P5+1 and Iran agree landmark nuclear deal at Geneva talks

Published time: November 24, 2013 02:00
Edited time: November 24, 2013 12:37


European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (3rd L) delivers a statement during a ceremony next to British Foreign Secretary William Hague, Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius (L-R) at the United Nations in Geneva November 24, 2013 (Reuters / Denis Balibouse)

The P5+1 world powers and Iran have struck a historic deal on Tehran’s nuclear program at talks in Geneva on Sunday. Ministers overcame the last remaining hurdles to reach agreement, despite strong pressure from Israel and lobby groups.

[img]http://rt.com/news/iran-historic-nuclear-deal-201/[/img]

Under the interim agreement, Tehran will be allowed access to $4.2 billion in funds frozen as part of the financial sanctions imposed on Iran over suspicions that its nuclear program is aimed at producing an atomic bomb.

As part of the deal Iran has committed to:

- Halt uranium enrichment to above 5 per cent.

- Dismantle equipment required to enrich above 5 per cent.

- Refrain from further enrichment of its 3.5 per cent stockpile.

- Dilute its store of 20 per cent-enriched uranium.

- Limit the use and installation of its centrifuges.

- Cease construction on the Arak nuclear reactor.

- Provide IAEA inspectors with daily access to the Natanz and Fordo sites.

Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, called the deal a “major success” and said Tehran would expand its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

While Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced that the deal reached in Geneva shows that world powers have recognized Tehran's “nuclear rights.”

“Constructive engagement [and] tireless efforts by negotiating teams are to open new horizons,” Rouhani said on Twitter shortly after the announcement.

Foreign ministers from the US, Russia, UK, France, China, Germany and the EU hailed the deal as a step toward a “comprehensive solution” to the nuclear standoff between Tehran and the West. The interim deal was reached early Sunday morning in Geneva after some 18 hours of negotiation.

“While today's announcement is just a first step, it achieves a great deal,” US President Barack Obama said in a statement at the White House. “For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program, and key parts of the program will be rolled back.”

However, Obama said that if Iran fails to keep to its commitments over the next six months, the US will “ratchet up” sanctions. US Secretary of State John Kerry, a key participant in the Geneva talks, said that Iran still had to prove it is not seeking to develop atomic weapons.

US Secretary of State John Kerry delivers a speech during a press conference at the CICG (Centre International de Conferences Geneve) after talks over Iran's nuclear programme in Geneva on November 24, 2013. (AFP Photo / Alexander Klein)
US Secretary of State John Kerry delivers a speech during a press conference at the CICG (Centre International de Conferences Geneve) after talks over Iran's nuclear programme in Geneva on November 24, 2013. (AFP Photo / Alexander Klein)

Tehran has repeatedly denied that it is developing atomic weapons, however, and maintains that its nuclear program is purely for civilian purposes.

Uranium enrichment

As part of the agreement, the international community has accepted Tehran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program. But after the deal was struck, participants in the Geneva talks put different interpretations on the issue of Iran’s right to enrich uranium.

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote on Twitter that the right to enrichment had been recognized in negotiations, and after the deal was clinched Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the deal accepted Tehran’s right to enrich uranium.

“This deal means that we agree with the need to recognize Iran's right for peaceful nuclear energy, including the right for enrichment, with an understanding that those questions about the [Iranian nuclear program] that still remain, and the program itself, will be placed under the strictest IAEA control,” Lavrov told journalists.

John Kerry had a different spin on the deal, however, telling the media that it did not recognize Tehran’s right to enrich nuclear fuel.

“The first step, let me be clear, does not say that Iran has a right to enrich uranium,” Kerry said.

Israel has already voiced its opposition to the deal with Iran, claiming it is based on “Iranian deception and self-delusion.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the agreement as a "historic mistake" and said the world had become a more dangerous place.

http://rt.com/news/iran-historic-nuclear-deal-201/

Ayatollah Khamenei praises Iran-Sextet nuclear deal

Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:36AM

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has hailed the nuclear deal sealed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.


Ayatollah Khamenei on Sunday thanked Iran’s negotiating team, describing their achievement as “praiseworthy.”

