“Regardless of 5+1 countries interpretation, Iran has always clearly said that it prohibits any inspection of military bases by IAEA or any other institutions.”
Iranian supreme leader’s top foreign policy advisor Ali Akbar Velayati said on Friday that Iran will not allow IAEA inspectors into any military sites, Iranian news agencies Mehr and Fars reported. Velayati’s declaration contradicts JCPOA, the nuclear agreement Iran signed two weeks ago with world powers.
I am sure Kerry will explain this away to Congress. Somehow.
And let’s say this (refusal) happens. Does anyone really think there will be a “snapback” of sanctions? And if the US (yeah, right) forces the snapback through by vetoing the resolution in the UNSC, Iran still has hundreds of billions of $ that it got from dropped sanctions, all the signed “long-term” contracts with Western companies do not fall under the sanctions, and Iran is absolved of all its obligations in the agreement (under the clause in the agreement).
I could explain this, but seeing how you don’t actually seem interested in an answer or a debate (noting the forum you posted in, rather than the GD threads that are open on the topic), I guess the article is just a pointless thing you had to share.
Simple - it is a lot simpler to stop a small snowball at the top of the mountain rather than an avalanche further down.
A year down the road, Iran will receive all the hundreds of billions of $ that is currently frozen and move it out of where they are now. They will have hundreds of long term contracts signed with Western companies (which cannot be broken, under the agreement, by new sanctions). If anyone complains about the refusal to inspect military sites, it will be the US, and it will have to veto the UNSC resolution to “snap back” the sanctions, which will make for horrible “visuals”.
As in: “In other words, what this means is that the Iran deal does provide a mechanism for re-establishing the legal basis for international sanctions, even over and against the objections of other veto-players in the United Nations — but only the legal basis and only at great cost. In practice, what this means is that there will likely be a very high hurdle for determining that Iran is not complying with its obligations, a hurdle that will approximate the hurdle of creating a new coalition to impose sanctions. What looks snappy on paper may well be anything but in practice”.
Not true. Long term contracts aren’t exempt from sanctions being reimposed. Companies cannot be punished for activities they undertook while sanctions were off - that’s the meaning of no retroactivity.
Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council, expressing its intention to prevent the reapplication of the provisions if the issue giving rise to the notification is resolved within this period, intends to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue of the Advisory Board. Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.
So, is Obama going to apologize to all the people who he demeaned because they thought this treaty was a bad idea? I mean, it’s not like anybody could have seen this coming…
Oh wait, a ton of people saw this coming. It’s like that scene at the end of the movie where the bad guy is dangling from a cliff, and begs the hero to help him, and every single person watching the movie (older than about 8 or so) knows the bad guy is going to double-cross him.
It is hand-waved away. Just like when the inspectors are not allowed into the military bases it will be hand-waved away. With the “what do you want, war, you warmonger?” refrain.
If there was actually as much handwaving going on as there are accusations of handwaving, the U.S. could build windmills and power whole cities from the resulting windstorm. Alas, it takes fewer calories to accuse someone of handwaving than for anyone to actually engage in it, and thus we are not an energy independent country today.
As it is, the agreement allows Iran to delay any proposed inspections by almost a month (so they can hide any evidence of non-compliance, altho I’m sure some apologist will think up a “legitimate” reason). And now Iran’s top foreign policy advisor appears to be renegging on even that.
Nuclear inspectors will need unfettered access in Iran as part of a deal to lift economic sanctions, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said a day after an Iranian general said military sites must be off limits.
“We expect to have anywhere, anytime access,” Moniz, a nuclear physicist who negotiated the technical details of a framework nuclear accord, said Monday in a meeting with editors and reporters at Bloomberg’s Washington office.
Inspections of Iran’s military sites under the proposed long-term agreement wouldn’t be “frivolous;” they would be part of “a well-defined process,” he said. United Nations inspectors would need access to any location if they had well-founded suspicions of covert “out-of-bounds activities.”
“We expect to have anywhere, anytime access in the sense of a well-defined process with a well-defined end time for access to places that are suspected of out-of-bounds activities.”
Moniz goes on: “Moniz in interviews on Sunday said the 24-day standard was consistent with his remarks from April. He also suggested that the deal’s critics may be confused between access to Iran’s declared nuclear facilities (which are rigorously monitored) with facilities Iran would hide from inspectors. Besides, Moniz insists that 24 days is not enough time to hide traces of radioactive material from the IAEA.” Link.
How cute. “Anytime” in Moniz-speak apparently means 24 days delay. Of course, the “24-day delay” meaning is stated way after the “anytime, anywhere” comment. And at the time:
“David Albright, a former weapons inspector who is now president of the Institute for Science & International Security, told us he didn’t think Moniz in April meant Iran would have 24 days’ notice.”
Can you explain how a 24 day delay would impede the task the inspectors are out to accomplish, or are you just assuming 24 days is a long enough time for Iran to drape a tarp over the equipment they’re not allowed to have?
But in any case, saying that “anytime” and then after it is signed claiming that it meant “in 24 days” is a blatantly disingenuous statement, designed to mislead.