World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Iran Ceasefire shaky May 11 2026 with no willingness on the part of IRGC Iran (Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps) to send all nuclear materials out of the country. Past experience has shaken American confidence in IRGC Iran's willingness to give up nuclear weapons development. Under president Obama some nuclear materials were sent to Russia, some left inside Iran which were after an agreement used by IRGC Iran to develop weapons grade enriched uranium, putting the situation back to where America started before the agreement. This is behind the DJT Republican administration's effort to get all nuclear materials out of Iran. This has wasted another decade for Iran, diverting resources needed for improving standards of living and cost of living to the weapons programs. The result is internal protests that were widespread in Iran including the middle class, not just students. So that today Iranian people are divided on the issue whether Iran should against all prevailing Middle Eastern and World opinion go for a nuclear weapon. The situation of clandestine development in North Korea and Pakistan of nuclear weapons is not existent today as the US is monitoring it constantly. Israel sees these weapons programs in Iran as a threat to its existence close to its borders in Lebanon and Iraq, which makes it unlikely that clandestine development is possible for nuclear weapons development anywhere in the Middle East. The UAE has also shifted its stance in favor of the US, Saudis want assurances, and India, Pakistan Egypt are in different ways seeking a denuclearized Middle East. This means the American DJT administration is NOT ALONE on this issue as the media in the US and Europe are presenting. Germany's Wadephul and Merz are closer to US thinking on this issue than the media says. Macron and Starmer are at popularity of less than 20% in France and the UK and do not reflect the opinion in France and Britain, and in Europe on this issue. In this sense the US is doing this for a safer world, for China, India, Brazil and EU, all the nations in the poorest parts of the world in Africa, Asia. These poorest nations which are bearing the brunt of this obsession with nuclear weapons development by IRGC Iran in a Middle East torn by 5 decades of wars from Kabul to Damascus, Baghdad to Tehran, by IRGC Iran (Revolutionary Guard Corps), as these poor nations confront lack of oil and fertilizer supplies. It does not come at a good time for even the largest nations about 3 billion people in China, India and Indonesia, Egypt which are suffering from the effects of oil shortages and fertilizer shortages when possibly at most about 40 of 90 million people in Iran support weapons programs, all others in Iran seeking a way out for better standards of living and living at peace with neighbors and the world. In that peacetime Middle East the Palestinian people could find solutions like the Irish people with the goodwill of all neighbors. ...
The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
  US reaches agreement that would restore oil supplies and bring down oil prices. The supply chains may have to be reconstituted for replacing much of the 20% of the oil that flows through Hormuz if the US, Europe,China and India, Japan, rest of the world are to gain from this experience. The only way to understand the change of mind of the DJT US government and the Saudis/UAE/Qatar for bringing an end to the war without immediately fulfilling required nuclear conditions is from the Saudi point of view it has sought to avoid damage to its oil facilities from Iranian drone and missile attacks. From the US point of view it may see that the US + ramped up Venezuelan production by 2027-2028 with increased push for supplies in other parts of the world with better security than Hormuz, could make up for most of the loss in supply from Hormuz. For the remainder acceleration of the renewal energy in Europe and in China, India could reduce dependence on oil from Saudis/Iran.  US Energy Information Administration forecast is for oil prices currently $103 for Brent crude oil to stabilize at $89 at the end of 2026 and $79 in 2027. The year started in 2026 at $60 per barrel. The UAE oil agency ADNOC says it would take 4 months to get 80% of production back on stream and full flows by 1st quarter 2027. Rystad Energy estimates repair and restoration at oil facilities to cost $58 billion. The MAGA base which opposed wars by Bush and Obama in the region would then look at it this way. The billions that Obama poured into Iran for Iran to rebuild its nuclear program would not happen again, as the US would continue its sanctions till all nuclear materials are removed from Iran. Iran would stall in negotiations that are now put off with only a Memorandum to show for commitment of Iran- though an agreement would only be a piece of paper that Iran may not implement as the failed Obama agreement showed- but yet not have the billions of dollars to support its nuclear program. It would give the US, Israel, and the world 10-15 years in which to respond to another nuclear program by Iran. Iran will need $270 billion to repair the damage to industrial facilities, which shows the cost of the war for the Iranian people just to get a nuclear weapon is prohibitive, considering that the Iranian economy was already in trouble before the war. Inflation and the overall economy will be in difficult shape for many years. Public sentiment in Iran may change the future course of Iran away from the course currently pursued. The entire Middle East  region has not benefitted from its dependence on oil. For the rest of the world finding alternative sources of supply is the best way and EU, China, India should accelerate renewable technologies and goals for energy independence shortening the transition from fossil fuels. ...
