list for cooking. No way this kills 70 million... ten million, tops.

Tehran metropolitan area has a population of 12.4 million all by itself. You don't know what you are talking about!