21 ms·

Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

283 points by Expeditus419 11y ago

thescrewdriver 11y ago
Let's hope this works out better than the North Korean nuclear deal.
- Expeditus419 11y ago
  Lack of access to military sites could be a reason this deal fails as the agreement provides stipulation for inspectors to press for military locations although the access is not guaranteed.
- acjohnson55 11y ago
  Fortunately, I think Iran is the more tractable of the two nations, at least until the North Korean regime collapses.
DiabloD3 11y ago
If you had told me that would be today's headline at any point over the past decade, I'm not sure I would have believed you. If this works out, the President has another thing to add to his list of "things no President before me achieved".
- thescrewdriver 11y ago
  Out of curiosity, what else would be on that list?
  - Tomte 11y ago
    Nationwide Universal Healthcare.
    - adventured 11y ago
      The US does not have universal healthcare. Further, Obama wasn't responsible for the ACA. edit: if the US had universal healthcare, the US wouldn't have 30+ million people without health coverage today.
      - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        Nevermind that it's a large step in that direction, I'm pretty sure it was his pen that signed it into law.
        adventured 11y ago
        It was his pen, that was his biggest contribution to it. His involvement in crafting the legislation, and getting the necessary votes, was almost non-existent. It was the super majority Democratic Congress that was responsible for making the ACA happen. Both in terms of wrangling the votes together, and reaching the countless compromises necessary to get it through by the slim margin it ultimately passed by.
        vasilipupkin 11y ago
        You are focused on the mechanics of how it got passed. But it was clearly his major priority and wouldn't have happened without him being in office. So, I apologize, but your statement seems at best completely inaccurate to me
        meragrin 11y ago
        So Hillary couldn't or wouldn't have done the same thing? Personally, I think it would have sailed through much more easily had she been in office.
        vasilipupkin 11y ago
        Hmmmm, Hillary tried to do the same thing a long time ago and failed. But more importantly, even if you are correct, that is totally irrelevant to whether or not Obama had anything to do with it.
  - ojbyrne 11y ago
    Getting rid of the silly Cuba embargo.
- briandear 11y ago
  Have you read the Iran deal? The Iranians were happy about it, this it likely wasn't a good deal for the rest of us. The Iranians can't be trusted. If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution; instead those protestors were executed, tortured or imprisioned. Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup. Honestly, Obama doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy. He sort of waddles along weakening the U.S. position whenever possible.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Revolution is almost always a bad thing for liberal democracy. See, e.g., the Arab Spring, the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Had those protestors been successful, there is a significant possibility would have been co-opted by elements that executed, tortured, and imprisoned a lot more people. See, e.g., the French Revolution. Iran, in contrast, is well on its way to having a functional democracy. The power of the ayatollah wanes every year, and every new generation of young Iranians is more liberal than before. The best thing the U.S. can do is be friendly and wait for that to play out. Because if there is any hope for another democracy in the Middle East, it's in a place where people are already accustomed to the benefits of having a functioning government with significant and growing public participation.
  - toyg 11y ago
    > The Iranians can't be trusted. National stereotypes, pillars of pragmatic diplomacy ever since 2000 BC and the clear mark of logical thinkers the world over. > If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution How do you know he didn't? Because he didn't send in bombers to "support demonstrations"? > Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup ... when the alternative would have been much more Iran-friendly; yeah, how strange, right? Honestly, how do you make these random mental associations? > He sort of waddles along weakening the U.S. position whenever possible. A comprehensive Iran-US 'peace deal' (or even a strategic partnership going forward) would immensely strengthen US standing around the world, dramatically reducing tensions in the Middle East and providing a balance to the uncritical reliance on Saudi Arabia and Turkey that so much pain has brought since the '90s (from Al Qaeda to IS). So uhm, there is that. But yeah, I agree that it weakens fearmongers' positions, both in US, Israel and Iran.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  Well, Bill Clinton got a nuclear deal with North Korea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework
  - DiabloD3 11y ago
    Yeah, and that didn't quite worked out as planned, although I still view it as a positive step forwards.
  - tootie 11y ago
    That agreement put up seals and cameras on their existing reactor to prevent them from reprocessing without us knowing. When W Bush began laying his case to invade Iraq, NK saw that compliance with inspections wasn't a guarantee of safety so they broke the seals. Bush and the UN knew immediately and simply declined to act. Opting instead to pursue mythical WMDs in Iraq.
- gadders 11y ago
  "Letting Iran develop a nuclear bomb." Not sure I'd want that as my epitaph.
  - evgen 11y ago
    Yeah, as compared to the string if presidents before him to did both jack and shit to stop Iran's nuclear development efforts.
