The negotiations with Iran have not overcome the main dividing points between the two sides on inspections and the timing of sanctions relief. http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-nu...trong-political-will-says-official-1435488232 Iran’s Zarif Heads Home for Consultations on Nuclear Deal A senior U.S. official said all sides now expect the nuclear talks to go past the June 30 deadline
Pressure on the president For Hassan Rohani, delivering a deal on nuclear programme is vital Jun 29th 2015 | TEHRAN | Middle East and Africa social buttons > BM|event80"> http://www.economist.com/news/middl...deal-nuclear-weapons-vital-pressure-president Both Presidents (USA and Iran) having issues with their own people, A lot to do with internal politics more than the actual deal.
As long as Iran is negotiating this deal with an American side which is divided and totally unprepared to live up to the spirit and letter of the deal in the long run after Obama is gone, this deal is not in Iran's best interests at all. Of course, we live in a world where might makes right and the US is clearly mightier than Iran. Hence, the logic of the bully might prevail and the US/P5+1 might end up having their cake and eat it too. But fundamentally, the best interests of both Iran (as opposed to Iranian special interest groups) and the US (as opposed to US special interest groups) is found in a grand bargain between the two sides that paves the road for a genuine rapprochement between Iran and the US and a more just order in the region.
A pretty decent account of the "little changes" in Iranian society which say a lot. I should mention that these little changes were already in place when I came to Iran and, without them, I would not be able to live here. These changes are both in the social realm as well as in the political environment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-o-beeman/in-iran-today-little-changes_b_7681736.html In Iran Today Little Changes Mean a Lot
http://news.yahoo.com/negotiators-still-not-where-iran-talks-us-155429603.html Major powers turn the screws for Iran nuclear deal ... http://time.com/3945020/iran-nuclear-deal-military/ US Air Force Primed and Ready to Attack Iran's Nuclear Sites http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/05/us-iran-security-radar-idUSKCN0PF08Z20150705 Iran deploys new home-built long-range radar
https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/M...pt-irans-rights-on-sanctions-fars-agency.ashx Nuclear talks deadlocked as U.S. refuses to accept Iran's rights on sanctions Fars agency
A very good article, based on the author's recent visit to Iran, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/willi...-iran-are-defying-conservatism_b_7690212.html The Arts in Iran Are Defying Conservatism William O. Beeman Become a fan Professor and Chair of the Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota
http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-joins-israel-target-jerusalem-day-protests-114329600.html Saudi joins Israel as target of Jerusalem Day protests http://www.presstv.ir/Video/2015/07/10/419636/Yemen-International-Quds-Day-Sanaa-Palestinian-Israel Yemenis hold anti-Israel rally on International Quds Day
It seems highly probable that there will be a joint pubic announcement by US/P5+1 and Iran stating that an agreement regarding Iran's nuclear program has been reached. However, any such agreement will be subject to review still, including by the US Congress as well as by the Iranian parliament and ultimately Iran's Supreme Leader. Which means that even this announcement will not necessarily translate to an effective deal, as any such deal could unravel because of political forces in either country or both. http://news.yahoo.com/us-secretary-state-hopeful-iran-nuke-deal-near-094325871.html APNewsBreak: Diplomats: Iran announcement planned Monday
I hope it proves its billing: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/iran-nuclear-deal-n390461 Iran Nuclear Deal: Tehran, World Powers Agree to Historic Pact
Hot as hell in Iran: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...t-sees-temperatures-soar-to-165F-in-Iran.html So, either a) Iran invented heat waves or b) Israel/USA trying to melt Iran's resolve.
This has been an incredibly hot summer even in Tehran. The southern coastline of Iran bordering the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman, on the other hand, has always been extremely hot in the summer. Temperatures in those regions mirror the temperatures in places like UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait. The population in the area is also an eclectic background, resembling in some ways the mixed population across the Persian Gulf, with a mixture of Arabs, Indians, Baluchis, people of African descent, along with Persians. Incidentally, not long ago, someone sent me a private message asking how Iranians treated blacks and whether we had any blacks in Iran? As I mentioned, we have a very small minority of Iranians who are of African descent but, in the south, they are quite a prevalent and noticeable community. Indeed, the mixtures of races and backgrounds in the south makes it sometimes hard to say who is strictly of African descent, who is of Arab descent and who is of Indian descent. On the whole, most "Bandari people" (referring to people in this region) are of dark complexion, including some who are descendants of people who came to Iran from Africa. Picture of young boys jumping into the water in Chahbar port, Sistan and Baluchistan Province, in the south of Iran See also, http://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2015/apr/30/irans-forgotten-african-migrants-in-pictures Iran's forgotten African migrants – in pictures
Amnesty: Iran Sees Surge in Executions | Al Jazeera America Dang....#1 again considering % of population. No contest!
