Obama is answering questions about Iran on Quora

[ttt]

Pretty cool: 

www.quora.com/What-is-it-about-the-Iran-nuclear-deal-that-keeps-them-from-getting-nuclear-weapons

What is it about the Iran nuclear deal that keeps them from getting nuclear weapons?FAQ
I've heard the right talk about lifting sanctions and lack of inspections. But nothing from the admin as to what exactly stops them from getting the bomb. Please say it's more than a pinky swear.


The Iran deal is a historic diplomatic achievement and all 159 pages are worth digging into, which you can do here. But, let me lay out how this deal will work:

Under this agreement, Iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon -- period.

Every single pathway Iran could use is effectively blocked by this deal. Here's how: It takes either enriched uranium or plutonium to build a nuclear weapon. The only site where Iran can create weapons-grade plutonium is at its Arak reactor. Under this deal, the core of the Arak reactor will be pulled out, filled with concrete, and replaced with one that will not produce weapons-grade plutonium. Furthermore, the spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country and Iran will not build any new heavy-water reactors for at least 15 years.

This deal also shuts off Iran's uranium pathway by removing two-thirds of its centrifuges and getting rid of 98% of its stockpile of enriched uranium, which -- right now -- is currently enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs.

And should Iran try to build a bomb in secret, this deal effectively cuts off that covert pathway too because of a robust and unprecedented inspections regime. There will be 24/7 monitoring of Iran's key nuclear facilities and, for decades, international inspectors from the IAEA will have access to Iran's entire nuclear supply chain -- from uranium mines and mills to centrifuge productions facilities. For Iran to cheat, it would need a secret source for every single aspect of that supply chain. No nation in history has been able to pull that off, especially when faced with such rigorous and constant inspection. And the IAEA will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites.

Watch my Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist himself and a negotiator who helped secure this agreement, walk through the science behind the deal.

This is not just the conclusion of those who negotiated the deal, but also of experts who have taken the time to review its details. In fact, 29 of America's leading scientists -- including Nobel Laureates -- call it an "innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework."

This deal is based on science and unprecedented verification. It offers the best opportunity we have to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. There is no better deal -- and those who claim there is one are selling a fantasy.

This deal took a long time to negotiate -- nearly two years -- because we refused to accept any deal that didn't meet every one of our bottom lines, and that's what we got.


www.quora.com/Would-a-rejection-of-the-Iran-nuclear-deal-by-the-US-Congress-be-a-vote-for-war/answer/Barack-Obama


Would a rejection of the Iran nuclear deal by the US Congress be a vote for war?


Barack Obama, President of the United States 
The congressional vote on the Iran nuclear agreement is the most consequential foreign policy debate our country has had since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So thank you for asking this question, it's an important one.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping our country safe, and supporting the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country. When I took office, there were nearly 180,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've worked hard to bring almost all of them home. So it is with them in mind that I weigh questions of war and peace. Congress should too -- because that is a question Members are facing this week when they decide whether they will reject the Iran nuclear agreement. Here's why:

The U.S. and international community have long recognized a nuclear-armed Iran as one of the greatest threats to global security. There is no disagreement about that. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten our friends in the Middle East, and provide a nuclear shield to the Iranian regime's support for terrorism, human rights abuses, and other destabilizing activities in the region. It would pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have threatened to destroy. Should Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, it could compel other countries in the region to pursue their own nuclear programs, sparking a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world. And, right now, we are dangerously close to that reality, as Iran currently has enough fissile material to build 10 to 12 bombs.

So the question is not whether we should prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how. When I took office, I made it my policy to keep all options -- including possible military options -- on the table to address that danger. But I have consistently said that if an opportunity to find a diplomatic resolution could be found, the U.S. should pursue it -- not just because of the costs of war, but also because a negotiated agreement would offer a more effective, verifiable, and durable resolution.

That is why my Administration worked hard to bring our international partners together to enact the multilateral sanctions regime that helped bring Iran to the negotiating table. Before that, the sanctions that the U.S. already had in place for decades had failed to achieve that result. And, it wasn't easy -- many of our international partners lost billions of dollars because of their decision to cooperate with the U.S. But we successfully built an international coalition. Iran's economy contracted severely, and, after nearly two years of negotiations, Iran agreed to a diplomatic resolution that blocks every pathway it could possibly use to obtain a nuclear weapon. You can learn more about how it works here.

Our allies stand with the U.S. and this agreement. But, they have been clear: If we walk away from this deal, we walk away alone. Time and again, our allies have stated that the idea of a "better deal" is a false one, and that they will not join with the U.S. to increase multilateral sanctions because they believe we have the good deal we sought today. Without international support or the unprecedented inspections regime, Iran will be able to continue accelerating its nuclear program unimpeded.

In that scenario -- where diplomacy fails because we chose to walk away -- any President who is dedicated to America's national security and that of our allies like Israel will ultimately be left with only one option -- military action -- to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And every estimate suggests military action would only set back Iran's program by a few years at best -- a fraction of the time we gain with this deal.

We can either prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon through diplomacy, or be left with a form of war. Those are the options. As Commander-in-Chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary, but I cannot in good conscience place the burden of war on our men and women in uniform without testing a diplomatic agreement that achieves a better result. That is the lesson that I hope we've learned from more than a decade of war and the weight of its consequences. Diplomacy is not easy, but it is a better choice.





More answers: www.quora.com/Barack-Obama