BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
NORTON META TAG
Showing posts with label Sec of State Kerry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sec of State Kerry. Show all posts
SO many critics about the Obama administration's plans and actions against daesh, and so few of them offer realistic alternative plans of actions. Anyone of any political party trying to use the terrorist attacks in Paris for their own political gain is disgusting. We should be united in our efforts to defeat and destroy terrorism and if suggestions and opinions are to be expressed they should be realistic and practical, not propaganda, fear-mongering, misinformation and deception. +Senator Tim Kaine has been calling for congress to to pass authorization for the American war on daesh / isis for months to no avail. A dangerous precedence is being set allowing our President to wage war without congressional authorization, and congress should hold a debate and vote on AUMF to be on record on the matter and also to take a stand for the defense of our Republic's constitution. These from Sen Tim Kaine's website, +Mother Jones and +PolitiFact ......
In the wake of the
Paris attacks last week, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) a member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, took to the Senate floor today to
renew his call for Congress to debate and vote on an Authorization for
Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIL. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who
introduced a compromise AUMF with Kaine in June, joined him on the
Senate floor to express his support for a debate on war authorization.
In
the wake of the Paris attacks last week, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) a
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, took to the Senate
floor today to renew his call for Congress to debate and vote on an
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIL. Sen. Jeff
Flake (R-AZ), who introduced a compromise AUMF with Kaine in June,
joined him on the Senate floor to express his support for a debate on
war authorization.
Yes, Obama Does Have an Anti-ISIS Plan "to Take Out These Bastards"
At
a Monday press conference at the G20 meeting in Turkey, President
Barack Obama was repeatedly asked by American reporters a version of
this question: What are you doing to defeat ISIS? CNN's Jim Acosta put
it in these Twitterish terms:
"Why can't we take out these bastards?" His passionate formulation
seemed to imply that the Obama administration was not doing everything
reasonably possible to vanquish ISIS. And throughout the presser, Obama
explained that there was a strategy in place, asserted that other ideas
(such as sending in ground troops or establishing a no-fly zone in
Syria) were constantly being scrutinized, and expressed frustration that
he was being asked the same question (what's your plan?) repeatedly.
Obama was right. He does have a strategy, and for more than a year
the United States has taken many actions to thwart ISIS. Whether these
steps are the best that can be attempted (weighing all the complicated
costs and benefits) is subject to debate. But Obama's
opponents—particularly those Republicans seeking to succeed him in the
White House—often assail him as if he's a feckless, do-nothing
commander-in-chief who has no understanding of ISIS and has mounted
practically no effort to counter these murderous extremists. But that's
hardly the case.
Ask
the White House what the president has done to combat ISIS—the
president prefers to call the group ISIL—and aides will quickly point
out that Obama has forged a coalition of 65 nations that are supporting
local forces in Iraq fighting against ISIS. This effort has launched
8,100 airstrikes on ISIS targets in a little more than a year. (For
comparison's sake, there have been about 400 drone strikes against targets in Pakistan since 2004.) The White House notes that US military forces recently struck 116 ISIS fuel trucks
and disrupted the group's oil-smuggling and financing capabilities. And
two weeks ago the president announced he would be sending additional special operations forces
to work with Kurds battling ISIS in northern Syria. At the same time,
Obama noted the administration would step up supplying equipment to
anti-ISIS forces in Syria.
For weeks, administration reps have been describing their anti-ISIS efforts. In late October, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter testified
on Capitol Hill and claimed that the US military effort to help
moderate Syrians fighting to gain control of Raqqa, an ISIS stronghold
in Syria, had made gains and that these Syrians were 30 miles from the
strategically important city. He noted the overall air campaign against
ISIS was intensifying, and he said the United States was prepared to
provide more air support and equipment to Iraqi forces battling ISIS,
provided that the Iraqis demonstrate progress and the ability to
preserve recent gains in Anbar province. "We've given the Iraqi
government two battalions' worth of equipment for mobilizing Sunni
tribal forces," Carter said. "As we continue to provide this support,
the Iraqi government must ensure it is distributed effectively."
Carter cited recent successes on the ground: the Kurdish-led hostage rescue mission
in northern Iraq and assorted raids against ISIS leaders: "The raid on
Abu Sayyaf's home, and strikes against Junaid Hussain and most recently
Sanafi al-Nasr, should all serve notice to ISIL and other terrorist
leaders that once we locate them, no target is beyond our reach." He
told the senators that all the ideas touted by Obama's critics—a no-fly
zone, a buffer zone, humanitarian zone—had been reviewed and pose their
own challenges.
In a November 12 speech,
Secretary of State John Kerry also outlined details of the
administration's anti-ISIS campaign. He said that the number of
airstrikes was rising: "There were more than 40 just last night." He
added that "the coalition and its allies on the ground have defended
Mosul Dam and other vital facilities in Iraq while also preventing a
terrorist assault on Baghdad. We have driven [ISIS] from the critical
border town of Kobani…We've seen the city of Tikrit liberated." He
pointed out that "thousands of American advisers" were training and
assisting Iraqi security forces. "We have significantly degraded
[ISIS's] top leadership, including Haji Mutazz, the organization's
second in command," Kerry added, "and we continue to eliminate
commanders and other personnel from the battlefield."
And there's more: helping Iraqi forces aiming to take back Ramadi and
boosting the shipment of supplies and ammo to Syrians fighting ISIS.
