Iran

Iran Deal Announced Today

Final details hashed out

|

State Department

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the Iran nuclear deal
 

The Wall Street Journal reports that negotiators from Iran, the U.S., and five other countries involved in talks over Iran's nuclear program are ready to announce a deal tomorrow. That deal will include caps on Iran's  nuclear fuel stockpile, and a reduction in enriching uranium and producing plutonium.

According to the Wall Street Journal, negotiators also agreed on more UN inspectors, with access to military locations and nuclear scientists. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which is tasked with enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is party, is supposed to report on Iran's past nuclear efforts by the end of the year.

Over the past week, the last point negotiators were still talking through was the Iranian and Russian demand the arms embargo be lifted immediately. The arms sanction was imposed via a United Nations Security Council resolution in 2010, and would require the support of the U.S., the U.K., France, China, and Russia, all permanent veto-wielding members of the Security Council and part of the Iran talks.

According to the Journal's reporting, the terms for lifting the arms embargo remain unclear. American, European, and Iranian officials say an agreement to suspend all the Security Council's Iran sanctions resolutions would be part of the final deal, but U.S. officials say the embargo will remain in place until further conditions are met.

The U.S. has already been preparing billions of dollars in new defense contracts for Israel and various Gulf Arab allies all worried an Iran freed of sanctions could threaten their countries and challenge their own local spheres of influence.

NEXT: The FDA Wants to Ruin Your Treats

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bo Cara is a bag of ball snot…first

  2. I’d give 50 to 1 odds that this is a bad deal for the U.S., that Iran will not live up to their end, and that within 5 years the consensus will be that this was at best pointless, and at worst a catastrophe.

    1. PapayaSF|7.14.15 @ 12:47AM|#
      “I’d give 50 to 1 odds that this is a bad deal for the U.S.”

      It’s not even a “deal”. It’s an agreement to talk about the same issues that have never been agreed upon, and an opportunity for Kerry to brag that he’s done something other than eat his wife’s ketchup,

      1. He did more than eat the ketchup.

        Say, have you two had a bay area meetup?

        1. There was a meetup, what, a year ago? I was there, C. Anacreon, Len Bias, a few more less-regulars I’ve forgotten. Sevo was not, as I recall. Nick G. was in town for a conference, with his son, so we all met him and had a nice chat. And he bought us poutine! Been meaning to plan another, but I haven’t.

      2. “It’s not even a “deal”. It’s an agreement to talk about the same issues that have never been agreed upon, and an opportunity for Kerry to brag that he’s done something other than eat his wife’s ketchup”

        It’s more than just an agreement to talk in the future.

        The Iranians get substantial material benefits. Sanctions relief, unfreezing of billions of dollars, and the ability to sell oil again.

        I’m surprised the other countries involved agreed to this travesty. Remember this “deal” was negotiated by the same group of people that traded 5 top level international terrorists for one army deserter.

    2. If you mean a train wreck with a lot of Sunni regimes seeking to buy nukes from Pakistan I’d have to agree. Pakistan needs cash and the Sunni regimes have cash….what could go wrong.

      Fireworks in the Middle East in the near future FTW.

      1. Failed states thrive on being economic basket cases. Why would Pakistan want to have a thriving business selling shit that’s in demand for cash? They’re way better of wasting their cash on Kashmir and other stupid pet projects that keep themselves failing and hence keeping the status quo.

      2. Word is that the Saudis paid for the Pakistan nukes, with the understanding that they could get some in the future if they wanted to. If Iran gets some, they will want to.

    3. When Iran detonates their nuclear bomb sometime in the next four years, the US media will blame whoever is hapless enough to be president for wasting the historic opportunity created by Bammy and his deal.

      1. Iran won’t. A proxy will.

        1. IDK…. i think Iran gets more out of legitimacy as a nuclear power than they get from giving it to Hezbollah and destroying Tel Aviv.

      2. If Hillary is president the blame will revert to Bush for ‘destabilizing’ the region and setting up the conditions under which Iran felt it had no choice but to develop a bomb, and if a Republican is president the blame will be split between him and Bush.

        But the Obama deal will of course be forever golden in the eyes of the media. Just like how Clinton gets zero blame for North Korea achieving a bomb under his brilliant deal.

