Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi</span></p><p class="caption">Not so fast, everyone. An Iranian woman holds up an Iranian flag as people celebrate a landmark nuclear deal, in Tehran, Iran, on July 14, 2015.</p></div><p></p></div></div>One of the big unanswered questions in the wake of the historic nuclear deal between a US-led group of countries and Iran had to do with the status of <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-director-generals-statement-and-road-map-clarification-past-present-outstanding-issues-regarding-irans-nuclear-program">a side-agreement</a> reached between the <keyword id="6356001" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="international">International</keyword> Atomic Energy Agency and Tehran.</p><p>On July 14th, hours before the nuclear agreement was officially announced, Iran and the IAEA <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-deal-iaea-inspections-2015-7">signed a "roadmap" agreement</a> on the disclosure of Iran's prior nuclear weaponization activities.</p><p>The IAEA and Iran have been wrangling over Iranian cooperation with IAEA investigations into its weapons program for <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/world/middleeast/un-says-iran-still-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html?_r=0">nearly a decade</a>.</p><p>After years of difficulty, the roadmap gives the IAEA until October to investigate the extent of Iran's weaponization work and until December to issue a final report on their findings.</p><p>But it's unclear exactly what happens if Iran doesn't comply with the investigation, or if the IAEA reports that Tehran has been generally uncooperative in disclosing the past or current extent of their program.</p><p>And it's far from obvious what's even required of Iran under the roadmap, or what happens if the IAEA's vague criteria aren't met.</p><p>"There are no explicit requirements that Iran must cooperate sufficiently so that the IAEA can report that its concerns are addressed,"an<a href="http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Possible_Military_Dimensions_Final.pdf"> analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security</a> notes.</p><p>"If Iran provides by August 15 unsatisfactory answers about its past nuclear work related to nuclear weaponization and the development of a missile payload for a nuclear weapon, what happens?"</p><p>The answer: possibly nothing.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger</span></p><p class="caption">Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif stands on the balcony of Palais Coburg, the venue for nuclear talks, Austria, July 13, 2015.</p></div><p></p></div></div>On July 27th, the Wall Street Journal <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-says-iran-unlikely-to-address-suspicions-of-secret-weapons-program-1437953567">published a report</a> on the Obama administration's briefing of lawmakers on the various non-public side-agreements reached between the IAEA and Iran on the implementation of the roadmap. According to the Journal, some of the administration material on implementation is actually classified.</p><p>As the Journal reports, the administration provided documents to lawmakers, concluding that an "Iranian admission of its past nuclear weapons program is unlikely and is not necessary for purposes of verifying? commitments going forward."</p><p>This language hints at a subtle compromise: Iran could reveal weaponizaton work without explicitly acknowledging its purpose, a "what, not why" approach that would provide valuable information to inspectors without forcing Tehran to admit to activity that's clearly illegal under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Mehr News Agency/Majid Asgaripour</span></p><p class="caption">Iranian workers stand in front of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, about 1,200 km (746 miles) south of Tehran October 26, 2010.