Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is key. When negotiations started, Iran said that the IAEA would not have access to its sites at all! The agreement easily pushes through that red line. From the outset, the P5+1 group where looking for a deal that allows Iran to at least save some face, and the final agreement is actually a lot better than nearly everyone predicted. The IAEA will have a full report on Iran's nuclear program in December - if Iran does violate the agreement then we will have far better knowledge of its nuclear sites and locations that we do now. When negotiating anything, we have to be careful not to overplay our hand. Demanding that we have an unprecedented, unrestricted access to Iran's sites anywhere at anytime was just not going to happen. Carrying on down that road would have ensured no deal at all. Another question: what is better - this deal or no deal?
You say that US sanctions hurt - yes, of course. But trade with the US is under $10bn per year. What is far more hurtful is sanctioning from the EU, Russia and China, and the reward for trade with those regions is significantly greater than the US (China and Russia were already starting to ignore US restrictions on Iranian trade even before the deal). If no deal was reached then international sanctions would have fallen apart, Iran would have continued its nuclear program, and we would be faced with a a far worse situation than the one with this deal.
As you mentioned, this is a very complex issue. I do not trust Iran nor the Obama Administration on this matter. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can guarantee compliance and prevention without transparency and flexibility. Iran's continue genocidal comments to Israel post deal speaks more volume than any fine print details on a document.
Much of Israeli intelligence actually considers Israel to be in a safer position with this deal as oppose to without it (which is the truth). The reason that Bibi hates this deal is for a few different reasons:
1) he has in interest in a long term standoff with Iran, and hopes to maintain Israels status as the only nuclear power in the region
2) he now has nothing (absolutely nothing) to show for his behavior and string pulling over the past several months (the non-US negotiating countries barely give him the time of day as is)
3) this is the most important: this deal means a potential re-balance of power in the region. Iran will produce a greater GDP than Israel and most other countries in the region, and could become very influential. There is great opportunity for the US (provided the bat **** crazy tea party types don't take over) to exploit this to our interest. Bibi can't stomach the thought of Israel becoming one of key US allies in the region rather than its sole ally.
4) Iran's repeated threats of nuclear genocide to the Jewish State.
5) Iran increasing its proxy war and terrorist attacks against Israel with a protected nuclear umbrella.
6) Israel's region will become more unstable due to Iranian nuclear threshold position with the fear of a nuclear arms race.
As you mentioned, this is a very complex issue. I do not trust Iran nor the Obama Administration on this matter. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can guarantee compliance and prevention without transparency and flexibility. Iran's continue genocidal comments to Israel post deal speaks more volume than any fine print details on a document.
This agreement is not built on trust - it is built on verification. Only through verification and compliance will the harshest sanctions be lifted, and if Iran violates at any time then the sanctions will be reimposed. I think it is fair to be sceptical and responsible to ask questions. But what do we do if not to try this? Bomb Iran? That would be a horrific mistake and would not do anything in preventing Iran getting a nuclear bomb. This deal is not about good v. bad; it is about the best options that are available. Its not about what Israel thinks either - they do not (and should not) decide foreign policy for us. Its about what is best for the region and the globe.
This agreement is not built on trust - it is built on verification. Only through verification and compliance will the harshest sanctions be lifted, and if Iran violates at any time then the sanctions will be reimposed. I think it is fair to be sceptical and responsible to ask questions. But what do we do if not to try this? Bomb Iran? That would be a horrific mistake and would not do anything in preventing Iran getting a nuclear bomb. This deal is not about good v. bad; it is about the best options that are available. Its not about what Israel thinks either - they do not (and should not) decide foreign policy for us. Its about what is best for the region and the globe.
My point exactly, so I will repeat. How can inspections be justified and comprehensive without full transparency and surprise inspections?
My point exactly, so I will repeat. How can inspections be justified and comprehensive without full transparency and surprise inspections?
I'm glad you ask this question. It should be asked more often to the administration, which would give them the chance to explain the real deal, and drown out the intellectually bankrupt nonsense coming from the loons in the senate right now.
The IAEA will have multi-layered oversight over Iran's entire nuclear supply chain, from uranium mills to its procurement of nuclear-related technologies. For declared nuclear sites such as Fordow, Arak and Natanz, the IAEA will have "round-the-clock access" to nuclear facilities and will be entitled to maintain continuous monitoring (including via surveillance equipment) at such sites. The agreement authorizes the IAEA to make use of sophisticated monitoring technology, such as fiber-optic seals on equipment that can electronically send information to the IAEA; infrared satellite imagery to detect covert sites, environmental sensors that can detect minute signs of nuclear particles; tamper-resistant, radiation-resistant cameras. The US Energy Secretary explained this at the hearing yesterday.
The number of IAEA inspectors assigned to Iran will triple. If IAEA inspectors have concerns that Iran is developing nuclear capabilities at any non-declared sites, they may request access "to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with" the agreement, informing Iran of the basis for their concerns. Iran may admit the inspectors to such site or propose alternatives to inspection that might satisfy the IAEA's concerns. If such an agreement cannot be reached, a process running to a maximum of 24 days is triggered. Under this process, Iran and the IAEA have 14 days to resolve disagreements among themselves. If they fail to, the Joint Commission (including all eight parties) would have one week in which to consider the intelligence which initiated the IAEA request. A majority of the Commission (at least five of the eight members) could then inform Iran of the action that it would be required to take within three more days. The majority rule provision "means the United States and its European allies—Britain, France, Germany and the EU—could insist on access or any other steps and that Iran, Russia or China could not veto them. If Iran did not comply with the decision within three days, sanctions would be automatically reimposed under the snapback provision. As a result, the "breakout time"—the time in which it would be possible for Iran to make enough material for a single nuclear weapon should Iran abandon the agreement—will increase from two to three months to one year; this would be in place for ten years.
You have to acknowledge that Iran cannot completely capitulate to western demands and allow anywhere anytime access. We have access to the nuclear sites and operations we already know about, but if they did give us total freedom we could wander into Tehran's government headquarters and just start rifling through papers - of they disagree with this, we sanction them. That is not plausible, and Iran has to maintain some dignity in order to get the agreement through its own parliament.
The GOP hopefuls are painting a picture of the IAEA not having access to Iran's nuclear facilities without prior permission (that they say will be hard to get), which is simply not true.
You have to acknowledge that Iran cannot completely capitulate to western demands and allow anywhere anytime access.
Don't you understand?? the Neo -colonialist believe in the New World Order.
We like Iran to be Saudi Arabia. That is do exactly as they are told.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
