International Accord Reached on Iran's Nuclear Program

An accord has been reached with Iran about its nuclear weapons program.

Iran has agreed to stop enriching uranium above 5%. The accord is to last six months. (Sounds more like a pause than a cessation.)

In return for the initial agreement, the United States agreed to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief. Of this, roughly $4.2 billion would be oil revenue that has been frozen in foreign banks.

< Duke Lacrosse Accuser Convicted of Murder | NFL Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Even a six-month deal is quite an achievement, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:00:18 AM EST
    and one that would not have been possible if Ahmadinejad were still president. Iran's new president made a serious effort at conciliation from day one. Expect there to be lots of aggressive bleating from Netanyahu and the usual suspects in our congress and media.

    Agree this quite an achievement (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:13:57 AM EST
    As Obama said, a good first step.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:48:45 AM EST
    A baby step, but a success for Obama diplomacy.  Much better than a baby step for bombing--with  an incredibly small military strike.   The accord has put Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Bibi Netanyahu on the same team albeit wearing different jerseys.  And, the Republican reaction shows disappointment in taking the "bombing option" off the table.  The irony to these reactions is the initial cheerleading by these same reactionaries for the Iraq war which has enabled their dreaded shift of regional influence to Iran.

    Seems like the combination of the (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:32:53 AM EST
    Israelis and the Republicans saying mean things has some Dems vowing to join with the Republicans in helping to squash even these baby steps.

    Top Dems, Republicans blast Obama's nuke deal with Iran

    Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), the No. 3 Democrat in the chamber, called the deal disproportionately good for Iran, and that it was only strong sanctions that gave the U.S. and its allies any leverage over Tehran.

    "This disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December," Schumer said in a Sunday statement.

    Idiots abound in D.C.


    Schumer looks out for Schumer (none / 0) (#41)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:26:46 PM EST
    and if that means being on the wrong side of history in order to get more money from AIPAC, then so be it!

    Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:22:22 AM EST
    isolate Israel on deal.

    Saudis offers cautious support for Iran deal

    Saudi Arabia broke with Israel on Monday and offered cautious support for a U.S.-backed nuclear deal with Iran.

    "This agreement could be a first step towards a comprehensive solution for Iran's nuclear program, if there are good intentions," the Saudi government said in a statement, according to the Agence France Presse.

    For sure aggressive bleating from Israel and... (none / 0) (#4)
    by gbrbsb on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 07:26:03 AM EST
    wishfully thinking, maybe in a fit of retaliatory action, retraction of its yearly support against the yearly UN resolution calling for an end to the US embargo on Cuba since 1992, which, with the usually supportive world powers of the likes of Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau abstaining this year, would leave the US standing alone with even the occasional one off supports from trusty allies such as Albania, Uzbekistan, Romania and for some strange reason Paraguay, all in a distant past. ; - )

    And now on the Cuban subject, and with commemorations for JFK ongoing, what's the chance of Kerry using a bit of his diplomatic flair to open up the US on the Cuban front too ?


    Gotta laugh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ragebot on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:45:04 AM EST
    when you use Kerry and diplomatic flair in the same sentence.

    Please feel free to laugh away because... (none / 0) (#22)
    by gbrbsb on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    most was tongue in cheek anyway !

    Nor would it have been (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 09:01:15 AM EST
    possible with a President Romney.

    Elections have consequences (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:18:41 AM EST
    McCain: "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Iran".

    Romney: "I don't have a song but I will let Bibi write one for me".

    Obama "Give Peace a Chance".

    Uh huh. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:32:58 AM EST
    Drones murdering civilians in digusting numbers is not giving peace a chance (and if you believe what the military says about how many innocent people it murders, well, have a good with that). Having your military occupying and engaging all over the globe, and having no history of it doing any good post WWII, this is not giving peace a chance. And stupidly inserting yourself into civil wars all over the middle east and arming the biggest scumbag groups who murder at will is not giving peace a chance.

    That is the problem. For every "great" thing you can name, once can counter with five that are needlessly and inexcusably cruel and inhumane and mentally deficient.

    Hey, I hope this Iran nuke deal turns out to be miraculously wonderful in the long run, I would be stupid and dishonest not to. But since I know my own government is corrupt and unimaginative to the core, and the other governments involved (Iran's too, obviously) are just the same, I have little faith. How can you believe in a "peace" of this highly volatile sort forged by nations who are, in their own ways, equally and openly abusing their own populaces? Our government abuses us with mentally retarded and violent devotion and addiction to lies about money and material things (cops busting heads of non-violent occupy protesters on behalf of corporations); Iran abuses its citizens for more mentally retarded fundamentalist religious reasons. But make no mistake, we are all developmentally disabled in a similar manner. God religion or money religion, they are equally horrible for humanity. So when the leaders of these "addictionations" shake hands like junkies, again, count me as dubious.

