This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-talks.html

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 8 Version 9
Iran Agrees to Framework of Nuclear Deal Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline, First Step Toward a Wider Deal
(about 4 hours later)
LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Iran and the world powers said here Thursday that they had reached a surprisingly specific and comprehensive general understanding about the next steps in limiting Tehran’s nuclear program, though Western officials said many details needed to be resolved before a final agreement in June. LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Iran and the United States, along with five other world powers, announced on Thursday a surprisingly specific and comprehensive understanding on limiting Tehran’s nuclear program for the next 15 years, though they left several specific issues to a final agreement in June.
There was no mistaking the upbeat mood surrounding the announcement, following eight days of intense debate between Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. “We have stopped a cycle that is not in the interest of anybody,” an exuberant Mr. Zarif said at a news conference after the announcement. After two years of negotiations, capped by eight tumultuous days and nights of talks that appeared on the brink of breakdown several times, Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, announced the plan that, if carried out, would keep Iran’s nuclear facilities open, under strict production limits, and holds the potential of reordering America’s relationship with a country that has been an avowed adversary for 35 years.
Speaking from the White House, President Obama made a strong case for the deal, saying that it “cuts off every pathway” for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and that it establishes the most intrusive inspections system in history. “If Iran cheats,” he said, “the world will know it.” Mr. Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, a nuclear scientist who played a crucial role in the last stages of the negotiations, said the pact satisfied their primary goal of ensuring that Iran, if it decided to, could not race for a nuclear weapon in less than a year, although those constraints against “breakout” would be in effect only for the first decade of the accord.
Even two of the most skeptical experts on the negotiations — Gary Samore and Olli Heinonen of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and members of a group call United Against Nuclear Iran — said they were impressed with the depth of detail. President Obama, for whom remaking the American relationship with Iran has been a central objective since his 2008 campaign, stepped into the Rose Garden moments later to celebrate what he called “a historic understanding with Iran.” He warned Republicans in Congress that if they tried to impose new sanctions to undermine the effort, the United States would be blamed for a diplomatic failure.
Mr. Samore, who was Mr. Obama’s top adviser on weapons of mass destruction in his first term as president, said in an email that there is “much detail to be negotiated but I think it’s enough to be called a political framework.” Just a day ago, that appeared in doubt. He insisted that the deal “cuts off every pathway” for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and establishes the most intrusive inspection system in history. “If Iran cheats,” he said, “the world will know it.”
Under the accord, Iran agreed to cut the number of operating centrifuges it has by two-thirds, to 5,060, all of them first-generation, and to cut its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium from around 10,000 kilograms to 300 for 15 years. An American description of the deal also referred to inspections “anywhere in the country” that could “investigate suspicious sites or allegations of a covert enrichment facility.” But in a briefing, American officials talked about setting up a mechanism to resolve disputes that has not been explained in any detail.
In a move not seen since before the Iranian revolution in 1979, and to the surprise of many in both countries, Iranian government broadcasters aired Mr. Obama’s comments live. In parts of Tehran, people cheered and honked car horns as they began to contemplate a life without the sanctions on oil and financial transactions, though the issue of when the sanctions are to be removed looms as one of the potential obstacles to a final agreement on June 30.
If that hurdle and the problem of ridding Iran of its huge nuclear fuel stockpile can be fully resolved in the next three months, the preliminary accord will still need to be sold to Iran’s neighbors. The prospect of a deal has inflamed Israel and the Gulf states, alarmed by Iranian muscle-flexing in the Middle East, most recently in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
There is so much concern that Mr. Obama, in a phone call today to King Salman of Saudi Arabia, invited Arab leaders to Camp David this spring to discuss Iran and the turmoil in the region. Analysts have long been worried that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states might mount their own nuclear programs if they decide that Iran is being allowed to retain too much of its nuclear infrastructure.
In a telephone call from Air Force One on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Obama told Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that while the deal was not final, it “represents significant progress towards a lasting, comprehensive solution that cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb and verifiably ensures the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program going forward,” according to an account of the conversation from the White House.
Mr. Netanyahu, a strong critic of the deal, was apparently not mollified, and released a statement saying, “A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel.”
Mr. Zarif, for his part, was careful to play down the notion that anything agreed to here would remake the relationship. Any hint of a broader rapprochement is an enormously sensitive issue among hard-liners in the Iranian military and clerical leaders who have made opposition to the United States the centerpiece of their political narratives.
“Iran-U.S. relation have nothing to do with this,” Mr. Zarif said emphatically at a university here where the agreement was announced. “This was an attempt to resolve the nuclear issue.” While saying he hoped the two countries would find a way to melt away their distrust as the agreement was carried out, he hastened to add, “We have serious differences with the United States.”
Now, attention will shift to Mr. Obama and Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president who was elected on a platform of ending sanctions. They share a common task: Selling the agreement at home to constituencies deeply suspicious of both the deal and the prospect of signing any accord with an avowed enemy. The White House has promised a lobbying campaign by the president unlike any seen since he pushed through health care legislation.
Mr. Zarif and other Iranian officials may have an even harder political argument to win. They will have to overcome objections in the military and scientific establishments, especially because the accord will force them to cut the number of centrifuges enriching uranium by half, put thousands of others in storage and convert two other facilities into research sites that would have virtually no fissile material — the makings of an atom bomb. Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is for civilian uses only.
Mr. Zarif seemed to sense the scope of the challenge in how he framed the agreement. He focused on the fact that Iran would not have to dismantle any facilities — something Washington had initially demanded, especially after helping expose one such secret facility, called Fordo, in Mr. Obama’s first year in office. When, late on Thursday, the White House began distributing a description of what amounted to Iranian concessions, an obviously angry Mr. Zarif challenged the American accounting in several posts on Twitter.
“There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on,” he wrote in one, only an hour or so after.
In another he suggested that sanctions would have to be lifted far earlier than one might think listening to Mr. Kerry, saying that, in essence, all the economic sanctions would be lifted once a final agreement was signed.
That could be another issue for the two sides, in that Washington has insisted that the sanctions be removed in a step-by-step manner as Iran fulfills its obligations under the agreement.
At another point, Mr. Zarif cautioned that no one had signed anything in Lausanne, and “nobody has obligations now.” That would come after a final agreement.
Another problem for Mr. Zarif is that the deal he has agreed to is far more restrictive than one he outlined last July in an interview with The New York Times. At that time he envisioned essentially keeping Iran’s stockpiles and its sprawling nuclear facilities at the levels they are running under a temporary agreement struck 18 months ago. What he agreed to in Lausanne, at least according to those fact sheets, would dramatically cut Iran’s capability for 10 years, and then allow it to gradually build up for the next five.
After that, Iran would be free to produce as much uranium as it wishes — even building the 190,000 centrifuges that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei talked about last summer. That is bound to be a major concern for Congress, the Israelis and the Arab states, because it amounts to a bet that after 15 years, Iran will be a far more cooperative international player, perhaps under different management.
The 5,060 centrifuges is a far higher figure than the administration originally envisioned, when it argued that Iran could possess only a few hundred. But in the final negotiations, Mr. Moniz and his Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Salehi, the M.I.T.-educated head of Iran’s atomic energy agency, agreed that Iran would drastically cut its stockpile of nuclear fuel — from about eight tons to a little over 600 pounds. The giant underground enrichment site at Fordo — which Israeli and some American officials fear is impervious to bombing — would be partly converted to advanced nuclear research and the production of medical isotopes. About two thirds of its centrifuges would be removed. Eventually foreign scientists would be present. It would have no fissile material that could be used to make a bomb.
But perhaps the most important compromise came in a lengthy battle over whether Iran would be allowed to conduct research and development on advanced centrifuges — which are far more efficient than current models. The Iranians won the right to research, but not to use more modern machines for production for the next 10 years.
At Arak, which officials feared could produce plutonium, another pathway to a bomb, Iran agreed to redesign a heavy water reactor in a way that would keep it from producing weapons-usable fuel.
Those conditions impressed two of the most skeptical experts on the negotiations — Gary Samore and Olli Heinonen of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and members of a group called United Against Nuclear Iran.
Mr. Samore, who was Mr. Obama’s top adviser on weapons of mass destruction in his first term as president, said in an email that the deal amounted to a “very satisfactory resolution of Fordo and Arak issues for the 15 year term” of the accord. He had more questions about operations at Natanz and said there was “much detail to be negotiated, but I think it’s enough to be called a political framework.”
Mr. Heinonen, the former chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said “it appears to be a fairly comprehensive deal with most important parameters.” But he cautioned that “Iran maintains enrichment capacity, which will be beyond its near-term needs.”Mr. Heinonen, the former chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said “it appears to be a fairly comprehensive deal with most important parameters.” But he cautioned that “Iran maintains enrichment capacity, which will be beyond its near-term needs.”
According to European officials, roughly 5,000 centrifuges will remain spinning enriched uranium at the main nuclear site at Natanz, about half the number currently running. The giant underground enrichment site at Fordo — which Israeli and some American officials fear is impervious to bombing — will be partly converted to advanced nuclear research and the production of medical isotopes. Foreign scientists will be present. There will be no fissile material present that could be used to make a bomb.
