UPDATES: P5+1 Iran Nuclear Negotiations Resource Center
April 10, 2015, Washington, D.C. – Like much of the world, Iranian Americans have followed the Iran nuclear negotiations and ensuing developments with great interest. The PAAIA Public Policy Center is pleased to provide a resource page that provides easily accessible information about the on–going nuclear negotiations between Iran and the members of the P5+1 (U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany).
The resource page includes a compilation of information provided by the U.S. government on the negotiations as well as viewpoints from members of Congress, editorials from leading news sources, and analyses from foreign policy and national security experts.
While PAAIA supports efforts to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the decade-long stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program, we recognize the importance of ensuring that Iranian Americans are well informed and aware of the positions held by their elected officials and others related to this matter.
Set forth below is a collection of the most recent updates to the P5+1 Iran Nuclear Negotiations Resource Center.
*The views expressed in these articles are solely the views of author or the interviewee, and should not be attributed to the views of PAAIA.*
Administration Resources
White House Resource: A Framework to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons
Congressional Statements
April 8, 2015 –
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) made the following statement regarding the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 which would allow Congress to approve or disapprove of a potential deal with Iran:
“To force Congress to weigh in now on the Iran nuclear talks before a final deal has been completed would be a reckless rush to judgment. It would undermine negotiations at a critical moment and could derail a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deal with this looming threat.”
Click here to continue reading.
U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK) made the following statement regarding strategy on Iran:
“This president has a bad habit of accusing other people of making false choices, but he presented the ultimate false choice last week when he said it’s either this deal or war.”
Click here to continue reading.
U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12) made the following statement regarding the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 which would allow Congress to approve or disapprove of a potential deal with Iran:
“Senator Corker’s legislation undermines these international negotiations and represents an unnecessary hurdle to achieving a strong, final agreement. “
Click here to continue reading.
April 7, 2015 –
U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) made the following statement regarding the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 which would allow Congress to approve or disapprove of a potential deal with Iran:
“This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur.”
Click here to continue reading
Editorials/Op-Eds
NYT: The Revolution Lives!, David Brooks: April 10, 2015
“Beyond all the talk of centrifuges and enrichment capacities, President Obama’s deal with Iran is really a giant gamble on the nature of the Iranian regime. The core question is: Are the men who control that country more like Lenin or are they more like Gorbachev? Do they still fervently believe in their revolution and would they use their postsanctions wealth to export it and destabilize their region? Or have they lost faith in their revolution? Will they use a deal as a way to rejoin the community of nations?”
Click here to continue reading.
The Iran Deal Is Good–for the Mullahs, Aaron David Miller: April 9, 2015
“The agreement over Iran’s nuclear program will be neither the historic catastrophe its detractors argue nor the transformative breakthrough advocates suggest. And the supreme leader’s comments Thursday that there is still much to be worked out underscores that the deal is far from done.”
Click here to continue reading.
The Lausanne framework: A promising foundation for a nuclear deal with Iran, Robert Einhorn: April 7, 2015
“The Obama administration finally has wind in its sails on the Iran nuclear issue. For months, critics — both domestic and foreign — framed the public debate. With major negotiating issues still unresolved, the Administration did not have a concrete result to defend and, in any event, was inhibited by a concern that the premature public airing of negotiating details could impede solutions.”
Click here to continue reading.
Israel’s Unworkable Demands on Iran, New York Times Editorial Board: April 7, 2015
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has gone into overdrive against a nuclear agreement with Iran. On Monday, his government made new demands that it claimed would ensure a better deal than the preliminary one that Iran, President Obama and other leaders of major powers announced last week. The new demands are unrealistic and, if pursued, would not mean a better deal but no deal at all.”
Click here to continue reading.
How Obama Can Improve the Iran Deal, William A. Galston: April 7, 2015
“When it comes to negotiating with Iran, the American people have reached some firm conclusions. More than 60% believe that the Iranians are not serious about addressing U.S. concerns and are not acting in good faith. Almost as many doubt that the emerging deal would prevent the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons.”
Click here to continue reading.
The Iran Deal and Its Consequences, Henry Kissinger: April 7, 2015
“The announced framework for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program has the potential to generate a seminal national debate. Advocates exult over the nuclear constraints it would impose on Iran. Critics question the verifiability of these constraints and their longer-term impact on regional and world stability. The historic significance of the agreement and indeed its sustainability depend on whether these emotions, valid by themselves, can be reconciled.”
Click here to continue reading.
A Security Treaty with Iran’s Potential Victims Could Ensure Deal Compliance, Steven L. Spiegel: April 7, 2015
“The heart of the opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran is the fear, even the assumption, that Iran will violate it, cheating on inspections and using the accord’s provisions to double-deal and weaponize. Opponents often cite North Korea’s violation of its deal with the West in 2003. But they fail to mention that, however egregious an Iranian “breakout” would be, one difference is clear: North Korea did not become a regional force, even after it became a nuclear power, because the United States had major defense treaties with South Korea, Japan, Australia and the Philippines.”
Click here to continue reading.
President Obama walks a tightrope on the Iran nuclear framework, Washington Post Editorial Board: April 7, 2015
“PRESIDENT OBAMA has launched an aggressive lobbying campaign for his preliminary nuclear deal with Iran, telling the New York Times on Saturday that “this is our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.” Unfortunately for those who disagree, the president’s claims could have a self-fulfilling quality”
Click here to continue reading.
The 4 Fatal Flaws of the Iran Deal, Zalmay Khalilzad: April 6, 2015
“In our public-relations driven political culture, once the administration in power decides on a significant policy issue, it moves to oversell it at home and abroad, exaggerating the benefits and downplaying the problems. The just-announced Iran nuclear framework agreement is a clear illustration.”
Click here to continue reading
Deal With It, Gary Samore: April 5, 2015
“After the 18-month stretch of tough negotiations following the implementation of the interim agreement (or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), the nuclear negotiators are enjoying a well-deserved break from the bargaining table. On April 2, the European Union and Iran issued a brief “understanding” on a political framework for a future nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran.”
Click here to continue reading.
Blocking an Iranian Bomb- Mathew Bunn: April 5, 2015
“What’s the difference between a ‘good deal’ with Iran over its nuclear program and a ‘bad deal’? A ‘good deal’ is one that reduces the chance Iran will get a nuclear bomb, more than the available alternatives would. By that standard, the arrangement just announced in Lausanne, with specifics to be completed by June, is a good deal. It would greatly reduce the chance that the United States – or Israel – would ever have to face the danger or an Iranian bomb.”
Click here to continue reading.
Kill the Deal, William Kristol: April 4, 2015
Commentators have exposed how bad the Iran deal is in various ways; the point, however, is to kill it. Why? Because the deal can’t be fixed. Even if sanctions relief were somewhat more gradual, even if the number of centrifuges were somewhat lower, even if the inspections regime were somewhat more robust—the basic facts would remain: Iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure, including the most sensitive parts of it.
Click here to continue reading.
