UN Security Council endorses Iran deal

[Suzanimal]

The United Nations Security Council on Monday unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the nuclear deal struck by the Obama administration, Iran and other world powers.

The 15-0 vote came despite opposition on Capitol Hill, where key lawmakers have criticized the administration for pushing for U.N. action before Congress has a to chance to weigh in.

But the move sends a strong signal of international support for the agreement, which offers Iran economic relief in exchange for concessions on its nuclear work.

“While this deal does not address many of our profound concerns, if implemented it would make the world safer and more secure,” U.N. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said during Monday morning’s meeting.

“If Iran seizes that opportunity, if it abides by the commitments that it agreed to in this deal... then it will find the international community and the United States willing to provide a path out of isolation and toward greater engagement,” she added. “We hope Iran’s government will chose that path.”

The plan, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), would set limits on Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, build centrifuges and other actions that could lead to a nuclear bomb. That would extend the so-called “breakout time” for it to obtain a bomb from the current estimate of three months to one year, according to the Obama administration.

The deal would "cut off all pathways" for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, Power said, "while putting in place a rigorous inspection and transparency regime to verify Iran’s compliance."

In exchange, the U.S. and other countries around the globe would begin to roll back sanctions on Iran’s financial and oil sector, which have had a severe toll on the country’s economy.

Those restrictions would begin to be lifted in 90 days.

“Ninety days from today, when our respective capitals and legislatures have had a time to review the deal’s provisions, the provisions within the JCPOA will take effect,” Power said.

In Washington, that review is expected to be a bitter fight.

Congress has 60 days to weigh in on the accord, and the Obama administration is already facing strong winds in opposition.

Most Republicans are united in opposing the deal, which they say would only empower Iran and assure it time to build a bomb, and the White House will struggle to maintain Democratic support.

In recent days, President Obama, Vice President Biden and other top officials have begun an aggressive lobbying push to rally Democrats. Over the weekend, that included a rare golf outing that Obama made with three Democratic House lawmakers.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/248468-un-security-council-endorses-iran-deal

[Ronin Truth]

That means the Rothschilds have approved of the deal. ;)

Next!

[Jan2017]

and the EU as well approving the deal on Monday . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/world/middleeast/security-council-following-iran-nuclear-pact-votes-to-lift-sanctions.html?_r=0

USA acting unilaterally may not be able to stop it, especially thanks to the Corker Bill - co-sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham
giving O'Bomber veto capabilities.

I have found Rand could very well be right in his reason #2, considering the leftover nuclear capability in the agreement -
an unlimited Russian capability for using Iran to stockpile Uranium Hexafluoride there (in Annex I, page 15, Item 59.)

Seems like a slam dunk for Putin, and could be very well a very bad deal for peace ultimately.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/putinslamdunk01a_zpsx3bg1ucv.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/putinslamdunk01a_zpsx3bg1ucv.jpg.html)

.

[wizardwatson]

I got an email from "House Conservatives" telling me to sign a petition.

Because mean ole' Obama is threatening to veto any changes or rejection of the deal.

It's funny, though. I don't remember getting an email when our legislators gave him this power by passing the advise and consent rules? Perhaps there was a solar flare that day and it didn't make it to my inbox.

[Occam's Banana]

I have found Rand could very well be right in his reason #2, considering the leftover nuclear capability in the agreement -
an unlimited Russian capability for using Iran to stockpile Uranium Hexafluoride there (in Annex I, page 15, Item 59.)

Seems like a slam dunk for Putin, and could be very well a very bad deal for peace ultimately.

The "leftover" nuclear capability in the agreement is far, FAR below what is permitted to all signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is one of those signatories, and has never been found to be in violation of the terms of NNP. Under those terms, the Iranians have every right to do many of the things this new Iran deal forbids them from doing.

There are only two groups for whom this is a "bad" deal - the warmongers who lust for excuses to demonize Iran, and the Iranians themselves. But if the Iranians are willing to accept such draconian terms, I will not gainsay them. On the other hand, the warmongers (and those who would appease them) can go to hell ...

[Free Radical]

The UN needs to be abolished.

[Jan2017]

The "leftover" nuclear capability in the agreement is far, FAR below . . .