Also, Kerry remarked, the Obama administration was trying to bolster the
efforts of its European allies and those allies in the region: "Not
long ago, [ISIS] controlled more than half of Syria's 500-mile-long
border with Turkey. Today, it has a grip on only about 15 percent, and
we have a plan with our partners to pry open and secure the rest." And,
Kerry noted, the administration had been pushing a diplomatic initiative
in Syria aimed at deescalating the conflict within that country, which,
if successful, would allow for a more concentrated multilateral assault
on ISIS.
"Remember, this [anti-ISIS] coalition has only been together for 14
months," Kerry said. And administration officials like to toss out this
particular stat: ISIS has lost between 20 and 25 percent of the
populated territory it used to control in Iraq.
So Obama and his team can recite a long list of actions and a short—but significant—list of accomplishments. Still, the Paris attacks (as well as attacks in Beirut and the downing of a Russian airliner, which have been attributed to ISIS) and
the ability of ISIS to maintain its quasi-state within not one but two
countries can be cited as a sign that ISIS, to some extent, is
prevailing, even if it has lost ground.
Obama's anti-ISIS plan is nuanced, multifaceted, tethered to the
vexing realities of the region, and focused on long-term success—and it
avoids the risks and unforeseen consequences of deploying American
ground troops to directly engage with ISIS on Syrian or Iraqi territory.
It does not involve grand or sweeping actions. It does not promise
complete and immediate success by a date certain. Consequently, Obama is
vulnerable to criticism from those who claim bolder (if sometimes
unspecified) action would yield better and quicker results. Perhaps
additional steps could produce more progress. For example, Brian
Katulis, an expert on the Middle East and terrorism at the Center for
American Progress, faults Obama for not leaning hard enough on partners
in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to make busting ISIS a
top priority. But with the national discourse so thoroughly shaped by
politics and ideology, it will be hard to have a cool and reasonable
debate over alternatives or add-ons to Obama's approach.
The Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq in 2003 unleashed forces and
challenges that might require decades to counter, and Obama has been
trying to implement a series of actions to end the danger that war
generated. Yet any decent plan could take a long time to take out the
bastards.
When President Barack
Obama said ISIS, or ISIL, was contained, he "was responding very
specifically to the geographic expansion of ISIL in Iraq and Syria."
— Ben Rhodes on Sunday, November 15th, 2015 in comments on ABC's "This Week"
By Lauren Carroll on Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 4:18 p.m.
President Barack Obama discussing ISIS. (Screengrab)
Last week, President Barack Obama said
the Islamic State is "contained" -- a comment that has been scrutinized
in the wake of the deadly attacks in Paris that have been attributed to
the terrorist group.
But has Obama’s comment been taken out of context?
ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos presented White
House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes with a list of
politicians criticizing Obama for his Nov. 12 remarks. Republican
presidential candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, for example, said Obama sees the world "as a fantasy."
Rhodes said Obama was talking about a particular aspect of
containment that in no way dismissed the possibility of terrorist
attacks in the West.
"The president was responding very specifically to the geographic
expansion of ISIL in Iraq and Syria," Rhodes said, using another acronym
for the group. "A year ago, we saw them on the march in Iraq and Syria,
taking more and more population centers. The fact is that we have been
able to stop that geographic advance and take back significant amounts
of territory in both northern Iraq and northern Syria. At the same time,
that does not diminish the fact that there is a threat posed by ISIL,
not just in those countries but in their aspirations to project power
overseas."
This reminded us of a prior fact-check, when Obama said he didn’t
specifically describe ISIS as a "JV team" -- a statement we rated False
because he was clearly talking about the Islamic State at the time. We
decided to look back at Obama’s comments on containing ISIS to see his
comments in their complete context. Rewind
In the context of Obama’s Nov. 12 interview with Stephanopoulos
-- the day before the Paris attacks -- it’s actually quite clear that
when he says ISIS is contained, he is talking about ISIS’s territorial
expansion in Syria and Iraq. Here are the relevant parts of the
interview:
Stephanopoulos: "Some of
your critics say, even your friendly critics say, like Fareed Zakaria,
that what you have on the ground now is not going to be enough. Every
couple of months you're going to be faced with the same choice of back
down or double down."
Obama: "I think what is
true is that this has always been a multiyear project precisely because
the governance structures in the Sunni areas of Iraq are weak, and there
are none in Syria. And we don't have ground forces there in sufficient
numbers to simply march into Al-Raqqah in Syria and clean the whole
place out. And as a consequence, we've always understood that our goal
has to be militarily constraining ISIL's capabilities, cutting off their
supply lines, cutting off their financing at the same time as we're
putting a political track together in Syria and fortifying the best
impulses in Baghdad so that we can, not just win militarily, but also
win by improving governance."
Stephanopoulos: "And that's the strategy you've been following. But ISIS is gaining strength, aren't they?"
Obama: "Well, no, I don't think they're gaining strength. What
is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain, and
we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in
Syria they'll come in, they'll leave. But you don't see this systematic
march by ISIL across the terrain. What we have not yet
been able to do is to completely decapitate their command and control
structures. We've made some progress in trying to reduce the flow of
foreign fighters."
When Obama said "we have contained them," it’s within a plainly
defined scope: ISIS’s territorial ambitions in Iraq and Syria. This
context is bolstered by the fact that Stephanopoulos asks Obama about
the ground efforts in those two countries.
