Drone on a Yemeni Wedding Festival

If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding, We'd Ground Our Fleet

But after a dozen or more deaths at a Yemeni wedding, don't expect anything to change. 

Edited by:

Kanwal Abidi – 

Pakistan Correspondent

Source: Reuters

I was recollecting few moments when I got married and remembered the stage set aside for the exchange of vows – if that precious moment of mine or be it yours was lot with a one “drone” on our marriage ceremonies, what good is the life we are living for?

Likewise – let us for a moment try to get into the shoes of the pain suffered by the Yemeni family upon whom drone was struck when the precious moment was about to be captured in the camera.

We can shrug off our honeymoon dreams – to get into the depth of the latest nightmarish consequence of America's drone war: "A U.S. drone mistakenly targeted a wedding convoy in Yemen's al-Baitha province after intelligence reports identified the vehicles as carrying al Qaeda militants," CNN reported, citing government sources in Yemen. "The officials said that 14 people were killed and 22 others injured nine in critical condition. The vehicles were traveling near the town of Radda when they were attacked."

Can you imagine the wall-to-wall press coverage, the outrage, and the empathy for the victims that would follow if an American wedding were attacked in this fashion? Or how you'd feel about a foreign power that attacked your wedding in this fashion?

The L.A. Times followed up on the story and found slightly different casualty figures: "The death toll reached 17 overnight, hospital officials in central Bayda province said Friday. Five of those killed were suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda, but the remainders were unconnected with the militancy, Yemeni security officials said."

More than a dozen dead, many more injured, and an unknown number of survivors whose lives have suddenly taken a nightmarish turn the likes of which we cannot imagine, and all for the sake of five people suspected of ties to al-Qaeda. How many actual al-Qaeda terrorists would we have to kill with drones in Yemen to make the benefits of our drone war there outweigh the costs of this single catastrophic strike? If U.S. drone strikes put American wedding parties similarly at risk would we tolerate our targeted-killing program for a single day more? Our policy persists because we put little value on the lives of foreign innocents. Even putting them through the most horrific scene imaginable on their wedding day is but a blip on our media radar, easily eclipsed by a new Beyonce album. 

The Obama Administration dishonestly talks of "surgical" drone strikes, as if surgeries ever result in double digit casualties. "Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set," President Obama promised back in May. The CNN story about this latest strike says, "The convoy consisted of 11 vehicles, and the officials said that four of the vehicles were targeted in the strikes." Is attempting to pick off alleged militants while in a wedding convoy with innocents the highest standard we can set to avoid civilian deaths? If so, the results speak for themselves. 

In that same May speech, Obama said:

Remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.  So doing nothing is not an option.  Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted lethal action would be the use of conventional military options. As I’ve already said, even small special operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and are likely to cause more civilian casualties and more local outrage. 

And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies, unleash a torrent of unintended consequences, are difficult to contain, result in large numbers of civilian casualties and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict.        

Does anyone believe that, if not for our lethal drone program, the United States would've sent the Air Force or ground troops to fire on this wedding party? The thousands of drone strikes we've carried out in recent years suggest that drones decrease the cost of lethal action so much that the U.S. takes it more often now than we would if we didn't have a drone fleet at the ready—and not, as their defenders sometimes argue, that drones are saving us from air strikes and ground invasions. 

Finally, Obama says that drone strikes are ordered only against targets who pose "a continuing, imminent threat to Americans." Is anyone else skeptical that the targets in this wedding convoy would be imminently attacking us right now if not for those Hellfire missiles? (For more on how Obama uses the word imminent in a misleading way see here.)

Even if you disagree with the growing global opposition to America's targeted-killing program, and believe that the frequent use of lethal drone strikes is necessary, reflect on the U.S. reaction to killing more than a dozen people in this wedding convoy, including many innocents. The moral course, if we must have a drone program that puts civilians at risk, would be to apologize for any terrible mistakes that we make, pay reparations to the wronged survivors, and explain what steps will be taken to insure nothing like this will ever happen again. Instead, according to CNN, "U.S. officials declined to comment on the report."

Special Thanks to:

CONOR FRIEDERSDORF

-       International Correspondent of The Atlantic

Chuck Hagel Military Drama in Pakistan

Letter to Editor: The Nation

Chuck Hagel Visit

The recent visit of Chuck Hagel (real name, Charles Timothy) to Pakistan is another classic example of camouflaged meeting between United States Secretary of Defense and Prime Minister Nawaz Shareef and Federal Minister for Defence Khawja Asif. This meeting came after the Pak – Afghan dialogue has taken place in Afghanistan regarding the US Military Withdrawal in 2014.