NHK WORLD Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
"The negotiations are proceeding in an orderly and constructive manner. Time is on our side."

On the US blockade of Iranian ports- "will remain in full force and effect" until an agreement is reached and signed.

"Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes!"  "The US-Iran relationship is becoming "much more professional and productive."

DJT stressed that Iran must know "They cannot develop or procure a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb."

The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Media headlines focused on Xi's statements on Taiwan. China is concerned that US not recognize Taiwan independence, but not much beyond that. China puts Iran much lower on the list of issues it considers important. It appears that China first priority is to be accepted as an equal partner with the US as a superpower. That is Xi's goal in this trip. Issues of Hormuz and Iran not something China considers important. China has an interest in a non-nuclear Iran, in no nuclear weapons proliferation. As the US has made this a priority China prefers to be not vocal on this issue, as it relies on the US to see this is done. A secondary priority for China is to have the US agree that China could continue to import from the Hormuz Straits to met its oil needs. As China has relations with Arab states it is carefully balancing this with relations with Iran. What does this mean? It means China and US are in considerable agreement on the current situation in the Gulf region and in the Middle East. China sees beyond Iran, so does the US. Both countries are focused on the future - on reindustrialization in the US and China on the next phase in its industrialization. New countries and blocs are also emerging that will rival China and the US- India/Japan and the European Union under leadership of Germany and France. These four countries or blocs are all thinking of the world beyond a failed Middle East- the economic issues they face and how best to tackle them, and the issues relating to borders and security, how best to tackle them. ...
The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
DJT and Xi of China agree that Hormuz Straits should not be controlled by Iran, and no tolls for passage through Hormuz on ships to be paid to Iran. Thedse are points of agreement with China at the summit between Xi and DJT in Beijing  May 14 2026. It is certain that Xi of China is also for no proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. China has to manage relations in the Middle East by considering the Arab  states of North Africa with whom it has good relations and their point of view- these countries are- Egypt, Moroccco, Tunisia, Algeria, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. China gets its oil from both Iran and these Arab states. In a larger sense both the US and China are looking for alternative sources of oil after this episode of conflict in the Middle East one of a long series of events since the 1970's for 5 decades.  China and the US, India, EU are looking at this episode as a point from where a new renewed effort is being launched to replace fossil with renewable energy, be able to generate more GNP with fewer oil and energy resources. ...
