Friday, June 26, 2015

Major Differences Still Remain As Iranian Nuclear Deadline Approaches



Voice of America: Issues Remain as Iran Deadline Looms

LONDON - More than two years of negotiations on the future of Iran’s nuclear program, and international economic sanctions against it, face a deadline next Tuesday, with the two sides still reported to be far apart on several key issues.

Negotiators from Iran and the six countries deputized by the U.N. Security Council have been meeting regularly to prepare for foreign ministers to join the talks in Vienna, including Iran’s Mohammed Javad Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

A senior U.S. administration official said Thursday negotiators are expected to be "close" to an agreement on the 30th, if they "can get there at all."

More News On The Current Iranian Nuclear Talks

Big hurdles to Iran nuclear deal as deadline looms -- Reuters
'Major problems' as Kerry heads to Iran nuclear talks -- AFP
As Iran nuclear talks near completion, the issues get ‘tougher and tougher’ -- Washington Post
Iran sanctions back on the table -- Washington Post
Kerry joins Iran nuclear talks for final push -- USA Today
Netanyahu sends implicit threat to Iran ahead of nuclear deadline -- Haaretz
As Nuclear Deadline Approaches, Iran Continues to Violate Human Rights -- US News and World Report
Unwinding Iran Sanctions is a ‘Fairly Complicated Process’ -- WSJ
U.S.: Text of Iran nuclear deal will be made public but not signed -- CNN
The Iran Deal: A Look at What It Does and Problems Remaining -- NYT/AP

2 comments:

Bob Huntley said...

I predict that ISIS will have nuclear weapons before the West gets Iran to sign a meaningful deal. Time now for Iran to insist on Israel being brought into the deal so their stuff can be inspected.

B.Poster said...

Israel is our ally. It would make no sense to open up Israel's nuclear facilities to hostile inspectors who would then share the intricacies (state secrets_ of Israel's nuclear facilities with its enemies. For the Unites States to support a position such as this that would obviously be harmful to the interests of stalwart ally would make absolutely no sense for America's national security interests.

If Israel were forced somehow to give up its nuclear arsenal that would very likely be the end of the nation as Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors. As such, the perception of a nuclear weapons arsenal by the nation's enemies may well be the only thing keeping Israel alive.

Iran's calling card is "death to America." The same or very similar applies to ISIS. while the greatest threat to American national security is an all out Russian nuclear attack, the most likely threat to American national security is the detonation of a nuclear weapon or "dirty bomb" in one or more American cities very likely simultaneously. Given the threats to America posed by Iran, its understandable the US would seek to limit Iran's ability to acquire such a weapon In contrast Israel or at least no one with any real power in Israel has ever threatened the United States with destruction nor does Israel have the network of worldwide alliances that Iran has that would give Israel any chance of carrying out any threat to America should it choose to issue one.

Also, America needs a strong, secure, and independent Israel to continue to act as a buffer between it and very dangerous enemies who pose an enormous threat to it. Subjecting Israel to hostile inspections would seem to undermine this.

Additionally, Israel's policy on nuclear weapons has been one of ambiguity. As such, no one really knows for sure if they have nuclear weapons. Rigorous hostile inspections may very indicate that Israel is bluffing. If this were learned, this would place the survival of a stalwart ally in even more peril than it already is as well as further endanger America's already precarious national security situation even further.

Essentially a policy of opening Israel's nuclear facilities to outside inspections is a policy with no upside for America that carries enormous downside risks. As such, for America to support such a policy would make absolutely no sense. Of course nothing about the current American government makes sense as it is.