Under discussion came the topics of NATO supply – which as expected made US once again to act as “International Policeman” and dictate its terms on Pakistani Authorities. The problems attached with Haqqani network – will remain a challenge like a circle of a ring!

The irony is witnessed on the NATO supply routes where workers of PTI on the instructions of Imran Khan, Chairman PTI – had earlier blocked the roads to stop the NATO supply “trucks” and create a menace for the transporters community.

Mr Chuck Hagel is only doing what is dictated to him in terms of finalizing agreements on upper level of Defence Ministry on Pakistan and US. The Pentagon must have sent a “mapping of military men” to keep their position in the Afghanistan and to assure that NATO supply is not blocked.

But I would like to offer a cup of tea to Mr Chuck, US Authorities and Pakistani High Officials – to visit those roads where massive amount of harassment takes place with the “truck” drivers on the en route of NATO Supply. Instead of getting cameras flashed to make headlines – they should also see the batting line of the opposition parties netting the drivers on the roads, in the name of protests!

By:

KANWAL ABIDI

-Karachi

 9^th Dec 2013

Israel worries on US reset in Middle East

Netanyahu upset about US close ties with Iran

There are widespread hopes, and fears fewer in number but more virulent, of the relationship between Natanz [the Iranian nuclear fuel enrichment site] and Itamar [one of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank], that is, the connection between Iran’s relations with the West and Israel-Palestine peace. US Secretary of State John Kerry, in remarks made since the Iran channel showed its promise, leaves no doubt that the Obama administration considers these two threats to regional security to be conceptually connected.

In Washington, the decision to turn a new page in relations with Iran has, for the first time in more than a generation, begun to remove both practical, operational, bureaucratic and ideological constraints that have defined US policies in the region. There are encouraging signs that this “new thinking” is already enabling US policymakers to consider possible opportunities that Washington has shunned for decades — Iran, of course, is at the top of the list. Since 1979, no one within US policy and security bureaucracy has seen any value in thinking outside the box on Iran. Challenging the consensus view of Iran as a charter member of the “axis of evil” was a terrible career move.

Today, however, thinking about the possibilities of an improved US relationship with Tehran is back on the agenda. And, as a consequence, there is space for more critical thinking by the Washington policymaking bureaucracy. And if Iran is no longer a taboo subject, then what is preventing Washington’s reassessment of other “little Irans” formerly beyond the pale — for example, Hamas, Hezbollah and even Syria’s terrible Bashar al-Assad?

The decision to open a dialogue on Iran’s nuclear program, if it is to be fruitful, must necessarily engage both US and Iranian policymakers, and therefore everyone else, in far broader considerations aimed at defanging other threats to regional security and devising “win-win” solutions across a range of issues according to the model being discussed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, or P5+1.

A quick look at the map identifies both the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as important factors in this equation. Each has long been considered by its enemies as a “spoiler” — crashing the party organized by Washington and Israel. But without underestimating the continuing power of this view, the blinkers that have long limited Washington’s space for considering these charter members of the axis of evil are being lifted. In both cases, new US thinking on Hamas and Hezbollah would have to be reciprocated by its respective leaders Khaled Meshaal and Hassan Nasrallah, while each attempt to navigate an improved place in the new Middle East being imagined by Washington and Tehran.

Such moves would represent a regional reflection of the potential advantages of rapprochement with Iran. All threaten to upend Israel's view — and not only Israel’s — of how the future should unfold. In this new context, every car bomb in Dahia or shelling of the Gaza Strip is viewed, perhaps with justification, as a provocative challenge by dead-enders of all stripes to embryonic reconciliation orchestrated by US President Barack Obama and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. There is a real potential indeed for such actions to threaten or even overwhelm the still-fragile connections being forged. Washington and Tehran together are each obligated to communicate their commitment to succeed and steel themselves against being whipsawed by those anxious to change the subject and resume more familiar, comfortable — if deadly —business as usual.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s failure to revise his attitude toward Obama’s efforts on Natanz and Itamar promises to cause him increasing trouble in the months ahead. During an October visit to Rome, Netanyahu acknowledged that “the solution of the Iranian issue may have a decisive influence on the Palestinian issue — for bad and for good.” Obama has left no doubt that the train on Iran has left the station, apparently without Netanyahu aboard. Less so on Palestine, but here, too, Obama has broken new ground by endorsing a US effort to think and plan for mutual security in the context of a final status agreement “that preserves Israel’s core security needs” without permanent occupation.

