Saturday, February 28, 2015

U.S. “Bottom Lines” for Nuclear Deal with Iran - Report

The United States set out its “bottom lines” to reach a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, ahead of new talks next week, AFP reported today.

“We will only accept an agreement that cuts off the different pathways to the fissile material that Iran needs for a nuclear weapon,” a senior U.S. administration official said. (AFP, 28 February)

The U.S. official spelled out where Washington was standing firm:
  • Iran should not be allowed to develop weapons-grade plutonium at its Arak reactor. “We’re discussing how Iran can convert that Arak reactor to serve a different purpose,” the official said.
  • Iran should not use its Fordo nuclear plant to enrich uranium.
  • That would leave only Natanz plant capable of enriching uranium.
  • Any deal must ensure that it would take Iran a year to gather enough fissile material to make a bomb.
  • Iran should “reduce significantly” its current number of operating centrifuges and its domestic stockpile.
  • Iran must agree to unprecedented inspections of both nuclear and production facilities as well as uranium mines and mills, and suspect sites.
  • The U.S. is pursuing a deal in which relief from international sanctions “is phased in over a period of time.”
“We are insisting on the principle that sanctions can snap back into place if Iran were to violate the agreement,” the official said.


Anonymous said...

Iran bottom line is a speedy approval of the agreement by the us 'Congress', before it is going to be implemented, like has stated FM Zarif, as well as the lifting of sanctions like has stated President Rouhani.

I believe that Obama move in that matter has to do more with his desire to be seen as a "peacemaker" for a historical purposes legacy than for other things.

He could initiate that process during his first term, when Ahmadinejad had made the 20% offer, or even earlier.....


Anonymous said...

Sounds like a good plan, both countries will benefit from it.

Anonymous said...

".....relief from international sanctions 'is phased in a period of time'."

What a kind of ambiguity, and who is that "official" ??
Has he any authorization and credibility to speak for a number of contradictory entities of his 'political' system ???

Does his position "......over a period of time...." means the same developments like with an agreement with the North Korea in the 90s, where the different presidents interpreted and established their own rules to this "cat and mouse" game ???