Iran Military Advancements/News - Page 6

March 17th, 2015  
A Kurdish Peshmerga reportedly with Iranian-made Shaher sniper rifle:

March 18th, 2015  
Mideast's Balance of Power Tips Toward Iran

Difficult though it may be to believe, Iran presents more important challenges than whether a nuclear deal negotiated with the regime in the teeth of congressional opposition would be legally binding. Nuclear weapons are scary, and they do matter, but in the long run, geopolitical reality matters more. That’s why this report, which arrived over the weekend from the Dubai-based Orient Advisory Group, should be disturbing:

Ali Younusi, advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, said in a seminar titled “The Iranian Identity” held in Tehran on March 8th, that his country is in Iraq to stay. “Iran is an empire once again at last, and its capital is Baghdad. It is the center of our civilization, culture and identity as it always was along the course of history.”

This is rather heady stuff. But might it be mere rhetoric, designed for domestic political consumption? There is reason to think not. Iraq has served for decades as a bulwark against Iran’s territorial ambitions, but that status was exploded by a pair of U.S. decisions: first, President George W. Bush’s invasion; and, second, President Barack Obama’s withdrawal of U.S. forces.

This is why it matters that the U.S. is essentially sidelined in the campaign to drive Islamic State fighters from Tikrit. Not only is the U.S. not participating in the battle, but also, according to the always-excellent reporting of the Daily Beast’s Nancy Youssef, the Obama administration didn’t even know that the attack by 30,000 government troops and Shiite militiamen was imminent.

Reuters reports that the battle for Tikrit has become a stalemate. Al Jazeera quotes an Iraqi commander as complaining that the U.S.-led coalition is providing too little air support. But nobody seriously imagines that Islamic State can hold on in Tikrit. It’s not unusual for combat engagements to proceed in fits and starts, and the fact that the offensive has slowed doesn’t mean that the defenders aren’t in retreat.

This should be good news. The trouble is that the largest militia group participating in the attack is the Popular Mobilization Committee, some elements of which have been accused of war crimes. This matters because, if and when Tikrit falls, there is a significant risk that the Shiites will take a bloody revenge on the Sunnis who remain -- and the U.S. has admitted there is little it can do if that happens.

That’s the cost of not being involved.

Now let’s add in last month’s comments from General Qassem Suleimani, leader of the Quds Force, currently aiding -- some would say directing -- the ground campaign in Tikrit: “Today we see signs of the Islamic revolution being exported throughout the region, from Bahrain to Iraq and from Syria to Yemen and North Africa.”

Headier stuff still. Tehran makes no secret of its ambitions, and seems to face no significant opposition in the drive to achieve them. Certainly the U.S., formerly the dominant regional power, seems to be standing aside as Iran advances.

An important and accurate criticism of George W. Bush’s Iraq policy was that too little thought had been given to the long-term consequences of U.S. military action. His administration had planned inadequately for life after Saddam. The identical criticism can be leveled against the Obama administration. Officials seemed to have no realistic understanding of what might happen once the U.S. withdrew. When it became clear that Iraq was becoming a disaster, the administration had no clear plan on what to do about it -- or even whether it mattered.

It’s not as though only vulgar partisans saw this coming. Plenty of professionals tried to sound the warning. Among them was George Friedman, the founder of Stratfor, who made this very point in his perspicacious 2011 book “The Next Decade: Empire and Republic in a Changing World”:

The balance of power between Iran and Iraq remained intact until 2003, when the United States invasion destroyed both Iraq's government and army. Since then the primary force that has kept the Iranians in check has been the United States. But the United States has announced that it intends to withdraw its forces from Iraq, which, given the state of the Iraqi government and military, will leave Iran the dominant power in the Persian Gulf.

How dominant? Sufficiently dominant, Friedman argued, that negotiations over nuclear weapons would be beside the point:

With Iraq essentially neutralized, its 30 million people fighting each other rather than counterbalancing anyone, Iran is for the first time in centuries free from significant external threat from its neighbors. ... With Iraq in shambles, the nations of the Arabian Peninsula could not resist Iran even if they acted in concert. Bear in mind that nuclear weapons are not relevant to this reality. Iran would still be the dominant Persian Gulf power even if its nuclear weapons were destroyed.

