Iran Will Keep Their Uranium For The End (Rev 15:2)

uranium-enrichment

White House: Negotiators still working on Iran’s enriched uranium

BY: Brian Hughes March 30, 2015 | 12:02 pm
The White House Monday hit back at the suggestion that Iran had agreed to and then backed out of a deal to send its stockpile of enriched uranium abroad, saying the issue could still be overcome ahead of the Tuesday deadline for talks.
“The idea that there had been an agreement that Iran had backed away from in the last 24 hours is not true,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters aboard Air Force One, as President Obama traveled to Boston for an event honoring the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.
In terms of what’s going to happen with that stockpile, that is something our negotiators are working through, but it’s not accurate to say there had been an agreement that was then backtracked. As we’ve said all along, nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.”
Iranian nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi told reporters late Sunday that his country would not send its stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia for storage, which had been sought by P5+1 nations to keep Iran at least a year away from being able to develop a nuclear weapon.
Negotiators insist the Iranian position is not a deal breaker but concede that a number of issues remain with the Tuesday deadline swiftly approaching.
Critics, however, say the development is proof that Iran can’t be trusted to live up to terms of an agreement keeping it from building a nuclear weapon.
Schultz reiterated Monday that Obama would indeed walk away from the deal if the framework did not meet his conditions.

Iran Program Similar To India’s Program 15 Years Ago

nuke

Iran Talks Shed Light On Nuclear Tensions Between India, Pakistan

MARCH 30, 2015 4:46 PM ET

NPR’s Robert Siegel talks with Frank O’Donnell, a doctoral candidate at King’s College London, about how nuclear powers India and Pakistan manage their bilateral relationship.
ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

One fear of Iran potentially developing a nuclear weapon is that it would lead to a regional nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Israel already has a nuclear arsenal, although it maintains a policy of neither confirming nor denying its existence. It’s often said that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey might pursue nuclear weapons if their regional rivals in Iran had them. We thought we’d check in on a neighboring region where there has been a nuclear arms race, India and Pakistan. Neither country is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Both have nuclear weapons. Frank O’Donnell of King’s College London has studied nuclear weapons in South Asia and joins us now. Welcome to the program.

O’DONNELL: Thank you. Glad to be here.

SIEGEL: And does the experience of India and Pakistan present any lessons for the Middle East and nuclear weapons?

O’DONNELL: I think it does. A lot of the analysis I read about the Iran talks will say that this could pave the way toward a realignment of the United States and the Middle East. This could bring Iran in from the cold. However, the Iran deal, if it goes forward, is just a technical agreement, and in India and Pakistan, there are similar technical agreements which are quite limited. One – both states will exchange a list on New Year’s Day each year of the nuclear installations which is part of an agreement not to target each other’s nuclear facilities. One is that they notify each other of any missile tests, and one is that the leadership and also the militaries have a hotline to each other.
The story with India and Pakistan is they still have growing nuclear arsenals. These limited technical agreements have not produced the kind of foundation for that broader relationship that some of the analysis talking about Iran seems to expect.
SIEGEL: What do you make of the argument that countries that acquire nuclear arsenals, even if they sound remarkably belligerent before that time, tend to behave fairly responsibly once they do have nuclear arsenals?

O’DONNELL: Well, I mean, to that I can only say look at the example of North Korea. You know, it’s one of the most irresponsible states in the world. It’s always making nuclear threats. If a state has nuclear weapons, that doesn’t automatically guarantee a certain format of behavior.

SIEGEL: And the India-Pakistan conflict – I mean, do you think of it as one that actually has the potential of turning into a nuclear exchange anytime in the even distant future?

O’DONNELL: I don’t see that getting to the level of a nuclear exchange. However, what concerns me is that there is not a sustainable, ongoing dialogue to reduce tensions between India and Pakistan. What has happened in recent years is that both sides adopt a tough stance and start escalating, and they both wait for the United States to come in and provide both of them the face-saving exercise that the United States will intervene and bring them both down. There are not mechanisms to de-escalate once a crisis emerges.

SIEGEL: Yeah.

O’DONNELL: That is what I find most concerning about the situation there.

SIEGEL: That addressing the question of nuclear weapons can be a remarkably compartmentalized and technical development and really have no implications for a more peaceful relations between countries.

O’DONNELL: I think that India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons out of both of their own sense of security threat. And for there to be some measures of reducing nuclear tensions, this has to be part of a broader political dialogue involving what both of their own threat perceptions are, and also, I argue, including China as well because China is very much part of the South Asian strategic environment. It’s very much a player in the region.

