Flynt Leverett from Vienna: Iran Deal Essential for More Constructive, Humane Middle East Policy

From Vienna, Flynt Leverett outlined on DemocracyNow how the Iran deal is an essential step towards a more constructive, humane U.S. approach to the Middle East. Click here or on video above to listen. The transcript is here:

Iran has reached a nuclear deal with the United States and five major world powers, capping more than a decade of negotiations. Under the deal, sanctions imposed on Iran would be lifted in return for Iran agreeing to long-term curbs on its nuclear program. The deal allows Iran to maintain a civilian nuclear program, but aims to prevent Tehran from ever developing nuclear weapons. Earlier this morning in a national address that was also broadcast on Iranian television, President Obama said every pathway for Iran to a nuclear weapon has been cut off. Obama vowed to veto any congressional legislation to block the deal. Under the nuclear deal, sanctions on Iran could be reinstated in 65 days if the deal is violated. A U.N. weapons embargo is to remain in place for five years, and a ban on buying missile technology will remain for eight years.

We go now to Vienna, where we are joined by Flynt Leverett, author of Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran and professor of international affairs at Penn State. He served for over a decade in the U.S. government as a senior analyst at the CIA, a Middle East specialist for the State Department and as senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council.

AMY GOODMAN: Iran has reached a nuclear deal with the United States and five major world powers, capping more than a decade of negotiations. Under the deal, sanctions imposed on Iran would be lifted in return for Iran agreeing to long-term curbs on its nuclear program. The deal allows Iran to maintain a civilian nuclear program, but aims to prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons. Earlier this morning in a national address that was also broadcast on Iranian television, President Obama said every pathway for Iran to a nuclear weapon has been cut off.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. … This deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established when we achieved a framework earlier this spring. Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off. And the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that objective will be put in place.

Because of this deal, Iran will not produce the highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium that form the raw materials necessary for a nuclear bomb. Because of this deal, Iran will remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce highly enriched uranium for a bomb, and store them under constant international supervision. Iran will not use its advanced centrifuges to produce enriched uranium for the next decade. Iran will also get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium. To put that in perspective, Iran currently has a stockpile that could produce up to 10 nuclear weapons. Because of this deal, that stockpile will be reduced to a fraction of what would be required for a single weapon.

AMY GOODMAN: During his speech, President Obama vowed to veto any congressional legislation to block the deal. The Iran nuclear agreement came after Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Secretary Javad Zarif spent more than two weeks in negotiations. Speaking in Vienna, Zarif described the day as an “historic moment.”

JAVAD ZARIF: Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to everybody, to those who started this process and those who have continued this process in order to reach a win-win solution on what, in our view, was an unnecessary crisis, and open new horizons for dealing with serious problems that affect our international community. I believe this is a historic moment. We are reaching an agreement that is not perfect for anybody, but it is what we could accomplish, and it is an important achievement for all of us. Today could have been the end of hope on this issue, but now we are starting a new chapter of hope.

AMY GOODMAN: Under the deal, sanctions on Iran could be reinstated in 65 days if the deal is violated. A U.N. weapons embargo is to remain in place for five years, and a ban on buying missile technology will remain for eight years. Despite these measures, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal a “bad mistake of historic proportions.”

We go now to Vienna, where we’re joined again by Flynt Leverett, author of Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran. He’s a professor of international affairs at Penn State; served for over a decade in the U.S. government as a senior analyst at the CIA, a Middle East specialist for the State Department and as senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council.

Well, Flynt, we spoke yesterday. Today, the deal has been reached. Can you tell us the outlines of it and your reaction to it?

FLYNT LEVERETT: I think the outlines, I would emphasize three main sets of commitments. On the Iranian side, of course, there are a number of commitments spelled out relatively early on in the agreement—all totaled, 159 pages with the annexes. But there is a set of commitments that Iran undertakes regarding certain limits on its nuclear activities that will address nonproliferation concerns that the United States and some other countries have had. As an analyst, I have personally never been persuaded that Iran was seeking to build a nuclear weapon, but for those who are concerned about that possibility or that risk, I think this is a very good deal from a nonproliferation standpoint.

At the same time, in terms of nuclear commitments, I think Iran has achieved something very significant here, which is basically a recognition of the reality that states have a right to a peaceful use of civil nuclear technology in all respects. This is not a right that is granted by the Non-Proliferation Treaty; it is a sovereign right that’s recognized by the treaty. From an Iranian perspective, the United States and the Security Council tried for years to deny Iran that right. And now, without Iran having sacrificed it, the international community is recognizing that right, and I think that’s an important step on the nonproliferation front, as well.

The second big set of commitments concerns sanctions relief. In return for Iran accepting these limits on its nuclear capabilities, all international sanctions authorized by the United Nations Security Council are going to be removed. European Union sanctions against Iran will be terminated. And the United States will, the language says, cease implementing its secondary sanctions, the sanctions that it threatens to impose on third countries that do business with Iran. The United States will stop implementing those sanctions, although they are likely to stay authorized in American law for some period of years. The president, President Obama, basically will waive the implementation of those sanctions. So I think that’s another second set of commitments.

And then there’s a third set of commitments related to implementing this deal. And basically, the agreement sets up processes, committees, commissions that will oversee the implementation of this deal. There’s a special committee set up to deal with the issue of inspections, with the International Atomic Energy Agency asked to visit a nonnuclear site that it doesn’t regularly inspect, and Iran is uncomfortable about that happening. There is now a committee process laid out which will, you know, review why does the IAEA want to come to this site, what is the basis for their concern, what are Iran’s concerns about letting the agency in, and, you know, will weigh those and ultimately adjudicate or arbitrate those kinds of situations, if they arrive.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about what’s going to happen in Congress right now, a battle royale. Now, President Obama has already, in his national address, said he will veto any rejection of this. And then it will go, of course, back to Congress to try to overturn his veto. But for those who say this is a terrorist nation, that it doesn’t stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb but simply delays it 10 or 15 years down the road, your response?

FLYNT LEVERETT: You know, I think, for people who say that, you know, I think they really—the burden of proof should be on them to prove that it is actually Iran’s intent to build nuclear weapons and that the kinds of—you know, even after this deal runs out, Iran is still going to be bound by the obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty not to build nuclear weapons. I went to work for the U.S. government in 1992 and have been hearing ever since, from Israeli intelligence agencies, from U.S. intelligence agencies, that Iran is three to five years away from being able to build a nuclear weapon. And every year we just push that—we just push that three- to five-year estimate further, further out. You know, I think at this point we really need to ask ourselves, is Iran—does Iran really have the intention to build a nuclear weapon? And I don’t think there is any evidence that they do.

AMY GOODMAN: And to those who say now, with the sanctions lifted, it will simply be able to give more support, for example, to Bashar al-Assad of Syria, talk about an issue you ended with yesterday in our conversation, which was your feeling that President Obama is selling this in the wrong way, that it should be talked overall about a shifting of U.S. policy in the Middle East. But begin with that issue of those who say this is a terrorist nation supporting terrorists, and now they’ll have more money to do that.

FLYNT LEVERETT: My wife and I have been arguing for years, both inside the U.S. government when we served there and in the years since we left government, that the United States, for its own interests, needs to come to terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Relying overly much on partnerships with Israel and Saudi Arabia is increasingly dysfunctional for the U.S. position in the region. It is breeding jihadi terrorism across the region. It is enabling open-ended Israeli occupation of Arab populations. All of that is ultimately bad for the United States. The only way the United States can recover from the many tragic mistakes it has made in this part of the world in recent years, and put itself on a more positive trajectory, is by coming to terms with Iran. Iran is a rising regional power. It is a legitimate political order for most Iranians who live inside their country. We need to come to terms with that reality.

AMY GOODMAN: There was a discussion in the media today, those who are saying Iran is involved with something like four wars, you know, against the United States. But, in fact, that is not exactly true, is it, Flynt Leverett? I mean, look at Iraq. The U.S. is working on the side of Iran.

FLYNT LEVERETT: If you look at the constituencies that Iran supports in these various arenas, we may want to label them terrorists, but the reality is, these are unavoidable constituencies in their societies with real and legitimate grievances. And what Iran does more than anything else is to help these communities organize in various ways to press their grievances more effectively. That’s why Iran’s influence is rising.

If we want to be serious about conflict resolution in Syria, not about funding, working with the Saudis to fund jihadi militants that end up coalescing into either al-Qaeda or the Islamic State, if we want to get serious about conflict resolution in Syria, we need to be talking with and working in a serious way with Iran. If we want to get serious about conflict resolution in Iraq and dealing with the Islamic State in a serious and effective way, we need to stop just letting the Saudis and helping the Saudis fund the jihadi militants that create these groups, and we need to work with Iran to devise a regional strategy to contain that threat.

It is an extremely unpopular thing to say in the United States. My wife and I have paid various kinds of personal and professional prices for making this argument over the years. But the reality is, if the United States is going to have a more effective foreign policy in the Middle East—and, frankly, a more humane and constructive foreign policy in the Middle East—rapprochement with the Islamic Republic of Iran is essential to that end.

AMY GOODMAN: Flynt Leverett, I want to thank you for being with us, professor of international affairs at Penn State, formerly worked with the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as the National Security Council, co-author, with his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, of the book, Going to Tehran.



176 Responses to “Flynt Leverett from Vienna: Iran Deal Essential for More Constructive, Humane Middle East Policy”

  1. Karl.. says:

    So Iran cant buy weapons for 5-8 years?

    They cant fully make use of “right” to civilian nuclear progam?

    Has there ever been so much focus about a non-issue in history? The “iranian nuclear threat” is such a hyped up propaganda meme.

  2. Smith says:

    Kathleen says:
    July 14, 2015 at 9:55 am

    Leveretts are way above the mere public educators and TV analyst commentators. They are a caliber of their own. Are excellent academics who know their stuff (unlike most academics in non-science fields). If ever US negotiates with Iran over opening of embassies, one of the demands of Iran should be for Leveretts to be posted as US ambassador to Iran. They really deserve this. Though I do not think it will ever happen.

  3. masoud says:

    This really can be best described as articles of surrender of Iran’s nuclear program, which will be completely decimates. The US, on the other handz is explicitly not required to terminate any sanctions, medley to ‘cease application’, which more likely than not will still be enough to scare away large institutions from making long term commitments in Iran. On the other hand Iran is making commitments for a 15 year period, with UNSC involvement explicitly mandated for at least 10. Iran is not allowed to enrich Uranium for the duration of the agreement. Iran is not allowed to engage in any RD except to ‘run tests’ on centrifuges they have already designed. Iran will not manufacture centrifuges. Iran is not allowed to build reactors. The US will redesign arak for Iran, and deliver its core from outside the country fully fuelled. If I were Salehi, this agreement would make me physically I’ll too.

    A significant chunk of the sanctions will stay in place for eight years’ ‘transition day’, and Iran will incur obligations that go well past ‘termination day’, which ten years into the future, at
    the earliest.

    The kicker? The UNSC is set up as the formal arbitrator born this agreement. As envisioned, any party can submit a complaint to the UNSC about the agreement and unless the UNSC takes a positive vote to continue extending the sanctions relief, sanctions are automatically reimposed. Rouhani has managed to devised an agreement to keep any advancement in Irans trade with the entire world hostage to five different powers for at least the next decade.

    Just so we are clear on whose interest this deal does look out for, I leave you with article twenty two of the agreement,which describes tthe US’ first set of specific obligations; pay attention to the last sentence.

    22. The United States will, as specified in Annex II and in accordance with Annex V,
    allow for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and
    services to Iran; license non-U.S. persons that are owned or controlled by a U.S.
    person to engage in activities with Iran consistent with this JCPOA; and license
    the importation into the United States of Iranian-origin carpets and foodstuffs.

  4. M.Ali says:

    Here is what we have after two years of negotiations. Access to all military, stop to any research, nuclear enrichment turned into a joke, anf in exchange for all this, USA gives up…well, not gives up, but the right to sell us stuff?

    The iranian revolution is dead. The iranian gheirat is bullshit and a joke. Zarif’s never threaten an Iranian is laughable.

    The government doesnt care. The majlis doesnt care. And apparently the leader doesn’t care because the people dont care.

    Dorood bar marde bahar keh faghat un bud keh del suz bud va didim che karesh kardan.

  5. Smith says:

    Over all as I said it is a good deal for Iran. Cargo cults should not expect anything more. And by all accounts both Mr Khomeini and Mr Khamenei had declared atom bombs haram.

    Iran is not China that used to mass manufacture planes, tanks, nukes and ICBM’s which forced Nixon to pay their leader a visit. Iran can barely function on its own.

    This is the best deal possible based on the national capabilities of Iran. Peugeot just announced that it will start exporting to Iran as soon as Iran Khodro starts paying.

    Similarly Italian Eni announced it is ready to invest in Iranian oil as soon as Iran offers a good deal to it.

    Oil out, cargo in. You do not like this, then build your own stuff. Manufacture your own planes. Grow your own food. Make your own medicine. Use your own money to invest. Innovate, invent, discover and explore. Even go to Pluto and take photos. Who is stopping you?