It seems likely that the Obama administration has already reconciled itself to this reality. The White House quite likely believes that the U.S. is unable to afford the cost of a continued large-scale deployment of forces in the region. Friedman saw this coming too:

In the next decade, the most desirable option with Iran is going to be delivered through a move that now seems inconceivable. It is the option chosen by Roosevelt and Nixon when they faced seemingly impossible strategic situations: the creation of alliances with countries that had previously been regarded as strategic and moral threats.

The obvious solution:

Conditions on the ground put the United States in a similar position today vis-a-vis Iran. These countries despise each other. Neither can easily destroy the other, and, truth be told, they have some interests in common. In simple terms, the American president, in order to achieve his strategic goals, must seek accommodation with Iran.

In short words, Friedman argued that the long-term interest of the U.S. would be best served by detente with Iran. The U.S., he contended, should accept Iran’s status as the dominant regional power, and negotiate with Tehran as it would any other hostile but untouchable nation.

Perhaps this is what the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program are really about. The Obama administration has decided to yield to what it sees as inevitable: Iran’s emerging status as the dominant power in the Middle East. If that’s what’s going on, the president of the United States should say so. Both his own citizens and the people of that troubled region deserve the truth.
March 28th, 2015  
Iran to Test Intercontinental Ballistic Missile in 2015 -
US Defense Agency

The US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has assessed that Iran will be capable of testing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) this year, US Missile Defense Agency Director James Syring saidIran to Test Intercontinental Ballistic Missile in 2015 - US Defense Agency

The US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has assessed that Iran will be capable of testing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) this year, US Missile Defense Agency Director James Syring said.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The US ground-based interceptors based in Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California are sufficient to protect the United States homeland against “the future Iranian ICBM threat should it emerge,” Syring stated.

“The DIA’s assessment is that Iran is capable of flight-testing an ICBM in 2015,” Syring told members of the US Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.

“There’s not a likelihood expressed with that assessment,” Syring said, adding that the DIA will further evaluate the likelihood of an Iranian flight test in an assessment it will conduct later in 2015.

The United States has 30 ground-based interceptors deployed on its West Coast, and will be adding an additional 14 by 2017.

The United States also has 33 Aegis warships with mobile ballistic missile defense capabilities, and will upgrade to 35 ships by the end of 2016, according to the Missile Defense Agency.

Read more:
March 28th, 2015  
Iran is building a non-nuclear threat faster than experts 'would have ever imagined'

In just over two years, the Iranian government has managed to build up a sophisticated cyberarmy that experts now say is capable of crippling key global infrastructure.

"Five years ago, I would have never imagined Iran to be where they are today," cybersecurity expert David Kennedy, founder of information security firm TrustedSec, told Business Insider. "Iran was once considered a D-grade cyber threat. Now it's almost on the same level as Russia or China."

Iran has increased its cybersecurity spending 12-fold since President Hassan Rouhani assumed office in 2013, according to a report released Monday by British technology research firm Small Media. Vowing to ramp up the country's cyber capabilities, Rouhani has given the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) an annual cybersecurity budget of roughly $19.8 million.

While Iran's initial cyber efforts were focused on countering internal dissidence, the government put its cyber experts on the offensive after an American computer worm, Stuxnet, infiltrated Iranian government servers and ruined almost one-fifth of the country's nuclear centrifuges in June 2010.

By November 2010, the Basij Cyber Council had trained 1,500 cyber-warriors who, according to IRGC commander Hossein Hamedani, "have assumed their duties and will in the future carry out many operations," according to a report released in 2013 by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

“Out of any country on the planet, I can’t think of a country that has been more focused than Iran from the high levels of government on cyber, and that includes the United States,” Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, told The Hill back in November.

And they'll only get better.

"In 10 years time, Iran's cyber capabilities will be more troubling than its nuclear program," geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasiaa group, tweeted earlier this week. He also noted that aggressive cyber operations by the US can be turned around on them by weaker adversaries.

The US government is now at a severe disadvantage when it comes to protecting the country's critical infrastructure from foreign hackers, especially given the current global political climate. The US' ongoing nuclear talks with Iran and its frosty relationship with Russia — a major Iranian ally — have made conditions ripe for Iran to try and use its cyber capabilities as negotiating leverage.

