Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(31,960 posts)
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 11:42 AM Sep 2016

Exclusive: U.S., others agreed to 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal - report

Source: Reuters

The United States and its negotiating partners agreed "in secret" to allow Iran to evade some restrictions in last year's landmark nuclear agreement in order to meet the deadline for it to start getting relief from economic sanctions, according to a report reviewed by Reuters.

The report is to be published on Thursday by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said the think tank’s president David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and co-author of the report. It is based on information provided by several officials of governments involved in the negotiations, who Albright declined to identify.

Reuters could not independently verify the report's assertions.

"The exemptions or loopholes are happening in secret, and it appears that they favor Iran," Albright said.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-exemptions-exclusive-idUSKCN1173LA

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Exclusive: U.S., others agreed to 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal - report (Original Post) alp227 Sep 2016 OP
This is not good news for Pres Obama leftynyc Sep 2016 #1
That think tank has manufactured claim after claim -- and nothing has really stuck karynnj Sep 2016 #6
Then there's this jehop61 Sep 2016 #2
So now former leftynyc Sep 2016 #3
If they are KNOWN to have been against the Iran deal -- and that guy - karynnj Sep 2016 #7
Perhaps he thinks he knows leftynyc Sep 2016 #8
I trust my President and his Secretary of State over Netanyahu karynnj Sep 2016 #9
Those labels don't really work leftynyc Sep 2016 #10
That's not the choice: chose between Obama and Bibi karynnj Sep 2016 #11
That's complicated leftynyc Sep 2016 #12
I am not making it Obama vs Iran -- I know it was the P5 +1 karynnj Sep 2016 #13
And once again you ignore leftynyc Sep 2016 #14
How many times do Obama, Kerry and Moniz - plus foreign leaders karynnj Sep 2016 #15
IBTL! nt bananas Sep 2016 #4
Pfftt. GTFOOH with that sensationalist nonsense. Imperialism Inc. Sep 2016 #5
 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
1. This is not good news for Pres Obama
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 12:00 PM
Sep 2016

or Hillary or anyone else who SWORE up and down that the safeguards were in place to make sure Iran adhered to the agreement. Anything that proves bibi right about anything isn't good news.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
6. That think tank has manufactured claim after claim -- and nothing has really stuck
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:33 PM
Sep 2016

If you remember, the Republicans fought against a US company buying heavy water ---- even though it was essential to remove it from Iran. In other words, the Republicans with their neo buddies and probably Israel did and are doing everything under their power to make it impossible for Iran TO COMPLY.

None of these "revelations" no matter how packaged by a neo con -- and the guy quoted is a neo con -- change the fact that Iran is now fixed at about 1 year from having a bomb ... and Netanyahu himself said they were at 2 months before the deal. Add to that that there is monitoring.

PS any time you start to think Bibi was right on this, remember that Israeli defense people STOPPED him from bombing Iran before the deal. Not to mention, many sane people in Israeli government have said that Iran not having a bomb makes Israel safer.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
7. If they are KNOWN to have been against the Iran deal -- and that guy -
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:35 PM
Sep 2016

no matter how Reuters claimed he was neutral -- was jaundiced on every assessment he made.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
9. I trust my President and his Secretary of State over Netanyahu
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 06:12 AM
Sep 2016

If Bibi were American, would you support him or see him as right wing and a hawk?

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
10. Those labels don't really work
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 07:30 AM
Sep 2016

anywhere but in the US. Other country's conservatives are not like ours. Yes, he's a hawk - but only in defense of Israel which I would expect of any leader of their country. If Canada was shooting missiles into Michigan, yes, I would expect my President to do anything he/she could to put a stop to it. I also trust bibi a shitload more than I trust the mullahs in Iran.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
12. That's complicated
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 09:15 AM
Sep 2016

since Pres Obama isn't the only one involved here. I don't trust France, I don't trust Germany, I REALLY don't trust Russia - like a lot of right wingers, you want to make this as if it were only Pres Obama and Iran who were part of this deal. That's not the truth.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
13. I am not making it Obama vs Iran -- I know it was the P5 +1
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 10:30 AM
Sep 2016

There is no one in government that I trust more than John Kerry, but on this deal, while saying it would not have happened without him, I actually trust the deal more because Secretary Moniz was key on all the nuclear issues. Moniz was an MIT nuclear physics professor before becoming Secretary of Energy. I trust both Moniz and Kerry on a personal level. Both are known for their honesty and integrity. However, Moniz is speaking from PERSONAL expertise on nuclear issues. This precludes any argument that while he is sincere, he could be fooled by "experts".

As to Netanyahu, even his allies in Israel do not go out of their way to call him honest. In fact, before the last election, he told a far right group that he was against the 2 state solution - something he had backed. Then days after winning, he was back to him prior (not very believable ) position. So, with Netanyahu, the only reason to believe him is because you think you know his motivation and for that reason, you agree.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
14. And once again you ignore
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 10:34 AM
Sep 2016

the mullahs in Iran when it comes to matters of trust. I wouldnt' trust those motherfuckers if they told me it was daytime. Are you understanding that yet?

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
15. How many times do Obama, Kerry and Moniz - plus foreign leaders
Fri Sep 2, 2016, 10:49 AM
Sep 2016

have to say it is not based on trust. Moniz led on designing the way things will be monitored. What you intentionally ignore is that many things that Iran HAD to do before the January implementation of the deal were real and make a nuclear bomb far less likely.

1) The amount of uranium was reduced from the level where they had sufficient enriched uranium for several bombs. They were in a position, where if they decided to do so, it would take 2 months to get nuclear weapons. Now, they do not have anywhere near enough enriched uranium to make even one bomb. If they decided to violate the agreement, it would take about a year and we would know they were trying - something we would not have known without the agreement and monitoring.

2) They filled critical areas of a plutonium reactor with cement - destroying it in a way that it could not be restored.

The fact is - in terms of Iran getting a nuclear bomb - even Bibi knows that it is less likely now than it was a year ago when the deal was made.

The truth is that for many people - Bibi and the neo cons - the issue was NEVER just Iran getting a bomb. Their problem is that making this deal has made Iran less a pariah nation. If you read their statements, they really would have preferred permanent increasingly onerous sanctions. Why? They were making like incredibly hard for many in Iran. You might want to read the various articles on the impact of less severe sanctions for a decade on Iraq. Some actually preferred bombing Iran.

Are you understanding what the alternatives to negotiating this deal were? Do you understand that the details of this deal are better than anyone hoped for, especially in terms of monitoring? Do you understand that ANY deal would not have met Netanyahu's approval unless it involved regime change as well?

Imperialism Inc.

(2,495 posts)
5. Pfftt. GTFOOH with that sensationalist nonsense.
Thu Sep 1, 2016, 03:48 PM
Sep 2016

It was reported to the congress nearly 8 months ago. Some allowances for unrecoverable uranium in waste products, to keep the very important deal on track. Not a big deal at all.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Exclusive: U.S., others a...