Nuclear Deal Terminally Ill

nuclear deal 3

Smiles & Hugs

Two weeks ago, the white smoke from Geneva foretold a change in the relations of Iran with the world. The smiling faces of the P3+3 leaders and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said it all: the change that President Hassan Rouhani had promised bore fruit in a “nuclear deal” with Iran.

This “first-step” deal was based on the understanding that Tehran would freeze its nuclear program and encourage transparency for six months in return for goodwill and a $7 Billion relief from sanctions.

But then, the dealmakers went their separate ways.

20% Enrichment & Arak

The “fact sheet” immediately issued by the White House and the response from Tehran deeming it a “one-sided interpretation“, “nonsense and “invalid” were the first warning signs.

Key Issues

Washington’s Interpretation

Tehran’s Interpretation

“Break-out point”


“Iran has committed to neutralize its stockpile of near-20% uranium.”

“Iran has committed to halt progress on its enrichment capacity.”

“There will be no solution to the nuclear issue without the enrichment [program]”

“Iran will decide the level of enrichment according to its needs for different purposes.

“Plutonium Route”


“Iran has committed to no further advances of its activities at Arak and to halt progress on its plutonium track.”

It means no new nuclear fuel will be produced and no new installations will be installed, but construction will continue there”.

So much for mutual expectations…


Sanctions & Doubts

Regardless of Zarif’s dismissal of the effectiveness of sanctions, Tehran’s main motive to sign a nuclear deal is to dismantle all sanctions.

So the P5+1 not only handed over the $7 Billion sanction relief, they agreed to no new sanctions for 6 months. All fine and well but the growing contentions between Tehran and Washington about the “Breakout Point” and the “Plutonium Route” have turned the issue of sanctions into a deal-breaker.

While Kerry tried to appease the US Congress into not issuing new sanctions, Zarif warned that the deal was “dead” if new sanctions were approved “even if they do not take effect for six months”.

And while both sides deal with skeptics back home (US & Iran) and details are ironed out, Tehran’s nuclear program ticks on and there still is no “start date” for the six-month freeze.

 It’s time to say it loud and clear for all to hear: There may have been a “nuclear deal” – it existed for a few hours on that smiling podium in Geneva on the 24th. Unfortunately, it seems to have remained there.

Related links:


6 thoughts on “Nuclear Deal Terminally Ill

  1. A good deal for the US, Iran and the world. Apartheid Israel unfortunately cannot bring itself to be a part of a peaceful world free of hate and militarism, hence its expedited isolation.

    • A good deal for the US? I really don’t think so and neither does the US public…even Obama gives it a 50-50 chance.
      And what does “apartheid” Israel have to do with this deal? I still can’t fathom why whenever someone criticizes Iran, the answer is usually a critique of Israel.

  2. Pingback: Nuclear Talks Deteriorate to Bazaar Haggle | IRAN 24/07

  3. Pingback: Contradicting Perceptions Regarding the Iranian Deal | IRAN 24/07

  4. Pingback: Mind the Gaps in the Nuclear Deal | IRAN 24/07

  5. Pingback: Misinterpreting the JCPoA to Death | IRAN 24/07

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