You know what would be nice? Actually finding a website that goes through the points in the outline of the nuclear deal framework, what those points mean in English as opposed to nuclear physicist, what the current status is and how this will make things better and what enforcement mechanisms we have, a detailed list of the sanctions Iran is currently under and how they have impacted Iran (I imagine it has done little more than make the people suffer), and what sanctions will be lifted upon conclusion of the deal and the timetable for lifting them.
All I can find from our “news”papers is that Walker will blow the deal up, Mark Kirk called Obama Hitler or Chamberlain, Obama is calling Netanyahu, and this other bullshit. I’d like to know exactly what the fuck the deal means.
I hear you John, but there’s no incentive for the news sites to do that. Substance isn’t clickbaity enough.
I haven’t had a chance to do any reading on the subject yet but armscontrolwonk.com is a good resource on this subject.
How about this.
Yes. You’d think that would be important, but it’s more entertaining believe that somehow we’ve surrendered in a war we weren’t actually fighting yet.
Guardian has been doing a pretty good job. Earlier they had a live blog with updates but I’m sure that you can find several articles now about it. I think the most interesting aspect was Iran streaming Obama’s speech.
Well, it’s CNN and probably more simple-minded than you want, but this might be a good place to start: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/02/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-main-points-of-agreement/
Yeah!!! Now whom do we know with a website?
And to expand on Arclite’s observation (and to channel Villago Delenda Est’s raison d’etre) our main news organizations have ceased actually reporting on the news in order to offer sensationalized stenography intended to produce revenue, not knowledge.
Have you tried the BBC? Snooze Hour’s coverage of the deal was not bad either.
I’ll tell you what pisses me off is all this fucking bullshit about “Obama want this for his legacy”. That’s horseshit.
Google came up with this CNN link, which seems to have more info.
At the top of the hour, MSNBC had some expert on Hardball that said we got more than we could have hoped for…
…and, a few seconds later, someone on FOX said we got shit.
Since this is only a framework, it would appear it’s a little premature to say it’s anything.
Well, I’m sure it helps sweeten the deal.
Earlier I mentioned that the Swiss view Kerry as a sexy rock star. Personally, that amazes me. Obama administration’s deal with Iran, not so much. After all he is the President who got health care passed and killed Osama. Yeah pres.
Mark Kirk must really not want to be a senator anymore. Did Duckworth entering the race unhinge him that much?
Al Jazeera spells it all out in terms a 12 year old could understand, without any of the Villager who-is-up-who-is-down nonsense:
You may want more details than that article provides, but it is a useful starting point.
@raven: Standard rhetoric for demeaning accomplishments. Not that you are wrong to be outraged.
@JPL: Is that like the French and Jerry Lewis or the Germans and David Hasselhoff?
This is how adults work out their differences. Congrats to all involved…
” I’ll tell you what pisses me off is all this fucking bullshit about “Obama want this for his legacy”. That’s horseshit. ”
Like that is in any way interesting for a supposed reporter or analyst to talk about.
I don’t know about some slob like Obama, but I, like I am sure most of you, want a lot of failures and do-nothing BS hanging over MY legacy.
Edit: let me rethink that for a moment. I may have been exposed to to much Congressional GOP. May not have thought this through.
While it is yet undecided as to what the full extent of released text will be, here’s a decent primer on the salient points.
Better, I agree. Thanks.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@gf120581: hasn’t Kirk always been a hardcore neo-con?
Here is the official State Department summary.
Thanks to commenters for providing very useful links.
I hope these noble BJ linkers get plenty of petpix from Cole on demand for awhile.
Yeah, right. Cole’s one to complain about lack of information.
Who cares if it’s for his legacy or not? What I care about is whether it’s a good deal or not. His motive isn’t really important. Besides, in the long term, only a good deal will be able to help his legacy. A bad deal will eventually be revealed as such and come back to haunt him.
