Global Government and Politics

2015 Nuclear Deal with Iran

Leave a comment

Jun 16, 2022:

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3523774-israel-and-iran-five-minutes-to-armageddon

Jun 8, 2022:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-removes-two-iaea-surveillance-cameras-nuclear-facility-state-tv-2022-06-08

May 8, 2018:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/trump-to-announce-he-will-withdraw-us-from-iran-nuclear-deal.html

Oct 10, 2017:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trump-may-scrap-iran-nuclear-agreement-heres-need-know

Jul 17, 2017:

State Department Certifies Iran's Compliance With Nuclear Deal | NPR

Jan 16, 2016:

The IAEA confirmed that Iran has complied with the requirements specified in the Iran Nuclear Deal.

President Obama issued an executive order entitled "Executive Order -- Revocation of Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622, and 13645 with Respect to Iran, Amendment of Executive Order 13628 with Respect to Iran, and Provision of Implementation Authorities for Aspects of Certain Statutory Sanctions" lifting some of the U.S. economic sanctions on Iran.

In addition, the U.S. and Iran performed a prisoner swap. Five Americans, including The Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian were released by Iran. In exchange, the U.S. released seven Iranians and removed 14 others from international wanted lists.

Iran Complies With Nuclear Deal; Sanctions Are Lifted | The New York Times

Sanctions lifted after Iran found in compliance on nuclear deal | CNN

Jan 14, 2016:

In compliance with the Iran Nuclear Deal, Iran said it has removed the core of its Arak nuclear reactor. Now, IAEA inspectors will inspect to verify that the core has in fact been removed.

In addition, the number of centrifuges installed at the Fordow and Natanz enrichment sites have been significantly reduced over the past few months.

If the IAEA reports that Iran has in fact removed the core from the Arak reactor, then international sanctions against Iran will be lifted ("Implementation Day").

Iran says it has removed core from Arak reactor in key nuclear deal step | Reuters

Jan 13, 2016:

By a vote of 191-106, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.3662 - Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act. Basically, H.R.3662 would bar certain individuals and financial institutions from sanctions relief until President Obama certifies to Congress that they were not involved in Iran’s ballistic missiles program or in terrorist activities.

President Obama issued a statement saying he would veto the legislation (if passed by the U.S. Senate) because it goes beyond the terms of the Iran Nuclear Deal, and because it would undermine America’s credibility as a leader of international diplomacy.

House approves greater oversight of Iran nuclear deal | PBS

Iran Reports Removing Core From Reactor | The New York Times

Oct 18, 2015:

Today, "Adoption Day" for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), President Obama issued a Statement by the President on the Adoption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, stating he has instructed all relevant departments and agencies of the U.S. government to begin preparations for the implementation of the JCPOA.

It's 'Adoption Day' -- launch time for the Iran nuclear deal | CNN

Oct 14, 2015:

Yesterday, by a vote of 161-56 (13 abstaining) the Iranian Parliament approved the Iran nuclear deal.

Today, the Iran Guardian Council approved the deal.

On October 18, "Adoption Day", Iran will start implementing the deal under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Iran parliament approves nuclear deal bill in victory for Rouhani | Reuters

Iranian lawmakers approve nuclear deal | CNN

Nuclear deal wins final Iran approval | AlJazeera

Iranian Guardian Council Gives Final Approval To Nuclear Deal | NPR

Oct 1, 2015:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave an impassioned speech about the Iran nuclear deal at the United Nations in New York City. His tone was harsh and aggressive as he condemned the member nations and the international community for allowing the deal to become reality.

Netanyahu rails against UN for backing Iran deal | The Hill

Netanyahu Rebukes U.N. Over Iran Accord | The Wall Street Journal

Sep 20, 2015:

U.N. nuclear chief Yukiya Amano confirmed that samples taken at the Parchin nuclear facility in Iran were collected by Iranians and not by IAEA personnel. Amano stated that nonetheless, the sampling was done in accord with IAEA standards.

According to Deputy IAEA Director General Tero Varjoranta, it's not uncommon for the IAEA to have a country do its own sampling, and that the sampling is only one part of a comprehensive protocol to ensure a country is not cheating.

According to former IAEA Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen, Iran is a particularly sensitive case, and he knows of no other instance where a suspect country like Iran has been allowed to provide its own samplers.

