AP SOURCE: NO RIGHT TO ENRICH IN IRAN DEAL
Source: Associated Press
A senior Obama administration official says the nuclear deal with Iran does not include recognition of Iran's right to enrich uranium.
That had been a sticking point in the negotiations between Iran and six world powers, including the United States.
The official says the deal includes an agreement that Iran will halt progress on its nuclear program, including a plutonium reactor at the Arak facility. The deal also calls on Iran to neutralize its 20 percent enriched uranium stockpiles.
Tehran has also agreed to intrusive inspections under the terms of the deal.
The official was not authorized to discuss the terms of the agreement by name and insisted on anonymity.
Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAN_NUCLEAR_DEAL_DETAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)very good news for Iran and the world.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 12:33 PM - Edit history (1)
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi secretary-general for national security and chief of intelligence, strongly criticized U.S. foreign policy recently and said that the kingdom "will make a major shift in foreign policy." The statement suggests that the monarchy is distancing itself from its principal strategic ally. It also appears to confirm Riyadh’s intent to form an alliance with Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Saudi Arabia currently has no diplomatic relations with Israel, maintaining only discreet contact in an effort to foster stability in the region.
http://watchingamerica.com/News/226591/is-saudi-arabia-heading-for-a-shift-in-foreign-policy/
For what that's worth.
-Laelth
Brother Buzz
(36,422 posts)It might be prudent to wait for a new statement that better reflects this significant event.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Brother Buzz
(36,422 posts)VOA News
November 25, 2013
Saudi Arabia has joined other Gulf Arab states in cautiously welcoming a nuclear deal reached by their regional rival Iran and a group of world powers.
In a statement issued Monday, the Saudi government said the agreement "could be" a first step toward a comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear dispute, "provided there is goodwill."
Under the deal signed in Geneva on Sunday, Iran agreed to limit or freeze parts of its nuclear program for six months in return for the six world powers easing some sanctions on the Iranian economy.
Monday's Saudi statement said the Geneva agreement should be followed by a comprehensive solution that "leads to the removal of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear, from the Middle East." Riyadh also called for unspecified further steps to "guarantee a right of all states in the region to use nuclear power peacefully."
Four other Gulf states also issued statements expressing hope that the Iran nuclear deal will safeguard regional peace and stability. Those nations include Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
<more>
http://www.voanews.com/content/saudi-arabia-cautiously-welcomes-irans-nuclear-deal/1797132.html
Meanwhile Israel (read Netanyahu) is playing the contraire card, but that's another story.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Under NPT, Iran does have a right to enrich uranium to reactor fuel levels and all the signatories of the NPT are treaty bound to allow peaceful use. Iran never said they were developing a nuclear weapon.
This is colonialism and imperialism all over again with Britain, France and the US dictating how the world should operate.
bananas
(27,509 posts)
on point
(2,506 posts)At the same time the nuclear powers (eg US, Russia, Britain, France) were to reduce to zero their stockpiles of weapons.
So Iran is giving something up they are legally entitled to, while the nuclear powers have barely budged on their obligations under NPT, and Israel - not a signatory to NPT and therefore not bound legally, but absolutely in massive violation of the treaty if they had signed.
bananas
(27,509 posts)What it says is that members will comply with the IAEA and UNSC.
Which Iran hasn't been doing.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)then there is no issue.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Never ever.
bananas
(27,509 posts)SEPTEMBER 2005
24, Saturday: IAEA Board Adopts Resolution on Iran. At the end of week-long meetings beginning 19 September, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on the implementation of safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The resolution finds that Iran´s failures and breaches constitute non-compliance and calls on Iran to return to the negotiating process. Adopted Resolution [pdf] | IAEA Board Report, 2 September 2005 pdf | Transcript: Press Briefing
"in practical terms non-compliance with a safeguards agreement constitutes non-compliance with the NPT"
- John Carlson, Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office
SAFEGUARDS IN A BROADER POLICY PERSPECTIVE:VERIFYING TREATY COMPLIANCE
John Carlson, Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office
<snip>
It is a serious concern that Iran carried out a broad range of undeclared activities for almost 20 years undetected.
<snip>
The Iran case illustrates a further issue - that the NPT itself has no mechanism for determining compliance. This responsibility is left to the IAEA. Formally IAEA Board of Governors (BOG) decisions concern compliance with safeguards agreements, rather than the NPT as such, but in practical terms non-compliance with a safeguards agreement constitutes non-compliance with the NPT.
