# Nuclear deal with Iran **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2015, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128 "2015-07-14T11:37:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/721 "2015-08-20T16:34:59Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That was your response before. You taking it back? Why should he issue a retraction if the AP won’t? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/722 "2015-08-20T17:27:06Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > It’s worth noting that from November 2002 to March 2003, the UN inspectors under Hans Blix were on the ground in Iraq, and quickly determined that almost everything the CIA had suspected about Iraq’s alleged WMD sites was wrong. The Bush Administration refused to believe them, and invaded anyway, to the cheers of Fox News types who thought Blix couldn’t find his ass with a flashlight. After two years and billions of dollars, Bush reluctantly admitted that Blix had been right. Yeah, I remember that pretty clearly. I was then and still am against the war and felt that Hans Blix and his team should have been listened to. I’m not unhappy about ousting Saddam as I think humanitarian missions are a good way of using the US military, but our plan afterwards was woefully unprepared for the violence we saw. Cheney’s claim about being greeted as liberators should have been the end Bush in 2004 but people got sucked into swiftboats and changing horses midstream. Anyway, I see Terr and that other guy have been joyfully making ignorant statements on the deal. But I’m comforted by one thing: They can say whatever they want but it will not stop the deal. Simply put, the GOP does not have the votes to override Obama’s veto if it comes to that. So the deal we’re getting, Terr, otherguy, is the one we’re going to be under for the next decade. That won’t change. You can either hope it works and prove Obama right, or hope its wrong and see Iran go nuclear. Which is the greater tragedy, that Obama was right all along or Iran has a nuke? Don’t bother answering, that’s a rhetorical question, we all know what the GOP thinks. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/723 "2015-08-20T17:57:31Z")
[http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/20/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-parchin-idUSKCN0QP0ID20150820](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/20/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-parchin-idUSKCN0QP0ID20150820) **IAEA says report Iran to inspect own military site is ‘misrepresentation’** ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/724 "2015-08-20T19:16:19Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The AP had already changed the story multiple times; why are you so confident it’s true? This would have been so much easier to understand if Judith Miller had written the article. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/725 "2015-08-20T19:40:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > [IAEA says report Iran to inspect own military site is 'misrepresentation' | Reuters](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/20/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-parchin-idUSKCN0QP0ID20150820) > > **IAEA says report Iran to inspect own military site is ‘misrepresentation’** But it does little to give us the correct “presentation”. It says they have asked for fresh access to the site, but it doesn’t say whether they will actually get such access. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/726 "2015-08-20T19:52:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But it does little to give us the correct “presentation”. It says they have asked for fresh access to the site, but it doesn’t say whether they will actually get such access. I think you can safely assume that the correct presentation involves Death Panels. Look, for the nth time, Parchin is not a nuclear facility, so it’s not part of Obama’s deal, so the agreement between Iran and the IAEA regarding its inspection is confidential. Either you trust that the IAEA is competent, or you don’t. The nuclear experts of the P5+1 evidently do. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/727 "2015-08-20T19:56:42Z")
[http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/text-draft-agreement-iaea-iran-33211884](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 - where does it say that IAEA inspectors will be allowed in? Where is the “line of sight” supervision? Where is the “physical presence” of the inspectors? The original AP story was exactly correct. Even including the 9 samples total. Iran will inspect itself. Pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/728 "2015-08-20T20:02:12Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/text-draft-agreement-iaea-iran-33211884](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 - where does it say that IAEA inspectors will be allowed in? Where is the “line of sight” supervision? Where is the “physical presence” of the inspectors? The original AP story was exactly correct. Even including the 9 samples total. Iran will inspect itself. Pathetic. As you just quoted, “The Agency will ensure the technical authenticity of the activities referred to in paragraphs 1-3 above.” Since you have managed to figure out that an unsupervised collection of samples is subject to the old switcheroo, I would guess that the IAEA experts have, also. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/729 "2015-08-20T20:06:25Z")
