New Iran agreement includes secret side deal, Tehran official says

WASHINGTON – Key elements of a new nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers are contained in an informal, 30-page text not yet publicly acknowledged by Western officials, Iran’s chief negotiator said Monday.
Abbas Araqchi disclosed the existence of the document in a Persian-language interview with the semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency.
The new agreement, announced over the weekend, sets out a timetable for how Iran and the six nations, led by the United States, will implement a deal reached in November that is aimed at restraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

New Iran agreement includes secret side deal, Tehran official says

In his interview, Araqchi touched on the sensitive issue of how much latitude Iran will have to continue its nuclear research and development.

U.S. officials said Sunday that Iran would be allowed to continue existing research and development projects and with pencil-and-paper design work, but not to advance research with new projects. Araqchi, however, implied that the program would have wide latitude.

“No facility will be closed; enrichment will continue, and qualitative and nuclear research will be expanded,” he said. “All research into a new generation of centrifuges will continue.”

So here we go. It seems that the chief negotiator for Iran is now saying that there is a "non-paper deal" which allows them to continue to do all the nuclear research they want to do.

When US officials were asked about this, they of course denied it.

A State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, denied later Monday that there was any secret agreement.
"Any documentation associated with implementation tracks completely with what we've described," she said. "These are technical plans submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency," the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency.

"We will make information available to Congress and the public as it becomes available," Harf said

So apparently, from what I understand, this non-paper deal allows Iran to basically continue all the research they want in the nuclear area. As long as it is purely "academic" in nature.

So what the hell, exactly, are we doing over there and how is this negotiating???

reply to post by xmaddness

As long as it is purely "academic" in nature.

Your link says that the Iranians have stated that enrichment will continue.
What is academic about that?

What exactly changed, if they will continue enrichment?

butcherguy
reply to post by xmaddness

 

What exactly changed, if they will continue enrichment?

Apparently absolutely nothing.

This is probably why Netanyahu called this deal a historic mistake.

The question now is, what the hell did we get in this deal exactly??

reply to post by xmaddness


When this administration can't tell the truth about something as local as healthcare do you really expect them to tell the truth about Iran.

Iran is the whole purpose of Valery Jarrett's existence as controller of this administration...among other things that she could care less about, like the destruction of America's health system.

For her destroying America is a side bar compared to giving her country( Iran ) total control of the middle east, Obama is just a stooge at her disposal to accomplish this.

Any bombs that may or may not originate our of Iran are completely academic in nature I guess.

We'll have to ask the people they land on if the effects are also purely research oriented.

xmaddness

butcherguy
reply to post by xmaddness

 

What exactly changed, if they will continue enrichment?

Apparently absolutely nothing.

This is probably why Netanyahu called this deal a historic mistake.

The question now is, what the hell did we get in this deal exactly??

edit on 14-1-2014 by xmaddness because: (no reason given)

Netanyahu is an idiot. The NPT gives Iran the right to research and develop nuclear energy he would know this if the warmonger's nation had the balls to sign the NPT. America deserves nothing out of this there was no reason for the sanctions in the first place. Iran did nothing to America. We are the ones that started the problems with Iran when we staged a take over of their government and replaced him with a puppet that served big business interests.

reply to post by ketsuko


Apart from a war with Iraq, which the USA certainly had a hand in, when exactly did Iran suddenly declare war on the rest of the world and start chucking bombs at it? The last war to my recollection was with Irak which the USA certainly had a hand in.

In fact didn't Iran once be a very good ally to the USA, UK and Europe? It seems there is an awful lot of sheer hatred towards that country which seems totally unfounded, unless you have actually seen more Iranian bombs flying about than I have.

Shiloh7
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Apart from a war with Iraq, which the USA certainly had a hand in, when exactly did Iran suddenly declare war on the rest of the world and start chucking bombs at it? The last war to my recollection was with Irak which the USA certainly had a hand in.

In fact didn't Iran once be a very good ally to the USA, UK and Europe? It seems there is an awful lot of sheer hatred towards that country which seems totally unfounded, unless you have actually seen more Iranian bombs flying about than I have.

So nuclear proliferation is a good thing?
I don't even trust us humans with nuclear power plants.

reply to post by butcherguy


I honestly don't see how anyone could have not expected the Iranians to consider they needed a nuclear deterrent. Saudi can buy nucler weapons overnight from Pakistan and Israel already appears to have them and flout any rules regarding proliferation and monitoring etc. Put yourself in a pair of Iranian shoes, they are an ancient, highly civilised people existing well before Saudi and Israel, so would you, were you a responsible government not take steps to protect the people you govern by making sure you have the benefit of a deterrent that your enemies understand? I think its our niaevity of how we look at the situation in Iran that is the problem.

I have wondered at the wisdom of nuclear weapons in the first place because detonation would do so much damage and pollution, which could easily blow back into one's face. The land would be unusable and it would take billions to rebuild facilities etc. Nuclear weapons seem potty to me. I see germ, chemical and biological weapons and even the new sound etc weapons as the real threat to humanity.