Five months later, Iran was still not complying, so it was sent to the UNSC:
FEBRUARY 2006
4, Saturday: IAEA Board Adopts Resolution on Nuclear Safeguards in Iran. The IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution requesting the IAEA Director General to report to the UN Security Council all IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted, relating to the implementation of safeguards in Iran. Resolution [pdf] | Photo Gallery: IAEA Board
The UNSC ordered Iran to stop it's enrichment program, these orders are legally binding:
UN Security Council Resolutions on Iran
August 2012
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has adopted six resolutions as part of international efforts to address Iran’s nuclear program. The central demand by the council is that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program, as well as undertake several confidence-building measures outlined in a February 2006 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors resolution - including reconsidering the construction of its heavy-water reactor and ratifying the IAEA Additional Protocol. The council initially laid out these calls in a nonbinding Security Council presidential statement adopted in March 2006. (See ACT, April 2006.)
Almost all the resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, making most of the provisions of the resolutions legally binding on Iran, or all UN member states. Four of them include a series of progressively expansive sanctions on Iran and or Iranian persons and entities. The sanctions represent one track in a “dual-track approach” pursued by the permanent five members of the council and Germany (the so-called P5+1), to address Iran’s nuclear program. The other track involves a June 2006 proposal for comprehensive negotiations with Iran which was updated in June 2008. (See History of Proposals on the Iranian Nuclear Issue.)
<snip>
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Do you understand this key distinction?
bananas
(27,509 posts)http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/npt_chrono.html
http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-on-the-non-proliferation-of-nuclear-weapons/
http://www.asno.dfat.gov.au/publications/2005_santa_fe_policy.pdf
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)The point remains: The IAEA has not found Iran in violation of the NPT. They are the body responsible for doing so. Not Fox News pundits.
That is why even Obama has not used that language, but the right wing noise machine sure loves too.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)However, the right to privacy is considered to encompass the right to make medical decisions affecting ones person, including a termination of pregnancy.
The NPT affords all nations the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, for generating energy which mostly requires lightly enriched uranium. Accordingly, up until about a year ago just about everyone agreed that enrichment was a right afforded by the NPT, along with ore extraction, reactors, cooling and disposal, ie the whole nuclear cycle.
bananas
(27,509 posts)You can't compare it to a right to privacy situation at all.
The NPT is more like a technology license, members get technological assistance in exchange for the intrusive monitoring required to ensure that it's being used for peaceful purposes.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html
Hardly. Inspection regimes vary according to the safeguards agreement that the IAEA enters into with each state with a nuclear power industry. However, for the most part the IAEA confines itself to checking the numerical flow of material (basically the reports that are prepared by Euratom in Europe and the Nuclear Regulatory Authority in Japan and given to the IAEA). Actual on-site inspections take part about once a year per facility.
The inspections regime that currently applies to Iran is already far more stringent than for any other country.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)"Waa waa waa whitey done me wrong" does not further the debate.
7962
(11,841 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)"brute force" would be a military attack. No, Iran never SAID they were developing a nuclear weapon, but their enrichment level was much higher than whats needed for power generation. They didnt have to SAY it, they were proving it every day.
How about "Sane people calm down irrational people"
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)In the US, plans for new reactors were abandoned because they were crazy expensive. And that was before Fukushima. If it's not rational in the US, how is it going to be rational in Iran? It isn't.
A joint report by the Federation of American Scientists and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace concluded:
"Instead of enhancing Iran's energy security, the nuclear program has diminished the country's ability to diversify and achieve real energy independence."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-iran-nuclear-report-idUSBRE93200620130403
The report is on the Federation of American Scientists website at http://blogs.fas.org/blog/2013/04/new-report-analyzing-irans-nuclear-program-costs-and-risks/
and on the Carnegie website at http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/04/02/iran-s-nuclear-odyssey-costs-and-risks/fvui
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Irrational" is a word that means incapable of reason, incoherent, unthinking.
Nuclear power might not be the best option for Iran, but for them to pursue it isn't irrational, any more than our continued use of petroleum is irrational on our part. It's not the best idea, but it's not because we - or they - are gibbering mindless morons.
You want irrationality on this issue, I think you might want to look a little closer to home.
Between 2001 and 2009, we had as president a man who believed that Iran was Gog, a herald of the biblical end times, and that it would go to war with Israel resulting in Jesus coming back to usher in God's Kingdom On Earth. He clung to Reagan-era policies towards Iran, classing them as part of the "Axis of Evil." While doing so, he absolutely wrecked a neighboring state supposedly on that "axis" to the point where, a decade later, it's barely even a nation anymore. He absolutely refused to engage in even the barest amount of diplomacy towards Iran, instead using threats of murderous carnage and economic destruction to get what he wanted out of them, leading in large part to the 2005 victory of hardliner Ahmedinejad who, to be honest, wasn't all there himself (but had considerably less influence on Iranian policy than the American president does on the US.) Meanwhile, our Shitty Little Client States in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are running around literally trying their hardest to get a live war going with Iran, because Israel wants to be sole regional power, and because Saudi Arabia likes a lot of dead Shia. Over the last decade they have been throwing all the weight they have against peaceful resolution of the issue, because they favor a solution that involves hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians.