A major reactor at Arak, which officials feared could produce plutonium, would operate on a limited basis that would not provide enough fuel for a bomb.
In return, the European Union and the United States would begin to lift sanctions, as Iran complied. At a news conference after the announcement, Mr. Zarif said that essentially all sanctions would be lifted after the final agreement is signed.
The announcement was made at a university in Lausanne, with Mr. Kerry standing with his fellow foreign ministers. But the first statement came from the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, and Mr. Zarif. “Today we have taken a decisive step,” Ms. Mogherini said. “We have reached solutions on key parameters of a comprehensive political solution.”
In his statement, President Obama invited a “robust” debate on the agreement, but argued that the detail announced here on Thursday — far more comprehensive than had been expected — should persuade Congress not just to hold off on additional sanctions on Iran but to approve the agreement that emerges on June 30, assuming the final accord can be reached.
Western diplomats were quick to warn that there was more to do. “The fine detail of any deal will be very important,” said Britain’s foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, “in particular, specifics of oversight measures and mechanisms for handling U.N. Security Council resolutions.”
For example, it was unclear how and whether Iran would be compelled to answer the International Atomic Energy Agency’s outstanding questions about “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s program in the past.
Clearly one area where the Obama administration will run into criticism in Congress and elsewhere is the duration of the agreement. Iran faces sharp limits for the first 10 years, and during that time the United States would be able to say that the country remains a year away from being able to produce one weapon’s worth of fuel — Mr. Obama’s objective.
But it cannot claim that in years 10 to 15, when Iran would be permitted to gradually increase production. And after Year 15 the agreement largely expires — meaning that Iran would be able to produce as much material as it wishes, like Japan or Brazil.
It would remain under the inspection requirements it agreed to, and inspectors would still be able to roam the country. But there would be no limits on production — meaning that if Iran wanted to set up the 190,000 centrifuges that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei talked about last summer, they would be able to do so.
Anticipating that criticism, Mr. Kerry insisted in his news conference that some elements of the agreement “will never expire,” mostly inspection requirements. He said Thursday that Iran would allow the atomic energy agency to inspect anywhere it wants.
But one line of criticism for the Congress will certainly be that the assurance of a year’s warning to “breakout” — the point at which enough material for a bomb could be produced — will last only 10 years.
The statements by Mr. Zarif and Mr. Kerry reflected their political challenges at home. Mr. Zarif stressed that Iran had not agreed to close any facilities, something he said the “proud people” of Iran would never allow.
Mr. Kerry emphasized that the United States and its partners had cut off every pathway to a bomb — and insisted the West could “snap back” sanctions if Iran violated the agreement.
It was the kind of careful balance that marks the deal: Allowing Iran to keep its facilities running, but under restrictions that would reach President Obama’s goal that it would take more than a year to produce a weapon’s worth of material.
Still, Mr. Zarif said “we are still some time away from being where we want to be,” suggesting that the negotiation of the details would be difficult.
Just minutes before the announcements, Mr. Zarif sent out a Twitter message saying the negotiators had “found solutions” and were, “Ready to start drafting immediately.” Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, sent a similar tweet.
Obama administration officials have insisted that the current round of talks here produce more than a general understanding. They want a “quantitative dimension” — that is, specific limits on Iran’s nuclear program that the White House can cite to push back against congressional moves for additional sanctions.
President Obama had set March 31 as a deadline for reaching a political accord to define the main terms of a final, comprehensive agreement due by the end of June.
The Obama administration had extended that self-imposed deadline. But at the same time the White House warned publicly that it was prepared to step back from the diplomacy if it became clear that an initial accord could not be reached.
An all-night round of talks ended at 6 a.m. local time on Thursday, or midnight Eastern time. Mr. Zarif noted that some diplomats had not slept, and fatigue was visible on the faces of some aides who straggled into the breakfast room of the luxury hotel here where the talks are being held under tight security.
Shortly before 11 a.m., the deliberations resumed as Mr. Kerry met with Ms. Mogherini and the chief diplomats of Britain, France and Germany. Russia and China, whose foreign minsters have left the talks, were represented by lower-ranking officials.
Mr. Zarif said the purpose of the meeting would be to assess the “solutions” that Iran had discussed with the Americans and their negotiating partners overnight.
The form of any understanding with Iran has been at issue for weeks.
But there have been other complicated questions, including how quickly sanctions on Iran might be eased and what nuclear research would be permitted on advanced centrifuges.
An idea to suspend certain United Nations sanctions temporarily but to arrange for them to automatically snap back into place if Iran does not fulfill its commitments under a nuclear accord has also prompted concerns from Russia that such a procedure might dilute the authority of its Security Council veto power.