He wasn’t saying, as critics have shorthanded, that ISIS no longer
presents a threat -- an assertion that the Paris attacks would have
negated. In fact, in the same interview, Obama acknowledged that ISIS
might have surpassed al-Qaida as the greatest terror threat in the
world, adding that they are constantly looking for "a crack in the
system" to exploit to carry out attacks. "I think that one of the
challenges of these international terrorist organizations is that they
don't have to have a huge amount of personnel," Obama said. Is ISIS contained in Iraq and Syria?
The region Obama refers to is significant because it’s the epicenter
of ISIS’s caliphate. We surveyed a number of experts, and they all said
Obama is accurate when he says ISIS hasn’t gained territory in Iraq and
Syria in recent months, though it does not give a full picture of ISIS’s
global reach.
"It’s a choice of words that isn’t great, but what he is referring to
-- as opposed to the way people have interpreted it -- is correct,"
said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies.
While ISIS has captured a couple towns in the past few months, it has
ultimately lost roughly a quarter of its Iraq and Syria territory
overall. A good portion of the losses resulted from United States
airstrikes but also from fighting with Iraqi forces and regional groups, Gartenstein-Ross said. This is a far cry from a year ago, when there was serious concern that ISIS would capture Baghdad.
But even though they haven’t expanded territorially recently, ISIS
continues to counterattack anti-ISIS forces in the region, noted
Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the
American Enterprise Institute. He added that ISIS has actually expanded
globally -- with strongholds and cells in Libya, Yemen, the Sinai
region, and Bangladesh, as well as establishing ties with other
terrorist organizations in Africa.
This November map from the Institute for the Study of War shows where ISIS has ties. The stars indicate where ISIS has a remote "governorate."
And, as we know from the Paris attacks, ISIS is able to flex their muscle in the West, too.
"They are being contained geographically by traditional military but
they are leapfrogging over it using terrorism," said Joshua Landis,
director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of
Oklahoma. He added that Obama used "your grandfather’s notion of
containment." Our ruling
Rhodes said that when Obama said ISIS was contained, he "was
responding very specifically to the geographic expansion of ISIL in Iraq
and Syria."
Looking back at Obama’s interview where he made this comment, it is
quite clear that it’s within a narrowly defined scope: ISIS’s
territorial expansion in Iraq and Syria. He did not rule out the
potential for a terrorist attack, and he also made it clear that the
United States’ anti-ISIS efforts are a work in progress.
References or suggestions that Obama claimed ISIS no longer presents an active threat are incorrect.
Further, experts told us that Obama is right that ISIS hasn’t
expanded in the region in recent months, though this doesn’t give a full
picture of ISIS’s global reach.
Rhodes’ statement rates True.
ABC News, This Week, Nov. 15, 2015
ABC News, "Full Interview Transcript: President Barack Obama," Nov. 12, 2015
Institute for the Study of War, "ISIS’ Global Strategy: A Wargame," July 2015
ISW, "ISIS Global Strategy," November 2015
Phone interview, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Nov. 15, 2015
Phone interview, Joshua Landis, University of Oklahoma, Nov. 15, 2015
Email interview, Frederick Kagan, American Enterprise Institute, Nov. 15, 2015
Email interview, David Schanzer, Duke University, Nov. 15, 2015
Email interview, Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution, Nov. 15, 2015
Email interview, National Security Council spokespersons Ned Price and Emily Horne, Nov. 15, 2015
برخی در برابر توافق نامه هسته ای با ایران هستند، زیرا
آنها نفرت اوباما، برخی از این دلیل که آنها شبه جناح راست است (و یا آن را
روانی؟) متعصبان مذهبی، بسیاری از آنها به دلیل داوطلبانه نادان هستند، با
دریافت همه آنها در مورد مورد از اخبار FAUX می دانم. همه
مردم صلح دوست مسئولیت به انجام همه چیز ممکن است برای جلوگیری از خوک جنگ
در کنگره از بین بردن این توافق تاریخی است که اولین گام در آوردن ایران
دوباره به جامعه جهانی و در حفظ سلاح های هسته ای از خلیج فارسی را داشته
باشد. این به این ایران را ندارد BFF ما، آن روابط دیپلماتیک با تهران بازگرداندن نیست، و آن را به وجود اگر اسرائیل را تهدید نمی کند. این کار برنامه هسته ای ایران محدود به تولید قدرت و تحقیقات پزشکی و درمان محدود می کند. ما لازم نیست تا در یکی دیگر از جنگ شرق میانه درگیر است. ما نیاز به دادن صلح شانس، اگر شما توافق می کنید لطفا روی لینک کلیک کنید و ثبت نام این درخواست. از + روزانه کوس ، + NPR و کاخ سفید .....
کریگ، ایالات متحده و
دیگر قدرت های جهانی معامله با ایران که به صورت مسالمت آمیز و به طرز
چشمگیری جلوگیری از برنامه هسته ای ایران خواهد رسید. این چیزی کمتر از یک پیروزی خیره کننده برای دیپلماسی و برائت از جهان بینی نومحافظه کاران که جنگ در شرق میانه تنها راه است.
