Okay, so it’s obvious that Terr believes it’s possible for Iran to send in samples that are absolutely identical to the ones scientists and inspectors would reasonably expect, except with no sign of nuclear “cheating” even if said cheating is actually going on.
Bottom line: what processes are going on here to address that? Terr obviously believes “nothing,” but I’ve not seen any evidence that’s the case.
No, IAEA asks for a sample and it gets a sample. Completely clean. How do they know the sample is from anywhere near the place they asked for the sample from?
This is about Parchin - a huge military research center. There is no reactor there that Iranians copped to. So IAEA cannot ask for any bit of reactor fuel. Do try to describe the scenario where it would be useful to have Iranian inspectors send samples from Parchin to IAEA so that IAEA can detect some illegal activity. I can’t imagine any.
“Send us the sample from that room #1322 with the yellow walls - give us a chip of the wall paint”. “Here you are - no radioactivity in it whatsoever”.
The article you quoted says the IAEA has means to insure the “technical authenticity” of samples. I don’t know what that means. But I assume you think the IAEA is lying?
I don’t know what they would be looking for. And to be honest, neither do you, it sounds like. Tell me: how much do you know about nuclear inspections? You seem to be claiming that you know better than the IAEA.
You have no idea, do you?
I don’t think they do either.
IAEA does what the countries funding it want. Countries funding it wanted the agreement. Desperately. So IAEA agreed to whatever it did (secretly, by the way). Who cares if it is effective. After all, “any deal is better than no deal”.
We were told by Obama that the Iran deal provides “unprecedented verification.” He was right - because I don’t think there is a precedent to asking the inspected country to inspect itself. At least Olli Heinonen - deputy IAEA director in charge of Iran probe from 2005 to 2010 said that he doesn’t know of any such concession for anyone before. Do you think Heinonen knows something about nuclear inspections?
And, according to the MPSIMS thread, the IAEA was bribed by Iran.
So your theory is that the IAEA is lying about their claim that they have some technical measures to verify compliance so that they can get a bigger budget from UN contributor nations?
Wow, what a load of bull.
Can I ask why Olli Heinnonen is literally the only nuclear expert you listen to?
They are not saying they can guarantee compliance, do they? “We asked for yellow paint chip. We got a chip. We technically verified it is yellow. Done.”. - that is “having some technical measures to verify compliance”. So it is not a lie. It just doesn’t work very well.
Your turn - bring out a nuclear expert that says that asking Iran to inspect itself will be effective.
Please go re-read my post on “concrete thinking.”
Well, I assume the IAEA thinks it will be effective. So there’s that. They won a Nobel Prize, you know, so they probably know what they are doing.
Yeah, but he’s saying that the IAEA is incompetent and corrupt and therefore cannot be trusted.
So obviously, we need to go to war in the Middle East again. It’s the only way, or we’ll all die.
Ah so you’ve got nothing.
And once again, another contentious topic that basically comes down to whether you trust authority figures, and to what extent.
I think the other fella was being too kind when he accused you of concrete thinking. IMO, what you’re displaying is Fox News thinking. You are demanding very closely held procedures that you couldn’t begin to understand (unless you have a PhD in nuclear physics). And when you don’t get them from the first guy you ask on some message board, you assume that the IAEA nuclear experts know far less about the subject than you, and that they will stupidly accept without question whatever they get from Iran.
Go sit with the anti-vaxxers, the birthers, and the global warming deniers.
No, I want a PhD in nuclear physics to come out, put his reputation on the line and actually state that he thinks the arrangement where the state inspects itself for nuclear infractions is going to work.
That is a straw man. The IAEA is going to inspect Iran’s nuclear facilities. Despite the inaccurate reporting by Fox and others, Parchin is not a nuclear facility. It has been suspected of conducting tests applicable to nuclear bombs in the past, but that is too general – it’s like when Rummy was calling every bleach or fertilizer plant in Iraq a potential chemical weapons site.
If you expect Iran, or any country without hostile troops massed on its border, to allow non-citizens to inspect its most secret weapons facilities, without any evidence of nuclear (not potentially-nuclear-related) activity, you are asking for the moon. You will never get a deal like that, and it’s a tribute to Obama and Kerry that we got as much as we did.
As for nuclear experts putting their reputations on the line about the deal, they have:
http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/press-release/2015-18-08/70-Plus-Nuclear-Nonproliferation-Experts-Announce-Support-for-Iran-Nuclear-Deal
ETA: and much of the opposition to this deal is being driven by Israel and the lobbyists and pundits who support it. When is Israel going to open its nuclear facilities to international inspectors?
Obama, July 14: "“Inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary.”
A lie?
Not about this IAEA deal with Iran they haven’t.
No, it’s exactly what I said a couple of posts ago:
“it is almost impossible to conduct nuclear research without external signs. If those signs are detected, we DO have the right to send international inspectors there, under the terms of Obama’s deal. If Iran refuses, that constitutes a breach of the deal.”
What you are missing is that “necessary” doesn’t mean that Terr’s bunion is throbbing, and therefore he suspects Iran is cheating. It means that there is real evidence of nuclear activity in an undisclosed site (undisclosed, because under the agreement, the disclosed sites will already have ongoing inspections by the IAEA).
Of course he lied. It’s what he does. There is no snapback either. The ink isn’t even dry and many countries are investing a ton in Iran. There will be no snapback.
If you are right, then the sanctions were about to crumble anyway. But given your track record, that’s a huge “If.”
Of course. So “where necessary” means “IAEA inspectors will never be allowed into Parchin”, and “when necessary”, in case of Parchin means “never”, and in case of other places means “up to 70+ days or more, depending on how much Iran wants to drag their feet”.
The President’s track record is what is at issue here. Sure, the sanctions were about to crumble. I don’t suppose levelling with the American people is too much to ask, rather than blowing smoke up our asses.