Is it a good idea for the UN/IAEA to allow Iran to inspect it's own sites for wrongdoing?

[madville]

Because according to AP, documents leaked today show that the IN/IAEA is going to allow Iran to inspect some of it's own nuclear sites with Iranian inspectors and then submit pictures and videos to the IAEA. UN inspectors will not be allowed on-site at any time.

It's a small piece of the overall deal but it's all anyone will be talking about from now until the vote I bet.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05

[Senator Tankerbell]

1. I hope people will consider the source

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/ap-iran-nuclear-program-graph-explanation

[geek tragedy]

2. It's not part of the Iran deal. This is the IAEA inspecting for PAST activities.

Inspections of CURRENT and FUTURE activities will not be governed by those protocols.

[madville]

5. The article says it is

"The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package."

Will have to see how this plays out, I was under the impression that lifting the sanctions and releasing funds was dependent on compliance with IAEA inspections.

[geek tragedy]

8. The Parchin agreement is about PAST activities. That is between the IAEA and Iran.

the Iran nuclear deal involving the P5+1 is about CURRENT and FUTURE activities.

Not sure what part of this you are not understanding.

[madville]

10. Wrong

The recent agreement requires Iran to comply with IAEA inspections into past activities. The side agreements between IAEA and Iran are intertwined with the present Iran deal.

[geek tragedy]

14. THE PARCHIN AGREEMENT DOES NOT COVER NUCLEAR SITES.

IT DOES NOT COVER:

NATANZ
FORDOW
ARAK.

PARCHIN IS NOT A NUCLEAR SITE.

[madville]

18. They also said there were no side deals

Between the IAEA and Iran, we now know that is false.

[geek tragedy]

19. Do you get all of your news from Fox or from the Weekly Standard?

Your slip is showing.

Just in case you're merely seriously confused rather than trolling on behalf of the warmongers' effort:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/248856-white-house-acknowledges-side-deals-between-iran-iaea

National security adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday acknowledged the existence of side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Rice said the deals involve Iran accounting for past military uses of its nuclear program, but rejected GOP assertions that this represented “secret” side deals to the Iranian nuclear agreement.

That was three weeks ago.

[Mosby]

6. where does it say that?

[geek tragedy]

9. below the headline.

On Wednesday, White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said the Obama administration was "confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program. ... The IAEA has separately developed the most robust inspection regime ever peacefully negotiated."

...

Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in - or work on - nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms.

The IAEA has cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.

[madville]

11. So the "most robust inspection regime"

Ever peacefully negotiated let's Iran conduct it's own inspections?

[geek tragedy]

13. No, that's not what's happening. It's been explained to you several times

why the line of Neocon, Republican bullshit you insist on peddling is untrue.

But, I will type this S-L-O-W-L-Y for you in the off chance you're not dishonestly trolling.

The Parchin site agreement involves work THAT ENDED OVER A DECADE AGO.

Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in - or work on - nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms.

The IAEA has cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.

"SINCE THE ALLEGED WORK STOPPED MORE THAN A DECADE AGO.

It is an investigation into PAST behavior, not inspections of CURRENT behavior.

Are you playing stupid, or is this really above your head?

[madville]

15. The current agreement requires

Compliance with IAEA inspections of PAST activity. If IAEA is really allowing Iran to conduct it's own inspections of itself and declaring them compliant as part of the conditions to lift sanctions then they are all related to the current deal.

That's been in the reported conditions of the current deal the whole time, did you miss that?

[geek tragedy]

16. THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THE NUCLEAR SITES.

PARCHIN IS NOT A NUCLEAR SITE.

[randome]

17. Thanks for doing the research.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[madville]

20. So the place where the bulk of Iran's nuclear work

Occurred is now not a nuclear site that they can self-inspect, makes total sense.

[geek tragedy]

21. No. Please stop lying your ass off in order to promote a war.

PARCHIN WAS NEVER A NUCLEAR RESEARCH SITE.

The nuclear sites are Natanz, Arak, and Fordow.

Parchin is a rocket and high explosives site.

Every Democrat of good faith can see right through your Republican lies and obfuscation.

[Boxerfan]

3. Is it a good idea for a republican talking point to be foisted on DU??

Just asking...

[randome]

4. The U.N. will handle its own inspections as they see fit.

The U.S. and the other signatories to the treaty will handle their own inspections as they see fit.

See? Easy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[madville]

7. I thought the lifting of sanctions was dependent

On compliance with IAEA inspections? The U.S. won't be sending inspectors in, the inspections are conducted through the UN's IAEA. So the Iran deal is intertwined with these IAEA inspections, they aren't two separate things.

[randome]

12. To be honest, I don't really care about the delicate details.

It's a step forward and provides for more stability in that part of the world. Go, team!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]