The Iran Nuclear Deal & debunking the North Korea (conservative) myths.

The Iran Nuclear Deal…….

The Iran Nuclear Negotiations: Involved Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers U.S., France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia. The negotiations encompasses coming to a consensus on a political framework followed by implementations that would be tied to a gradual easing of sanctions against Tehran.

“After many months of principled diplomacy, the P5+1 — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia and Germany — along with the European Union, have achieved a long-term comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran that will verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and ensure that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful going forward.” –, 2015.

A Brevity; Iran Nuclear Deal:Building a nuclear bomb requires either uranium or plutonium. Iran would needs two key elements to construct a uranium bomb: tens of thousands of centrifuges and enough highly enriched uranium to produce enough material to construct a uranium bomb. The Natanz facility and the Fordow facility currently enrich uranium and Iran has a Uranium stockpile that create 8 to 10 Nuclear Bombs.

Under the Iran Nuclear Deal; Iran must reduce its stockpile of uranium by 98%, and will keep its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67%. Significantly, below the enrichment level needed to create a bomb. Iran has nearly 20,000 centrifuges between their Natanz and Fordow facilities. However, under the Iran Nuclear Deal, Iran must reduce its centrifuges to 6,104 for the next 10 years. No enrichment will be allowed at the Fordow facility at all, and the only centrifuges Iran will be allowed to use are their oldest and least efficient models. Most importantly, what is blocked? Highly enriched Uranium at Natanz facility; highly enriched Uranium at Fordow facility; Weapons-Grades Plutonium and covert attempts to produce fissile material – Are All Blocked. So in a nutshell, the Iran Nuclear Deal cuts off all Iran’s potential pathways to a Nuclear Bomb.

       More in-depth details can be found on issue/Foreign Policy/Iran -Deal

Debunking; the North Korea Agreed Framework (1994) comparison to the Iran Nuclear Deal (2015).

These flawed comparisons failed to note several key differences between the substance of the two agreements and between the situations of the two countries at the time the deals were made. The Iran Nuclear deal is much more detailed than the North Korea Agreed Framework (1994) which was about 4 pages in length. Moreover, both countries circumstances are different. State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf   stated; “the comparison is just – they’re completely different things, and I’m happy to talk through why a little bit. The comprehensive deal we are seeking to negotiate with Iran is fundamentally different than what we did in terms of our approach to North Korea.”

In support of her claim; in the early 1990s, North Korea had already produced weapons-grade plutonium prior to agreeing to limited IAEA inspections. Important to note; that after the agreed Framework with North Korea (1994) only agreed to more intrusion some 8 years later which was in 2002. On the other hand, the Iran Nuclear deal puts in place immediate inspections plus they also have additional protocols in place.

In addition; according to Paul Pillar, non-resident senior fellow for both the Center for Security Studies and the Brookings Institution, said that; “The Agreed Framework was a sketchy four-page document that provided for little in the way of monitoring and enforcement. In contrast, the leading feature of the Iran Nuclear agreement being negotiated with Iran is its unprecedented degree of monitoring and inspections. Moreover, the final agreement will have an enforcement and dispute resolution mechanism consistent with the Additional Protocol pertaining to work of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

Also, I realize that a lot of people are missing a key component in the Iran Nuclear deal which sets it apart from the North Korea (1994). Unlike North Korean Agreement, “The P5+1 Are Unified In Wanting To Prevent Iran From Acquiring Nuclear Weapons.  For instance, all members of the P5+1, including Russia and China, are involved and invested in the deal, unlike the bilateral North Korean deal between only the U.S. and North Korea (CEIP, 2015). Thus, the 1994 North Korea Agreed Framework was a bilateral negotiations between the United States and the DPRK alone. The 1994 Agreed Framework did not involve the other P5 nor did they invested in it and its enforcement.

This time round, according to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2015); the P5+1 perceive major national and collective interests in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and in upholding the NPT. For instance, each of the P5+1 member states has invested national interest in demonstrating that their collective effort can mitigate a threat to international peace and security.

This is explicitly demonstrated in the P5+1 actions such as; authorizing and enforcing an unprecedented array of economic sanctions on Iran. So the collective actions thus far only validates reason to believe that, they all are prepared to hold Iran accountable to the terms of the Nuclear agreement (July. 14. 2015).

Emmanuel Quashie


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s