- gadders 11y ago
  On the negative side he can put Benghazi and the rise of ISIS.
- mason240 11y ago
  I don't know if capitulating to theocratic regime in their attempts at nuclear proliferation (which will likely set off a regional nuclear arms race) is something to be proud of.
  - evgen 11y ago
    Well, since the US didn't capitulate and the regional nuclear arms race was already in progress I guess it goes back into the things to be proud of column; although, really the only ones who are upset with this deal are hardliners in Iran and Israel and the fact that they are upset is a stronger indicator that this is "a good thing"(tm) than any punditry we will hear over the next few weeks.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    Frankly, the theocratic regime with attempts at nuclear proliferation we should be afraid of is Saudi Arabia. They'd likely buy bombs from Pakistan in short order if they decided they wanted one. If Israel having nukes hasn't set off a nuclear arms race I'm really confused as to how Iran not having them is supposed to.
bsaul 11y ago
Am i the only one amazed at the fact that we actually had to wait for iranians to accept to stop going toward nuclear weapons ? I mean, why did EU and US insist so much on wanting a deal ? It seemed to be that one side has all the leverage in the negociation and the other has none. We could have simply waited for the iranian regime to get so weakened that they'd simply surrender and accept every measure. So I don't understand what's the counterpart that the US and EU wanted from Iran, that could get Iran get leverage in the negociations. Anyone ?
- sveme 11y ago
  I don't quite understand your question. You are asking what Iran wanted from the EU and US and what they wanted from Iran? EU&US: Don't develop nuclear weapons. Iran: Stop the sanctions, let us sell our oil. Is that what you were asking for?
  - bsaul 11y ago
    I don't understand why there were negociation at all. Usually, with such crucial matters, threatening the world peace, there is no discussion. The strongest simply impose its decision. Eu&us: stop or you'll get destroyed ( militarely or economically). Iran : ok. I don't see how it went any other way. The only reason i could imagine was if other big countries ( russia and china mainly) were saying " we disagree". But in that case negociations wouldn't need to be with iran, but directly with china or russia.
    - konradb 11y ago
      Presumably it's an issue of national sovereignty - it is their country, and they are broadly able to do any activities on their land as they see fit, just as the EU and US have seen fit to develop nuclear weapons. Presumably the alternative is to threaten to invade or impose economic sanctions, but that doesn't seem to me like the beginning of a productive conversation. If anything it might increase the urgency of getting weapons, of any type, to be taken seriously.
    - mpoloton 11y ago
hodwik 11y ago
Iran agreed to provide "Managed access". Iraq inspections all over again.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  Source? I've seen the opposite, that the IAEA and others will have unfettered access wherever they want, otherwise the sanctions come back into effect immediately.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - hodwik 11y ago
    https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dZJjpUMZsAEdLYME80B5lNtLhJv1M&q=%22managed+access%22+iran&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQqgIwAGoVChMI-cCE3MzaxgIVio8NCh0cqQF6 https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dZJjpUMZsAEdLYME80B5l...
- EliRivers 11y ago
  If there's one thing we learned from the invasion of Iraq, it's that access for inspections doesn't matter. Iraq complied, the UN reports all indicated that there were no WMDs, the people who wanted to invade just made up some nonsense bullshit anyway. Hans Blix, Jan 2003: "...access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect... cooperated rather well". Iran just watched a neighbour get invaded and seriously screwed over for basically no reason. Access for inspections is irrelevant.
  - hodwik 11y ago
    Access most certainly matters, we wouldn't have made that mistake with Iraq had we had reliable access. If you recall, one of the "smoking guns" that the administration used to move into Iraq were intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi Republican Guard members. Those conversations mentioned "hiding" something before the inspectors got to a site. Since Iraq (like Iran) was allowed a few days before any visit, it was believed at the time that they were shifting materials whenever the inspectors came. I recall even liberal media organizations poking fun at the inspectors -- about how they were playing a game of chase with the Iraqis. Remember this graphic, much shown in the media? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_UN_Iraq_presentation%2C_alleged_Mobile_Production_Facilities.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_U... Had no such rule been in place, they could have moved that day to inspect the site, and would have realized there was nothing to be found. Hans Blix also said, in December 2012, (from wikipedia:) that the Iraqi weapons declaration filed on December 7 "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts. So the US was not alone in that position. and Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. (These are not a WMD, and Iraq is permitted "battlefield" missiles. However, Iraq's missiles were limited by UN instruction to a diameter of 600mm, and the Al-Samoud II has a diameter of 760mm). These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said
m4r71n 11y ago
