Nuclear deal with Iran

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

The link discusses inspections in general, in relation to the very recent assertions that Iranians will be performing their own inspections.

Correct. But Parchin is a separate agreement, so the link is irrelevant.

[iiandyiiii]

@Ravenman

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.

Should we be surprised that the AP allowed itself to be used for propaganda purposes?

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

Should we be surprised that the AP allowed itself to be used for propaganda purposes?

I don’t see any AP retraction. Cite?

And of course the head of the IAEA is sputtering about it. It’s embarrassing to the agency. Notice that he doesn’t give any details.

[Ravenman]

@Terr

I don’t see any AP retraction. Cite?

The AP rewrote the story without a retraction. That was in my cite. Do you read cites?

Correct. But Parchin is a separate agreement, so the link is irrelevant.

If you do read cites, then read my second link. It’s all about Parchin. And I found it very informative. If you don’t read cites, please allow the outrage to continue.

And of course the head of the IAEA is sputtering about it. It’s embarrassing to the agency. Notice that he doesn’t give any details.

Did you read this cite? Because it, too, explains why he isn’t giving details.

[Terr]

@Ravenman

The AP rewrote the story without a retraction. That was in my cite. Do you read cites?

So - no retraction. And still no documents from IAEA - nothing but empty sputtering.

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

So - no retraction.

Which reflects poorly on the AP, considering how their story has change in the hours since first posted.

And still no documents from IAEA - nothing but empty sputtering.

Thankfully, no – we definitely don’t want to know how IAEA conducts their inspections, since that would make it that much easier for them to be fooled.

For now, I’ll trust the head of the IAEA over random anonymous source from AP with a story that has changed multiple times.

[Ravenman]

How can you tell that someone is sputtering by (probably not) reading a written statement? Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Does that also explain your expertise on arms control verification procedures?

[iiandyiiii]

@Ravenman

How can you tell that someone is sputtering by (probably not) reading a written statement? Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Does that also explain your expertise on arms control verification procedures?

Terr has mind-reading powers. Didn’t you know? He’s been reading my mind and telling me what my true feelings for the Iran nuclear deal are.

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

Thankfully, no – we definitely don’t want to know how IAEA conducts their inspections, since that would make it that much easier for them to be fooled.

That’s funny, because Iranians definitely know exactly how those inspections are conducted - they have the agreement. It’s the US congress that has no access to it.

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

That’s funny, because Iranians definitely know exactly how those inspections are conducted - they have the agreement. It’s the US congress that has no access to it.

It’s not the agreement – it’s how the IAEA verifies that samples and inspections and stuff are genuine, whether they are present when they are taken or not. That stuff isn’t known by Iran (thankfully), nor by us.

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

It’s not the agreement – it’s how the IAEA verifies that samples and inspections and stuff are genuine, whether they are present when they are taken or not. That stuff isn’t known by Iran (thankfully), nor by us.

Huh? It is definitely known by Iran whether IAEA inspectors are present when the samples are taken. That’s in the agreement. It kinda has to be. What are you talking about?

[Ravenman]

@Terr

That’s funny, because Iranians definitely know exactly how those inspections are conducted - they have the agreement. It’s the US congress that has no access to it.

Many of the news stories on this report that Congress has been briefed on the inspections.

You asked for an expert to comment on these inspection procedures. Here is Tariq Rauf, arms control expert who was the Head of the Verification and Security Policy Coordination Office at the IAEA from 2002 to 2011. Before you get all suspicious that he may be one of those funny foreigners from hot countries who can’t be trusted because Iranians are Muslims too, he’s Canadian, so… come to your own conclusions about our friends up north. Link.

IAEA monitoring and verification in Iran at Parchin[1] as recently reported, concerns two separate but related issues (1) IAEA environmental sampling and (2) IAEA (managed) access, to sites and locations at the Parchin military-industrial facility. . . .

There is no way an inspected State confidently can “sanitize” or erase all signs of nuclear material where it has been used at a location. . . . Under regular IAEA safeguards inspections, Agency inspectors carry out the swiping and collection of samples, as at Bushehr, Esfahan, Natanz, Fordow and elsewhere in Iran. Parchin being a military industrial facility is not subject to regular IAEA safeguards as it is not a “nuclear facility” as defined for purposes of IAEA safeguards. The IAEA, however, can request and obtain access to a facility such as Parchin under “managed access” provisions of Iran’s Additional Protocol (AP) to its safeguards agreement with the IAEA. It would be unusual but by no means technically compromising to have Iranian technicians collect swipe samples at sites and locations at Parchin in the physical presence and direct line of sight of IAEA inspectors, including filming, and using swipe kits and collection bags provided by the IAEA.

[Terr]

@Ravenman

It would be unusual but by no means technically compromising to have Iranian technicians collect swipe samples at sites and locations at Parchin in the physical presence and direct line of sight of IAEA inspectors, including filming, and using swipe kits and collection bags provided by the IAEA.

Except the agreement, as reported, does not allow IAEA inspectors on site. So - no “physical presence and direct line of sight”.

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

Huh? It is definitely known by Iran whether IAEA inspectors are present when the samples are taken. That’s in the agreement. It kinda has to be. What are you talking about?

I’m saying that the IAEA has methods to determine whether a sample is genuine, even if they weren’t present.

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

Except the agreement, as reported, does not allow IAEA inspectors on site. So - no “physical presence and direct line of sight”.

The AP had already changed the story multiple times; why are you so confident it’s true?

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

I’m saying that the IAEA has methods to determine whether a sample is genuine, even if they weren’t present.

How? Ah I know, your response is “science!!11!!!”

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

How? Ah I know, your response is “science!!11!!!”

It’s classified so I can’t tell you. But you can read my mind, so it’s there for the taking.

[Ravenman]

@Terr

Except the agreement, as reported, does not allow IAEA inspectors on site. So - no “physical presence and direct line of sight”.

Wait - was that part of the AP article that changed? It’s so hard to tell!

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

It’s classified so I can’t tell you. But you can read my mind, so it’s there for the taking.

That was your response before. You taking it back?

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

That was your response before. You taking it back?

No, it still involves science. No magical powers or supernatural incantations are involved.