Quote:Reminds me of that time when another Democrat President signed a deal with a rogue state to freeze their nuclear program.


Time does tell.


History also repeats itself.


No rumor involved.

 

What about the time when we were told that we'd be greeted as liberators and the war would pay for itself...  

 

History does repeat itself, but only when one ignores it...

 


The Iran Nuclear Deal Is Much More Detailed Than The North Korean Agreement, And The Countries' Circumstances Are Different
<p style="color:rgb(66,66,66);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><b>State Department's Marie Harf: Unlike Iran, "North Korea Had Produced Weapons-Grade Plutonium Prior" To Agreement. </b>In a press briefing on April 23, State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf addressed the comparison between the Iran deal and the North Korean Agreed Framework:

Quote:MS HARF: There's no - the comparison is just - they're completely different things, and I'm happy to talk through why a little bit. The comprehensive deal we are seeking to negotiate with Iran is fundamentally different than what we did in terms of our approach to North Korea. In the early 1990s, North Korea had produced weapons-grade plutonium prior to agreeing to limited IAEA inspections. After the Agreed Framework, they agreed to more intrusive inspections; but in 2002, when they finally broke its commitments, its violations were detected by the IAEA. We've also said very publicly that one of the reasons we have the Additional Protocol now, which is a key part of what we're negotiating with Iran, is in fact because of the lessons we learned from the North Korea situation. [U.S. Department of State,4/23/15]

<p style="color:rgb(66,66,66);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><b><i>National Interest</i></b><b>: Unlike The Four-Page North Korea Deal, Iran Deal Has "Unprecedented Degree Of Monitoring And Inspections."</b> Paul Pillar, nonresident senior fellow for both the Center for Security Studies and the Brookings Institution, wrote in his blog for <i>The National Interest</i>, "The Agreed Framework was a sketchy four-page document that provided for little in the way of monitoring and enforcement. In contrast, the leading feature of the agreement being negotiated with Iran is its unprecedented degree of monitoring and inspections. The final agreement will have an enforcement and dispute resolution mechanism consistent with the Additional Protocol pertaining to work of the International Atomic Energy Agency." [<i>The National Interest</i>,5/19/15]

<p style="color:rgb(66,66,66);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><b>CEIP: Unlike North Korean Agreement, "The P5+1 Are Unified In Wanting To Prevent Iran From Acquiring Nuclear Weapons."</b> According to an April 28 article by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) titled "Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Is Not the North Korea Deal," all members of the P5+1, including Russia and China, are involved and invested in the deal, unlike the bilateral North Korean deal between only the U.S. and North Korea:

Quote:The negotiations that produced the 1994 Agreed Framework were conducted by the United States and the DPRK alone. The other permanent members of the UN Security Council were not invested in it and in its enforcement.

The P5+1 perceive major national and collective interests in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and in upholding the NPT. Each of these states has invested national prestige in demonstrating that their collective effort can abate a threat to international peace and security. They have made this clear in a number of ways, including by authorizing and enforcing an unprecedented array of economic sanctions on Iran. The intensity of these states' support for sanctions has varied, and the P5+1--particularly Russia--may have different priorities in dealing with Iran if and when the nuclear case is resolved. But there is reason to believe that they all are prepared to hold Iran to account for fulfilling the terms of an agreement. [Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 4/28/15]

<p style="color:rgb(66,66,66);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><b>CEIP: Iran Deal "Explicitly Addresses All Pathways To The Bomb." </b>The April 28 CEIP article further explained that in contrast to the deal with North Korea, every path to nuclear weapons is addressed in the Iran deal:

Quote:The Agreed Framework focused specifically on the DPRK's plutonium program. The framework also reaffirmed the DPRK's broader commitment not to seek nuclear weapons by any means, pursuant to the 1992 Joint Declaration of South and North Korea on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. As it turned out, the DPRK secretly imported uranium enrichment technology from Pakistan and developed a parallel route for acquiring weapons-usable fissile material.

The proposed agreement with Iran explicitly covers both the uranium and plutonium pathways to acquiring nuclear weapons, and includes extensive measures to verify that declared and undeclared pathways would be blocked. [Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,4/28/15]

 

Speaking of History, didn't the USA and the USSR negotiate nuclear deals as well?  Yes, I know that the USSR already had nuclear weapons, but the fact remains, it's better to negotiate that to run a "cold war"...  

 

I wonder how many people thought Reagan was a fool for working with the Soviets?  I actually remember him being lauded for dealing with a nation that once said they would bury us...  

---