The agreement says that the IAEA will ensure that the samples are authentic, and there are many ways to do that, including standing over them.
But I think it’s more probable that they agreed to let the Iranians save face, and will not personally enter the most secret areas of the base. I’d guess they’ll probably wire up the Iranian techs with wearable cameras and mikes, and watch live as they secure the samples. That way, the Iranians are assured that no foreigners take pictures of unrelated projects with hidden cameras, and the IAEA is assured that there is a continuous chain of custody.
Of course, they may have much better methods, but that’s what I came up with after ten seconds of thought.
The point is that when one side has experts staking their reputations on something, and the other side has anonymous sources, then it’s not much of a debate.
To be fair, those anonymous sources are anonymous precisely because they are violating the nondisclosure contracts they signed. So I guess their word is good.
And if you really can’t see how ludicrous it is to believe that those four short paragraphs constitute the entirety of the agreement, then I may have misjudged you. I thought you were just hopelessly biased.
Not one expert commented on the actual agreement, specifically. Saying “it meets our requirements” is pointless without specifying what those requirements are.
The one that did on the hypothetical - Kelley - said: “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”. And that’s exactly what the published text of the agreement allows to happen.
You quoted the requirement yourself. Assuming your anonymous contract-violators are correct, the requirement is, “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.”
Since even you can see that the Agency cannot ensure the technical authenticity of the samples without a continuous chain of custody, it should be abundantly clear that the Iranians will not be allowed to collect the samples without being observed in some way — probably by live video feed.
That’s an obligation of IAEA. It says nothing about what Iran is obliged to ensure it.
Cool. So it will be Iranian equipment, with Agency’s containers and seals. And?
Wrong. If there is to be that kind of observation, it has to be specified in the agreement. Again, the obligation to ensure the technical authenticity is on the IAEA, not on the Iranians. The Iranians are only obligated by what is in the agreement, which says absolutely nothing about being observed while the samples are taken.
You may have formed that idea after an online law school told you that it had no obligation to actually help you learn the law, after it took your money. But I assure you, that is not how an agreement works.
If Iran signs an agreement saying that the IAEA will ensure the authenticity of the samples, and then prevents the IAEA from doing that, it has breached the agreement.
Cite me something in contract law that says that if one side of the contract stipulates to an obligation, the other side has to do whatever is in their power to help them fulfill that obligation. I’d be very interested.
I don’t want to be accused of using a straw man argument, so let me make sure I understand you. Are you claiming that if the IAEA wants to verify something, and Iran refuses to allow them to do so by any means, then the IAEA will just shrug and say, “Gee, I guess we should have been more specific,” and walk away?
Are you claiming that the IAEA and P5+1 would not consider it a breach of the agreement?
I am saying that, unless Iranians are obligated to something by a signed agreement, they can refuse to do it and it is not a breach of the agreement. By definition. That’s just basic contract law. If you have a law cite that says different, bring it.
For the nth time, we don’t have the signed agreement, and I don’t see how you can possibly believe that if we did, it would be four short paragraphs long. And I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll let the lawyers on the board handle the legal citations.
But just as a matter of common sense, if I rent some land from you, and the agreement states that I have to plant beans on it rather than strip mining it, and then you build a big fence around it and prevent me from reaching it, are you saying that I’m the one who’s at fault for not planting beans, and you have no obligation to “help me” by allowing access?
Where the flying fuck did contract law come into this? Terr, do you think this is a contract? If so, where’s the consideration?
Look, this is a political process. Not in a “liberals vs conservatives” sort of politics process, but a political process in that it is an agreement among sovereign states and international agencies. If Iran does things in such a way that the IAEA cannot have confidence in the samples, Iran is in non-compliance with the Additional Protocol to the NPT which is obviously a substantive a major breach of the deal.
Major breach of the deal means this issue goes to the conflict resolution mechanism and ultimately the UNSC, where either sanctions come back or the U.S. and Israel start fueling jets, or some other serious thing happens, whatever that may be.
Terr, you’re weighing in on a complex technical topic where it’s just common sense that one gives more latitude to the technical experts in this area. You, on the other hand, are treating this like how some conservative state legislatures treat abortion: “Women HAVE to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion! It’s about their safety!” Only to be contradicted by the vast majority of physicians, of course.
Just because you think doctors need to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound before an abortion - errr, just because you think you know how to write inspection procedures better than the IAEA doesn’t make it so. They are experts, you aren’t. The Director-General of the IAEA, who obviously qualifies as an expert in his job, says this procedure accomplishes what he needs to do. Who do you think you are to say he’s wrong?
And Terr, one other question. Do you think Hans Blix and Mohammad Al-Baradei did a good job of inspections in Iraq before they were removed so he bombing could begin?
Again, the ABC News says this is the agreement, and they have two sources that say it is.
If it says that you HAVE to plant beans on it (that is, you have an obligation to plant beans on it) but there is a wall preventing you from doing that, then you’re relieved from that obligation.
“The Agency will ensure the technical authenticity of the activities” - sure. It can ensure it. By using any method to which Iranians will agree. But it can’t force Iranians to agree to something that wasn’t in the agreement. Like wearing a camera. Not in the agreement. Direct line of sight. Not in the agreement. Try again.