    But if you are not up for the job, then this is the absolute best deal possible.

  6. Karl.. says:


    How could it be a great deal, after all Iran is now to curb their legal right to have a nuclear progam because US basically says so. Isnt accepting US command what defines a “cargo cult” person?

  7. masoud says:

    The only having grace this agreement has is that it is not legally enforceable and subject to cancellation at any time by either party. The smart move is to go along with it until implementation day, three months from now when all the sanctions are removed, convert everything to gold, and ship it home before the elections a year from now, and do everything possible to imbed Iran as a first level partner in the now nascent financial institutions of the BRICS or those of the SCO if that happens, and go all in on attempting to stabilize Iraq and Syria before the agreement breaks down after the next election cycle.

  8. masoud says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 14, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    As far as I understand, that’s not true. The IAEA can ask to visit a site, and Iran can turn down the request.

  9. fyi says:

    Mr. Masoud & Mr. Karl:

    This is a cease-fire deal for the duration of 8 to 15 years.

    In less than 2 decades Iranians will be back expanding their nuclear program.

    If a new threat to Iran rises quickly, Iran can always abrogate and leave NPT.

    This also gives Iran the opportunity for any contingency of war by freely importing what would be needed for a future war.

    This is a decent deal with Iran as it ends the US-EU Economic War against Iran.

    And like the Iraq war that also pushed Iran too far (US, EU, Arabs, USSR waiting for Iran to collapse and die) this war also pushed Iran and the Iranian people too far and taught them very bitter lessons.

  10. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    July 14, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    I think it is up to Iranian leaders to take this opportunity to reorganize their political economy internally.

    A lot of improvements in the United Kingdom’s government and society were also due to the necessity of fighting wars and fighting them efficiently.

    EU, of course, is eager to recapture her lost business in Iran – let us see what they can recover; very little I should expect.

    And let us see when UK will release the 1.3 billion pounds that they had impounded years ago.

    The critical thing for Iran was that she stood her grounds, defended and sustained her allies and was still standing when the cease-fire was declared today.

    The wars against Iran and her allies have failed – this much was admitted by the Axis Powers.

  11. Ataune says:


    “Iran is not China that used to mass manufacture planes, tanks, nukes and ICBM’s which forced Nixon to pay their leader a visit.”

    Nixon to China was in the making for at least a year when a visit by Kissinger to China took place in 1971. In that year or even 1972 China didn’t have any operational ICBM, which were first introduced circa 1984. Even though China already had a nuclear warheads at the time, their limited numbers and the lack of a delivery system made them rather a non-deterrent against any US threat.

    The main, and one would say only, reason for the rapprochement was the US strategic shift with the purpose to leverage China against USSR. By no means this can be called being “forced” into a visit.

  12. hans says:

    I see this agreement as a victory of Rafasjani over Supreme Leader, cash, corruption over military. what makes you think the next USA president will fully honour this agreement. the tentacles of the Zionist have a long reach, encompassing IAEA at the forefront. Did Javid go for a Noble peace prize?

  13. M.Ali says:

    Masoud, Iran cant turn it down. It can only refer to the arbitrator group which only requires an agreement from 5 of the 8 members meaning no veto power from china or russia.

  14. M.Ali says:

    Majlis leader, Larijani, loves this deal. He can only act tough against someone like Ahmadenijad but against foreign powers? Better not to resist, I guess.

  15. masoud says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 14, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    Yeah, you’re right. This is simply atrocious.

  16. masoud says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 14, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    But I should add to if Iran doesn’t grant access the only real recourse this agreement provides is through that same dispute resolution mechanism.

  17. Tuyzentfloot says:

    Open New Horizons he says :) (Zarif). Right at the time of the Pluto flyby.

  18. pragmatic says:


    Since I started commenting on this site, I said the deal is done and sealed! Because in a meeting we factory owners has (three months ago) with Hashemi, Ayatollah Hashemi assertively said “go start working your new products, start investing because the deal is done”.

    About two months ago many times I said the old imperialist GB is behind most global decision makings. I mentioned it after Cameron’s speech to the congress, for me the deal was done then. He indirectly told the congressmen to stop criticizing the negotiations, it has to be signed. Indeed, this deal is mostly in US favor, did Iran have any other choice than not accepting it?! Apparently with what you just wrote you like your paper tiger (Ahmadi) think the sanctions were only a teared paper? In long run Iran will benefit way more. Didn’t I say a month ago that you, bib, and kooshy will be disappointed at the end of this long negotiations? Well? Don’t be shocked if they merge the army and revolutionary guards sometime in near future? Why is General Rezaie back in sepah as a scholar?

    You mentioned that Ahmadinejad was different and he would have done differently, this is where with all do respect, I have to say you are so naive and gullible. Ahmadinejad was one beyond IRI and this world, his philosophy about religious should be researched by OLAMA ye Ezam! If we can forgive all the past presidents of Iran for their wrong doings, we cannot forgive him. Ahmadinejad ruined not only the economy and resources of this country, but also our prestige in the world. My Iranian fellow, Ahamdinejad is done. Just wait a little more and see….. One day you shall see (because you are not today) that he was all big hat but no cattle. I suggest you search the you tube the last interview of Mr. Zanganeh and you’ll be shocked by what they did with our oil industry and its revenue.

    Iran has entered a new era. Yes, the revolution has or going to change its path, shouldn’t it after 36 years? Isn’t it the time for us to have a mutual beneficial relationship with our nemesis? Don’t you think we have more power in the region now? Wait and see how with the US we shall finish ISIS. As I said some time ago, Iran is going to be more powerful not only in the region but also in global economics and strategy. ME is going to have a new map. I predict that in new ME we shall have a new country between the Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq. Most probably the Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds will have their own government. Of course the Shia’s in Iraq will have their region. BTW, still waiting for the answer on “Since 2003 who has been taking the oil in Basra?” Okay since you guys have not answered or didn’t want to answer the question, here you go: BP (British Petroleum). You don’t need to be disappointed and DELVAPAS. Just be happy that we are finally in peace with the most powerful countries of this world. Our economy gradually will improve and we shall see more employment, and see some political cleansing.
    I am very optimistic.
    God Bless Iran

  19. Amir says:

    hans says:
    July 14, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    If anyone asked, you didn’t hear it from, but the military man is interested in a deal, as much as the financier.

    And the Leader’s problem wasn’t that the perimeters were bad; it was that no one was sure if those perimeters would be enforced.

    Removing UNSC sanctions (paving the way for entry into new global organizations such as SCO), freeing assets in foreign accounts and receiving “aid” in various forms (military equipment, weapons systems and technical assistance, technology transfer, infrastructure, IMF loans, etc) would be above and beyond what we could have dreamed.

    Nonetheless, the serious part hasn’t begun yet; whether the opportunity (if one actually arises) would be squandered yet again, or something meaningful could be made out of it.

  20. Amir says:

    Hmmm… for those who could read Farsi, see link:

  21. masoud says:

    I dont agree with the claim that Iran had no other choice but to sign this deal. I understand there are some that do, but what bothers me is the complete dishonesty. As of today, Iran has no nuclear program worth the name. We should be thankful we didn’t forfeit the right to teach physics to university students. Just come out and say it:we’ve given up on an indeginous nuclear program, any Iranian expert I this field that wants to continue working on these technologies must leave the country, and those who don’t want to leave will able to start driving for Uber now that the sanctions are being removed.

  22. M.Ali says:

    Pragmatic, what you say is not surprising to me. It’s just a shame that there enough of your generation that are dropping over each other to sell out to the west.

  23. M.Ali says:


    “But I should add to if Iran doesn’t grant access the only real recourse this agreement provides is through that same dispute resolution mechanism”

    As per the agreement, Iran has 2 days to do whatever the group agrees to. Iran has committed to this by agreeing to this condition. If it doesn’t do,he is obviously renegading on the contract and obviously sanctions will snap back.

  24. M.Ali says:

    Khamenei also seems to show his satisfaction with the deal. Obviously, the red lines weren’t red lines from him either.

    I guess that’s that then. Right or left, Iran or Saudi, conservative or reformist, every middle eastern country just really wants to be American’s toy.

    What a waste of 36 years. They should have just let Shah stay.

  25. Pirouz says:

    “It is an extremely unpopular thing to say in the United States. My wife and I have paid various kinds of personal and professional prices for making this argument over the years. But the reality is, if the United States is going to have a more effective foreign policy in the Middle East—and, frankly, a more humane and constructive foreign policy in the Middle East—rapprochement with the Islamic Republic of Iran is essential to that end.” >>Flynt

    I would just like to say yours has been a heroic public stand in the pursuit of peace. In that, there is no higher calling.

    Congratulations are in order, Leveretts. When you started the RFI blog, such an outcome was regarded as a long shot. But it has been realized, and persons like myself that prize conflict resolution will always be appreciative of your efforts.

  26. masoud says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 14, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    I don’t think so. If Iran doesn’t abide within three days then a state party to the jcpoa comitee will be able to bring it up as a failure of Iran’s comitments. The body will have 15 days to deal with the issue, then it goes to the foreign ministers for the same amount of time, arbitration board and back to the commission and then to the unsc, whose failure to endorse Iran’s position will automatically snap back the sanctions.

    This jcpoa is not a treaty and not legally binding in any way that I am aware of. The actual engine that will drive this process will likely be the unsc resolution that provisional my lifts the sanctions.

  27. masoud says:

    Pirouz says:
    July 14, 2015 at 7:59 pm

    Thats absolutely correct. Even though this deal seems rotten to me, it really did take moving heaven and earth to make it happen from the US side to make it happen, and no one has worked harder to goet here than Flynt and Hillary. Congrats to both on one hell of victory.

  28. fyi says:

    masoud says:

    July 14, 2015 at 7:59 pm

    Americans reneged on their commitments to North Korea and as a consequence North Korea left NPT and became a nuclear-armed state.

    Let us see if they would do anything like that in this case.

  29. M.Ali says:

    FYI, why would america renegade on their commitments? Stop your enrichment, allow me to inspect whatever I want, and in exchange, I’ll sell you my planes. Why would he renegade on that?

  30. M.Ali says:

    Masoud, buts that sort of what I said. In short, if Iran says no, sanctions come back.

  31. masoud says:

    fyi says:
    July 14, 2015 at 8:04 pm
    I hate to say it, by I definitely do believe that Iran is a North Korea in waiting in that sense. No that it will ever hold a bomb, but it will see this jcpoa mechanism tortured and abused until it really will have no choice but to withdraw from it.

  32. fyi says:

    masoud says:

    July 14, 2015 at 8:18 pm

    It is the Americans’ choice.

    But in that case, it would be impossible for them to get the economic war against Iran started again.

    EU states, when they started their war, expected quick Iranian capitulation. When that did not happen and Iranian women did not become whores to support their families, they started revisiting their approach.

    At that time, expecting quick victory, they did not expect that they would be destroying their positions so well and so thoroughly in Iran. 5 years after the end of the war, in 2016, they will have to compete with the Russians and the Chinese in Iran.

    They will not do so again; they will not resume that war again in the future since they now know that there is no chance of victory.

    Because Iran has demonstrated that she can withstand all the wars thrown at her and her allies, the next war against Iran by Axis Powers will have to be completely based on massive US attack against Iran – full air war.

    Slim chance of that now or at that time.

  33. masoud says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 14, 2015 at 8:16 pm

    US doesn’t care about the uranium. It will violate the agreement just for the sake of violating it. It will make unreasonable inspection demands, never agree to a design for Arak, resurect sanctions against Iran on humanitarian pretexts, back terrorist groups in baluchistan etc..

  34. masoud says:

    As far as I understand it, Iran will have all financial sanctions lifted immediately, and any contract it signs after this happens are not subject to sanctions even if they are eventually brought back. These are the two really big gets, and everything else is basically a national emberasment. Iran will have about a year before the next national us elections to capitalize on thses two items in whatever way it can.

  35. M.Ali says:

    It’s never been about the uranium. It’s about Iran being weak, open to USA scrutiny, and function only as a consumer market and be useful as a good ROI for its investors, like every other M.E. country. As long as Iran acts like Saudi or Jordan, why would USA violate an agreement that assures them an Iran that is weak.

  36. M.Ali says:

    Also, Masoud, no sanctions are going to be removed until Iran does its part. So, first congress to approve, then Iran to implement, then to verify Iran did its part, then rexoval of sanctions, so best case scenario, 2016.

  37. masoud says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 14, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    The IAEAs mandate over here is extrmemely limited. Its not trying to reach any kind of broad conclusion, but checking off s list of well defined deliverables. It wouldn’t take Iran longer than three weeks to get everything done, and it might take the IAEA a month to verify. Adoption is three months from today, which when Iran is supposed to begin its work, which is also when the EU is supposed to begin lifting sanctions(but this wording is mainlybfor Zarif to save face). It shouldn’t take Iran more than two months to do do that so were probably looking at late Jan or early Feb, which is about a year before a new president/congress comes into office.

