Iranian Nuclear Deal

[Jenksismyhero]

Great, so again this deal has less teeth than we were told. Iran gets a loophole on inspections.

 

If the whole point here was to lift sanctions in exchange for full disclosure and an end to their nuclear ambitions, we didn't really get that if they're able to set up these exceptions. What's to stop Iran from basically telling the IAEA "no, uh, that building over there is for, uh, other military equipment. You can't go in there. Our inspectors have checked it though and they say it's totally fine! Nothing to see here, move along."

[bmags]

One thing to emphasize about this whole 24 day review outrage, is this is only referring to suspected nuclear sites, not known nuclear sites. Which basically means people expect iran to allow inspectors into any area of their country immediately.

 

a) Iran has a military and military secrets, allowing inspectors into confidential rooms would be untenable for any independent country

b) the 24 day appeal process by Iran can be overruled by US earlier in the process

 

It is worth repeating that the US has a lot of control here, the US can effectively force the snap back by itself, and can overrule almost every appeal by Iran without support from others in the agreement.

[Jenksismyhero]

One thing to emphasize about this whole 24 day review outrage, is this is only referring to suspected nuclear sites, not known nuclear sites. Which basically means people expect iran to allow inspectors into any area of their country immediately.

 

a) Iran has a military and military secrets, allowing inspectors into confidential rooms would be untenable for any independent country

b) the 24 day appeal process by Iran can be overruled by US earlier in the process

 

It is worth repeating that the US has a lot of control here, the US can effectively force the snap back by itself, and can overrule almost every appeal by Iran without support from others in the agreement.

 

Parchin is a suspected site that the IAEA can not inspect per this side agreement. They have to rely on Iran's inspections, even for photos and videos. So a secret site that the world suspects was used for their nuclear program is now off limits. What sense does that make if we're trying to make sure they've shut down their nuclear program?

[StrangeSox]

Great, so again this deal has less teeth than we were told. Iran gets a loophole on inspections.

 

If the whole point here was to lift sanctions in exchange for full disclosure and an end to their nuclear ambitions, we didn't really get that if they're able to set up these exceptions. What's to stop Iran from basically telling the IAEA "no, uh, that building over there is for, uh, other military equipment. You can't go in there. Our inspectors have checked it though and they say it's totally fine! Nothing to see here, move along."

 

The actual process by which the IAEA verifies when and where the samples were taken from prevents Iran from just making things up. That's what Balta was explaining--it's not just relying solely on Iran self-reporting violations and inspections [insert shot at "self-regulating industry" here], it's using approved Iranian officials to go into very specific places and collect samples in a detailed and verifiable manner. The IAEA would still be the ones testing the samples.

 

The initial reporting and headlines make it seem like it's the scenario you're depicting, but that doesn't appear to be what it actually is.

[Balta1701]

Great, so again this deal has less teeth than we were told. Iran gets a loophole on inspections.

 

If the whole point here was to lift sanctions in exchange for full disclosure and an end to their nuclear ambitions, we didn't really get that if they're able to set up these exceptions. What's to stop Iran from basically telling the IAEA "no, uh, that building over there is for, uh, other military equipment. You can't go in there. Our inspectors have checked it though and they say it's totally fine! Nothing to see here, move along."

Because if they want to initiate this procedure the inspectors still seemingly have the right to demand samples from the site. Nothing in the AP's article implies that isn't the case and it certainly doesn't say so in clear text. The AP article suggests that there is a process required for those type of inspections where site personnel would receive instructions and the IAEA would still be able to get what it needs with fairly small delays.

 

Again, since the AP text is so vague I can't say for 100% certain that there is not some other detail buried in there, but limited access to military sites is something that every country is going to demand if they want to keep their conventional arms capabilities from being inspected and the IAEA has to develop procedures that work in those cases. The IAEA's job is not to inspect conventional arms except to the degree they are built as triggers for nuclear development. The IAEA needs to have procedures that make these type of inspections of military facilities workable and that seems to me to be the likeliest explanation for this set of clauses.

[StrangeSox]

IAEA says access to Iran's Parchin military site meets demands

 

"The separate arrangements of the roadmap are consistent with the IAEA verification practice and they meet the IAEA requirements," agency spokesman Serge Gas said in a statement.

Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for Iran's atomic energy agency, told Tasnim news agency: "Reports in media about the agreement between Iran and IAEA are just speculation."

[Jenksismyhero]

Because if they want to initiate this procedure the inspectors still seemingly have the right to demand samples from the site. Nothing in the AP's article implies that isn't the case and it certainly doesn't say so in clear text. The AP article suggests that there is a process required for those type of inspections where site personnel would receive instructions and the IAEA would still be able to get what it needs with fairly small delays.

