Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close

Iran can easily stretch out the inspection of suspect nuclear sites for three months or more.

The Obama administration assures Americans that the Iran deal grants access within 24 days to undeclared but suspected Iranian nuclear sites. But that’s hardly how a recalcitrant Iran is likely to interpret the deal. A close examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more.

Paragraphs 74 to 78 govern the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access to suspect sites. First, the IAEA tells Iran “the basis” of its concerns about a particular location, requesting clarification. At this point Iran will know where the IAEA is headed. Iran then provides the IAEA with “explanations” to resolve IAEA concerns. This stage has no time limit.

Opportunities for delay abound. Iran will presumably want to know what prompted the IAEA’s concern. The suspect site identified by the IAEA is likely to be remote, and Iran will no doubt say that it must gather skilled people and equipment to responsibly allay IAEA concerns. Iran may offer explanations in stages, seeking IAEA clarifications before “completing” its response. That could take a while.

Only if Iran’s “explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns” may the IAEA then “request access” to the suspect site. Oddly, the agreement doesn’t specify who judges whether the explanations resolve concerns. If Iran claims that it has a say in the matter, the process may stall here. Assuming Iran grants that the IAEA can be the judge, might Iran claim that the “great Satan” improperly influenced IAEA conclusions? Let’s assume that Tehran won’t do that.

Doesn't matter. It goes on and on and on. It's a deal that is no deal.

Posted by DougOut on 1/20/2021 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 1/20/2021 4:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/20/2021 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Ahh, I love good old fashioned falsehoods. I was referring to the trade deficit, not the national debt. Trump failed to reduce that deficit, despite promises to the contrary. Even if he did, it wouldn't necessarily be a positive development. The best way to counteract China is to use our soft power through trade deals with Asian nations and other countries around the world. Kind of like the TPP.

Damn, if only there were a way to find out whether they were making nukes under the Iran deal. OH WAIT, we were allowed to send in inspectors! You realize that you can't just hide a nuclear facility, right? You know absolutely nothing.

Why should small states and rural populations get more representation than large states and populations? I live in Kansas. Wylie lives in California. Why should my vote count more than his? Shouldn't we all have an equal say? Even if your argument were true, we already have an equalizer, called the Senate, where California has the same amount of representation as Wyoming. If you next argument is going to be "politicians would only campaign in big cities," OK, that's fine because that's where the people are. But even now, are politicians going to rural areas in the middle of the country? Why would I even bother to vote for President in Kansas? In fact, why do any of us bother to vote that don't live in one of the 5 states that politicians actually care about?

Education - damn, sorry that you have absolutely no working solutions and are doomed to eternally complain about problems that either don't exist, or won't be solved through conservative politics.

Again, I'm asking you to set goalposts for what OUTCOMES you would like to see. If you don't want to do that, maybe set some negative outcomes that you think might happen under a Biden presidency. Some predictions. For example, I'd like to see less US presence on the ground abroad. I'd like to see real reductions in the number of troops in Afghanistan. I don't want Biden to attempt a coup in Venezuela. In climate policy, I'd like the US to take the lead in reducing global emissions and focus heavily on reducing our own. I want the US to distribute the vaccine effectively and have the virus under control by the summer. There's a couple.

1. I like your first line. Did you read it? The rest of your post confirms it.
2. Top Nuke scientist just got knocked off. Blew up one of their Nuke sites. Couldn't send in an inspector until they said it was ok.
3. No one said more. Well..........you did.
4. Careful. That's 4 in a row you're being more than a little dismissive. Temper Temper.
5. Agree except climate.

Posted by Uofa2 on 1/20/2021 4:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 1/20/2021 3:06:00 PM (view original):
I'm not gonna quote post 'cause they get too long.

1. TRUE
2. Copy Trumps model
3. You are SO wrong. NO COMPROMISE.
4. We will see. Adding States is end of Republic. Ending Electoral College is end of Republic. You want simple majority in Senate....Pass Constitutional amendment.
5. Colleges are a business. Many would be better off in a trade school. Many courses are useless. BIG EDUCATION is LOADED FILTHY RICH!!! Tenure is stupid. BIG EDUCATION CAN STAY OUT OF MY BACK POCKET. NO TENURE. I GOT ALOT OF PROBLEMS WITH BIG ED. Also no reason not to allow creationism and intelligent design in public school as an elective.

“Adding states is the end of the republic because changing our policies to be more electable is a bridge too far!”

no.5 there is off the rails