T Nation

Khamenei Approves Nuke Deal with New Conditions


#1

"For example, Khamenei reiterated that all economic, financial and banking sanctions must be lifted on the same day that a deal is signed. He said that includes not only sanctions imposed by the United Nations, but also those voted into law by Congress.

â??Lifting sanctions canâ??t depend on implementation of Iranâ??s obligations,â?? he said."

Well all this boils down to, it seems, that the supreme leader accepts the deal, except that we didn't negotiate these things.
This is not the same conversation as to whether or not this deal was a good idea in the first place, but rather, the deal has been approved by everybody but Iran. And now the Khamenei wants things not in the deal to approve the deal.

So do we believe he is serious? Serious about not giving up any uranium or heavy water until the U.N. reports on it's Possible Military Dimensions.

-About not accepting the 10 year restrictions?

-About immediate lifting of all financial and banking sanctions?
Or is this grandstanding?

Can the deal commence in the face of this conditional approval? Conditions which were not a part of these negotiations.

What should be the response of the P5+1 if Khamenei does not back off his added demands?


#2

[quote]pat wrote:

"For example, Khamenei reiterated that all economic, financial and banking sanctions must be lifted on the same day that a deal is signed. He said that includes not only sanctions imposed by the United Nations, but also those voted into law by Congress.

â??Lifting sanctions canâ??t depend on implementation of Iranâ??s obligations,â?? he said."

Well all this boils down to, it seems, that the supreme leader accepts the deal, except that we didn’t negotiate these things.
This is not the same conversation as to whether or not this deal was a good idea in the first place, but rather, the deal has been approved by everybody but Iran. And now the Khamenei wants things not in the deal to approve the deal.

So do we believe he is serious? Serious about not giving up any uranium or heavy water until the U.N. reports on it’s Possible Military Dimensions.

-About not accepting the 10 year restrictions?

-About immediate lifting of all financial and banking sanctions?
Or is this grandstanding?

Can the deal commence in the face of this conditional approval? Conditions which were not a part of these negotiations.

What should be the response of the P5+1 if Khamenei does not back off his added demands?[/quote]

Khamenei green lighted the deal. There are no additional demands. The implementation of deal was universally understood by those party to it to be contigent on the resolution of the PMD dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program later this year. Iran’s rollback will not begin until then, nor will the incremntal reduction of sanctions.

P.S., the Washington Post article you linked to is moot, as it was written prior to the JCPOA.


#3

how about this one?


#4

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

"For example, Khamenei reiterated that all economic, financial and banking sanctions must be lifted on the same day that a deal is signed. He said that includes not only sanctions imposed by the United Nations, but also those voted into law by Congress.

�¢??Lifting sanctions can�¢??t depend on implementation of Iran�¢??s obligations,�¢?? he said."

Well all this boils down to, it seems, that the supreme leader accepts the deal, except that we didn’t negotiate these things.
This is not the same conversation as to whether or not this deal was a good idea in the first place, but rather, the deal has been approved by everybody but Iran. And now the Khamenei wants things not in the deal to approve the deal.

So do we believe he is serious? Serious about not giving up any uranium or heavy water until the U.N. reports on it’s Possible Military Dimensions.

-About not accepting the 10 year restrictions?

-About immediate lifting of all financial and banking sanctions?
Or is this grandstanding?

Can the deal commence in the face of this conditional approval? Conditions which were not a part of these negotiations.

What should be the response of the P5+1 if Khamenei does not back off his added demands?[/quote]

Khamenei green lighted the deal. There are no additional demands. The implementation of deal was universally understood by those party to it to be contigent on the resolution of the PMD dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program later this year. Iran’s rollback will not begin until then, nor will the incremntal reduction of sanctions.

P.S., the Washington Post article you linked to is moot, as it was written prior to the JCPOA. [/quote]

I post several sources so that if you have issue with one, you have others to refer too. If you don’t like the Washington Post article, disregard it. There are other links, certainly one of them meets you rigid standards.


#5

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

how about this one?[/quote]

Well I am waiting to see if Khamenei is channeling his inner Kim Jung Un, or if he is serious about attaching this pork to the deal. And if the latter, if the administration will cave to it.


#6

I simply pointed out that the Washington Post article was irrelevant given the deal that was struck months later. The other articles present nothing substantial vis-a-vis the implementation of the deal. Khamenei green lighted the agreement. There are no additional demands. The implementation of deal was universally understood by those party to it to be contingent on the resolution of the PMD dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program later this year. The rollback of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will not begin until then, nor will the incremental reduction of sanctions. None of these are new developments. Iran, the P5+1, and the EU understand this. as do those of us who actually read the JCPOA and its annexes. Instead of slogging through those, I suggest the following:

The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Definitive Guide

Report, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/25599/iran_nuclear_deal.html


#7

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

how about this one?[/quote]

Sloppy, poorly written, and inaccurate. The author can’t even be bothered to spell Iranian President Rouhani’s name correctly.


#8

Only a fool would trust the Iranians.


#9

[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Only a fool would trust the Iranians.[/quote]

I agree. However, the JCPOA is based on the concept of distrust and verify. It also strengthens the military option significantly. Anyone who has actually read the deal and its annexes would understand this.


#10

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Only a fool would trust the Iranians.[/quote]

I agree. However, the JCPOA is based on the concept of distrust and verify. It also strengthens the military option significantly. Anyone who has actually read the deal and its annexes would understand this.[/quote]

"the JCPOA is based on the concept of distrust and verify"
I read the whole thing. Only a fool would believe this, especially given the fact that the Iranians, under certain circumstances are allow to police themselves. Further that that Iranians can walk away from the deal any time they like, but the 5+1 are bound by it.


#11

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Only a fool would trust the Iranians.[/quote]

I agree. However, the JCPOA is based on the concept of distrust and verify. It also strengthens the military option significantly. Anyone who has actually read the deal and its annexes would understand this.[/quote]

"the JCPOA is based on the concept of distrust and verify"
I read the whole thing. Only a fool would believe this, especially given the fact that the Iranians, under certain circumstances are allow to police themselves. Further that that Iranians can walk away from the deal any time they like, but the 5+1 are bound by it. [/quote]

You’re either a liar or a fool. I suspect both. You supposedly read the 159 page text, yet you continue to peddle absurd and patently false observations - the same peddled by the histrionic critics of the deal. Case in point, your complete ignorance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is referenced to early and often in the JCPOA. You wrote that Iran would be able to legally pursue nuclear weapons after the sunset of the deal, a notion which is ludicrous to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the subject. That was not a one time gaffe; you’ve made numerous such errors in discussions of Iran’s nuclear program.

The Iranians are not being given verification and monitoring privileges. The IAEA must account for past possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program before the agreement can be implemented. The environmental samples being taken at Parchin, a sensitive military facility, are being collected by Iranian personnel under IAEA supervision. That isn’t unreasonable. Americans would have balked if Soviet inspectors were able to go anywhere they pleased on American military bases to verify that the US was adhering to its obligations under SALT I. Iran’s concerns are understandable given that the primary logic of Iran’s nuclear program was to establish deference vis-a-vis the United States.

More limp dick reasoning. If Iran withdraws from the agreement, the remaining parties will no longer be bound by the terms of the deal. Sanctions can and will be reimplemented with a vengeance. The efficacy and legitimacy of a preventative strike against Iran’s nuclear program will be significantly increased by the deal. In the event of an Iranian withdrawal, military action is much more likely.