    Again tho, I'd be stupid not to hope it leads to glorious things.


    Obama's foreign policy (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:07:33 AM EST
    has been quite good.

    You write:

    Having your military occupying and engaging all over the globe

    Not really.  Pulling completely out of Iraq.  A severe draw down in Afghanistan.  No troops in Libya or Syria or anywhere else.

    Resisting calls for war over Iran's nuclear program.  And, Romney and McCain have made it clear they would have bombed Iran by now.

    This move regarding Iran will come with severe criticism from the Right and the Right in Israel.  


    Another thing to note (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    Republicans for the last 40 years or so strongly supported dictatorial regimes based on narrowly defined "national interests". Eg: Egypt, Pakistan, etc.

    There has been a tectonic shift in our foreign policy since BHO became the President. We have been less willing to support autocratic forces abroad even at the cost of enraging some longstanding "allies"-Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, etc.

    I hope these actions are noted. Just as the sins of the father should not be visited on the children, sins of previous administrations or injustices arising from the historical wrongs where America did not play a part should not be assigned to the current administration.

    Dadler constructed an impassioned post about Egypt. Egypt's mistrust of western nations has more to do with the mischief played by colonial nations, France and Britain than the United States. President Eisenhower even went to the extent of restraining Britain, France and Israel going to war with Egypt over the Suez crisis. America did not support the military dictatorship in Egypt in the early years, the Soviets did. President Carter helped Egypt and Israel attain peace through the Camp David accords. The peace was good for Egypt. The only wrong America may have done in Egypt was to support the military dictatorship after the Camp David accords when Hosni Mubarak's popularity in the streets was in tatters. However, since BHO became the president even that support was removed. The Egyptians had their Arab Spring. It is not America's fault or the fault of the current administration that Egypt could not sustain their Arab Spring moment and move towards democracy.


    It's a mixed bag (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    Your list of his foreign policy successes is accurate, and Dadler's point about the drones is also accurate. Obama is miles ahead of Bush--who we all know was a foreign policy disaster--but he's no saint, so how about you stop trying to paint him as one? The drone issue has hurt us with other nations, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

    It's a mixed bag. But the deal with Iran is an excellent step in the right direction.


    Yes drones hurt but don't forget Guantanamo... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by gbrbsb on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    With the expectations accompanying the first black president, from my side at least, possibly because it is something we know ain't gonna happen here for many years, it has been so disappointing to observe the continuation of both as if the presidency had never changed. Call me naive but Obama's presidency raised so many hopes but has dashed so many too.

    Guantanamo (none / 0) (#28)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 04:05:16 PM EST
    The President tried his best to close it. He did not get the support from Congress to accomplish this task. Most European governments were found to talk out of both sides of their mouths (as usual) when the BHO administration sought their help in housing prisoners.

    States in the United States or other countries in the world should be ready to house prisoners to enable the US to close Guantanamo. Torturing of prisoners stopped the day BHO became President.


    I haven't seen that! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by sj on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    Do you have a link to Obama singing "Give Peace a Chance"?

    Opinions are interesting things (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 09:16:57 AM EST
    I'm personally far more relaxed about Iran having nukes than about, say, Texas having nukes. The Iranians are lots less crazy or religiously fanatical, and not overall so broadly stupid. I will say this about Texas though -- you could be Oklahoma! link


    Diplomacy (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:45:02 PM EST
    It is more refreshing than the best of treats ... to see a working international diplomacy.  The team, the whole international team, must be commended. And, in this country, the WH and State Dept should be accorded a well-earned "Hoorah."  

    Since 1979.  Prior to the disciplined diplomatic efforts that led to this initial agreement, no diplomatic words nor open person-to-person exchanges have occurred. Since 1979. Nothing but devil-calling and periodic bomb threats had taken place for almost two generations. Since 1979.  No visible movement by either side toward any civil relations.  Now, in 2013, a good step (by comparison, a stride.)

    What a week!

    Well, I hate to be the one (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:07:58 AM EST
    gauche enough to do it, considering that some of the less Bright here "think the price is worth it", but you must have known that there always was the possibility that someone would raise the evil specter of The human costs of the Iran sanctions.

    Iranians are people too, and when the US Government treats them the way it treats its own people, it's just not fair, you know?

