France denies any timetable set for lifting Iran sanctions.

The French foreign minister says no special timetable has been agreed with Iran on lifting the sanctions imposed on the country as part of an understanding reached between Tehran and world powers on Iran’s nuclear program.

Laurent Fabius said Friday that the mutual understanding reached in the Swiss city of Lausanne a day earlier contained no agreement on the precise schedule for lifting the sanctions on Iran.

Iran and P5+1 group of countries - Russia, China, France, Britain, the US and Germany - along with officials from the European Union reached a mutual understanding on Tehran’s nuclear program after eight days of marathon talks in Lausanne.

"The Iranians want sanctions to be lifted immediately…We say to them: we will ease the sanctions as you respect what you have agreed to,” Fabius told Europe 1 radio station, emphasizing, however, “On this point, there is not yet a deal.”

According to the joint statement, which is the basis for a final deal, the two sides have envisaged a mechanism for lifting sanctions after the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is reached by the end of June.

The joint statement read by Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Persian late Thursday stipulated that the parties to the JCPOA will, after the adoption of the Security Council resolution, need a period of preparation time to implement the JCPOA. Once the preparation period is over, and simultaneous with the start of the implementation of nuclear measures by Iran on a designated date, the lifting of “all sanctions” will automatically go into action.

Fabius, whose government has adopted a harsh stance toward Iran's nuclear program, also cautioned Tehran that sanctions could be re-imposed if Iran violates its obligations.

 “…If you don't live up to your commitments, of course we can return to the situation we had before,” he said.

The joint statement also reiterated that within the framework of the solutions reached, the necessary mechanism has been envisaged for the mutual reversibility of the commitments included in the JCPOA in case of a failure to meet obligations by each party.

Fabius, however, branded the framework agreement reached between Iran and P5+1 as “historic.” Fri Apr 3, 2015 10:3AM  PTV.

No stop or suspension in work of Iran nuclear facilities: Zarif.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says under the mutual understanding reached between Tehran and the P5+1 in Switzerland, the Islamic Republic will keep its peaceful nuclear program without shutting down any facilities.

At the end of eight days of intensive nuclear negotiations in Lausanne on Thursday, Iran and the P5+1 states – Russia, China, France, Britain, the US and Germany – issued a joint statement, saying that no Iranian nuclear facility will be shut down or suspended and all sanctions against the Islamic Republic will be lifted.

Speaking upon his return to Tehran following the talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, Zarif told reporters on Friday that the resolutions issued by the UN Security Council (UNSC) against Iran will be all annulled following the endorsement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as a UNSC resolution.

“You are aware that all the six [UN] Security Council resolutions call for an end to Iran’s uranium enrichment program, a halt in Arak heavy reactor [activities] and the closure of Fordow facility among many other illegitimate demands. [However,] none of these demands will materialize,” Zarif said.

He added that the Natanz nuclear facility will also continue enriching uranium and there will be no stop or suspension in its activities “even for a single day.”

The top Iranian diplomat said based on the joint statement, limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities will be in place only for 10 years although there had been talks of more restrictions on the country’s enrichment work for a longer period of time.

Iran has said from the beginning that it would never implement the “unjust” and “illegal” UNSC resolutions, stated Zarif, reassuring that once the JCPOA is adopted as a UNSC resolution, it will render null and void all of the council’s previous nuclear-related resolutions against Iran.

Zarif stressed that all countries, including the US, should abide by the final agreement when it is finalized, adding that “under international law the US government is obliged to remove the sanctions at once.”

Zarif also rejected certain statements about the gradual removal of anti-Iran sanctions, saying the claims run counter to the current agreements between the negotiating sides.

Less than 24 hours after Iran and the P5+1 reached a mutual understanding over Tehran's nuclear energy program, the US published a fact sheet detailing parameters for the JCPOA. The sheet, however, seems to have differences with the original joint statement.

While the agreed plan predicts a 10-year framework of actions, the White House fact sheet says uranium enrichment at Iran’s Fordow facility would stop for at least 15 years.

Although Iran has reiterated that all sanctions have to be lifted simultaneously as soon as the final deal comes into force, the US version indicates that the architecture of nuclear-related sanctions will be retained for much of the duration of the deal.

The US fact sheet also says the bans will also be snapped back into place in the event of any non-performance. It adds that the Security Council could impose all previous sanctions in case the issue of non-performance cannot be resolved through negotiations.