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/jul/07/its-not-like-argo-tour-guide-in-iran ‘It’s not like Argo’: the trials of a tour guide in Iran
Hi Iranian Monitor Thank you for posting and providing a different perspective on Iran. (I'm from Australia btw). Can you tell me what the motivations are what the US has to gain from the nuclear deal with Iran? Or if you've already addressed the question a link.
From my perspective, different things motivate different US actors. Obama himself is probably motivated by a desire to avoid being pushed into a needless and entirely unnecessary war as well as by a desire to chart a new path in America's relationship with Iran. Along with the Europeans and the rest of the parties to the nuclear deal with Iran, one of the declared objectives of the deal for the United States is also to increase the time required for Iran to be able to produce sufficient quantities of enriched uranium for nuclear weapons from the current 2 months to at least 1 year. But given that Obama does not operate in a vacuum, and there are plenty of other actors (both some who are giving the deal lukewarm support and many who oppose it) who are motivated by more sinister purposes, the dynamic as it is pushes the ultimate product (i.e., the nuclear deal) in a direction that actually makes it more "convenient", or less costly, for the US to turn around one day and take military measures against Iran, both to damage its nuclear program and more broadly to encourage regime change etc. For that reason, I am actually quite skeptical when it comes to this deal and while I see it potential benefits for Iran (and those benefits are substantial and may very well bear fruit), I see risks and dangers that make me less certain Iran will be able to push back with this deal than without it.
Thanks not sure what you meant by this sentence. Thanks for the foreign diplomacy angle, more so wondering if with reduced sanctions (I'm assuming) and closer financial and corporate ties with the West if you are considering the implicati0ns of that for US and Iran positive or otherwise. I saw you have made a comparison with Russia and China elsewhere which is a good one and to some extent Iran is heading into uncharted waters in relations with the US?
It is common ground (accepted by the US/P5+1/Iran) that, based on the quantities of enriched uranium Iran has, and its operating centrifuges, that before the measures to be taken under the nuclear deal, it would have taken Iran approximately 2 months to further enrich the uranium (to above 90%) for sufficient quantities to make nuclear weapons. The framework for the nuclear deal agreed early on was that this time (2 months) will be extended to at least 1 year and that objective would then define how many centrifuges and how much low enriched uranium Iran will be able to possess. For that reason, ultimately it was agreed that Iran would reduce its stockpile of low enriched uranium by 98%, destroy its stockpile of medium (20%) enriched uranium, and drastically reduce the number of its operating centrifuges from approximately 19,000 to around 5,000 and agreed not to employ its more sophisticated centrifuges that can enrich uranium faster. The underlying rational behind all this is that even if Iran wanted to produce nuclear weapons and engaged in behavior that is was attempting to so, it would take Iran at least 1 year and more to do so, giving the US sufficient time in advance to react. Currently, it will take Iran approximately 2 months from whenever it decides to build the bomb to prepare the quantities of fissionable material to have a nuclear explosive device and to basically build a nuclear bomb. (To create a nuclear devise that is small enough to fit into a missle warhead would require its own research and development and until Iran really tries to do so, any estimate on how long it would take would be purely a guess). I believe a genuine rapprochement between Iran and the US, based on a finding mutually agreeable, win-win, solutions to the issues that separate the two countries, is both possible theoretically and by definition good for both sides. That kind of "grand bargain" is what I would support and would have liked to see Iran and the US engage in negotiations (without any preconditions by either side) for that purpose. That ultimate result from that process that I would favor requires both sides to change some of their existing policies and adopt new postures on some of the issues. But that result would be good for both sides and the region as a whole. I am skeptical about this deal merely because unless there is a resolution to the issues that bring Iran and the US to conflict and which underline the hostile attitudes of each towards the other, this deal may become more an excuse down the line to level more accusations against Iran and pressure and threaten Iran in a context where Iran has lost some of its leverage by exposing its nuclear program to military attack (currently, much of Iran's program is in facilities that are hard to destroy by bombing but that won't be the case under this deal) and by extending the time it would take for Iran to build the bomb.