So when Rouhani makes the first move, and the Iranians come to the table to act in good faith, despite the pile of baggage that's teetring over the opposite side of that table, and you call them the irrational ones? I dunno man.
One thing we can agree on though - thank goodness Obama was the one to pick up that phone and not either of the nuts he ran against!
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Read this article:
For many in Iran, nuclear issue is a medical one
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-12-20/world/36919797_1_nuclear-medicine-nuclear-program-uranium-enrichment-activities
That said, the deal is opening the way to future cooperation, which is good.
7962
(11,841 posts)Not to mention the fact that Russia offered to do it for them 4 years ago. And since theyve been importing for their medical reactor, which the US supplied decades ago, they only spend 1M a yr to do it. The mediacl issue could have been settled years ago, but Iran refused to go along with the inspection of all its OTHER sites.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Their products go to medical facilities. It has been established that these nuclear products can not only be used in weapons, despite the constant argle bargle about 20% enrichment being a sign of devilry by the right wing media.
The patient in that article is living proof that they are lying.
7962
(11,841 posts)Its not just the right wing that doesnt trust the Iranians. If you are enriching uranium for medical use, there is no need to hide the facility enriching it, bury it, and not allow it to be inspected.
In the beginning, they were saying it was only for power generation. They could have enriched uranium offered by the Russians.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I did not say anything about trust. That's a different issue.
We can definitely not trust right wingers to tell us the truth.
7962
(11,841 posts)And the fact that they tried to hide the facility until they were called on it shows that medical use was never more than an afterthought for this facility. Why spend billions if that was the purpose when they could import it, like so many other countries do, for a mere few million?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Ruhollah Solook, and countless others who have been saved by this medicine might beg to differ. If you want to be taken seriously by people on the opposite sides of the issue, then you have to make sure all your statements and implications are based on fact. 20% uranium is not just used in weapons. That is a fact and you should not mislead readers otherwise.
As for whether they should allow UN inspectors access to everything they need, I think they should have done so from the start. So no argument on that point. I have always said that they should comply with the NPT. I do not think any nation should have nuclear weapons.
Even though the US is shamefully exempt from the NPT, is worth noting that the government just barred UN inspectors from visiting US prisons to check on human rights violations, from which they are not exempt. So pot meet kettle.
Nobody has threatened to bomb us over it for some reason.
7962
(11,841 posts)The risk is that, like many times in the past, they won't keep up their part of the bargain and will build a bomb. What do you have then? You have several of the OTHER Mid East countries that will want to get one too. Pakistan already said they'd give one to Saudi Arabia. Funny how when Israel is the only one with a nuke for years, all those other countries havent sought out their own. Why? Because they know the Iranians are different. You don't like any country to have "the bomb", what you'll end up with is many MORE that will have it.
My point is, and has been, if this were just for medical use and power generation, it would NOT be built under a mountain. They would NOT be spreading their facilities across the country in hardened sites. They would have accepted Russia's offer to supply them with the material they need. They have refused many offers with regard to power generation and medical supplies. What good reason would there be for that?
If you want to compare prisons with nukes, thats more like pot meet tire.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)That is why I interjected. Your post made a false implication parroting a right wing TV meme about 20% uranium. You should avoid repeating that one in the future to have stronger credibility on the issue.
PS - Also your comment about pot meet tire was pretty cute. I guess I would agree. One is real suffering and the other doesn't exist.
7962
(11,841 posts)You insist on continuing to bring up "right wing" in each message. Whatever. That seems to be the knee-jerk here whenever someone doesnt agree with what you post. Nothing I said was a lie. From the START they said this was for developing their power generation capabilities. Then they figured they'd get more sympathy if they brought up the medical issue. The Russians have offered for YEARS to supply the Iranians with medical level radioactive material. It would cost them pennies compared to what they're spending to build all these facilities.
And again, if they were doing what they're doing only for peaceful uses of power and medicine, why are they building ALL their facilities hundreds of feet under mountains?
How do all the other countries in the ME get THEIR medical radiopharm products? Other non-nuclear countries in the world?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)"No, Iran never SAID they were developing a nuclear weapon, but their enrichment level was much higher than whats needed for power generation."
The first half of that sentence creates a false implication when paired with the second. Even when both halves are true, when paired in that manner, it creates a lie. It is a pretty weaselly way to lie too. I hope you understand how badly that undermines a lot of the other stuff you are saying, even if it is valid.
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus
7962
(11,841 posts)I dont understand how you look at either part of that sentence and call it false. THATS why I answered the previous post about; post #2. Again, the subject of medical use had not come up at that time. When it did, I answered that question factually as well. There is nothing wrong with either of my statements. Neither are wrong, which means taken alone, they are also correct.
My initial comment was an answer to post #2, which mentioned that Iran had never said they were developing a weapon. I simply stated what they DID say they were doing. They themselves never mentioned that they needed medical material. In the beginning it was all about the right to develop power generating capability. Maybe they should've STARTED with the medical need argument?
And once AGAIN, why do they need to develop power and medical nuclear facilities hundreds of feet underground at every critical site? In a country known for earthquakes? After being offered solutions, not by the evil west, but by the friendly Russians?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)The medical aspect has been part of UN negotiations since the beginning. Just because you did not read about it until today, doesn't mean it just came up.
"In June, Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that fuel obtained from Argentina in 1993 would run out by the end of 2010 -- a projection now apparently moved up. But the U.N. sanctions prevent Iran from buying more fuel on the world market.
Iran says it can produce its own fuel, although that could provoke an international furor because it would need to enrich uranium to 19.75 percent -- a level technologically closer to weapons-grade material.
"We prefer to buy the fuel, in the shortest possible time," said Mohammad Ghannadi, vice president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI)."
That said, you were indeed making the implication that 20% enriched uranium was for weapons only and are not fooling anyone. So either you need to do better research on this subject or stop intentionally spreading warmonger propaganda.
7962
(11,841 posts)It doesnt matter what the Iranians SAID, it only matters what they DO.
All of this could have been done above board from the start, but thats not what they chose to do.
Russia agreed to supply them with what they needed. They could still take that deal. They can buy it now, at a higher than normal price, yes, but still way less than the billions they've spent on their program. But publicly from the start, the Iranians said their program was to develop nuclear power generation.
From NBC News just a couple days ago: "Western nations and Israel have long feared that Iran has been seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Tehran denies this, saying its nuclear program is a peaceful energy project."
But I did read your link, and they were offered the uranium in 2009. They could have had it for years by now. turned it down.
I trust my president, I just hope he does not trust them to keep their word. Which they rarely do.
Just watch, you'll see. Some wonderful agreement will be announced but they Iranians will find something "unfair" about it and back out. Or get caught breaking the agreement.
We'll see what happens.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
Any "deal" that denies Iran rights universally granted under the NPT will be rejected.
It stands to reason. The foremost country trying to break Iran's back on this isn't even a signatory to the NPT, not that that would have stopped it.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The reporter said that she'd already seen criticism on her feed from Congress. Kerry's response was "you mean the other party is critiquing the president?"
I guess he couldn't resist.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)What amazes me is that he arrived early in the morning Geneva time from the US - where he had worked all day. Then was in negotiations for most of the day until early the next morning -- and the press conference was at something like 5:30 Geneva time. Amazing that he was even coherent - much less describing the complicated details.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I'm sure he took a nap on the flight over. DC to Geneva has to be a 7-8 hour flight.
I was watching him wondering whether he'd get through a full four years or not. I have a feeling 3 years in he's going to retire.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,956 posts)Fux Noise is shitting themselves right now.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)
pinto
(106,886 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/23/world/meast/iran-nuclear-talks-geneva/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
..
The agreement -- described as an "initial, six-month" deal -- includes "substantial limitations that will help prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon," U.S. President Barack Obama said in a nationally televised address.
...
Iran also agreed to provide "increased transparency and intrusive monitoring of its nuclear program," it said.
...
However, Israeli Intelligence Minister Yubal Steinitz reiterated the Israeli government stance when he said Sunday morning that the last-second amendments put into the agreement are "far from satisfactory."
...
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the deal an opportunity "to avert an unnecessary crisis."
...
As part of the deal, according to Zarif, Iran retains the right to nuclear technology, including the enriching of uranium under the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons -- which requires it not to create nuclear weapons or enable other countries to obtain them.
...