Amano's visit, which included a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Mohammad Zarif, and Ali Salehi who is head of Iran's nuclear agency, is part of an assessment due in December of this year which will help determine whether sanctions will be lifted on Iran, all part of the Iran nuclear deal.

Source:

Jahn, George (Associated Press). (September 21, 2015). "UN Agency: Iran's Role in Nuclear Probe Meets Standards". ABC News. Retrieved 2015-09-21.

Arouzi, Ali. (September 21, 2015). "UN Nuclear Chief Meets with Iran's Rouhani, Zarif as Deal Deadline Looms". NBC News. Retrieved 2015-09-21.

Sep 11, 2015:

By a vote of 162-269, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a resolution to approve the Iran nuclear deal. Because the U.S. Senate yesterday stopped a vote on the Iran nuclear deal, today's House vote is in effect just for the record and a statement of House policy.

House rejects Obama's Iran deal | The Hill

Sep 10, 2015:

By a vote of 58-42, the U.S. Senate defeated a procedural motion to proceed with a final vote (60 votes are needed) on a Republican resolution which disapproves of the Iran nuclear deal.

Senate Democrats protect Obama on Iran vote | CNN

Dems filibuster Iran vote | The Hill

By a vote of 245-186, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution claiming that President Obama has not provided Congress with the details of "side deals" of the Iran nuclear deal.

House votes to accuse Obama of withholding Iran documents | The Hill

Sep 8, 2015:

During a speech at the American Enterprise Institute former Vice President Dick Cheney called the Iran nuclear deal "madness" and that "a far better deal is still possible".

Dick Cheney: Iran Deal Is 'Madness' | The Huffington Post

Dick Cheney on Iran deal: 'It is madness' | CNN

Sep 2, 2015:

Maryland Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski announced she would support the Iran nuclear deal, becoming the 34th member of the U.S. Senate to do so. With her announcement there is now enough support in the Senate to ensure that any attempt by Congress to scuttle the deal would not garner enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto.

Obama's Iran Deal Will Survive As 34th Senator Announces Support | The Huffington Post

Aug 22, 2015:

Iran unveiled a new missile named Fateh 313 with a range of 310 miles.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said "We will buy, sell and develop any weapons we need and we will not ask for permission or abide by any resolution for that.", a statement which seems to conflict with the terms of the Iran nuclear deal regarding ballistic missiles and conventional arms.

Iran unveils new missile, says seeks peace through strength | Reuters

Aug 21, 2015:

Jerrold Nadler, a congressman from the state of New York, stated he supports the Iran nuclear deal. Nadler posted an essay online entitled entitled "Congressman Jerrold Nadler Statement on the P5+1 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" in which he discusses his reasoning.

Jerrold Nadler, New York Congressman, Endorses Iran Nuclear Deal | The New York Times

Aug 20, 2015:

IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano made a statement about the Associated Press article published yesterday, saying the article misrepresents the way in which the IAEA will conduct it's verification work.

IAEA says report Iran to inspect own military site is 'misrepresentation' | Reuters

Aug 19, 2015:

According to an exclusive article by the Associated Press, the Iran nuclear deal includes a "side deal" agreed to by Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding inspections related to past activity at the Parchin site. According to the "side deal", Iran inspectors will be the ones inspecting the Parchin site instead of IAEA inspectors, and some parts of the Parchin facility will be considered off-limits to inspection for Iranian military confidentiality reasons.

AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site | Associated Press

Aug 13, 2015:

Fareed Zakaria published a letter in The Washington Post in response to Senator Chuck Schumer's recent press release opposing the Iran nuclear deal.

Sen. Schumer’s illogical case against the Iran deal | The Washington Post

Aug 11, 2015:

Thirty-six retired U.S. generals released an open letter entitled "The Iran Deal Benefits U.S. National Security" supporting the Iran nuclear deal.

Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal | The Washington Post

John Kerry discussed the Iran nuclear deal with Sir Harold Evans, Thomson Reuters editor-at-large, at a Reuters Newsmaker event. Watch the interview and/or read a transcript here.

Dollar could suffer if U.S. walks away from Iran deal: John Kerry | Reuters

Aug 7, 2015:

Yesterday, Charles (Chuck) Schumer, a Democratic senator from the state of New York, issued a press release entitled "My Position on the Iran Deal" in which, after careful analysis he opposes the Iran nuclear deal.