بازهای جنگ جمهوری خواه در حال حاضر محکوم کرد معامله. ما
دموکرات نیاز به تجمع به سمت رئيس جمهور را برای متوقف کردن جمهوری خواهان
از کشتن این معامله و قرار دادن ما را به عقب در مسیر رویارویی و جنگ است. با ثبت نام در این طومار به دموکرات ها: دفاع از معامله ایران و متوقف کردن جمهوری خواهان از شروع جنگ با ایران
جمهوری خواهان تلاش برای ماه برای خرابکاری در مذاکرات پرزیدنت اوباما با ایران است. رهبران GOP محاکمه و به تصویب لایحه که می توانست به طور موثر هر معامله که رسید کشته شکست خورده است. سناتور تام پنبه
سازمان 47 از همکاران او به امضای یک نامه سرگشاده به تهران برای متوقف
کردن یک معامله قبل از مذاکرات حتی به پایان رسید-شد حرکت بی سابقه ای که
باعث خشم واکنش شدید.
این خواهد بود که آخرین شانس GOP بازهای جنگ "برای متوقف کردن این معامله. رئيس
جمهور اوباما می تواند هر موانع که جمهوری خواهان در کنگره قرار داده تا
وتو و کسانی که رای گیری خواهد ایستاد تا زمانی که دموکرات ها با رئيس
جمهور ایستاده است. به همین دلیل ما باید مطمئن شوید که دموکرات ها با رئيس جمهور در این ایستاده است. با ثبت نام در این طومار در حال حاضر.
و یک لیست از سازمان های حمایت از این معامله تاریخی و این درایو طومار در پایین این پست مراجعه کنید.
سال دیپلماسی ظریف و دهه خصومت ژئوپولیتیک راه بین شش قدرت جهانی و ایران بر سر برنامه هسته ای این کشور به یک توافق تاریخی سه.
پس از یک، دو ماراتن مذاکره جلسه نهایی که توسط یک سری از برنامه های
افزودنی مهلت در طول سه هفته قبل بود ، وزرای امور خارجه از ایالات متحده،
ایران، روسیه، چین، بریتانیا، فرانسه و آلمان به کلمه ای که آنها توافق
رسیده بود.
"این یک لحظه تاریخی است،" محمد جواد ظریف، وزیر امور خارجه ایران گفت: صبح روز سه شنبه. "ما
در حال رسیدن به یک توافق است که مناسب برای هر کسی نیست، بلکه آن چیزی
است که ما می تواند انجام، و آن را یک دستاورد مهم برای همه ما است. امروز
می تواند پایان امید در مورد این موضوع بوده است. اما در حال حاضر ما در
حال راه اندازی فصل جدیدی از امید است. "
تلفن در کنگره برای حمایت از معامله پرزیدنت اوباما گفت، توافق قطع تمام مسیر ایران به سمت سلاح هسته ای است. او
گفت که جایگزینی برای این معامله به ایران نزدیک به تبدیل شدن به یک قدرت
هسته ای را ترک کرده و به یک رویارویی نظامی با ایران بیشتر.
اوباما گفت: "ما که در هیچ با آزمایش یا نه این مشکل می تواند حل مسالمت آمیز،"
با توجه به طرح کلی از معامله
انجام شده توسط دولت اوباما قرار داده، شرایط هنوز هم به ایران اجازه غنی
سازی اورانیوم، اما تنها به 3.67 درصد، که برای اهداف غیر نظامی مورد نیاز
است، اما بسیار کمتر از که برای یک سلاح مورد نیاز است. این
قرارداد همچنین مرتکب ایران برای کاهش در تعداد و نوع سانتریفیوژ آن می
توانید استفاده کنید، می راه اندازی یک رژیم بازرسی جامع و توانایی های
هسته ای از امکانات بحث برانگیز هسته ای ایران محدود: فردو پناهگاه
زیرزمینی و راکتور آب سنگین اراک.
وزیر امور خارجه جان کری گفت: خط پایین این است که این معامله به زمان
برک آوت به اصطلاح ایران را افزایش می دهد - و یا زمان آن را می تواند
ایران را به مواد به اندازه کافی برای یک بمب هسته ای است. به گفته کری، پس از آن که مورد اجرا، زمان برک آوت ایران می رود از دو تا سه ماه تا یک سال یا بیشتر.
در مقابل، سازمان ملل متحد و قدرت های غربی را تحریم در فاز قطره، به
ایران تزریق سرمایه، و مهم تر ، اجازه می دهد آن را به دوباره سیستم مالی
بین المللی و فروش نفت بیشتر است.
با اعلام این معامله، فدریکا موگرینی، نماینده عالی اتحادیه اروپا در
امور سیاست خارجی و امنیت، گفت که این معامله به معنای ایران پذیرفته شده
است که برنامه هسته ای خود را "منحصرا صلح آمیز" باقی می ماند و یک "تغییر
اساسی" در راه کشور برنامه هسته ای خود متعهد علامت.
او گفت: "تعهد مشترک برای صلح، ما در مورد آنچه جهان برای امیدوار بود تحویل".
وی افزود: "آنچه که ما امروز اعلام می نیست . تنها یک معامله، آن را یک معامله خوب است "
در بسیاری از راه های، با این حال، این به مراتب بیش از: توافق هنوز به پایتخت های مختلف جهان تصویب شود.
