He Got That Right!
"The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen. In just a short period of time, the world's leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapons."
U.S.President Donald J. Trump
"The Iranians intensified their hostility towards the West and its allies, to the extent that the very idea that Iran might be interested in maintaining a constructive dialogue now seems quite laughable.
"If Mr. Rouhani was genuinely interested in fostering better relations, he would not allow Iranian warships to harass the U.S. 5th Fleet as it fulfills its normal patrol duties around the Gulf region. He would not continue to support Houthi rebels in Yemen who have helped to create a humanitarian disaster there by seeking the overthrow of the country's democratically elected government."
"And Mr. Rouhani would not tolerate the massive arms buildup that Iran's Revolutionary Guard has undertaken in Syria and Lebanon, where it has now stockpiled tens of thousands of missiles with the capability of hitting all of Israel's major towns and cities."
Con Coughlin, The Daily Telegraph
"Much of Iranian society no longer believes the claims of the regime. [During recent demonstrations, one chant from the protesters was: "Our enemy is here (at home). It is not America]."
"The regime is in serious trouble. Rouhani has lost considerable power within the government and is weak with the political base that once supported him. The hardliners, too, have lost credibility, because of their corruption, their failure to deliver on economic promises and their military spending across the Middle East."
"The future could bring further polarization in society -- something the regime fears deeply -- and could realign political power temporarily in favour of the hardliners."
Geneive Abdo, resident scholar, Arabia Foundation, Washington
 |
Iran and six major world powers reached a nuclear deal on
Tuesday, capping more than a decade of on-off negotiations with an
agreement that could potentially transform the Middle East. European
Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Federica Mogherini is fourth from the left.
Credit:Reuters/Carlos Barria
|
- It could maintain a stockpile of 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, not the 100,000 kilograms of higher-enriched uranium it possessed;
- Iran could enrich uranium only to 3.67 percent, useful to fuel a reactor, but below the 90 percent to produce a weapon;
- The deal limited the number of centrifuges Iran could run as well as restricting the type, to an older, slower model;
- Iran was also to reconfigure a heavy-water reactor making it unusable for the production of plutonium;
- The Republic agreed it would convert its Fordo enrichment site into a research centre;
- More access for investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors was to be afforded.
Once the deal was signed, sealed and delivered, the sanctions that had squeezed Iran to the point of collapse were lifted and international banking and the global oil trade were once again opened to the country. It went about its aircraft purchases along with gathering other business agreements while billions of dollars invested overseas was unfrozen. Now it appears that matters will undergo a reversal to return Iran to the irritating interference of the international community in its plans.
The Iranian public, expecting some relief in improved economic conditions after the fallout of Iran's recovery of its assets and cash and business advances, saw nothing develop that would be interpreted to give them any kind of relief; no economic benefits flowed to them from the agreement which lifted sanctions. Resulting in some parts of the public taking part in nationwide protests the first two months of 2018 before the regime succeeded in putting them down.
European Commission spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic claims the IAEA has on ten occasions certified that Iran has complied with its obligations under the agreement. "This is not an agreement based on trust, but an agreement based on facts", she emphasized. Of an agreement which required 24 day's prior notice before inspectors would be permitted to gain access to investigative sites that may have been felt to be suspicious. So much for facts versus trust.
But then, the P5+1, without a significant "1", has Britain, Germany and France claiming that they are prepared to continue to support the agreement, and without doubt so is the European Union, China and Russia, although Iran purports itself to appear skeptical about their 'unreliability' as agreement partners. Since it has been Iran which on previous occasions when similar agreements were reached, saw fit to covertly continue whatever it wished, abrogating the spirit of the agreements, who is the unreliable one?
Moreover, with the denial of the United States to continue supporting the agreement, Iran has made the first step in making good its promise to destroy the presence of the State of Israel in the Middle East. While the IRCG has issued threats against American ships in the Persian Gulf, and hinted that members of the U.S. military will become sitting ducks for attacks, it has launched rockets into Israel from the military sites it has recently established on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.
Labels: Crisis Management, Iran, Nuclear Technology, Political Realities, United States
posted by Pieface @ Thursday, May 10, 2018
<< Home