The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
US Naval Blockade Day 10- US stock markets up 4.1% for 4 months, oil price $95 a barrel, prices at pump $4.02 down from $3.94 a month back. If all the US seeks out of an agreement is getting nuclear material out of Iran to keep nuclear weapons out of the Middle East based on 5 decades of war in the Middle East- Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and now Iraq/ Lebanon- this is to protect the people of the world from nuclear weapons, including China, India, Brazil, Russia, EU and other nations. This was the goal of Democratic administrations also, only the Republican approach is to err on the side of safe and take zero chances on future nuclear escalation while the Democratic administrations were based on trust, trust which is not a sure thing in the Middle East political and cultural environment. Some of DJT comments were bluster, but the basic position is the same- against nuclear proliferation for a safer planet. In this light the Naval Blockade only seeks not to block Iran's path to a prosperous economy and a bright future for its people. Iran's economy is affected in the same way that India's and China's, Africa's is affected, for upwards of 4 billion people compared to 100 million for Iran. Africa, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Indonesia, among the poorest in the world, poorer by far than Iran. The economic impact on this part of the world is not part of Iranian perceptions. The economic impact on Gulf kingdoms an adversary of Iran is by comparison only a small fraction of the impact on the poorest countries. In this situation US is working to support the poorest segments of the Chinese people ( the part of China in the hinterland that is the one third not urbanized) and the Indian people through its cooperation and direct or indirect support. In this perspective the US economy stands as a steadfast support for US policy of fairness and respect for all nations since 1900- US is not one of the colonial powers such as Britain and France who created some of the artificial states Syria, Iraq, out of the remains of the collapsed Ottoman Empire in the interest of their Empires by 1921, and setup regimes in Iran for its oil, that are the source of today's problems and wars. No Empire of Britain and France promised Iran $28 billion as this Nation does today if Iran ships nuclear material out of Iran for a 100 percent shift to a peaceful Middle East that works for the modernization and industrial development of its economies in the interests of the people. ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Us president DJT says US will delay attack for 5 days beyond the 48 hours he had stated earlier, after signals received from Iran on an agreement that will include a ban on nuclear weapons development.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Iran nuclear deal of 2015 begins to unravel as the European Union takes the first step towards the reimposing of sanctions. Britain, France and Germany triggered a dispute settlement mehanism in the agreement which can result in the United Nations reimposing international sanction on Iran's economy, banks, and top officials within 2 months. This follows Iran's resumption of nuclear activities banned under the agreement. Earlier the U.S. withdrew from the agreement and the European Union tried to save the agreement. Recent tensions and the U.S. insistence on the renegotiating for a new agreement have led to this collapse of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report by Peter Baker shows President Trump only reluctantly agreed to certify the Iran Nuclear Agreement. He opposed it in discussions with the Secretary of State Tillerson. It took the combined effort of Tillerson Dunford of the combined chiefs of staff, Defense Secretary Mattis, and of National Security Adviser McMaster, to get Trump to agree to go ahead with the deal. President Trump wanted a new strategy to counter Iran in the Middle East. The Iranian foreign minister Zarif has not yet met with Tillerson of the U.S. Zarif says Iran may withdraw from the deal if there is significant nonperformance by the U.S. Trump advisers are wary about the influence on Europe as the EU is not interested in taking a new look at the Iran nuclear deal. The EU sees things differently- that the issues of Iranian influence in the war torn Middle East is a separate issue from the nuclear deal, and that in any case a nuclear constrained Iran is better than one with nuclear weapons. Another factor is that the Middle East is now a complicated place with relations crisscrossing in different and even conflicting directions. The U.S. played a part on the Iranian side in the retaking of Mosul in Iraq with U.S. bombing strikes against Islamic State. In Iraq the U.S. is supporting the Abadi government which is mainly Shiite in its structure and is supported by Iran. The Trump position is that president Obama gave away too much in negotiating the deal and was not against the negotiating process.   ...
Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
President Trump announces the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Agreement of 2015 signed by president Obama. He calls it a bad deal and "a one sided agreement, that "didn't bring, calm, didn't bring peace, and never will." Since the signing of the agreement the conflicts in the Middle East have increased and relations between the U.S. and Iran have deteriorated under the Trump administration. During the election campaign candidate Trump and Republicans had criticized the deal and deal never gained Republican support. It was also not initially supported by France which called for stronger safeguards on nuclear weapons development. The appointment of John Bolton as National Security Adviser, and Mike Pompeo as the new Secretary of State, who were strong critics of the Iran nuclear deal also influenced president Trump. He was also influenced say aides by the success of his policy with North Korea of imposing strong bargaining pressure with tough sanctions on North Korea including Chinese sanctions, which led to the talks between North and South Korean presidents and the planned Trump meeting with Kim Jong-Un of North Korea. Iran's president Rouhani says Iran will stay with the agreement as the EU countries Germany, France plan to support the agreement. This could also leave an opening for future talks with Iran on a new peace agreement as  president Trump talked about Iranian people deserving a better deal at the end of his 11 minute announcement. As Stephens points out in a op-ed in the NYT Iran's economy needs the removal of sanctions so that focus could shift to economic development, as the lifting of sanctions have yet to result in increasing living standards and building infrastructure neglected during the sanctions years. ...