  38. masoud says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 14, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    Iran has basically offered a provisional surrender to the US on the nuclear front, but as long as the US can’t control Iran’s hydrocarbon reserves and keeps setting a ‘bad example’ for the Arab world the US will continue to be hostile to it. The US and Iran are still pretty far from a detente.

  39. Ferri says:

    M.Ali says:

    July 14, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    Your comment is 100% correct. It has never been about Iran’s nuclear program – as Gareth Porter states this is a “Manufactured Crisis”. It was about Iran capitulating to the Western/US demands; letting in intelligent agents under the pretext of IAEA inspectors; getting your spy network back into the country; opening up the door to Western multi-national corporations with access to Iran’s vast natural resources and energy sources; becoming a hub for import of Western products – while Iran’s nuclear program is decimated; it’s nuclear scientists leave for greener pastures where they can actually use their brain and technical know-how; there will be no transfer of knowledge; it will be grab as much as you can with a new set of agreements which favor foreign corporations… What’s actually puzzling to me is why the Iranian military would allow inspections – the language written allows for this.

  40. Sineva says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 14, 2015 at 8:16 pm
    For exactly the same reason that they did with the dprk,a new president in office,bush jr,who did not support and wanted no part of the agreement and was looking for the first excuse he could find to renege on it,that I think is the biggest threat to the medium to long term success of this deal,what will obamas successor do,especially if its a republican president?,but regardless even if they did do that they would find it very difficult to re-implement the web of sanctions they spent so much time and effort creating,not to mention the huge costs to some of the countries involved in this such as the eu for example who lost tens of billions of euros in trade and energy per year and is now desperately trying to get back into iran,would they now be quite so willing to turn the clock back and cut their own throats again on us orders?

  41. Nasser says:

    A summary of what Iran can expect. Pretty much a ceasefire and not much else and nothing much soon.

    – What is left out is an analysis of US interests in greater depth.
    First, the US has successfully prevented a North Korea from emerging in the world’s biggest energy hub.
    As a consequence, if the US does choose to somewhat disentangle itself from the Middle East as favored by a faction of Americans embodied by figures such as President Obama and Zbigniew Brzezinski, then it will free up for them more time, energy and resources to be devoted to Eastern Europe for a (truly insane in my judgement) new Cold War against Russia. I personally feel those Iranians that favor this deal owe Ukraine a good deal of gratitude.
    Also now, the US navy can spend less time in the Persian Gulf and more time in the South China Sea.
    Furthermore, an ambiguous relationship with Iran would keep the Petro Sheikhdoms on edge and give the US even more leverage in dealing with them.
    And moreover, US diplomacy has been very successful in proving to the Iranians that no one, no regional or international power of any consequence would come to the aid of Iran if it chooses to tangle with the US and just how much countries like Russia and India are eager to exploit such a miscalculation on her part for their own benefit.

  42. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    July 14, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    As you have been saying, they kicked the can down the road. The deal will not hold for its entire duration if US does not reach a strategic understanding with Iran (the Leverett dictum). It just buys time for both sides.

    If there is any lesson for Iranians to learn from this whole situation which culminated in this deal, it is the importance of an economy based on rational thinking, science and technology which can meet the needs of the nation. In absence of this, no matter how emotional, united and patriotic a nation be, at the end it will have to capitulate.

    Thus the need of the day for Iran to use this expensively bought time very efficiently, and use all resources and opportunities to develop a knowledge based economy, buying tools for the day when deal melts away. Instead of blowing money on useless stuff such as importing Peugeots and Swiss watches, the money should be used to acquire capital goods, human talent and technologies. Even a penny spent on consumer goods to create illusion of prosperity as Iran has been doing in the past, would be a grave mistake on Iran’s part.

    Iran needs industrial machinery, technologies like microelectronics and heavy mechanical, biotechs like pharmaceutical and modern agriculture, geostationary communication satellites (extremely important both for civilian connectivity as well as military aspect such as drone control links) and conventional military stuff like modern fighter jets, helicopters and armor.

    If Iran wastes this opportunity and US refuses to reach a strategic understanding with Iran, then things can turn up as ugly as they did for Libya and North Korea. In order to avoid the fate of these two, Iran must be ready to leave NPT and declare nukes halal in addition to think hard today what kind of technologies it will need when sanctions return (which they will eventually). Today is the time to acquire those technologies even if Iran has to pay triple the price. Not tomorrow.

    Foreign consumer products should be declared haram. For every Lamborghini and Porsche that is imported into Iran, a multi-tasking CNC machine and metal 3-D printer get left out. Iran should not blow away this 100-150 billion dollars on mundane imports and propping up useless toman. Priorities should be set. The deal has to be seen for what it is. A ceasefire to prepare for tomorrow as you aptly said.

  43. Smith says:

    ” … according to Daniel Bernbeck, managing director of the German-Iran Chamber of Commerce, Iran needs technological and industrial development and it will cost billions of dollars … ”

    Apparently Germans fully understand Iran’s chief problem. We should see whether Iranian leaders understand it as well. We will find out in the months ahead. If Iran started to import Fiat CKD’s and Chinese bras, instead of buying the LNG technology and Fab plants, then we know it is business as usual by the cargo cult.

  44. hans says:

    Ferri says:
    July 14, 2015 at 9:27 pm
    What’s actually puzzling to me is why the Iranian military would allow inspections – the language written allows for this.

    IRGC with the exception of General Qasem Soleimani have been taken off the sanctions list, now their sons and daughters can study in ZNATO. I think cash and corruption has won the day.

  45. Sineva says:

    Funnily enough the israelis also think this is a terrible deal,in their words a “catastrophe”


  46. Ferri says:

    hans says:

    July 15, 2015 at 3:33 am

    “IRGC with the exception of General Qasem Soleimani have been taken off the sanctions list, now their sons and daughters can study in ZNATO. I think cash and corruption has won the day.”

    I may not have been clear. The fact is that the language allows inspections of military sites – while convoluted it provides access to anywhere at anytime if there is suspicion. Furthermore one has to read carefully what the intent of articles 36 and 37 are – the US can be both the “complaining party” as well as the “judge” in a matter of dispute. Regardless of who is taken off the sanctions list we are speaking about the national security of the country – why would the Iranian military allow for this? Why would any leader with any conscious allow for this? I don’t care how they think they have drafted the agreement to take care of potential loopholes – no agreement will safeguard your national security unless you prevent such access!!

  47. Daniel F. says:

    The finalization of this Agreement shows to the world and to the people of Iran that the Government of Iran and its leadership can negotiate on rational basis for future changes. All those people who presented Iranians as irrational dangerous people who are blocked by ideological red lines are proved wrong and many problems existing in middle east can find a diplomatic resolution. For the Iranian people who have opted for a gradual change toward a democratic society that is good news and we can hope to see in coming months and before the legislative election opening from the Iranian Leadership.
    The road will be bumpy and difficult. Saudi Arabia, its Arab allies and Israel who offer only confrontational solutions will do all is possible to annihilate the implementation of this Agreement.
    There is no real danger for Saudi Arabia but Al Saud family fears for its future and is acting irrationnaly and aggressively. It needs the help of united States to succeed. That help will fade in the rational dialogue started between the US and Iranians.
    For Israelis too, time will come to see the lies of Benjamin Natanyahu and understand that there is no peaceful future for them and their children in a house in fire.
    The real problem remains inside Iran . The challenge is huge and the Iranian government has to go toward important political, social and economical reforms.
    People in Iran, have voted for President ROHANI to change their destiny . the first step was the conclusion of this Agreement but many other decisions have to be made to achieve this goal.

  48. M.Ali says:

    Ferri, because they are probably thinking, mmm…oil companies…nice kickbacks.

  49. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    July 14, 2015 at 10:16 pm

    Yes, very valuable lessons for Iranians – priceless – at the level of the lessons of Iran-Iraq War.

    “We do not need men such as the late Shah Sultan Hussein” as I wrote sometime ago.

  50. fyi says:

    Smith says:

    July 14, 2015 at 10:54 pm

    I am not sure that LNG is really cost effective for delivery at very large distances – such as Europe and the Far East.

    I would put the ability to manufacture internal combustion engine at the top, followed by aviation followed by novel ways of organizing people.

  51. fyi says:

    Daniel F. says:

    July 15, 2015 at 8:37 am

    The source of the problem is the culture of Iran; I agree.

  52. Ferri says:

    M.Ali says:

    July 15, 2015 at 8:46 am

    “Ferri, because they are probably thinking, mmm…oil companies…nice kickbacks.”

    Nice kickbacks at the risk of jeopardizing the country’s national security??

    I don’t believe it for a minute that there is any good intention out of this deal for Iran.. We have to have a very short memory if we can forget what they did to Qaddafi. Qaddafi did that exact same thing Iran is doing now. Abandoned his nuclear program. What was the outcome? His government was annihilated in 2011 by the very president now making the same policy with Iran.

    Same goes for Saddam Hussein – you all have already read Scott Ritter’s article.

    Where there any lessons to be learned from history? The first thing they will destroy will be Iran’s military infrastructure.

  53. M.Ali says:

    Ferri, if we learned any lessons from history we would not have voted for the negotiator, who got us screwed in the first place in khatami’s time, AS PRESIDENT.

  54. M.Ali says:

    “I am surprised the Iranians agreed to it,” said Ben Moores, a defense analyst at IHS Janes, an international security consulting firm in Britain.

    Read more:

  55. Karl.. says:

    So will the S300 once again be postponed, considering the arms sanctions will be in place for many years to come?

  56. Ferri says:

    Karl.. says:

    July 15, 2015 at 11:18 am

    I am sure it will. Iran has to wait for another 5 to 8 years before they are allowed to if agreed – to purchase any military arsenal.

    M.Ali says:

    July 15, 2015 at 10:22 am

    Thank you for the link. It was quite informative.

    The plan is to weaken Iran militarily – yet they want Iran to go and have feet its in the ground fighting ISIS. Good strategy for the US – awful for Iran. I am sure Iran will be bogged down fighting different insurgent groups; and yet still remain on the “terrorist list” with sanctions imposed under that category. Furthermore, who says that one set of sanctions under nuclear can’t be re-imposed under another category “terrorism”, “human rights violation”. I am still in a shock mode as to how Iran agreed to all of the parameters of this deal. You want to give away your nuclear program and have a caricature – that’s one thing; you want to jeopardize the national security of the country – this is a shocker!!! Those people cheering in the streets don’t have a clue about the agreement Iran signed. Whatever happened to dignity, what happened to independence, sovereign rights, what happened to the motto “we will give our blood but not an inch of our soil??”

  57. masoud says:

    Karl.. says:
    July 15, 2015 at 11:18 am
    Those sanctions present no legal barrier to the delivery of the s300. The Russians have said as much.

  58. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    July 15, 2015 at 9:24 am

    Yes, LNG is economically feasible to be transported at long distances. Qatar exports to Japan for instance:

    Spot LNG market is actually good for Iran. If Iran could get LNG technology and operate its own LNG ships, then opportunities in market present themselves.

    It can “diversify” Iran ‘s exports.

    I agree with you on internal combustion engine. But even for this Iran needs a Fab plant. Some engines are actually already being built in Iran. The problem is some critical components have to be imported making Iran dependent on West. One of those components is ECU. When France refused to provide them to Iran, IranKhodro started buying substitutes from China which were of such a low quality that people started complaining as alot of problems arose in new cars right out of the factory.

    To manufacture ECU, Iran would need to have a good micro-electronic industry. The cornerstone of a good microelectronic industry is a Fab.

    Unfortunately in modern industries, things are so much connected to each other. It is going to be very difficult for a cargo cult to catch up. Because the story does not end here. The Fab itself depends on advanced photo-lithography techniques, which themselves depend on optics. That is you need to have a company like Canon manufacture a machine called stepper that can then be used in production of microprocessors necessary for making ECU for use in internal combustion engine.

    But for all this, they first need to wake up. 800 years of slumber as you call it. And they still see in their dream that West is about to go extinct. Amazing.

  59. pragmatic says:

    Sadegh Kharazi ex ambassador of Iran in France. His sister is married to one of Leaders sons.
    Well, let see what he has to say about Dr. Ahamdinejad.

  60. pragmatic says:

    Where are our pundits? BiB aziz and Kooshy?

  61. M.Ali says:

    Apparently, its not 100billipm USD blocked money, its 29 billion. I guess it took one day after the agreement for us to know this.

  62. Karl.. says:
    Speaking on “deals”, what is the leftists up to in Greece? First they say “no” to austerity then they resume the same austerity that the earlier government was running. Now the streets of Greece is in chaos, no wonder.

  63. Nasser says:

    Smith says: July 15, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    Thanks for the post. Fyi too has long suggested that Iran needs to sell all her energy goods on the spot market to the extent possible. I feel only gas pipelines Iran should have running to are to Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq and Armenia – her immediate land neighbors. It is not that LNG is commercially unviable for Iran, it is rather that the initial investment cost is very high and Iranian planners are notorious cheapskates.

