LyrArc Article Gist
The minimum non-negotiable "breakout window" for 2015 nuclear negotiations of the EU, the U.S. and other nations with Iran, is a period of 12 months. The term "breakout window" refers to the period in which Iran decides to breakout of a signed nuclear agreement and rushes to develop nuclear weapons. It should take at least 12 months for Iran to be able to develop a weapon so that there is time to develop an effective response to the threat to world peace.

LyrArc Article Gist
David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, says 24 days is enough time for Iran to wipe out traces of nuclear work, such as working with explosives to trigger a weapon or construction of a small plant to make centrifuges. A situation actually happened in 2003 when the atomic energy agency wanted to inspect the Kalaye Electric Company site in Iran in 2003, where Iran was using centrifuges received from Pakistan. Iranians removed all traces of illicit work at the time while delaying inspectors. This case was cited by Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the agency. Heinonen says smaller scale activity such as manufacturing uranium components for a nuclear weapon can be carried out and the traces deleted in 24 days. Senator Corker points out that the time allowed would be more than 24 days when all the time is added up correctly.

LyrArc Article Gist
A bipartisan compromise in the U.S. Senate provides for a 30 day review of the Iran nuclear deal by Congress. The White House accepted this after enough Democrats favored the idea for the 67 votes to override a presidential veto.

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial raises serious concerns about the outlines of the nuclear deal with Iran- the AP Protocol does not provide for any time, any place inspections of nuclear facilities, could Iran evade inspections by developing a new facility such as it did with the Fordo complex underground after 2006. After all it reminds readers that Iran signed nuclear protocol agreements in 2003, but failed to observe them, and set them aside altogether after 2006. And Iran is not like reaching an agreement with Costa Rica or Netherlands, says WSJ, it could look good on paper, but with monitoring weak and the Iranian intentions not clear, a lot can go wrong. One of the principal concerns says the WSJ, is the nuclear weapons technologies spreading in the Middle East to other countries as Iran gets a weapon, leading to a disastrous war a decade from now. It says this is why president Obama's response to criticism that its this or war is not enough. A lot of the details says WSJ, have still to be worked out....

LyrArc Article Gist
A study group at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy sends a public letter to U.S. president Obama on the Iran negotiations. It says the nuclear agreement negotiated with Iran "may fall short of the administration's own standard of a 'good' agreement." It is signed by some of Mr. Obama's main advisors during the first term. Some of these officials told the NYT that the letter was the result of serious concern that Mr. Kerry and other negotiators were moving towards major concessions that would weaken the international inspections of Iran's facilities, back away from making Iran reveal suspected past work on weapons, and allow Iranian R&D to move ahead with making nuclear fuel once the accord expires. The five Obama advisors from the first term who signed the letter are: Dennis Ross, Middle East negotiator, David Petraeus, CIA director, Robert Einhorn, State Department proliferation expert, Gary Samore, chief advisor on nuclear policy, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman Jt. Chiefs of Staff. Gary Samore is president of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran. The letter was also signed by President Bush's national security advisor during his second term, Stephen Hadley. Such a large group of advisors to presidents Bush and Obama familiar with the details of Iran's development of nuclear technology and weapons capabilities could give Republicans support to kill any agreement that falls short on inspections during Congressional Review. On this key factor where only vague assurances are made by the Iranian side- such as signing an International Atomic Agency convention giving inspectors broad rights to visit suspicious sites, followed by Ayatollah Khamanei ruling out military sites- the letter is specific. Inspections it says " must include military (including Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps), and other sensitive facilities. Iran must not be able to deny or delay timely access to any site anywhere in the country." Inspections work rigorously done is set as a precondition before any significant relief from economic sanctions on Iran....

LyrArc Article Gist
Sanger and Gordon point to critical elements of the nuclear deal that were needed but will now be missing. Iranian negotiators now say they will not ship atomic fuel out of the country. For the agreement to be serious and credible about Iran's peaceful intentions for the use of nuclear energy, it was important that the atomic fuel be shipped to Russia, where it would be converted into specialized fuel rods for the Bushehr nuclear power plant. If Iran at some point decided to opt out of the agreement the use of this atomic fuel for peaceful purposes cannot be assured.

LyrArc Article Gist
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief, Yukiya Amano, answers questions in a closed door 90 minute meeting with the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The IAEA chief says he cannot disclose details of his investigation into Iran's earlier weapons activities, or the agency's agreement with Iran for the inspection of nuclear facilities. Senator Corker who heads the committee said most senators left the meeting with greater concerns about the inspection process. The IAEA chief cited as reasons for the secrecy, independence of the agency, and what he called "a legal obligation" to protect confidential information. Senator Barroso described the process as one in which an NFL player or athlete is asked to mail in his own urine sample. Of particular concern to senators is the Parchin site where testing ocurred in the early 2000's, which Amano has said Iran is trying to sanitize, and which is not part of this agreement. Iran has not agreed to IAEA requests to interview a Iranian scientist Mr. Fakhrizadeh or other top Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists as part of its probe into past Iranian nuclear activities, Yukiya Amano told the WSJ in an intervew. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bret Stephens of the WSJ describes the problems with the deal for removal of chemical weapons in Syria, and sees parallels in the situation with the Iran nuclear deal for inspecting weapons sites.

LyrArc Article Gist
A slight shift in American opinion favoring a deal with Iran is shown in a WSJ/NBC poll in July 2015 compared to the poll in April 2015. Support for reaching a nuclear deal with Iran remains stable at 36% in both polls, the opposed drops by 6 percentage points to 17% from 23%, and the percentage of people who say they do not know enough to formulate an opinion goes up to 46% from 40%. The intricacies of a nuclear technology deal and the sites involved lead to a high percentage of don't know enough to give an opinion. Factors hindering a deal include inspection of military sites, and Iranian intentions. Factors favoring reaching a deal now is the risk that this would mean Iran would go back into isolation and the opportunity to work with moderates might be lost. The Rouhani administration was an effort by voters to elect a government that could ease or remove sanctions to improve the economy and living conditions- its failure would lead to Iran losing an opportunity to open up to the world. The pressure from the U.S. Congress and Israel served to push for a verifiable and effective agreement to control development of nuclear technology for weapons systems. Behavioural factors involved are the very young population in Iran which has no memories about the period before the revolution in 1979- 70% of the population of 74 million are people under the age of 35. This group is eager for ties to the outside and could change Iran's outlook and policies int the future towards moderation. Risks in not reaching a deal also include the possibility of the Saudis developing nuclear technology and nuclear proliferation. Winners from a deal because of the flow of Iranian oil to world markets and a period of extended low oil prices are the U.S., Europe, China and India. Germany gains new markets to replace the growth in the Russian market after sanctions. Lifting of an arms embargo, an added risk in the last days of the talks, would be mitigated by making the lifting of that embargo very gradual....

LyrArc Article Gist
Cook and Olson look at how U.S. shale oil firms have handled the slump in oil prices. Their report in WSJ says the shale firms have weathered the oil slump well, with production declines in 2016 of only 535,000 barrels a day compared to 2015. The Saudi decision to not cut production and let oil prices drop has affected mostly higher cost less flexible production for mega projects such as deep water projects and oil sands in Canada. Oil shale firms are expected to snap back, according to experts, as demand increases. U.S. production is expected to increase by about 700,000 barrels a day by end of of 2017, say experts.

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ reminds readers of China's warning about North Korea's nuclear weapons in April 2015, and says the nuclear agreements with North Korea never worked. It sees a similiar situation with the nuclear agreement the Obama administration is working out with Iran.