In posts on his Tweet account, Zarif pointed to the joint statement, which had stipulated that the US and EU will remove all economic and financial sanctions on Iran immediately, contrary to the assertions of the US-produced "fact sheet" on the statement.

On his Tweeter account, Zarif also cautioned against relying on the contents of misleading "fact sheets," including its details on Iran’s enrichment work and the US claim of gradual sanctions relief for Iran.

Representatives of Iran and the P5+1 group of countries along with senior officials of the European Union have held intense talks to narrow their differences on Tehran’s nuclear activities.

The joint statement is a sign that Iran and its negotiating partners have come to a mutual understanding over Iran’s nuclear program and will work to draw up a final accord by the end of the self-designated June 30 deadline. Fri Apr 3, 2015 9:54AM PTV

US gets ‘incredible deal’ offering Iran no real sanction relief.

The US is getting an absolutely incredible deal with Iran, receiving everything it wanted, while the Islamic Republic – after all concessions – was again placed at the mercy of IAEA, according to Hooshang Amirahmadi, President of American-Iranian Council.

RT: How do you think this deal could change the balance of power in the region?

Hooshang Amirahmadi: It has a long way to go, because the nuclear issue was isolated from other problems that the United States has with Iran, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, the very existence of Israel, terrorism issue, the human rights issue, and so on. And the Middle East is becoming increasingly more complicated as a place: A lot of failed states around, and many may even follow later on.

So it is a very complicated situation. And the US finds itself on different sides in different conflicts. And they are also not having a good time in the Middle East. My hope is, and everybody’s hope is, that the impact will be positive. But then again before it can have that positive impact, the US and Iran need to quickly move in the direction of normalizing relations. Otherwise there will be further problems that would impact negatively this very nuclear deal. I’m very concerned about the fact this Middle East context, which is a very dark, new geopolitics, will impact, will make this nuclear deal unsustainable.

RT: Why do you think we have seen this turn around in American stance with Iran?

HA: Well the bottom line is this. Iran as a member of the NPT had every right to do enrichment, unlimited. The only right it did not have is to divert. And of course the issue developed when Iran was caught red-handed cheating in few places. And that became the source of the problem. Remember at the end of the day, Iran as a member of the NPT has the right to enrich the uranium, to have research and development and all kinds of stuff. So Iran is paying all the price that it is paying for the cheating supposedly. And of course that cheating created mistrust.

And what happened now, the agreement coming into being, in fact will take Iran way beyond the Non Proliferation Treaty and will basically tie Iran’s hands behind [its back]. It will keep it at least 10 years standstill on nuclear issue.

So I think US has got a great deal, absolutely incredible deal here. And I’m absolutely shocked that the Islamic Republic would go that far. And after all these concessions, Iran hasn’t really got any sanction relief. In fact the sanction relieve is conditioned on the IAEA confirming that Iran is clear and clean. And that has been the problem. So in a way, Iran was sent back to the IAEA. And at the mercy of the IAEA, God forbid, if the guy who controls the IAEA does not like this Islamic Republic.

RT: How long will it take for them to lift sanctions?

HA: Again remember, I don't know whether or not you have seen the text the State Department has just issued? And this text that the State Department has just issued, if that text is correct, then Iran is not really getting the sanctions lifted from US. The US sanctions are just going to be simply suspended. And even in the text it says that European sanctions are going to be also suspended.

It also says that even he UN resolution that would be lifted, will be replaced by another resolution that will incorporate some of the troubling aspects of those other resolutions. So I don’t know what it is that people are talking about sanctions being relieved or lifted. Most importantly the sanction relieve or suspension really is in the hands of the IAEA. And even if IAEA says as you say tomorrow that it is ok, it will take a long time for the sanctions to be lifted. Some of them may take ten years! In fact even today, a lot of sanctions against Iraq and Libya have not been lifted.

RT: We’ve got three months now hammer out this deal. In your opinion is that very likely to happened?

HA: I don’t think so. I’ll tell you what: please first understand, everybody should understand that this is not an agreement, that just came out, this is an “understanding”. The US government doesn't even want to call it an understanding, they have said “the parameters of a comprehensive joint plan of action...” they do not even want to call that an understanding.

Beyond that, it is a very, very vague document, extremely vague document. Already Tehran is saying that what the State Department is saying is wrong, is false and hypocritical. And of course the US is standing on its foot. I think what we are going to see in the next few weeks is a dispute on what they actually agreed on. Published time: April 03, 2015 05:07 RT

Iran deal threatens ‘survival of Israel’, increases risk of ‘horrific war’ – Netanyahu.