I'm in the middle of reading "Countdown to Zero Day", the book about Stuxnet. It contains a very good summary of how Iran started enriching Uranium, where they acquired the technology to build the centrifuges, and how most countries that signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons attempted to reason with Iran to stop enriching Uranium. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in this topic. And of course the detailed analysis of Stuxnet is great as well.
dbcooper 11y ago
Some possible reasons to be sceptical: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/opinion/the-iran-deals-fatal-flaw.html?_r=1 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/opinion/the-iran-deals-...
- dbcooper 11y ago
  There's a back-and-forth on that opinion piece, here [1] and here [2]. [1] http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/iran-op-eds-fatal-flaw http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/iran-op-eds-fatal-f... [2] http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/misleading-spin-centrifuges http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/misleading-spin-cen...
  - dbcooper 11y ago
    On the key point of low enriched Uranium, here's the text from the agreement: > During the 15 year period, and as Iran gradually moves to meet international qualification standards for nuclear fuel produced in Iran, it will keep its uranium stockpile under 300 kg of up to 3.67% enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) or the equivalent in other chemical forms. The excess quantities are to be sold based on international prices and delivered to the international buyer in return for natural uranium delivered to Iran, or are to be down-blended to natural uranium level. Enriched uranium in fabricated fuel assemblies from Russia or other sources for use in Iran's nuclear reactors will not be counted against the above stated 300 kg UF6 stockpile, if the criteria set out in Annex I are met with regard to other sources. The Joint Commission will support assistance to Iran, including through IAEA technical cooperation as appropriate, in meeting international qualification standards for nuclear fuel produced in Iran. All remaining uranium oxide enriched to between 5% and 20% will be fabricated into fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). Any additional fuel needed for the TRR will be made available to Iran at international market prices.
    - dbcooper 11y ago
      That would seem to add 2 months to the breakout time. i.e. It would be 5 to 6 months based on Kuperman's reckoning (as opposed to Obama's claimed 12 months). Whether they can divert or reconstitute some of the 20% material during or after fuel conversion is unclear. Some scenarios are discussed here: http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/LEU_20_percent_update_May_4_2015_Final.pdf http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/LEU_20_percent_upd...
mavdi 11y ago
Sceptical Iranian here. There are groups that profit from an ongoing tension and conflict on both sides. This time around it seems they have lost the hand, but we would be a fool to think that this agreement settles things for good. This has always been and will always be a fluid situation. I think the work has just begun now, let's hope the sane people inc charge on both sides will keep things positive. Otherwise it only takes one delayed inspection permit, or an angry military general to take things back right to the start.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Re your second paragraph, keep in mind that the US Congress gets to vote on it.
  - afiedler 11y ago
    It's extremely likely to pass. Since this isn't technically a "treaty", Congress can only pass a bill to disapprove of it [1]. Obama can then veto the disapproval, and there are enough Democrats to override the veto. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/congress-iran-nuclear-deal.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/congress-...
    - Tomte 11y ago
      Does the president need approval by Congress for lifting the sanctions? I don't know the answer, but I suppose that might be an issue.
      - epc 11y ago
        Congress must pass a bill to revoke the US sanctions, which is a separate act of legislation from assenting to this deal. There are several Executive Orders which Obama can revoke but the embargo proper is embedded in US legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran
- toyg 11y ago
acjohnson55 11y ago
I think the future of the Middle East is a tense balance between Saudi and Iranian poles, with both countries being normalized in the international community. The USA can't bring either country to heel, but it can hopefully prevent the stalemate from being nuclear along Sunni-Shia lines. But what's also changed is that the US needs a normalized partner in Iran to fully isolate ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other far worse actors. I think we can also be encouraged by the demographics in Iran, which are moving younger and more liberal. I'm cautiously optimistic.
- seivan 11y ago
  There are other people there that can deal with radical Sunni muslims (ISIS). You don't want (Shia) Iran to deal with them. Look at their recent militia activities, check what happens to Sunni civilians in Iraq. I guess we're not mentioning Yemen.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  Iran is a country much more aligned with the US in many more ways than Saudi Arabia is. It's really a "natural ally" for the US in the middle east.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - bsaul 11y ago
    Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ? Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.
    - geff82 11y ago
      Because they are used to do so and because they are completely detached from the reality of their people. For the average Iranian, USA is the land to go. And you can't image how similar things look! Highways, signs, style of buildings all look like a slightly cheaper copy of the USA. Except for the roads, which are worse in the USA.