Chuck's concerns for the first 10 years of the deal can be summarized as follows:

  • The 24 day inspection lead time (for undisclosed sites) "...would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity", and "the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site."
  • The requirement of a majority of the 8-member Joint Commission needed to allow a site inspection, and how some of the members might be less-inclined to vote for a site inspection once they have resumed economic relations with Iran (with sanctions lifted)
  • Because the "snapback" provisions can be applied unilaterally by each country in the deal, it's possible that some countries might invoke "snapback" and others not

Chuck's concerns for subsequent years of the deal can be summarized as follows:

  • "After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program."
  • "...the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community."
  • "Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today."
  • "...the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a nuclear power would have less moral and economic force."
  • The negative consequences of the lifting of sanctions (allows Iran to use some of the funds to support military and terrorist actions in the Middle East, and could also be used to acquire ICBM missiles when the 8-year embargo period has expired)
  • "Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today."

In summary, Chuck said:

  • "To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great."
  • "...I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be."

Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Chuck Schumer Rattles Democratic Firewall | The New York Times

Aug 5, 2015:

President Obama gave a one-hour speech on the Iran nuclear deal at American University in Washington, D.C.

Watch the speech on C-Span here.

Jul 29, 2015:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Martin Dempsey, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Iran nuclear deal.

Pentagon brass gets GOP grilling on Iran | The Hill

Watch the entire 3-hour and 16-minute proceedings on C-Span here.

Jul 28, 2015:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the House Foreign Relations Committee about the Iran nuclear deal.

House panel grills administration officials about Iran deal | The Washington Post

Dems clash with Kerry over Iran deal | The Hill

Kerry warns Congress scrapping Iran deal would mean path to nuclear weapon | Reuters

Here are a few quotes from Kerry's testimony:

Iran has agreed to refrain from producing or acquiring highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium for nuclear weapons forever.

And when it comes to verification and monitoring, there is absolutely no sunset in this agreement – not in 10 years, not in 15 years, not in 20 years, not in 25 years. No sunset ever.

Now to be clear, if Congress rejects what was agreed to in Vienna, you will not only be rejecting every one of the restrictions that we put in place – and by the way, nobody’s counting the two years that Iran has already complied with the interim agreement, and by the way complied completely and totally, so that we’ve already rolled their program back. We’ve reduced their 20 percent enriched uranium to zero. That’s already been accomplished. But if this is rejected, we go back to their ability to move down that road. You’ll not only be giving Iran a free pass to double the pace of its uranium enrichment, to build a heavy water reactor, to install new and more efficient centrifuges, but they will do it all without the unprecedented inspection and transparency measures that we have secured. Everything that we have tried to prevent will now happen.

Source:

Kerry, John. (July 28, 2015). "Iran Nuclear Agreement: The Administration's Case". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2015-07-29.

Watch the entire 3-hour and 54-minute proceedings on C-Span here.

According to a recent CNN poll, the majority of Americans want the U.S. Congress to vote against the Iran nuclear deal (52 percent vs. 44 percent).

Poll: Over Half of Americans Are Not Buying the Iran Deal | Time

Jul 23, 2015:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee answering questions and explaining the Iran nuclear deal. John Kerry continued to make the point that there is no viable alternative to this deal.

Watch the entire 4-hour and 18-minute proceedings on C-Span here.

Kerry to senators: No 'fantasy' alternative to Iran deal | CNN

Senate opponents of Iran deal draw hard lines against White House | The Washington Post

Republicans Have Minds Made Up as Debate Begins on Iran Nuclear Deal | The New York Times

Benjamin Weinthal, a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (a non-profit policy institute focusing on foreign policy and national security) wrote an article entitled "Iran nuke deal will fund terrorists' war vs. America" published on the Fox News website expressing concern that the inflow of funds with lifted sanctions might be used to bolster Iran's war against the United States, Europe, and Israel. He also suggests that some of the money might filter down to Hezbollah and Hamas.

Jul 20, 2015:

The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously in support of the Iran nuclear deal, making it international law.

U.N. Vote on Iran Nuclear Deal Irks Congress | The New York Times

Iran nuke deal gets unanimous U.N. backing | CBS News

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was a guest on NPR's Morning Edition with host Steve Inskeep. Read a summary of the interview and/or listen to the program here.

