Iran gives U.N. watchdog information about past nuclear activities

[bananas]

Source: Reuters

Iran has given the U.N. nuclear watchdog information regarding its atomic past, a milestone in potentially meeting a condition for sanctions relief under an accord reached with world powers last month.

Alongside the July 14 agreement to curb its nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions, Iran signed a deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to resolve outstanding questions about the possible military dimensions (PMD) of its past nuclear activities.

<snip>

For months, Iran had been stalling an IAEA investigation into the possible military aspects of its past nuclear activities, relating mostly to the period before 2003, saying the agency's data for its investigation was fabricated. The IAEA says it takes no information at face value.

Under the road-map, the IAEA could ask Tehran to provide more clarification by Oct. 15 so that the watchdog can write a final PMD report by the end of the year.

<snip>

The agency has come under fire by U.S. politicians for not disclosing its road-map agreement with Iran, which the U.N. body says is in line with its normal nuclear safeguards proceedings.

<snip>


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/15/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKCN0QK0F420150815

[underpants]

1. See! It's a terrible agreement!

[bananas]

2. It is a terrible agreement.

But after the damage done by the Bush administration, getting a good agreement is next to impossible.

[karynnj]

4. you start where you start, and by the time they could

seriously negotiate when Rohani was elected, Iran was very near having everything needed not just for one bomb but many.

The stupidity is that Netanyahu and his allies really will accept NO possible deal. Note that back in the spring when it was clear the deal was better than expected, Israeli arguments shifted to things outside the deal like supporting terrorism and recognizing Israel AS A JEWISH STATE.

What is clear is the issue for them is nor really whether the deal makes it more or less likely that Iran gets a nuclear bomb. They then are delusional or lying in arguing that the deal being rejected could lead to a better deal.

Read Schumer ' s ststement. He argues that US SECONDARY sanctions against other countries who engage with Iran would keep the sanctions regime strong. SERIOUSLY, the countries that are already considering economic relations include France, Italy, UK. We are going to sanction them?


Frankly, on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of who I trust on this, Kerry and Moniz as a team rate a perfect 10. Their combination of diplomatic and scientific skill in understanding this is as good as it gets. Netanyahu was completely wrong in speaking to the UN on what it requires to get a nuclear bomb. His cartoon poster had to be embarrassing to Israeli scientists. I could list many recent times where he lied publicly - only to retract his statements days later when they politically were not needrd. He also reneged on various deals with coalition partners. So on that same scale, I would give Netanyahu a 1 as he is neither honest or expert.



Yes, I am aware of the voices labeling any criticism of Netanyahu or AIPAC as anti semitic. However, I don't remember the same concerned American Jews speaking out when Likud and Bennett ' s further right party smeared Obama and Kerry. Note, the "troubling" accusation against AIPAC is that they are spending millions to influence the vote --- and given they are spending 40 million dollars to do so, that is simply the truth. Nothing anyone is saying about Netanyahu on this is worse than things publicly said by members of Netanyahu ' s government about Kery and Obama.

[SusanaMontana41]

3. No kidding, right?

Those opposed to this treaty argue, "But we can't trust Iran!"

Trust?

If countries trusted one another, we'd have no need for treaties.

[karynnj]

5. however, when they are pushed to that as their reason,

It completely destroys their attempt to argue that there is a better agreement that could have been had.

It really then comes down to this deal vs no deal. No deal is not even the status quo. The INTERIM agreement, Which After the fact, EVEN People like Netanyahu admit slowed movement to a bomb go away. It puts us back to when Netanyahu spoke to the UN. Not to mention, it is even worse as Iran would not see a possibility of a diplomatic solution.

This-- far more than the IWR --- is a vote that makes war far more likely.

[SusanaMontana41]

6. Who is "they" and "their"? What reason is "that"?

I'm not following.

[karynnj]

7. people against the agreement now using the argument

That "you can't trust the Iranians". Note this applies no matter what the agreement is, therefore they are 100 percent against any diplomacy.

[SusanaMontana41]

8. O, I get ya now.

Yes. Yes. Yes.