NOVANEWS
By: John Glaser
Secretary of State John Kerry’s last minute decision to make a surprise visit to Geneva, Switzerland, where negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran are rapidly progressing, led to an enormous amount of speculation that a first-step deal was imminent and may even be signed today.
Details of the first-phase deal are limited and speculative, but the broad contours are that Iran would halt its enrichment program (whatever that means) for 6 months in exchange for “very limited” and “reversible” sanctions relief. During that 6 months, a more comprehensive grand bargain would be hashed out, which would probably include Iran making the following concessions in return for greater sanctions relief: halting all production of 20% enriched uranium; converting much of its stockpile to fuel rods; and much greater access for international inspections.
To Iran hawks, that should sound like a damn good deal. Under those conditions of less enrichment and greater transparency, the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon would be transparently unfeasible.
Why, then, have the Iran hawks responded with outrage? Not only is Congress responding to this good news by ratcheting up additional sanctions in a clear attempt to derail negotiations and set us back on the war path, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nearly hyperventilated with fury over the diplomatic progress.
So a deal that would further handicap Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons and enhance the international community’s ability to confirm through inspections that there is no diversion of enriched material to some covert program is “a bad deal” that would bury “the possibility of having a peaceful resolution”? What?
If you see this as irrational, you’re not alone. Here’s the Foreign Minister of Sweden tweeting about Bibi’s outburst:
Details of the first-phase deal are limited and speculative, but the broad contours are that Iran would halt its enrichment program (whatever that means) for 6 months in exchange for “very limited” and “reversible” sanctions relief. During that 6 months, a more comprehensive grand bargain would be hashed out, which would probably include Iran making the following concessions in return for greater sanctions relief: halting all production of 20% enriched uranium; converting much of its stockpile to fuel rods; and much greater access for international inspections.
To Iran hawks, that should sound like a damn good deal. Under those conditions of less enrichment and greater transparency, the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon would be transparently unfeasible.
Why, then, have the Iran hawks responded with outrage? Not only is Congress responding to this good news by ratcheting up additional sanctions in a clear attempt to derail negotiations and set us back on the war path, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nearly hyperventilated with fury over the diplomatic progress.
So a deal that would further handicap Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons and enhance the international community’s ability to confirm through inspections that there is no diversion of enriched material to some covert program is “a bad deal” that would bury “the possibility of having a peaceful resolution”? What?
If you see this as irrational, you’re not alone. Here’s the Foreign Minister of Sweden tweeting about Bibi’s outburst:
