This is an astonishingly good Iran deal

[bemildred]

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 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.

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

[still_one]

1. It really is. Rachel last night explained the framework in detail. These blowhards trying to

undermine this only puts emphasis that they are putting something else before country

Rachel expressed it very well, if the Obama administration said they had the cure for cancer, the republicans would be against it.

I think that says it all.

A fact some seem to forget, this is just the United States, this is an international agreement, and if it goes through, even if the rethugs don't like it, President Obama can still do the agreement. Of course after his term is up, if a rethug gets into the WH, that can be undone, however, if the agreement holds, and is good, it would be us against the world, and short of a preemptive strike, the sanctions would be meaningless

[Jefferson23]

2. Next up..Israel's nukes. Open up, Netanyahu. n/t

[sabbat hunter]

3. I think the biggest part

that MUST be in the final agreement, are strong and frequent inspections. That will insure that Iran stays within the parameters of the agreement.

[bemildred]

4. That is what they say.

Something along the lines of 2/3 cutback in enrichment, degrade all they have, and intrusive inspections. What they got in exchange, I think, was the lifting of most sanctions once the system is in place, i.e like later this year.

The 2/3 cutback limits capacity, thus extends the time to make a bomb.
The degradation of stuff they have has the same effect.
And the intrusive inspections make it hard to cheat. They'd have to start over to some extent.

I am minded of Rayguns strategic weapons deal with the USSR.

But I am SURE we will find out all about it in the coming days, and we have a few months to comment.

[guillaumeb]

5. as long as the inspections cover every country in the Middle East

I agree with you. I can only think of one Middle East country that might disagree.

[sabbat hunter]

6. Why?

Only Iran is a part of these negotiations. No other ME countries are. Why drag other countries in to the mix. Everyone knows that Israel has the bomb, and they are not a signatory to the NPT so they are under no obligation to have inspectors.

[guillaumeb]

7. should standards not be applicable to everyone?

or are some countries, like the US and Israel, above standards and obligations?

[bemildred]

8. I am willing to give Israel a break on having a bomb, for a while yet.

They do have a lot of enemies, some pretty nasty. But they would do well to start moving in that direction, and also to not threaten their neighbors. Threats, despite their popularity, do not enhance your security, rather the opposite. Teddy Rooseveldt had that right: "speak softly and carry a big stick." Bibi has been disastrous for Israel's security, like the last two or three before him. These religious nationalist types don't have the foggiest idea what they are doing, they rely on slogans and religious dogma for guidance.

[guillaumeb]

9. your response applies to the US as well

Especially when you wrote:
"Bibi has been disastrous for Israel's security, like the last two or three before him. These religious nationalist types don't have the foggiest idea what they are doing, they rely on slogans and religious dogma for guidance."

Substitute nearly any Republican name for Bibi and the statement works quite well.

In my view, the problem with ANY country possessing nuclear weapons is that the temptation to use the weapons may arise. It has happened twice so far, with no guarantee that it cannot happen again.

[bemildred]

10. It does indeed. nt

[sabbat hunter]

11. Once again

Israel is not a signatory to the NPT (Which Iran is), as a result they are under no obligation to open up their facilities to international inspectors. The US already has the bomb (as does Pakistan, India, the UK, France, Russia). None of them are obligated to have inspectors in their nuclear facilities.

The goal here is to prevent another country (Iran) from getting the bomb.

[guillaumeb]

12. once again

you avoided my question. Why?

[sabbat hunter]

14. I did not

evade anything. I pointed out that there are NUMEROUS countries that do not have nuclear inspectors and have nuclear weapons. Why are you singling Israel out for inspections, just because Iran is getting them. Additionally, since Israel is not a signer to the NPT they are under no obligations to let inspectors in (As Iran is under the NPT). Finally, Israel, unlike Iran, has not threatened to wipe off the face of the earth other countries.

[guillaumeb]

15. "has not threatened"

is the key phrase here. Israel does not threaten, it does.

It refuses in fact and word to allow a Palestinian state. It makes no apology for this violation of International Law, relying on US protection.

Israel makes war on civilians, using collective punishment and other brutality to break the will of the Palestinians.

Israel does not threaten to steal Palestinian land, it simply steals the land. It does this, again in violation of International Law, to create "facts on the ground" with the aim of preventing a viable Palestinian state.

Israel violates all of its' treaty obligations. If it were a signatory to the NPT it would make no difference because Israel recognizes no law but the law of military conquest.

[bemildred]

13. MIT, a whiteboard and nuclear physics: how the Iran deal was struck

---

In order to take personal control, Mr Obama – a Harvard law graduate – trained himself in nuclear science, according to his aides.

One official claimed that by the end, in meetings in the White House situation room, he understood the technical issues as well as “almost anybody in the room” except for his energy secretary, Ernest Moniz.

He studied the way the centrifuges installed in Natanz, the Iranians’ giant uranium processing facility, operated. He read, according to one account in the New York Times, briefings on three alternative ways of converting Iran’s nuclear plant at Arak so that it could not be used to create weapons-grade material.

He personally examined and approved proposals for the heavily intrusive inspections programme to be carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11516061/MIT-a-whiteboard-and-nuclear-physics-how-the-Iran-deal-was-struck.html