http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin Wow, VOX if fast. Glad they reported this. If you care to learn...
Oh, thank God we got some VOXplaining on this, Everything is fine, now. Turns out that the IAEA inspectors will not be allowed into the Parchin site, and Iranian inspectors will do the leg work for them. And the site itself is nothing to worry about, totally dormant, which of course explains why the Iranians won't allow non-Iranians to inspect the site. Nothing to see here. Glad that's totally cleared up. Good grief.
You know, if the story is bogus, AP really ought to forcefully issue a retraction and make sure the retraction gets wide plpay, because a LOT of other outlets are carrying on - and expanding upon - the story. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt if the administration would actually deny it, too.
Iran is on the brink of a nuclear bomb with 6 UN sanctions in place since 06. Sanctions along wouldn't do it. Plus, with the deal in place, even if US reject it, the others will move fwd. Sanctions is not effective to PREVENT a bomb and is effectively dead. This is independent of the deal. Opposition to their terrorists activity continue. Arms & ballistic missile embargoes actually just went through the UN as a new sanction (in anticipation of the old sanctions being lifted). This option is always there independent of the deal. No, that's not what it means. You have the years wrong. But let assume it's right. There is nothing to said the same cycle can't start again in X years. If after X years, Iran again show sign of wanting a bomb, we are back to step 1. We bought us X years of no bomb. Everyone agree that Iran shouldn't get a nuke. Where you do not understand is the wait. Without a deal, they are on the brink of a bomb and we have nothing in place for solid detection and verification. With the deal in place, we have very strong detection and verification in place and we pushed their breakout time out from a few weeks to ~ 1 YR. We have not been at war with Iran. We are not allowing them to get nukes, but exactly trying to do the exact opposite. There is not a 10 years magic point where they suddenly are free to get a bomb.
They already made the change without any explanation. You might be fine with such reporting, but the standard busn in journalism is when you made a change to a report, you said why. The IAEA director already did response forcefully. That's where the response would come from, not the US.
That's likely correct. That's why we should have been prepared to bomb them, as opposed to capitulating to them. It should NOT be independent of the deal. By lifting ALL sanctions we legitimize their actions. That's probably the biggest benefit for them, ultimately. No, that option is off the table now. It will be politically impossible for any future administration to take any military action for any reason now. That's exactly what it means. Uh, no. In 10 years every relevant nation will have billions of dollars tied up in business deals, the Russians and Chines will be pumping weapons into Iran, and there will be ZERO possibility of negotiating a deal on even similar terms to this one. The incentives to do so will be gone for everyone but us (and not even us if our companies are there too). That is not true either. My God, you still think that we actually have a strong inspections regime here? A 24 day wait, military sites off the table... Really??? Denial. Total, utter denial. With the military option off the table, and no possibility of "snap-back" sanctions (that will never happen, as it would take agreement by Russia and China to implement), there is *no way* to enforce the deal. The Iranians would beg to differ. Denial. Denial. Denial. Denial. Denial. We're not at war with Iran. They won't get a bomb. The inspections regime will be robust. We can enforce this with "snap-back" sanctions. I've got a bridge I want to sell you, buddy.
Hey, great for AP. But the facts remain: IAEA inspectors will not be allowed at the site, and Iranians will carry out the inspections. The meat of the article remains, and the "side deal" actually does what is reported - allows Iranians to inspect their own site. And what do you expect the IAEA director to say? "Yeah, it was a pretty weak cave that completely destroys the integrity of the inspections process, but it's all we could get at the negotiating table because the Iranians smell blood in the water and know they can get us to cave on anything at this point, so we just take what we can get" Now THAT would have gotten a headline.
As usual, the conservative talking point is that we're the good guys and Irans the bad guy, so our only option is war. Still haven't heard a single feasible alternative outside of bombing Iran, lol. To be quite frank, why should Iran trust America? We fermented a coup of their democratically elected leader in '53 because he wanted to nationalize their oil.
This deal will turn out to be exactly as effective as the 1994 NK nuke deal was at stopping its intended target from getting nukes. My question is this: When you wake up one morning a decade from now and fire up the news feeds on your implants only to see a story about the Iranians testing a nuke, followed closely about the panic and reaction from Riyadh and Tel-Aviv, who are you going to blame? Of course, if there's a Republican in the White House, you will blame her. But if there's a Dem... Who? And will this be added into the "Peace in Our Time" exhibit at the Obama Presidential Library, too? Just curious.
Yea. They think of us the way we think of them. We are right, though . I'm just glad both sides have the ball to take the risks to do something constructive, reached an agreement that large majority of expert praise as 'as good as it gets' including a view that the deal is much better than any previous nuclear deals ever. And, just maybe, peace has a chance in the coming years.
I think the safe thing to do would be to ignore anyone like you. You obviously want war with Iran, and you say this war is inevitable. You are a war hawk. People like you should be removed from the dialogue altogether.
Those calling for war with Iran are likely the same people who believe the greater populace of Iran is composed of radicalized Islamic ISIS fan boys. They simply have no understanding of the Middle East, and the complexities that go into the history of how the region has gotten to where it is now. Ladies and gentlemen, meet the majority of the Republican Party.
I don't think we can attack Iran directly. Since we destabilized Iraq, a move Bush 41 advised against, Obama has left us with only one option -- provide nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia. Of course, we would do so with highly coded programming that prevents a launch against any other country except Iran, Iraq and Syria -- with no target close enough to harm Israel. Russia and China would squirm as would Muslim terrorists. This suggestion would have been ludicrous a few days ago, but Obama has triggered the march to nuclear war. This move oddly enough would delay it -- or force Iran to become reasonable due to a threat that would shiver their timbers.
This. Iran could be a great ally against islamic nutjobs, despite what the media says. ****...the USA is supporting ****ing Saudi Arabia and you're scared of Iran? LOL