In response to President Hassan Rouhani’s congratulatory message, the Leader said the achievement could serve as a “basis for future prudent measures.”

Ayatollah Khamenei called on the Iranian negotiators to continue to resist any excessive demands in the future.

In a televised message to the Iranian people, Rouhani also hailed the interim nuclear deal between Iran and the Sextet, saying that a final comprehensive agreement will lead to the removal of all international and unilateral sanctions imposed against Iran.

After more than four days of intensive negotiations, Iran and the Sextet - the US, Britain, Russia, France, China and Germany - sealed an interim deal in Geneva in the early hours of Sunday.

The agreement paves the way for final resolution of the West’s decade-old dispute with Iran over its nuclear energy program.

In the deal, the Sextet has agreed to several measures including enabling the repatriation of an agreed amount of Iranian revenues held abroad and suspending the EU and US sanctions on insurance and transportation of Iran’s crude.

The EU and US sanctions on Iran’s petrochemical export, gold and precious metals and auto industry as well as the supply of spare parts for the Iranian airplanes would also be suspended.

Furthermore, no new sanctions will be imposed against Iran by the UN Security Council, the EU or US.

In return, Iran undertakes measures including capping uranium enrichment to five percent for the duration of six months as stipulated in the agreement. Tehran has also agreed not to advance activities at Natanz, Fordow and Arak facilities and to allow more inspections of its nuclear facilities and further increase its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of confidence-building measures.

MYA/HMV/HRB

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/24/336388/leader-praises-iransextet-nuclear-deal/

.

President Rouhani: Iran-Sextet N-deal to open new horizons

[img]http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20131124/336391_Iran-Rouhani.jpg[/img]
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani

Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:11AM GMT

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has hailed the nuclear deal between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, saying it would “open new horizons”.

After more than four days of intense negotiations, Iran and the Sextet, the US, Britain, Russia, France, China and Germany, sealed an interim deal in Geneva on Sunday morning to pave the way for the full resolution of the West’s decade-old dispute with Iran over its nuclear energy program.

“Constructive engagement [and] tireless efforts by negotiating teams are to open new horizons,” Rouhani said on Twitter shortly after the announcement.

Rouhani added that the deal had been made possible due to “Iranian people’s vote for moderation,” referring to the June presidential election which brought him to power.

Meanwhile, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham also thanked the Iranian negotiating team, adding that Iran has always been seeking a win-win deal.

“In the nuclear talks, the Islamic Republic of Iran sought balanced steps and a win-win game, which led [Iran’s] nuclear negotiating delegation to the right track,” she said.

She expressed hope that the current path will lead to the total lifting of sanctions against Iran and the implementation of Iran’s proposals titled “Closing an Unnecessary Crisis, Opening a New Horizon.”

Addressing journalists on Sunday after the announcement of the deal, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Iran’s right to enrichment has been recognized in the deal.

Zarif said that the agreement “covers several important domains, the most important of which is the recognition of the right to enrichment.”

He noted that the interim deal is an “important achievement” but a “first step” toward resolving an “unnecessary crisis”, stressing that the two sides need to work together based on “equal footing, mutual respect and common benefits” to settle the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear energy program.

According to the Iranian Foreign Ministry, the deal allows Iran to continue its activities at Arak, Fordow and Natanz facilities. The agreement also stipulates that no additional sanctions will be imposed on Tehran over its nuclear energy program.

The deal was also welcomed by US President Barack Obama, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Russia, Germany and China.

AR/HMV/HRB

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/24/336391/rouhani-hails-iransextet-nuclear-deal/

For now Iran 1- Israel 0. The warmongering nutcase in the person of Netanyahu has failed with his propaganda and outlandish lies

These are facts and truths people need to know. People need to see the geopolitics at play here

[size=24pt]Netanyahu fear mongering over Iran to mask Israel's lack of legitimacy[/size]

Nile Bowie is a political analyst and photographer currently residing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Published time: October 02, 2013 13:18


Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (AFP Photo / Pool)




The Israeli Prime Minister may have left his cartoon bomb at home, but his latest appearance at the UN contained no shortage of dubious claims aimed at strangling the nascent US-Iran rapprochement in its cradle.

