AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05
This has to be a leaving something out or distorting the facts, right? Surely this can’t mean that the UN can’t also send their own inspectors, can it?
Of course it’s true. The liberal response is (from the other thread), basically: “IAEA will use SCIENCE!!! to make sure that Iranians send in the right samples.”.
And of course “any deal is better than no deal”. You know the drill.
ROTFLMAO. It’s funny and pathetic at the same time.
There’s another thread? Link?
I’m guessing that a bunch of people at the IAEA got a whole lot richer in the recent past…
So as I said in that other thread, the argument here is that there are absolutely no safeguards for “cheating,” and that there are ways to do so where it’s impossible to tell that said cheating is going on?
What is the evidence for this? Specific as possible would be nice.
Well, the Iranians would obviously best know the territory and areas that they are inspecting, so they are the logical choice to be the inspectors. Makes sense to me.
:dubious:
This looks like it will kill the deal in the Senate.
ABC managed to get the draft text that their source says does not differ from the final text of the agreement:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/text-draft-agreement-iaea-iran-33211884
There is the agreement.
Iran will provide to the Agency photos of the locations, including those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.
Iran will provide to the Agency videos of the locations, including those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.
Iran will provide to the Agency 7 environmental samples taken from points inside one building already identified by the Agency and agreed by Iran, and 2 points outside of the Parchin complex which would be agreed between Iran and the Agency.
The Agency will ensure the technical authenticity of the activities referred to in paragraphs 1-3 above. Activities will be carried out using Iran’s authenticated equipment, consistent with technical specifications provided by the Agency, and the Agency’s containers and seals.
So the answer to the OP - yes, it is correct. IAEA protestations are bunk. And no, PastTense, it will not “kill the deal in the Senate” - because Democrats don’t really care about the deal, so the sordid details don’t matter.
“The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna…leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using that to advance a particular policy agenda.”
Nuclear physics is complex, but so is reporting on it.
We can always hope. Especially since these “inspections” now resemble something out of a Mel Brooks comedy, with the IAEA effectively trusting that Iran will rat itself out.
Forget it, jsquire, they’re rolling. Just let 'em have their fauxrage, it’ll all quiet down when they find out that they bought yet another CEC lie formulated to undermine the President.
After you guys finish reading jsquire’s article, we’ll be here waiting for your retractions and apologies.
That article came out before the actual agreement text came out. Which showed that the article is complete crap.
You must not have read the article because the text does no such thing. The article is still correct. This is for an abandoned site that has been inactive for 13 years, that no one cares about, and that, as your own link notes, is completely unrelated to the nuke deal in which the IAEA will be doing the inspections. You accused liberals of making excuses about the nuke deal and called them pathetic. You are wrong. But will you admit it or will you keep repeating it as fact?
I read the article. They are speculating that the agreement allows “some kind of IAEA monitoring” of Iranian “inspectors”, that “IAEA would indeed be “on the ground” at Parchin” - which, as it turns out, is complete bullshit.
As for the rest - yes, they handwave away the importance of inspections at Parchin. Yeah, 'cuz who cares about the enormous military research center - Iranians would never conduct their nuclear research and development there, would they? Let’s inspect things over there, under the streetlight, cuz it’s light over there and easier.
Did you really read it? I mean really? Maybe you just skimmed it real fast like? Because that’s not what it says at all.
The article is discussing the AP’s claims of on the ground monitoring and being skeptical about it. If anything, the text of the agreement validates the article’s skepticism.
The AP then published another story that reiterated much of the information but also added a strange new detail that seemed to water down its original claims even further: “IAEA staff will monitor Iranian personnel as they inspect the Parchin nuclear site.” It’s not clear what they mean by “monitor.”
“The story was the Iranians would take the samples under some kind of IAEA monitoring,” Jeffrey Lewis, the arms control expert, told me. “The details of that monitoring were not provided, so it’s hard to say how weird that is. Some IAEA officials say that it’s not unusual to let a country physically take the samples if there’s an IAEA inspector present.”
To be fair, they’re not really going into depth about it. They mention the monitoring then say ‘who knows what that means’ then move on, so a person skimming it might not really process what they’re saying.
You’re welcome to your opinion about inspections and about Parchin being included in them, I might agree, but as your link pointed out, this Parchin story is not related to the inspections, this is an unrelated one time request for samples from an abandoned building to satisfy historical curiosity. So, I suspect everyone who has insinuated that this Parchin story is indicative of the IAEA nuclear inspections then tried to deride the IAEA or liberals or the nuclear deal or whatever can put that to rest now, right?
For whatever it’s worth, here’s an article stating that a nuclear expert says that the document appears to be fake. This would appear to be at odds with the article posted by jsquire which assumes that the document is real but is being misrepresented.
Personally, I would find it very odd if the final agreement allowed only a worthless faux “inspection” of a potential nuclear site. Why would the US and Europe agree to such a thing? So I’m inclined to believe that it’s either fake or being misrepresented.
Once again, that article came out BEFORE ABC News actually published the agreement. The agreement says NOTHING about “monitoring” or presence of an IAEA inspectors.
I can’t wait to see the Iranian’s faces when they bust themselves! Won’t they be embarrassed!