Netanyahu sees only the potential perils of this holistic connection and the challenge that it presents to his worldview. Under his leadership for most of the past 18 years, Israel (according to his own calculations, at least) has fared better than others in this toxic, bloody environment. And he is far from reconciled to permitting — yes, that’s the right word — Obama to rearrange the furniture without his approval, even when one critical standard of this new relationship defined directly and explicitly by Washington, and indirectly by Tehran, is an improvement in Israel’s security.

In both Natanz and Itamar, Kerry is adopting the standard of increasing mutual security through agreement — not force, or war, or continuing occupation — and enabling a US-led diplomacy to create a stable framework for peace that will in each case increase Israel's security.

As Obama stressed in remarks on Dec. 8 in Washington, “The United States' military cooperation with Israel has never been stronger. Our intelligence cooperation with Israel has never been stronger. Our support of Israel’s security has never been stronger."

For Netanyahu, these soothing words are not a source of comfort, but rather a cause for concern. If Bibi’s warning against a diplomatic solution for Natanz is rejected by Obama, then what, Bibi fears, will stop Obama from having his own way on Itamar? And he is right.

Whatever, happens in the Middle East would be cause of concern for US to extend their friendly hands for a golden handshake - and corner the frowns of Israel for the time being!

Re-Edited By:

Kanwal Abidi
-Karachi

Nelson Mandela & BABRI Masjid Anniversary Compared for the "Power of Forgiveness!"

WIth reference to BABRI Masjid in 1992 & to "forget and forgive" theory of Nelson Mandela- To Lead in Life !!!!

Mandela’s death and Babri demolition anniversary Dec 6, 2013 - came togther with in same tiem frame and dates. Just as for the world - Mandela was a symbol of peace - Babri Masjid for Indians is a scar on humanity with horrendous reflections on massive massacre.

Waking up to a world without Nelson Mandela is not unimaginable. We have come perilously close to it over and over again. The idea of Nelson Mandela was strong. But the reality of Nelson Mandela had been on life support for a long time. Now only the idea remains. 

Nelson Mandela 1918 – 2013. 
"He was, and by the time of his death was universally held to be, a great man; he may well be the last of the great men, as the concept of greatness retires into the historical shadows," writes JM Coetzee. I am grateful for Nelson Mandela in life because he gave us something to look up to. But I am also grateful to him in death. Nelson Mandela died on 5 December. But in India by the time we woke up to news of his death it was already 6 December. For us that day marks a different anniversary. 6 December 1992 was the day the Babri Masjid came down and brought in its wake a communal horror whose ghosts still haunt Indian politics. No truth. No reconciliation. Just bitterness.

This 6 December, Narendra Modi, the man who remains the most polarising symbol of the legacy of Ayodhya in Indian politics today, mourned Mandela on Twitter with not one, but three tweets. RIP Nelson Mandela. The world has lost an apostle of peace & non-violence who redefined the journey of his nation for the good of humankind. Many of us are not fortunate to see Gandhi ji alive. We are blessed to see the life of Nelson Mandela, who embodied his values & ideals. My heartfelt condolences to Nelson Mandela's family & the people of South Africa. We stand by them in this hour of grief. Words are easy. Boilerplate words of condolence are even easier. But perhaps our politicans can stop for a moment, to remember on this bloody anniversary for us in India, Mandela’s greatest gift to the world – forgiveness as a political strategy. Nelson Mandela stares out of the window of the prison cell he occupied on Robben Island for much of his 27 year incarceration in this 1994 file photo. Reuters Mandela has been turned into a saint in his latter years. His death will only add to that halo. But as Tony Blair reminisced on BBC people forget that he was not above politics. On the contrary he was a very shrewd politician. And he used forgiveness not to turn the other cheek but as an extremely effective political strategy. In an excellent piece about Mandela for The Globe and Mail, Stephanie Nolen writes that when Mandela went to Robben Island, guards ordered him to dig and then climb into a grave-shaped trench in the prison yard. Mandela surely thought that this was the end. But instead as he lay in the grave he had dug, they urinated on him. Years later, when drawing up the list of the select group to invite to his inaugural dinner as president of South Africa, Mandela invited many eminent figures from the fight against apartheid. 