> **[The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained](https://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin)** > > The whole incident is a fascinating, if disturbing, example of how misleading reporting on technical issues can play into the politics of foreign policy. Here’s more to chew on. **Terr** , is it your contention that the IAEA _wants_ Iran to get a nuke? Or what, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/730 "2015-08-20T20:08:34Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > As you just quoted, “The Agency will ensure the technical authenticity of the activities referred to in paragraphs 1-3 above.” Since you have managed to figure out that an unsupervised collection of samples is subject to the old switcheroo, I would guess that the IAEA experts have, also. That was in the original AP story as well. The original AP story was exactly correct. In spite of all the “debunkers” in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/731 "2015-08-20T20:18:55Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That was in the original AP story as well. The original AP story was exactly correct. In spite of all the “debunkers” in this thread. So you’re basically back to calling the IAEA liars when they say that the arrangement meets their needs. You know what’s required for an IAEA inspection better than they do. Oh right! The IAEA is being bribed by the P5+1 to whitewash their reports. I forgot about that point. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/732 "2015-08-20T20:31:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So you’re basically back to calling the IAEA liars when they say that the arrangement meets their needs. Of course they do. They are telling you what the P5+1 tell them to tell you. > [@](#): > > Oh right! The IAEA is being bribed by the P5+1 to whitewash their reports. I forgot about that point. That’s actually hilarious. No “bribes” are necessary. Without P5+1, IAEA does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/733 "2015-08-20T20:31:47Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That was in the original AP story as well. The original AP story was exactly correct. In spite of all the “debunkers” in this thread. So why the change? And how do you know which is correct given that a change did happen? Most would assume the newer version is. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/734 "2015-08-20T20:35:52Z")
Secretary of Energy Moniz testified before Congress, under oath, and repeatedly, that the agreement between the IAEA and Iran is secret. Why is the IAEA making public comments at all, if the agreement is secret? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/735 "2015-08-20T20:36:54Z")
Oh, and Terr? About your wanting a nuclear expert to put his reputation on the line for this deal? I got that, and posted it, you must have missed it. Post #682. Don’t be afraid to ask, we are here to help! ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/736 "2015-08-20T20:43:18Z")
Question: How does the new (newest?) version of the AP story differ from the original version? What changes were made - and why? ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/737 "2015-08-20T20:43:52Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That was in the original AP story as well. The original AP story was exactly correct. In spite of all the “debunkers” in this thread. Even if you knew what the original AP story was, after all the revisions it’s gone through, you’re still displaying Fox News thinking. You find one story you like, which relies heavily on an anonymous source, and you stick your finger in your ears when expert after expert, including the head of the IAEA, says that the conclusion you insist on drawing is wrong. On one side you have WSJ editorial writers, anonymous sources, and the likes of Boehner, Krauthammer, Hannity, and others who wouldn’t know a nuke if they tripped over one. On the other side you have the overwhelming majority of nuclear experts. And you’ve made your choice. Just like the anti-vaxxers, the birthers, and the global warming deniers. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/738 "2015-08-20T20:47:59Z")
I wonder what Robert Kelley will say now that the text of the agreement has been leaked? [http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com\_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14525](http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14525) KELLEY: Well, if it were possible that the Iranians would do an inspection without the IAEA present, entirely on their own and then mail the samples and the photographs, I’d be among the first to say that’s unacceptable in any way. But what I think based upon the director general’s statement today and common sense is that IAEA inspectors will stand over the Iranians while the Iranians take the samples themselves, and then give them to the IAEA in sterile, sealed bags. This is because the IAEA and Iran have lost trust with each other on this issue, and so the IAEA is going to have to let Iran do it so Iran can feel confident that the samples were taken in an unbiased kind of way. But if IAEA could stand over the Iranians while they do it, I think that’s an acceptable compromise after four years of arguing about this. As we can see, there is absolutely nothing in the agreement that would require the Iranians to agree to allow IAEA to “stand over the Iranians while they do it”. And of course, the Iranians are not obligated to anything more than the agreement says. So I wonder if Kelley still thinks that this agreement is “unacceptable in any way”? ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/739 "2015-08-20T20:50:06Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Secretary of Energy Moniz testified before Congress, under oath, and repeatedly, that the agreement between the IAEA and Iran is secret. > > Why is the IAEA making public comments at all, if the agreement is secret? It has not made the details of the agreement public, but it has stepped in to correct, in a general sense, the hysteria and misinformation being spread by idiots like Boehner. The stuff Terr posted was allegedly from a draft agreement, which an anonymous source allegedly said is the same as the final one, but that is ludicrous on the face of it. When was the last time you saw any international agreement, dealing with technical inspection issue of an enormous military complex, that was half a page long? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/740 "2015-08-20T20:53:29Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > When was the last time you saw any international agreement, dealing with technical inspection issue of an enormous military complex, that was half a page long? Maybe because it avoids dealing with the “technical inspection issue”. ABCNews insists that they have two confirmations of this text, from two different officials. As in [“Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to The Associated Press that this draft does not differ from the final, confidential agreement between the IAEA and Iran.”](http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/text-draft-agreement-iaea-iran-33211884) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128.md?page=38)