Just three days after the historic phone call between US President Obama and Iranian President Rouhani, hopes for a thaw in relations between the two countries were dashed when Obama confirmed that military options were still on the table during a press conference with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office. In his eloquent address to the General assembly, Rouhani explicitly cited the "military options on the table" position as being an illegal and ineffective contention, prior to explicitly declaring, "peace is within reach." Obama's unwillingness to deviate from his dominant line comes as no surprise looking back to his excessively uni-polar and exceptionalist address to the general assembly. Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif immediately decried Obama's flip-flop, and urged Washington to show consistency in dealing with Iran to promote trust - a unexceptional plea that will most likely prove to be too much for Washington to adhere to.

Whatever glimmers of pragmatism employed by the Obama administration in its dealings with the incumbent administration in Tehran at the start of the general assembly were overshadowed by Washington's unshakeable bond with Israel as Netanyahu visited the White House and took to the podium as the final speaker. Obama is not quite transparently about to turn his back on the "warmongering pressure groups" Rouhani warned that would enact measures to maintain the status quo in his address. For those radicals who dominate the political establishment in Tel Aviv, the coherent and temperate Rouhani is incomparably more troublesome than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose bellicosity allowed Israel to more plausibly sell its anti-Iran narrative. As many journalists and always analysts point out, following Israel's tirades, Tel Aviv has Iran accused of being "months away from the bomb" for over two decades.

Netanyahu's latest performance has been in keeping with Israel's proclivity for relying exclusively on dubious or highly debatable claims to delegitimize Iran. Bibi may have convinced some who are unfamiliar with the issue, but for others, he has again shown his promising potential as a fiction writer, perhaps an apt career path for the man to embark upon once he leaves office. Though the Israeli leader invoked an ancient Persian edict of King Cyrus that allowed Jews to return to the land of Israel as a mark of historic friendship between the Jewish and Persian people, Netanyahu has only ever viewed Iran as a modern-day Amalek, the Biblical state and people whose total extermination by the Israelites was called for in the Old Testament. At the forefront of Bibi's hysterical diatribe was the issue of Iran's nuclear program, and the wholly groundless claims that Iranian nuclear warheads could strike New York City in 3 to 4 years.

The last time Netanyahu addressed the UN with his doodled explosive, he claimed that Iran would soon have the capability to enrich uranium to 90 percent, allowing them to construct a nuclear weapon by early-to-mid 2013. Bibi may be a compelling storyteller, but he has sorry credentials as a fortune teller. Washington and Tel Aviv have taken the conscious decision to ignore evidence entirely brought forward by the US Intelligence Community, as well as appeals from nuclear scientists, policy-advisers. IAEA and WHO personnel claim that the "Iranian threat" is exaggerated and politicized. Netanyahu has not corrected his statements insinuating that Iran was nearing his red line of 90 percent enrichment, the amount needed to weaponize uranium. There is no evidence to suggest that Iran has pursued enrichment over the 20 percent needed for medical research, which is allowed within the stipulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory.

[b]At no point has the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported conclusive evidence of a military dimension to Iran's nuclear program. Tehran has in fact done more than most other countries to address concerns that its enrichment program may be diverted to non-peaceful uses, including placing additional restrictions on its enrichment process by ratifying additional protocols to allow for rigorous inspection by the IAEA. Enrichment facilities, such as in Natanz, operate with the participation of foreign representatives, and while Netanyahu accuses Iran of exploiting its heavy water reactor in Arak to gain "a plutonium path" to the bomb, Iran has no reprocessing capability to extract plutonium and IT has specifically renounced plutonium reprocessing. The IAEA's latest report published in February 2013 confirmed an expansion in Iranian uranium enrichment capabilities, and that Iran was reconverting its 280 kg of near-20% enriched uranium to fuel the Tehran Research Reactor.[/b]

The IAEA February 2013 report acknowledges, along with numerous experts, how the product of Iran's gas-based centrifuges - uranium hexafluoride gas - would be entirely impractical to weaponize, especially after it is reconverted into a fuel product. The religious prohibitions issued by Iran's Supreme Leader regarding the proliferation of both chemical and nuclear weapons is often downplayed in the West, but consider that Iran failed to pursue development of chemical weapons even when it came under attack from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iran's military strategy reflects a defensive logic based on missile-based deterrence which aims to prevent pre-emptive strikes and Gulf Arab participation in a US offensive against Iran. Tehran's ballistic missiles rely on conventional explosives, while it is developing unmanned drones based on American technology, and maritime capabilities that would allow it to close the Strait of Hormuz if threatened or attacked. There is no evidence that Iran has developed or tested chemical or nuclear warheads for its ballistic missiles, and its military program has only served a defensive function.