seivan 11y ago
My God, why didn't Roosevelt and Churchill think of giving billions in relief to the Third Reich. That would have solved everything. Chamberlain was a forgotten hero! Giving Mullahs access to create nuclear weapons. Taking their word for it that they won't. Yeah, this will end well. Just yesterday their Iranian proxies in Baghdad were burning American and Israeli flags. Vowing to destroy The Great Satan(s), why do we downplay that? I simply just loooooove how (western) leftists are so accepting of this. You shit yourself when Christians don't want to bake cakes. But killing apostates, hanging "sodomites", that's all good. Yeah, this will make everything better and not worse at all.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  My God, why didn't Roosevelt and Churchill think of giving billions in relief to the Third Reich. That would have solved everything. Chamberlain was a forgotten hero! They would have, but they gave it to the Soviets instead.
  - seivan 11y ago
    Soviet sent 8,668,400 of their own to the grave for that. That should cover it, not that I am condoning the totalitarian communist regime. There weren't better alternatives back then. There are now.
    - selimthegrim 11y ago
      And which would those be? Those watan-foroosh MeK?
- threeseed 11y ago
  There are plenty of countries in the world that have questionable human rights records. Many of whom the "West" has quite strong relationships with e.g. China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia. Putting a blindfold on and pretending you can just contain or ignore certain countries has failed as a strategy and will continue to fail. So unless you want to do something about Iran militarily (not feasible) then you are looking at diplomacy. And let's face it. The US is not good at wars.
user_0001 11y ago
>(besides Israel, obviously) Out of interest, why obviously? The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange (to most outside of the US who I have spoken to). Israel has it's religious fundamentalists (just like the rest of the region). Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other countries to at least abstain from votes), has actual developed the nuclear bomb, is destabilising to the region, discusses attacking their neighbours (sorry not attacking - pre-emptive... Yet this is never questioned, nor discussed from what I can tell. They are "the good guys" so the rules are different for them.
- rayiner 11y ago
  > Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other countries to at least abstain from votes), Israel is our ally not because they're the "good guys" but because they share, and can help spread, our basic values about democratic government. You can have militarily aggressive democracies (e.g. the Roman Republic). Democracy is not a matter of being the "good guy" or the "bad guy" but a matter of how people relate to each other and the government.
  - Udik 11y ago
    Hm. So you're saying that a state disregarding tens of UN resolutions, that is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that periodically massacres thousands of civilians, that faces mounting accusations of being an apartheid regime, that keeps creating civilian settlements in an occupied territory, that has secret nuclear weapons, that incarcerates people without accusation or trial - this state "shares and can help spread our basic values about democratic government". Good luck with that! You couldn't have given a better explanation for the rise of fundamentalism and terrorism in the ME.
    - Retric 11y ago
      Historically the US has done all of that. Remember, we developed nuclear weapons and are the only country that has actually used them in warfare. We have also developed and used biological and chemical weapons. Hell, for a recent example after signing a convention banning using laser weapons to blind people we got rid of our prototype laser weapons to blind people.
at-fates-hands 11y ago
Not sure how this benefits the US at all. Iran reaps billions in frozen assets and the end to their oil embargo. Plus, the US caved on giving the Iranians a 14 day windows to prep for UN inspections which is more than enough time to cover up their non-compliance. This is a huge win for the Iranians, not sure what we get out of it besides a shaky ally in the region who's never backed us up and essentially undermined everything we've attempted to do in the region.
- ohitsdom 11y ago
  As others have said, the US will get support in fighting ISIS. Also this will go a long way in building up relations with Iran in the hopes of one day counting them as a reliable ally.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
nir 11y ago
In This Thread: Opinions differing from the majority groupthink downmodded or flagged. HN is now officially worse than Reddit.
curiousjorge 11y ago
but why is oil going up? I thought that this news would push down the prices further due to additional Iran oil adding million barrells a day.
jarnix 11y ago
I thought I was on "Hacker News", why is this post on the front page?
- colinbartlett 11y ago
  This is rehashed often. It's "news that hackers would find interesting" not "news about computers". If an article does not gratify your intellectual curiosity, I suggest just ignoring it.
  - jarnix 11y ago
    Lol, that looks like an automated response from a bot. Moderation could add value to the community by removing these posts.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
alexnewman 11y ago
Hooray!
Myrmornis 11y ago
I'm pleased to hear this news and I think it's a good thing. However I do think that if Iran and the USA are re-establishing relations then the USA should apologize for killing 290 civilians by shooting down a passenger jet. I don't think I can really think highly of a country that could do such a thing without apologizing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

