Nuclear Deal With Iran

[seer]

Meanwhile, the fox guards the hen house while picking his teeth with a chicken feather.

Perfect analogy...

[Mountain Man]

Now it turns out that IAEA, the orginization that's supposed to do the heavy lifting to make sure Iran is upholding its end of the bargain, has announced that they don't have enough money to actually do their job.

Source: Breitbart

The world’s nuclear watch dog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says it is strapped for cash and needs at least $10 million to carry out the critical monitoring required of them in the Iranian nuclear deal.

“The Agency has immediate funding needs related to the continuing costs of implementing monitoring and verification under the existing Joint Plan of Action,” Yukiya Amano, director general of the IAEA, said in remarks presented to the agency’s Board of Directors this week.

“These total $800,000 euros per month. The extra-budgetary contributions which we have previously received for this purpose will be exhausted by the end of September,” Amano said.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...-monitor-iran/

© Copyright Original Source

[Sam]

Now it turns out that IAEA, the orginization that's supposed to do the heavy lifting to make sure Iran is upholding its end of the bargain, has announced that they don't have enough money to actually do their job.

Source: Breitbart

The world’s nuclear watch dog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says it is strapped for cash and needs at least $10 million to carry out the critical monitoring required of them in the Iranian nuclear deal.

“The Agency has immediate funding needs related to the continuing costs of implementing monitoring and verification under the existing Joint Plan of Action,” Yukiya Amano, director general of the IAEA, said in remarks presented to the agency’s Board of Directors this week.

“These total $800,000 euros per month. The extra-budgetary contributions which we have previously received for this purpose will be exhausted by the end of September,” Amano said.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...-monitor-iran/

© Copyright Original Source

A new program requires funding. How decidedly odd.

[Mountain Man]

Take it from Sam, there's nothing to see here. Move along, folks! Move along.

[Sam]

Take it from Sam, there's nothing to see here. Move along, folks! Move along.

In comparison, the Iraq War cost the USA alone ~$430.5 million per day between 2003 and 2010. Current operations in Iraq and Syria cost the USA $7 million - $20 million per day. A nuclear agreement that costs IAEA member states (consisting of virtually the entire globe) an extra $10 million per year seems like a bargain compared to the alternative.

[Mountain Man]

A nuclear agreement that costs IAEA member states (consisting of virtually the entire globe) an extra $10 million per year seems like a bargain compared to the alternative.

According to the deal approved by Obama, military sites are off-limits to the IAEA inspectors where Iran will carry out its own limited investigations at the request of the IAEA (source: The Weekly Standard), and Iran can stonewall for months after an inspection request is made (source: The Wall Street Journal). And that's only the details that have been made public.

Yeah, Sam, it's a real bargain! I suppose the fact that it won't actually prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is just a bonus.

[Sam]

According to the deal approved by Obama, military sites are off-limits to the IAEA inspectors where Iran will carry out its own limited investigations at the request of the IAEA (source: The Weekly Standard), and Iran can stonewall inspections at other sites for months after an inspection request is made (source: The Wall Street Journal). And that's only the details that have been made public.

Yeah, Sam, it's a real bargain! I suppose the fact that it won't actually prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is just a bonus.

Neither of those claims are accurate: the AP story dealing with inspections at the Parchin facility were, at best, based on a draft policy that does not represent the final agreement, according to the IAEA and nuclear experts familiar with the deal. Iran cannot stonewall inspections for months — even the oft-cited 24 day delay in inspections isn't an accurate depictions of how inspections will work in that time frame. The opinion piece regarding how Iran might conceivably stall the various stages of inspection is completely speculative and at odds with how nuclear non-proliferation experts have described the process.

[Mountain Man]

Sure, Sam, whatever you say. Obama's policies are all upsides. No downsides.

The draft proposal is what was offered to Iran - the AP itself confirmed that the draft "reflected the final language". Do you really think they would refuse those terms? And suggesting that Iran will happily comply with inspections is wishful thinking. And that 24-day timer doesn't start ticking until AFTER the preliminary resolution process has been completed which can take several weeks even WITHOUT Iran stonewalling the process.

[Sam]

Sure, Sam, whatever you say. Obama's policies are all upsides. No downsides.

The draft proposal is what was offered to Iran - the AP itself confirmed that the draft "reflected the final language". Do you really think they would refuse those terms? And suggesting that Iran will happily comply with inspections is wishful thinking. And that 24-day timer doesn't start ticking until AFTER the preliminary resolution process has been completed which can take several weeks even WITHOUT Iran stonewalling the process.