Netanyahu uses his opportunities to address the international community to scapegoat Iran because it allows the Jewish state to portray itself as a victim while it defies dozens of UN resolutions and international law. Tehran has called for a nuclear-free region encompassing West Asia and North Africa on multiple occasions, and Rouhani took the initiative to do so again in his UN address. Israel, being the only country in the region to have nuclear weapons, is not a signatory to the NPT, nor has it ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Israel's apartheid status is horrifying enough - its failure to adhere to international conventions on its nuclear and chemical stockpiles should warrant a sustained and internationally endorsed regime of boycott, divestment, and international sanctions on Tel Aviv. As a serial violator of international law, Israel should not be allowed to maintain its status as a"good" rouge state.

If peace in the Middle East is the goal, it is within reach, but the thawing of relations between the US and Iran is a vital prerequisite. A historic compromise between Washington and Tehran based on equal footing would be remembered as a crucial foreign policy victory for the Obama administration. The fulfillment of Rouhani's vision for a nuclear-free Middle East would be a momentous achievement - Obama should be bold and consider the historical parallels. In the late 80s, Mikhail Gorbachev called for the US and USSR to incrementally eliminate their massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons and proposed a disarmament framework to Ronald Reagan, who turned down the deal in favor of an outlandish pursuit of a space weaponization program that never came to fruition. Obama would be a fool to repeat Reagan's mistake in the modern context by not strong-arming Israel into signing the NPT. Peace is within reach, but Obama appears to lack the political will to reach out and make it a tangible reality.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

there's nothing as good as peace amongst nations, nice one. I just hope they don't have underground motives---Iran. These islamic nations can't be trusted.

Elliotwiz1: there's nothing as good as peace amongst nations, nice one. I just hope they don't have underground motives---Iran. These islamic nations can't be trusted.

Islamic nations cannot be trusted you say but we can trust the US cos the US has shown us time and again that it can be trusted right?

Whilst I agree that peace is absolutely desirable, every nation has right to enrich uranium for its energy or medical needs and until proven otherwise, no other nation can go about spreading speculations or falsehood as facts or the truth.

Read through my last post to get a better insight to what is really going on

NairaMinted:

Islamic nations cannot be trusted you say but we can trust the US cos the US has shown us time and again that it can be trusted right?

Whilst I agree that peace is absolutely desirable, every nation has right to enrich uranium for its energy or medical needs and until proven otherwise, no other nation can go about spreading speculations or falsehood as facts or the truth.

Read through my last post to get a better insight to what is really going on

please don't want to start a religious war here, but i can't take that out of my point. Most Islamic nations have OPENLY supported terrorists, e.g Saudi Arabia, old Sudan, Pakistan etc. Terrorist in the middle east are funded by the government, openly or secretly. Now, if a nation is allowed to use nuclear power plants for weapons or other uses, what makes you think these terrorists won't have access to them? If these terrorists gain access to these weapons they'll force the whole world to become islamised, yes America has her own underground motives, but i still stand beside them because without America the whole world would have been islamised forcefully. You might argue that Iran wants to use it for a good reason, but what the world has learnt from the past tells us abuse is inevitable, once an enemy strikes them, they'll be forced to use the weapons and It'll lead to what everyone is trying to avoid.