Jul 18, 2015:

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that the Iran nuclear deal will not change the relationship between Iran and the United States. He also reiterated the face that Iran does not negotiate with the United States, but that the nuclear deal is an exception because it helps serves the interests of Iran.

Nuclear deal will not change Iran's relations with U.S.: supreme leader | Reuters

Jul 15, 2015:

President Obama held a press conference (which ran over an hour) where he discussed and defended the Iran nuclear deal and answered questions from the press.

Here are some of Obama's key points from the press conference:

With this deal, we cut off every single one of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear program -- a nuclear weapons program, and Iran’s nuclear program will be under severe limits for many years. Without a deal, those pathways remain open; there would be no limits on Iran’s nuclear program, and Iran could move closer to a nuclear bomb.

With this deal, we gain unprecedented, around-the-clock monitoring of Iran’s key nuclear facilities and the most comprehensive and intrusive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated. Without a deal, those inspections go away, and we lose the ability to closely monitor Iran’s program and detect any covert nuclear weapons program.

With this deal, if Iran violates its commitments, there will be real consequences. Nuclear-related sanctions that have helped to cripple the Iranian economy will snap back into place. Without a deal, the international sanctions regime will unravel, with little ability to re-impose them.

With this deal, we have the possibility of peacefully resolving a major threat to regional and international security. Without a deal, we risk even more war in the Middle East, and other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world.

But the bottom line is this: This nuclear deal meets the national security interests of the United States and our allies. It prevents the most serious threat -- Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would only make the other problems that Iran may cause even worse. That’s why this deal makes our country, and the world, safer and more secure. It’s why the alternative -- no limits on Iran’s nuclear program, no inspections, an Iran that’s closer to a nuclear weapon, the risk of a regional nuclear arms race and a greater risk of war -- all that would endanger our security.

So when this deal gets implemented, we know that we will have dismantled the immediate concerns around Iran’s nuclear program. We will have brought their stockpiles down to 98 percent. We will have significantly reduced the number of centrifuges that they operate. We will have installed an unprecedented inspections regime, and that will remain in place not just for 10 years but, for example, on the stockpiles, will continue to 15 years.

Iran will have pledged to the international community that it will not develop a nuclear weapon and now will be subject to an Additional Protocol, a more vigorous inspection and monitoring regime that lasts in perpetuity. We will have disabled a facility like Arak, the Arak facility, from allowing Iran to develop plutonium that could be used for a bomb. We will have greatly reduced the stockpile of uranium that’s enriched. And we will have put in place inspections along the entire supply chain so that if uranium was diverted into a covert program we would catch it.

So I can say with confidence but, more importantly, nuclear experts can say with confidence that Iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb. We will have met our number-one priority.

And for all the objections of Prime Minister Netanyahu, or, for that matter, some of the Republican leadership that’s already spoken, none of them have presented to me, or the American people, a better alternative.

I'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about "this is a bad deal" -- "this is a historically bad deal," "this will threaten Israel and threaten the world and threaten the United States." I mean, there’s been a lot of that.

What I haven’t heard is, what is your preferred alternative? If 99 percent of the world community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say, this will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, and you are arguing either that it does not, or that even if it does it’s temporary, or that because they’re going to get a windfall of their accounts being unfrozen that they’ll cause more problems, then you should have some alternative to present. And I haven’t heard that. And the reason is because there really are only two alternatives here: Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation, or it’s resolved through force, through war. Those are the options.

So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it; number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues, is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative.

So let’s take the issue of 24 days. This has been I think swirling today, the notion that this is insufficient in terms of inspections. Now, keep in mind, first of all, that we’ll have 24/7 inspections of declared nuclear facilities -- Fordow, Natanz, Arak, their uranium mines; facilities that are known to produce centrifuges, parts. That entire infrastructure that we know about we will have sophisticated, 24/7 monitoring of those facilities.

So then the issue is, what if they try to develop a covert program? Now, one of the advantages of having inspections across the entire production chain is that it makes it very difficult to set up a covert program. There are only so many uranium mines in Iran. And if, in fact, we’re counting the amount of uranium that’s being mined and suddenly some is missing on the back end, they got some explaining to do.

But let’s say that Iran is so determined that it now wants to operate covertly. The IAEA, the international organization charged with implementing the non-proliferation treaty and monitoring nuclear activities in countries around the world -- the IAEA will have the ability to say, that undeclared site we’re concerned about, we see something suspicious. And they will be able to say to Iran, we want to go inspect that.

