Thursday, April 30, 2015

Biden Reiterates Conditions for Final Nuclear Agreement with Iran

Vice President Joe Biden said on Thursday that reaching a final nuclear deal requires Iran to accept demands for access to its military sites suspected of nuclear activities, lifting of sanctions phased out over time, and a clear snapback mechanism at the UN Security Council should it violates the deal.

Biden, speaking at a dinner gala at the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, expressed support for the emerging final Iran nuclear deal, saying the agreement would provide “a historic opportunity to forge an enduring peaceful solution.” The emerging deal, Biden added, would “radically” alter the timeline on Iran’s ability to achieve breakout capabilities.

Biden said if Iran does not accept the demands he had outlined, President Obama was ready to walk away from the talks.

File photo: Vice President Joe Biden (Reuters)

14 comments:

Mark Pyruz said...

Unrestricted access to military sites appears to be a red-line for Iran. At least that's what they've been saying from the outset in no uncertain terms.

It would surprise me if they were to radically change their position on this issue.

Anonymous said...

from Reuters

Britain told U.N. monitors of active Iran nuclear procurement: panel


UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Britain has informed a United Nations sanctions panel of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms, according to a confidential report by the panel seen by Reuters.

The existence of such a network could add to Western concerns over whether Tehran can be trusted to adhere to a nuclear deal due by June 30 in which it would agree to restrict sensitive nuclear work in exchange for sanctions relief.

Nader Uskowi said...

Parchin has always been a contentious issue, especially problematic for IAEA, which needs to close its file on the possible military dimension to the country's nuclear program before an agreement is signed. What IAEA wants is access to particular buildings within the military base where nuclear work might have taken place, not the military base as a whole of course. To reach an accord, both sides need to show flexibility and accept a pragmatic solution.

Also the phased lifting of sanctions is against what Khamenei has wanted; he has publicly called for the lifting of all sanctions on the day the agreement is signed, and as kind of a red line. What Biden was saying was against that possibility, which might not even be practical. The Iranians, however, seem to be moving away from that demand as a red line. That's the issue the political directors were working almost full time during their last meeting in Geneva and said progress were being made.

Anonymous said...

Joe is right !!

Anonymous said...

"What IAEA wants is access to particular buildings within the military base where nuclear work might have taken place, not the military base as a whole of course." ==> and who exactly would be the judge of whether a given perimeter of the base pertains to pure nuclear work and is hence a valid inspection zone ? Can anyone even draw a clear line between intertwined R & D compounds, even assuming long-abandoned work has ever taken place in a particular premise of the sprawling base ? I can foresee many differing interpretations as to what to look for and where to find it, and the obvious, inevitable frictions that will surely arise from such a situation prone to constant disagreements and tension. And the worst being that I personally don't see much room for compromise here. Any sites that will be declared no-go zones by the Iranian leadership and military even on valid ground can be legitimately viewed by the other party as obstruction attempts betraying guiltiness, and reciprocally any valid request from the inspection team can constitute a case of abusive intrusion in the eyes of the Iranians, it's a nightmare ! it never ends otherwise than ultimate collapse, exactly like it did in Iraq. If in doubt, ask Hans Blix. In this scenario, there is indeed ample opportunity for a given party to push forward with ever-increasing intrusiveness on the one hand and ever-tightening limitations on the other. And in that regard, I really, REALLY hope this is only a propaganda ploy by Mr. Biden, and that his recent request doesn't resonate beyond the halls of that dinner.

Nader Uskowi said...

The procedure is clear, it would be covered under the IAEA additional protocol (AP); Iran is not the first country to sign AP. Accordingly, the IAEA informs Iran of specific buildings/sites to be visited, and the visit occurs after Iran's approval. In the emerging nuclear agreement, JCPOA, there is also a specific provision on how to resolve any dispute that might arise between IAEA and Iran over such visits.

Anonymous said...

before any ispector enters a military base , either a coup will aoverthorwn rohani or the majlis will impeach him

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your insight. Then I can only hope that the protocols are handled in a professional way and in good faith rather than driven by political bias and dishonesty, would it be on the part of any of the involved parties. Agreements and written rules in this particular field are one thing, practical application of complex undertakings implicating many complex interests in a context of residual distrust are another.

Let's see how smoothly the AP is implemented to the full extent of the required authority and its associated provisions in case all else fails.

Anonymous said...

Nader UskowiMay 1, 2015 at 6:38 AM
Why shouldnt it be practical?,if all 5 permanent members are in agreement it should only require the tabling of a resolution followed by a vote,this could literally be done within a day or two of a signing of a final agreement.

Nader Uskowi said...

@7:24AM,

The Lausanne framework agreement calls not just for annulling previous nuclear-related sanctions resolutions, but also for passing of a new UNSCR dealing with sensitive issues, like ballistic missile development. Drafting such resolution at the UNSC takes some time!

Anonymous said...

Nader Uskowi May 4, 2015 at 9:34 AM
That would be two separate resolutions,the first annulling the sanctions would be a mere formality,the second one dealing with things like missiles would take more time,but there is no requirement that they both be done at the same time

Nader Uskowi said...

That's not the issue you were discussing here. The issue was it would take more than a few hours/days to finish UN part of requirements after signing the agreement.

Anonymous said...

Nader UskowiMay 4, 2015 at 10:14 PM
Actually it is,your view is that sanctions removal would be part of some long drawn out substitution of one resolution with another whereas I have clearly shown that that does not have to be the case at all.There is absolutely no reason why the first resolution ie the removal of un sanctions shouldnt be more than a mere formality and quite separate from one dealing with missiles or whatever.. and considering irans red lines I imagine that is what iran will insist upon

Nader Uskowi said...

Not my views, I am just going by what was agreed at lausanne, and were announced by Mogherini and Zarif, that as part of JCPOA, UNSC will pass a new resolution annulling the nuclear-related sanctions and putting in place restrictions, including restriction related to the ballistic missile program.