283 points by Expeditus419 11y ago

thescrewdriver 11y ago

Let's hope this works out better than the North Korean nuclear deal.

Expeditus419 11y ago
Lack of access to military sites could be a reason this deal fails as the agreement provides stipulation for inspectors to press for military locations although the access is not guaranteed.
acjohnson55 11y ago
Fortunately, I think Iran is the more tractable of the two nations, at least until the North Korean regime collapses.

DiabloD3 11y ago

If you had told me that would be today's headline at any point over the past decade, I'm not sure I would have believed you. If this works out, the President has another thing to add to his list of "things no President before me achieved".

thescrewdriver 11y ago
Out of curiosity, what else would be on that list?
- Tomte 11y ago
  Nationwide Universal Healthcare.
  - adventured 11y ago
    The US does not have universal healthcare. Further, Obama wasn't responsible for the ACA. edit: if the US had universal healthcare, the US wouldn't have 30+ million people without health coverage today.
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      Nevermind that it's a large step in that direction, I'm pretty sure it was his pen that signed it into law.
      - adventured 11y ago
        It was his pen, that was his biggest contribution to it. His involvement in crafting the legislation, and getting the necessary votes, was almost non-existent. It was the super majority Democratic Congress that was responsible for making the ACA happen. Both in terms of wrangling the votes together, and reaching the countless compromises necessary to get it through by the slim margin it ultimately passed by.
        vasilipupkin 11y ago
        You are focused on the mechanics of how it got passed. But it was clearly his major priority and wouldn't have happened without him being in office. So, I apologize, but your statement seems at best completely inaccurate to me
        meragrin 11y ago
        So Hillary couldn't or wouldn't have done the same thing? Personally, I think it would have sailed through much more easily had she been in office.
        vasilipupkin 11y ago
        Hmmmm, Hillary tried to do the same thing a long time ago and failed. But more importantly, even if you are correct, that is totally irrelevant to whether or not Obama had anything to do with it.
- ojbyrne 11y ago
  Getting rid of the silly Cuba embargo.
briandear 11y ago
Have you read the Iran deal? The Iranians were happy about it, this it likely wasn't a good deal for the rest of us. The Iranians can't be trusted. If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution; instead those protestors were executed, tortured or imprisioned. Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup. Honestly, Obama doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy. He sort of waddles along weakening the U.S. position whenever possible.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Revolution is almost always a bad thing for liberal democracy. See, e.g., the Arab Spring, the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Had those protestors been successful, there is a significant possibility would have been co-opted by elements that executed, tortured, and imprisoned a lot more people. See, e.g., the French Revolution. Iran, in contrast, is well on its way to having a functional democracy. The power of the ayatollah wanes every year, and every new generation of young Iranians is more liberal than before. The best thing the U.S. can do is be friendly and wait for that to play out. Because if there is any hope for another democracy in the Middle East, it's in a place where people are already accustomed to the benefits of having a functioning government with significant and growing public participation.
- toyg 11y ago
  > The Iranians can't be trusted. National stereotypes, pillars of pragmatic diplomacy ever since 2000 BC and the clear mark of logical thinkers the world over. > If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution How do you know he didn't? Because he didn't send in bombers to "support demonstrations"? > Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup ... when the alternative would have been much more Iran-friendly; yeah, how strange, right? Honestly, how do you make these random mental associations? > He sort of waddles along weakening the U.S. position whenever possible. A comprehensive Iran-US 'peace deal' (or even a strategic partnership going forward) would immensely strengthen US standing around the world, dramatically reducing tensions in the Middle East and providing a balance to the uncritical reliance on Saudi Arabia and Turkey that so much pain has brought since the '90s (from Al Qaeda to IS). So uhm, there is that. But yeah, I agree that it weakens fearmongers' positions, both in US, Israel and Iran.
twoodfin 11y ago
Well, Bill Clinton got a nuclear deal with North Korea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework
- DiabloD3 11y ago
  Yeah, and that didn't quite worked out as planned, although I still view it as a positive step forwards.
- tootie 11y ago
  That agreement put up seals and cameras on their existing reactor to prevent them from reprocessing without us knowing. When W Bush began laying his case to invade Iraq, NK saw that compliance with inspections wasn't a guarantee of safety so they broke the seals. Bush and the UN knew immediately and simply declined to act. Opting instead to pursue mythical WMDs in Iraq.
gadders 11y ago
"Letting Iran develop a nuclear bomb." Not sure I'd want that as my epitaph.
- evgen 11y ago
  Yeah, as compared to the string if presidents before him to did both jack and shit to stop Iran's nuclear development efforts.
gadders 11y ago
On the negative side he can put Benghazi and the rise of ISIS.
mason240 11y ago
I don't know if capitulating to theocratic regime in their attempts at nuclear proliferation (which will likely set off a regional nuclear arms race) is something to be proud of.
- evgen 11y ago
  Well, since the US didn't capitulate and the regional nuclear arms race was already in progress I guess it goes back into the things to be proud of column; although, really the only ones who are upset with this deal are hardliners in Iran and Israel and the fact that they are upset is a stronger indicator that this is "a good thing"(tm) than any punditry we will hear over the next few weeks.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  Frankly, the theocratic regime with attempts at nuclear proliferation we should be afraid of is Saudi Arabia. They'd likely buy bombs from Pakistan in short order if they decided they wanted one. If Israel having nukes hasn't set off a nuclear arms race I'm really confused as to how Iran not having them is supposed to.

