After Defanging Iran, Will the P5+1 Now Defang Itself? (Knack,
Belgium)
"One could
say that the patient work of diplomacy - the avoidance of the use of force, has
succeeded. Let this be an example for other conflicts in the world.
Furthermore, we might ask ourselves when the other states who were seated
around the negotiating table begin reducing the numbers and role of
nuclear weapons in their defense policies. Hopefully, this will be an
incentive. … The only reason for installing a U.S. missile shield in Europe has
always been Iran. It would be logical not to continue to install anti-missile
systems and to remove the existing ones. That would also be a gesture toward
Russia."
"The nuclear deal
with Iran will prevent yet another war in the Middle East," writes
Professor Tom Sauer. "We might ask ourselves when the other states who
were seated around the negotiating table will begin reducing the numbers and
role of nuclear weapons in their defense policies."
Cucumber season, you say? Days ago there was a solution
for Greece and now there's one for Iran. Diplomacy is in full swing - and
successfully so. When diplomacy goes well it is apt for us to draw attention to
it. This deal not only prevents Iran from making nuclear weapons in a short term,
but it will prevent yet another war in the Middle East. Bombing Iran is the
last thing the world needs.
After invading Iraq, many, especially in the United States
(including John McCain) have called for attacking Iran. That
option is now definitively closed - at least if Iran abides by the terms of the
deal. Skeptics point out (rightly) the difference between words and
deeds, and the fact that supporters of the negotiations still need to approve
the agreement. That will certainly lead to some fireworks in the U.S. We'll have
to wait and see, but the chances are real that this agreement will also be
approved internally and not be blocked.
Extensive checks
In that case, the agreement between the U.S., U.K., France,
Russia, China and Germany on the one hand and Iran on the other will resurrect
the hackneyed term "historic." What does the agreement broadly
entail? Iran promises to roll back its nuclear program, which it says has
always been for civilian purposes, so it will be harder, i.e. it will take longer
to produce nuclear weapons in the event that Tehran decides it needs them.
Iran Negotiations: A Promising Deal Achieved without War and Death (Le Monde, France)
Nuclear weapons production is only possible with fissile
material, either highly enriched uranium or plutonium, neither of which grows
on trees. Uranium must be enriched and plutonium has to be reprocessed from spent
nuclear reactor fuel. Both processes are cumbersome and time consuming. Iran has
made serious progress over recent years, particularly in the field of uranium
enrichment – so much so that within months Iran could have enough fissile
material for a nuclear bomb.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
This agreement will significantly reduce the number of
centrifuges as well as the stock of enriched uranium, which will extend the
so-called break out time - the time needed to produce enough highly-enriched
uranium for a nuclear bomb - from three months to a year. In other words, in
the event Iran decides to build nuclear weapons in the future, the
international community will have one year to discover this and respond
appropriately. Iran has already promised to allow extensive checks by the International
Atomic Energy Agency, including at military installations.
80 million consumers
In return, the permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council promise to abolish the U.N. resolutions containing economic sanctions.
The more far-reaching unilateral economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and E.U.
will also be eliminated as much as possible; "as much as possible"
because some U.S. sanctions against Iran were introduced for reasons other than
proliferation, among these for human rights violations. These will remain in
place. Sanctions introduced by the U.S. Congress can only be rescinded by
Congress.
That same Congress also has the ability to throw the entire
agreement in the waste basket. A simple majority will suffice, and given the
critical statements of Republicans, that is a very real risk. President Obama will
be able to use his veto, which in turn can only be overruled by a two-thirds Congressional
majority. That last scenario cannot be ruled out completely, and would be an
affront to the Obama Administration and the rest of the world similar to the
failure to ratify the Treaty of Versailles
in 1919 or the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1999. Let's assume for the time being
that the deal stands.
Many Western companies will already be rubbing their hands
now that new business can be pursued in a country with 80 million consumers.
Tehran will have to prepare itself for planeloads of businessmen and the
Iranian and world economy can only benefit from it.
Losers
Are there no losers, then? There are indeed. Sunni Saudi
Arabia can only look on in envy as (Shiite) Iran's influence in the region grows
even further. It will also have to live with the idea that Iran knows how to
produce nuclear weapons.
Then there's Israel, which also finds the deal suspect.
Israel will remain the only country in the region with nuclear weapons, and it
can now expect even more pressure from Arab states to give them up. One might add
that this won't happen quickly and will require an overall improvement of the
political climate in the Middle East, more particularly between the Arab states
and Israel.
There is so much content about the Iran nuclear deal in the Israel press today, all we can do is give you a...
Furthermore, there are the domestic losers. In the United
States, the Republicans will jealously watch President Obama stab another
feather in his cap; and in Iran, the Revolutionary Guard will lose many of the
economic privileges they acquired under economic sanctions.
All in all, Iran is doing a good thing: escrow accounts with
$100 billion are to be made available to it again, it can resume its trade in
pistachio nuts, oil and gas, and it can look forward to better integration with the
world than it has seen since the Iranian Revolution. Moreover, it has built up
the know-how to produce nuclear weapons. Has President Bush travelled the same
diplomatic road as Obama, it might not have come this far. But counterfactuals
have only limited value in international politics. That knowledge cannot be
taken away - even with bombing campaigns. And Iran has been able to negotiate
to not only protect its civilian nuclear energy program, but the principle of
enrichment - albeit to a limited extent.
Improved relations
with Russia?
In conclusion, one could say that the patient work of
diplomacy - the avoidance of the use of force, has succeeded. Let this be an
example for other conflicts in the world. Furthermore, we might ask ourselves
when the other states who were seated around the negotiating table begin
reducing the numbers and role of nuclear weapons in their defense policies.
Hopefully, this will be an incentive.
The only reason for installing a U.S. missile shield in
Europe has always been Iran. It would be logical not to continue to install
anti-missile systems and to remove the existing ones. That would also be a
gesture toward Russia, which has long made an issue of the nuclear danger posed
by those systems. Who knows … there might even be an improvement in relations
with Russia?
Finally, heartfelt congratulations to the E.U., which in
2003 (at first limited to Germany, France and the U.K.) had the courage to take
up the diplomatic glove, as well as make a statement toward the Bush Administration,
who at that time was shooting anything that moved.