The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Deteriorating China Iran relations as the oil imports from Iran for China face US tariffs of 25% on China's exports to US, and US economic relations far more significant for the Chinese economy. China gets somwhere between 1.4 to 1.6 million barrels aday from Iran (80% of Iran's oil exports) into Shandong refiners at $10 below Brent crude prices. Another 400 mbd comes from Venezuela to China. This means $30 billion comes to Iran from oil sales to China at $59 a barrel, and $8 billion for Venezuela from oil sales to China. This has financed much of the bellicose policies towards the US in the western hemisphere and in the Gulf region. Iran's bellicose policies in the Middle East, its nuclear policy, are now seen by China as a distraction and  detract from good economic relations with the US. China $400 billion oil deal 25 year cooperation agreement signed in 2021 was signed under the Biden administration and China today faces a completely different situation in 2026. Even China's relations with Russia are not the same as the US builds better relations with Russia. A wind down of the Ukraine war would change the situation completely and ensure peace in Europe including Russia, as the US works with the EU to meet future challenges having learned from this experience in Europe (Ukraine dividing Europe) and in the Western hemisphere (drug/ migrant. trafficking). When historians write this chapter of the inflows of capital from advanced West to Arab countries and the Gulf region they will write about the huge contrast between China/India's efforts to modernize and these nations where much of that capital was wasted in wars and conflicts and in grandiose projects that made no material difference to the standard of living and quality of life of the vast number of ordinary people. Once the oil dividend is gone with fossil fuels replaced with renewable energy by 2035-2040 this opportunity to advance is lost for the Arab and Gulf region. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Under the outlines of the nuclear agreement being reached with Iran in April 2015, Iran gets to keep all its nuclear facilities intact, and makes the concession of mothballing most of its centrifuges. The questions relate to Iranian intentions and monitoring of compliance with the agreement.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
France's foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, has sounded a warning about a nuclear agreement with Iran in the past. In 2013 he warned the West not to get drawn into a "fools game." In an intervew with the WSJ on May 31, 2015, he says without proper verification which includes military sites a nuclear agreement with Iran is meaningless. He points to the dangers of other countries in the region saying the agreement lacks clout and opting for developing nuclear weapons.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Oil price drops by $5 in one day to $65 a barrel as Iran US/Israel ceasefire June 23, 2025 following the carefully measured Iran missile strike (14 missiles) strike on Qatar airbase with early warning to the US. The move was seen as a moderation shown by Iran, and DJT pursued the option of ceasefire with Qatar's mediation. An Israel Iran ceasefire is expected in the next 12 hours.

This closes a chapter of the nuclear weapons development proliferation pursued by Iran and blocked by Israel and the US. It started with Israel's strikes on Iran nuclear sites. 

This puts the attention back to the economy and completing the trade agreements under the Trump administration's tariffs and efforts to level playing field in world trade.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Israelis from across the political spectrum say the nuclear deal with Iran in negotiations with the U.S., Britain and France, threatens Israel. Israel's nuclear experts say the 12 month breakout window for Iran to break the agreement and rush to develop a nuclear weapon in 12 months is not sufficient, because of the time it takes for detection and develop the response. Israelis have a deep distrust of Iran's intentions. On the other side of the Middle East the Saudis are also expressing serious concerns about the negotiations giving Iran enough leeway to keep the nuclear program and make a weapon at a future date. The proposed agreement creates further disagreement between prime minister Netanyahu and U.S. president Obama.
