Iran Nuclear Deal Near, Diplomats Say

[sanman]

Biden whitehouse close to getting a nuclear deal done with Iran. Is this good news or bad news?

Iran nuclear deal near, diplomats say

All Vienna talks participants said a deal is close, but some issues remain unresolved.

www.axios.com

Iran Nuclear Deal Near, Diplomats Say

An agreement to restore the 2015 Iran nuclear deal could be just days away, with negotiators from Europe and Iran making clear that they've reached the final hurdles.

Driving the news: Rafael Grossi, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, will travel to Tehran on Saturday to try to resolve one of the remaining disputes: Iran's insistence that an investigation into its undeclared nuclear activity be dropped. The success of failure of Grossi's visit could determine the fate of the deal.

The latest: Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian told EU foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell in a call on Friday that he is ready to travel to Vienna and sign the deal so long as the U.S. and European powers accept Iran’s red lines, including effective economic guarantees for Iran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

• According to that statement, Borrell said he thinks Iran’s major demands have been taken into account and stressed that a deal was close.
• "We are ready to finalize a good and immediate agreement but the haste of the Western side can not prevent the observance of Iran's red lines," the statement quotes Amir-Abdollahian as saying.

What they're saying: All participants in the Vienna talks have been stressing that a deal is very close but not yet at hand.

• “There has been significant progress and we are close to a possible deal, but a number of difficult issue remain unsolved," deputy State Department spokeswoman Jalina Porter said in a conference call with reporters on Thursday.
• The British chief negotiator Stephanie Al-Qaq said in a Farsi-language tweet that a deal was "very close" but "final steps" still remained. She followed that up on Friday by saying a deal was "not guaranteed" and the parties "must now walk the last few meters."
• French negotiator Philippe Errera posted a photo of the European negotiating team and thanked them for their work over the past 11 months, in a possible signal that talks are concluding.
• Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Saeed Khatibzadeh tweeted that regardless of the positive rumblings, "Nobody can say the deal is done until all the outstanding remaining issues are resolved.

 

[sanman]

On the one hand, return of Iranian oil supply to the world oil markets would help to relieve rising oil prices.

But will it make the world less safe, by allowing Iran to replenish itself, to later facilitate its breakout across the nuclear threshold?

 

[Exquisitor]

I thought the precedent was set in Iraq if you don't keep up with inspections.

 

[phoenix2020]

The only thing I am interested in, as to this deal, is how to make it binding on the part of the United States. If that issue is not addressed, then we'll simply go back on our word the next time government control changes hands because the R's cannot accept any policy created by a D, even if it were a policy they'd otherwise support. And all that will do is yet further erode the credibility of our word. I'd rather we have no deal and let Iran develop nuclear weapons, than sign a deal that's going to be undone in 3 years.

 

[washunut]

The only thing I am interested in, as to this deal, is how to make it binding on the part of the United States. If that issue is not addressed, then we'll simply go back on our word the next time government control changes hands because the R's cannot accept any policy created by a D, even if it were a policy they'd otherwise support. And all that will do is yet further erode the credibility of our word. I'd rather we have no deal and let Iran develop nuclear weapons, than sign a deal that's going to be undone in 3 years.

Better yet why not just sell them a bomb or two in exchange for some of their oil.

 

[justabubba]

I thought the precedent was set in Iraq if you don't keep up with inspections.

i don't understand your post
what inspections were not kept up?

 

[sanman]

New York Times Refuses Ad Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Demanding Changes: ‘We Can’t Accept Paragraph Two’

The headquarters of The New York Times. Photo: Wikimedia Commons. The New York Times is refusing to publish a full-page …

www.algemeiner.com

 

[Amelia]

On the one hand, return of Iranian oil supply to the world oil markets would help to relieve rising oil prices.

But will it make the world less safe, by allowing Iran to replenish itself, to later facilitate its breakout across the nuclear threshold?

The world is less safe with a desperate Iran.

The world is more safe with an Iran which sees profit in being a responsible member of the global community.



So, on both hands, it is a win if we are able to return to the Iran nuclear deal.

 

[Court Jester]

On the one hand, return of Iranian oil supply to the world oil markets would help to relieve rising oil prices.

