Any meaningful inspection regime will involve radiation detectors that would be able to spot the transfer of radioactive materials into and out of that Wal-Mart.
If they exempt a very large military base from inspection – and declare all the roads leading to and from it also to be exempt from inspection – then the deal would not be acceptable.
Is there any evidence that this is part of the framework for agreement? Or is this something that people are just making up out of their own imaginations to try to pretend that the agreement is bad? Let me ask this again: any evidence?
There is no way Iran is going to agree to inspection of all sites where nuclear activity is suspected. The framework I read about called for inspections of a few facilities under IAEA supervision. I was actually defending Iran in that post. No nation can expect all of their country to be subject to inspection, with the exception of a defeated country in war, such as Iraq.
Again, so long as the transportation network is permitted to be monitored, then shipments of radioactive materials could not escape detection. An inspection process is possible.
It does depend on Iranian cooperation, but it neither requires their total capitulation nor our own. It can function on a compromise basis.
I agree, but whatever compromise is reached in an agreement must be fully adhered to, otherwise we should assume they are up to no good. INspectors shouldn’t have to play cat and mouse.
There’s “That’s not okay” and there’s actual consequences. Many people were quite apathetic about Iraq’s behavior obstructing the inspection process. It got to be so regular that it seemed that people considered this behavior to be normal. No, what’s normal is what South Africa and Ukraine did: hand over your shit, inspectors verify you handed over your shit.
Iran, as part of this agreement, will be handing over some stuff. If the time comes and they hand over much less than they declared, or drag their feet, that’s a problem. A problem that requires consequences to be inflicted. Which shouldn’t be a problem, since the President promised “snapback”. That’s a pretty firm commitment to slap sanctions right back on if Iran is not complying. Plus the bill going through Congress requires the President to regularly report on Iranian compliance, which will have the effect of spurring Congressional action as well if reports are not good.
How did you get obsessed with this idea that supporters of the deal are going to let Iran off scot-free if they break the deal? It seems to go back to your comment on page one or two of this thread where you said that we have a history of giving sanctions relief to countries that violated their commitments on WMD disarmament. This notion, of course, is a fiction in your own mind as evidenced by the fact that this has never happened.
Syria has not complied with the deal they made with the international community. That deal was made to avert bombing. And since they didn’t cooperate, we bombed them. Oh wait, no we didn’t.
As a matter of fact, they crossed the President’s “red line” just three days ago!
So you wanted an example? Doesn’t get better than that one. We had talks to avert war with Syria, they made an agreement, and they reneged on that agreement. We have done nothing, nor is there any talk of doing anything.
That “example” says that some people in Syria are accusing the Syrian government of using chemical weapons, and calling for the UN to investigate. Sounds good – I’m in favor of the UN investigating to determine if Syria has broken their agreement.
If there is any evidence (after a deal is signed) that Iran breaks the deal, I’m in favor of an investigation, and if it’s found that they did break the deal, consequences.
Are you suggesting that the US should bomb Syria based on accusations without an investigation?
Syria has largely complied with the agreement to destroy its chemical weapons. Achieving this outcome diplomatically at little cost to the United States was a laudable achievement by the president. There may have been instances of non-compliance. AFAICT information on that point is fairly murky and it’s impossible to draw firm conclusions. However, in any case one has to ask how much effort the US should be willing to expend to make sure that certain types of weapons are not used in a Godforsaken hell-hole where we have very little at stake.
Drawing a “red line” does not translate to “we will bomb you if you cross it,” except in the minds of those who want to exploit the “red line” comment to advance their narrative about Obama’s feck, or lack thereof. In plain English, drawing a “red line” demarcates something that will be taken very seriously, which Obama clearly did in a) considering a military option and b) ultimately pursuing a much less costly but still mostly effective diplomatic opportunity to address the problem.
A word of friendly advice… your warnings of imminent Hezbollah attacks on U.S. soil would be more potent if your cite wasn’t from 12 fucking years ago:
So when you wrote that post two weeks ago (or whenever), you were thinking of a news story that would come out on April 14, and three whole days would go by without Obama ordering military attacks on Syria? Really?
And let’s not forget that Congress has pretty much spoken in opposition to attacks on Assad because of chemical weapons.
So, this is what your whole concern boils down to: Syria under international monitoring has been disarmed of a lot of CW, but 72 hours after it comes to light that they have cheated, you think Obama has rolled over and played surrender monkey because three whole days have passed without war. Therefore, if Iran cheats, the U.S. and our allies might not respond the same week, meaning we’re gutless. Am I getting your point correctly?
Ah, I see, so instead of “snapback”, if Iran seems to be reneging we do an investigation, which will not be cooperated with, and so we can’t prove they are reneging. Geez, and you wonder why conservatives are wary?
ETA: so when conservatives object that the main alternative to negotiation is war, let’s just think about adaher getting upset that we haven’t gone to war with Syria within 72 hours of a serious, but unconfirmed, report.
“Snapback” does not refer to war. So is there snapback, or isn’t there? Will Iran get a pass for playing games and obstructing if we can’t prove they have an illicit nuclear program? Such obstruction will not be considered evidence of such?
If so, then our lifting of sanctions is pretty much unconditional and Iran will not have to actually abide by the deal.
No, I argue for snapback based on Iran obstructing inspections they agreed to. if an agreement calls for inspections, then that’s a violation of the agreement and sanctions should “snap back”.
That goes for other violations as well. If they are required to send enriched uranium to Russia or wherever, then they can’t just not do it and then we have more talks.