The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The world today is in a much better position to complete the transition to zero dependence on the volatile Middle East for oil. Today in 2026 the world's largest nations 1. US   2. China  3. India  4. Germany are all free of Middle East oil (India through waivers for Russian sources). European Union and UK is at about 12% which can be quickly substituted from the US+ Venezuela and other sources. US is self sufficient in oil and gas and exports oil to the UK, India, Germany and the European Union. Canada is self sufficient. Germany gets only 6% of its oil from the Middle East, the UK 12%, Spain 13% and Italy 14%. The Iran war is likely to shift more of the needs of UK, Spain and Italy to other more stable sources including oil from the US and Venezuela managed by the US, and other sources. This means that US policymakers can act in the best interests of all the nations of the world for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and long range ballistic missiles. Germany is moving rapidly to renewable energy and this could bring its dependence on the Middle East to zero. India will meet its needs from Russia for the time being till it also shifts to oil from US+ Venezuela. India get 55% of its oil from the Middle East or about 2.7 million b/d. Russia was an important source of oil for India till the US trade agreement called for it to shift- a 30 day waiver and extension means India can get this oil from Russia without sanctions for the duration of the war. Reducing European demand and Indian demand frees up oil for Japan and South Korea on the world market the other 2 countries dependent on Middle East oil- Japan importing 95% of its oil consumption with imports of 2.5 million b/d and South Korea importing about 2 million b/d or 70% of its consumption. This means Japan and South Korea need a new strategy as they are overexposed to one source just as Germany was and learned a difficult lesson to diversify its sources. Japan has learned to reduce consumption for the same level of GDP and some of this can be through conservation, also tried in Germany in the last 4 years. During the 4 years. of Ukraine war Germany had to find ways to diversify sources Japan and South Korea will need rapidly to do the same in the Iran War. This means that only Japan and South Korea because of their lack of policy direction and vigilance have allowed this overdependence on the Gulf region,  (even as Germany diversified its sources, DJT and Israel were firm on nuclear weapons policy) they failed to see signs that they should diversify. Today in 2026 the world's largest nations 1. US 2. China 3. India 4. Germany are all free of Middle East oil (Indi through waivers for Russian sources), European Union and UK is at about 12% which can be quickly substituted from the US+ Venezuela and other sources.    ...

The Obama Doctrine and Iran

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Obama invited NYT's columnist Thomas Friedman to the White House for an interview on Saturday afternoon April 4, 2015. Here Friedman gives president Obama's response to his questions, and Obama's concerns about the heated rhetoric in the U.S. and Israel on the negotiations with Iran detracting and distracting from his key goals of protecting U.S. interests and Israel. On the Sunni states, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Obama points out that there are some tough conversations needed about changes inside their societies which pose a greater threat to the governments than Iran. Obama says he understands perfectly that Israel and the Jewish people after their experience of the last hundred years are determined to not let Iran develop a nuclear weapon, and their right to be concerned that the agreement could let Iran clandestinely develop one. Obama says the verification is extensive and covers any facility in Iran, any suspicion about secret facilities, yet it leaves the subsequent decisions if Iran created difficulties, to a international body over which the U.S., UK, France, have no control. This is a principal issue for critics of the negotiated agreement. No mention is made of why Iran simply discarded the option of sending the atomic material to Russia to be processed into nuclear rods for the Bushehr nuclear plant built by Russia only a few days before the final outline was developed. And why the U.S., with allies Germany, France, UK and Japan, did not offer the Iranians an economic aid package if needed in return for the billions Iranians invested for that atomic material, to ensure that the atomic materials are shipped out of the country- to create a nuclear agreement that would be credible to all parties. The economic aid would benefit Iran modernize its oil industry, including refining operations, meet basic import needs, and provide tangible proof to the Iranian people of our best intentions for the future, that president Obama strongly espouses in the interview. The interview does show the quandary president Obama faces in Iran for strong action, that is a result of failed policies with Iran since the Eisenhower administration's intervention 1953 during the Cold War that displaced the elected government of Mosaddegh in Iran and setup the Shah's regime in 1956, the support of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the war against Iran, which Obama mentions in this intervew. In the light of the repeated failures of the U.S. policies a Democratic party leader faces increasing reservations for taking strong action against Iran's development of nuclear weapons capabilities, preferring to exhaust every diplomatic channel, and take risks in the hope that time will give the Iranian people an opportunity to to reintegrate in the global community and pursue the peaceful development of nuclear energy. This strain in president Obama's thinking is evident throughout the interview with Friedman. Other aspects of president Obama's policy in the Middle East shared in the interview are about supporting the Sunni states in some areas, and Iran in some areas, at the same time as the nuclear issue is "put in a box" and separated from the regional conflicts. Friedman presents this as the Obama doctrine, yet it appears to be coming after a series of improvisations in foreign policy following a failure to act in 2011-2013, when the "once in a lifetime" opportunities presented by the Arab Spring were not taken up by the Obama administration, leading to the region's current disintegration....