Will the iranian talks finally reach a deal? Watch

TheTruthTeller
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
After months of negotiations between iran and the p5+1 and numerous extended deadlines, it seems that today is the final day to see if all these talks have lead to something. Statements are expected im a few hours by iran and the p5+1. Why is this so significant? It will increase trade relations with Iran and stop the damage to the iranian economy.


What hat do you think will happen this time around? Post your prediction and let's see if you are correct and say why you think it will happen. I'm kind of cautiously optimistic and think a deal could be reached but I'm not sure despite there being a 'good' chance of being a deal. All I wanted to add is essentially well done to Obama and Kerry for actually being civilised and sitting with the Iranians despite the constant rhetoric from the warmongering Netanyahu.

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32125862
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
China has told Iran it will extend its nuclear umbrella to the country.

Iran can thus withdraw from its nuclear program until the Chinese umbrella is set up, and once it is safe behind Chinese nukes, it can restart its nuclear program without fear of reprisals.

Having said that, with plummeting oil prices, it probably could benefit from having the sanctions lifted. It's the greater economy that would benefit from this. The sanctions didn't affect its oil sales as much as intended because other countries planned (or did) buy the oil in gold anyway.
0
reply
TheTruthTeller
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by 41b)
China has told Iran it will extend its nuclear umbrella to the country.

Iran can thus withdraw from its nuclear program until the Chinese umbrella is set up, and once it is safe behind Chinese nukes, it can restart its nuclear program without fear of reprisals.

Having said that, with plummeting oil prices, it probably could benefit from having the sanctions lifted. It's the greater economy that would benefit from this. The sanctions didn't affect its oil sales as much as intended because other countries planned (or did) buy the oil in gold anyway.
The Iranian economy was absolutely thrashed bashed and destroyed by the sanctions mate. Losses in oil revenue have been costing billions per month. Where is your source concerning the Chinese umbrella of nuclear Weapons? Seems like rubbish to me. Does it not occur to you that iran could have developed nuclear weapons years ago, or even purchased them from neighbouring countries such as Pakistan?.
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspe...inancial-fury/

Can't remember the source for the nuclear umbrella fact.
0
reply
TheTruthTeller
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
Yay, a framework has been created. Historic deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32166814
2
reply
TheTruthTeller
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
Any views guys? What's happend to all the anti-iranian Mossad activists?
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Netanyahu will not be happy and will need to intervene to scupper this.

My prediction is, he will step up the rhetoric on Iran, making direct threats that Israel will launch air strikes on Iran unilaterally. The Iranians will say something like any attack from Israel will meet with the ultimate destruction of the state of Israel and then Netanyahu will go back to the international community pleading that the Iranians are mad and can't be trusted.
2
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
The 'parameters' of the (at this stage provisional) deal indicate that this is a very comprehensive deal that enforces stringent restrictions on Iran's nuclear facilities for 10-25 years (and some conditions are even permanent).

The key concessions:

- 5000 centrifuges (from 19000, 6000 remain in place at any one time, the other 13000 dismantled) enriching uranium to a limit of 3.67% (for 10 years, then other agreed restrictions thenceforth)
- Iran's stockpile of LEU will be cut from 10 tonnes to 300kg - the remaining 9700kg will be diluted or shipped out of the country - Zarif mentioned the 'innovative' idea of selling it on the international market. This will last 15 years
- Fordow converted to a 'physics research centre' (no longer housing centrifuges that enrich uranium)
- Removal of all installed IR-2 (and beyond) centrifuges (all 6000 remaining centrifuges will be IR-1 for the duration of the deal)
- Arak Heavy Water Plant reconstructed with international assistance to produce significantly less plutonium (and any plutonium produced shipped out, also permanent restrictions on Iran's research into processing spent plutonium)
- Natanz will be the only site in Iran that houses (active) centrifuges
- Iran agrees to implement the Additional Protocol - most invasive/intrusive monitoring regime of any country's nuclear sites in history
- Research on IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 advanced centrifuges limited in line with agreed restrictions
- Various other restrictions on scaling back nuclear program (e.g. no additional heavy water reactors for 15 years etc)

In return Iran gets "sanctions relief, if it verifiably abides by its commitments". This seems vague but Kerry indicated that most (UNSC/EU/US) sanctions would be waived/suspended/revoked once Iran removes the centrifuges and reconstructs its various nuclear sites (Kerry estimated this would take 6-12 months). They have established a mechanism to deal with complaints from either side re: non-compliance with the agreement - US will 'snap-back' sanctions in the event of 'significant non-compliance'.

Seems like a good deal for everyone involved (no one more so than the Iranian people, who have been the real victims of the sanctions), although it should be emphasised that there hasn't been a final deal agreed yet - the deadline for ironing out the details of the final deal is June 30th.

Even then, Obama faces opposition in Congress and Bibi is sure to continue his belligerent, bellicose (and embarrassingly hypocritical) rhetoric opposing any civilian nuclear installations in Iran (and essentially demanding regime change...), proving that, just like he doesn't want a two-state solution to the Palestinian issue, he doesn't want any deal that would legitimise the Iranian nuclear energy program.

The fact that all the major world powers support this deal means that I fully expect it to have international support notwithstanding any potential antics from those who oppose the deal (Obama made clear that if Congress doesn't support it, the USA will be seen to be the ones who prevented the deal going through).

Zarif and Kerry apparently negotiated for 9 hours straight from 9pm-6am on the eve of the deal - the longest continuous negotiations since the Paris Peace Conference 1919. If this deal goes through it could realign Iran with the international community and lay the foundations for the 'moderates' in Iran to conclusively replace the 'radicals' - hundreds of Iranians lining the streets of Tehran to celebrate. Unthinkable that an overwhelmingly pro-West Iranian youth would ever vote in a 'hardliner', the attenuation of the hardliners' influence in Iran is inevitable, and arguable palpable. Nobel peace prize in order for Zarif and Kerry? Wouldn't be out of place.