But the one name he is said to have insisted on was that of a former jailer. Mandela’s capacity to forgive is all the more powerful because it was not just a deeply held principle. “People have got the idea that we prisoners sat in prison and one day we said, ‘From now on, it's reconciliation, forgiveness, no revenge’ – but that was just flowing from the policy of non-racialism; it was policy,” Mandela said. 

It is precisely because it was policy and not just some saintly doggedness unique to him, that his message of forgiveness remains both powerful and worthy of emulation. It did not solve South Africa’s problems. We can argue that his one-term presidency was not the most effective in tackling South Africa’s chronic problems of poverty, unemployment and AIDS. But the fact of his presidency was always more successful than his presidency. Mandela saw forgiveness as the only way forward in a country where a majority and a minority had to learn to live together. He did not try to wrest an apology out of his oppressors. He was clear that just as it could not be a country of white domination, it could not be a country of black domination either. “(I)n any future dispensation, the majority would need the minority. ‘We do not want to drive you into the sea,’ I said,” he wrote in his autobiography. That’s a lesson our politicians are loath to learn because in razing mosques, burning trains and pillaging villages, in driving the other into the sea, they see far quicker political gains. A divided electorate, whether cowed or triumphant, is seen as a more secure voting bank. Whether it's 1984 or 1992 or 2013, "we want to forget rather than forgive."

At a Delhi election rally near Kashmere Gate this November, a Congress leader warned the audience about Narendra Modi garlanding MLAs accused of fomenting communal riots in Muzaffarnagar. The fact that Modi was not actually present at the felicitation was less important than the rich irony of the fact that the man delivering that warning was none other than Jagdish Tytler accused of organising mobs that massacred Sikhs after the assassination of Indira Gandhi. The way forward for our politicians is to deny the past with a smile. We are far away from forgiveness because we are far away from truth. Mandela in his death gives us occasion to think about this. Especially on this day in Indian history, on whose back many seek power when they should really seek forgiveness. Mandela reminds us that forgiveness is not weakness. Ultimately there is power in forgiveness too, both in seeking it and granting it. As a friend writes on Facebook, Rest in Power, Madiba Nelson Mandela.

EDITED &Written By:

KANWAL ABIDI 
 * Special thanks to Indian Journalists @ FP - Indian News Agency)

NA Session Speech coverage of Sheikh Rasheed (12th Nov)

Martyr Definition & Rs 180 Tomatoes?

The Lower House, National Assembly session on Monday - 11^th November 2013, took the floor after 5.00 pm, after the usual trend of delayed timings by the parliamentarians.

When Sheikh Rasheed, President AML, started to speak, he woke up the already sleeping on lookers seated in galleries. A mere Friday release of a suspense thriller will not stir a crowd, as much as, Sheikh Rasheed does by his NA speeches. It is synonymous to pressing “like” button on face book where all the faces at visitors / press gallery are waiting to clap on something thrilling spoken out of “Political Pandora Box”.

Sheikh Rasheed started his speech around 6.45 pm and chose to follow after PTI, Imran Khan, ended his drones’ fervor and slashed the government for failing the negotiation deal! It seemed clearly that the “cold friendship” of both leaders aimed to criticize the government through the combined “worded weapon” of their NA speeches!

Sheikh Rasheed in his mere excitement called upon media - loud and clear to make a note of the Price of Tomatoes which are soaring at “Rs 180 / kg” and at the same time sent a clear message to the government to be empathetic towards the emotions and economic needs of a common man.

With the current issue of “to be a martyr or not” – he added that the common man who is buying Rs 180 per kg tomato will not be concerned about “who is who?”

He also reflected upon the recent Nawaz Obama meeting and said that the country does not want “Dialogue with Dollar” but Pakistan Ki “Awam” demands solution to all the political, economic and social problems!

As he concluded his speech on a predicative tone of announcing his support for Imran Khan’s 20^th November 2014 protest rally for NATO supplies route blockades, both the leaders dispersed from the National Assembly Hall at the same time after conclusion of their speeches. Around 10 to 15 other MNA’s followed them and while walking down in the lobby Imran Khan said “Well done Sheikh Sahaab – Zabardast.”

On one side we are debating on the definition of a martyr in the light of religious aspect, social aspect and “army clan” aspect – whereas, on the other end, the Taliban is getting more strengthened by “regrouping” against all those they think “not to be martyrs!”