    And yes it is like the industrial revolution and digital revolution never happened in Iran or in any Muslim country. They get to import the fruits of industrialized nations so cheaply and abundantly that they feel no need to develop their own capabilities and are blissfully unaware of their dependencies and vulnerabilities until you know… sanctions.

    But I fear you ask too much of them. They want the short cut to prosperity. Most likely, they might want to become system integrators, like a ghetto third world Apple. To actually have fabs that can make the chips that go inside, or to actually make the paleolithic equipments to make their own fabs; that is asking way too much. If they had that kind of vision and organizational capability they would be a industrialized nation by now.

  64. M.Ali says:

    Karl, its exactly like what happened in Iran. Two governments that talked big but in the end turned to be all talk only.

  65. masoud says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 15, 2015 at 2:30 pm

    These guys are world class con men.

  66. masoud says:

    At least now all the cards are out on the table. The Rouhani/Zarif have been given unprecedented autonomy over this negotiation, and this is the best they could do. Great. Now, in my book that’s enough to sink them. But there’s no need to be impatient. The coming election cycle in both the US and Iran is going to be very interesting. Let’s see how long it takes for the US to start walking back its agreements, and how the sheikh of diplomacy reacts when they do.

  67. fyi says:

    Nasser says:

    July 15, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    There are things that Iranians can do to materially affect their polity which do not require high-technology inputs from Western states.

    For example, they could devote themselves to reduce the energy budget of Iran by investigating and implementing energy-saving mechanisms and techniques and strategies.

    They can alter their educational system in such a way that worthless degrees do not dominate higher-education: no more observing a young woman crying out of shame since she is working as secretary with a MA in History.

    They can require catalytic converters on all the vehicle sold in Iran.

    They can work on reducing road accidents.

    And they can also work on get the Iranian government out of the tobacco business; a nasty habit and a drain on human capital of Iran.

  68. Jay says:

    Perhaps it is understandable to get ahead of ourselves a bit.

    The relevant leadership in Iran knows that this deal will not last – assuming it is implemented.

    If it does not get implemented, nothing is lost, and perhaps something is gained.

    If it is implemented, it will be reneged – in a couple of years or so, by the next US administration. In the next two years, Iran has the opportunity to prepare for alternative transaction systems, integration into alternative markets, and erecting barriers to the next round of sanctions. The aforementioned alternatives are enormously easier to undertake sans sanctions.

    If it is implemented and not reneged on by the next administration, so long as Iran remains focused on her goals, the time horizons stipulated will not matter one iota! In four to five years, nearly midway through most of this agreement, the vast majority of the world will not have the appetite to go back and Iran has had a chance to build a more sanctions-proof economy.

    This is a case of “forest from the trees” – the trees (details) may be interesting in the short run, but a rational and clever guide negotiates safe passage through the forest!

  69. Nasser says:

    fyi says: July 15, 2015 at 3:47 pm

    All very good suggestions, but I especially agree with the one on education and workforce development. There are creating an entitled, but poorly trained and eventually embittered population. These people would be better served learning actual trade skills if they don’t have the aptitude for STEM studies. At the least, the government should stop actively subsidizing non STEM subject majors.

  70. kooshy says:

    For some of you guys who all along, I thought like I, think that the issue between US and Iran is not about nukes and never was about nukes all of a sudden, looks that the only issue between US and Iran was and is about nukes, the issue now is who can keep more nukes, for less sanctions, if you want to look it that way, this becomes a zero sum game which no one will implement or wonder if it ever will get implemented and done. I don’t think so I believe both sides didn’t look at it in that way, and genuinely I believe Iranian didn’t want to make nuke that’s why they agree to give up so much of their existing hardware and material for a possible détente end of hostilities (at least they think its worth to try).

    I think I understood Flynt and Hillary, IMO they are right so is SL and Zarif, this is about trading in, some of your nuke capability and material inventory, which you say you will not use to make nukes, and we know you can’t even use to produce fuel for one operational reactor for a possible detente if both sides (I mean US) unlike the Algiers accord implement this agreement.

    At the end of the day what US got from Iran is what that we all know that Iran has no use for them now, and US knows Iran cant feu lhs reactor with and is not going to use them to make a few bombs ( go ahead make my day situation), so for what the heal, US wanted to take away what US and we all knew was not much of use from Iran, and instead wanted to negotiate with Iran, what did Iran had that was more valuable to US, if you think of it that way, this will not become a zero sum game and actually becomes a balanced, which if both side keeps their bargain we can see a new more balanced middle east and that’s what is keeping KSA and Israel worried.

    If they do you have a detente and after so many years when hopefully your nuclear energy has matured more can go ahead and make some or all your fuel, if they didn’t it will be easier for Iran and the world to avoid US pressure. All and all no one should have thought they are going to play a zero sum game with the world hegemon, who has control over the dollar, euro, banking , NATO, Etc. and various hostile clientele in and outside of your neighborhood without any cost what so ever, that’s not realistic thinking.

    At the end of the day US has worked for 2 years negotiating to step back from her own imposed hostilities, unfortunately they are those here who also look at this as a zero sum game, IMO if this works out the only ones who got zero out of this deal are US’ regional clientele KSA and Israel, Iran’ rise in her region was not due to her becoming a nuclear capable state, NK has become a nuclear state before Iran but nobody thinks NK has politically has risen, Iran’s rise is due to her political rise among the people of her region.

    I am not saying Iran should give up her nukes capability (which basically is the experience and knowhow) but rather IMO actually that should be retained as a guarantee for behavior and implementation of this detente.

  71. masoud says:

    kooshy says:
    July 15, 2015 at 6:47 pm
    You keep on talking about something called ‘nuke capability’, and I have no idea what that means.
    This deal completely guts Iran’s nuclear power program. It simply doesn’t exist any longer. Not even reasearch and development. It really is an unprecedented restriction to have agreed to. No country in the world has ever agreed to such restrictions. If you’re cool with that, then fine. But stop all this hand waving. Just come out and say it: So what if what people are telling Iran what technological fields it has a right to study, and Iran’s own leaders are enthusiastically jumping at the opportunity to carry out those directives? Things are just easier that way.

  72. Irshad says:

    Masoud – Dr Salehi negotiated the technical aspects of the agreement with Dr Moniz – he must have valid reasons to agree to “gutting” the nuclear industry – and I trust him to be less in fawn with US then some of the others.

    I await to see how Russia and China will deal with Itan going forward. Will they sell Iran defensive weapons? And will the gas pipeline to Pakistan be implemented by the Pakistanis? And India?

    What does the deal mean for the Syrian govt?

  73. Jay says:

    kooshy says:
    July 15, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    Yes, US has negotiated to end her self-imposed hostilities – out of US need to address more important issues.

    I do not think this is detente, it is perhaps a short term pause. Iran will have two to three years to reinvent her financial linkages.

    I apologize in advance, but those who argue for nuclear deterrent against the US are simply goofy! There is a debate to be had about regional deterrence, but in my view, as has been expressed before, the value of any perceived regional nuclear deterrence is dubious. Mr. Zarif compromised appropriately, in my view.

  74. Ataune says:


    10 or 15 years might be a long time for me and you but in the life of a nation this is almost nothing. Iran’s sovereignty and independence isn’t based on the nuclear technology but the principles of her Revolution. If those principles are kept alive, and I think this agreement got the minimum required to keep them alive, all sort of advances are possible. The “heroic flexibility” means preserving those principles but going back several steps so that the common people, the ones that are the backbone of this political construct, are not alienated. If the US is not ready to resolve herself with an independent Iran and start breaking her commitment, Iran’s political space has opened up enough to allow her more freedom of action in the future; if the US on the contrary has concluded that a sovereign state in the region is in their interests, as the hosts of this site recomend, then again Iran, as an independent political entity, has the upper hand. Iran going the way of the Shah is not something that I see coming out of these agreements.

  75. kooshy says:

    masoud says:
    July 15, 2015 at 7:24 pm

    Ok Masoud, let me explain how I see it, I really look at it as a tactical move on both side to see if a strategic understanding can be developed.
    Firstly what nuclear capability means to me is to have the Knowledge, industrial base, experience, and finances to make nukes or reactors etc.
    To me Iran has all the above and by far I am not the only one who says this, just this yesterday Nick Burns the architect of all these UN sanctions testified to congress this exact same thing, and he even said since 2007 we know Iran has this capability. So that’s that and that’s not easy to take away.

    Now if you have fallowed my arguments on this board opposing continued arguments by FYI, and Smith that Iran needs nukes and must pursue and make nukes, you would know that I don’t believe having nukes will add to Iran’s security on the contrary I believe nukes will reduce Iran’s security both on regional level with Sunni street neighbors and internationally as a pariah state. And if we want to keep our IR1 equipment and 10k Kilo of enriched fuel to fuel our Bushehr plant that’s not going to happen for many years to come and realistically without being able to import yellow cake. So If you are not going to use 19000 centrifuges to make fuel and not using them to make the bomb and don’t believe anybody is going to bomb you because they know and you know they could have done it before you had the knowledge to make one and retaliate
    What other good use you can have for all this investment and equipment, IMO one should think of it as the Trojan horse in reverse motion.

    IMO if Iran was not using her stockpile of UF6 for security purposes, trading them off for a limited time to see if you can at least reduce hostilities with your main powerful adversary is worth it. I really can’t say it any more of obvious way.

    And For the Vanak Perag- Dr. Ahmadinejad’ had a lot to do with getting the US on the table, number of centrifuges to 19000, 20% , Ferdo, Arak, Light water, every bargaining chip Mr. Rouhani used was developed during Mr. Ahmadinijad, Vanak Greens should kiss his ass for contributing so much bargaining chip to this process so you can claim your own.

    I agree and as I wrote I am not sure if the other side meaning US will hold to this agreement but I am not to pessimistic either since Iran is now more politically powerful and US is less politically powerful as before this agreement both regionally and internationally.

  76. masoud says:

    kooshy says:
    July 15, 2015 at 9:01 pm
    Smith, FYI and the others are clowns. Obviously, Iran’s nuclear program is not weapons related, and if Iran did take the decision it would have a fissionable nuclear device within 90 days. So what has this agreement restricted? Iran’s civil nuclear program. Iran can’t build any reactors, enrich uranium, produce centrifuges, do any r&d on centrifuges(except for a handful of models developed years ago), produce any fuel, do any r&d on any other isotope separation technologies. For good measure, Iran has also committed to stop producing heavy water, which isn’t even fissionable material. Its a complete surrender of its civil nuclear program. And its dishonest to try and justify these steps by conflating Iran’s civil program for a weapons program and declaring ‘we didn’t really need it’. What the hell are the thousands of scientists and engineers employed by the AEOI going to do for the next decade and a half? They should just shutter the entire organization.

  77. masoud says:

    kooshy says:
    July 15, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    At what time in the past 10 years has Iran not been experiencing drought or water shortage in some part of the country? This problem is going to get critical in the next ten years. The only half tenable solution to this issue is to build water desalination plants along the coast? We know we don’t have the capacity to implement such projects now, and thanks to this deal we know we won’t be able to develop it before Iran’s water shortage issues become dire, as they likely will within the next 20 years. Do we care? I guess not. Maybe well be able to solicit the help of some countries whose scientists aren’t answerable to a European led nuclear inquisition.

  78. kooshy says:

    masoud says:
    July 15, 2015 at 9:50 pm

    Massoud- according to Mr. Salahi a nuclear engineer himself, Iran’s IR8 centrifuges which Iran believes is the model capable of finally help Iran to fuel Bushehr is still in design stage and will not be ready and operational for 5-8 years this model they apparently can continue R&D on. Besides, I agree that Iran’s nuclear program is fully useful for civilian purpose, good we agree, but what if Iran continued her hostility and stayed under UN Nuclear sanctions you tell us where, and how and who from Iran is going to get her yellow cake to enrich fuel for her desalinations plants she is making, if as we claim our nuke program is for civilian purpose one can believe if all possible by reducing hostilities it may make more possible to get some nuclear cooperation at least from Chines and Russians.

    IMO what we gave up for 10-15 years if it makes the US leaves us alone for a while is worth it, after all this is not a treaty as is not going to be ratified by Iranian parliament, both sides can go back to where they left up, according to Salahi Iran since now has the physical experience of enrichment and centrifuge technology and knowhow can go back to even 20% faster.

    Again you need to tell us what would have been a good deal to you and what you were willing to give up to get what in return, and what would have been if the deal didn’t go through, why instead of just being against of this deal you give what would have been a good alternative deal to you and let see if you can manage to make one that don’t become a zero sum?.

  79. masoud says:

    This is a deal that needs to be realistically appraised. Demanding a fully fleshed out alternative deal from anyone who has critical words for it is simply a non starter. What would be the point anyway, when we can’t even be honest with ourselves about what this current deal represents?

    In broad sweeps though, this deal formally sets up the E3/EU+ 3 and above them, the unsc as Iran’s nuclear katkhodas(governers, for the farsi-cally challenged). Never before had Iran recognized th UNSC as the proper venue for rulings on its nuclear program, and now that it has committed to a process that enshrines the unsc as the ultimate arbiter of the appropriateness of Iran’s nuclear activities for at least the next decade, it wont ever be able to take it back. The UNSC is now indisputably the correct venue in which to make decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear activities from now until, well, forever.