 

Again, since the AP text is so vague I can't say for 100% certain that there is not some other detail buried in there, but limited access to military sites is something that every country is going to demand if they want to keep their conventional arms capabilities from being inspected and the IAEA has to develop procedures that work in those cases. The IAEA's job is not to inspect conventional arms except to the degree they are built as triggers for nuclear development. The IAEA needs to have procedures that make these type of inspections of military facilities workable and that seems to me to be the likeliest explanation for this set of clauses.

 

But you're still relying on Iran to provide the IAEA with samples, right? The IAEA can't collect them themselves, which is sort of the point when you have an independent agency. This is all still based on trust of Iran to tell the world the truth, which is the whole moronic thing about this deal. It's slightly better than having no idea what they're doing, except now we've lifted economic sanctions, which could potentially ramp up their efforts rather than stop it.

[Jenksismyhero]

IAEA says access to Iran's Parchin military site meets demands

 

According to an unconfirmed Associated Press report citing a draft document, the IAEA would not send its own inspectors into Parchin but would instead get data from Iran on the site.

 

Asked if Iran would be allowed to conduct inspections itself to address concerns about Parchin, the IAEA said it was legally bound to keep its arrangements with Tehran confidential.

 

"The separate arrangements of the roadmap are consistent with the IAEA verification practice and they meet the IAEA requirements," agency spokesman Serge Gas said in a statement.

 

Right, so again, we're relying on a country whose leader has called for the destruction of entire peoples to provide the IAEA with legitimate samples/data.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

But you're still relying on Iran to provide the IAEA with samples, right? The IAEA can't collect them themselves, which is sort of the point when you have an independent agency. This is all still based on trust of Iran to tell the world the truth, which is the whole moronic thing about this deal. It's slightly better than having no idea what they're doing, except now we've lifted economic sanctions, which could potentially ramp up their efforts rather than stop it.

No, it's not based just on trust. It's based on verifiable sampling methods. The IAEA has their own credibility at stake here. Why shouldn't we assume that if they say the agreed methodology meets their standards and requirements that it really is sufficient?

 

Sanctions weren't going to last much longer, anyway.

 

edit: and keep in mind, as the Yahoo story points out, the AP story is unconfirmed and relies on draft documents, not the final agreements.

Edited August 20, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

But you're still relying on Iran to provide the IAEA with samples, right? The IAEA can't collect them themselves, which is sort of the point when you have an independent agency. This is all still based on trust of Iran to tell the world the truth, which is the whole moronic thing about this deal. It's slightly better than having no idea what they're doing, except now we've lifted economic sanctions, which could potentially ramp up their efforts rather than stop it.

yes, you're relying on Iran to collect them, but that's why the video and photography equipment come in. It's not independent collection, it would be collection with verification of appropriate collection, with no "trust" involved. If you don't personally collect the samples but you can verify the locations and conditions the samples are collected under and verify the chain of custody by observing that the appropriate sites are sampled after initial measurements, the seals on the samples are closed on video, and then the sampels are returned to the IAEA in a short time period with no damage to the seal, then you've got what you need to conduct an appropriate investigation of the site for nuclear material. That doesn't involve trusting Iran as I've outlined it here.

 

Again, since the AP article was so vague I can't say with 100% certainty there is no loophole in there, but this seems like an entirely logical setup that an international organization would arrange in order to get access to secured military facilities for nuclear inspection. No country would want foreign observers on military sites so some procedure would need to be prepared to allow the necessary monitoring and sampling of those sites in order to make any agreement possible.

[bmags]

Good lord, I just re-read this story and half of the older information has been removed.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4e408039...-nuke-work-site

[bmags]

yes, you're relying on Iran to collect them, but that's why the video and photography equipment come in. It's not independent collection, it would be collection with verification of appropriate collection, with no "trust" involved. If you don't personally collect the samples but you can verify the locations and conditions the samples are collected under and verify the chain of custody by observing that the appropriate sites are sampled after initial measurements, the seals on the samples are closed on video, and then the sampels are returned to the IAEA in a short time period with no damage to the seal, then you've got what you need to conduct an appropriate investigation of the site for nuclear material. That doesn't involve trusting Iran as I've outlined it here.

 

Again, since the AP article was so vague I can't say with 100% certainty there is no loophole in there, but this seems like an entirely logical setup that an international organization would arrange in order to get access to secured military facilities for nuclear inspection. No country would want foreign observers on military sites so some procedure would need to be prepared to allow the necessary monitoring and sampling of those sites in order to make any agreement possible.

 

It's vague because they scrubbed the older paragraphs, they said Iran did not have to provide photos and that IAEA would not be present during the sampling, except the final agreement will have the IAEA there on the ground while Iran gets the samples. Luckily, to assume more space, they have added four introductory paragraphs of politicians denouncing the revelations they have since removed.

