Iran agrees to curb some of its nuclear activities

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
Iran has agreed to curb some of its nuclear activities in return for about $7bn (£4.3bn) in sanctions relief, after days of intense talks in Geneva.

The deal will last for six months, while a permanent agreement is sought.

US President Barack Obama welcomed the deal, saying it would "help prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon".

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Iran's right to uranium enrichment had been recognised. Israel, however, said the agreement was a "historic mistake".

World powers suspect Iran's nuclear programme is secretly aiming at developing a nuclear bomb - a charge Iran has consistently denied.

In a nationwide broadcast on Sunday, President Rouhani repeated that his country would never seek a nuclear weapon He hailed the deal, saying it met one of Iran's fundamental principles.

"No matter what interpretations are given, Iran's right to enrichment has been recognised," he said.

Iran agreed to halt enrichment to medium-grade (20%) purity, which can be further enriched to weapons-grade level relatively easily, and give better access to UN inspectors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25074729

Rouhani seems to be motivated to come to an agreement with world powers about it. Skeptics point out that once economic conditions in Iran improve, Rouhani can be replaced any time, at will.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
Haven't had a chance to read much on this yet but when I see all the neo-cons lined up to pan the deal, not to mention the warmonger Netanyahu, I have to come down on the side of the deal. They're only interested in having American troops fight a war for Israel.
 

Happybunny

macrumors 68000
Sep 9, 2010
1,752
1,351
I put this one down to common sense.

This is far more than was expected just months ago.

I do think that having the UN security council members on side helped to broker a deal.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,802
CT
Do we trust Iran to just shut off their weapons program. There is a 6 month window. I don't know if this is anything other than a feel good deal and in a year nothing changes.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,802
CT
Haven't had a chance to read much on this yet but when I see all the neo-cons lined up to pan the deal, not to mention the warmonger Netanyahu, I have to come down on the side of the deal. They're only interested in having American troops fight a war for Israel.
I would like to see this deal work I am just skeptical about it happening.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
I would like to see this deal work I am just skeptical about it happening.

I'm skeptical as well but you need a deal in place to start.

I see Senator Schumer (D-Israel) doesn't like it either. Another plus as far as I'm concerned.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,802
CT
I'm skeptical as well but you need a deal in place to start.

I see Senator Schumer (D-Israel) doesn't like it either. Another plus as far as I'm concerned.
Iran is agreeing because they want the sanctions dropped. But that doesn't mean they are not stopping their weapons program just like that. Who knows what they have hidden where or if they can trick the inspectors into thinking they have stopped. I think it is wishful thinking on Kerry's part to think this won't blow up in his face.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
Iran is agreeing because they want the sanctions dropped. But that doesn't mean they are not stopping their weapons program just like that. Who knows what they have hidden where or if they can trick the inspectors into thinking they have stopped. I think it is wishful thinking on Kerry's part to think this won't blow up in his face.
We've had almost a decade of harsh sanctions and all we've had is talk of us bombing them to show for it.


As part of preliminary steps, the world powers involved in the talks will provide "limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible relief to Iran."

The deal calls for no new nuclear-related sanctions in the six-month period if Iran keeps its end of the bargain. The world powers will also suspend sanctions on various items, including gold and petrochemical exports. That suspension will provide Iran with about $1.5 billion in revenue, according to the White House. Sanctions relief will also target other areas, including government funds from restricted Iranian accounts for its students in other countries.

But the White House says the $7 billion in total relief is just a small fraction. "The vast majority of Iran's approximately $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings are inaccessible or restricted by sanctions," it says.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/world/meast/iran-nuclear-deal-qa/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
 

Happybunny

macrumors 68000
Sep 9, 2010
1,752
1,351
I also think that this agreement is a turning point, for the US, it is going to find it's self in these positions more often. The US is no longer seen as the keeper of moral actions, it will more and more be forced to work within the UN to achieve it's aims.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the end of US lone actions. Today the US cannot even mobilise the western countries to any degree, just look at Syria. China and Russia are both starting to flex their muscles, and the inter dependancy of the worlds financial markets makes war a very dim prospect.

This whole agreement was made possible by far more than just the US. After four days of negotiations, representatives of the so-called P5+1 group of nations - the US, the UK, Russia, China, France and Germany - reached the agreement with Iran in the early hours of Sunday.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,377
UK
I also think that this agreement is a turning point, for the US, it is going to find it's self in these positions more often. The US is no longer seen as the keeper of moral actions, it will more and more be forced to work within the UN to achieve it's aims.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the end of US lone actions. Today the US cannot even mobilise the western countries to any degree, just look at Syria. China and Russia are both starting to flex their muscles, and the inter dependancy of the worlds financial markets makes war a very dim prospect.

This whole agreement was made possible by far more than just the US. After four days of negotiations, representatives of the so-called P5+1 group of nations - the US, the UK, Russia, China, France and Germany - reached the agreement with Iran in the early hours of Sunday.
Good news!
 

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
I love how we (the US), the only people to actually use a nuclear weapon in war on 2 civilian populations, are somehow the arbiter of who should and shouldn't have nukes.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
I love how we (the US), the only people to actually use a nuclear weapon in war on 2 civilian populations, are somehow the arbiter of who should and shouldn't have nukes.
Hey. Experience. We're the only country to know how bad dropping a couple of nukes makes you feel afterwards.

edit: though if you want to get scary about it, Fat Man and Little Boy only meet the barest minimum standards of being classified as nuclear weapons these days. In a way, we've been vindicated by the Cold War's continued *******ry.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
You can tell if it was Romney who pulled this off, the right would be kneeling down in Prayer over what a strong strange republicans have on foreign policy.
 

localoid

macrumors 68020
Feb 20, 2007
2,428
1,722
America's Third World
Hey. Experience. We're the only country to know how bad dropping a couple of nukes makes you feel afterwards.

edit: though if you want to get scary about it, Fat Man and Little Boy only meet the barest minimum standards of being classified as nuclear weapons these days. In a way, we've been vindicated by the Cold War's continued *******ry.
It seems to have taken a few decades before the US began to feel very guilty.