    Next up, (3.67 / 3) (#18)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:29:29 PM EST
    Obama subjects Israel to crippling sanctions to force the country dismantle its nukes and welcome inspections.

    Point taken, but of greater significance, I think, (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    would be the withholding of aid to Israel until and unless the Netanhayu government stops all building of settlements in Palestinian areas. Continued settlement building has done irreparable harm to Israel's standing with the international community (not to mention the harm it has done the the Palestinian people). And it has secured Netanyahu's reputation as a pariah.

    Axis of Evil regime? (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 04:19:49 PM EST
    Anyone with common sense knew that Iraq would be a debacle. Yet, that didn't stop the Axis of Evil decider attacking a country that posed no threat to the U.S while his supporters cheered manically from the sidelines.

    Also, there is this other little piece of history that you want to ignore:

    Iran has not overthrown the duly elected government of the U.S. and put their puppet regime in power.

    How about the start of Iran's nuclear energy program:

    Iran's efforts to develop nuclear energy trace to 1957, in connection with a push from the Eisenhower administration to increase its military, economic, and civilian assistance to Iran. On March 5 of that year, the two countries announced a "proposed agreement for cooperation in research in the peaceful uses of atomic energy" under the auspices of Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program. The deal was intended to open doors for U.S. investment in Iran's civilian nuclear industries, such as health care and medicine. The plan also called for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission to lease Iran up to 13.2 pounds of low-enriched uranium (LEU) for research purposes.

    Two years after the agreement was made public, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi ordered the establishment of an institute at Tehran University--the Tehran Nuclear Research Center--and negotiated with the United States to supply a five-megawatt reactor. Over the next decade the United States provided nuclear fuel and equipment that Iran used to start up its research. Gary Samore, President Obama's top expert on weapons of mass destruction, told CFR.org in 2008 that the cooperation was meant to assist Iran in developing nuclear energy while steering Tehran away from indigenous fuel-cycle research. On July 1, 1968, Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) on the day it opened for signature. Six years later Iran completed its Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    Let's talk about chemical weapons:

    US Protected Iraq at UN from Iranian Charges of Chemical Weapons Use


    Begin was a terrorist at one time.. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:08:46 AM EST
    or did the Holy One of Israel blow up the King David Hotel?

    Terrorism is such a horrific thing that they made Begin Prime Minister. Where they could keep an eye on him..

    And when is Israel going to put on trial the Israelis involved in the Iran Contra arms-to-Iran deals?


    Oh now look... (3.67 / 3) (#25)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    He never campaigned on being consistent or even handed or said he wouldn't be Netanyahoo's lap dog, and besides, hardly any Palestinians voted for him, so those things can't be held against him.

    Blockade the Brits (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:59:56 PM EST
    until they give up the bomb.

    As a Brit I would love to help you... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by gbrbsb on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    blockade us until we gave up the bomb 'cos it ain't in my name for sure !

    I like how you think... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:13:54 AM EST
    all international trade and relations should be suspended until every nation safely dismantles and disposes of all their nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.  Within 3 days the world's 1% will freak the f8ck out and we'll be golden in regards to these dastardly weapons of war.

    Don't need to blockade (none / 0) (#39)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:27:36 AM EST
    We can just let NSA bug them.  Another success in diplomacy.

    If NSA bugging the Brits (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:30:13 AM EST
    would have lead to them giving up their bombs, those bombs would have been long gone by now.

    Sounds like (none / 0) (#3)
    by labrat on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 04:08:27 AM EST
    a horrible "deal" to me. Iran gets 6B to keep enriching uranium. What am I missing?

    From my POV a lot... (none / 0) (#5)
    by gbrbsb on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 07:27:17 AM EST
    but then each to his own.

    What are you missing? (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    It would be helpful if you told us which articles you read about the details of this deal before you made your comment so that we could help you identify what you are missing.

    You're not missing a thing (none / 0) (#43)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    It's nothing but diplomatic success with no real success on the ground.

    Peace for the sake of peace is not a good thing.  

    However I will admit this could lead to something if Obama goes against all past history and backs up his words with actions.

    Color me skeptical that this will be the case.

    More then likely we catch Iran in the very near future violating the terms and then we go back into negotiations to get another deal and the cycle continues.

    See North Korea.


    what disturbs me (none / 0) (#44)
    by labrat on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 04:01:55 PM EST
    is that we've already released 8 billion to Iran, and they are already calling us liars!

    Who pays out on a contract all upfront? This is a good deal? SMH


    Haaretz on Netanyahu (none / 0) (#12)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:39:18 AM EST