By:

KANWAL ABIDI

-Islamabad

OBAMA "LIMITED" COMPANY

Letter To The Editor !!!!      The Nation & USA Today

The 10th September 2013 speech of Obama had a American flavor of "No Boots on the Ground" &"Limited Strikes" - if US goes for a military solution in Syria!

The 23rd November 2013 - historic deal of Iran - US deal - has rejoiced Iranians but at the same time - US ally Israel is on a "cold front" with them!

Obama's diplomacy is to use the word "limited" when he wants to save his Oval Office from any public embarrassment or a cross fire of Senate hearings!

Shortly - after the deal was signed around 3.00 am - 23rd November , President Obama made a speech and spoke from the State Dining Room in the White House. He hailed it as the most “significant and tangible” progress of a diplomatic campaign that began when he took office.

“Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure,” he said, “a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.”

However - the accord was a disappointment for Israel, which had urged the United States to pursue a stronger agreement that would lead to a complete end to Iran’s enrichment program. But Iran made it clear that continuing enrichment was a prerequisite for any agreement.

Obama addressed those concerns in his speech, insisting that the easing of sanctions could be reversed if Iran failed to reach a final agreement or reneged on the terms of this one.

This limited sanctions relief can be accomplished by executive order, allowing the Obama administration to make the deal without having to appeal to Congress.

Obama wants to play safe with his Senators and Israel - who is not much in favor of this deal - yet keep its ball rolling on the "Irani Sites". Whether is it paused at 5% uranium enrichment or at 20 % upscale - America has kept it self safe with a Limited enrichment sanctions plan.

Thus, Obama seems to have launched his own White House "Obama Limited Company" when it comes to dealing his friends and foes!

By:
Kanwal Abidi
-Islamabad
24th November 2013

Details of IRAN - US Deal: "Right to Enrich"

Finally after a decade ...... Iran & US comes to a Deal

To Halt Nuclear Program *Not above 5% enrichment

Denis Balibouse/Reuters

Secretary of State John Kerry with Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, upon conclusion of the deal.

Re - Edited by KANWAL ABIDI (Pakistan)

Contributed Report By MICHAEL R. GORDON (Washington)

                                        MIKE LANDER (Iran Correspondent of NY Times)

Published: November 23, 2013

GENEVA — The United States and five other world powers announced a landmark accord Sunday morning that would temporarily freeze Iran’s nuclear program and lay the foundation for a more sweeping agreement.

Related

• News Analysis: A Step, if Modest, Toward Slowing Iran’s Weapons Capability (November 24, 2013)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Enlarge This Image

Denis Balibouse/Reuters

The negotiators in Geneva on Sunday. President Obama’s administration now must appear accommodating enough to Iran to keep talks moving, and tough enough not to seem naïve to allies.

It was the first time in nearly a decade, American officials said, that an international agreement had been reached to halt much of Iran’s nuclear program and roll some elements of it back.

The aim of the accord, which is to last six months, is to give international negotiators time to pursue a more comprehensive pact that would ratchet back much of Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it could be used only for peaceful purposes.

Shortly after the agreement was signed at 3 a.m. in the Palace of Nations in Geneva, President Obama, speaking from the State Dining Room in the White House, hailed it as the most “significant and tangible” progress of a diplomatic campaign that began when he took office.

“Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure,” he said, “a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.”

In Geneva, the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said he hoped the agreement would lead to a “restoration” of trust between Iran and the United States. Smiling and avuncular, he reiterated Iran’s longstanding assertion that its nuclear program was peaceful, adding that the Iranian people deserved respect from the West.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who flew to Geneva early Saturday for the second time in two weeks in an effort to complete the deal, said it would “require Iran to prove the peaceful nature of its nuclear program.”

Iran, which has long resisted international monitoring efforts and built clandestine nuclear facilities, agreed to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent, a level that would be sufficient for energy production but that would require further enrichment for bomb-making. To make good on that pledge, Iran will dismantle links between networks of centrifuges.

Its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent, a short hop from weapons-grade fuel, would be diluted or converted into oxide so that it could not be readily used for military purposes. Iran agreed that it would not install any new centrifuges, start up any that are not already operating or build new enrichment facilities.

The agreement, however, does not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a low level of 3.5 percent, or to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges.