bsaul 11y ago

Am i the only one amazed at the fact that we actually had to wait for iranians to accept to stop going toward nuclear weapons ? I mean, why did EU and US insist so much on wanting a deal ? It seemed to be that one side has all the leverage in the negociation and the other has none. We could have simply waited for the iranian regime to get so weakened that they'd simply surrender and accept every measure. So I don't understand what's the counterpart that the US and EU wanted from Iran, that could get Iran get leverage in the negociations. Anyone ?

sveme 11y ago
I don't quite understand your question. You are asking what Iran wanted from the EU and US and what they wanted from Iran? EU&US: Don't develop nuclear weapons. Iran: Stop the sanctions, let us sell our oil. Is that what you were asking for?
- bsaul 11y ago
  I don't understand why there were negociation at all. Usually, with such crucial matters, threatening the world peace, there is no discussion. The strongest simply impose its decision. Eu&us: stop or you'll get destroyed ( militarely or economically). Iran : ok. I don't see how it went any other way. The only reason i could imagine was if other big countries ( russia and china mainly) were saying " we disagree". But in that case negociations wouldn't need to be with iran, but directly with china or russia.
  - konradb 11y ago
    Presumably it's an issue of national sovereignty - it is their country, and they are broadly able to do any activities on their land as they see fit, just as the EU and US have seen fit to develop nuclear weapons. Presumably the alternative is to threaten to invade or impose economic sanctions, but that doesn't seem to me like the beginning of a productive conversation. If anything it might increase the urgency of getting weapons, of any type, to be taken seriously.
  - mpoloton 11y ago

hodwik 11y ago

Iran agreed to provide "Managed access". Iraq inspections all over again.

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
Source? I've seen the opposite, that the IAEA and others will have unfettered access wherever they want, otherwise the sanctions come back into effect immediately.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- hodwik 11y ago
  https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dZJjpUMZsAEdLYME80B5lNtLhJv1M&q=%22managed+access%22+iran&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQqgIwAGoVChMI-cCE3MzaxgIVio8NCh0cqQF6 https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dZJjpUMZsAEdLYME80B5l...
EliRivers 11y ago
If there's one thing we learned from the invasion of Iraq, it's that access for inspections doesn't matter. Iraq complied, the UN reports all indicated that there were no WMDs, the people who wanted to invade just made up some nonsense bullshit anyway. Hans Blix, Jan 2003: "...access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect... cooperated rather well". Iran just watched a neighbour get invaded and seriously screwed over for basically no reason. Access for inspections is irrelevant.
- hodwik 11y ago
  Access most certainly matters, we wouldn't have made that mistake with Iraq had we had reliable access. If you recall, one of the "smoking guns" that the administration used to move into Iraq were intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi Republican Guard members. Those conversations mentioned "hiding" something before the inspectors got to a site. Since Iraq (like Iran) was allowed a few days before any visit, it was believed at the time that they were shifting materials whenever the inspectors came. I recall even liberal media organizations poking fun at the inspectors -- about how they were playing a game of chase with the Iraqis. Remember this graphic, much shown in the media? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_UN_Iraq_presentation%2C_alleged_Mobile_Production_Facilities.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_U... Had no such rule been in place, they could have moved that day to inspect the site, and would have realized there was nothing to be found. Hans Blix also said, in December 2012, (from wikipedia:) that the Iraqi weapons declaration filed on December 7 "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts. So the US was not alone in that position. and Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. (These are not a WMD, and Iraq is permitted "battlefield" missiles. However, Iraq's missiles were limited by UN instruction to a diameter of 600mm, and the Al-Samoud II has a diameter of 760mm). These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said

m4r71n 11y ago

I'm in the middle of reading "Countdown to Zero Day", the book about Stuxnet. It contains a very good summary of how Iran started enriching Uranium, where they acquired the technology to build the centrifuges, and how most countries that signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons attempted to reason with Iran to stop enriching Uranium. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in this topic. And of course the detailed analysis of Stuxnet is great as well.

dbcooper 11y ago

Some possible reasons to be sceptical: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/opinion/the-iran-deals-fatal-flaw.html?_r=1 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/opinion/the-iran-deals-...

dbcooper 11y ago
There's a back-and-forth on that opinion piece, here [1] and here [2]. [1] http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/iran-op-eds-fatal-flaw http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/iran-op-eds-fatal-f... [2] http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/misleading-spin-centrifuges http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/misleading-spin-cen...
- dbcooper 11y ago
  On the key point of low enriched Uranium, here's the text from the agreement: > During the 15 year period, and as Iran gradually moves to meet international qualification standards for nuclear fuel produced in Iran, it will keep its uranium stockpile under 300 kg of up to 3.67% enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) or the equivalent in other chemical forms. The excess quantities are to be sold based on international prices and delivered to the international buyer in return for natural uranium delivered to Iran, or are to be down-blended to natural uranium level. Enriched uranium in fabricated fuel assemblies from Russia or other sources for use in Iran's nuclear reactors will not be counted against the above stated 300 kg UF6 stockpile, if the criteria set out in Annex I are met with regard to other sources. The Joint Commission will support assistance to Iran, including through IAEA technical cooperation as appropriate, in meeting international qualification standards for nuclear fuel produced in Iran. All remaining uranium oxide enriched to between 5% and 20% will be fabricated into fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). Any additional fuel needed for the TRR will be made available to Iran at international market prices.
  - dbcooper 11y ago
    That would seem to add 2 months to the breakout time. i.e. It would be 5 to 6 months based on Kuperman's reckoning (as opposed to Obama's claimed 12 months). Whether they can divert or reconstitute some of the 20% material during or after fuel conversion is unclear. Some scenarios are discussed here: http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/LEU_20_percent_update_May_4_2015_Final.pdf http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/LEU_20_percent_upd...

mavdi 11y ago

Sceptical Iranian here. There are groups that profit from an ongoing tension and conflict on both sides. This time around it seems they have lost the hand, but we would be a fool to think that this agreement settles things for good. This has always been and will always be a fluid situation. I think the work has just begun now, let's hope the sane people inc charge on both sides will keep things positive. Otherwise it only takes one delayed inspection permit, or an angry military general to take things back right to the start.

maxerickson 11y ago
Re your second paragraph, keep in mind that the US Congress gets to vote on it.
- afiedler 11y ago
  It's extremely likely to pass. Since this isn't technically a "treaty", Congress can only pass a bill to disapprove of it [1]. Obama can then veto the disapproval, and there are enough Democrats to override the veto. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/congress-iran-nuclear-deal.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/congress-...
  - Tomte 11y ago
    Does the president need approval by Congress for lifting the sanctions? I don't know the answer, but I suppose that might be an issue.
    - epc 11y ago
      Congress must pass a bill to revoke the US sanctions, which is a separate act of legislation from assenting to this deal. There are several Executive Orders which Obama can revoke but the embargo proper is embedded in US legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran
toyg 11y ago

acjohnson55 11y ago

I think the future of the Middle East is a tense balance between Saudi and Iranian poles, with both countries being normalized in the international community. The USA can't bring either country to heel, but it can hopefully prevent the stalemate from being nuclear along Sunni-Shia lines. But what's also changed is that the US needs a normalized partner in Iran to fully isolate ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other far worse actors. I think we can also be encouraged by the demographics in Iran, which are moving younger and more liberal. I'm cautiously optimistic.

seivan 11y ago
There are other people there that can deal with radical Sunni muslims (ISIS). You don't want (Shia) Iran to deal with them. Look at their recent militia activities, check what happens to Sunni civilians in Iraq. I guess we're not mentioning Yemen.
skylan_q 11y ago
Iran is a country much more aligned with the US in many more ways than Saudi Arabia is. It's really a "natural ally" for the US in the middle east.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- bsaul 11y ago
  Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ? Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.
  - geff82 11y ago
    Because they are used to do so and because they are completely detached from the reality of their people. For the average Iranian, USA is the land to go. And you can't image how similar things look! Highways, signs, style of buildings all look like a slightly cheaper copy of the USA. Except for the roads, which are worse in the USA.