    By the way, the IR8 might be in the ‘design phase’, but it has been in the ‘design pahse’ for years, since ahmadinejads first term, if im not mistaken. That doesn’t mean their not done designing it. It just means they haven’t yet begun producing it on a mass scale. This bs about needing to further 5 or eight years to finish its design is just face saving nonsense. Actually of there is any significant redesign it will no longer be an IR8, and Iran’s scientists will have to apply to the nuclear inquisition for permission to do anything with that new design.

    So I think that pretty much covers what I don’t like about the deal and what I never would have agreed to, had it been my call. What I wouldn’t have expected to get was the waiving of such a broad range of UA financial sanctions at the outset of the process. Actually that’s not something I would have even looked to get. I would have made the requisite sacrifices to end the unsc sanctions and told the Americans they can leave their unilateral sanctions in place permanently. As things are now, Iran will be under the constant threat of the automatic reimposition of both the US and UNSC sanctions, so its really worth very little. This is actually the type of agreement that Mahmood Abbas would have negotiated had he been Iran’s foreign minister.

  80. masoud says:

    By ‘UA financial sanctions’ I mean ‘US financial sanctions’

  81. masoud says:

    Irshad says:
    July 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    I trusted Salehi too. He’s a good soldier, I guess.

  82. masoud says:

    Has anyone else noticed in the past couple of weeks stories about how all those ridiculous nonsense lawsuits against Iran will be paid out by the US government, from all the fines levied against financial institutions that have done business with Iran? Why now? It’s so US corporations can start accepting payments from Iran without worrying about getting them garnished. Make no mistake the about the ultimate goal of these negotiations: to sell pistachios and buy Boeings.

  83. Pragmatic says:

    Apparently with what kooshy has written finally he has agreed with all I have been saying past three months! if needed I will copy and paste all I had written.

  84. kooshy says:

    Masood says:
    July 15, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    Massoud I didn’t get what your solution or what you suggest the alternative is? As mentioned, you have to make a series of choices if you believe it’s in Iran’s interests, if you can peacefully resolve or delay (kick the can) your differences with the west.
    You may think Iran will be safer and it’s in Iran’s interest not to give in any of Iran’s international rights for any period of time and leave it at status quo and tough it out, if you were the decision makers in Iran what would you have done and to what level of hostilities were you prepare to take. And why would you think would have been in Iran’s interests.

  85. masoud says:

    And for those that kelp repeating this deal is only going to last 10or fifteen years, come on, who are we kidding. Do you think whatever us administration is in office in 2026 is going to feel honorbound not to reinstate sanctions, which it could do in a trivially, before the ten year marker comes up? Obama himself wouldn’t even feel honor bound to stick to the agreement if he were somehow still in office.

  86. kooshy says:

    Pragmatic says:
    July 15, 2015 at 11:49 pm

    Vanak Prag,

    If you want to be useful, please just don’t re post all your sniffing of the laughing nut’s ass, everything else we can take, even Smith and Nasser, constantly thanking FYI for his heavenly analytic verses is now part of this blog’ Iran analysis.

  87. masoud says:

    kooshy says:
    July 16, 2015 at 12:11 am

    Come on Kooshy, you’re better than that. I’ve already laid out the outlines of the deal Iran should have been negotiating, and I know you can read. I’ve never said the things you’re putting in my mouth about leaving the status quo and opposing any possible compromise on any issue.

    I just think we should think we should be honest about what this deal accomplishes, who it accomplishes it for, and at what cost.

  88. masoud says:

    kooshy says:
    July 16, 2015 at 12:11 am
    Do you really believe th US or Israel are any less likely to attack Iran now, than they were last week? If they ever think an attack will be to their benefit they will attack. No matter who is in office, and no matter what type of a deal Zarif thinks he negotiated. So this deal has nothing to so with maintaining the peace.

  89. kooshy says:

    Look Guys

    I am not saying and writing these things because I am happy with Mr. Rouhani’ government ( I personally think like Khatami their PR and talk and rhetoric is more than what they have or can accomplish) or if I think he and Mr. Zarif deserve all the credits if they have resolved this problem with west. As I wrote earlier I personally believe both Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Jalili deserve as much and it was the fault of Iranians and Iranian leadership not to mention their names after the agreement, especially in the letter SL replied to Mr. Rohani today, I hope someone in Ayatollah Khamenei will notice and correct this. If it was not for their tough stand the ugly global guerilla wouldn’t have come to table. But at the end of the day I am not going to nag on because I don’t like Mr. Rouhani’ administration.

  90. Ataune says:

    I think Masoud’s problems with this agreement are more related to his dislike of Rouhani’s internal politics and policies rather than from a rational and objective look, viewed from a non-partizan angle, at this deal’s short and mid-term implications for Iran’s interests as a sovereign state.

    I can understand his concerns but I dont believe this is the appropriate way of looking at the issue at hand.

  91. masoud says:

    I think its hilarious that we are going to be keeping a 300 kg ‘stockpile’ of low enriched uranium. I mean, what for? Its pretty much useless. Maybe we can use it to make busts of Zarif and Rouhani and place them in a public park or something. Anyone remember the ‘dad o be dad’ raised by the green eyed monsters when we were going to ship on 300kg of LEU to Turkey for further enrichment? What a horrible deal, we heard, what if we never get it back? If anyone believes that the best possible deal we could have had neccesiated forfeiting our 8 ton supple of LEU, that’s only because they really want to believe it.

  92. kooshy says:

    masoud says:
    July 16, 2015 at 12:34 am

    Massoud Jaan

    You are going on the same argument as fyi and partners continue to make her, as you can read my past several years of posts way before any agreement, even when Iran just had 3000 centrifuges, the point is I always argued and I still do, that US and Israel will never directly attack Iran, it will be a strategic disaster for them, if they could they have done it when Iran was way weaker and US way more powerful and rich.

    So why should I think this agreement was meant to prevent US attacking Iran? That is not the reason I say Iran is becoming more powerful politically, the reason is that the whole world can see that 5 UNSC veto countries and 6 of the biggest economies of the world have seen and have chosen to resolve their problem with Iran negotiating with her after they tried all sanctions and other ways of hostilities, that by itself elevates Iran’s clout and her political power specially on her dependent partners. I wrote before think of it as bargaining to stop/delay hostilities, how much and what is worth to you if you want to get one?, please make a list of what you are willing to give and what you want in return.

    Like, and at the end see how you may come to an agreement that is acceptable to other side with you giving out minimum and getting out of them maximum of what you can give and take from them.
    Again if you want to get a deal with this exercise, which 5 years ago (2010) I did with Arnold, you soon will find out this deal is not that bad for what may be a possible stop of hostilities.
    1-I like to keep my right to enrich but I am willing to only enrich to 3.5% since I only want civilian fuel
    2- I like all my banking, gold etc. sanctions off but I can leave with military sanctions
    3- etc.
    4- etc.
    Again if you want to get a deal with this exercise, which 5 years ago (2010) I did with Arnold, you soon will find out this deal is not that bad for what may be a possible stop of hostilities.

  93. Pragmatic says:

    You keep saying vanak, what is vanak?
    What you write earlier was attesting what I had said all along.

    In regards to hashemi, as you are sering once again all his political views are gradually getting implemented! Apparently, you are still in denile. Why don’t you retire from politics for a while until you clear your mindset.

  94. M.Ali says:

    I think what some of the pro-deal supporters are missing is the military inspections! That’s the main, main thing! I would have even preferred a deal that scraps every part of Iran’s enrichment facilities and in exchange, no inspections at all, EVERTHING else is fluff. I don’t understand why no one is taking this seriously.

    Also, can you guys stopping bringing up the end dates? I can’t believe you people believe that. As if, after 10 years, they will commit to their part. All it takes is one report form IEAE and there will be questions and it will have to be dragged on and Iran can only complain because of they change their commitments, sanctions will come back and we are back to square one, except we lost 10 years. But can you even imagine politicians like Rohani or Larijani of any of the elites willing to challenge the USA over a few extra years…?

  95. Smith says:

    Nasser says:
    July 15, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    Thanks. You are absolutely right. It’s just sometimes I see these slumbering people and then I can’t stop myself kicking them.

  96. masoud says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 16, 2015 at 3:54 am
    I don’t think Iran will really let the inspections of sensitive sites, and will simply withdraw if the mechanism is abused. I think the mechanism will end up being abused, but not until Obama’s out of office. If he invests enough capital to get this passed, he’ll want to maintain this as his legacy, and leave it to the next guy to blow it all up.

  97. Sineva says:

    kooshy says:
    July 15, 2015 at 10:34 pm
    I agree with everything you`ve said apart from iran needing to import yellowcake,iran produces its own otherwise what would be the point of enrichment if you still had to rely on other countries for the raw materiel to enrich

  98. Sineva says:

    Karl.. says:
    July 15, 2015 at 11:18 am
    No systems like the s300 are not and never were covered by sanctions which was why iran took russia to court over breach of contract and got a $4b judgement in its favor

  99. kooshy says:

    Sineva says:
    July 16, 2015 at 9:15 am

    Sineva- the way I understand Iran doesn’t have a large enough industrial scale uranium mining and yellow cake production big enough to fuel Bushehr, again from what I have understood most of the yellow cake converted to UF6 is the stock that was bought by Dt. Etemad back in 70s. Iran for sure has the knowhow, industrial base to make the infrastructure needed but I am not sure if Iran has enough uranium deposits to fuel 20 reactors.

  100. fyi says:

    masoud says:

    July 15, 2015 at 9:50 pm

    You have called me a “clown”.

    Unless you apologize to me I will no longer address you and your postings.

  101. Ataune says:


    The military inspection issue is obviously a sensitive one than touches Iran’s security. And in my opinion it is the most important one to clarify. it’s one issue that can make or break the whole deal – but the likelihood of this happening is mostly during the next US admin as you seem to think too.

    For what I’ve read in the document, and I would admit I haven’t finished reading it yet, but also from other sources commenting on the issue, it looks like we need to separate two items regarding inspections:

    the “PMD dossier” which is planned to be resolved by the end of the year kicking in the official lifting of the “financial” sanctions. It looks like Amano has been encouraged to show good-faith by setting-up a roadmap for the closure of the dossier and Iran as a quid-pro-quo accorded IAEA a one time visit to Parchin. A formality in this case since the site has already been safeguarded against any malicious snooping. This item look to me like a train that has already left the station.

    And then, you have the “enhanced” IAEA inspection regime during 8 years, or less if a clean bill of conduct is given before the 8 years ends. This inspection regime is greatly inspired by the one “generic” spelled-out in the Additional Protocol, since it follows the same principle of access to any site, civilian or military, where the IAEA believe is, or has suspicion of being, related to a nuclear activity. The dispute resolution mechanism in the “deal” seems also being inspired by the ones put forward in the AP.

    Regarding this issue, Iran seemed to calculate, legitimately in my opinion, that signing-in and ratifying the Additional Protocol would have been a less favorable option compared to having the inspection regime clearly being written down in this political document. This means, among other things, that any serious dispute on a visit to a sensitive military site, most likely brought up by the US side we both agree, escalated to the UNSC and then vetoed by the US, will result in the political agreement being nulled and not Iran being in breach of her legal international obligations.

    But again, besides the important discussion on preserving Iran’s security red lines, which I believe is preserved with this agreement, there is the big picture which we shouldn’t loose sight of: assuming Iran being a powerful sovereign and independent actor in the region this “deal” enhance rather than diminishes her position since it give her more space to move politically.

  102. fyi says:

    Irshad says:

    July 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    I doubt that Russia or China will sell substantial amounts of weapons to Iran.

    I think very likely domestic military production in Iran will expand; after all, Iranians have spent a lot of effort into developing prototype weapons – now they need to go into mass-production.

    The significance of this deal for Iran was that the Iranians vanquished P5. P5 had set themselves up as some sort of World Government and their combined Arrogance and Hubris was so much as to try to take Sovereign Rights from a Sovereign State called Islamic Republic of Iran.

    They failed in their effort – Iran was to be their test instance for their new doctrine of “First Rate/Master” states and “Third Rate/Servant” states.

    This was a victory for the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian people – and Iran owes nothing, absolutely nothing, to Russia, US, EU, China, India or anyone else.

    I agree with Mr. Ataune that the timed-to-expire restrictions on Iranian nuclear program are devoid of strategic content or even industrial content.

    As part of this deal, P5+1 are going to supply certain nuclear technologies to Iran – from China and Russia.

    Let us wait and see what happens.

  103. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    July 16, 2015 at 10:05 am

    Amazing, isn’t it? You call him Mr and he calls you and me “clowns”.

    It is all about upbringing, I guess. What the parents did in formative years, remains for rest of the life. The elementary things such as respect when respected, can not be learned when one’s pubic hair is going white. It should have been taught when there was no pubic hair.

