CenterBHSFan;1740842 wrote:A few things.
1.) I don't think you will manage to find too many people outside of DC who would be comfortable with this. Not everybody is as uneducated, thought-less or as trusting in the written word/spoken promises of Iran. It has nothing to do with the politics of a small message board. Most people with any sense are distrustful of this, as they very well should be. That doesn't have anything to do with political ideology.
2.) I'd really be interested in knowing, without a doubt, that inspectors can pop in at any given time to verify on whatever production is happening. Since you seem to have read this agreement, Ptown, can you verify this or not?
After all, "trust but verify" should be readily accepted by Iran also, yes?
3.) What if Iran stops any sort of pretense of wanting to play by the rules? What are the plans for consequences?
1. I get that one. Iran is not exactly trustworthy. Skepticism is warranted and should remain so over the life of the agreement and beyond.
2. The AP allows inspectors to set up monitors in all aspects of the fuel cycle, to monitor how much uranium is being produced and at what levels. If the IAEA does suspect a site is in violation of the agreement they can request Iran to explain, and then if they do not like the answer, they can, within 14 days, view the site....ANY site. Iran did not get their way in this regard. It is the same across the whole world with countries that sign the AP.
3. If Iran does something to break the agreement, the failure goes to a committee made up of the U.S., Europe (EU), China, Russian, and Iran. All it takes is a majority and there is no veto power. So, if the U.S. and Europe feel Iran is in violation, Iran, China, and Russian cannot veto it. Then, boom sanctions come back into play. It is a complicated but actually pretty good idea when you figure it out.
An article from a former IAEA guy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/07/15/how-the-nuclear-deal-can-keep-iran-from-cheating-according-to-a-former-u-n-inspector/
Spock;1740866 wrote:remember when Iraq kept kicking UN inspectors out and at least 19 times they werent allowed in at all. When the congress voted to go to war, this was the proof they had WMD
Facepalm.....
Ya know the IAEA said Iraq had no WMD....and they turned out to be right.
QuakerOats;1740880 wrote:LOL.
"UN inspectors can demand access to nuclear facilities on Iran military sites, but they aren’t immediate or even guaranteed."
You can hear it now ----
John Kerry: "I demand to have access to the facilities"
Iran: "Fuck off"
John Kerry: "ok"
These jackasses make Jimmy Carter look like George Washington.
See above chief.
Iran cannot say this site is off limits. If the IAEA has reason to suspect is site is involved and undeclared, they will have access. Otherwise, the issue may go back to the U.S./ EU and some sanctions may come back into play.
Spock;1740894 wrote:really? A nuclear device will likely be a small device delivered in a non-rocket manner.
Nuclear forensics. Iran knows if they do anything that stupid with can attribute it to them based off of the uranium.
sleeper;1740897 wrote:Mutual Assured Destruction. I'm not worried about Iran.
And, bingo. Even North Korea isn't stupid enough to launch their nukes due to the fact they want to survive.
Is the agreement perfect, nope, but again, in the end, it brings Iran into the fold in terms of international safeguards and in good standing with the IAEA.
Iran was never going to give up its nuclear program and the reality is people have to realize any country can have a domestic nuclear power program. There will always be duel use fears. One country cannot say you cannot have nuclear power, but you can. That is not how it works.
So, Iran was always going to have the capability for nuclear energy. The key was to bring it into the fold and make it just like Japan. Brazil, Turkey, etc. subject to IAEA verification.