As for the fact that it may take 24 days to finally get access to the site, the nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such, this is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere.

Is it possible that Iran decides to try to cheat despite having this entire inspection verification mechanism? It’s possible. But if it does, first of all, we’ve built in a one-year breakout time, which gives us a year to respond forcefully. And we’ve built in a snap-back provision so we don't have to go through lengthy negotiations at the U.N. to put the sanctions right back in place.

Regarding the existing Iran embargo on the import and export of ballistic missiles and conventional arms, Obama said:

  • there are other mechanisms in place under international law, including U.N. resolutions that allow the United States to intercept and prevent arms shipments by Iran
  • the sanctions which will be lifted in the Iran nuclear deal include the embargo (the embargo was part of the sanctions when they were initially put in place), so when the sanctions are lifted the embargo will be lifted as well
  • because Iran has breached trust in the past, Obama pressed negotiators to include an extension of the embargo

When asked by a reporter if the inflow of money into Iran as a result of lifting sanctions in the Iran nuclear deal will mean just more money for Iran's terrorist activities (and not be spent to improve the economic conditions in Iran), the President responded:

Do we think that with the sanctions coming down, that Iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies? I think that is a likelihood that they’ve got some additional resources. Do I think it’s a game-changer for them? No.

They are currently supporting Hezbollah, and there is a ceiling -- a pace at which they could support Hezbollah even more, particularly in the chaos that's taking place in Syria. So can they potentially try to get more assistance there? Yes. Should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to Hezbollah? Yes. Is the incremental additional money that they’ve got to try to destabilize the region or send to their proxies, is that more important than preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? No. So I think -- again, this is a matter of us making a determination of what is our priority.

Obama said that if the Iran nuclear deal was not made, current sanctions would not have the same "vigor and effectiveness" because our allies in the deal would lift their sanctions, leaving only sanctions from the United States still in place. The reasons this would happen are because:

  • the U.S. walked away from a deal which our allies endorsed
  • our allies initially chose to agree to sanctions along with the U.S. because the U.S. was sincerely trying to broker a peaceful deal with Iran on their nuclear program
  • our allies have been hurt economically from the sanctions (for example, the inability to buy oil from Iran)

Regarding the argument that at the 10-year mark (when some of the deal provisions expire) Iran could resume it's ambitions, in addition to mentioning the fact that Iran is a part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama said:

So even if everything the critics were saying was true -- that at the end of 10 years, or 12 years, or 15 years, Iran now is in a position to decide it wants a nuclear weapon, that they’re at a breakout point -- they won’t be at a breakout point that is more dangerous than the breakout point they’re in right now. They won’t be at a breakout point that is shorter than the one that exists today. And so why wouldn’t we at least make sure that for the next 10, 15, years they are not getting a nuclear weapon and we can verify it; and afterwards, if they decide if they’ve changed their mind, we are then much more knowledgeable about what their capabilities are, much more knowledgeable about what their program is, and still in a position to take whatever actions we would take today?

When asked by a reporter "So none of this is holding out hope that they’ll change their behavior?", Obama responded:

No...I'm not banking on that to say that this deal is the right thing to do.

Obama ended the press conference with the following:

Again, it is incumbent on the critics of this deal to explain how an American President is in a worse position 12, 13, 14, 15 years from now if, in fact, at that point Iran says we’re going to pull out of the NPT, kick out inspectors and go for a nuclear bomb. If that happens, that President will be in a better position than what happened if Iran, as a consequence of Congress rejecting this deal, decides that’s it, we’re done negotiating, we’re going after a bomb right now. The choices would be tougher today than they would be for that President 15 years from now. And I have not yet heard logic that refutes that.

Read a transcript of the press conference here.

Watch the entire press conference video here.

Jul 14, 2015:

After 20 months of meetings and negotiations, The United States, along with the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Germany (the P5+1), and the European Union reached a nuclear arms deal with Iran. The U.S. Congress has 60 days to review the deal with the option of putting together legislation to block the deal, which President Obama already said he would veto. That means it would take a two-thirds vote in Congress to override a presidential veto.

Watch President Obama announce the deal here.

Get an overview of the deal and learn more about it here.

Read and/or download the details of the deal in a 112-page document here.