[bmags]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4e408039...-nuke-work-site

 

I hear from admin sources that AP sty incomplete--IAEA will be on the ground at Parchin facility. We need more details.

— Jonathan Alter (@jonathanalter) August 19, 2015

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

[Balta1701]

It's vague because they scrubbed the older paragraphs, they said Iran did not have to provide photos and that IAEA would not be present during the sampling, except the final agreement will have the IAEA there on the ground while Iran gets the samples. Luckily, to assume more space, they have added four introductory paragraphs of politicians denouncing the revelations they have since removed.

LOL, so they got challenged strongly on the accuracy of claims that would actually have been problematic if they were true. At least that explains why the version in my paper this morning was unreadable.

[StrangeSox]

There doesn't appear to be any editor's notes indicating that the story has been changed, either. Quality work.

[Balta1701]

There doesn't appear to be any editor's notes indicating that the story has been changed, either. Quality work.

Here's before/after screengrabs. Note how the part I keep calling "vague" is the part that is actually now missing and was one of the parts I highlighted a few posts ago.

[bmags]

Title - also still the same. Basically a replay of the NYT Hillary Email scandal.

[StrangeSox]

So you basically didn't read it. He brings up other examples (immigration and immigration supporters), Castro and his brother, Putin, Libya, etc. His mention of Nazi Germany was pretty short.

 

Give me an example of when Obama "played nice" and the situation has dramatically changed for the better in terms of US interests.

Are things worse with Cuba? Obama "played nice" with Libya?

 

And most of it is just nonsense, anyway.

It was often said during the Cold War that the Soviet hegemonists would rather negotiate with right-wingers than liberals, apparently on the premise that those they could not bully they respected, and those they could bully they felt only contempt for.

 

"It was often said" means "here's a chance to bash liberals with no evidence, wee!"

 

On immigration:

 

Consider immigration. After we had allowed well over 12 million illegal aliens into the country, permitted hundreds of sanctuary cities to be established, and de facto suspended federal immigration laws and stopped deportations,

 

Deportations have increased under Obama.

 

on Iran:

 

If the U.S. Congress should defeat the treaty, reinstate even tougher sanctions, organize another global boycott, and warn the Iranians that they will be held accountable for their terrorist operatives, would Iranian theocrats keep chanting “Death to America” in their legislative chambers and press ahead with enrichment as they wink and nod to their allies about nuclear proliferation?

 

Uh, yes? That's what they've been doing for decades even with American threats of military force. I can't imagine why VDH thinks that Congress blocking the agreement would suddenly make Iran cower with fear.

 

On Iran, 1980:

 

The trait is not quite ingratitude so much as it is gratuitous derision. It all reminds me of 1980, when the ingratiating Jimmy Carter (remember the aborted appeasement mission of Ramsey Clark, and Andy Young’s blessing of Khomeini as a probable “saint”?) was slandered as satanic by the Iranian hostage-takers, while President-elect Ronald Reagan was met with silence and released hostages.

 

President-elect Reagan negotiated a deal with Iran that released several billion dollars in frozen assets (something like $25B in today's dollars) in exchange for the hostages. President Reagan also illegally dealt weapons to Iran in order to illegally funnel money to right-wing juntas in South America a couple of years later.

 

On Cuba:

 

Why would the Castros do that at this point, when no American president in a half-century has been more deferential to their Stalinist government? Is their defiance cheap public grandstanding for the benefit of Cuban hardliners, or a more natural reaction known to benefactors and beneficiaries alike as something like the following: “If he gave a wretch like me something for nothing, then he either did not deserve what he had or he should have given me even more”? Do spoiled teenagers become parsimonious when they see their hard-working parents scrimping and saving to pay off their maxed-out credit cards — or do they become even more irresponsible, thinking that their parents were rich, after all, or perhaps could not be real parents for covering the splurges of someone as reckless as themselves?

(man, VDH sure loves to hear himself talk)

 

It would seem that VDH would prefer a never-ending and ineffective embargo of Cuba over normalized relations. Why continuing the failed policies of the last 55 years would be better going forward is left unexplained.

 

If a President Rubio announced a ratcheting up of sanctions, a public campaign on behalf of democratic dissidents in Cuban jails, and increased radio and television broadcasts to the enslaved island, would Castro think any less of him than he does of President Obama? Would he now be demanding of Rubio millions in reparations?

 

Possibly? Or are we to take VDH's international mind-reading abilities as a given?

 

On Russia:

Why did Putin react to Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s obsequious reset with invasions of his smaller neighbors?

 

Putin didn't react to 2009 diplomatic overtures from the Obama administration by invading anyone. He reacted to the Russian-friendly government in Ukraine getting thrown out about 6 years later. VDH seems to have a very weird sense of causality. Would mean words from the US President have prevented his actions?