در واشنگتن، که در آن کنگره دو ماه به بررسی این معامله، در میان جمهوری خواهان منفور بوده است. (اگر
شما به یاد داشته باشید، با وجود اعتراضات مردمی از سوی کاخ سفید، رئیس
جمهوری خواه جان بونر دعوت بنیامین نتانیاهو، نخست وزیر اسرائیل به صحبت می کنند به کنگره در برابر معامله .)
تنها چند ساعت پس از معامله اعلام شد، بونر صادر توبیخ داغدار از معامله، سیگنالینگ مبارزه قانونگذاری سختی پیش رو.
بونر گفت معامله به امروز مشخص شده کاهش یافت کوتاه به دلیل آن به طور کامل از بین بردن قابلیت های هسته ای ایران نیست. او
گفت به جای مهار جاه طلبی های هسته ای ایران، این معامله بود "به احتمال
زیاد به سوخت یک مسابقه تسلیحاتی هسته ای در سراسر جهان است."
بونر گفت: "ما مبارزه خواهد کرد یک معامله بد این است که اشتباه برای امنیت ملی ما و اشتباه برای کشور ما،"
از آنجا که انقلاب ایران در سال 1979، موضوع هسته ای ایران بیگانه است و احسان قدرت های غربی. اما رسیدن به یک راه حل فراگیر شده است از اولویت های سیاست خارجی برای رئیس جمهور اوباما بوده است. با آغاز مذاکرات محرمانه در پایان سال 2009 ، ایالات متحده و ایران زمینه را برای توافق گذاشته شد. در سپتامبر 2013 با یک تماس تلفنی به حسن روحانی، رئیس جمهور ایران ، اوباما اولین رئيس جمهور آمریکا از سال 1979. به صحبت می کنند به طور مستقیم به سر ایران از دولت شد
که تماس تلفنی درها را برای معامله موقت، که باز در نوامبر 2013 رسیده بود P5 + 1 (پنج عضو دائم شورای امنیت سازمان ملل متحد. - آمریکا، روسیه، چین، بریتانیا، فرانسه - به اضافه آلمان) و ایران و سپس چارچوب یک پیمان در ماه آوریل رسیده است . پس
از جا می گیرد و شروع می شود و عدم توافق در مسائل است که در در آن توافق
لمس شد، دیپلمات ها در وین ظهور اواخر امروز گفت که آنها آماده به تاریخ
بود.
پیتر کنیون NPR به ما می گوید که آن هنوز نامشخص است آنچه در آن به معنی
در صورتی که معامله بودند به رد شده توسط یک یا چند از احزاب است.
"آنها می تواند تلاش برای تعیین زمان تلاش تجدید، اما به عنوان یک موضوع
عملی، کارشناسان عدم اشاعه می گویند، آن را از حرکت و به احتمال زیاد منجر
به شکست دیگر را می کشند،" پیتر گفت ما. "در سال 2005، آن را به چند سال از تجمع، خصومت و تحریم شده است. اما یک آیین نامه منتشره که احتمال وجود ندارد."
همچنین در کسی که آن را رد می کند بستگی دارد. اگر آن را در ایالات متحده و یا ایران، "آن را احتمالا به معنی بدون بازگشت سریع به جدول،" پیتر می گوید:
بعد از ماهها دیپلماسی اصولی، P5 + 1 - ایالات متحده آمریکا، انگلستان،
فرانسه، چین، روسیه و آلمان - همراه با اتحادیه اروپا، در دراز مدت معامله
هسته ای جامع با ایران دست یافته اند که قابل بررسی خواهد شد جلوگیری ایران
از دستیابی به سلاح هسته ای و اطمینان حاصل شود که برنامه هسته ای ایران
خواهد بود منحصرا صلح آمیز رفتن به جلو.
این معامله می ایستد در پایه و اساس طرح مشترک اقدام (JPOA)، به دست آورد
در ماه نوامبر سال 2013، و چارچوب برای این طرح جامع مشترک اقدام (JCPOA)،
در لوزان در 2015 آوریل 2 که مجموعه ای از الزامات مورد نیاز برای مقابله
با P5 + 1 و ایران، در کنار اتحادیه اروپا اعلام کرد امروز اعلام کرد.
در حال حاضر، با این معامله در محل، ایالات متحده، متحدان ما، و جامعه
بین المللی می تواند می دانم که سخت، نیازهای جدید از دستیابی ایران به
سلاح هسته ای را حفظ خواهد کرد. در اینجا نحوه:
مسدود کردن چهار مسیرهای به سلاح هسته ای
ساخت بمب هسته ای نیازمند اورانیوم یا پلوتونیوم. اما به لطف این معامله، چهار راه های ممکن ایران به اهرم آن دسته از مواد شکافت پذیر هستند مسدود شده است.
مسیرهای اورانیوم در نطنز و فردو
ایران دو عنصر کلیدی به ساخت یک بمب اورانیوم: دهها هزار نفر از
سانتریفیوژ و اورانیوم غنی سازی به اندازه کافی برای تولید مواد به اندازه
کافی برای ساخت یک بمب اورانیوم است.
در حال حاضر دو تاسیسات غنی سازی اورانیوم در این کشور وجود دارد: تاسیسات نطنز و تاسیسات فردو.
بیایید نگاهی به ذخایر اورانیوم ایران برای اولین بار. در حال حاضر، ایران دارای ذخایر اورانیوم برای ایجاد 8 تا ده بمب هسته ای است.