        1. I agree generally, but i doubt NK really has a bomb. If they did, they would make sure the world knew it.

          1. So those Pakistani scientists are there just for the kimchee?

            I guess they could be faking it.

            But if Pakistan can have nukes, you really think the Koreans just aren’t smart enough?

      3. I won’t hold my breath.

        Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 20 years ago.
        1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.
        1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.
        1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.
        1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.

        http://www.juancole.com/2012/0…..-bomb.html

        1. “Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational Islamic Republic of Iran!” ?Emperor Palpatine

        2. Two criticisms:

          1) During this time period, moves were taken to slow down Iran. Stuxnet. Killing of scientists. If these were not done, these predictions might not have been so wrong.

          2) By the same token, the USA was surprised by Pakistani and IIRC the Indian nuclear tests. Therefore, the prediction error is not biased in one direction.

          1. Personally, I suspect Iran wants to have a “Ready to Assemble” bomb capability.
            Thus any prediction that Iran has a nuclear bomb will always be “wrong” while not really being wrong.

            In any case, I’m okay with giving Obama’s plan a chance (I have not read it) but the reactions by the Arabs will be more important than any of our’s.

            1. and meanwhile their icbm program steams continues unabated by the deal

              1. steams

      4. no one is detonating a nuke anywhere in the remote future. The stupidity of such a statement is amazing.

  3. So commie-kid and turd can run another victory lap over an “historic agreement” that no one understands, but Obo is such a, uh, what is the term?

    “According to the Journal’s reporting, the terms for lifting the arms embargo remain unclear. American, European, and Iranian officials say an agreement to suspend all the Security Council’s Iran sanctions resolutions would be part of the final deal, but U.S. officials say the embargo will remain in place until further conditions are met.”

    Yep, that’s a real, uh, agreement to talk about an agreement right there!
    And then it STILL isn’t an agreement, since the senate gets to have a look.
    Hey turd! Hey commie-kid! Your hero is a lying piece of shit, just like the two of you.

    1. Ha, the Senate! You’re so old-fashioned. Don’t you know that everything important gets done with executive orders and bureaucratic rule-making these days?

  4. Deal today?

    But today is almost over!!!

    1. C’mon, Monty Hall is available…oh, wait.

  5. Iran: How about you let us do whatever we want, and we don’t expose US secrets that we bought from the Chinese.

    1. Or the ones they got by hacking Hillary’s email server.

  6. The war parties have been “warning” that Iran is “a couple of years away” from getting the bomb since 2003.

    1. They may be a few years away from getting the bomb, but how many years away are they from The Woodchipper?

    2. And they have been. Why do you think otherwise?

    3. 2003? they have been saying that since the early 1990’s

  7. Who is that the unintelligent frog?

    1. I heard they’re going to freeze US assets. The U.S. is totally fucked.

  8. Those of you who say government can’t get the job done well CHECK OUT THE IRAN DEAL

    /clueless beltway insider

  9. So Iran gets to develop a bomb and get their sanctions lifted and in return we get..?????????

    1. China and Russia get a big new customer. We get glory for our Fearless Leader and his side-kick Lurch.

    2. Oh, and Richman gets to dodder around a victory lap.

  10. Is that a Nobel Prize I’m smelling? Kerry only took this silly job so he’d have a Nobel Prize on the prow of his yacht.

    1. Heck, he’ll just rename his yacht from “The Tax Avoided” to “Nobel Prize”.

  11. Heard the President’s announcement this AM (well, till I couldn’t stand to listen to his voice).

    Mostly what I heard was, “Blah, blah=, blah, blah, blah I’m a dirty whore.”

    Way to go, Mister President!

    #WINNING

  12. my buddy’s step-aunt makes $68 /hour on the laptop . She has been without a job for nine months but last month her check was $99350 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check my source
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  13. my buddy’s step-aunt makes $68 /hour on the laptop . She has been without a job for nine months but last month her check was $99350 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check my source
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  14. my buddy’s step-aunt makes $68 /hour on the laptop . She has been without a job for nine months but last month her check was $99350 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check my source
    http://www.jobnet10.com

    1. We heard you the first time.

    2. Has anyone actually ever used the term “step-aunt”?

  15. New Horizons just made its closest approach to Pluto. Sounds like we won’t see the images or any of the data until later, as the antenna is facing away from Earth while the probe focuses on data collection.