A nuclear deal with Iran based on current framework will “threaten the survival of Israel”, said PM Benjamin Netanyahu, warning it would increase the risk of a “horrific war.”

In a phone conversation with the US President, the Israeli Prime Minister expressed his opposition to a framework agreement reached with Israel on Thursday.

Netanyahu has once again called for a “better deal” insisting that the only way to reach it would be“standing firm and increasing the pressure on Iran.”

Netanyahu warned that if the final deal due to be signed in June, fell in line with the current framework, it would “increase the risks of nuclear proliferation in the region and the risks of a horrific war.”

Successful negotiations and a sealed deal would “legitimize” Iran’s nuclear program, which Netanyahu insists is militarized and designed to increase aggression and bring more terror throughout the Middle East. Edited time: April 03, 2015 04:51 RT

Iran nuclear talks: Obama hails 'historic' agreement.

President Obama has hailed a deal restricting Iran's nuclear programme as a "historic understanding" which, if implemented, will make the world safer.

The framework agreement, struck after intensive talks, aims to prevent Tehran making a nuclear weapon in exchange for phased sanction relief. Iran and the six world powers involved must now finalise the deal.

Iranians have been celebrating in the streets but Israel says the deal threatens its survival.

"This will be a long-term deal, that addresses each path to a potential Iranian nuclear bomb," the US President said in a statement after the deal was announced.

"If Iran cheats, the world will know it," he said, adding that the agreement was based not on trust but on "unprecedented verification". He said that if the deal is finalised, "we will be able to resolve one of the greatest threats to our security, and to do so peacefully".

According to "parameters" of the agreement published by the US state department, Iran must reduce the number of its centrifuges that can be used to enrich uranium into a bomb by more than two-thirds.

It also has to redesign a power plant so it cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium, be subject to regular inspections, and agree not to enrich uranium over 3.67% - far less than is required to make a nuclear bomb - for at least 15 years.

"There's new state of the art technology that will be used," US Secretary of State John Kerry told the BBC. "We will have tracking of their uranium from the cradle to the grave."

There's been celebration through the night across Iran and a hero's welcome for Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. But the deal he's brought home has been dismissed by hardliners who say Iran surrendered too much in exchange for too little.

John Kerry also faces a mix of support and scepticism in the US Congress. The loudest condemnation has come from Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, who insists this deal doesn't block but helps Iran build a nuclear bomb.

As hard as it was to reach this preliminary agreement, it will be even harder to draft a final deal by the end of June. But, if negotiators do it, it will be a victory for diplomacy which, they believe will make the world a much safer place.

The framework agreement was announced by the European Union and Iran after eight days of intense negotiations in the Swiss city of Lausanne.

Western powers have long distrusted Iran's assertions that its nuclear programme is peaceful.

The talks at Lausanne's Beau-Rivage Palace hotel between Iran and the so-called P5+1 - the US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany - continued beyond the original, self-imposed deadline of 31 March.

deal" to limit Iran's nuclear programme

The Iranian foreign minister, Javid Zarif, called it a "win-win outcome", but warned: "We have taken a major step, but are still some way away from where we want to be."

The parties have set a deadline of 30 June to reach a comprehensive pact, but these negotiations are expected to be tougher than those that led to the framework agreement.

Even so, there was jubilation overnight on the streets of Tehran.

Celebrations on the streets of Tehran

If the deal is implemented it should mean the eventual lifting of sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

Unusually, the US president's speech was aired live on Iranian state television, with some Iranians taking selfies with Mr Obama as a backdrop.

There was anger though from Israel, whose leader Benjamin Netanyahu has been a vocal critic of Iran and told President Obama the deal threatened the survival of Israel. The Israeli prime minister said it would "increase the risks of nuclear proliferation and the risks of a horrific war".

In the US, the deal has been criticised by members of Congress who want US lawmakers to have the right to review any final agreement. US House Speaker John Boehner said the deal represented an "alarming departure" from Mr Obama's original goals and that Congress should review the deal before sanctions on Iran were lifted. BBC, 3 April 2015.

Iran: Sanctions must be dropped for nuclear deal.

The extended talks on the Iranian nuclear issue may wrap up on Wednesday, Iran’s negotiators said. But Tehran insists the lifting of international sanctions was the first step in the deal currently being bargained in Switzerland.

“We insist that the lifting of financial, bank and oil industry sanctions was the first step and on a clear roadmap for lifting the rest of the sanction,” Abbas Araqchi, Iranian deputy FM told the media.