Here’s the commercial I’m hoping for from Tammy Duckworth vs. Mark Kirk…
Shot of Rep. Duckworth in her wheelchair:
“Unlike my opponent, I understand the human costs of war. If elected, I would never thoughtlessly send your children to war, or agitate for it to score political points.”
@BettyPageisaBlonde: Yes, that Vox article is very good.
After reading it, and hearing Obama’s speech, I was wanting to know more about what the sanctions (by the US and others) were that were tied to the nuclear issues, and which were tied to other issues and that Obama said would remain in effect separate from this agreement. Anyone found an explanation that drills down that far?
@Baud: But I have no petpix. I plead guilty. Sorry…
Culture of Truth
It’s not ideal, but this puports to explain the basics in plain english
Yeah, this sort of thing is pretty much Vox’s stated purpose for existing.
ETA if the deal when solidified follows the lines laid out at Vox’s explainer, and if both sides can live up to it (and it seem hard, on both sides, given the politics of relaxing sanctions), this is pretty much a home run for Obama – and for world peace. Obama might just grow into that fancy jewelry he got in December 2009 yet.
Oh, no. I was talking about Cole whining about not finding information about the Iran deal, when he doesn’t post nearly enough petpix.
Cliff in NH
Just read it as :
Obama is doing his job instead of jacking off billionaires.
He isn’t behaving as They expect ‘politicians’ to behave, based on Their experience. Legacy means stuff the Billionaires don’t love, things that They don’t like and are are not gerrymanderable.
Isn’t Vox kind of known for explaining stuff like this?
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I’ve never thought of him as that. But my point is, if you’re a highly endangered incumbant senator in a deep blue state, facing likely extinction in a Presidential election year simply on electoral conditions alone and you just drew a pretty strong challenger, saying the name of the President and native son of your home state in the same sentence with Hitler is probably not the wisest course of action.
He also signed onto Tehran Tom’s little love note. Guy’s going all out to nuke what chance he has.
@Baud: Joe Scar’s been going off on this being Obama’s legacy. Raven has been known to watch Morning Hoe.
I always recommend first, Al Jazeera, and second, the Beeb, for real news. Unz.com is a unique combination of real news and nutty rants; you will probably find stuff about Iran there, but how sane it is will be a crapshoot.
It means the Persian War will be delayed until after the Crimean War, and gas will remain cheap. The End.
Culture of Truth
@JPL: Well, name a Swiss rock star. :)
Anyway, that’s the cosmopolitan / jaded French Swiss, who are very much used to diplomats, but if they would admire anyone, if would be someone like Kerry.
We won’t be invading Iran until at least 1/20/2017. After that is anyone’s guess.
@Baud: It is true that I whine about lack of information from our miserable worthless corporate media and ask for kindly help from commenters all the time. And Villago demands death and destruction.
But, hey, if you were sarcastically pestering Cole, then never mind me, my bad. I didn’t type anything.
Edit: chance for me to find out if that ‘request deletion’ button does anything.
Presumably the sanctions referred to as those to be scaled back are the ones set in place via the U.N. resolution. The sanctions carried out under that authority by Europe and Russia bite much more deeply then do those unilaterally in effect by the U,S.
you ever notice when a great progressive achievement like this or immigration or Cuba occurs it is barely mentioned or discussed on the so-called leading progressive news site DKos.
@Culture of Truth: you win
@John Cole +0:
That’s crazy talk right there.
Juan Cole will have something on it in due time I am sure. I have found him to be very informative.
@Warren Terra: This is awesome. Thanks. Also the McClatchy article and the state department official summary. Now… maybe instead of Cole bitching about this, he could excerpt it. Or instead of AL mocking our eminently-mockable shitty media, she could long-form copy/paste it into a post, and we could all learn something.
Wouldn’t it be great if there were a couple more Richard Mayhews, each writing like he does, clearly and in detail, about some important area that the media completely fails to cover?
I’m no longer a Maddow watcher, but this type of “explaining” in what she’s been pretty good at.
So I’ll be tuning into her show to see how she does it.
Lawrence O I may watch depending on who he has on to talk about it.
Gin & Tonic
This is pretty good. They’ve obviously been covering this for a while.
@Culture of Truth:
@Roger Moore: like any of the fucking clowns that currently make up our media will have any type of legacy other than who was the biggest suck-up dipshit hack.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@David Koch: I tend to trust Clemons on foreign policy. I hope somebody has him on tonight
@Cacti: I recall Kirk had a problem with creative recollection, especially as regards his career in IIRC Navel intelligence? Does that ever come up, or is it considered impolite
Speaking of Kirk, I see now he’s saying he will voter for Loretta Lynch for AG. Uh huh, Duckworth got him shook I bet!
Lawfare and Just Security will have this nailed in the morning. I’d also look at Informed Comment (Juan Cole’s blog).
I see two scenarios:
1. The US Senate ratifies the deal.
2. The US Senate rejects the deal, the rest of the World drops sanctions anyway and Iran can then decide to build their bomb or not.
I think the Republicans in the Senate are stupid enough to choose number 2.
Meanwhile, watch the Syracuse – Albany game on ESPN3. You’re running out of opportunities to watch Lyle Thompson.
@BBA: Actually it will be very hard for the next president to do that. This will be approved by the UN Security Council and all members according to the charter have to abide by it. The next president won’t be able to stop it and if they try to start a war and Iran is still abiding by the agreement then the US and Israel will be lined up against the world. This is why the neo-cons wanted the talks to fail.
@Barney: there had to be someone. Even though Kerry is 4 years older than Hillary, I wish he would run for Pres again.
Looking forward to the next episode of Shahs of Sunset.
@Mike Furlan: It’s not a regular treaty. This is an agreement that will be passed through the UN Security Council. The US Congress has no power over the Security Council.
They’ve been a bit on the unhinged side of the street these days at DKOS. You would think Hillary Clinton was a female reincarnation of Jack the Ripper, who had just murdered Elizabeth Warren. There is still a pretty sizable contingent that is sure that Warren is going to run for president. They are too busy with that to worry about actual accomplishments done by Democratic presidents.
@Cacti: I think the wheelchair might be a bit heavy handed. But no reason she can’t be on her prosthetics, with canes for support.
OT.. The religious liberty bill is officially dead in GA but they plan on trying again next year.
@Culture of Truth: When in Switzerland, I have whiled away some time watching the Swiss Federal Assembly on their version of C-Span, it makes sense. I think their pols and reporters find big meetings with people listening to each other by translation through headphones very.. I don’t know.. ‘arousing’.
BBC’s reporting on the deal.
Call me a cynic, but I’m holding my applause until the end of the show. This isn’t the final deal. Not even close. This is the parties agreeing to the “framework” of a deal, with the details to be worked out over the next six months.
I primarily make my living now as the lead negotiator between my company and a boatload of unions nationwide. From that experience, I will say this: the parties can decide that a “framework,” or an “agreement in principle,” is as loose as they need it to be to save face when a deadline is approaching.
It’s hammering out the language of the details that matters. And I’ve only ever done this in English, which is the first language of all parties at the table, and under an existing framework of laws that restrict each party’s leeway. I can’t imagine the complexity of working out the details in a multilingual legal no-man’s land.
Y’all go ahead and celebrate. I’ll wait over here with a drink in my hand.
@Culture of Truth: Well, name a Swiss rock star
Okay, so technically he’s Maltese, but the band he fronts is Swiss.
If John Kerry gets a share in the next release of the fancy jewelry (entirely possible if this deal holds), that means that the last three Democratic nominees for President would all be Nobel Peace Laureates. Try to imagine Mitt Romney or John McCain winning the Peace prize…
@JPL: I briefly glanced at MSNBC and I think I saw that Arkansas Guv signed his? Wasnt’ it the one WalMart opposed?
@lamh36: They are saying it was modified.
Here’s my take.
I will have a post up on the good, the bad, and the tbd tomorrow.
And here’s a post on the sanctions from RFE/RL. That seems to be part of the tbd. Today’s document is confusing about when and how.