The accord was a disappointment for Israel, which had urged the United States to pursue a stronger agreement that would lead to a complete end to Iran’s enrichment program. But Iran made it clear that continuing enrichment was a prerequisite for any agreement.

The United States did not accept Iran’s claim that it had a “right to enrich” under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But American officials signaled last week that they were open to a compromise in which the two sides would essentially agree to disagree on how the proliferation treaty should be interpreted, while Tehran continued to enrich.

In return for the initial agreement, the United States agreed to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief. Of this, roughly $4.2 billion would be oil revenue that has been frozen in foreign banks.

This limited sanctions relief can be accomplished by executive order, allowing the Obama administration to make the deal without having to appeal to Congress, where there is strong criticism of any agreement that does not fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.

The fact that the accord would only pause the Iranian program was seized on by critics who said it would reward Iran for institutionalizing the status quo.

Mr. Obama addressed those concerns in his speech, insisting that the easing of sanctions could be reversed if Iran failed to reach a final agreement or reneged on the terms of this one.

“Nothing will be agreed to unless everything is agreed to,” he said.

He also noted the qualms of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies of the United States, saying they “had good reason to be skeptical of Iran’s intentions.” But he said he had a “profound responsibility” to test the possibilities of a diplomatic solution.

In Geneva, Mr. Kerry said of the agreement: “It will make our partners in the region safer. It will make our ally Israel safer.”

The deal would also add at least several weeks, and perhaps more than a month, to the time Iran would need to produce weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear device, according to estimates by nuclear experts. American officials argued that it would preclude Iran from shortening the time it would need to produce enough bomb-grade uranium for a nuclear device even further, and would provide additional warning if Iran sought to “break out” of its commitment to pursue only a peaceful nuclear program.

Enlarge This Image

Atta Kenare/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

A 2006 photo of the heavy water plant in Arak, south of Tehran. The reactor being built at Arak is an issue in talks.

Multimedia

Multimedia Feature

Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program

Related

• News Analysis: A Step, if Modest, Toward Slowing Iran’s Weapons Capability (November 24, 2013)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

A second and even more contentious debate centered on whether an initial deal would, as the Obama administration said, serve as a “first step” toward a comprehensive solution of the nuclear issue, one that would leave Iran with a peaceful nuclear program that could not easily be used for military purposes.

Two former American national security advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, recently sent a letter to key American lawmakers endorsing the administration’s approach. “The apparent commitment of the new government of Iran to reverse course on its nuclear activities needs to be tested to insure it cannot rapidly build a nuclear weapon,” they wrote.

But some experts, including a former official who has worked on the Iranian issue for the White House, said it was unlikely that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would ever close the door on the option to develop nuclear weapons. Instead, they said, any initial six-month agreement is more likely to be followed by a series of partial agreements that constrain Iran’s nuclear activities but do not definitively solve the nuclear issues.

“At the end of six months, we may see another half step and six more months of negotiations — ad infinitum,” said Gary Samore, a senior aide on nonproliferation issues on the National Security Council in Mr. Obama’s first term. Mr. Samore is now president of United Against Nuclear Iran, a nonprofit group that advocates tough sanctions against Iran unless it does more to curtail its nuclear program.

The agreement also reflected compromises on other issues.

On the contentious issue of the heavy water reactor Iran is building near Arak, which could produce plutonium and therefore another path to a bomb, Iran agreed not to produce fuel for the plant, install additional reactor components there or put the plant into operation.

Iran is not required to dismantle the facility, however, or convert the plant into a light water reactor that would be less useful for military purposes.

Regarding enrichment, Iran’s stockpile of such low-enriched uranium would be allowed to temporarily increase to about eight tons from about seven tons currently. But Tehran would be required to shrink this stockpile by the end of the six-month agreement back to seven tons. This would be done by installing equipment to covert some of that stockpile to oxide.

To guard against cheating, international monitors would be allowed to visit the Natanz enrichment facility and the underground nuclear enrichment plant at Fordo on a daily basis to check the film from cameras installed there.

But Iran did not agree to all of the intrusive inspection regime that the International Atomic Energy Agency had said was needed to ensure that the Iranian program is peaceful.

Editor's Note: 

-----------------By: KANWAL ABIDI

• A significant occasion was marked in Tehran when the deal was announced around 3 am Sunday - 23rd Nov' early morning! 
• The Irani Journalist fraternity celebrated the Iran - US deal as a "milestone" in the history of Iran !!!