Yadlin: Iran deal would be bad if it were final, but it's not
"The world powers wanted to reach an agreement. I hope that the prime minister is now formulating a strategy to see what happens in the next six months. That, and not what happened last night, is what is important," Yadlin said.
Although not a "dream agreement," when compared to the proposed deal floated in Geneva earlier this month, Sunday's agreement is an improvement, Yadlin argued.
He credited Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with improvements that appeared in the second draft agreement. Unlike the first draft, the current arrangement freezes nearly all Iranian activities at the Arak heavy water reactor (a suspected plutonium path for the nuclear program), and forces the Iranians to neutralize their stockpile of 20% uranium.[Not quite on that last point. CiJ]
...
A final, reasonable agreement would see Iran disband its tens of thousands of centrifuges, while also shipping out its stockpile of low enriched uranium, currently enough to make six to seven atomic bombs, he said.
A final agreement must also significantly increase international supervision, allowing for daily inspections at all sites, including ones that have been off limits to IAEA inspectors, he added.
"The Americans are going to put the Iranians to the test. This needs time. We'd all be happier if the current agreement would have rolled Iran back more. Both sides needed an initial agreement to gain legitimacy at home for additional steps. There's no need to be too excited by this," Yadlin said.I don't know why Yadlin has such faith in the Obama administration's intentions. There's certainly nothing until now that indicates that they are going to put the Iranians to any test or that they intend to improve the terms of any final agreement.
Labels: Amos Yadlin, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, plutonium, uranium enrichment
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home