Elliotwiz1: please don't want to start a religious war here, but i can't take that out of my point. Most Islamic nations have OPENLY supported terrorists, e.g Saudi Arabia, old Sudan, Pakistan etc. Terrorist in the middle east are funded by the government, openly or secretly. Now, if a nation is allowed to use nuclear power plants for weapons or other uses, what makes you think these terrorists won't have access to them? If these terrorists gain access to these weapons they'll force the whole world to become islamised, yes America has her own underground motives, but i still stand beside them because without America the whole world would have been islamised forcefully. You might argue that Iran wants to use it for a good reason, but what the world has learnt from the past tells us abuse is inevitable, once an enemy strikes them, they'll be forced to use the weapons and It'll lead to what everyone is trying to avoid.

How many terrorists have access to Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal, do you guys think a Nuclear weapon is a football that can be carried without being detected?

hercules07:

How many terrorists have access to Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal, do you guys think a Nuclear weapon is a football that can be carried without being detected?

how about the government just presenting it to them like a gift!! I hope you know a doctor who helped to track Osama Bin Laden is under arrest in that country, this is an open support of terrorism!

Elliotwiz1: how about the government just presenting it to them like a gift!! I hope you know a doctor who helped to track Osama Bin Laden is under arrest in that country, this is an open support of terrorism!

Nuclear weapons are not christmas gifts, no government is going to give terrorists Nuclear weapons, on the issue of the doctor, you do know that Pakistan's support for the US is causing a serious civil war in that country, their government have to show that they be seen protect their sovereignty, I am sure the US and Pakistan will work out something and the doctor will be released.

hercules07:

Nuclear weapons are not christmas gifts, no government is going to give terrorists Nuclear weapons, on the issue of the doctor, you do know that Pakistan's support for the US is causing a serious civil war in that country, their government have to show that they be seen protect their sovereignty, I am sure the US and Pakistan will work out something and the doctor will be released.

it seems you don't get the point. These countries have openly supported terrorists they fund them, arm them e.g Saudi Arabia if they arm them with guns What's stopping them from supplying them nuclear weapons and missiles too?? Did rebels not take over the capital of Somalia? If there were nuclear weapons there do you know the amount of damage they would have caused to neighbouring countries who opposed them? . . . . Humanity is at the verge of extinction now, if these weapons are not controlled, soon humanity will pass away. We'll know about the bomb of Hiroshima and Ngasaki, these two cities were Totally destroyed, imagine that such power is given to the enemies of peace, ''terrorists'' imagine that they have access to biological weapons, atomic bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, just imagine the kind of damage they would cause. This is not the time to take risks, allowing Iran run a nuclear program is a risk. The heart of men is desperately evil, anything is possible and i'm totally behind the US.

hercules07:

Nuclear weapons are not christmas gifts, no government is going to give terrorists Nuclear weapons, on the issue of the doctor, you do know that Pakistan's support for the US is causing a serious civil war in that country, their government have to show that they be seen protect their sovereignty, I am sure the US and Pakistan will work out something and the doctor will be released.

it seems you don't get the point. These countries have openly supported terrorists they fund them, arm them e.g Saudi Arabia if they arm them with guns What's stopping them from supplying them nuclear weapons and missiles too?? Did rebels not take over the capital of Somalia? If there were nuclear weapons there do you know the amount of damage they would have caused to neighbouring countries who opposed them? . . . . Humanity is at the verge of extinction now, if these weapons are not controlled, soon humanity will pass away. We'll know about the bomb of Hiroshima and Ngasaki, these two cities were Totally destroyed, imagine that such power is given to the enemies of peace, ''terrorists'' imagine that they have access to biological weapons, atomic bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, just imagine the kind of damage they would cause. This is not the time to take risks, allowing Iran run a nuclear program is a risk. The heart of men is desperately evil, anything is possible and i'm totally behind the US.

Elliotwiz1: it seems you don't get the point. These countries have openly supported terrorists they fund them, arm them e.g Saudi Arabia if they arm them with guns What's stopping them from supplying them nuclear weapons and missiles too?? Did rebels not take over the capital of Somalia? If there were nuclear weapons there do you know the amount of damage they would have caused to neighbouring countries who opposed them? . . . . Humanity is at the verge of extinction now, if these weapons are not controlled, soon humanity will pass away. We'll know about the bomb of Hiroshima and Ngasaki, these two cities were Totally destroyed, imagine that such power is given to the enemies of peace, ''terrorists'' imagine that they have access to biological weapons, atomic bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, just imagine the kind of damage they would cause. This is not the time to take risks, allowing Iran run a nuclear program is a risk. The heart of men is desperately evil, anything is possible and i'm totally behind the US.