seivan 11y ago

My God, why didn't Roosevelt and Churchill think of giving billions in relief to the Third Reich. That would have solved everything. Chamberlain was a forgotten hero! Giving Mullahs access to create nuclear weapons. Taking their word for it that they won't. Yeah, this will end well. Just yesterday their Iranian proxies in Baghdad were burning American and Israeli flags. Vowing to destroy The Great Satan(s), why do we downplay that? I simply just loooooove how (western) leftists are so accepting of this. You shit yourself when Christians don't want to bake cakes. But killing apostates, hanging "sodomites", that's all good. Yeah, this will make everything better and not worse at all.

skylan_q 11y ago
My God, why didn't Roosevelt and Churchill think of giving billions in relief to the Third Reich. That would have solved everything. Chamberlain was a forgotten hero! They would have, but they gave it to the Soviets instead.
- seivan 11y ago
  Soviet sent 8,668,400 of their own to the grave for that. That should cover it, not that I am condoning the totalitarian communist regime. There weren't better alternatives back then. There are now.
  - selimthegrim 11y ago
    And which would those be? Those watan-foroosh MeK?
threeseed 11y ago
There are plenty of countries in the world that have questionable human rights records. Many of whom the "West" has quite strong relationships with e.g. China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia. Putting a blindfold on and pretending you can just contain or ignore certain countries has failed as a strategy and will continue to fail. So unless you want to do something about Iran militarily (not feasible) then you are looking at diplomacy. And let's face it. The US is not good at wars.

user_0001 11y ago

>(besides Israel, obviously) Out of interest, why obviously? The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange (to most outside of the US who I have spoken to). Israel has it's religious fundamentalists (just like the rest of the region). Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other countries to at least abstain from votes), has actual developed the nuclear bomb, is destabilising to the region, discusses attacking their neighbours (sorry not attacking - pre-emptive... Yet this is never questioned, nor discussed from what I can tell. They are "the good guys" so the rules are different for them.

rayiner 11y ago
> Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other countries to at least abstain from votes), Israel is our ally not because they're the "good guys" but because they share, and can help spread, our basic values about democratic government. You can have militarily aggressive democracies (e.g. the Roman Republic). Democracy is not a matter of being the "good guy" or the "bad guy" but a matter of how people relate to each other and the government.
- Udik 11y ago
  Hm. So you're saying that a state disregarding tens of UN resolutions, that is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that periodically massacres thousands of civilians, that faces mounting accusations of being an apartheid regime, that keeps creating civilian settlements in an occupied territory, that has secret nuclear weapons, that incarcerates people without accusation or trial - this state "shares and can help spread our basic values about democratic government". Good luck with that! You couldn't have given a better explanation for the rise of fundamentalism and terrorism in the ME.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Historically the US has done all of that. Remember, we developed nuclear weapons and are the only country that has actually used them in warfare. We have also developed and used biological and chemical weapons. Hell, for a recent example after signing a convention banning using laser weapons to blind people we got rid of our prototype laser weapons to blind people.

at-fates-hands 11y ago

Not sure how this benefits the US at all. Iran reaps billions in frozen assets and the end to their oil embargo. Plus, the US caved on giving the Iranians a 14 day windows to prep for UN inspections which is more than enough time to cover up their non-compliance. This is a huge win for the Iranians, not sure what we get out of it besides a shaky ally in the region who's never backed us up and essentially undermined everything we've attempted to do in the region.

ohitsdom 11y ago
As others have said, the US will get support in fighting ISIS. Also this will go a long way in building up relations with Iran in the hopes of one day counting them as a reliable ally.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

nir 11y ago

In This Thread: Opinions differing from the majority groupthink downmodded or flagged. HN is now officially worse than Reddit.

curiousjorge 11y ago

but why is oil going up? I thought that this news would push down the prices further due to additional Iran oil adding million barrells a day.

jarnix 11y ago

I thought I was on "Hacker News", why is this post on the front page?

colinbartlett 11y ago
This is rehashed often. It's "news that hackers would find interesting" not "news about computers". If an article does not gratify your intellectual curiosity, I suggest just ignoring it.
- jarnix 11y ago
  Lol, that looks like an automated response from a bot. Moderation could add value to the community by removing these posts.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

alexnewman 11y ago

Hooray!

Myrmornis 11y ago

I'm pleased to hear this news and I think it's a good thing. However I do think that if Iran and the USA are re-establishing relations then the USA should apologize for killing 290 civilians by shooting down a passenger jet. I don't think I can really think highly of a country that could do such a thing without apologizing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655