3

Media reports on the Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program focus on the things Iran must do in the near future to get the sanctions lifted but what happens after that?

When would the restrictions expire? Assuming all parties stick to the agreement, how long would International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring last? How would Iran be treated after that?

  • "Assuming all parties stick to the agreement" - nice caveat :) I'm amazed that the Wiki article is so devoid of factual details of the agreement - it seems to be mostly about its history and not contents/ – user4012 Apr 9 '15 at 17:10
  • @DVK al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/… has a comparison and links to the native language documents – user45891 Apr 12 '15 at 9:27
  • Boooounty time? – user4012 Apr 24 '15 at 12:25
-4

As far as I understand the reporting being given by the news, they already have a framework and it is a matter of working out some of the specific details and how its parts would be implemented.
Some areas of the framework are already very specific in details, specially where it has to do with the Iranians capacity to enrich (or not to enrich) weapon grade radioactive materials. However, in some other areas, such as how and when specific sanctions are going to be lifted, details are still to be worked out and agreed.
I believe that the deadline for completion is sometime in June, and by completion I mean the production of the actual agreement, not when it finally be accepted and signed by the parties involved into a treat.
Even the latest is still very much a debate in countries involved, with here in the US the Congress demanding to have a say in the final signing of the agreement. Treaties are signed all the time by the executive level without Congress involvement but because of the ramifications that this particular agreement can have in the entire World, I believe that our Congress should at least have the opportunity to discuss it at large and give inputs as of how it should be implemented.
Hopefully our Congress can work together with the President and the State Department and come out with a way to implement the agreement where everyone is convinced it would work and without putting partisanship in the middle of it.
I personally believe that it is very important that we do reach an agreement, as long as it is enforceable and it can be properly verify and as long that there still be an option to impose deterrents, sanction-wise or otherwise by military means, if Iran chooses to break the agreement and pursuit nuclear weaponization.
In terms of how long the inspections would last, there is no end to it. Every nation with nuclear capabilities, even with nuclear capability only to create electrical energy, as Iran claims its desire is, must be under the spell of the International Atomic Energy inspection program. The Obama administration is suggesting that the inspections in Iran are going to be unprecedentedly harsher that in any other country while they are under this agreement, but even after the agreement is over the International Atomic Energy agency would have regular access as they have in any other nuclear nation.
The questions is if Iran will want and decide in the future, after it is not being sanctioned by no one and the agreement is over, to follow a path to start using its nuclear program to create weapons of mass destruction. And the answer to that question, and to the similar question of how the US and the rest of the World would react to that announcement, if in fact it happens then, is... only God knows. One of the purposes to have open communication with Iran is for our nations to become friendly with each other and commerce with each other again. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the sanctions that bought Iran to the tables most of them have to do with the exchange of commerce and Iran being able to negotiate in a normal way with the rest of the nations of the World again.
I do not see why they would want to go back on being a pariah nation again other than to speed up their economic degradation again and even maybe their annihilation. People criticizing the deal seem to believe that we are giving up our military power and the option to go to war with Iran by agreeing to rather peacefully trying to resolve the problem. If Iran relent on the agreement within the timeframe and/or if they decide after having peace for 10-15 years after the agreement is over to pursue weapon of mass destruction, we still be able to deal with them the same if we decide today not to give peace a chance and engage in a war with them right now. Remember, we are the mack daddy of nuclear technology. No country other maybe than Russia, has near the capability that we have to wipe a whole nation out the face of the earth. In trying to solve this dilemma with Iran rather peacefully than by military means we are not only avoiding another conflict in the middle east but we are showing the World our capacity to be rational. Israel can posture whatever they want because they know that we have their back, but they also have to learn that we cannot continue on this path of us against them when it comes to muslims, jews and the US.
We must all try to work together and destruct the real evils of the World (i.e. ISIL and any other terrorist group that kills at whim for false causes and false idols). It has always being a challenge to learn to live in peace among us (remember the cold war against the then Soviet Union?) but it has been proven again and again that when we give peace an opportunity thousands of lives are saved and we are all better for it. I say, no more war against nations and rather to pinpoint our efforts to eradicate evil within and without wherever it tries to raise its ugly face.

| improve this answer | |
  • 6
    Could you break this wall of text into paragraphs, please ? – Bregalad Apr 12 '15 at 20:42
  • This doesn't really answer my question. – Relaxed yesterday

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .