Outline of Iran Nuclear Deal Sounds Different From Each Side

[bananas]

Source: New York Times

<snip>

No sooner were the negotiations over on Thursday, however, than Mr. Zarif posted to Twitter a message that dismissed the five-page set of American parameters as “spin.”

In an appearance on Iranian state television Saturday, Mr. Zarif kept up that refrain, saying that Iran had formally complained to Secretary of State John Kerry that the measures listed in the American statement were “in contradiction” to what had actually been accepted in Lausanne.

<snip>

The starkest differences between the American and Iranians accounts concern the pace at which punishing economic sanctions against Iran are to be removed. The Iranian text says that when the agreement is implemented, the sanctions will “immediately” be canceled.

American officials have described sanctions relief as more of a step-by-step process tied to Iranian efforts to carry out the accord.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/world/middleeast/outline-of-iran-nuclear-deal-sounds-different-from-each-side.html?_r=0

[bananas]

1. Similar to Bush's "Nukes-for-Mangoes" deal with India

Where pro-deal people in the US had been misled into thinking all of India's reactors would be under IAEA monitoring,
when actually only half of them were:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x107257

That person finally realized:

8. I think you have convinced me. They weren't/aren't willing to give up their weapons program.

[7962]

2. Many of us said this is exactly what would happen

a "deal" would be reached, and soon after, Iran would deny half of what was agreed to. Or, like last time, wait a little and then refuse to go along. All while the clock keeps ticking towards their bomb

[bananas]

4. Or is the US spinning it, as they did with the India deal?

Nukes-for-Mangoes was a disaster and shouldn't have happened.

[still_one]

7. That was under bush, and Kerry and Obama are NOT bush

[still_one]

6. NY Times has been wrong before, and they will be wrong this time. There are enough people who would

like this deal to fail, and start another war with Iran.

Will sorry to disappoint, but at least from the BBC and other accounts that is not what is going to happen

Maybe we can have Judy Miller rewrite history for us. I know Murdock still has his eyes on buying the NY Times, and his Wall Street Journal just gave a forum for Ms. Miller to justify her WMD lies

[JDPriestly]

9. People did not listen to the original announcemnet. No final deal was reached.

They reached a sort of an outline of the issues and goals of the parties and agreed on the "parameters," which may, pf course, be close to a final agreement IF THERE IS ONE.

This us important.

“This is just a work in progress, and those differences in fact sheets indicate the challenges ahead,” said Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/world/middleeast/outline-of-iran-nuclear-deal-sounds-different-from-each-side.html?_r=1nergy Agency.

DUers assumed the agreement was final and as announced by our government. But the announcement was probably simply made to show the naysayers that progress has been made.

I seriously doubt that our government has put our bombers in storage yet. We have not signed anything that would take any of our options off the table much as we want peace and no nukes in Iran.

Meanwhile, the situation in the Middle East goes from bad to worse, and more than anything, Iran needs to neutralize the US willingness to support the Saudis and the Sunnis. Remember, the Shiites are the minority sect among Muslims.

[7962]

11. Exactly. This is a "framework" for a deal. Lets see what happens in June

I pointed this out earlier when everyone was whooping it up.

[still_one]

5. Two days before the breakthrough was announced the NY Times reported that the deal was on the rocks

Now they are reporting contradictions.

Excuse me if I don't view the NY Times with the same credibility as it used to be.

[karynnj]

8. could be jockeying for position as the details are written

Many on the NY TIMES have always been down on a deal with Iran, but the comment about disagreements was widely reported. Some differences seem to be how you describe a complex solution. An example if that is the US speaking of the underground facility not continuing to refine uranium and Zarif saying no facilities were closed. Both are true it will be repurposed.

At this point both need to win their hardliners. They also need to avoid absolute lies while doing this. Consider the hit to Netanyahu ' s credulity when he tried to disown all the comments made to win the far right. Here, all the countries need to create a completely detailed plan by June.

[samsingh]

10. i don't understand whether its a good deal or not - sounds good

[Little Tich]

12. Both sides have to sell the deal as a good deal.

Why should the Iranian put its people through crippling sanctions if it only was for a bad deal?

[madville]

13. Doubtful Iran will follow through

The idea they will allow full-access inspections alone is laughable