Judging solely from reading a few news magazines and papers articles published right after the bombs were dropped, there doesn't seem to have been a huge outpouring of regret about two cities being nearly virtually blown off the face of the planet.

Most articles focused primarily on how big, powerful, and badass the bomb was vs. ethical conundrums/moral dilemmas.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
It seems to have taken a few decades before the US began to feel very guilty.

Judging solely from reading a few news magazines and papers articles published right after the bombs were dropped, there doesn't seem to have been a huge outpouring of regret about two cities being nearly virtually blown off the face of the planet.

Most articles focused primarily on how big, powerful, and badass the bomb was vs. ethical conundrums/moral dilemmas.
Carpet bombing was just as destructive though( due to everything burning down). It just didn't have the harmful radiation effects.

As much as those effects were horrific, I'm still for the use of them back then. An all out invasion of Japan was going to be costly to both sides.

Little boy and Fat Man were the only atomic bombs the US had and the suggested test on a small island observable by the Japanese was a bigger gamble than dropping them in quick succession on the two cities. Dropped Little Boy on an island, then only had Fat Man to use on a Japanese city. Then what if the Japanese still didn't surrender? The Japanese military was ready to call our bluff after Nagasaki before the emperor told them to surrender….
 

localoid

macrumors 68020
Feb 20, 2007
2,428
1,722
America's Third World
Carpet bombing was just as destructive though( due to everything burning down). It just didn't have the harmful radiation effects.

As much as those effects were horrific, I'm still for the use of them back then. An all out invasion of Japan was going to be costly to both sides.

Little boy and Fat Man were the only atomic bombs the US had and the suggested test on a small island observable by the Japanese was a bigger gamble than dropping them in quick succession on the two cities. Dropped Little Boy on an island, then only had Fat Man to use on a Japanese city. Then what if the Japanese still didn't surrender? The Japanese military was ready to call our bluff after Nagasaki before the emperor told them to surrender….
Historian Elaine Tyler May's comments on the American reaction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

Q: At the end of World War II Americans were excited about peace, obviously. But was there a sour note because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

ETM: There was a sour note. I think there was a sense of shock and horror that greeted the dropping of the bombs in Japan. On the other hand, the primary emotion that was expressed around the country was joy that the war was over, and celebrations of course, tremendous celebration and ecstasy that all those years of horror and death and destruction would come to and end, and the soldiers would come home, and peace would prevail. But there was definitely a sense of shock and terror that the Americans had unleashed something totally new and unheard of with this weapon. And what did it mean for the fate of the world? What did it mean for the country? What did it mean in a moral sense, that the United States had used this weapon of mass destruction and dropped it on cities and killed civilians by the many, many thousands? And Americans had a very, very tough time absorbing the reality of that.

Q: How did the knowledge that America had used an atomic bomb on two Japanese cities impact the collective American psyche.

ETM: Well, what scholars have found about those early years of the atomic age is a combination of many emotions that were seeping into American consciousness. There was, within the first few months and years after the original recognition of what these weapons had done, a sense of terror that this was the beginning of the end; that it was a feeling of doomsday. We may be happy today because the war is over, but we have unleashed something that we really cannot know what it's going to do to us and to the world. The scientists largely led the national consciousness on this by their own sense of mixed feelings and ambivalence about what they had achieved.

Not immediately but with time, as the scientists came out with their own sense of doubt and concern about what they had unleashed, Americans also wondered whether this was the right thing to do. Certainly in the beginning, it seemed clear to almost anyone that this ended the war, it had to be done, and in the long run it was the right thing to do. Doubts, of course, emerged soon after that. And even those who recognized that it marked the end of the war and they were most happy about that, questioned whether this was the right way to end the war. And could it have been done without that kind of mass death and destruction and devastation?

From: PBS Interview Transcripts
 

Renzatic

Suspended
It seems to have taken a few decades before the US began to feel very guilty.

Judging solely from reading a few news magazines and papers articles published right after the bombs were dropped, there doesn't seem to have been a huge outpouring of regret about two cities being nearly virtually blown off the face of the planet.

Most articles focused primarily on how big, powerful, and badass the bomb was vs. ethical conundrums/moral dilemmas.
You have to think of the attitudes of the time, the oft abused, and rarely ever correctly used zeitgeist. The entire global economy was crippled during the 30's, which became directly responsible for the rise of all the horrific things that came about in the 40's. The world basically went ******* crazy for 15 years.

People saw more concentrated horrors during that time than just about any other point in history. America, while left relatively unscathed, still felt the same pressure everyone else did. They had the Nazi's on one side, the Japanese Empire on the other, and the enigma that was the Soviets floating around somewhere behind them. It seemed that at the drop of a hat, the lives of every person in an entire nation could be drastically changed from something they considered good, to something considerably worse. I could imagine it was fairly stressful time to live.

When the bombs dropped, and Japan surrendered, I doubt any one single person in the US even briefly considered the human cost. All things considered, you can't really blame them. They were more thrilled about the most terrible war the world had ever seen had finally come to an end, and they were finally, for at least a little while, safe and secure.

That all but explains the fervent nationalism, and the braggadocio over who had the biggest, bestests, fastest whatever. It was only later, after we've had a two generations disconnect from it, that we were able to impartially judge the morality and implications of everything that happened.

...and the sad thing is we can't really judge it. Not fairly.