    And this is Ramadhan. Feeble minded Muslims and their hypocrisies.

  104. Smith says:

    Who am I?!

    Why this not in Iran?

    Because Iranians are a bi-adab hypocrite cargo cult.

  105. M.Ali says:

    Shut up, Smith, you insult 80 million of my people in every post so dont take the fucking high moral ground.

  106. Ferri says:

    There is no doubt that Iran’s nuclear program has been decimated and what stands is nothing but a face saving, caricature mini program. Along with this Iran’s R&D has taken a royal beating back to the most preliminary step 1. One seems to forget that due to the development of Iran’s nuclear program an entire industry in a large scale was created hiring over 20,000 of the best and brightest minds in different fields of engineering. I very much doubt that these individuals would be interested in teaching physics at Fardo or working on preliminary computer modelling when they were working on actual development of a major industrial project which allowed them to innovate, experiment and execute what became the pride of a nation.
    Now some may say this nuclear agreement with P5+1 was worth dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program to a miniature scale, in order to get sanctions lifted, even though the provisions have snap-backs imbedded in the deal agreement. Of course if you trust the US good will intention towards Iran, then some may believe this was a reasonable trade-off, and Iran had no other choice. But let’s not kid ourselves; no doubt this was not a victory when you went forward with your hands full and at each step of the way the US negotiators cut Iranian Negotiating team back from their goal post. And for those who believe that Dr. Salehi willingly agreed to such destruction of a major program, I advise you to review some of his own interviews. You may ask why did he agree to the dismantling of a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear program which he takes much pride in its development, the answer may be due to the fact that if you are part of a government who is bent in getting a deal done at whatever cost, then you do as you are told.
    Another significant negative is that Rohani, and his teams from the start to the end were not straight and up-front with the Iranian people. One had to rely on the US “Fact Sheet” after the discussions in Lausanne to understand what was agreed to, while Mr. Rohani and Zarif continued to state that these are simply rumors only to find out that in fact the US “Fact Sheet” was correct. No amount of request by various individuals/groups and Majlis PMs from Rohani and the Iranian Negotiating team ever resulted in an Iranian “Fact Sheet”. I guess they didn’t believe that the Iranian people and authorities had the right to know what was agreed to. This continued to the very last day (i.e. July 14th) when we had to get the facts from President Obama’s speech while Rohani gave a flowery speech with empty content.
    Anyone who believes that Salehi willingly agreed to this deal should revisit some of his interviews:

    This is at the beginning of the Rohani Admin.

    This is after the Geneva talks before the Lausanne Agreement

  107. fyi says:

    Ferri says:

    July 16, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    I disagree.

    Please see below:

  108. Ferri says:

    fyi says:

    July 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    Ferri says:

    July 16, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    I disagree.

    Please see below:

    No wonder you are linking an article by Robert C. O’Brien a lawyer and advisor to Republican candidate for president Governor Scott Walker. Up to the Republicans and Netanyahu nothing would do other than destroying Iran’s nuclear program all together. Why don’t you check the rest of his opinions about Iran – all hawkish and ridiculous.

    I encourage people to read this:

  109. Karl.. says:

    M Ali & Masoud

    I agree with M Ali on this,
    In principle it will go something like this:

    1 IAEA (US) want in lets say Parchin
    2 Iran says NO
    3 P5+1 group group and demand entry
    4 Iran refuse/ Walk away/ etc
    5 More sanctions

    This deal might be dead already. Or is there anything we miss in this discussion?

  110. Ferri says:

    fyi says:

    July 16, 2015 at 1:05 pm

    You are far smarter than this to really post an article and believe what this guy has to say. You have got to be kidding another hawkish Republican advisor to Pres. Bush and part of a group along with Condi Rice called the Vulcans.

    “The Vulcans is a nickname used to refer to Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush’s foreign policy advisory team assembled to brief him prior to the 2000 U.S. presidential election. The Vulcans were led by Condoleezza Rice and included Richard Armitage, Robert Blackwill, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Dov S. Zakheim, Robert Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz, and Wolfowitz protégé, Scooter Libby..”

    The facts about Iran’s R&D are spelled out in the 159 pages. You can read through it and see how much this guy lies. Furthermore, just because the façade of Iran’s nuclear facility are not destroyed doesn’t mean the facility is intact as it was; it’s like saying the building is there but the furniture is removed. .

    Just some of the excerpts from the Agreement. I advise you to read it in detail.

    RE: Fardow:
    • The Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) will be converted into a nuclear, physics, and technology centre and international collaboration will be encouraged in agreed areas of research. The Joint Commission will be informed in advance of the specific projects that will be undertaken at Fordow.
    1044 IR-1 centrifuges in six cascades will remain in one wing at Fordow. Two of these cascades will spin without uranium and will be transitioned, including through
    appropriate infrastructure modification, for stable isotope production. The other
    four cascades with all associated infrastructure will remain idle. All other
    centrifuges and enrichment-related infrastructure will be removed and stored
    under IAEA continuous monitoring as specified in Annex I

    • Iran will not conduct any uranium enrichment or any uranium enrichment related R&D and will have no nuclear material at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) for 15 years

    • Consistent with its plan, Iran will continue working with the 164-machine IR-2m cascade at PFEP in order to complete the necessary tests until 30 November 2015 or the day of implementation of this JCPOA, whichever comes later, and after that it will take these machines out of the PFEP and store them under IAEA continuous monitoring at Natanz in Hall B of FEP.
    • Consistent with its plan, Iran will continue working with the 164-machine IR-4 cascade at PFEP in order to complete the necessary tests until 30 November 2015 or the day of implementation of this JCPOA, whichever comes later, and after that it will take these machines out of the PFEP and store them under IAEA continuous monitoring at Natanz in Hall B of FEP.

    • Iran will continue the testing of a single IR-4 centrifuge machine and IR-4 centrifuge cascade of up to 10 centrifuge machines for 10 years.

    • Iran will test a single IR-5 centrifuge machine for 10 years.


    All US Secondary related sanctions will be removed, except the one that US President has an authorization to Veto, which can be re-instated back by the next president; or using snap-backs re-imposed again and or placed under the category of “terrorism” and or “human rights”.

  111. fyi says:

    Ferri says:

    July 16, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    I think the reality of the situation lies somewhere in between your last post and Mr. Zakheim ‘s article.

    None of these things matter as Iran supplied a fig leaf to P5 to retreat from their strategic Never-Never Land – in my opinion.

    There is a cease-fire and Iranians must use it to further entrench their position.

  112. kooshy says:

    Those skeptics of this agreement who believe when Obama leaves office US will reverse and renegade this agreement must also believe that if Obama was not in office Iran couldn’t have even get this bad of an agreement, therefore as the result, you will need to explain how was possible for Iran to end at least the UNSC sanctions if nothing else, and how it will be possible for Iran to get a better deal from this coming US president who is supposedly tougher and is going to renegade this current agreement which he is supposed to think is bad enough for US that he will throw it out. You can’t have your own cake and eat it too = a zero sum game

  113. masoud says:

    kooshy says:
    July 16, 2015 at 2:56 pm
    A large motivating factor behind this agreement was Obama and Kerry’s desire for a positive legacy. That motivation won’t come again for eight years. Its an opportunity wasted.

  114. masoud says:

    Here’s an exercise for yo, Kooshy:If this deal is ‘good’ What is the smallest possible change you could make to it that would makes it ‘bad’.I’m talking about the financial sanctions relief over here, I would say that part of deal is as good as we could expect, Im talking about the restrictions, monitoring,and governance structures. What is the smallest possible change you could make to those parts of the deal to make it too unpalatable to accept?

  115. Ataune says:

    This snippet is from describing one of the aspects of the Additional Protocol inspection regime. I want to emphasize that right now this regime is governing the relationship between Brazil, Germany, Japan and many other mid-level powers’ with the IAEA and the Ahmadinejad administration itself was, rightly in my opinion, dangling the signing the AP in front of the eyes of the Western powers as one of the political fruits of an agreement.


    The AP by herself is not a hindrance for any sovereign and independent NNWS state nor for their power projection. Even more so is the case of this agreement, which is political in nature and therefore less binding than AP for Iran. Worse come to worse, the refusal to give access to non-declared sites that are deemed too sensitive will end up, after around 30 days of palaver, in the hands of the UNSC which will have the responsibility to rescind the political agreement and open-up the Pandora box again. In my opinion this whole path is, legally and politically speaking, more favorable to Iran than others. The challenge is mainly inside Iran so some don’t get tempted to compromise the principles, “neither East nor West” among others.

  116. Ataune says:

    For some reason the snippet got cut. Here it is:

    …the number and types of facilities that the IAEA will be able to inspect and monitor is substantially increased beyond the previous level. In order to resolve questions about or inconsistencies in the information a state has provided on its nuclear activities, the new inspection regime provides the IAEA with “complementary,” or pre-approved, access to “any location specified by the Agency,” as well as all of the facilities specified in the “expanded declaration.” By negotiating an additional protocol, states will, in effect, guarantee the IAEA access on short notice to all of their declared and, if necessary, undeclared facilities in order “to assure the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.”…

  117. kooshy says:

    masoud says:
    July 16, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    Ok Massoud granted, which you mean they (Obama and Co.) went easy on Iran so they get a deal for their legacy but also say what do you think was the motivation for Iran to give up so much? Just for the Cargo cutting? I don’t think so, there must have been something that Iran thought it’s worth the try to give some and see if she gain some, if true what do you think that would be and if that would be worth it. Outright dismissing the deal for giving up some of Iran’s international rights for a period of time, is not justified if you can have calculated to gain on something you value more.

    masoud says:
    July 16, 2015 at 3:11 pm

    Massoud I don’t think or say this deal is GOOD, what I say is this deal is the best Iran and US could agree too, or obtain, to me a good deal would have been if Iran could preserve all her international rights and make the 6 countries eliminate all their sanctions on Iran at once, but do you think I was able to get that? I don’t think so, if not, and I think it’s in Iran’s interest to reduce/end/stop/postpone the current hostilities with the west, then I must come up with what would be my limit/price for getting what I think I want.
    You are saying Iranian leaders /SNSC did not do this exercise and as the result of Mr. Rouhani’ love for the west they gave up everything the west asked, basically like Smith says they are no goods, if so why it took them 2 years to get here and give up everything.

  118. masoud says:

    kooshy says:
    July 16, 2015 at 4:16 pm
    The reasons it took so long was to manage Iranians’ expectations, and whidling the US down on the sanctions fronted. Announcing this deal two years ago would have seen Zarif and Rouhani skinned alive. They had to ease into it. Like boiling a frog. Obama/Kerry waited this long to close a deal to extract maximum concessions from Iran. Iran took a hard line with respect to sanctions and a soft one with respect sovereignty. The US couldn’t wait for much longer, otherwise a deal wouldn’t get done.

    But you haven’t humored me yet: what would have to change in the deal with regards to sanctions and governance for you to consider it a bad one? The minimum possible change, please

  119. masoud says:

    And let’s not play semantics games with words like Good and Bad and Best We Could Get.

  120. fyi says:

    Ataune says:

    July 16, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    I agree.

    Further to your point, if P5+1 start dragging their feet – just as US did in the case of Agreed Framework in North Korean case – after 30 days Iranians can exit this agreement and UNSC and EU, and US, and China, and India and Arabs can start deciding what to do next.

  121. Jay says:

    As I noted earlier, this deal has no “downside” for Iran. Why all the handwringing?!

  122. kooshy says:

    masoud says:
    July 16, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    Massoud I am not trying to hummer you, if you are looking to get entertain it seem that you already got a lot with this deal. I don’t know how else I can say it, that this deal is no good but it was not possible for both sides to get any better, that’s what I think, you happen to think there was a conspiracy going on to get the Iranians ready for this deal while Kerry and Obama where watching their watches and taping their foot as time is running out, I don’t think so.

    That’s as plainly I can say it, but why you didn’t answered my earlier question to you, what is the maximum you could accept to give up and what was the minimum you wanted in return and if you could have get it? And if you couldn’t get it what was the alternative and why would you have even tried.

    I can’t be more clear as what I think Iran and US could accept and make deal on, I think that’s’ the deal they got. But you are not telling what you would have wanted and willing to give, you got to measure up so we can understand what is that you are after and want, not just the nagging and this not good, what is the good?

    At the end of the day last time US broke her promise with the fuel supply for TRR, Iranian went and made the 20% enrichment and US was able to go to UNSC and get a new sanction with all other 4, so let’s assume US brakes the agreement again, I would think same thing will repeat Iran will go and restart enrichment maybe a bit faster since she has the experience and US will get more UNSC sanctions so what, what is the benefit for US this time that was not last time?
    If as you said it’s clownish to think Iran’s program has or should have a military dimension to supposedly think that Iran’s enrichment capability was what have kept US from attacking Iran, then it should not be too difficult to think of a Heroic Flexibility to see if a deal will work out and materialize, this is since you know US is not going to attack you (and the reason she didn’t attack was not because of your enrichment capability) and at most if the deal didn’t work out you can go back to enrichment and she can go back to UNSC, that’s the real world my friend I say it again to me it is worth to try. Who knows what would be the shape of the new world order in few years, so far in this new century the trajectory has not been in US/West favor in every aspects.