اما به لطف این معامله هسته ای، ایران باید ذخایر اورانیوم 98٪ کاهش می
دهد، و سطح آن از غنی سازی اورانیوم در 3.67٪ را حفظ خواهد کرد - به طور
قابل توجهی پایین تر از سطح غنی سازی مورد نیاز برای ایجاد یک بمب.
ایران همچنین باید دهها هزار نفر از سانتریفیوژ برای ایجاد اورانیوم بسیار غنی برای یک بمب. در حال حاضر، ایران نزدیک به 20000 سانتریفیوژ بین نطنز و فردو امکانات خود را. اما اساس این قرارداد، ایران باید سانتریفیوژ خود را به 6104 برای ده سال آینده را کاهش دهد. بدون
غنی سازی خواهد شد در تاسیسات فردو اجازه در همه، و تنها سانتریفیوژهای
ایران خواهد شد مجاز به استفاده از مدل قدیمی ترین و کارآمد حداقل خود می
باشد.
به طور خلاصه، در اینجا تفاوت این معامله تاریخی خواهد ساخت است:
مسیر پلوتونیوم در رآکتور اراک
راه سوم ایران می تواند سلاح هسته ای ساخت است با استفاده از پلوتونیوم با درجه تسلیحاتی. تنها سایت که در آن ایران می تواند این انجام رآکتور اراک، یک راکتور هسته ای آب سنگین است. در
حال حاضر، این رآکتور را می توان در یک برنامه سلاح استفاده می شود، اما
اساس این قرارداد، رآکتور اراک خواهد شد دوباره به شکلی طراحی می تواند هر
پلوتونیوم با درجه تسلیحاتی تولید نمی کند. و تمام میله های
سوخت مصرف شده (که می تواند مواد مورد نیاز برای تولید پلوتونیوم با درجه
تسلیحاتی است) خواهد شد به خارج از کشور فرستاده تا زمانی که این رآکتور
وجود دارد. چه چیزی بیشتر، ایران قادر نخواهد بود برای ساخت یک راکتور آب سنگین تنها به مدت حداقل 15 سال است. بدان معنی است که، به دلیل این معامله، ایران دیگر نمی خواهد یک منبع برای تولید پلوتونیوم با درجه تسلیحاتی داشته باشد.
یک مسیر مخفی به ساخت یک برنامه هسته ای مخفی
سه مسیر قبلی در مراکز که ایران اعلام کرده است رخ می دهد. اما اگر آنها سعی می کنند برای ساخت یک برنامه هسته ای در مخفی؟ به همین دلیل این معامله بسیار مهم است. تحت قرارداد جدید هسته ای، ایران به فوق العاده و قوی نظارت، تأیید، و بازرسی متعهد شده است. بازرسان
بین المللی از آژانس بین المللی انرژی اتمی (IAEA) نه تنها به طور مداوم
نظارت بر خواهد هر عنصر از ایران برنامه هسته ای اعلام کرد، اما آنها نیز
خواهد تایید کرد که هیچ مواد شکاف پذیر مخفیانه carted به یک محل مخفی برای
ساخت یک بمب. و اگر بازرسان آژانس از یک مکان مشکوک آگاه،
ایران موافقت کرده است که اجرای پروتکل الحاقی به موافقتنامه پادمان آژانس
بین المللی انرژی خود را، که اجازه خواهد داد که بازرسان برای دسترسی به هر
سایت و بازرسی آنها بدانند مشکوک. چنین سوء ظن را می توان با
سوراخ در زمین است که می تواند معادن اورانیوم، گزارش های اطلاعاتی، خرید
غیر قابل توضیح یا آلارم ایزوتوپ تحریک می شود.
در واقع، از مواد دقیقه که می تواند برای یک سلاح استفاده می شود که از
زمین بیرون به دقیقه از آن است که در خارج از کشور حمل می آید، آژانس
بینالمللی انرژی اتمی به چشم در آن را دارند و در هر نقطه ایران می تواند
امتحان کنید و آن را:
چه برنامه هسته ای ایران می خواهم بدون این معامله نگاه
آن را به عنوان امروزه، ایران دارای ذخایر بزرگی از اورانیوم غنی شده و
نزدیک به 20000 سانتریفیوژ، به اندازه کافی برای ایجاد 8 تا 10 بمب. اگر
ایران تصمیم به عجله برای ساخت یک بمب بدون معامله در محل، آن را آنها را 2
تا 3 ماه تا زمانی که به حال سلاح آماده سازی اورانیوم به اندازه کافی (یا
اورانیوم بسیار غنی) برای ساخت اولین سلاح هسته ای خود را. چپ
بدون کنترل، که ذخایر و تعداد سانتریفیوژ نمایی رشد، عملا تضمین که ایران
می تواند یک بمب و ایجاد ایجاد یک سرعت - در صورتی که چنین انتخاب کرد.
این معامله را حذف عناصر کلیدی مورد نیاز برای ایجاد یک بمب و افزایش
زمان برک آوت ایران از 2-3 ماه تا 1 سال یا بیشتر اگر ایران تعهدات خود را
شکست. نکته مهم، ایران هیچ تسکین تحریم های جدید به خود جلب
نکرد تا زمانی که آژانس بینالمللی انرژی اتمی تایید می کند که ایران از
طریق با پایان آن از معامله است. و باید به ایران هر جنبه ای
از این معامله، سازمان ملل متحد، ایالات متحده را نقض، و اتحادیه اروپا می
تواند تحریم ها که اقتصاد ایران دوباره به جای فلج کرده ضربه محکم و
ناگهانی.