The statement comes as hard negotiations on the Iranian nuclear controversy in Lausanne passed the Tuesday midnight deadline and continued. The foreign ministers of China, Russia and France left the country saying they would return if necessary.

French FM Laurent Fabius remarked that while the talks produced progress, it was not enough to reach a deal. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said a deal would only be possible once all points of disagreement are settled.

Iran and six world powers are negotiating a framework deal, which will hopefully lead to a final agreement by June. It would insure that Iran would not try to produce a nuclear weapon in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. Tehran insists that it’s not pursuing a nuclear capability, but some nations have accused it of having a clandestine military nuclear program.

As the talks passed the deadline on Tuesday, China warned that the parties must be willing to compromise to reach an agreement.

“In this final phase all parties must be prepared to meet each other halfway in order to reach an agreement. If the negotiations are stuck, all previous efforts will be wasted,” Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a statement after leaving Lausanne.

The most vocal opponent of the negotiations, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said it was time for the international community to stand its ground and insist on a better deal.

“A better deal would significantly roll back Iran's nuclear infrastructure. A better deal would link the eventual lifting of the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program to a change in Iran's behavior,” he said.

The Israeli government insists the lifting of sanctions would pave the way for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and warned that it would not be bound by the deal, if it is reached in Switzerland.

The former head of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission told RT that while Netanyahu’s unyielding position may be based on exaggerated fears, Tehran nevertheless gave cause for concern.

“The capacity of Iran to build a weapon is not known. The only tangible element is whether they have enough enriched uranium to build a bomb or – some worry – whether they in the future would have enough plutonium to build a bomb. But this is not enough,” he told RT.

“Nobody knows exactly what happened after they decided in 2003 to stop all development of nuclear weapons and how much they would need to get back to the program,” he said, adding that a robust IAEA inspection mechanism would help alleviate Israel’s fears.

Jamal Abdi of the National Iranian-American Council told RT that he’s “pretty confident we’re going to see a deal” at the end of the current talks.

“I don’t think the parties have got this far in order to see a collapse. I think that this is a moment for potential brinkmanship, attempts to get the best possible deal, the last mile of the race,” he said.

Abdi believes that the signing of the deal may also lead to an improvement in relations between Iran and the US, which currently have no diplomatic ties.

“If we can fix the nuclear issue we might begin to turn the page and shift the paradigm, and see increased, positive opportunities for diplomacy between the US and Iran, and other states in the region,”he stressed. Published time: April 01, 2015 11:06 RT.

'Iran could constrain reckless impulses of US Mideast allies’.

A deal with Iran over its nuclear program would benefit the US as it needs to change its policy in the Middle East, and even build a constructive relationship with critical regional powers, said Hillary Mann Leverett, a former US negotiator with Iran.

RT: Hopes are high that the six world powers and Iran who have been holding talks in the Swiss city of Lausanne will reach a deal by Wednesday evening. What kind of document do you expect to come out of these talks?

Hillary Mann Leverett: I would assume at this point we can still really think of only a vague document coming out of these talks. There does not seem to be agreement on many of the details, much of the substance that would be detailed in the final agreement.

But that is not really the purpose of what they were trying to get by [Wednesday evening]. This was supposed to be a political understanding of what the agreement would entail, and a final agreement then would be drafted by June 30. So my sense is that if we get an agreement it will be focused more on a reaffirmation in a sense of a core bargain that they struck back in November 2013: that the parties would proceed toward resolving this conflict by Iran agreeing in negotiated contacts to constraints on its nuclear program in exchange for comprehensive lifting of sanctions.

And that is where I think the parties have really got stuck, because the comprehensive lifting of sanctions is something that is not technical. It doesn’t involve nuclear physicists at the table, it requires real political will. And I think that’s where we’ve seen the brinkmanship.

RT: If a deal is agreed on, what kind of reaction is it likely to trigger on Capitol Hill?

HL: I think the reaction will be negative, regardless of what the deal is. Some people in Washington, I think, disingenuously claim that it depends on whether it is a ‘good deal’ or ‘bad deal’. But there is no ‘good deal’ for many of the lawmakers in Washington, the 47 senators who sent this letter to Iran, there’s no good deal for them with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their agenda is regime change. They would be happy for an Iran under a kind of Shah, an American puppet, to have nuclear weapons. But they are not really interested in an independent state to have any nuclear weapons. So I think they would oppose any deal.

I think because of that reality, the focus of the talks in this session has been not so much, not I really think at all, on the US sanctions, but how to really put that in its own box and deal with something more internationally. The focus has been on the UN sanctions, which Congress has no say over. The United States could agree to lift UN sanctions in five minutes. I saw it done on Libya; I saw it done on Sudan. The United States can do it in five minutes; they don’t need to consult with anybody in Congress. And that is what I’m talking about in terms of political will.

It’s up to President Obama whether he will agree and literally pick up the phone and call the UN ambassador and say: “Either vote for the lifting of sanctions or abstain.” It’s all he needs to do. That’s a question of political will; the rest of it is really just political posturing.

RT: The Republicans have warned that any deal with Iran might not survive after Barack Obama is out of the White House. Should we expect the US to make a U-turn on Iran in subsequent years?

HL: We’ve actually seen a bad scenario of this happening in the past. In the late 1970s under President Carter, his administration had negotiated the SALT II treaty with Moscow, with the Soviet Union. And the way he sold it was as if was a “technical agreement,” that we were “imposing meaningful curbs” on the Soviet Union’s strategic capacity. The Congress defeated it. It was a devastating failure for President Carter.

We could potentially be looking at something like that if President Obama plays the same game by saying that he’s essentially going to hold his nose while he is negotiating with Iran and just try to focus on a narrow technical agreement. He needs to make the case, the strategic case why a fundamental realignment of US policies in the Middle East toward the Islamic Republic of Iran is imperative for the United States, that after a decade of disastrous military interventions in the Middle East, the United States needs a different way. It needs a constructive way forward with Iran. But he has not done that. Instead, my concern is that he is following President Carter’s route. Essentially Carter’s view was that the Soviet Union was an unreconstructed adversary, evil empire in a sense, and he was just going to hold his nose and try to get the SALT II treaty passed. Well, he lost the election in 1980, we got Ronald Reagan, and that was the end of that.

RT: If a deal is reached, how is it likely to change regional dynamics for America's main allies in the region Israel and Saudi Arabia, who both strongly oppose a deal?

HL: I think it will be very good for the United States. After the end of the Cold War, the United States has gone through a period I think some would call of arrogance, essentially trying to impose its dominance on various regions of the world, including the Middle East. And those who want to go along with it, we characterize them as allies, when they are not really allies per se, they are just going along with the United States. What we really need is constructive relationships with each of the critical powers in the region so that they can restraint even the reckless impulses of our so-called allies. It’s not in our interests when Israel bombs Lebanon, Israel bombs Gaza. It’s not in our interest when Saudis invade Yemen. If you have a better relationship with Iran, it will constrain these reckless impulses of even our allies, and allow the United States to get off this dangerous trajectory of trying to impose its own military dominance on the region.

“We will hear a lot of condemnation on Capitol Hill”

Former US diplomat Jim Jatras suggests there would be a lot of condemnation in the US Congress over the nuclear agreement with Iran despite its content and framework.

“It is safe to say that there are a lot of Republicans and frankly a lot of Democrats who will not be happy with any agreement the Iranians will be willing to sign. I think we will hear a lot of condemnation about this agreement, whatever it says, whatever the framework is, regardless of what the details are to be arrived at later.”

Jim Jatras also expects to see a kind of power struggle between Congress and President Obama about the President’s authority to implement this agreement “which under the American law will not be a treaty and will not be passed by Congress.”

A possible U-turn on Iran’s nuclear program in subsequent years will be largely dependent on who gets elected in 2016, but the chances that it could happen are not completely small, Jatras suggests.

“Let’s take the obvious question of the lifting of sanctions. There are statutes in place that authorize President Obama to extend sanctions but it also allows him to wave those sanctions. He can to a large extent unilaterally lift the sanctions on Iran if that’s a part of what is agreed to in this agreement. The next president could very well put those sanctions back on if he disagrees with what Mr. Obama agreed to.”

According to the former diplomat some of the US’s key allies would like to see military action against Iran regardless of whether it has a nuclear capability or not.

“It’s a part of a larger struggle in which Saudi Arabia is so to speak the leader of the Sunni camp, and Iran the leader of the Shia camp. And they would like to see Iran essentially destroyed as a major power in the region. This nuclear deal does not accomplish that obviously and I think it’s unacceptable largely for that reason.” Published time: April 01, 2015 12:23 RT. See Flynt & Hillary Mann Leverett, Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Metropolitan Books, 2013.