A 109-page document entitled Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) describes the details of the deal which in general is for 10 years. Here's a summary:

  • International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections at all Iranian enrichment sites and centrifuge production and storage sites, with a 24-day inspection request response time frame for undeclared facilities and 24/7 inspections of declared nuclear facilities (Fordow, Natanz, and Arak) and their uranium mines (some provisions of the inspections will last 20-25 years, and some are permanent)
  • Existing supplies of low enriched uranium in Iran must be reduced by 98 percent
  • Existing numbers of centrifuges in Iran must be reduced by two-thirds
  • After 15 years there are no limits on how much nuclear fuel Iran can produce
  • After the eighth year, Iran can conduct research on advanced centrifuges
  • Existing sanctions on Iran will be lifted (possibly by the end of this year), but a "snapback" provision will reinstate sanctions if a panel of nations determines that Iran has violated any part of the deal
  • The current Iran embargo on the import and export of ballistic missiles will be lifted in no more than eight years, possibly sooner if IEAA inspections show that Iran is in fact creating nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes only
  • The current Iran embargo on the import and export of conventional arms will be lifted in no more than five years, possibly sooner if IEAA inspections show that Iran is in fact creating nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes only

Source:

Gordon, Michael R,: Sanger, David E. (July 21, 2015). "Deal Reached on Iran Nuclear Program; Limits on Fuel Would Lessen With Time". The New York Times. Retrieved 2015-07-21.

Obama, Barack (July 15, 2015). "Press Conference by the President". The White House. Retrieved 2015-07-24.

In an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour Kerry stated that during the George W. Bush administration, Iran's inventory of centrifuges increased from 164 to 19,000, and that Iran had generated enough fissile material to build 10 bombs. His point is that the sanctions that have been in place for many years have not prevented Iran from making significant progress toward a nuclear weapon. He also stated that sanctions have done what they were intended to do which is to bring Iran to the negotiating table.

Source:

(July 14, 2015). "Interview With Christiane Amanpour of CNN". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2015-07-24.

Apr 15, 2015:

The U.S. State Department issued a media note entitled "Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran's Nuclear Program" which outlines the specifics the U.S. is striving for in the deal.

One of the terms used in the details of the Iran nuclear deal is "breakout time". "Breakout time" is the amount of time it would take Iran to make enough material for one nuclear bomb if Iran decided to completely abandon the agreed upon deal and create a bomb as fast as possible.

Commentary:

From what I've read, it takes two things to build a nuclear bomb: a certain threshold amount of enriched uranium and a lot of centrifuges. According to The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon on The White House website:

Currently, Iran has a uranium stockpile to create 8 to ten nuclear bombs.

Right now, Iran has nearly 20,000 centrifuges between their Natanz and Fordow facilities.

Assuming these facts and figures are correct, Iran has vastly increased the amount of raw materials needed to build a nuclear bomb over the past 10-15 years despite sanctions (read a transcript of John Kerry's remarks in a CNN interview with Christiane Amanpour here where he talks about this). In other words, sanctions, while they may have slowed the process, have not prevented Iran from significantly advancing its ambition to obtain a nuclear bomb.

If we do nothing ("no deal is better than a bad deal") and scrap the Iran nuclear deal, then Iran continues to get closer and closer to a nuclear bomb, and based on the facts and figures Iran is very close right now.

There is no "magic solution" that will absolutely, positively prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, including the Iran nuclear deal. If Iran wants a bomb, Iran will get a bomb, even with the nuclear deal in place.

Regarding the argument that the lifting of sanctions gives Iran much more money with which to pursue it's nefarious intentions (and pass some of that money on to other terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas), I think that is a valid concern, and in an ideal Universe it's something we certainly prefer not to do. But, like President Obama, I think the threat of a nuclear bomb is greater than the threat posed by an influx of funds. Keep in mind that because the Iran nuclear deal was put together by a coalition of the world's super-powers, if Iran decides to bail on the deal in the future, they would be putting themselves at a great disadvantage and would likely be up against not only the United States but all the countries who negotiated the deal.

Like President Obama, the only other way I can see to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb is by force - in other words, war. The consequences of going to war with Iran could be catastrophic, could touch off a firestorm in the Middle East, and would surely be denounced by our allies that helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, so I don't see that as a good alternative. The best alternative, but not a perfect one, is the Iran nuclear deal. What other alternatives do we have?

More:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *