U.S., Iran Reportedly Agree on Deal For More Nuclear Negotiations—Not Good or Bad News

Negotiators working out how much to tell the public



Iranian, U.S., Russian, Chinese, German, British, and French negotiators blew through a self-imposed Tuesday night deadline in negotiations of Iran's nuclear program that are being held in Geneva. They extended the deadline by a day, and reportedly today U.S., Iranian, and the other officials have come to an agreement on a basic nuclear deal, but, apparently, not on how much to disclose to the public. That part's apparently being negotiated now.

The AP reports:

Pressured by congressional critics in the U.S. who threaten to impose new sanctions over what they say is a bad emerging deal, the Obama administration is demanding significant public disclosure of agreements and understandings reached at the current round. Iran wants a minimum made public at this point, describing previous two-stage deals as detrimental to their interests, officials say.

The Iranians want any results from talks in the Swiss city of Lausanne described less as a deal and more of an informal understanding.

U.S. negotiators, possibly on the side of transparency! A recent Washington Post poll found that 59 percent of respondents supported a deal with Iran that would lift sanctions, but that the same percentage wasn't confident the deal would prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons—something the country's government denies it's doing. U.S. intelligence officials have been predicting Iran would acquire a nuclear bomb by all the way back to 2000. Saudi Arabia has suggested it would pursue nuclear weapons if Iran acquired them—currently Israel, which most countries in the region refuse to recognize, is the only country believed to possess nuclear weapons. 

On its own, an Iran deal isn't necessarily good or bad news—a deal that minimizes U.S. obligations in the matter moving forward would be best from the perspective of extricating the U.S. from its world policing "responsibilities."

NEXT: Millennials Conservative About Casual Sex, Liberal About Same-Sex Marriage, Conflicted About A Lot in New Religion and Sexuality Survey

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Obama is so incompetent he can’t even successfully surrender.

    1. 19 Dimensional Chess, John… 19 Dimensional Chess.

    2. We are living in the age of Augustulus Telepromptulus.

  2. Why do I get the feeling there are three cups and a pebble involved here?

    1. At least it isn’t two girls and one cup…

  3. They had a meeting about agreeing to have another meeting. Bureaucracy in action!

    1. I heard that substantive agreements were reached – they agreed that the shape of the negotiating table should not be rhomboid. Rumor has it they are at an impasse as to the number of pens each place setting should include.

      1. I honestly think that Obama and Kerry believe in the magical power of words. If they get an “agreement”, they think that will solve the problem no matter what it says or is likely to happen in reality. To them, negotiating and signing an agreement has magic powers that transcend the hard reality of actually doing something. I mean, we negotiated and agreed, how could there be a problem? This is how they think.

  4. I have to say, I look forward to Obama’s team bringing the same competence and track record of successes to the climate change talks in Paris.

    1. Are you kidding? That’s the really for reals important stuff, not that nucular proliferation thingy.

      /trying to think like a prog

  5. So when Iran does get the bomb, do they also get a seat on the other side of the table to try and stop the next country that decides to go nuclear?

    1. Well, the next country will be Saudi Arabia. If Iran nukes them, Iran won’t have the bomb anymore, and neither will the Saudi. It’s a win-win.

  6. That AP link doesn’t work.

  7. Is there anyone, anywhere that truly believes that Iran will not get the bomb within the next decade? I imagine that they’ve looked at the various lessons like Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine and will pursue the only sure method of making sure the greater powers don’t ultimately fuck you over and not stop until they have the nuclear shield. The only thing that could possibly forestall it is regime change and that would take a war that (almost) nobody is interested in fighting.

    1. They’ve been right on the verge of getting the bomb for about fifteen years now. I figure they’ll get one about the same time we achieve sentient AI driving an electric car powered by a fusion reactor.

      1. Hardly the same thing, sarc. It’s just a matter of time. The technology is already proven. There is nothing new about a nuclear weapon. Eventually it will happen and the world will get to see if they really are as crazy as they oft sound.

        1. It is not that hard to build a bomb. The hard part is getting the material to build it. It takes a lot of time and effort to make weapons grade uranium. The other hard part is building a bomb that doesn’t just work but is deliverable. It is one thing to build some10,000 pound little boy like device. It is quite another to build one small enough to put on the top of a missile. It is just a question of physics. The less efficient your bomb is, the more material you need. But building an efficient bomb is a lot harder than just building one.

        2. Sure there’s nothing new about it, but it is still quite a feat of engineering. If their engineers can’t handle the task, then they won’t get it done. Unless they import engineers like some other countries who got the bomb did. They seem to be quite nationalistic about this, which leads me to believe they’re trying to do it all on their own as a matter of pride. Though I could be wrong.

          1. i agree with you sarcasmic. It is easier said than done. And also, making one that works and is deliverable is different than just building one that works in a test.

            1. Easier said than done is not the same as impossible and given enough time and effort it will happen. They aren’t going to be deploying Peacemakers any time soon, but that’s not really what they need. If what they can make serves as a propaganda tool and as a deterrent it will be enough.

              1. I don’t think it is impossible at all. I just don’t think it is a certainty. I honestly don’t know what their chances are.

              2. Easier said than done is not the same as impossible and given enough time and effort it will happen.

                Reminds me of a scene from Iron Man.

                “Tony Stark was able to build this in a cave! With a box of scraps!”

                “Well, I’m sorry. I’m not Tony Stark.”

              3. Do you think the US could have come up with the bomb if not for help from engineers and scientists who fled Germany? I’m not so sure. To make something happen you’re right that first it must be possible. But if you don’t have people who can do it then you’re just spinning your wheels.

                1. It’s 70-year-old technology.

                  1. It’s 70-year-old technology.

                    So? That doesn’t mean it’s easy.

                  2. Only if they’re trying to build a “Little Boy” style bomb, but that’s doubtful. Those aren’t worth the effort — weak, expensive, and not suitable for delivery except by a strategic bomber.

    2. You never know. I have no idea how close they actually are or what will happen in the future. The better question is whether there is anyone not Sheldon Richman level retarded who honestly thinks they don’t want the bomb and are willing to do virtually anything to get it.

      1. They need the bomb because they are Shia, and they are surrounded by Sunnis, and they don’t get along. Its a matter of national security.

        That said, thanks to US, they have acquired quite a bit of influence in the region recently. Maybe its part of US grand strategy, to make Iran feel less threatened, so they don’t feel the need to rush to the bomb? But then hostile rethoric and sanctions are confusing.

        1. I don’t think they feel threatened. I think they actually mean what they say. They think their purpose in life is to cleanse the Muslim world of the Sunni and bring it back right with God and then after that cleanse the rest of the world and bring it right with God.

          I never understand why people are so unable to take other countries at their word. Just because you and I think it is nuts doesn’t mean they do. They are very clear what their intentions and goals are. They have never wavered from them. And there is no evidence beyond wishful thinking to believe that they will change any time soon. If they get the bomb, they will use it or at the very lease use the threat of it to take over the middle east if they can.

          1. I never understand why people are so unable to take other countries at their word.

            Because they’re governments and governments tend to be allergic to the truth?

            1. But when have governments been allergic to accumulating more power?

              1. How much power would they have if they nuked Israel? None. They’d be killed.

                If they want to accumulate more power, starting a war they know they would lose is not a good way to do it.

          2. I doubt that. They have to realize they are going to lose this fight, the Sunni outnumber them by a lot. Not to mention Pakistan bombs. Iran will get slaughtered.

            1. All bark and no bite.

            2. Germany had to have realized they would lose a fight with Russia. Japan had to have realized they woudl lose a fight with the US.

              1. Germany wasn’t defeated by Russia. They were defeated by the Russian winter.

                As far as Japan goes, I don’t know what they were thinking.

                Thing is, nobody had nukes at the start of the war. Nukes exist now, and Iran has to know that if they use one on Israel that they will be wiped off the face of the earth. Unless they have no sense of self preservation, I really doubt they would do that.

                1. It’s sad that after two years of lurking, it’s WW2 trivia that gets me to register, but.

                  Germany wasn’t defeated by Russia. They were defeated by the Russian winter.

                  Supposedly, in August ’41 Hitler told Guderian something along the lines of “had I known your estimates of Russian tank strength were correct, I would never invaded.” Hell, they had no idea there were five reserve Armies sitting behind the first defensive lines until they blundered into them couple weeks after invasion.

                  Also, by the time Germans had to stop the last offensive on Moscow (December 41), they were utterly spent. Red Army, on the other hand, had enough reserves to hit them with a major offensive (ending up as a broad front counterattack from Baltic to Ukraine) literally a day later. This despite having a huge helping hand from the clownshow in Kremlin, who would probably do less damage if they just ordered their units to open fire on each other compared to the idiotic “counterattack” and “stand fast” orders of the first two months.

                  1. (and what’s with 1500 word limit? Some of us live large and talk larger!)

                    As far as Japan goes, I don’t know what they were thinking.

                    Japan knew full well they couldn’t withstand one-on-one fight with US, their hope was to dismantle US Pacific Fleet, grab the resources of Indonesia, form up a defensive perimeter, then quickly negotiate a peace. Not getting a declaration of war in first made that (slim) chance into an impossibility.

                    So no, don’t assume rational analysis from military intelligence at best of times, let alone one that has a Messianic complex, sense of its own destiny and history on their side (Ali could lead armies of Islam from the desert and overthrow two Empires never defeated before, and we fear JEWS?!).

                2. Why do you doubt it? If they were rational actors, they wouldn’t have spent the last four decades making themselves into international pariahs.

              2. Well, hopefully people learn from history.

  8. I think the more countries get nukes, the more peaceful the world will be. India and Pakistan stopped fighting conventional wars as soon as they both had nukes.

    Russia would probably not have invaded Ukraine if they kept their nukes. The North Koreans began ignoring the US the moment they got theirs.

    1. In a way I agree. Nukes are to countries what firearms are to citizens. Cops don’t like armed citizens because they can fight back. The World Cop doesn’t like countries with nuclear capability because they can fight back.

    2. If Ukraine had nukes, Yanukovich would still be in power because Russian paratroops would have dispersed Maidan well before it got out of hand. Yanukovich would sign off on it later, as required. But yes, current mess would be avoided.

    3. It is a mistake to apply rules for society to nation-states. Nations are not people and don’t act like people. A human being who behaved the way a typical country does would be diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.

      You can make a human society safe by arming everyone because the vast majority of people are sane. Giving every country nukes is like passing out hand grenades in an insane asylum.

  9. North Korea signed a dozen treaties. And still kept on with bomb development. Now they have it. NK is as bat shit crazy as the mullahs, it’s just a matter of time until somebody cranks off another nuke. I should start a doomsday pool. The negotiations are just oral masturbation for the State. It’s basically meaningless unless you’re ready to follow the nuke inspectors with an army to open the door if the mullas refuse the IAEA inspection. Then it’s another mouse hunt for the “new” development site. Nuclear whack a mole. I suppose the masturbatory negotiations at least use up a few government resources, thereby delaying the inevitable by a few seconds.

  10. This is important…I volunteer to stay in Lausanne as long as needed! I’ll be in the chalet over there. Kirsch and roesti later?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.