 

At least Obama didn't look into his eyes and see that he had a good soul. Nobody would respect a world leader who said something like that.

 

 

Is the U.S. popular in Libya for removing the hated Qaddafi?

 

How does this even fit in with his "appeasement" narrative above? He really seems to have lost his train of thought.

 

Why did ISIS swallow Iraq immediately following our departure, when we had been told ad nauseam in the 2008 campaign that our foreign presence there was an irritant and a radicalizing force among the peoples of the Middle East?

Because of the Syrian civil war (oddly unmentioned) and an inept and dysfunctional Iraqi government that used the political space provided by "the surge" in order to continue sectarian purges rather than unify and rebuild the country. And, again, VDH seems to be falling for post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[bmags]

You guys remember when Clinton was appeasing North Korea too much and then Bush came in and we broke off communications to make it so much tougher on them and then they had an atomic bomb. They really respected the harder line.

[bmags]

Oh was that not in his examples?

[StrangeSox]

basically there wasn't a single thing in there that wasn't bulls*** and there were some pretty glaring omissions on top of that.

[StrangeSox]

You guys remember when Clinton was appeasing North Korea too much and then Bush came in and we broke off communications to make it so much tougher on them and then they had an atomic bomb. They really respected the harder line.

Yeah, well, look what happened when we put Iran on the "axis of evil" list and stopped negotiating with them! Sure, they went from something like 700 centrifuges to over 6,000, but that hardline policy got results!

[StrangeSox]

The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained

[Jenksismyhero]

On immigration:

 

 

 

Deportations have increased under Obama.

 

And those numbers have been roundly criticized. http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations

 

But even if true, you can’t deny the influx of immigrants that have come into the country recently and his pretty lax attitude towards illegal immigration in his 2nd term. The point here is that even with that lax attitude, immigration supporters are still b****ing about the problem. The whole premise of the article is if you give an inch, they want a mile. That’s exactly what’s happening with immigration. X is never enough.

 

on Iran:

 

 

Uh, yes? That's what they've been doing for decades even with American threats of military force. I can't imagine why VDH thinks that Congress blocking the agreement would suddenly make Iran cower with fear.

 

I don’t think they’d cower in fear, but I do think we look weaker for this agreement than before. We caved. The ayatollah said as much. It’s not like his statement on the deal was “oh great, we’re cool with the US and Israel now!” No, he doubled down on death to Americans/Zionists talk.

 

On Iran, 1980:

 

 

 

President-elect Reagan negotiated a deal with Iran that released several billion dollars in frozen assets (something like $25B in today's dollars) in exchange for the hostages. President Reagan also illegally dealt weapons to Iran in order to illegally funnel money to right-wing juntas in South America a couple of years later.

 

This was his one bad example, other than his citation to Carter who was woefully inadequate in responding to the hostage situation.

 

On Cuba:

 

 

(man, VDH sure loves to hear himself talk)

 

It would seem that VDH would prefer a never-ending and ineffective embargo of Cuba over normalized relations. Why continuing the failed policies of the last 55 years would be better going forward is left unexplained.

 

Again though, give an inch, ask for millions in reparations and refuse to change. What did the US achieve there? How does the US benefit?

 

On Russia:

 

 

Putin didn't react to 2009 diplomatic overtures from the Obama administration by invading anyone. He reacted to the Russian-friendly government in Ukraine getting thrown out about 6 years later. VDH seems to have a very weird sense of causality. Would mean words from the US President have prevented his actions?

 

At least Obama didn't look into his eyes and see that he had a good soul. Nobody would respect a world leader who said something like that.

 

Hey, whatever worked. Putin didn’t act so arrogantly 10 years ago.

 

 

 

How does this even fit in with his "appeasement" narrative above? He really seems to have lost his train of thought.

 

He was appeasing those who thought getting rid of Ghaddafi was beneficial to Libya (and us).

 

 

Because of the Syrian civil war (oddly unmentioned) and an inept and dysfunctional Iraqi government that used the political space provided by "the surge" in order to continue sectarian purges rather than unify and rebuild the country. And, again, VDH seems to be falling for post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

Would ISIS have taken over areas of Iraq if we were still present there? Our departure certainly didn't help. I agree it's wrong to claim that we couldn't have also been an irritant/radicalizing force, but certainly not to the degree that was being claimed.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

You guys remember when Clinton was appeasing North Korea too much and then Bush came in and we broke off communications to make it so much tougher on them and then they had an atomic bomb. They really respected the harder line.

 

Not talking isn't exactly a hard line. I totally agree though, Bush didn't do enough. I would have enacted crippling sanctions and ok'd some assassination attempts.