REUTERS/StringerIran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (R) speaks with Russia's President Vladimir Putin during an official meeting in Tehran

"Russia has probably helped Iran a lot in stepping up its cyber capabilities in the event of a conflict with NATO," Kennedy said. "If they [the Iranians] want to topple the US' financial sector, or cripple the military's ability to communicate, they can do that."

Kennedy noted that while Chinese and Russian hackers are typically motivated by competitive advantage or monetary gain, Iranian hackers are trained to infiltrate servers so that they can destroy them.

"Iran's cyber warriors ask themselves one question," Kennedy said. "Can I entrench myself in key sensitive areas and take the US down in the event of a conflict?"

Most likely, they can. Cyber security and hacking has become a booming industry in Iran — as a result, more and more Iranian students are choosing to study computer network defense, exploitation, and warfare in high school and college.

"At the Sharif University of Technology, which is like the MIT of Iran (Second only to university of Tehran*), students are participating in cyber 'capture-the-flag' games to hone their hacking skills," cyber-jihad expert Jeff Bardin, chief intelligence officer of cyber intelligence firm Treadstone 71, told Business Insider. "They compete to see who can find security holes and break through servers' encryptions and firewalls the fastest."

Colleges and universities in Iran also offer their students internships with notorious Iranian hacker groups, according to Bardin, who they then go on to work for after they graduate.

"It's all highly institutionalized," Bardin said. "The irony is that, after looking at some of the professors' resumes, you'll see that most of these cyber experts teaching students how to hack were initially trained in the US or UK."
Iran's cyber army - Business Insider
March 31st, 2015  
Iran's power rises, with or without deal

By Stephen Collinson, CNN

Washington (CNN)Deal or no deal in the Iranian nuclear talks, Tehran is already behaving like it's made a killing.

Sure, U.S. and international sanctions inflicted staggering damage on Iran's economy, convincing the longtime American foe to join talks aimed at limiting its nuclear program. Those talks face an important Tuesday night deadline.

But it's not just Iran's nuclear aspirations that have everyone's attention -- though just the fact that Iranian officials are at the table with the world's most powerful countries has elevated Iran's international status.

Getting the bomb would greatly magnify its regional -- even global -- role, but Tehran is also making big moves in a tumultuous Great Game of Middle East geopolitics that is challenging U.S influence and prestige and chilling Washington's allies.

READ: Iran nuclear talks: 'Tricky issues' remain, Kerry says

As it engages on its nuclear program, Tehran has exploited the divisions of the Arab Spring and the power vacuum of America's downgraded involvement in the region. It has also taken advantage of the leeway the United States offered in prioritizing a nuclear deal over attempts to restrain Tehran's proxies that could risk breaking up the negotiations.

The result is that Iran -- often through militant groups it sponsors -- has become a key player in conflicts in neighboring states all the way to the edge of the Mediterranean.

Its drive for regional pre-eminence is becoming an increasing problem for the Obama administration as it contemplates selling a nuclear deal -- which is already drawing considerable skepticism -- to opponents in Congress and to anxious allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, who are watching Iran's maneuvering up close.

Critics are accusing President Barack Obama of turning a blind eye toward Iran's nefarious motives and proxy wars in the Middle East to safeguard a legacy-enhancing push for a deal that could lift his presidency's historic potential after decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran.

They fear Iran is not only about to walk away with a deal that leaves its nuclear infrastructure intact, but that it is also playing the United States for a fool by using the talks to shield its hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East.

"They have completely schooled the American and European diplomats," said Michael Rubin, an Iran analyst and critic of the administration at the American Enterprise Institute.

"The Iranians used to brag that they play chess and we play checkers. It turns out that they play chess, while we play solitaire."

Iranian proxies
Iran has used its Revolutionary Guard Corps and a host of proxies to fill the power gap left by the U.S. departure from Iraq and the political tumult stirred by the collapse of authoritarian governments felled by now-defunct popular reform movements.

"Iran was destined to expand its influence one way or the other, and the U.S. was not going to prevent that, especially because of the cost involved in trying to pacify Iraq," said Reva Bhalla, vice president of global analysis at Stratfor, a global intelligence and advisory firm.

"Iran benefited from the Arab Spring as well."