Interesting...
bananas
(27,509 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)are building newer and more advanced ones. I bet they aren't just going to unplug them and say "Ok, all good"
bananas
(27,509 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/24/world/middleeast/Understanding-the-Deal-With-Iran.html?_r=0
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)"The President underscored that the United States will remain firm in our commitment to Israel, which has good reason to be skeptical about Iran’s intentions," the White House wrote."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014656659
If the WH was at all sure of this deal, I suspect they wouldn't have added those last few words. Some deal.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)The Iranians are saying that the right to enrich uranium is implicit in the deal (and, from what I can tell, it is). They have agreed not to enrich it up to weapons-grade material. They are, therefore, allowed to enrich it enough for nuclear power and medical technology. As such, this unattributed statement from this unnamed senior official is pure B.S., and the person who said it is quite suspect.
Second, let us remember that Israel and Saudi Arabia are none too happy about this development. They're both mad that we backed off on Syria, and now we're making peace with their enemy, Iran.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi secretary-general for national security and chief of intelligence, strongly criticized U.S. foreign policy recently and said that the kingdom "will make a major shift in foreign policy." The statement suggests that the monarchy is distancing itself from its principal strategic ally. It also appears to confirm Riyadh’s intent to form an alliance with Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Saudi Arabia currently has no diplomatic relations with Israel, maintaining only discreet contact in an effort to foster stability in the region.
http://watchingamerica.com/News/226591/is-saudi-arabia-heading-for-a-shift-in-foreign-policy/
Very interesting, indeed, but take the statement from the anonymous senior administration official with a grain of salt.'
-Laelth
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)They're not being permitted to enrich sufficiently for medical isotopes. In fact they are required to downblend their existing stockpile of MEU.
Complete and utter horse shit. Both the Israelis and Saudis are far more dependent on the US than they ever could be with each other. Israel in particular is not going to do anything to jeopardise ties with the US. Pretty lurid reporting from the Sunday Times really.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)We have the power to ignore their wishes and pursue our own foreign policy in the region. That does not mean that they like what we're doing.
-Laelth
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)So the "unattributed statement from this unnamed senior official" was just an earlier statement of what Kerry has said since then. Not at all 'BS' or 'suspect', and no need for a grain of salt.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)... then he was being disingenuous and sloppy in his remarks. And that's too bad because it is quite clear that Iran will continue to enrich uranium and that we have agreed to allow them to do so--not weapons grade enrichment, mind you, but nuclear power grade enrichment. At the very least, that's what the Iranians are saying.
-Laelth
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)their monarchy will be over. It will not be a popular thing amongst average saudis and it will actually make Iran stronger in the eyes of the Muslim world as standing up to Israel and helping the palestinians.
Saudis are playing with fire there.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)The prospect of civil unrest in SA is increasing.
http://watchingamerica.com/News/226591/is-saudi-arabia-heading-for-a-shift-in-foreign-policy/
We may be playing with fire by weakening the Saudi monarchy. Hard to say.
-Laelth
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)would be a good thing.
Saudis have been the major financial force behind many terrorist organizations by funneling money through tinpot banana republics like Yemen, Pakistan and Sudan. In addition, madrassahs funded by Saudi money teach wahabism at the expense of science, math and literature. Millions of school children around the world are deprived of real education and become religious islamobots who cannot contribute to society and GDP.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I certainly have no interest in defending Saudi culture, nor do I deny that their religious fundamentalists have caused great harm. That's true.
But, they are our allies. Japan and Western Europe are completely dependent upon oil from the Middle East, and they depend upon us to insure that the oil continues to flow. Anything that might cause instability in SA is cause for alarm--for us and our allies.
-Laelth
NickB79
(19,236 posts)It would be US-made tanks and other weapons driving through Saudi streets, killing Saudi citizens.
There would be US soldiers protecting Saudi oil facilities to keep the oil flowing. To not do this would be flirting with an oil shock far greater than the one that crippled global economies in the 1970's.
These things would not endear the Saudi populace to the US in any way, shape or form.
crim son
(27,464 posts)Having said that, we have decided to ignore the question of their right to do what they choose to do with their own resources and so be it. Does anybody actually believe that our authorization means anything at all, realistically?
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)The nuclear deal agreed between Iran and the P5+1 group is a win-win situation for everyone, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, adding that it only became possible after Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, came to power.
“The very long and difficult negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program have ended, an agreement has been reached, and this deal crowns [our] longstanding relations, during which we’ve seen both ups and downs,” Lavrov told journalists.
The agreement means that “we agree with the necessity to recognize Iran’s right to the peaceful atom, including the right to enrichment, with the understanding that all questions we currently have for the program will be [settled] and the whole program will be put under the IAEA’s strict control,” he said. “It’s the final aim, but it’s already fixed in today’s document.”
http://rt.com/news/lavrov-iran-deal-agreement-223/