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>The administration documents the Journal quotes also suggest that the US is comfortable that it already knows the former extent of Iran's program: "The United States has shared with the IAEA the relevant information, and crafted specific ?measures that will enable inspectors to establish confidence that previously reported Iranian [weaponization] activities are not ongoing," the administration report states.</p><p>It appears the administration might believe it can help establish an IAEA inspection baseline for Iran's nuclear program - knowledge of illicit supply chains, expertise, undisclosed locations, and military oversight of nuclear technology - without Iran having to fully comply with the roadmap.</p><p>This is a bit of a gamble, and the Journal notes that former CIA director Michael Hayden recently told a Congressional committee that the US "[does] not<span> have total knowledge of how much progress the Iranians had made." </span></p><p><span><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span><a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-installations-2015">The Washington Institute for Near East Policy</a></span></p></div><p></p></div></div></span></p><p><span>E</span>ven analysts generally supportive of the deal have acknowledged that the weaponization disclosure issue was settled on favorable terms for Tehran.<span> The International Atomic Energy Agency was "</span><a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/7/16/8974507/iran-deal-explained-expert">using Iranian language</a><span>" in framing how disclosure issues will be settled, as the Royal United Services Institute's Aaron Stein put it in an interview with Vox. </span><span><br /></span></p><p><span><span><span>In a conference call with reporters a few days after the deal was announced, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace nonproliferation expert George Perkovich, who has a generally positive view of the deal, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-iran-deal-is-immediately-going-to-face-this-huge-problem-2015-7#ixzz3hCDPHhgy">speculated</a> that "</span></span><span>you're never going to have many of these questions fully resolved." </span></span></p><p><span><span>As Perkovich put it, the IAEA will determine that it "can't make a final pronouncement on X, on Y, and on Z," and the agreement would have to move forward in spite of that.</span><span><br /></span></span></p><p>But there's an even more basic problem: The sides seem to disagree on the relationship between the IAEA roadmap and the other, much larger nuclear deal between the US and its partners.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Carolyn Kaster/Pool </span></p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>As the Journal report notes, Ali Akbar Sahelhi, the head of Iran's atomic energy agency, recently stated that "<span>the IAEA's investigation was independent of the broader deal." </span></p><p><span>At the same time, "<span>US and IAEA officials have said ... that sanctions on Tehran won't be lifted if the country doesn't cooperate in the probe."</span><br /></span></p><p><span><span>So Iran and the rest of the international community don't seem to agree on whether Iranian stalling on military disclosures should have any impact on how and whether the other nuclear deal is implemented. </span></span></p><p><span><span>Whatever the extent of Iran's cooperation with the IAEA - and whatever details of the roadmap's implementation remain hidden from public view - it's this differing interpretation of what the nuclear deal actually requires that could be the most significant early indicator of the agreement's viability. </span></span></p><p><span><span>Within a few weeks of the deal's announcement, there's already a substantive disagreement on what the accord actually obligates the two sides to do, and how one very important part of the Iranian nuclear issue relates to the broader whole. </span></span></p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/waterfall-climbing-fish-goby-evolution-hawaii-2015-5">Scientists are astonished by these Goby fish that can climb 300-foot waterfalls</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="djMXJkdTpXxb0FwhBHlUoNNT3m6RuJH9" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