@Culture of Truth:
Isn’t Tina Turner a Swiss citizen now?
You’re right, sure, but without this “framework agreement,” the future was a little bleaker — so perhaps you can celebrate with a sip, if not an entire jeroboam [*].
[*] Or netanyahu, for that matter.
@lamh36: The legislature changed the wording to prevent discrimination. I haven’t read the change though.
also. It was nice to see the uproar about any type of discrimination.
Hey, it’s good to see you here again!
Try to imagine Henry Kissinger winning it.
@Mandalay: what they say, and I believe, they want is nuclear power generation in industrial amounts so they can power their economy without burning exportable oil and gas. Your link is silent on this key point.
Thanks, Cervantes! I’m usually around, lurking, particularly on the pupdates.
Wouldn’t a Nebuchadnezzar be more appropriate?
Haven’t read the comments yet, but it doesn’t look like this has been mentioned.
There’s a good article on it by Ariane Tabatabai at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
The Second, you mean?
Well, he destroyed Jerusalem — maybe not the vibe I was going for!
Plus Jeroboam is the one (in 1 Kings 11) who “made Israel to sin” — thus powering my little jab at Netanyahu.
But yes, I’m tired now. Have a great evening!
Maybe. I just remember too many moments “at the table,” when the parties all agree that “We all want the same things! Management rights within reason, honor seniority, just cause for discipline, and a fair wage! We just need to get there!”
Uh-huh. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
If Romney had negotiated this framework the GOP would be demanding that he be sainted and then added to Mt Rushmore.
@Gin & Tonic: I see you got there first. GMTA. :-)
I’m holding my applause because I remember what happened when we passed a deal with North Korea in the nineties. The Bush administration came to power, reneged on its side of the bargain, and a few years later North Korea had nukes. I’ve got a feeling that whenever the next Republican comes into office, we’re going to see the exact same thing – they’ve as good as told us that already.
ETA: “exact same thing” = Republicans reneging on promises, not necessarily Iran testing a nuke.
@Elmo: cynical might be appropriate for management-union negotiations in the US. Skeptical is better for these talks. I think cautious optimism is a better attitude still.
As I posted earlier today:
” war contains so much folly, as well as wickedness, that much is to be hoped from the progress of reason; and if any thing is to be hoped, every thing ought to be tried. ”
James Madison, Universal Peace, National Gazette, February 2, 1792
A fricken Founder said it, so I am sure people like Bolton and Cotton will eagerly agree.
And people would break out the old “only Nixon could go to China!” I hate that saying.
@D58826: If Obama gave credit to St. Ronny, it would be okay. We all know that St. Ronny started the framework for this to happen.
You mean something like the primary source?
The ol’ Gray Lady ain’t quite what she used to be, but there’s a reason they call it “the Paper of Record.” Also a reason we were “strongly encouraged” to subscribe to it back in my poli sci major days. Because it alone actually publishes primary source material like the text of treaties and communiques.
@JPL: Actually, the neocons and wingnuts screamed and whined and yelled betrayal and doom just as loud;y when Real Reagan (as opposed Zombie Reagan) did sensible and wise things like negotiate with the Soviets under Gorbachev and pursued nuclear disarmament talks
You can spot the rare times Reagan made good foreign policy decisions: people like Bolton and Kristol (or their predecessors) were outraged.
I always wondered about that. The myth of Reagan has overtaken the real person so completely (and I’m not old enough to remember the real thing) that I always suspected there was that sentiment out there – much more muted than it was when Kennedy or Johnson or Carter were the ones talking to the Russians, but there nonetheless – and that it’s only retroactively that quite a few of these people decided Reagan’s interactions with Gorbachev made him a brave and perceptive man, rather than a weak sister taken in by a communist plot.
@BettyPageisaBlonde: thank you for the link to Vox, I was going to put it up, but I see you got there first!
Try to imagine them wanting it.
The Buchanans were screaming, but hindsight is 20/20. That relationship worked to our advantage, so they disappear all their misgivings at the time.