But will it make the world less safe, by allowing Iran to replenish itself, to later facilitate its breakout across the nuclear threshold?

Our fear should be that Biden afraid to cut off oil from Russia for fear of pushing oil prices and inflation higher here at home, is too eager to make a deal with Iran in order relieve the economic pain from a Russia oil embargo now. Only trading one bad situation for another.

Our energy security, and the security of our allies is in the USA and Canada supplying more oil to the global market, not more oil from Iran, Russia, Venezuela, or even Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. More oil from North America means independence from being played by tyranical regimes.

We should actually fear a Iran more that Russia. And anyone who actually believes Iran is going to discontinue their quest to be a nuclear player is fooling themselves. We lift oil sanctions on Iran and most of their profits go into their military build up anyway.

 

[sanman]

Our fear should be that Biden afraid to cut off oil from Russia for fear of pushing oil prices and inflation higher here at home, is too eager to make a deal with Iran in order relieve the economic pain from a Russia oil embargo now. Only trading one bad situation for another.

Our energy security, and the security of our allies is in the USA and Canada supplying more oil to the global market, not more oil from Iran, Russia, Venezuela, or even Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. More oil from North America means independence from being played by tyranical regimes.

We should actually fear a Iran more that Russia. And anyone who actually believes Iran is going to discontinue their quest to be a nuclear player is fooling themselves. We lift oil sanctions on Iran and most of their profits go into their military build up anyway.

If you want more oil from Canada, then you should want to allow KeystoneXL to go through.
If the ruling Left don't start budging on their own self-made sticking points, then they're going to trigger a massive revolt that sees them replaced in the coming elections.

 

[phoenix2020]

If you want more oil from Canada, then you should want to allow KeystoneXL to go through.
If the ruling Left don't start budging on their own self-made sticking points, then they're going to trigger a massive revolt that sees them replaced in the coming elections.

Really, could you at least self-educate yourself a little bit before parroting Facebook garbage like this? It’s embarrassing and your handlers are facepalming when they read posts like yours. I mean, everyone knows KeystoneXL was a way for Canada to transfer corrosive sludge only fit for industrial lubrication to refineries in the Gulf to process and ship to Russia. Obviously Canada could have run the pipeline across their own land but why risk their own aquifers when people like yourself could be grifted into giving up yours? The sludge was never intended for US markets and the end product is not one our economy actually needs a great deal of. Of course, all of this flew right over your head because, let’s face it, your know-how is mostly derived from Facebook and Tucker, eh?

 

[VySky]

The insanity from America is mind numbing

 

[Athanasius68]

The world is less safe with a desperate Iran.

The world is more safe with an Iran which sees profit in being a responsible member of the global community.



So, on both hands, it is a win if we are able to return to the Iran nuclear deal.

But why would we think a nuclear armed Iran would be a responsible member of the global community?
This entire saga is based upon the long standing bipartisan and globally agreed upon idea that it would not be.

 

[Exquisitor]

i don't understand your post
what inspections were not kept up?

Rather than saying, "He has WMDs." Which you don't know. Go in for humanitarian reasons and Iraq non-compliance with inspections, for WMDs.

Say, "You're not co-operating with UN, so we act unilaterally." Nothing more.

 

[Plasmaball]

Our fear should be that Biden afraid to cut off oil from Russia for fear of pushing oil prices and inflation higher here at home, is too eager to make a deal with Iran in order relieve the economic pain from a Russia oil embargo now. Only trading one bad situation for another.

Our energy security, and the security of our allies is in the USA and Canada supplying more oil to the global market, not more oil from Iran, Russia, Venezuela, or even Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. More oil from North America means independence from being played by tyranical regimes.

We should actually fear a Iran more that Russia. And anyone who actually believes Iran is going to discontinue their quest to be a nuclear player is fooling themselves. We lift oil sanctions on Iran and most of their profits go into their military build up anyway.

Iran producers oil you can cut off Russian oil easily.

 

[Plasmaball]

I've long held the idea that the Saudis had trump kill the Iran deal because they wanted to control the oil market better.

I have nothing to back this up though, but it's just a feeling.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The only thing I am interested in, as to this deal, is how to make it binding on the part of the United States. If that issue is not addressed, then we'll simply go back on our word the next time government control changes hands because the R's cannot accept any policy created by a D, even if it were a policy they'd otherwise support. And all that will do is yet further erode the credibility of our word. I'd rather we have no deal and let Iran develop nuclear weapons, than sign a deal that's going to be undone in 3 years.

There's that and ensuring the compliance methods are tight so there are no loop holes for the Iranians. It's deal that requires transparency and assurances from all involved.

 

[sanman]

 

[Torus34]

Not to worry. Come 2024, Mr. Donald Trump will once again be elected President of the United States of America by my fellow citizens. He'll possibly again tear up the agreement, and Iran will once again be able to continue to move forward with its nuclear armament program.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[craig]

I've long held the idea that the Saudis had trump kill the Iran deal because they wanted to control the oil market better.

I have nothing to back this up though, but it's just a feeling.

Now it appears it was Putin that wanted Trump to do it. Was it quid pro quo, blackmail, or some of both?

 

[Amelia]

But why would we think a nuclear armed Iran would be a responsible member of the global community?
This entire saga is based upon the long standing bipartisan and globally agreed upon idea that it would not be.

In what world do you think that keeping Iran desperate will stop it from gaining nuclear arms?



Trump blowing up the nuclear deal accelerated Iran's enrichment of nuclear materials and made us less safe.

Iran is arming itself faster as an outlaw nation than it was before Trump wagged that nuclear dog.

Under a renewed treaty Iran would have to return to a slower pace, with more oversight.

Iran needs to turn to somebody. If Iran is cut off from opportunities to trade with good citizen nations, then it will form even deeper ties with bad actors.



The Iran nuclear deal makes the world safer. Gives Iran more civilized options to pursue in keeping its citizens happy. And slows down the nuclearization of Iran.

 

[Plasmaball]

Now it appears it was Putin that wanted Trump to do it. Was it quid pro quo, blackmail, or some of both?

Mmmm if you told me it was a simple as putin telling trump and trump went all fan boy I'd believe it

 

[Athanasius68]

In what world do you think that keeping Iran desperate will stop it from gaining nuclear arms?



Trump blowing up the nuclear deal accelerated Iran's enrichment of nuclear materials and made us less safe.

Iran is arming itself faster as an outlaw nation than it was before Trump wagged that nuclear dog.

Under a renewed treaty Iran would have to return to a slower pace, with more oversight.

Iran needs to turn to somebody. If Iran is cut off from opportunities to trade with good citizen nations, then it will form even deeper ties with bad actors.



The Iran nuclear deal makes the world safer. Gives Iran more civilized options to pursue in keeping its citizens happy. And slows down the nuclearization of Iran.

the bipartisan objective wasn't to "slow down" the nuclearization of Iran.
It was to end it.

 

[Ahlevah]

The only thing I am interested in, as to this deal, is how to make it binding on the part of the United States. If that issue is not addressed, then we'll simply go back on our word the next time government control changes hands because the R's cannot accept any policy created by a D, even if it were a policy they'd otherwise support. And all that will do is yet further erode the credibility of our word. I'd rather we have no deal and let Iran develop nuclear weapons, than sign a deal that's going to be undone in 3 years.

Democracy’s a bitch, huh?

We have a mechanism for what you describe. It’s called the U.S. Constitution, and when it come to things that are really important, like international treaties, we have this detail called the Advice and Consent Clause. If a president seeks to bypass the Senate and obligate the United States to terms of an agreement without Senate consent, then he should be prepared to have his side deal tossed into a trash can when he leaves office. Any nation entering into an agreement of that nature with the United States is aware of that potential pitfall. And no nation will enter into a treaty or agreement that doesn’t have a bilateral mechanism for withdrawal from it.

 

[Amelia]

the bipartisan objective wasn't to "slow down" the nuclearization of Iran.
It was to end it.

Ending it is not a possibility.



The realistic choices we have are:

(a) slow Iran's nuclearization down and give Iran time to build healthy nation relationships that they would value and not want to risk destroying when the treaty comes to the end of its natural life;

or

(b) force Iran deeper into rogue state status with back channel acquisitions of nuclear materials that we have no say over.


That's it.


I choose (a).