Con_Alma;1716843 wrote:Why do you say other than bombing? Everything should be on the table. Aren't diplomatic efforts more effective when the realistic possibility of military action are backing your position?
I'm asking you what is there to negotiate if allowing them to continue to enrich isn't agreeable?
Really? Ok.
Everything is on the table. The option to strike is a stated option, albeit, a last one.
What are they negotiating? The limits to enrichment for sanctions relief.
Essentially, under the status quo (so no deal) Iran enriches as much uranium as possible and enriches up 20 %, (most of the way to 90% or useable for a bomb).
The deal now, or the particulars, allows Iran to enrich uranium below 20%, so for power, with IAEA safeguards in place. They are also talking about limiting or shutting down Arak, which is a heavy water facility and could be dual use, meaning could be used for weapons.
In exchange for limits or assurances that Iran will not enrich beyond 10%, the EU and US will start to east sanctions.
Those assurances will be verified by the IAEA, who has been verifying Iran since 2004.
Also, some of the angles being discussed are also whether Iran should come clean about past areas where it concealed portions of the program, and whether Iran should adhere to the Additional Protocol with the IAEA.
Reading reports, it seems they have a basic agreement, but over the last few days, all the technical details are being discussed.
Like I said, all aspects of the deal are in the details. The details, verification regime, will Iran admit past faults, and will they adhere to the Additional Protocol will decide if this is a good deal or bad deal.
Iran is going to enrich uranium no matter what. That ship sailed long ago, back in 2006. Now, it is all about ensuring they do not go above 10% uranium and/ or reprocess the uranium for weapons.
