Reddit mentions of Deal of the Century: How the Iranian Nuclear Agreement Was Won, Then Lost, and the Possible Consequences

SECOND

What the "Iranian nuclear threat" was actually all about, was a pretext to impose regime-change in Iran, pushed by the Isreaelis and NeoCons, just as they pushed for the Iraq war with bogus claims about "WMDs in Iraq"

They exaggerated the iran threat
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-27/israeli-government-has-exaggerated-iranian-nuclear-threat-years

And the Iraq threat
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-04-israeli-iraq-threat_x.htm


The pushed for the Iraq war
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

and a war on Iran
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/

The pro-Israeli lobby had been pushing a PR war on Iran for a long time already, ie:
http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

And AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) spent millions of dollars trying to undermine the deal

https://www.thenation.com/article/inside-the-effort-to-kill-the-iran-deal/

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/06/429911872/in-iran-deal-fight-lobbyists-are-spending-millions-to-sway-12-senators

See, the Israelis (and Saudis) and their supporters in the US including the NeoCons and Iran hawks consider an improvement in US-Iran relations as coming at their expense, so they don't want to see the US and Iran getting along and they would rather see the US engage in regime-change in Iran

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/john-bolton-iran-regime-change-231586

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/05/its-time-to-pursue-regime-change-in-iran/

This book is all about that: http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

On the other hand, there are people who say that the US should "go to Iran" just as Nixon went to China because that will promote US interests the best
https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

Note that when Nixon decided to recognize Communist China, the US had to dump relations with Taiwan. Israel does not want to become a Taiwan if the US decides to mend relations with Iran.

Here's another book I plan to read once it comes out: https://www.amazon.com/Deal-Century-Iran-Blocked-Wests/dp/0997896507


FINALLY

The nuclear agreement called the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) is not technically a "treaty" but is an "executive agreement"

Executive Agreements are more common in international affairs than treaties, they also don't have the same formalities such as a need to be ratified through the Senate. There's a lot of hype claiming that Obama somehow violated the constitution by entering into the agreement but there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about executive agreements, they're actually VERY common. https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm

There's all sort of BS being claimed, namely that Iran did not "sign" the agreement and that it is not "legally binding" -- but in fact international agreements including treaties are not legally binding (there is no court, judge or police to enforce them) and instead they are political agreements that are "binding" only as long as each party agrees to be bound by it. International agreements are also not a car loan that require you to sign them to be valid.

It is also claimed that there were "Secret concessions" made to Iran which were "exposed" by the UN.
Example:

>U.N. watchdog exposes secret concessions in Obama’s Iran deal

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/25/u-n-watchdog-exposes-secret-concessions-in-obamas-iran-deal/

But in fact literally EVERY WORD in that headline is actually false. The documents were not "exposed", the signatories themselves decided to make them public so as to end the hype about "secret deals", there were no "concessions" just technical agreements like agreeing to not count unrecoverable waste Uranium in the amount that Iran was supposed to be able to keep, and in fact the IAEA is not part of the UN but is an independent agency, and it isn't a "watchdog" either its role in the NonProliferation Treaty is just as an accountant that measures declared nuclear material to make sure the declared amounts match the actual amounts, that's all (it isn't an investigative agency or an intelligence agency charged with finding WMDs, in fact its actual job is to promote the use of nuclear technology)

The JCPOA required certain measures by Iran for at least 10-15 years (after which the "normal" Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations will continue to be in place) ie to limit the number of centrifuges it operates that are used to enrich uranium before using the material to make reactor fuel rods, to only enrich to 3.65% which can't be used for bombs (Iran never enriched uranium to bomb-grade anyway) to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, and to cease work on a heavy water reactor and to export any heavy water it produces beyond its domestic needs. Iran has done all of that and the IAEA has verified it in its reports. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16/11/gov2016-55.pdf

However the opponents of the deal have been claiming that Iran has supposedly "violated" the deal by producing 0.1 ton more heavy water than a the 130 ton "limit" contained in the agreement. The problem is that there is actually no such limit in the agreement.

Annex 1, Part C, Paragraph 14 of the JCPOA states that Iran is to keep enough heavy water to meet its domestic needs including contingency stocks (estimated to be 130 tons in total) and any excess is to be exported for sale.

All Iran is required to do under Paragraph 15 is inform the IAEA of its heavy water stock and allow occasional IAEA visits to the production facility to monitor the stock.

Iran has done all that too.

Note that neither paragraph imposes a specific upper limit on the amount of heavy water which can be produced.

See http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245318.pdf for the exact text I'm citing



And 24 extra gallons of heavy water is not a violation of that "estimate". Note that heavy water itself is quite harmless and can't be used as a weapon and furthermore without an operational heavy water reactor (Iran poured concrete into the reactor their were building so it can't ever work, as the agreement required) there is no way that heavy water can somehow be used to make nukes anyway (and, the reactor was subject to IAEA monitoring anyway.)

In exchange, the US is supposed to lift as many sanctions as it can and release Iran's frozen funds. OF course the Iranians and the Obama administration new that they could not lift ALL the sanctions since most of the sanctions were imposed by COngress, not the President. So some sanctions have been removed but the US and Iran still can't do business especially since existing sanctions prevent Iran from doing business using US dollars which is the international currency. And, Congress is pushing for new sanctions. The Iranians consider this a violation of the agreement which requires the US to do its best to remove all sanctions but the text of the treaty does not actually require all the sanctions to be removed.

So bottom line is that despite all the hype, neither side has "violated" the agreement.

Note however that the US and Iran are not the only parties to the deal: Russia, China, Germany, UK and France that have signed it too, and it has been endorsed by the UN Security Council. The European courts had already ruled sanctions on Iran to be illegal before the deal,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-sanctions-eu-idUSBRE91514220130206

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-courts-insight-idUKBRE96E0M920130715

and the the other countries have told the US that they will continue to abide by the deal even if the US pulls out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/iran-nuclear-deal-vital-warns-theresa-may-donald-trump-vows/

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/In-a-message-to-Trump-China-defends-Iran-nuclear-deal/article16767795.ece

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-eu-idUSKCN0PU0S520150720

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-News/Russia-Loss-of-Iranian-nuclear-deal-would-be-unforgivable-475468

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/06/china-warns-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-must-stand/

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-europe-idUKKCN0RA2H420150910