Iran has also seen an opportunity in the U.S.'s shifting policies and interests in the region. The George W. Bush administration pushed out the regional strongman in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, who kept Iran in check through a hostile balance-of-power arrangement. The subsequent collapse of the Iraqi state left a festering sectarian stew that Tehran was quick to use to forge links in Shiite areas.

And Obama, in addition to withdrawing American forces from Iraq, has sought a lighter touch in hot spots like Syria, Yemen and Libya, where chaos has created an opening for outside fighters and radical domestic groups to swoop in.

The regional meltdown that has seen governance collapse and national borders redrawn on sectarian lines has provided a potent breeding ground for radical, stateless Islamic groups — like ISIS -- to grow and threaten both U.S. and Iranian national interests.

So the Obama administration also sees a common interest with Iran in fighting ISIS. But some critics say its desire to do so has blinded it to Iran's activities elsewhere.

White House assessments
This has left the White House in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why the United States appears to be tacitly cooperating with Iran, with which it has waged a de facto ideological war for 30 years.

Senior U.S. officials deny they are going soft on Iran to keep Tehran sweet on nuclear talks. They say the negotiations are walled off from concerns about Iran's aggressive moves elsewhere. And they point out that Tehran would be much more dangerous to its neighbors if it were able to build a bomb.

"Even if a nuclear deal is reached, our concerns about Iran's behavior in the region and around the world will endure," White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told the J Street policy conference last week, slamming Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, a proliferator and a gross violator of human rights that seeks to destabilize its neighbors.

Several U.S. allies in the region, watching Iran's growing influence, worry that whatever berth the United States is giving Iran, it goes well beyond the nuclear talks and the fight against ISIS.

Instead, they fear the beginning of a wider détente with Iran that some are calling a "Persian pivot."

Saudi concerns
Saudi Ambassador to the United States Adel al-Jubeir told CNN that Riyadh was "concerned about the interference by Iran in the affairs of other countries in the region, whether it is in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen."

Obama's domestic foes are less diplomatic.

"I heard repeatedly from leaders in the region that they believe we are forming some kind of Faustian bargain with the Iranians which would then lead to great danger to those countries," Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said last week.

"They believe that we are siding with Iran."

The former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, warned on Fox News on Sunday that Iran was "on the march" across the Middle East and that the administration response was one of "willful ignorance."

But a senior Obama administration official on Monday denied that Washington wanted the wider accommodation with Iran that its allies fear.

"The critics look at this as some part of a grand détente or reconciliation -- that by getting this deal we will turn another cheek or grant them carte blanche," said the official, who was not authorized to talk publicly about the nuclear talks.

"We have been and we remain just as concerned."

And at the same time that it holds marathon talks with Iran, Washington is backing its ally Saudi Arabia and a Sunni coalition that is bombarding Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi militias in Yemen.

In Syria, the United States wants close Iranian ally President Bashar al-Assad gone after his murderous rampage against his own people.

But many Washington observers believe the United States has stepped back from the region and interpret the increasingly assertive military actions of Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt as a sign that they feel Iran already has the upper hand. They see the Saudi coalition's assault on the Houthis as a signal, not just to Iran, but to Washington.

"Our traditional Arab allies are apoplectic. We are involved against ISIS in Syria but essentially did nothing in the past three years as the Houthis took over Yemen," said David Schenker, a former Bush administration official now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The Saudis are using Yemen to send messages "to Iran and to a lesser extent to us about their lack of confidence in the American security blanket being able to protect them from Iran's machinations in the region," said Stephen Seche, a former U.S. Ambassador to Yemen.

The White House said it has no illusions on Iran's motives, but argued that the painful lessons of the last decade show a huge U.S. military operation in the Middle East is unlikely to reshape its politics.

"It's definitely a regional power struggle," said the senior administration official, stressing that Iran's strategy dates from well before either the Arab Spring or the Iraq war, all the way back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution itself.

"It's a geostrategic play to use these groups as pressure points, in some cases playing on Shiite grievances but also just to increase pressure on the Saudi border," said the official.

The administration insists that a large-scale reintroduction of U.S. forces to the Middle East is not the correct policy response.

"It is going to be dictated by individual countries and the particular circumstances and what is the U.S. interest there," the official said.

And the administration is not alone in believing the United States has a limited ability to influence what happens in the region.

"We can do things at the margins to help this side, reinforce that side, train another, arm another. So the U.S. position is likely to be quite modest," said Richard Haass, chairman of the Council of Foreign Relations.

And Justin Logan, a specialist in geopolitics at the Cato Institute, warned that the United States must not get involved in the "pathological politics" of the region.

The idea that a proxy struggle between the Persian Gulf Arabs and the Iranians can be effectively managed by the United States defies both logic and history," he said.
March 31st, 2015  
'Iran is placing guided warheads on Hezbollah rockets'

Jerusalem Post

Col. Aviram Hasson, of the Defense Ministry's missile defense administration says Hezbollah gets a lot of accurate weapons from Iran.

Iran is placing guided warheads on its rockets and smuggling them to Hezbollah in Lebanon, a senior Defense Ministry official said Tuesday.

Speaking at the Israel Air and Missile Defense Conference in Herzliya, Col. Aviram Hasson, who is involved in preparing IDF air defenses, said Iran was converting Zilzal unguided rockets into accurate, guided M-600 projectiles by upgrading their warheads.

Hasson, who is in charge of upper-tier missile defenses at HOMA – part of the Defense Ministry’s Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure – described Iran as a “train engine that is not stopping for a moment.
It is manufacturing new and advanced ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. It is turning unguided rockets that had an accuracy range of kilometers into weapons that are accurate to within meters.”

Hezbollah, he continued, “is getting a lot of accurate weapons from Iran. It is in a very different place compared to the Second Lebanon War in 2006.”

For Israel, the “ultimate defense is a combination of counter-attack, active defenses, and passive defense [civilian compliance with Home Front Command safety instructions],” he argued.

Riki Ellison, founder and chairman of the US Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, also spoke at the conference, which was organized by the iHLS defense website and the Israel Missile Defense Association.

The alliance is a nonprofit organization advocating for the deployment and development of missile defenses.

Ellison said the US always kept at least one warship in the Mediterranean with an Aegis naval missile defense system to ensure that Israel was protected against long-range Iranian ballistic missiles.

“It can stand off the coast and shoot long-shots coming in from Iran,” he said.

The US is keen to see Israel complete its multi-layered blanket of missile defenses, which would enable it to defend against Iranian missiles without the Aegis and thereby free up the US Navy’s ships for deployment elsewhere, he added.

Ellison told the delegates that the US remained firmly committed to Israel’s security, irrespective of recent disagreements between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

He added that the US could deploy its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries “if necessary, to come into Israel to support your country’s defense.”

America is “fully supportive” of Israel getting fully capable Arrow 3 and David’s Sling defense systems, Ellison said.

'Iran is placing guided warheads on Hezbollah rockets' - Israel News - Jerusalem Post
March 31st, 2015  
First on CNN: Iranian aircraft buzzes Navy helicopter in Persian Gulf

CNN ^ | March 31, 2015 | Barbara Starr

Posted on ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2015‎ ‎1‎:‎32‎:‎18‎ ‎PM by don-o

An Iranian military observation aircraft flew within 50 yards of an armed U.S. Navy helicopter over the Persian Gulf this month, sparking concern that top Iranian commanders might not be in full control of local forces, CNN has learned.

The incident, which has not been publicly disclosed, troubled U.S. military officials because the unsafe maneuver could have triggered a serious incident.

It also surprised U.S. commanders because in recent months Iranian forces have conducted exercises and operations in the region in a professional manner, one U.S. military official told CNN.

"We think this might have been locally ordered," the official said.
April 2nd, 2015  
Iran, P5+1 joint statement calling for removal of all anti-Iran sanctions

Thu Apr 2, 2015 5:38PM

European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini (L), and Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, take part in a joint press conference in the Swiss city of Lausanne on Thursday.

Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers have adopted a joint statement after marathon talks in the Swiss city of Lausanne calling, among other things, for the removal of UNSC resolutions and sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

The statement was read out in a joint press conference in the Swiss city by the EU high representative, Federica Mogherini, and Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Thursday.

In the framework of the agreement, none of Iran’s nuclear facilities as well as the previous activities will be stopped, shut down or suspended and Iran’s nuclear activities in all its nuclear facilities including Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan and Arak will continue.

