Deal Reached With Iran on Nuclear Program

Monday, November 25, 2013

US Secretary of State John Kerry delivers a speech during a press conference at the CICG (Centre International de Conferences Geneve) after talks over Iran's nuclear programme in Geneva. Nov. 24, 2013 (ALEXANDER KLEIN/AFP/Getty)

In a landmark deal, the group of nations known as the P5+1—the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China—reached an agreement with Iran on Sunday to temporarily freeze Iran’s nuclear program.

"Sanctions have had a substantial impact on the Iranian economy, and with the election of a new Iranian President earlier this year, an opening for diplomacy emerged," President Barack Obama said in a statement. "Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure—a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon."

There are several key provisions to the deal. Under the agreement, Iran has will stop enriching uranium beyond five percent, a level that would be sufficient for energy production but that would require further enrichment for bomb-making. Additionally, Iran will allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency daily access to nuclear facilities, which will permit inspectors to review surveillance camera footage to ensure comprehensive monitoring.

In exchange for Iranian compliance, the P5+1 will provide limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible sanction relief while maintaining the vast bulk of their sanctions, including the oil, finance, and banking sanctions architecture. If Iran fails to meet its commitments, the P5+1 will revoke the relief.

This agreement with Iran is a potential game changer. The deal has been met with a mixed reception, but many see this development as significant, opening up a pathway for Iran as it seeks a new relationship with the international community.

Joining The Takeaway to explain how the deal came about and what's next is Mark Fitzpatrick, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Non-Proliferation at the U.S. State Department who is now with the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Also weighing in is Gary Sick, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Middle East Institute and an adjunct professor at the School of International and Public Affairs. Sick is also the author of “All Fall Down: America’s Tragic Encounter with Iran.” 

Guests:

Mark Fitzpatrick and Gary Sick

Editors:

T.J. Raphael

Comments [3]

novadust

negotiators don't seek trophies. lasting results come only when both sides feel they have gained.

as for netanyahu, can u imagine the outcome if he had approved of the deal?

Nov. 27 2013 01:15 PM
jerome joffe from Columbia University Seminar on the Middle East

Israeli opposition to the agreement has been treated in the press as well as by the Obama administration as emanating from the fear that Iran could now pose a more serious nuclear threat to themselves and to the region that would result in all nations in the area becoming nuclear powers. This is a diversion from recognizing Israel's main concern that U.S. could recognize Iran as a legitimate regional power and invite their cooperation in seeking resolution of the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan as well as on nuclear issues Furthermore as the leading Shiite power and weapon supplier to Hezbollah, to have them use their leverage to prevent the spread of warfare from Syria to Lebanon and to Israel. A quid pro quo would undoubtably require major Isreali withdrawal of settlements from the West Bank. What the Israelis fear most is the modification, and in their worst nightmares, the termination of the Special Relationship. Their estimated 100 nuclear bombs and sure certainty of U.S;retaliation for any Iranian nuclear attack on Isreal, Saudi Arabia or any of the Gulf states, or any other scenario is less likely than the dangers emanating from not having a treaty. Likewise the Saudis fear of the spread of the Arab spring incorporating Shias anywhere in the Gulf including their kingdom, is an underlying reason for their vehement opposition to the agreement.

Nov. 26 2013 01:56 AM
Larry Fisher from Brooklyn, N.Y.

When both sides claim victory, you have a hell of a time splitting that trophy in the future.

Nov. 25 2013 02:25 PM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.