All in all, a historic 'deal', but nothing conclusive yet. Here's to hoping.
1
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
This is the same deal Iran offered in the early 2000s, which was rejected.
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by 41b)
This is the same deal Iran offered in the early 2000s, which was rejected.
Are you referring to the 'Grand Bargain' of 2003?

That was a vague letter that encapsulated (false) hope of solving decades of mistrust (it covered Lebanon, Israel and Iranian support for Hamas in addition to allowing inspections of its nuclear facilities) in US-Iranian relations that the US (foolishly) ignored.

The 'Grand Bargain' was ignored (thus obviously implicitly rejected) because of a lack of political will. This preliminary 'framework' is the product of months of intensive negotiations - hardly the 'same deal' or in comparable scenarios.

But yes, both sides have made efforts to reconcile with the other since 1979, but these have largely been asymmetrical - until now.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
GnomeMage
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
how can countries just block another country out of SWIFT ? It is a violation of free trade. the HQ is based in belgium. this world needs new rules, blocking any countries from SWIFT should be illegal and considered an act of war.
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Law-Hopeful)
Are you referring to the 'Grand Bargain' of 2003?

That was a vague letter that encapsulated (false) hope of solving decades of mistrust (it covered Lebanon, Israel and Iranian support for Hamas in addition to allowing inspections of its nuclear facilities) in US-Iranian relations that the US (foolishly) ignored.

The 'Grand Bargain' was ignored (thus obviously implicitly rejected) because of a lack of political will. This preliminary 'framework' is the product of months of intensive negotiations - hardly the 'same deal' or in comparable scenarios.

But yes, both sides have made efforts to reconcile with the other since 1979, but these have largely been asymmetrical - until now.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Hi,

The agreement reached today is very to what Iran proposed back then with regards to this issue, which the US rejected. Rather it was a better deal for the USA back then because Iran would've ended its program without having acquiring thousands of centriges - along with all the knowledge and data. As it stands, having already gained considerable know-how, the Iranians could choose to secretly renege on this and with possible or current protection under China's anti-ballistic missile shield, the US will be powerless to enforce anything via the non-sanctions route.

The opportunity to make this agreement was in 2003. Now it is much less effective. As for political will, that is often the way of things, but the reason the USA is making an agreement with Iran is not because it has suddenly developed a newfound trust for the country but rather because it has been pushed back on all fronts - Syria, Ukraine and Iraq. The cooperation with Iran in Iraq is ironic.

Yes, as you say the desire has largely been asymmetric. However the move by the USA is, in my view, a symbolic impasse in the geopolitically (and economically) most important region. What happens next will either set the tone of a slow but irreversible withdrawal of western states from geopolitical dominance, or a reassertion of western might.

My suspicion is that it will be the former. Geopolitical dominance requires overwhelming economic might, and decades of failed Keynesianism have weakened the USA and Europe to the point where that is no longer the case.
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by GnomeMage)
how can countries just block another country out of SWIFT ? the HQ is based in belgium. this world needs new rules, blocking any countries from SWIFT should be illegal and considered an act of war.
There is an alternative Chinese system being introduced soon, or it has already been introduced.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by GnomeMage)
how can countries just block another country out of SWIFT ? It is a violation of free trade. the HQ is based in belgium. this world needs new rules, blocking any countries from SWIFT should be illegal and considered an act of war.
So is obligated to follow European Law, hence the sanctions. Unless you base it on the moon, it will always be beholden to whatever country's law it is based in.
0
reply
GnomeMage
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Aj12)
So is obligated to follow European Law, hence the sanctions. Unless you base it on the moon, it will always be beholden to whatever country's law it is based in.
Did belgium said they wanna sanction Iran?
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by GnomeMage)
Did belgium said they wanna sanction Iran?
I'd presume so. EU sanctions require all EU members to agree to them, Belgium could have vetoed.
0
reply
GnomeMage
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Aj12)
I'd presume so. EU sanctions require all EU members to agree to them, Belgium could have vetoed.
I only know that similar sanction was carried out on North Korea, in which the US invited belgium officials to the US and threaten them to cooperate in the sanction.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by GnomeMage)
I only know that similar sanction was carried out on North Korea, in which the US invited belgium officials to the US and threaten them to cooperate in the sanction.
Source? How did they threaten them?
0
reply
GnomeMage
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Aj12)
Source? How did they threaten them?
something about downgrading their rating with the excuse of cooperating with rogue states



  • Compel the removal of North Korea from SWIFT financial transfers. The Obama Administration and European Union pressured the Belgian-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) to disconnect sanctioned Iranian banks in 2012. The system is the world hub for electronic financial transactions.

http://www.heritage.org/research/tes...missile-threat
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by GnomeMage)
something about downgrading their rating with the excuse of cooperating with rogue states



  • Compel the removal of North Korea from SWIFT financial transfers. The Obama Administration and European Union pressured the Belgian-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) to disconnect sanctioned Iranian banks in 2012. The system is the world hub for electronic financial transactions.

http://www.heritage.org/research/tes...missile-threat
Fair enough. The sanctions in this case came from EU law, so whilst there might have been some strong arming, it would have been quite difficult.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (145)
24.37%
Pop (145)
24.37%
Jazz (26)
4.37%
Classical (34)
5.71%
Hip-Hop (104)
17.48%
Electronic (42)
7.06%
Indie (99)
16.64%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed