Last I heard Israel hadn’t promised to wipe one of its neighbors off the map.
Main guy on our negotiating team, Ernest Moniz.
Of course, it is worthy of note that he most likely would not use the same terminology as you…“asking Iran to inspect itself”… but he is nonetheless on record as publicly affirming that he did not totally screw the pooch on this job.
Anything else?
Plus Israel didn’t sign the NPT. Iran, like a few other nations, used the NPT to enable them to gain nuclear technology they would have never discovered on their own.
Could you keep your personal feelings about the President out of this?
That’s not personal feelings. “He lies” is a provable statement.
What is the end game here?
- President sets up fake treaty
- Iran get nukes
- ???
- Profit!
Do you genuinely believe the president is fighting for a nuclear Iran?
No, I believe he’s fighting to not have to solve the problem during his term. I also believe he got rolled by Russia and China, and a Europe resigned to an Iranian nuke but figuring they can profit from doing business with Iran.
“It’s what he does” is personal feelings (which you’ve freely admitted holding). Assuming any and every statement he makes is a lie is personal feelings.
The vast majority of nuclear disarmament experts seem to disagree.
Their analysis is based on Iran keeping the agreement. And the President already lied about this:
“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.”
“adaher often disregards facts in order to make bold statements” is also a provable fact. However, when statements like these are used to preemptively dismiss someone’s assertions without dealing with them on the merits, it is called poisoning the well and an ad hominem attack.
To use my own words to describe what iiandyiiii is asking is for you to stop relying on shitty fallacious arguments to grab attention away from the grown-ups having an actual substantive debate.
Is this a new rule, no ad hominem attacks on the President? Where was that rule eight years ago I wonder? Tell ya what, guarantee right here and now, put your rep on the line: Iran will not cheat, and if they do, there will be snapback sanctions.
I’m not a moderator. What I’m saying is your method of argument is as tiresome as was Diogenes or similar folks.
But yes, I’m happy to say that I believe if Iran cheats – which is possible – the odds are overwhelmingly high that there will be a strong reaction to the cheating, which could include snapback, war, and perhaps some other measures I can’t think of right now.
Of course, there are going to be the typical right wing folks who will find that everything Iran does is a violation of the agreement. The paperwork on the safeguards agreement was filed without form 145B – VIOLATION!!! There’s a technical question that remains unresolved – VIOLATION!!! Netanyahu is making up some more nonsense about Iran being able to build a bomb in the next 15 minutes – VIOLATION!!! The Supreme Leader said “Death to America” – VIOLATION!!! You know, the sort of nonsense that I expect from people who maintain that we really did find WMD in Iraq or from certain participants in this thread.
When I say “cheat,” I’m talking about the U.S. intelligence community or the IAEA assessing that Iran is not holding up its end of the bargain.
Ok, so if reputation is so important to you, what are you putting on the line that you haven’t wagered already?
What I want to know is if Bibi will go back in front of the UN with his bomb-o-meter showing that Iranian nuclear weapon development is now at 130%. I mean, it was supposed to be done eight years ago and they’ve had all that time and this deal to finish work.
It’s worse than that. He’s been saying they’d have the bomb in a year or two for decades.
According to this link, the assertions that Iran will be able to do their own inspections and take their own samples without IAEA present are entirely false. According to the link, “The accord actually provides for the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency always to be present at such inspections”. So even if Iranians are doing the inspections or taking samples, they’re doing so in the presence of IAEA inspectors. The purpose of this is to assuage Iran’s fears that the inspectors might conduct espionage in sensitive facilities.
This thing could spiral out of control into a full-blown peace scare!
Apples and oranges. juancole link does not talk about inspections at Parchin.
The link discusses inspections in general, in relation to the very recent assertions that Iranians will be performing their own inspections. The link says, essentially, that in some cases they will, but they will be monitored by IAEA in real time – IAEA will be there looking over their shoulder. So the way IAEA will verify that the samples are legit is by watching them take the sample.
Interestingly, the AP article’s details of what may happen at Parchin seems to be changing more than… than… it’s changing a lot.
And by the way, here is a statement from the head of the IAEA saying that the inspection arrangement has been misrepresented, but that it meets all of the IAEA’s requirements.