اینجا چیزی است که ایران به متعهد شده است:
تفاوت این معامله قابل توجه است. نگاهی به دقیقا همان چیزی است برنامه هسته ای ایران خواهد شد مانند در حال حاضر تحت این معامله نگاه:
SOME are against the nuclear agreement with Iran because they hate
Obama, some because they are right wing pseudo (or is it psycho?)
religious fanatics, many because they are voluntarily ignorant, having
received all they know about the agreement from faux news. All peace
loving people have a responsibility to do everything possible to prevent
the war pigs in Congress from destroying this historic agreement that
is the first step in bringing Iran back into the world community and in
keeping nuclear weapons out of the Persian Gulf. This doesn't make Iran
our BFF, it doesn't restore diplomatic relations with Tehran, and it
doesn't threaten the existence if Israel. It does limit Iran's nuclear
program restricted to power production and medical research and
treatment. We do not need to get involved in another Middle East war. We
do need to give peace a chance, if you agree please click the link and
sign this petition. From +Daily Kos, +NPR and The White House ..... Craig, the United States and other world
powers have reached a deal with Iran that will peacefully and
dramatically curb Iran’s nuclear program. This is nothing short of a
stunning victory for diplomacy and a repudiation of the neoconservative
worldview that war in the Middle East is the only way.
Republican war hawks have already denounced the deal. We need Democrats
to rally to the president's side to stop Republicans from killing this
deal and putting us back on the path to confrontation and war.
Republicans tried for months to sabotage President Obama’s negotiations
with Iran. GOP leaders tried and failed to pass a bill that would have
effectively killed any deal that was reached. Sen. Tom Cotton
organized 47 of his colleagues to sign an open letter to Tehran to stop
a deal before negotiations were even finished—an unprecedented move
that caused intense backlash outrage.
This will be GOP war hawks’ last chance to stop this deal. President
Obama can veto any roadblocks that Republicans in Congress put up and
those vetoes will stand as long as Democrats stand with the president.
That’s why we need to make sure Democrats stand with the president on
this.
Years
of delicate diplomacy and decades of geopolitical animosity gave way to
a historic agreement Tuesday between six world powers and Iran over the
country's nuclear program.
After a final, marathon negotiating
session that was preceded by a series of deadline extensions over the
course of three weeks, foreign ministers from the U.S., Iran, Russia,
China, U.K., France and Germany gave word that they had reached an
accord.
"This is a historic moment," Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tuesday morning. "We are reaching an agreement
that is not perfect for anybody, but it is what we could accomplish,
and it is an important achievement for all of us. Today could have been
the end of hope on this issue. But now we are starting a new chapter of
hope."
Calling on Congress to support the deal, President Obama
said the agreement cuts off all the pathways Iran has toward a nuclear
weapon. He said the alternative to this deal would leave Iran closer to
becoming a nuclear power and would make a military confrontation with
Iran more likely.
"We give up nothing by testing whether or not this problem can be solved peacefully," Obama said.
According to the outline of the deal
put out by the Obama administration, the terms would still allow Iran
to enrich uranium, but only to 3.67 percent, which is needed for
civilian purposes but much lower than would needed for a weapon. The
deal also commits Iran to cut down on the number and types of
centrifuges it can use, would set up a comprehensive inspections regime
and limit the nuclear capabilities of Iran's most controversial nuclear
facilities: the underground bunker Fordow and the Arak heavy-water
reactor.
Secretary of State John Kerry said the bottom line is
that the deal would increase Iran's so-called breakout time — or the
time it could take Iran to make enough material for a nuclear bomb.
According to Kerry, once the agreement is implemented, Iran's breakout
time goes from two to three months to one year or more.
In
exchange, the United Nations and Western powers would drop sanctions in
phases, giving Iran an infusion of capital and, more importantly,
allowing it to rejoin international financial systems and sell more oil.
Announcing
the deal, Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European
Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said the deal meant Iran
accepted that its nuclear program would remain "exclusively peaceful"
and would mark a "fundamental shift" in the way the country undertakes
its nuclear program.
"We delivered on what the world was hoping for: a shared commitment for peace," she said.
She added: "What we are announcing today is not only a deal; it's a good deal."
In a lot of ways, however, this is far from over: The agreement still has to be approved by various world capitals.
In
Washington, where Congress has two months to review the deal, it has
been unpopular among Republicans. (If you remember, despite
protestations from the White House, Republican Speaker John Boehner
invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress against the deal.)
Just
hours after the deal was announced, Boehner issued a scathing rebuke of
the deal, signaling the tough legislative fight ahead.
Boehner
said the deal outlined today fell short because it did not completely
dismantle Iran's nuclear capabilities. He said instead of curbing Iran's
nuclear ambitions, the deal was "likely to fuel a nuclear arms race
around the world."
"We will fight a bad deal that is wrong for our national security and wrong for our country," Boehner said.
Since
the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the nuclear issue has alienated Iran
and vexed Western powers. But reaching a sweeping solution has been a
foreign policy priority for President Obama. Beginning with secret talks at the end of 2009, the U.S. and Iran laid the groundwork for an agreement. With a phone call to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in September 2013, Obama became the first American president to speak directly to an Iranian head of state since 1979.