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ's Laurence Norman talks to Yukiya Amano, head of the UN agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has the responsibility of verification and inspection of Iran's nuclear development and facilities. Amano describes the issues raised by a 2011 report which outlined 12 sets of concerns to which Iran has to explain, a condition included in the final nuclear agreement. Iran has to respond by mid-August, IAEA then responds, and does work in Sept and Oct, and submits its report by Dec. 2015. Yamano says he has to fill in all the missing pieces in this jigsaw puzzle to get a full picture of Iran's nuclear development. Iran has denied access to military sites and Mr. Amano couldn't say if he has access to the Parchin military site. A concession that was made in the agreement is the long interval of three weeks before access to a particular site that arouses suspicions-the agreement gives Iran the right to appeal an IAEA request to visit such a site to a special commission. The U.S. and its European allies have a majority on the commission yet three weeks are allowed in which Iran could move material to some other location. For critics the question will be why such a concession was needed if Iran truly has decided not to develop nuclear weapons technologies. The U.S. president's response at a news conference on July 15, 2015, was that with the laws of physics the U.S. monitoring tools would detect nuclear activity at that site. The agreement also gives Iran an earlier than planned lifting of a ban on sales of arms and missiles and missile parts if the IAEA says Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful. Iran could conceivably wait till the ban is lifted and its economy in a much stronger position to withstand any future limited sanctions to pursue nuclear weapons development. This would have delayed development for a few years during which time the hope is that Iran has changed into a more peaceful nation pursuing economic development in its region, yet even if this is the case as as happened with India and Pakistan it could still pursue nuclear weapons development. The alternative is a status quo till a better agreement is reached with the leverage of tight economic sanctions and continuing dialogue during which time Iran continues to get closer to a nuclear weapon, or the use of force to prevent this. Iran added the arms embargo issue during the last weeks of the negotiation in June, a controversial move on Iran's part, as this may have complicated the picture with ballistic missiles technology exports to Iran approved after 8 years in the final agreement, compared to the agreement reached in April 2015 which made no mention of the lifting of the arms embargo. Iran played on the notion that if Zarif returned to Iran without an agreement hardliners including Khamanei would veto any agreement, yet this could just be the Iranian negotiating strategy. U.S. president Obama stated at the July 15, 2015 news conference that it would be hard to hold sanctions for longer. Critics might argue that China was already benefitting from the small easing of sanctions by increasing Iranian oil imports by 30% in 2014, and would have less incentive to withdraw from sanctions, as it is dependent on the U.S. and the EU, major markets for its exports and access to technologies. A WSJ/NBC poll in July shows almost half of the people polled in the U.S. saying they do not know enough to express an opinion, a steady 36% support an agreement, showing that the public has not been educated and taken along during the different steps in the largely secret negotiations....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Israel outlined its own proposals for a nuclear agreement on April 6, 2014. Israel's Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, says any deal must include Iran cease all nuclear research and development activity, remove its enriched uranium stockpile from the country, reduce the number of centrifuges to below what was agreed to in the outline that emerged from talks with Iran in April 2015, closing of the underground facility at Fordow that was built clandestinely in the early 2000's. Steinitz said- "The deal has to be made on the assumption that Iran might violate it."
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This Journal editorial raises the issue of the need for full public disclosure of any and all side deals with the Iran nuclear deal of July 2014. It points out that Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas of the House Intelligence Committee, and Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas came to know of side deals only when they were disclosed to them by the Deputy Director of the IAEA at a meeting in Vienna. This has assumed a different proportion of significance because of many unknowns in the agreement, particularly the one involving the military site at Parchin, which inspectors have not had access for 10 years and where Iran is reported to be conducting research on tests for anuclear weapon.
New York Times Original article ›
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.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Critics of the nuclear agreement with Iran reached in April 2015 say the verification under a UN agency will be weak, and the "snap back" of sanctions in the event of failure may not work in the real world.

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us