  123. Kooshy says:

    masoud says:
    July 16, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    “The reasons it took so long was to manage Iranians’ expectations, ”

    Ok I understand what is your explanation of why it took so long, and what was in it for Obama and Kerry, but you still haven’t said what was in it for Iran to give up so much?

    A collective Personal gain for all SNSC members including Mr. Jalili or could It be a gain for a national interest, or even can be due to their national cargo cult mentality, what do you think motivated Iranians to give up / restrict some of their international rights?

  124. Kooshy says:

    I also must mention that correctly part of Iranian calculations was probably based on coming US elections, Iran’s SNSC must have calculated they could get a better deal from Obama on end of his second term then they could get from any new coming president who has to campaign on an anti Iran foreign policy posture.

  125. M.Ali says:

    The “best deal we could get” isn’t something to be proud of. When the Shah had the shitty oil deals with Britian, it was the “best deal he could get”.

  126. M.Ali says:

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Iran will have no way to avoid inspections of military or other sites that the United States and its allies deem suspicious when a nuclear pact sealed this week goes into effect, U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice said on Wednesday.

    Rice, in an interview with Reuters, said the deal would not give Iran any room to oppose inspections if Washington or others had information believed to reveal a secret site that they took to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for review.

    “If the Iranians said, ‘No, you can’t see that site,’ whether it’s a military site or not, the IAEA, if it deems the site suspicious, can ask for access to it,” she said.

    If Iran refuses access but five of the eight international signatories to the deal demand an investigation under a newly created joint commission, Iran must comply, she said.

    “It’s not a request. It’s a requirement,” Rice said. Iran would be “bound to grant that access.”

  127. Kooshy says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 16, 2015 at 7:26 pm
    “The “best deal we could get” isn’t something to be proud of”


    Who said this is something to be proud of, I never said this is something makes anybody proud of. But yes I do think this was the best possible to get, you happen to think this was bad to do, I happen to think this was a well worth tactical move to try, that’s all it is.

    Ok here is another way to look at this. For years US said zero enrichment zero centrifuges for Iran we wouldn’t even seat on the table with Iran unless Iran remove all her nuclear activity, obviously Iran didn’t go for it and U.S. got nothing. For next few years Iran said we want to maintain our treaty rights and we want you to remove all your illegal sanctions obviously US / west didn’t gave in and Iranian didn’t get her way. I think during these first ten years both sides did understand what the other side was willing to give and what would they accept to get in return, I think both sides had an experienced understanding of what the other sides expectations are and what they will be willing to give when they started this negotiations before Mr. Rohani becomes president, they would not have gone to this negotiations not knowing how far they are willing to give.

  128. Amir says:

    Jay says:
    July 16, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    The only and only downside is that “we” might have already let our guards down. It will take either a concerted effort (a series of speeches by the Leader) to keep everyone in line or US reneging on its promises (or both) so nobody loses perspective.

    And by perspective I don’t mean necessarily teeth-grinding, fist-clenching “down with USA” chants; merely keeping in mind that others aren’t going to accept us as a peer country; that is, we are bound to fend for ourselves.

  129. pragmatic says:

    Sure, any Iran deal depended on “dissociating” the nuclear issue from everything else, but the problem was that everything else mattered a whole lot, and perhaps just as much.

  130. Jay says:

    Amir says:
    July 16, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    Yes Amir, what you say is a possible downside, but not a probable one in the case of Iran.

    From the hints in the speeches one can already detect signs that this potential of “being lulled into sleep” is a danger recognized by the leadership. In the coming months you will see a redoubling of the effort by the leadership to increase cohesion, and vigilance.

    This tactical pause is an excellent opportunity for Iran to recalibrate her financial linkages. And, yes, being alert is important.

  131. pragmatic says:

    Don’t forget who draws the politics of current society. These are the families that have secret ties to the gold trade, and a plan for a new world order, these real families are some of the richest families in the world.

    Rothchild: it has been at global hub of financial since the 1760! It maintains its controls through the US Federal Reserve. They deployed their agent Paul Warburg, to create the powerful quasi-government entity in 1913.

    Rockefeller: The empire began in 1870 with Standard Oil Co. Because of their wealth President T. Roosevelt warned that Rockefeller interests were creating an invisible government. Today they control interests in Chase Manhattan Bank, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP.

    Morgan: Having control of the U.S. gold supply. They financed the creation of largest American corporations including: GE, AT&T, and US steel. They made the US enter the WWI to protect their loans made to Russia and France. Today they maintain the largest private gold vault linked by a tunnel to NY Federal Reserve Bank.

    DuPont: Since 1802 they established the gunpowder mill in Delaware. By WWI they were supplying 40% of the world explosives!By WWII it was producing plutonium for US atomic bombs.

    Bush: Their ties to Halliburton and KBR. Having big fortune in Banking and Oil. They own a country called KUWAIT! Two presidents out of this family and most probably Jeb is the third one!

    Look at all the companies owned by these families! Now you really thing Iran is independent with 26+ natural resources!

  132. kooshy says:

    پرگ عزیز برو یه چرخ تو ونک بزن حالت جامیاد

  133. pragmatic says:

    Im in karaj extudeh

  134. pragmatic says:

    Im in karaj extudeh.
    BTW all I have said is coming through! Now wait and see the internal politics of Iran.
    Vatanfroush Almanie Hitler doost

  135. M.Ali says:

    Kooshy says:
    July 16, 2015 at 7:54 pm

    Kooshy, dooste aziz, did you have a chance to look at the agreement closely? A lot of our “rights” just seem for political reasons to help out Rohani and co for face saving reasons.

  136. Smith says:

    Mr Nasser,

    ” No invention, earth shaking idea from India in 60 years

    That was a real punch from an old man.

    NR Narayana Murthy, 68-year-old Emeritus Chairman of Infosys, made a few comments at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc.) convoction that should trigger some introspection not only among our politicians but even among our premier educational institutions.

    There has not been a single invention from India in the last 60 years that became a household name globally, nor any idea that led to “earth shaking” invention to “delight global citizens”, he said in his convocation address.

    “Our youngsters have not done much impactful research work despite being equal to their counterparts in intellect and energy in Western universities,” he has said.

    In order to drive his point, he drew a comparison of Indian Educational Institutions with Massachusets Institute of Technology by listing out 10 major inventions from the iconic US institution over the last 50 years, including global positioning system, bionic prostheses and microchip.

    “They demonstrated unusual courage to achieve the plausibly-impossible. The story is similar at many other western institutions of higher education,” he said.

    He said almost all inventions such as cars, electric bulb, radio, television, computers, internet, Wi-Fi, MRI, laser, robots and many other gadgets and technology happened, “thanks to the research by Western Universities”.

    “Have the institutions (in particular IISc. and the Indian Institute of Technology) over the past 60-plus years contributed to making our society and the world a better place? Is there one invention from India that has become a household name in the globe? The reality is that there is no such contribution from India in the last 60 years,” Murthy has been quoted.

    “Folks, the reality is that there is no such contribution from India in the last 60 years. The only two ideas that have transformed the productivity of global corporations — The Global Delivery Model and the 24-hours workday — came from the company called Infosys.”

    And it is not only about the educational system. The problem, according to him, is that none of the prime ministers since Jawaharlal Nehru have paid any attention to the need for impactful research from the country.

    Before getting into the political cat fight over who was at fault – the Congress that ruled the country for most of the years after indpendence or the BJP that too got a chance to rule and also sit as the least-constructive opposition – let’s be clear about one thing – Murthy’s comments are also pointing at the system that we have built and maintained – a system that kills the future heroes.

    As he rightly argues the IIMs and IITs uphold a system of exclusion.
    “The true value of an IIT or IIM is not the intellectual capital they produce, but their filtering expertise – which keeps all but the superlisters out of these institutions. When the people entering the institution are the best among the best, they will shine no matter what the quality of faculty or the curriculum,” he says.

    Are these filtering systems keeping the best innovative minds out? How fool-proof are their filtering mechanisms? Can we be sure that they are really getting the crème de la crème? If indeed the answers to these questions are in affirmative, why have there not been any earth-shaking inventions from these institutions, as Murthy rightly pointed out?

    This leads us to another point raised in the above mentioned Firstpost article on how we have ended up being risk-avoiders and not risk-takers. While the Congress continues to play the populist game, the BJP now falls back on ancient India, where they see the proto-type of every modern discoveries and inventions – right from nuclear weapons to computer.

    It is significant that Murthy’s comments come at a time when the ruling NDA government is showing signs that they have learnt from the mistakes of their predecessors. The comments should insight the politicians and the common man to start introspection and debate on all the issues that hold us back creating things that will change the world.”

  137. Pragmatic says:


    Has it crossed your mind that the deal could have been for saving the regime rather than Rohani?

  138. Smith says:

    At least Indians have started somewhere:

  139. Smith says:

    You stand no chance against this thinking society:

    Your and any other cargo cult’s best bet is to negotiate your mere and if allowed prosperous survival. Act cute like a Panda and show less edible meat, you might just make it into the future diversity of gene pool.

  140. Karl.. says:

    July 16, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    What about the issue of US/IAEA wanting to go lets say Parchin?
    Iran says no, then what will happend according to you? No problems?

  141. kooshy says:

    “BTW all I have said is coming through! Now wait and see the internal politics of Iran.”
    “Has it crossed your mind that the deal could have been for saving the regime rather than Rohani?”

    You See Pragi why I say go take a walk in Vanak you feel better, because you even shit green, that’s what is you are after, is not that you guys like Rohani, or ayatollah Nut Job
    Your hope is they create rifts wide enough that will pull people out, take my word I guarantee that hope will not happen, instead take that walk I told you, get a shower put your Paris look on, walk to Tajrish have a espresso you be good.

  142. fyi says:

    pragmatic says:

    July 16, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    Yes, Iran is independent in every sense of the word; the failure of combined economic and financial warfare of the last 5 years to eviscerate her polity, national cohesion and governance established that quite clearly.

    As for those families; they do not own or operate mercenary forces or governments nor is the gold trade the linchpin of the world economy.

    One family, the Rockefellers, were forced to disclose their holdings in 1970s because the late Mr. Nelson Rockefeller was being proposed as US Vice President. Their wealth was in low hundreds of millions.

    Both Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffet exceed in wealth the families that you have mentioned.

  143. kooshy says:

    M.Ali says:
    July 17, 2015 at 3:39 am

    Ali Jaan,

    This deal is bad it’s really bad; it infringes Iran’s treaty sovereignty, but now let me tell you why IMO it’s worth to try this for a possible tactical pause/delay of hostilities.
    For many years I have written that the biggest threat to Iran is not US, Israel attacking Iran, or nuking Iran, and I have written nukes are no use for Iran, my main concern and my main worry always was and still is a inter religion war with Sunni streets Arabs, Turks, and Pakis, I knew to stop Iran the west will at last pull her ultimate and least expensive tool, even at the cost of their own regional allies.
    I think that tool was pulled out more than two years ago, today in Lebanon are the US’ client Saudi paid thugs who are killing and fighting the shieh, in Syria they are US client states of Turkey, Qatar, KSA trained and paid for Sunnis who are fighting the Alawis, in Iraq the same Sunnis are killing the shieh and want to overthrow the shieh government of Iraq, In Bahrain is the US/Saudi supported minority government that is jailing the shieh, in Yemen the Saudi thugs are bombing and killing the Huties for what end no one knows except that they are sympathized by Iran, in Pakistan and Afghanistan they are the shieh who are being killed in their own places of prayer by Sunnis. If you think these have started and are inspired by the local Sunni communities out of their hate for shieh think again, this has not gone to a street level fight between the sects all due to shieh religious leaders containment, but how long would they be able to hold off before a retaliation starts and this moves deep in street level, and would you think US and the west would not want to tighten the ring around the center. That’s why I think a tactical move/ agreement of kind to get if not a settlement at least a pause to attend and reduce this problem if it works is in Iran interest.
    All the killings of Iran allies and the shieh we see are directly requested by US form and paid for by her own Arab Sunni client states this has started to put pressure on Iran and her allies. If you can make a peace of sort before this spread bigger is in Iran’s national interests.

  144. nahid says:

    kooshy please tel me what IMO stand for , thanks

  145. kooshy says:

    In This current world order if you are not a veto holding UNSC member you don’t have Rights you have Ways to get what you want.
    Those who think Iran is only under pressure economically and financially and Iranians can and should thought it out they don’t realize the outside security pressure
    That has taken Iran to directly get involved protecting the Shieh communities around her, politically, militarily and economically, she has no other choice.
    Thankfully to understanding and “Tadbear” of majority of Iranians and their leaders, unlike what the greens hope the only so far security Iran has avoided is an internal rift.
    Some really delusional greens hope that since the economic sanctions did not bring out the street riots, due to this nuclear dispute a political rift and disagreement for the nuclear negations will open the gap and bring out the two sides in the street and causes internal destabilization. The other day I saw a video of nuclear celebration in Vanak square, that some westernized thugs hoping to agitate and taking advantage, pulled pictures of Mossavi, Iranians need to ask what that was all about. what did that asshole had anything to do with nuclear file and negotiations?