@BettyPageisaBlonde: The really important, far more important than the stunning reduction in the number of centrifuges is the limitation to first generation centrifuges only and the agreement to destroy more advanced centrifuges.
It’s a thing that’s much too complicated for the bobbleheads to understand, much less convey, but this is a huge fucking deal. It would take them a very long time to hit weapons grade with 6K first generation centrifuges. It would take them weeks with current generation.
What you ask for is not important. What’s important is whether the EU and UN are satisfied with the agreement. If so, it accomplishes a sufficient amount of its intent. The GOP can certainly do much to scuttle America’s end of the bargain but that won’t much matter once those other two parties are on board with normal relations.
More interesting dynamics are, how far will Riyadh go to destabilize the world in pursuit of its own ends? And how deeply will the GOP drink from the Likud Kool-Aid once they figure out that US moderates don’t consider Netanyahu’s personal political prospects a hill to die on?
Haha, I noticed that too, and I figure that’s one of those details that needs to be finalized in follow-on negotiations, hence the loosey-goosey language. At least I hope that explains the wording, because I sure cannot imagine what a (functional) fraction of a full centrifuge would look like.
‘ it’s only retroactively that quite a few of these people decided Reagan’s interactions with Gorbachev made him a brave and perceptive man, rather than a weak sister taken in by a communist plot. ‘
No, the neocons and wingers called the Real Reagan a senile fool, a turncoat, a fake conservative who had not completely shed his previous liberal instincts for treason in real time. Of course, this was only when he was acting sensibly.
Edit: and of course, they very wrongly predicted disaster from negotiations with the Soviets. The afterglow that that the collapse of the Soviet Union was an elaborate ruse lasted for quite a few years, and dogged poor old GW Bush.
When he was doing criminal and counterproductive BS like Iran-Contra, which eventually severely damaged his presidency, he was and remains the greatest, wisest, most visionary leader in the history of the universe.
Edit: I was also too young to pay close attention in real time, but have read about it.
” don’t consider Netanyahu’s personal political prospects a hill to die on? ”
I think that is the GOP definition of being an anti-Semite now.
I’m reading that the second generation centrifuges are about 5X as capable (SWUs/unit time) as the first generation units. Is that correct? I agree it’s a big deal.
Is there a side deal to provide reactor fuel elements for power generation? Just wondering.
@jl: Rule number one: the neocons are always hilariously and disastrously wrong.
All other rules: See rule number one.
I think the GOP definition of “antisemite” at this point is pretty much “anyone arguing with the GOP.” I’ve seen winger blogs get some mileage out of the claim that because Jews are historically stereotyped as moneygrubbing douchebags, any attack on capitalists is a dog-whistle for an attack on Jews.
Thanks for the clarification, also too.
Yes he did.
Also in Mideast Commentary:
The worst part of ISIS crisis is our allies.
@Bill Arnold: There is a string of improved centrifuges. According to the information sheet from the US Government, Iran is to use only IR-1s, with about 1 SWU per centrifuge, for uranium enrichment.
The Bushehr reactor, the only one in Iran strictly for power generation, is not part of this agreement. Russia is providing the fuel.
You noticed that, too, huh?
@Culture of Truth:
Well, name a Swiss rock star. :)
[old fart] Dieter Meier AND Boris Blank. [/old fart]
@Jeremy: Thanks Jeremy
There is a decent overview in The Economist. Conclusion: the deal is better than any of the alternatives
Vox has a post that shows the details of the agreement:
There was some useful info on Maddow last night-
@lamh36: You don’t think that it was all my phone calls to Kirk’s office, asking politely if Kirk realizes he is the senator from ILLINOIS?
@Elmo: As with any huge undertaking, you have to take it one step at a time. And this is a HUGE step – not making it to this point would have been failure.
So I think it’s great to celebrate and appreciate that we’ve gotten to where he have. That doesn’t mean that anyone thinks the hard work is over. But it’s still a big fucking deal.