you are a very stupid person.your hate for muslims and bigotry is what is driving you.you don't have to comment here.stay in your ignorance and read instead.

you are grouping both iran and Saudi Arabia into one basket.saudi Arabia is America's ally in the middle east while iran is not.going by your rambling,you have just declared unknowingly that a US ally-Saudi Arabia- is supporting terrorism.you are not here discussing the deal or current politics and alliances.you are here fanning hatred for muslims and airing your phobia for all muslims.the muslim world is not defined by the fears you are expressing.different muslim countries follow different political alliances and strategies.thus you see the terrorism prevailing in Syria is supported by US allies like Saudi Arabia,qatar and turkey,against the government of Assad who is allied with Russia and iran.there are obviously many things you do not comprehend.

While the United States is close
allies with Saudi Arabia and
Qatar, it is well established that
the chief financier of extremist
militant groups for the past 3
decades, including Al Qaeda, are
in fact Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
While Qatari state-owned
propaganda like Al Jazeera apply
a veneer of progressive pro-
democracy to its narratives, Qatar
itself is involved in arming,
funding, and even providing
direct military support for
sectarian extremists from
northern Mali, to Libya, to Syria
and beyond.
France 24′s report “Is Qatar
fuelling the crisis in north Mali?
” provides a useful vignette of
Saudi-Qatari terror sponsorship,
stating:
“The MNLA [secular Tuareg
separatists], al Qaeda-linked
Ansar Dine and MUJAO
[movement for unity and
Jihad in West Africa] have all
received cash from Doha.”
A month later Sadou Diallo,
the mayor of the north
Malian city of Gao [which had
fallen to the Islamists] told
RTL radio: “The French
government knows perfectly
well who is supporting these
terrorists. Qatar, for example,
continues to send so-called
aid and food every day to the
airports of Gao and
Timbuktu.”
The report also stated:
“Qatar has an established a
network of institutions it
funds in Mali, including
madrassas, schools and
charities that it has been
funding from the 1980s,” he
wrote, adding that Qatar
would be expecting a return
on this investment.
“Mali has huge oil and gas
potential and it needs help
developing its
infrastructure,” he said.
“Qatar is well placed to help,
and could also, on the back
of good relations with an
Islamist-ruled north Mali,
exploit rich gold and
uranium deposits in the
country.”
These institutions are present
not only in Mali, but around the
world www.globalresearch.ca/destroying-a-nation-state-us-saudi-funded-terrorists-sowing-chaos-in-pakistan/5323295?print=1 i can't post everything here go and read everything, the fact that Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US doesn't mean They're angels.

Kudos to Obama for keeping his campaign promise of diplomacy and dialogue with Iran; Israel should pipe down and quit being so paranoid.

NairaMinted: For now Iran 1- Israel 0. The warmongering nutcase in the person of Netanyahu has failed with his propaganda and outlandish lies

Let's not forget however, that there is the reality of a script played by North Korea being repeated right before our eyes. The Oslo Accords that eased sanctions and restored relationships between the West and Pyongyang for a promise to freeze nuclear program only gave leverage for North Korea to secretly continue their nuclear programs until it was no longer possible to stop them. I forsee a repeat of this scenario, and I guess Israel too is looking in that same direction. Coupled with the incumbent Iranian P.M.'s recent repetition of "death to Israel" jingo, I can see why there's palpable apprehension by Netanyahu.

Israel is not the only nation that could be threatened. The Shiite-Sunni divide which is presently assuming more dangerous proportions with mass killings in Iraq, then the Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guards' intervention in Syria and Iranian diplomatic oppositions to Saudi and their allied Arab governments is a factor to make even the whole world jittery. I don't personally see a peace treaty signed here, but more or less a proposition for Iranian domination of Arabia and the Middle East and probably, if care is not taken, a war that would shake the whole area so violently that the whole world would reel at it's effects.