I do concede that any country with meglomaniacs, religious maniacs or the extremes of irresponsible or corrupt politicans that has in its arsenal nuclear weapons as utterly undesirable. Unfortunately that would leave my country and some of its allies err - how shall I put it err.

reply to post by buster2010


Ok, then let me rephrase.

I suppose the inevitable meltdowns when their Bushehrs go critical after major tectonic events will also be "academic."

I suppose we can ask the people the inevitable fallout lands on if the results of the fallout are "research oriented."

Is that better?

My opinion only.


The US should just get the hell out of the ME entirely. We've fought the wars poorly and I don't see it getting any better.

The populace of the ME respects strength. Decisiveness. They see diplomacy as a form of weakness.

They see negotiations as an oppourtunity to cheat and win.

Our current leaders have to stomach, nor strength to fight an actual conflict with Iran or anyone else.

Let them have that corner of the world. Maybe they'll nuke each other and we'll just sit back and watch. Personally, I'm fed up with the issues going on there. We've won nothing. We've gained nothing. We are laughed at on the worlds stage.

I'm sick of it. Americans go in? It's "Imperialism". Americans stay away? They get accused of allowing the deaths of people.

America is no longer the beacon of light standing for freedom and rights. Not when it spies on its own people and lies to everyone.

reply to post by beezzer


Not only do we need to do that, but we also need to put everything into developing our own resources. Why should we continue to buy oil from there if we let them burn themselves? We have our own; we should use it while we look for something better, and I'm not talking about windmills.

ketsuko
reply to post by buster2010

 

Ok, then let me rephrase.

I suppose the inevitable meltdowns when their Bushehrs go critical after major tectonic events will also be "academic."

I suppose we can ask the people the inevitable fallout lands on if the results of the fallout are "research oriented."

Is that better?

Just because you rephrase Israeli propaganda doesn't make it any better.

Hey there, I think I have uncovered the "secret side" to the deal, to train Iranian sailors on US grounds...

Iran says warships headed close to US borders

I was wondering why nobody mentioned this topic in the ongoing discussion, everybody still seems to think that the US and Iran hate each other??

reply to post by beezzer


I couldn't agree more with what you have said here Beezer.You have put my thoughts into words.It seems to me like the different factions of Islam can just not get along. Adding in the Isrealis just intensifies the dislike. Sometimes it appears that these people just like to hate.

Oh.... This is going to end very very badly for us... Obama still has this fantasyland belief that 'they're all in it together' and can somehow talk 'just between us' among world leaders.

Ummm..... Mr. President?? World leaders do not respect you (or us). They do not trust you (or us) and your "secret deals" INFURIATE more leaders, on average, than they ever service. They don't stay very friggen secret, either, huh? Doh!


If this keeps up and Obama keeps playing footsie with allies and enemies at the same time, like a big game of playing both sides against the middle? We're going to find ourselves in the middle ....and lets NEVER EVER forget something? The Jews and the Arabs fought SIDE BY SIDE and within the last century, at that. It didn't last long and it was far from a unified command structure, to say the least ....but to throw out the British? They used the 'Enemy of my Enemy is my friend' motto and cooperated until the Brits were sent packing in preparation for UN take over back then.

They could do it again...if Jew and Muslim both stop for a moment, look at each other and realize...they have a common enemy more important to deal with than each other ..for a short time, anyway.

"secret deal" = strongarmed by DC...

US - "We don't care what you do, as long as you buy your stuff from Vinnie (USA). Don't buy your stuff and there will be consequences. We'd really hate for something "unfortunate" to happen to your pretty research facilities."
(at this point, annoying little Israel pops up) "Yeah....Yeah....like last time!!. You tell him Gino, You Tell Him!"

"So go ahead and do your research. As long as you pay for our protection, things will be fine. If you don't! (points to a picture of Sadaam)"

"Have we made ourselves clear?"

Seen it a million times. Nothing more than a shakedown

on a side-note, look at all the rabbits posting to this thread

reply to post by xmaddness


Selling peace one nuclear reactor at a time... while keeping face on the U turn of the war drums propaganda . I think its called having your cake...

Israel is the antagonist , and imo Obama recognises this, but realises it is too much of a hard sell to the American public or more to the point the Israeli controlled media factory that informs the American public of their version of world events...

At any rate the USA cannot win in Iran, not if Russia and China have anything to do with it ....

I for 1 applaud the temporal avoidance of conflict long may it continue...

reply to post by buster2010


So now the idea that the reactors are for peaceful purposes is Israeli propaganda?

Wow! Make up your mind.

But earthquakes NEVER happen near Iranian nuke plants,and if they did, it's Israeli propaganda.

Those earthquakes are probably Israeli spy quakes like those vultures are being paid by the Mossad.

So, what happens if the fault lets go and the reactor melts down? It's a legitimate question, and one that gets all over the world wherever there happens to be faults and reactors after Fukushima ... unless apparently we're talking about Iran because then it's somehow Israeli propaganda to question.