No, the AP reported that the anonymous source who showed the reporter the document "confirmed" that the draft resembled the final language. That source, however, was contradicted by numerous other sources familiar with the agreement and the AP walked back several rather pertinent claims after initially offering the story.

A considered and thoughtful discussion regarding the downsides and upsides of the nuclear deal was the hope for the thread. That requires thought and consideration, however. You're just throwing anything you read in an op-ed against the wall expecting it to stick. As an illustration, you're simultaneously complaining about Iran's purported self-inspection of the Panchin facility, which was supposedly the site of nuclear weapons work decades ago, and Iran's purported ability to delay IAEA inspections for a period of months. If the latter complaint is meritorious, Iran could (and would) have scrubbed the Panchin facility clean of any detectable evidence years ago. If the former complaint is meritorious, the difference between a few weeks and a few months until IAEA inspections is negligible. But these are mutually exclusive complaints and making them both out to be legitimate and indicative of a bad deal just shows that you're not even thinking through the talking points you're parroting.

[Mountain Man]

You obviously didn't bother reading my sources. The Weekly Standard confirmed that the AP's report was accurate.

This is why any attempt at discussion with you is fruitless because all you do is parrot the low-information talking points and dismiss anything that doesn't walk in lock step with the liberal agenda.

[Sam]

You obviously didn't bother reading my sources. The Weekly Standard confirmed that the AP's report was accurate.

This is why any attempt at discussion with you is fruitless because all you do is parrot the low-information talking points and dismiss anything that doesn't walk in lock step with the liberal agenda.

I read the Weekly Standard article, as well as the AP articles it linked to as the confirmation; The Weekly Standard did not independently confirm the AP article and the AP articles The Weekly Standard links to as confirmation cite the anonymous source's draft document and no other source documents.

You need to actually cite your sources instead of just hyperlinking them, for your own sake.

[Mountain Man]

Something tells me you only read the first page.

"As the news cycle unfolded Thursday it became clear that the AP had the goods on the collapse to Iran. The AP restored the cut paragraphs and added a Washington angle. AP reporters started listing specific concessions confirmed by the document—and publicly daring critics to deny them. Meanwhile IAEA chief Yukiya Amano put out a statement that sought to defend the deal but very much did not deny the AP report. Then the afternoon press briefing happened, and again—as with Amano—State Department spokesman John Kirby pointedly declined to back the White House validators who had attacked the AP's report..."

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ap...75.html?page=2

The report is accurate no matter how much a low-information moron like you wishes it wasn't.

[Cow Poke]

Neither of those claims are accurate: the AP story dealing with inspections at the Parchin facility were, at best, based on a draft policy that does not represent the final agreement...

Please provide a link to the final agreement, Sam. Bonus points for each side deal.

[Sam]

Something tells me you only read the first page.

"As the news cycle unfolded Thursday it became clear that the AP had the goods on the collapse to Iran. The AP restored the cut paragraphs and added a Washington angle. AP reporters started listing specific concessions confirmed by the document—and publicly daring critics to deny them. Meanwhile IAEA chief Yukiya Amano put out a statement that sought to defend the deal but very much did not deny the AP report. Then the afternoon press briefing happened, and again—as with Amano—State Department spokesman John Kirby pointedly declined to back the White House validators who had attacked the AP's report..."

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ap...75.html?page=2

The report is accurate no matter how much a low-information moron like you wishes it wasn't.

You'll notice that nowhere in your citation does the AP actually confirm that the draft document matches the final document. The rest is just the The Weekly Standard author's color added to the facts, color which does not match up with how others have actually responded to the AP story.

You've gone from saying that The Weekly Standard actually confirmed the AP's story to saying that the author inferred that the story was accurate based on a press briefing and Amano's statement, which reads:

Source: Statement by IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano. 2015.08.20

I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work.


The separate arrangements under the Road-map agreed between the IAEA and Iran in July are confidential and I have a legal obligation not to make them public – the same obligation I have for hundreds of such arrangements made with other IAEA Member States.


However, I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way.


The Road-map between Iran and the IAEA is a very robust agreement, with strict timelines, which will help us to clarify past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.

© Copyright Original Source

How the author "confirms" the AP story based on that is a long walk.

The inability to separate facts from opinions is bad enough. You don't need to continue your habit of adding "facts" and simply moving on without acknowledging corrections or logical contradictions to the mix.

[Sam]

Please provide a link to the final agreement, Sam. Bonus points for each side deal.

Text of the final deal.

The "side deals" are between the IAEA and relevant member states. They are not published or accessible to others.