It may interest us to note that Iran is already backpedaling on the US terminology of the sgreements.

endtimeheadlines./2013/11/26/iran-accuses-white-house-of-lying-about-details-of-nuke-deal/

This comment comes from someone who has had a taste of Iranian 'hospitality'. You can copy and paste to your url to read it.

endtimeheadlines./2013/11/26/american-held-hostage-in-iran-for-444-days-calls-deal-foolishness/

NairaMinted:

Islamic nations cannot be trusted you say but we can trust the US cos the US has shown us time and again that it can be trusted right?

Whilst I agree that peace is absolutely desirable, every nation has right to enrich uranium for its energy or medical needs and until proven otherwise, no other nation can go about spreading speculations or falsehood as facts or the truth.

Read through my last post to get a better insight to what is really going on

Nuclear weapons are a menace and that's why we have the non-proliferation treaty. Allowing countries to freely develop such weapons without constraint renders the treaty useless and puts the entire world at risk.

There's a difference between trusting the US and Islamic nations with these weapons.
During the Cuban missile crisis, both JFK and Khrushchev, on the brink of a nuclear warfare, were cautious with their approach cos they were not ready to wipe each other off the world map but we all know some Islamic people are not afraid to die and if pushed to the edge, they won't hesitate to bomb themselves and everyone else along.

It could be falsehood like you say but with this deal, it's all up to Iran to prove that its nuclear program is clean and for peaceful purposes.

Kay-Dee:


Nuclear weapons are a menace and that's why we have the non-proliferation treaty. Allowing countries to freely develop such weapons without constraint renders the treaty useless and puts the entire world at risk.

There's a difference between trusting the US and Islamic nations with these weapons.
During the Cuban missile crisis, both JFK and Khrushchev, on the brink of a nuclear warfare, were cautious with their approach cos they were not ready to wipe each other off the world map but we all know some Islamic people are not afraid to die and if pushed to the edge, they won't hesitate to bomb themselves and everyone else along.

It could be falsehood like you say but with this deal, it's all up to Iran to prove that its nuclear program is clean and for peaceful purposes.

1. And the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons on another is?

2. And since Iran is an Islamic country, we can automatically assume that they have a death wish by nuking America, incurring the wrath of the whole world and then losing out pitifully in a war that they possibly cannot win?

Guys please lots stop equating Iran to some suicidal terrorist outfit. Iran is a country with aspirations of posperity and progress. Would Iran really be so st.u.pid to start what it can't finish? Think hard about that

Elliotwiz1: it seems you don't get the point. These countries have openly supported terrorists they fund them, arm them e.g Saudi Arabia if they arm them with guns What's stopping them from supplying them nuclear weapons and missiles too?? Did rebels not take over the capital of Somalia? If there were nuclear weapons there do you know the amount of damage they would have caused to neighbouring countries who opposed them? . . . . Humanity is at the verge of extinction now, if these weapons are not controlled, soon humanity will pass away. We'll know about the bomb of Hiroshima and Ngasaki, these two cities were Totally destroyed, imagine that such power is given to the enemies of peace, ''terrorists'' imagine that they have access to biological weapons, atomic bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, just imagine the kind of damage they would cause. This is not the time to take risks, allowing Iran run a nuclear program is a risk. The heart of men is desperately evil, anything is possible and i'm totally behind the US.

Please stop visiting all those ponkious websites, if there were nuclear weapons in Somalia, the Islamist rebels would not have been allowed near the capital. Saudi Arabia wants nuclear weapons but the US and Israel will not allow them have it, infact, I do not see you asking that Israel give up its Nuclear weapons afterall, Iran has not invaded anybody while Israel invaded Lebanon 3 times.

hercules07:

Please stop visiting all those ponkious websites, if there were nuclear weapons in Somalia, the Islamist rebels would not have been allowed near the capital. Saudi Arabia wants nuclear weapons but the US and Israel will not allow them have it, infact, I do not see you asking that Israel give up its Nuclear weapons afterall, Iran has not invaded anybody while Israel invaded Lebanon 3 times.

isreal has not invaded anyone without good reason, Isreal invaded Lebanon because of Hezbollah, you won't allow your enemy to strike you first would you? To tell Isreal to give up her nuclear weapons is to tell her to surrender, We'll know the whole Arab league is against Isreal, the Arab world once attacked Isreal, although Isreal won. Isreal knows if her nuclear weapons are surrendered It'll be the end. A country that has enemies to the south north and east should surrender her weapons?? Iran on the other hand is not fighting with anyone, Isreal is afraid they'll use their weapons against them, That's why They're strongly against Iran having nuclear weapons.