On Sunday UN Ambassador Samantha Power was quoted as saying, and I am paraphrasing - but I believe accurately
"One thing about the Iran deal, is it is very complex."
Glad she cleared up those complexities by Monday morning, but it wouldn't matter - by law the Secretary of State can replace the UN Ambasdsador for any UN vote.

A Democrat Senator on a talking head show, was non-committal - said he'd look at it - even when pressed how he was leaning at the time,
at least acknowledging the complexity . . .

Did the US take any shortcuts to get the deal signed . . . (?)
Some peace-hungry Democrats may see this as a hell of a deal for Putin that could be bad in spite of the Democrat administration
as well as any libertarian Constitutionalists lingering in the Congress - we'll see if enough for a veto-override, now needed thanks
to Senators Corker and Graham.

Annex I - Nuclear related commitments
http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/annex_1_nuclear_related_commitments_en.pdf


59. Russian designed, fabricated and licensed fuel assemblies for use in Russian supplied reactors in Iran
do not count against the 300 kg UF6 stockpile limit. Enriched uranium in fabricated fuel assemblies from other sources outside of Iran
for use in Iran's nuclear research and power reactors, including those which will be fabricated outside of Iran for the initial fuel load
of the modernised Arak research reactor, which are certified by the fuel supplier and the appropriate Iranian authority to meet
international standards, will not count against the 300kg UF6 stockpile limit.


UF6 is uranium hexafluoride

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/OBomber01b_zpssl5m7byp.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/OBomber01b_zpssl5m7byp.jpg.html)

.

[Occam's Banana]

On Sunday UN Ambassador Samantha Power was quoted as saying, and I am paraphrasing - but I believe accurately
"One thing about the Iran deal, is it is very complex."
Glad she cleared up those complexities by Monday morning, but it wouldn't matter - by law the Secretary of State can replace the UN Ambasdsador for any UN vote.

A Democrat Senator on a talking head show, was non-committal - said he'd look at it - even when pressed how he was leaning at the time,
at least acknowledging the complexity . . .

Did the US take any shortcuts to get the deal signed . . . (?)
Some peace-hungry Democrats may see this as a hell of a deal for Putin that could be bad in spite of the Democrat administration
as well as any libertarian Constitutionalists lingering in the Congress - we'll see if enough for a veto-override, now needed thanks
to Senators Corker and Graham.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything I said.

The terms of compliance and verification in this deal are the most stringent that have ever been placed upon any country's nuclear power system, by orders of magnitude. It is literally unprecedented, in both scope and degree. (That is one of the reasons it is so complex.) Iran has surrended a huge chunk of its sovereignty over its own nuclear power capacity - sovereign capacity that that was supposed to have been guaranteed to it as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (in which, again, Iran has never been found to be in violation).


Annex I - Nuclear related commitments
http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/annex_1_nuclear_related_commitments_en.pdf

UF6 is uranium hexafluoride

So Russia somehow managed to get a little beak-wetting provision into the deal. So what? Given how tightly limited and restricted Iran's nuclear power program is going to be under the terms of this deal, why should this be of any particular concern? They're not going to have any use for prodigous quantities of the stuff ...

[Jan2017]

I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything I said.

. . .why should this be of any particular concern? They're not going to have any use for prodigous quantities of the stuff ...

Ya' seem to have figured out what every one else - including the UN Ambassador and at least one Democrat US Senator -
acknowledges is at the very least a "very complex deal" - at least enough for you to write how stockpiles are far, FAR below what is permitted by the NPT.

Russia being able to use and supply uranium in Russian facilities in Iran (?) outside of the limits of the deal,
is at least a surprise provision to lil' ole me.

I'll consider it as at least a good enough reason to not pile on to throw Rand under the bus as a warmonger for a No vote -
which some in these forums are/have done.
I am not really ok with Rand's other two reasons, but now I can understand where he might have gotten his reasoning for suggesting
what is typically a GOP establishment line of reason for all the upcoming GOP Nay votes - substantial nuclear capability.
I can't call Rand a liar because I see that provision, and I will not be so surprised now if some Democrat Senators were to vote no as well,
or at least hear their constituents that don't support a provision like that perk for the Putin Bear.

And if I were an Iranian citizen - yeah . . . I wouldn't want a Russian reactor with unlimited uranium in my hypothetical Iranian backyard,
thinking about Chernobyl and all the one armed babies being born near that site.
I can't think of too many nations that want a Russian-anything built and run in their hometowns -
ok maybe a vodka plant, but definitely not Russian uranium.

[Occam's Banana]

Ya' seem to have figured out what every one else - including the UN Ambassador and at least one Democrat US Senator -
acknowledges is at the very least a "very complex deal" [...]

Why should anyone consider some vague mumblings about "complexity" (for which you provide no further particulars or specifics) to be relevant? Especially given that these mumblings are coming from Senator J. Random Democrat and some UN flunky ...


[...] at least enough for you to write how stockpiles are far, FAR below what is permitted by the NPT.

I did not say anything about "stockpiles" of any one particular thing being "far, FAR below" what is permitted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By "stockpiles," I assume you are referring to hexafluoride, since you seem to be fixated on that particular thing to exclusion of everything else (especially the draconian regime of limitations and compliance verifications that make up the bulk of the deal). I don't know if the NNPT limits signatories' "stockpiles" of hexafluoride - but even if it does, Iran has NEVER been found to be in violation of the NNTP. Hence, even if there ARE hexafluoride limits in the NNPT, Iran has never violated them - and there is NO reason to think they are going to start doing so (especially under the terms of this new "Iran deal," for which compliance inspections/verifications will be even more stringent than ever before).

What I actually said, however, was that Iran's "nuclear capability agreement [will be] far, FAR below what is permitted to all signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." Little is going to remain of Iran's nuclear power capacity in general after the new "Iran deal" is implemented, [U]relative to what the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty permits them to do and have. And Iran's capacity to conduct a nuclear power program will indeed be "far, FAR below" what was supposed to have been guaranteed them by the NNPT. For just one example, the "Iran deal" will restrict Iran to producing only reactor-grade uranium (at enrichment levels of 5% or less) for the next 15 years. Uranium enriched to 5% is less than that of medical-grade uranium (20% enrichment), let alone weapons-grade uranium (90%). And as of May, Iran had consumed the last of it's own stock of medical-grade uranium - so for at least the next 15 years, Iran will have to import any medical-grade uranium it needs (despite the fact that signatories to the NNPT are supposed to be allowed to produce medical-grade uranium for themselves).

IOW: The only thing for which Iran is going to be able to use the hexafluoride you seem to be so worried about is the production of reactor-grade uranium. And it is going to be doing it under by far the most stringent compliance regime (in both scope and degree) that has EVER existed for any nuclear power program anywhere.


Russia being able to use and supply uranium in Russian facilities in Iran (?) outside of the limits of the deal,
is at least a surprise provision to lil' ole me. [...]

And if I were an Iranian citizen - yeah . . . I wouldn't want a Russian reactor with unlimited uranium in my hypothetical Iranian backyard,
thinking about Chernobyl and all the one armed babies being born near that site.
I can't think of too many nations that want a Russian-anything built and run in their hometowns -
ok maybe a vodka plant, but definitely not Russian uranium.

So, wait ... you've gone from something as clear and simple as Iran being permitted to purchase hexafluoride from Russia in excess of the 300kg limit which would otherwise pertain ... to what? ... some kind of vague, nefarious "hypothetical" about Russians running "OMG! Chernobyl" nuclear power plants in Iran? ... or ... something? WTF? ... :confused:

Hell, if we're going to start just making stuff up, why not cut to the chase and have Russia deploying - or better yet, outright selling - some of their ICBMs to Iran, too ... :rolleyes:


I'll consider it as at least a good enough reason to not pile on to throw Rand under the bus as a warmonger for a No vote -
which some in these forums are/have done.

It's not a good reason for anything. I don't think Rand is a warmonger - I just think he's trying to appease the wrath of the irrational warmongers who will not tolerate anything that does not comport with their demonization of Iran. There is nothing more to it than that. The excuses for opposition to this deal are all bogus - including Rand's.

In fact, the only rational basis I can see for opposing this deal is that it is far too harsh on Iran. But if Iran is willing to put up with it ...


I am not really ok with Rand's other two reasons, but now I can understand where he might have gotten his reasoning for suggesting
what is typically a GOP establishment line of reason for all the upcoming GOP Nay votes - substantial nuclear capability.

As far as the GOP establishment is concerned, when it comes to Iran, ANY nuclear capability is "substantial" nuclear capability. No possible deal could ever possibly satisfy them. They will not ever be satisfied with anything to do with Iran unless and until Iran is a US puppet regime once again.

But Iran has every right under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to a "substantial nuclear capability."
The US has absolutely no right whatsoever to deny it to them. Iran has never been found to be in violation of the NNTP.
Furthermore, opposition to Iran's nuclear power program is based entirely on the lie that Iran is trying to "get the bomb."
There is absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever (a fact confirmed by a consensus of sixteen US intelligence agencies).
It's all a bunch of baseless boogity-boogity bullshit - and so are all the objections I've heard to this deal (including Rand's) ...


I can't call Rand a liar because I see that provision, and I will not be so surprised now if some Democrat Senators were to vote no as well,
or at least hear their constituents that don't support a provision like that perk for the Putin Bear.

I do not doubt that many (sadly including Rand) will grasp at such straws.
Fortunately, it doesn't appear that that is going to stop the UN, EU, etc. from recognizing or going forward with the deal.
In fact, I doubt that it will even prevent the US from going forward with the deal.

[TheCount]

I have found Rand could very well be right in his reason #2, considering the leftover nuclear capability in the agreement -
an unlimited Russian capability for using Iran to stockpile Uranium Hexafluoride there (in Annex I, page 15, Item 59.)


What is the limit on Iran's stockpile without the agreement?

[Jan2017]

What you said is that the

"leftover" nuclear capability in the agreement is far, FAR below what is permitted to all signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Gee, bad mistake that I made leaving your quote at the top of my post as it comes out onto the page -
you would assume then that the whole post must be specific in only addressing that statement quoted above.
I could have inverted the order, or put it into two subsequent shorter posts, so ya' wouldn't feel such a need for a come back as


I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything I said.

So then when I choose to re-explain myself, then I am 'fixated" on that argument - LMAO


What is the limit on Iran's stockpile without the agreement?

Nice question, but I could re-phrase it in light of that provision to :
What is the limit on Russia's stockpile in Russian-leased or operated facilities inside of Iran ?
Unlimited is "far, FAR below what is permitted" (?) . . . according to some people in the forums and/or Obama administration's tortuous complex logic. Huh ?

If the original signatories to the NPT such as Iran - are allowing Putin to usurp any limitations by just putting that nuclear capability in their neighbor country,
then I'll agree with Rand's reasoning that there is significant nuclear capability left after the deal gets approved by everyone,
even if that capability is only uranium hexafloride being unlimited - with every other nuclear capability so far, FAR below what is permitted anywhere else.
The European Union and the UN Security Council sanctions get removed, so all is good enough by them . . . but maybe not so much for a Kentucky Senator.
Even if only for Russian nuclear capability inside of Iran - I'll stand with Rand that unlimited UF6 is significant nuclear capability not in line with peaceful uses inside of Iran.

[TheCount]

Nice question, but I could re-phrase it in light of that provision to :
What is the limit on Russia's stockpile in Russian-leased or operated facilities inside of Iran ?

You're not understanding my point.

With no agreement, no limits exist. Therefore, the agreement does not allow something that was previously forbidden. It is, instead, imposing a limit on something that is currently limitless. You are trying to paint it as a step backward when it is a step forward.

[Jan2017]

With no agreement, no limits exist. . . . You are trying to paint it as a step backward when it is a step forward.

It is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that is being enforced by sanctions.
I think Banana's point/argument is that Iran is below limits imposed to other nations, already - a very good point I did not know.

And I am surprised to have learned that Iran was a signatory state in 1968, but nations with regime changes since then do become very messy -
i.e. North Korea - who later even officially opted out, but then their release out of the treaty got suspended ?

Finally, guess what I just learned . . . Israel is not a signatory state to the NPT ? Holy sheeet. Is that right ?

I am only trying to see Rand's reason to go along with the GOP base/establishment on this -
I believe his concern is legitimate enough that it is not a pure political Nay vote by him, unlike a Rubio or Graham,
and that he wants negotiations at least for maybe a good/better deal.

[TheCount]

It is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that is being enforced by sanctions.

Which limits specified in that treaty does the new agreement reduce?