Eli Lake & Josh Rogin, Daily Beast: White House Lowers Bar for Iran Nuke Deal
For anyone hoping a nuclear deal with Iran might stop the Tehran government from destabilizing the Middle East or free its political prisoners, the Obama administration has some bad news: It's just an arms control agreement.
As details of a proposed pact leaked out of the Geneva talks Monday, administration officials told us they will ask the world to judge any final nuclear agreement on the technical aspects only, not on whether the deal will spur Iranian reform.
"The only consideration driving what is part of any comprehensive agreement with Iran is how we can get to a one-year breakout time and cut off the four pathways for Iran to get enough material for a nuclear weapon, period," said State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf. "And if we reach an agreement, that will be the basis upon which people should judge it -- on the technical merits of it, not on anything else."
WNU Editor: Details on this possible Iranian nuclear deal have not been released .... but what is being "leaked" does not bode well for the future and is raising red flags everywhere.
Update: If this report is true, it is a worrisome development .... Iran opposition unveils 'secret' Tehran nuclear site -- AFP
3 comments:
Sorry WNUEditor,
But those guys are less reliable than Curveball, ot Bibi.
Let me see. Iran is signatory to protocols agreed upon by 140 nations...including the US. But it resists unilateral imposition of special conditions by a nonadherent to these protocols : in fact, the holder of the greatest WMD arsenal on the planet. Yet it is asked to give up power generation enrichment because that might lead to eventual buildup of fissionable materials. Wowsers. For several decades now Iran has run these plants without setting off one bomb ( in contrast to the 2000 plus by the UN Security Council nations )...but those who do not test nuclear arms are a greater threat than those who have. I must remind anyone who asks not to rely on your abilities at threat identification.
Opit,
Without nukes, the Russians would have poured through Fulda Gap and across the North German plain.
Russian superiority in numbers in tanks, artillery, aircraft and other categories was 2 to 1, 3 to 1 & 4 to 1 or more.
The USSR exhorted that it was their destiny to export revolution and they did.
Iran under the theocracy has run nuke program for 3 1/2 decades not several. That they have not made a nuke has more to due with economic mismanagement time out to suppress minorities and build up Hezbollah.
It is not that they have not made a nuke through lack of trying. Plus they have had setbacks due to espionage.
If the U.S. would be a signatory, the Russians would have reached the Atlantic Wall a long time ago.
Opit, I have a dog in this fight. I have read about the uprising in Czechoslovakia, Hungary & East Germany. I know who these people trust more, the US or USSR.
If the US was so bad, why have there been no nukes since WW2? Why did not the US take on the USSR after WW2. There are no Stalingrads, Leningrads or battles for Moscow if you nuke them. The US could have easily won. If we were so "evil", why did we not attack when he had supremacy from 1945 to 1949?
I see a definite Left wing historiography in post. I have relatives in central & Western Europe. Plus my father in law was a card carrying communist party member. He was not the kinds that sat in NYC and listened to Gus Hall and groused about America, he was a real live communist that saw war.
Post a Comment