Elliotwiz1: isreal has not invaded anyone without good reason,..........

Recently, Israel carried out the following air raids


1. Jan 2013, Isreal strikes Syria in a desperate bid to save the faltering campaign of destablilization in Syria.


CNN, in its report, "Israeli planes strike Syrian military base, U.S. official says," admits: "Israeli warplanes have attacked a target close to the Syrian-Lebanese border following several days of heightened warnings from government officials over Syria's stockpiles of weapons."

It also stated:

"Israel has publicly warned that it would take military action to prevent the Syrian regime's chemical weapons falling into the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon or "global jihadists" fighting inside Syria. Israeli military intelligence is said to be monitoring the area round the clock via satellite for possible convoys carrying weapons."

In reality, these "global jihadists" are in fact armed and funded by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel since at least as early as 2007. They are also in fact the direct beneficiaries of Israel's recent aggression. The Israeli "suspicions" of "weapon transfers" of course, remain unconfirmed, because the purpose of the attack was not to prevent the transfer of "chemical weapons" to Hezbollah in Lebanon, but to provoke a wider conflict aimed not at Israel's defense, but at salvaging the West's floundering proxy terrorist forces inside Syria attempting to subvert and overthrow the Syrian nation.



2. July 2013, following numerous previous attacks in May, Isreal bombed a warehouse in Syria housing Yakhont P-800 anti-ship missiles.

These missiles had just been supplied in May 2013 by Russia along with advanced radar to make them more effective to counter any future foreign military intervention. How does anti-ship missiles which are purely for defense purposes in the event of a military attack pose a threat to Israel?


3. Oct 2013, Israeli warplanes struck a military base near the Syrian port city of Latakia. The target, according to the Obama administration official, was missiles and related equipment the Israelis felt might be transferred to the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah.

SA-8 missiles are used in air-defense to protect airspace, and are not offensive weapons, making the recent Israeli attack all the more an egregious act of aggression in direct violation of international law.




Israel, along with the US & Saudi Arabia, are Al Qaeda's chief sponsors

It must be remembered that as far back as 2007, it was admitted by US, Saudi and Lebanese officials that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were intentionally arming, funding, and organizing these "global jihadists" with direct ties to Al Qaeda for the explicit purpose of overthrowing the governments of Syria and Iran.

Reported by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article, "The Redirection," it was stated (emphasis added):

"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

Of Israel and Saudi Arabia's partnership it specifically stated:

"The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations."

Additionally, Saudi Arabian officials mentioned the careful balancing act their nation must play in order to conceal its role in supporting US-Israeli ambitions across the region:

"The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.”"


Read more here

Israel ca finally face the real issue of returning the Palestine lands and living in peace with them.

Onyocha:

you are a very stupid person.your hate for muslims and bigotry is what is driving you.you don't have to comment here.stay in your ignorance and read instead.

you are grouping both iran and Saudi Arabia into one basket.saudi Arabia is America's ally in the middle east while iran is not.going by your rambling,you have just declared unknowingly that a US ally-Saudi Arabia- is supporting terrorism.you are not here discussing the deal or current politics and alliances.you are here fanning hatred for muslims and airing your phobia for all muslims.the muslim world is not defined by the fears you are expressing.different muslim countries follow different political alliances and strategies.thus you see the terrorism prevailing in Syria is supported by US allies like Saudi Arabia,qatar and turkey,against the government of Assad who is allied with Russia and iran.there are obviously many things you do not comprehend.

hey, are u a sunni muslim or shi'te?

Psylas: hey, are u a sunni muslim or shi'te?

i'm neither.i'm christian-agnostic.but I've read into Islam extensively and I lean towards the Shi'ites.i think they are more rational in beliefs and methodology,and of course more moderate than Sunnis.