SIEGEL: Do you see any parallels between Iran today and Pakistan and India at the point where they were intent on developing nuclear weapons?

O’DONNELL: The main parallel I see with Iran – up until really the Obama administration came in, the activities it was conducting up to that point seemed to me very reminiscent of what India was doing – the position it had up until it conducted testing in 1998. For a long period – say, from about the mid ’80s and up until 1998, what India did was it had the capability. It had all the material. It had the knowledge. It had, you know, the missiles all sitting disassembled in its basement. By doing that, it meant that it would not be sanctioned as it was after 1998 for conducting the nuclear tests. However, it could in some ways behave like a nuclear-weapon state. It could throw its weight around a bit more. And I wonder if Iranians who are, you know, running the program did look at India’s experience as a guide.

SIEGEL: Frank O’Donnell, thanks for talking with us.

O’DONNELL: Thank you.

SIEGEL: Frank O’Donnell is a doctoral candidate in defense studies at King’s College London and a research associate with the Center for Science and Security Studies.

Copyright © 2015 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at http://www.npr.org for further information.

Don’t Be Surprised If NO Deal (Ezekiel 17)

Iran-Nuclear-Talks

Former U.S. Ambassador: Iran Deal ‘Hard to Sell’

Christopher Hill, who was also the chief disarmament negotiator in the failed nuclear talks with North Korea, said that both the United States and Iran will have a hard time convincing their people that the deal is a good one.
“Certainly from the U.S. vantage point, they need to go back to Washington and kind of oversell the deal,” argued Hill in an appearance on “Meet the Press.”
“The deal is so hinged on technical issues that it is going to be hard to sell,” Hill said.
Hill added that the Iranians will have to tout the lifting of sanctions back in Tehran, but that neither side will achieve a “very nice and clean deal.”
The former ambassador also addressed the concern that allies like Saudi Arabia have that Iran will be strengthened both through the nuclear deal and through partnering in the fight in Yemen. “From the Saudi perspective, they look at this deal with Iran and they see something that goes beyond just the nuclear issue,” Hill said. “They see some kind of … re-emerging partnership with the U.S. and Iran.”

A Hypocrite Would Know A Hypocrite (Rev 13)

<header class="content__head tonal__head tonal__head–tone-news

„>

john_boehner8-620x412

Boehner: Iran has ‘no intention’ of keeping its word on nuclear deal

<div class="content__meta-container js-football-meta u-cf

content__meta-container–twitter

“ style=“border-bottom-color: #dfdfdf; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 0.0625rem; border-top-color: #dfdfdf; border-top-style: dotted; border-top-width: 0.0625rem; margin-bottom: 0.75rem; min-height: 2.25rem; position: relative;“>

<div class="content__meta-container js-football-meta u-cf

content__meta-container–twitter

“ style=“border-bottom-color: #dfdfdf; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 0.0625rem; border-top-color: #dfdfdf; border-top-style: dotted; border-top-width: 0.0625rem; margin-bottom: 0.75rem; min-height: 2.25rem; position: relative;“>

The top Republican’s comments came as negotiations in Lausanne approached the 31 March deadline for the drafting of a framework for a deal, under intense criticism from Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu.
Speaking on CNN, Boehner said he had serious doubts about the talks. 
“We’ve got a regime that’s never quite kept their word about anything,” he said. “I just don’t understand why we would sign an agreement with a group of people who have no intention of keeping their word.”
If there was no agreement, Boehner said he would move “very” quickly to impose new sanctions on Iran.
“The sanctions are going to come and they are going to come quickly,” he said.
“I think the animosity exhibited by this administration toward the prime minister of Israel is reprehensible,” said Boehner. “And I think the pressure they have put on him over the past four or five years frankly pushed him to the point where he had to speak up.”
Boehner said Netanyahu had clearly highlighted the threat he said Iran’s nuclear programme represents, “not only to the Middle East but to the rest of the world”.
Netanyahu denounced the talks once again on Sunday. “I am deeply troubled by the emerging agreement with Iran in the nuclear talks,” he said at the start of a cabinet meeting. “The agreement confirms all of our fears and even worse.”
Boehner said: “The president doesn’t want to talk about [Iran]. Doesn’t want to talk about the fact that he has no strategy to deal with it. When you begin to see all these leaks that presumably came out of the White House about what the Iranian deal was going to be, there is a lot of concern in Congress on a bipartisan basis.”