    1. Yep – Wednesday morning. I’m impatient and giddy like a school kid – Pluto was always such a mystery.

      1. Hope everything goes okay. Been a long wait. Of course, if the Plutonians activate their defensive satellite, Charon, to destroy our probe, we’ll never know about it.

        I read a while back that New Horizons got up to somewhere north of 100,000 mph (relative to the sun), though it has slowed down considerably since then.

        1. “Hey! Let’s keep it to 80,000mph – this is a school zone!”

    2. This is gonna be cool. As the one guy from NASA – or wherever – said, “We won’t be updating the textbooks – we’ll be WRITING them…”

      NEW NEWS!!! So exciting!

      1. What? On the day the president signed the most historic letter of intent ever? You must be joking.

  16. Well,well,well. Sure will be interesting to see if any true libertarians show up. Instead of the abundant right wingers. Let’s see how many really believe starting on a path to freer markets is the best way to avoid war, which lifting sanctions will do. How many who really believe negotiated settlements rather than military posturing is the best option. Ron Paul sure does.

    And, let’s see if Reason columnists actually say if they support this or not

    1. I think, as foreign policy goes, economic sanctions against countries that threaten us and one of our only two worthwhile allies are the best bet for the least intervention in the region.

      As it stands, we are now committed to a series of inspections, and on the till for enforcing consequences when those inspections are evaded. That renders null any step we took toward free markets.

  17. Are you liberpuddlians angry that Obama has taken away another means of criticism with this foreign policy victory? Maybe you can resume your Bengazi hysteria right now. Just stick to that, and I’m sure you’ll take down Hillary.

    1. Team Red needs to run on FEAR IRAN! because FEAR IMMIGRANTS! may not be quite enough to win in 2016.

      Now they don’t have the former to scare its rubes.

      1. Its not like Iranian leaders chant Death to America every week.

        1. Not like US leaders talk about bombing Iran every week

      2. It won’t stop them from trying. And the libertariots around here will dance in circles and jump through hoops to damn Obama for it, all the while chanting that they are different from the GOP.

    2. Many commenters here aren’t libertarians, but rather neo conservatives who like the sound of being a libertarian.

      1. Kinda like gay men who hold onto their wives and children.

      2. bingo!

        1. Remind us all again just how much you stole for your solar subsidy. It helps with the libertarian cred.

      3. As if there’s a difference. The only thing that separates libertarians from conservatives is a name. The policies 99% of libertarians support would also be supported by Sean Hannity or Donald Trump. Libertarians just like to pretend they’re hard to get, when in fact they’re always ready to jump onto a bandwagon and claim credit. See “gay marriage.”

  18. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  19. Will Reason be providing more comprehensive coverage/analysis of the deal with Iran? I’d like to know Reason’s take on this…

    1. We know their take. Their take is that Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons and even if they did Iran having them is no different than Brazil or France or any other country having them. In Reason’s view, Israel is a much more dangerous and aggressive country than Iran and they have nukes so therefore Iran having them as well is not a bad thing.

      1. I’m more interested in their take on the deal itself… not so much on the possibility/effect of Iran obtaining nukes.

      2. Thanks, John! Now I won’t have to waste my time reading Reason’s actual articles! Because you have the perspicacity to predict the future and put words into the mouths of every one of your enemies, real and imagined.

        1. It’s hardly unreasonable to assume this will be their position.

  20. OT the mask slips down a little further

    Soviet psych major judge overrules first two psychiatrists and sentences political disident to further psychiatric evaluation and restricition. The first two psyciatrists pronounced the disident perfectly sane. Soviet judge says he was a physc major in college and he just knows something is wrong with the political disident.

    http://goo.gl/rDXjid

  21. Iran already does not allow the IAEA to inspect their facilities. I don’t know why anyone thinks that a new agreement will change that. This is clearly Obama doing something so he can say he did something it doesn’t matter if its good for anybody or not. typical of the left doing anything even if its bad is good.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.