That phone call opened the door for an interim deal, which was reached in November 2013.
The P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security
Council — U.S., Russia, China, U.K., France — plus Germany) and Iran
then reached a framework accord in April.
After fits and starts and disagreements over issues that were touched
on in that accord, diplomats emerged in Vienna late today saying they
were ready to make history.
NPR's Peter Kenyon tells us that it
is still unclear what it would mean if the deal were to be rejected by
one or more of the parties.
"They could try to set a date for a
renewed effort, but as a practical matter, non-proliferation experts
say, it would kill the momentum and likely lead to a longer setback,"
Peter told us. "In 2005, it led to several years of buildup, hostility
and sanctions. But there isn't a rulebook for that eventuality."
It also depends on who rejects it. If it's the U.S. or Iran, "it probably means no quick return to the table," Peter says
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.
This deal stands on the foundation of the Joint Plan of Action
(JPOA), achieved in November of 2013, and the framework for this Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), announced in Lausanne on April 2,
2015 that set the requirements for the deal with the P5+ 1 and Iran,
alongside the European Union announced today.
Now, with this deal in place, the U.S., our allies, and the
international community can know that tough, new requirements will keep
Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Here's how:
Blocking the Four Pathways to a Nuclear Weapon
Building a nuclear bomb requires either uranium or plutonium. But
thanks to this deal, Iran’s four possible ways to leverage those fissile
materials are blocked.
The Uranium pathways at Natanz and Fordow
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.
There are currently two uranium enrichment facilities in the country: the Natanz facility and the Fordow facility.
Let’s take a look at Iran’s uranium stockpile first. Currently, Iran has a uranium stockpile to create 8 to ten nuclear bombs.
But thanks to this 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 also needs tens of thousands of centrifuges to create highly
enriched uranium for a bomb. Right now, Iran has nearly 20,000
centrifuges between their Natanz and Fordow facilities. But under this
deal, Iran must reduce its centrifuges to 6,104 for the next ten 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.
In short, here’s the difference this historic deal will make:
The Plutonium pathway at the Arak reactor
The third way Iran could build a nuclear weapon is by using
weapons-grade plutonium. The only site where Iran could accomplish this
is the Arak reactor, a heavy-water nuclear reactor. Right now, this
reactor could be used in a weapons program, but under this deal, the
Arak reactor will be redesigned so it cannot produce any weapons-grade
plutonium. And all the spent fuel rods (which could also be source
material for weapons-grade plutonium) will be sent out of the country as
long as this reactor exists. What’s more, Iran will not be able to
build a single heavy-water reactor for at least 15 years. That means,
because of this deal, Iran will no longer have a source for
weapons-grade plutonium.
A covert pathway to building a secret nuclear program
The previous three pathways occur at facilities that Iran has
declared. But what if they try to build a nuclear program in secret?
That’s why this deal is so important. Under the new nuclear deal, Iran
has committed to extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and
inspection. International inspectors from the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) will not only be continuously monitoring every
element of Iran’s declared nuclear program, but they will also be
verifying that no fissile material is covertly carted off to a secret
location to build a bomb. And if IAEA inspectors become aware of a
suspicious location, Iran has agreed to implement the Additional
Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which will allow inspectors
to access and inspect any site they deem suspicious. Such suspicions
can be triggered by holes in the ground that could be uranium mines,
intelligence reports, unexplained purchases, or isotope alarms.
Basically, from the minute materials that could be used for a weapon
comes out of the ground to the minute it is shipped out of the country,
the IAEA will have eyes on it and anywhere Iran could try and take it:
What Iran’s Nuclear Program Would Look Like Without This Deal
As it stands today, Iran has a large stockpile of enriched uranium and
nearly 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create 8 to 10 bombs. If Iran
decided to rush to make a bomb without the deal in place, it would take
them 2 to 3 months until they had enough weapon-ready uranium (or highly
enriched uranium) to build their first nuclear weapon. Left unchecked,
that stockpile and that number of centrifuges would grow exponentially,
practically guaranteeing that Iran could create a bomb—and create one
quickly – if it so chose.
This deal removes the key elements needed to create a bomb and
prolongs Iran’s breakout time from 2-3 months to 1 year or more if Iran
broke its commitments. Importantly, Iran won’t garner any new sanctions
relief until the IAEA confirms that Iran has followed through with its
end of the deal. And should Iran violate any aspect of this deal, the
U.N., U.S., and E.U. can snap the sanctions that have crippled Iran’s
economy back into place.
Here’s what Iran has committed to:
The difference this deal is significant. Take a look at exactly what
Iran’s nuclear program will look like now under this deal:
At
a Monday press conference at the G20 meeting in Turkey, President
Barack Obama was repeatedly asked by American reporters a version of
this question: What are you doing to defeat ISIS? CNN's Jim Acosta put
it in these Twitterish terms:
"Why can't we take out these bastards?" His passionate formulation
seemed to imply that the Obama administration was not doing everything
reasonably possible to vanquish ISIS. And throughout the presser, Obama
explained that there was a strategy in place, asserted that other ideas
(such as sending in ground troops or establishing a no-fly zone in
Syria) were constantly being scrutinized, and expressed frustration that
he was being asked the same question (what's your plan?) repeatedly.