These comprehensive solutions will guarantee the continued enrichment program inside the Iranian territory and according to this, Iran will be allowed to go on with industrial production of nuclear fuel which is meant for running its nuclear power plants.

According to the solutions, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for enrichment program will cover a 10-year period, during which more than 5,000 centrifuge machines will continue producing enriched material at Natanz facility up to the 3.67-percent level. Extra machines and the related infrastructure in the facility will be collected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to be replaced by new machines consistent with the allowed standards. Accordingly, Iran will be allowed to allocate the current stockpile of enriched materials for the purpose of producing nuclear fuel or swapping it with uranium in the international markets.

Iran will continue research and development program on advanced centrifuge machines and will be also able to keep initiating and completing its R & D program on IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 machines in the 10-year period of the agreement.

Fordow facility

According to the joint statement, Fordow nuclear facility will be turned into a research center for nuclear science and physics. More than 1,000 centrifuges will be maintained at this facility and two centrifuge cascades will keep operating. In cooperation with the P5+1 countries, about half of the Fordow facility will be dedicated to advanced nuclear research and production of stable isotopes which have important applications in industry, agriculture and medicine.

Arak heavy water reactor

According to the statement, the heavy water reactor in the Iranian city of Arak will remain in place but will be redesigned and updated. The redesigning process will greatly increase efficiency of the reactor while reducing the amount of plutonium produced in the facility. The redesigning process will be done according to defined scheduled as an international project with cooperation of Iran. Production of fuel for Arak reactor and awarding international nuclear fuel production certificate will be among international cooperation to be offered to Iran.

Additional Protocol

Iran will implement the Additional Protocol temporarily and voluntarily in line with its confidence-building measures and after that the protocol will be ratified in a time frame by the Iranian government and parliament (Majlis).

Removal of Sanctions

Following the implementation of the JPCOA, all the UN Security Council sanctions as well as all economic and financial embargoes by the US and the European Union, including bans on banks, insurance, investment, and all other related services in different fields, including petrochemical, oil, gas and automobile industries will be lifted. Besides, all nuclear-related sanctions against real and legal entities, state and private organizations and institutions, including those sanctions imposed against the Central Bank of Iran, other financial and banking institutions, SWIFT system, and the country’s shipping and aviation sectors, and Iran's tanker company will be immediately lifted all at once. Moreover, the P5+1 countries are committed to avoid imposing any new nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.

International Cooperation

Iran’s international nuclear cooperation, including with the member states of the P5+1 will be possible and promoted in the fields of building nuclear power plants, research reactors, nuclear fusion, stable isotopes, nuclear safety, nuclear medicine and agriculture. According to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran will be provided with access to global market as well as international trade, finance, technical knowledge and energy.

Schedule for implementing JCPOA

At the end of these negotiations, the two sides will start drafting the JCPOA in the near future to meet the July 1 deadline. Once the text is finalized, the JCPOA will be adopted as a UN Security Council resolution. For the JCPOA to be binding for all UN member states, the resolution will be adopted under the Article 41 of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter to be able to render previous resolutions against Iran null and void.

The joint statement released at the end of eight days of intensive negotiations in Lausanne on Thursday is a sign that Iran and its negotiating partners have come to a mutual understanding over Iran’s nuclear program.

Representatives of Iran and the P5+1 group of countries -- the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia plus Germany – along with senior officials of the European Union have held talks over the past years to narrow the existing differences on Tehran’s nuclear activities.


That's a great moment in history after a decade of conflict
April 2nd, 2015  
Congrats, I bet Israel will be sulking for months and will probably need to carpet bomb Gaza again to pretend they are still relevant.

Either way I hope it works out.
April 2nd, 2015  
Obama Says U.S., Iran Have Reached ‘Historic Understanding’

John Kerry on Iran nuclear talks: agreement is a 'solid foundation' - live updates

Iran talks: Awaiting history, reporters Twitter away the hours

Iran Nuclear Talks: World Leaders Reach Framework on Iran Deal

Obama: Historic deal reached on Iran nuclear program

Similar Topics
Iran eclipses US as Iraq's ally in fight against militants
Iran, Syria sign defense agreement
Iran military plays down threats to strike Israel
UK Continues Military Exports to Iran
EU Military Attach Stage Walk-Out at Iran Parade