  146. James Canning says:

    Willem Oosterveld has an excellent letter in the Financial Times today: ‘US: take care not to send the wrong signals to Iran’.

  147. kooshy says:


    IMO= In My Opinion
    IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

  148. ordinary says:


    1979 – 2015
    Was it not the longest revolution in the history…

    Beyond the deal:
    Congratulations to the administration and every single president and government during the past 36 years that made it a success. They demonstrated that they can be hard and soft but always ready to engage with logic and intellect, and have patience and perseverance of heroes. And thanks to the world supporters who drove the point relentlessly, and to US administration and the world powers that came to finally see the legitimacy of this deal.

    Iran revolutionary stage is essentially now over, it succeeded with establishing order and democracy in Islamic framework (let’s not make better the enemy of good); it made many friends, a few foes, and made itself famous worldwide in every intellectual and political circle. It was the most important matter in the world in the past 36 years, as it demanded international laws to be apply to all countries, sovereign rights apply to third world countries too, and also the right to have an ideological framework in the law of a country.

    Off course Islam is not an ideology it is a religion. It is a way of life which does not separate church and state; nevertheless Islam is viewed as an ideology; and ideologies compete intellectually hence Islam’s failure would attest to the primacy of competing ideology. So this is the new battle line.

    Moving on up:
    The real test is in the next 36 years, what model such a country, accepted in the world, will implement. All eyes are on the Iranian people to do and show that it deserved the bestowed recognition – that the revolution will build the Islamic model of a free society in the free world – a better model of life centered in God (where money and sciences and industry are very important and money too but they are foremost for the service of society within the framework defined by Islam); that the Iranian people might have that will (eemon) to make Islamic Republic stand.

    Moving on up – marching uptown:
    As the economy is injected with steroid and the thirsty indulges and the market / money pushes to free state from God… then, 36 years later, will Iran be an exaggerated west inside in chador of Islam lightly worn? or a south korea or a japan? will the generations remember the goal for which blood was let?

    I fear already: “what nonsense, let us first feel it… ah… and live it… is it good for them not for us… was it ok for you but bad when it is my turn…”

    The administration must put an effort on building museums and true Art and literature somehow not let stories like Faw, and the efforts of heroes get lost in the dust of history. Stories such one explained below, so we learn things rationally:

    Then we can be hopeful that among those who desecrate Hafiz, Mulana over the Quran, that among them, are readers who understand love and wine.

    As for the deal:
    I am in agreement that it is a deal as good as it gets. In hot war or cold war the goal is to make the cause to survive. If it was Faw after the 8 year war then, and now, the suspense of a new devastating war after Obama, a hero is one that will engage logic in his actions. Iran won the revolution in this deal and settled for it to help its people. Promise of a better life under God is already 36 years in waiting and it can’t ever be established while another war looms (note that the next set of sanctions or the one after would eventually force Iran into a war). So this battle is won, lets understand and call it what it is. Which verse it is where the Queen of Saba explains that in the ruin of a war the best of a nation’s nobles will be lost.

  149. pragmatic says:


    what does KMA means?

  150. kooshy says:

    Prag- like what the Old Dr. Sotodeh said with regard to GWB wanting to bomb Iran, tell Zibakalam, KMB

  151. pragmatic says:


    who is dr sotodeh? kmb? what are these nonsense you write walking in vanak and…..
    KMA means Kiss My A-hole

    من هم از خوشحالی مردم، خوشحالم

    Hazrateh Ayatollah Hashemi

    che mikuneh sayastarin siasatmadareh tarikh iran.

  152. Amir says:

    ordinary says:
    July 17, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    All I could say is even if our politicians were about to let go of the revolution, the revolution isn’t going to let go; there are some indications that the West is going to keep the pressure on us, this time by focusing on what they describe as human rights violations.

    And if I have understood one thing clearly, the Iranian officials are most sensitive about one issue and that’s survival of the state.

    Since the US (as the Leveretts have noted) hasn’t been laying the groundwork for a major realignment of its policy towards Iran, I suspect the tension is going to get increased over time, and if past behavior is any indicator of what to expect, I could say revolutionary rhetoric would be intensified, reflexively.

    Most amusing of all is the perception among some analysts that Iranian domestic politics is going to be more “open”; Rouhani is here to defuse the situation, perhaps ease some social restrictions and revive the economy. That’s what has been called “the Chinese model” of social liberty without political liberty, and those who would try to test the limits would ultimately see that the security apparatus is the same as Rafsanjani’s tenure.

  153. kooshy says:

    Prag- did you listen to the Aid-e-Fetr speech today? If you did, you, Zibakalam and the AY nut job can perform a group SOI

  154. Khomeini says:

    some of you on this blog are worried and upset thinking that Iran has given in to US. some of you also think that Iran will allow inspection of its military sites. However, the leader has put an end to these speculations in Eid prayer speech.


  155. Karl.. says:


    Well Khomeini says that, however under the deal it will be very hard for Iran to deny US/IAEA entry, because if they do that, sanctions will likely be added. Its a dead end for Iran in my opinion. Or whats your view on this? What will happen when Iran reject a US/IAEA request?

  156. Khomeini says:

    Karl.. says:
    July 18, 2015 at 5:45 am

    Demanding access to military sites will be the instrument US will use to derail this deal – you are right on that. War of interpretation of the deal from both sides will eventually kill the deal. From Iran’s perspective, military sites are off limit – only taking soil samples from around the sites will be allowed. This is according to Dr Mirandi (

    Obama seems to think that this deal will record him in history as some sort of superman. I do not think Obama will get things his way. If Netanyahu could brush aside Obama and give a speech in Congress (first time in US diplomatic history an acting president was humiliated just because he was black – according to Chomsky), I am sure Obama’s deal will be derailed by the same Congress and Netanyahu along with their eager friend Saudi Arabia.

    However, there is one thing that going to happen, that is UN sanctions will be removed allowing financial crises struck EU to do business with Iran. Obama hinted to this in his post deal interview. This option is not bad for Iran because no UN sanctions will mean Iran can do business with everybody and leave US isolated in the COLD. From Iran’s perspective, just removing UN sanctions will allow Iran to divide and rule anti-Iran coalition. Whether US sanctions are removed is not much of an issue. Yes, at some point US will pressure its EU buddies to reimpose their self impose sanctions on Iran BUT that will be say in another one and a half year times at least – that is after US elections in 2016, technically not before January 2017 when new republican president, dynastic Bush number three, re-occupies white house. However, recalling Russian and Chinese three round veto on Syrian crises and Russian annoyance with US on bloody situation in Ukraine, reimposing UN sanctions will be harder – China and Russia will less likely to play ball this time. I think Iran has done this calculation.

    On the domestic front, removing of UN sanctions will hardly make any significant impact on overall economy because Iran’s economic problems has very little to do with sanctions, its more to do with poor management – all developing countries have the same problem, Iran is not alone in this. It will burst the Iranian public myth that sanctions are causing all the economic problems. Pro-west section of Iran’s public think that if relation with west and US are restored everything will be ROSY overnight. They are going to have a RUDE AWAKENING. This will strengthen conservatives (usulgaraens) hand.

    So, taking all this complex calculations into account, I would say deal will eventually get derailed but will have domestic and international goodies for Iran. Mr Khamenei is wise enough to navigate through this troubled waters. He has proved his leadership skills over the years.

  157. pragmatic says:


    Even a kid in middle school knows today’s speech was for internal use! God you are so inane!
    Why don’t you write us more about your thoughts and strategies, which is only appropriate for a BOWL, Khala!

    All that has happened is in contrast to what you had predicted. You don’t shit about Iran’s politics, simply due to lack of wisdom. Yet, you are an advocate of Ahamdinejad and Jalili! The funny thing is that you have your won excuses to like them and still think they did good to Iran! You are in another world man, you live with your one dimensional thoughts. You should zip it for a while and just sit back and look! You and people of your caliber make me vomit.

    I really appreciate if you stop reading my comments and more I appreciate if you do not come back with a reply.

  158. fyi says:

    pragmatic says:

    July 18, 2015 at 7:57 am

    The speech of Mr. Khamenei for Eid Fitr was not solely for domestic consumption; in my view.

    The speech explicitly stated that Iranian policy in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Plaestine will not change.

    The areas left out – Bahrain, Afghanistan, and Yemen are those in which Iran could demonstrate some cooperation – at a price.

    The speech clearly indicated also that normalization with US is not a possibility at this time.

  159. Nasser says:

    Smith says: July 17, 2015 at 5:16 am


    On a different note, where is our people with that kind of self awareness? And where is our Infosys?

  160. Karl.. says:


    “Demanding access to military sites will be the instrument US will use to derail this deal – you are right on that.”

    That’s not how its going to be portrayed by US/IAEA, thats why this deal is puttin Iran in a worse position than before this deal.

  161. kooshy says:

    pragmatic says:
    July 18, 2015 at 7:57 am

    Yet, you are an advocate of Ahamdinejad and Jalili! the funny thing is that you have your won excuses to like them, and still think they did good to Iran!

    Prag. You are showing TARAK- can’t figure out why having my own excuses to like someone is funny? Whose excuses do you use for liking Ay Laughing Nut Job so much? I think the way you think makes you a nut job as well. But more likely you wrote your reply to me out of anger after the Eyed speech which for sure you and your like-minded didn’t like, which I knew and I ridiculed you since earlier you had posted the Zibakalam BS, that was the point it worked.

  162. M.Ali says:


    I agree. Denying access will make Iran as the one on the wrong side because they would be renegading on a condition they agreed to!

  163. Kathleen says:

    Senator Schumer is being described in the MSM as the “lynchpin” vote on the Iran deal passing. Schumer has stated several times now that he will go through the Iran deal report with a “fine tooth comb.” Question is will that “fine tooth comb” belong to BB Netanyahu? Was that “find tooth comb” made in Israel or an illegal settlement?

    Another big question is will the U.S. MSM actually inform the American public with accurate facts about the deal? Will they have expert guest on their outlets like the Leveretts (other international members who worked the deal out)to provide accurate historical perspective about Iran/U.S. dealings or non dealings and the Iran deal? Or will the MSM fail the American public as they did in the run up to the invasion of Iraq? Of course many of us (millions) went to the web to widen our perspectives about Iraq and the alleged WMD’s We marched against the invasion by the hundreds of thousands (cumulatively millions) before the invasion. Mostly ignored by the MSM.

    Will the MSM fail once again?

  164. Kathleen says:

    Senator Schumer is being described in the MSM as the “lynchpin” vote on the Iran deal passing. Schumer has stated several times now that he will go through the Iran deal report with a “fine tooth comb.” Question is will that “fine tooth comb” belong to BB Netanyahu? Was that “find tooth comb” made in Israel or an illegal settlement?

    Another big question is will the U.S. MSM actually inform the American public with accurate facts about the deal? Will they have expert guest on their outlets like the Leveretts (other international members who worked the deal out)to provide accurate historical perspective about Iran/U.S. dealings or non dealings and the Iran deal? Or will the MSM fail the American public as they did in the run up to the invasion of Iraq? Of course many of us (millions) went to the web to widen our perspectives about Iraq and the alleged WMD’s We marched against the invasion by the hundreds of thousands (cumulatively millions) before the invasion. Mostly ignored by the MSM.

    Will the MSM fail once again?

  165. Khomeini says:

    Karl.. says:
    July 18, 2015 at 9:35 am

    In line with normal international safeguards practice, such requests will not be aimed at interfering with Iranian military or other national security activities, but will be exclusively for resolving concerns regarding fulfilment of the JCPOA commitments and Iran’s other non-proliferation and safeguards obligations………In
    implementing this procedure as well as other transparency measures, the IAEA will be
    requested to take every precaution to protect commercial, technological and industrial
    secrets as well as other confidential information coming to its knowledge.
    [Section Q, point 74, page 42, JCPOA]

    I think Iran will use this non-interference in military and national security activities along with protecting industrial secrets to shield military site inspection. But again, US will say otherwise.

    One point I missed in my previous post is that I think 15 years of freeze in nuclear activities is a big mistake – it is not freeze freeze but still 15 years is too long. Personally, for me 15 years is a big disappointment.

    Nonetheless, next four months will be crucial – lets see what happens. After eid holidays, the real scrutiny of deal will begin in Iran. Lets keep all eyes on that for the time being.

  166. fyi says:

    Kathleen says:

    July 18, 2015 at 11:23 am

    MSM will not change its stripes.

    The BBC still remains the only mostly impartial source of news – if not commentary – among the Axis Powers.

    Unfortunately, Russia Today and PressTV and Tsing Hua remain unreliable.

  167. fyi says:

    Mrs. Kathleen:

    On Senator Schumer and others – please see this: