Blog | U.S. and world powers reach tentative Iran deal. So what now? (Updated)
Update: Sen. Lindsey Graham, a staunch opponent of the Iranian nuke talks, issued a statement about the deal. It is not as strident nor hair-on-fir as I expected, though still critical and another call for Congress to have a say, suggesting that he wasn’t expecting the deal to be as good as it seems, at least at first blush. Frankly, neither did I.
Here is the Graham statement:
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Graham is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“I have been very consistent and straightforward when it comes to the manner in which we should address Iranian nuclear ambitions.
“I believe any agreement with Iran should require that they dismantle their nuclear weapons program and infrastructure, and forbid them ever having the pathway to develop a nuclear weapon. I believe sanctions relief should not be granted until Iran comes clean and fully reveals the past and present military dimensions of its nuclear program. I believe steps should be taken to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is to be used solely for peaceful purposes and never allowed to evolve into a program allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapons capability.
“I look forward to reviewing the details and fine print of the deal announced today in Switzerland. Based upon the statements made and press reports, there appears to be major confusion and uncertainty over exactly what the deal entails. There also appears to be major differences of opinion over what impact the deal will have on the Iranian’s drive to develop a nuclear weapon. While I will reserve judgment until the details are known, it is notable how far from the White House’s initial negotiating principals we appear to be.
“Given the magnitude of this potential agreement and based on the obvious conflicts in interpretation, it is increasingly imperative Congress review any deal before it is finalized and before congressional sanctions are lifted.
“I also categorically reject President Obama’s construct that if Congress does not accept this agreement it means war. My biggest fear is a bad deal, which makes Iran a nuclear threshold state, will lead to an arms race in the Middle East. In addition, it will put our closest ally in the region, Israel, at great risk.
“The impact of a bad deal with Iran are unimaginable to our own national security, the region as a whole, and our allies. We simply cannot take President Obama’s word that it is this or war.”
From earlier:
Update: Obama: Deal a good one, more work to be done
Update: Did Iranian leader really issue fatwa against development of nuclear weapons?
Update: Statement from U.S. Energy Secretary
Update: Experts unsure of effect nukes deal will have on Iranian politics
Now that there’s been a tentative agreement reached in the Iran nukes talks, what does it all really mean?
The latest news:
LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Negotiators from Iran and major world powers reached agreement Thursday on a framework for a final agreement to curb Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from international sanctions, participants in the marathon talks said.
They said the sides, including the United States and its key European allies, would promptly start drafting a final accord to be completed by a June 30 deadline.
“Big day,” tweeted Secretary of State John F. Kerry. He said the European Union, the six major world powers and Iran “now have parameters to resolve major issues on nuclear program. Back to work soon on a final deal.”
Read more here: Iran and world powers agree on tentative deal
No one seems to know for sure what it really means, other than that the possibility for a finalized deal this summer just increased greatly.
Will that deal be a “good” one? That depends on your definition of “good.”
Here are some things to consider from a fact-checker about the talks:
While the negotiations have been controversial, Obama has repeatedly defended the negotiations as productive.
"Over the last year and a half, since we began negotiations with them, that's probably the first year and a half in which Iran has not advanced its nuclear program in the last decade," Obama said on CNN in December 2014.
That’s largely accurate, according to experts. International observers report that Iran complied with the terms of the temporary agreement. The amount of enriched uranium is less, and the country’s facilities to produce weapons-grade material have been curtailed.
But that does not mean the country has completely stopped all activities that could produce nuclear weapons material in the future, experts said. There’s also concern about broader aspects of a nuclear weapons program, such as weapons design and missile development. We rated Obama’s claim Mostly True.
Here’s a story about why President Obama risked so much to move forward with these talks
This story was originally published April 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM with the headline "Blog | U.S. and world powers reach tentative Iran deal. So what now? (Updated)."