A deal with Iran. This seems like good news.
World powers have reached a deal with Iran on limiting Iranian nuclear activity in return for the lifting of international economic sanctions.
US President Barack Obama said that with the deal, “every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off” for Iran.
His Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani, said it opened a “new chapter” in Iran’s relations with the world.
Negotiations between Iran and six world powers – the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany – began in 2006.
The Republican Congress is not keen, and neither is Netanyahu.
Mr Obama, who is trying to persuade a sceptical US Congress of the benefits, said it would oblige Iran to:
- remove two-thirds of installed centrifuges and store them under international supervision
- get rid of 98% of its enriched uranium
- accept that sanctions would be rapidly restored if the deal
waswere violated- permanently give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access “where necessary when necessary”
What is it with UKnians and the subjunctive?? It’s “would be if—>were” – the subjunctive of contrary to fact. We need a US-UK Subjunctive Treaty.
Skeptics say Iran will just go ahead anyway. The Beeb’s Kevin Connolly says there’s danger that the Saudis will feel they need to get nukes themselves, because Shia v Sunni blah blah blah let’s destroy 7 billion people because god has red hair no god has brown hair yadda yadda.
Not as sanguine as you are, Ophelia. Glad for the nuclear component but there are very serious trade-offs. Just a few, in order of importance:
1. Ensconces the the regime of the ayatollahs (to hang gays, torture journalists, stone women, etc.)
2. See number 1.
3. See number 2.
4. Frees up an estimated $200 billion so that the Revolutionary Guards can support Assad, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen.
5. Greenlights Russia to sell arms to Iran which then go to the above.
6. Encourages Saudi Arabia to buy nuclear arms from Pakistan.
@Helene –
#1-3 – Were they about to have a change of government any day now, and this agreement somehow stabilized them?
Foreign pressure and sanctions did result in some local stress and unrest, and it’s harder to keep in charge the more local unrest there is. But it wasn’t such a major effect on who rules. And, mostly the pressure was not about the many issues with the running of the country in general (including the very real problems with it that you mention) but rather specifically about nuclear weapons, which this agreement theoretically and ideally solved.
It’s… problematic to say that pressure to gain a specific goal should continue when the goal was achieved because there are other goals to be had.
#4 – Iran is poor. For years while becoming more and more poor it didn’t significantly cut (at least in relative terms to the overall economy) money for those purposes. So it’s not at all clear that any saved money would be directed to those purposes other than others that were cut over the recent year. It’s quite plausible that the money would go to where it was cut most, and possibly improve the lives of Iranian citizens.
#5 – So for the purpose of reducing weapon proliferation in the region it’s much better to keep encouraging Iran to develop nuclear weapons (which was the state so far since obviously what was done to discourage it wasn’t working as well) rather than to give Iran a few more easier avenues to get conventional weapons (which it’s getting anyway)? I’m not sure that’s a significant trade-off.
#6 – Can you please explain that? I’m assuming you’re not saying that so far Saudi Arabia simply waited until it could buy nuclear weapons from Iran, but I don’t get any other way of this agreement to encourage Saudi Arabia to buy their nukes elsewhere.
Yaron@2:
I assume that the concern here is that Saudi Arabia would endeavor to obtain nuclear arms as a response to Iran developing nuclear power and possibly working towards its own weapons. Iran is Shia, and Saudi Arabia is Wahabi Sunni, so they pretty much distrust and dislike each other. If the Saudis think that Iran is on a route to develop nukes, then they will want their own as a deterrent, and there will be nuclear proliferation.
@MrFancyPants – But how is that worse than the case so far until the agreement, when Iran was already working on developing nuclear power, except quite possibly at a higher rate than they will be able to after it?
Saudi Arabia worries are, and were, not about civilian-usage nuclear power plants but about nuclear weapons. Why would Iran developing nuclear weapons become a bigger worry due to something that makes it harder for Iran to get nuclear weapons?
And on a related note I’d sort of assume that of course Saudi Arabia would want nuclear capabilities anyway, so it’s more of a worry just about it happening a little bit sooner than a worry about making it happen at all. Why would any country, with some big disagreements with other countries that do have nuclear weapons, not want to have their own? Saudi Arabia isn’t currently in open conflict with, say, the US or Israel, but it’s not like they’re going to become good friends in the near future.
Just guessing here, Yaron but my understanding is that the agreement could be seen as giving a huge influx of cash (via trade) to Iran, while not actually disrupting their march towards developing nuclear weapons according to the schedule that they’ve chosen. There is a theory that the Iranians are working on a long-term plan and don’t actually want to have weapons right now, but rather are planning for the future (a decade or more). The current agreement, as I understand it, is that the restrictions only limit weapon developments in that time frame. So by agreeing in this way, it could be said that the Iranians get all that they want, without actually giving up anything in their long term goals. The result is the perception of Iran as now becoming enriched and more dangerous, and having bamboozled the USA and partners. The Saudis are probably in favor of never-ending sanctions. So with them ending, I could see the Saudis being interested in obtaining nuclear capabilities sooner rather than later.
@2,
Iran was – and still is, by far – the biggest destabilizer in the Middle East. Yes, even more than ISIS. Hezbollah is an Iranian puppet and Assad is now entirely dependent on Iran. Result? Half of Syria is either dead or displaced. Thanks to Iran’s support of the Houthi rebels, Yemen is now also a killing field. Iran’s emboldenment of the Shia regime in Baghdad has led the Sunni tribes to either support or, at the very least, tolerate ISIS. And just when Egypt had grown fed up with Hamas in Gaza, Iran stepped in to support them. Not to mention the serious unrest it has been fomenting among the Shiites in the Gulf states. Hampered by sanctions, Iran had to temper its military and financial support of the above. Yes, it’s possible that they will reciprocate for the new agreement by moderating their “Death to America” rhetoric and stop exporting unrest across the Middle East, but that’s a very risky bet. And if there was any hope of dislodging the Ayatollahs before all this, there is none now.
In sum, to be honest, I never thought Iran having the bomb was that much of a threat. It’s the above that worries me a lot more.
It always was, and still is, about preventing Iran from being energy self-sufficient and independent. Iran wants electricity from nuclear power instead of depending on burning fossil fuels. And because of US and UK meddling in the past (i.e. the Shah, etc.), Iran doesn’t have refineries can’t refine its own oil. It has to sell unprofitable raw crude then buy and re-import refined oil.
Producing its own electricity means less reliance on oil and fewer oil exports. In other words, Iran is acting in its own interests, which of course the US and others simply can’t allow.
left0ver1under:
Pragmatically, Iran wouldn’t get concessions for not building refineries.
@7,
Producing its own electricity means less reliance on oil and fewer oil exports. Huh!?
Oh, never mind.
And never mind the missiles and nuclear reactors… Iran can’t build refineries. Yup, that’s it for sure.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-11/06/c_133770947.htm
Iran doesn’t have refineries can’t refine its own oil.
Yup.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=refineries+in+iran&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDUQsARqFQoTCMHG2f-m3MYCFYuZgAodXbMHHQ&biw=1440&bih=801
MrFancyPants@5 – Thanks. That makes a sort of sense.
Though it does boil down to the “The Saudis are probably in favor of never-ending sanctions” point, and never-ending sanctions wasn’t ever the idea behind making the sanctions.
Plus, the idea of keeping sanctions up because otherwise Saudi Arabia may try to get nuclear weapons seem like a reason to consider sanctions on Saudi Arabia rather than on Iran (both may want to get nuclear weapons, one has agreements in place to slow that down and is agreeing to international supervision and access while one doesn’t). It seems a bit silly to sanction Iran in order to prevent SA from doing what the sanctions are supposed to prevent.
Helene@6 – I absolutely agree that Iran is doing a lot of harm in the Middle East. But I’m not seeing that “Hampered by sanctions, Iran had to temper its military and financial support of the above”. So the point I’m trying to make isn’t “it’s possible that they will … stop exporting unrest across the Middle East”. It’s that they kept right on doing it with the sanctions so there’s no reason to assume they’ll do it more without them. It was always such a high priority that the sanctions didn’t significantly affect it.
Plus, for a very long time now the sanctions were mostly not about these many other things Iran is doing, they were about nuclear weapons. So keeping them for other reasons now that they supposedly achieved their purpose is very problematic.