There's a critical unknown emerging in the Iran deal

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Thomson Reuters</span></p><p class="caption">US Secretary of State Kerry makes statement to media before closed door briefing with House members on Iran nuclear deal in Washington</p></div><p></p></div></div>Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to answer senators' questions on the historic nuclear agreement reached with Iran last week.</p><p>Republican presidential candidate and US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) asked about a provision of the agreement that seems to obligate the US and its negotiating partners to help protect Iranian nuclear sites against potential outside attack.</p><p>According to Annex III, the agreement's section on "civil nuclear cooperation," <a href="http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/">the signatories commit to</a> "co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including <span class="DV-searchMatch DV-highlightedMatch">sabotage</span>, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.</p><p>This provision of the deal doesn't mention any countries by name. But Rubio wondered if this was included in the deal because of Iranian concerns related to a specific US ally.</p><p>"If Israel decides it doesn't like this deal and it wants to sabotage an Iranian nuke program or facility, does this deal that we have just signed d obligate us to help Iran defend itself against Israeli sabotage or for that matter the sabotage of any other country in the world?" Rubio asked.</p><p>Moniz replied that "all of our options and those of our allies and friends would remain in place" after the deal goes into effect. </p><p>Kerry then jumped in to explain the provision's specific purpose: "To be able to have longer-term guarantees as we enter a world in which cyberwarfare is increasingly a concern for everybody that if you are going to have a nuclear capacity, you clearly want to be able to make sure that those are adequately protected."</p><p>Of course, one of the most effective acts of geopolitical cyberwar in modern history was launched by Israel at the Iranian nuclear program. In 2010 the computer bug Stuxnet, which is <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/">believed to have been a US-Israeli creation</a>, caused Iranian centrifuges to malfunction and slowed down the growth of Iran's uranium enrichment capacity. Stuxnet sewed confusion inside the Iranian nuclear program and arguably bought the US and its partners the critical time and political maneuverability needed to pressure Iran into a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue.</p><p>Israel is also believed to have <a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/en/originals/2014/09/israel-shin-bet-espionage-cyber-warfare-attacks-netanyahu.html">some of the most advanced cyberwarfare capabilities</a> of any country on earth, to the point where the National Security Agency reportedly <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/israel-flagged-top-spy-threat-us-new-snowdennsa-document-262991">considered Israel to be a potential electronic warfare proliferator</a>.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>International Iran Photo Agency/Ebrahim Norouzi/AP</span></p><p class="caption"> Iranian technicians work at the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran. The country's nuclear chief said on Nov. 23, 2010 that Stuxnet had not harmed Iran's atomic program, and accused the West of trying to sabotage it. Iran had earlier confirmed that Stuxnet infected several personal laptops belonging to employees at the Bushehr nuclear power plant but that plant systems were not affected.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>"If Israel conducts a cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear program are we obligated to help them defend themselves against an Israel cyber attack?" Rubio asked Kerry.</p><p>Kerry didn't exactly say no. He was, however, confident that Israel wouldn't attempt a cyber attack on Iran without US help. By implication, relations between the US and Israel aren't so damaged that Israel would launch such an attack without US help, meaning that if Israel did attempt to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program, it would be doing so in a world in which the nuclear agreement was no longer in effect.</p><p>"I don't see any way possible that we would be in conflict with Israel with respect to what we might want to do there and we just have to wait until we get until that point," Kerry said, cryptically - "that point" referring to a future time at which Israel believes it's necessary to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. It seems that at that juncture, the US would have to determine whose side to take.</p><p>Kerry's statement highlights some of the Iran deal's unknowns. The deal actually obligates the US to render various forms of assistance to Iran's nuclear program, as the signatories also committed to helping Iran construct a fuel fabrication facility that would let Iran convert enriched uranium into fuel assemblies for civilian nuclear reactors.</p><p>In the deal, the US and its partners actually agree to help build and protect the nuclear program of a country whose leaders openly talk about destroying a major US ally - and that represents a potential security threat to several other US  regional partners as well. <div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Brendan Smialowski</span></p><p class="caption">U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (L), U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (2nd L), Head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation Ali Akbar Salehi (2nd R) and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (R) wait with others ahead of a meeting at the Beau Rivage Palace Hotel in Lausanne on March 26, 2015.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>The logic of the deal is that this assistance serves the critical goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Protecting against sabotage undercuts future Iranian accusations of bad faith that could potentially sink the fragile trust between the deal's signatories. And assistance on fuel fabrication could make it easier for the international community to monitor the entirety of an Iranian fuel cycle that they themselves helped build.</p><p>At the same time, it's unclear what happens to this cooperation if trust between the US and its allies begins to fray as the deal progresses: If Israel ever decided it was necessary to launch cyber attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities at a time when the US considered Iran to be in compliance with the deal, would America be obligated to side with an enemy state against a longstanding friend? Kerry wasn't exactly sure - and the American public might only find out the answer to that question if the deal is ever tested in reality.</p><p>Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act signed into law in May, Congress has a 60-day period to review the nuclear deal, at which point it can choose to vote on a nonbinding resolution of approval, or on a resolution of disapproval that would prevent the president from suspending sanctions against Iran, effectively preventing the US from upholding its side of the accord.</p><p>President Barack Obama would veto a resolution of disapproval if passed, and the chances of deal opponents getting the two-thirds majority <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/how-congress-can-veto-iran-deal-2015-7" target="_blank">needed for a veto override are pretty slim</a>. But the review process still allows deal opponents to lodge their objections, and it lets the American public see the most important US negotiators defend the agreement on its merits.</p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/waterfall-climbing-fish-goby-evolution-hawaii-2015-5">Scientists are astonished by these Goby fish that can climb 300-foot waterfalls</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="djMXJkdTpXxb0FwhBHlUoNNT3m6RuJH9" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

John Kerry gave a revealing answer on whether the US will help protect Iran's nuclear program from an Israeli cyber-attack

You Searched For "akbar ebrahim" and got 2 results

There's a critical unknown emerging in the Iran deal

Armin Rosen

John Kerry gave a revealing answer on whether the US will help protect Iran's nuclear program from an Israeli cyber-attack

Armin Rosen

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides