Why would BO have agreed to this?

[Horn6721]

From AP
"Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
and The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal,
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.
The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal.

Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday's disclosure.

John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator, said, "Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement."

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.

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."

All IAEA member countries must give the agency some insight into their nuclear programs. Some are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country.

The White House has repeatedly denied claims of a secret side deal favorable to Tehran. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he was obligated to keep the document confidential.

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."



It isn't just Republicans who are against this deal.
Anyone on here think it is ok for Iran to do its' own inspection?

 

[Mr. Deez]

My view on this deal has generally been one of indifference. There's no deal Obama or any President could have come up with that I would have been willing to rely upon to assume that Iran isn't going to get a nuke. All deals would require a degree of trust that Iran was going to honor its word, and I would never trust them. If they truly want a nuke, they're going to get one unless they're stopped with military force (which we lack the political will to do), and if they don't, it's going to be because they never really wanted one in the first place or because they just weren't successful in developing one. It's not going to be because of any nuclear deal.

Nevertheless, the more I learn about this deal, the less indifferent and more hostile to it I become and the more suspicious of the Administration I become. The 24-day waiting period and this new revelation make it clear to me that the West is getting virtually nothing in return for waiving its sanctions. It's just too easy for them to cheat for this deal to be taken seriously.

Furthermore, both this deal and the Cuba deal seem to illustrate that we're negotiating as though we don't have any cards at all. We have a multi-trillion dollar economy and the most powerful military in the world. In terms of economic and military power, we can **** up the Iranians and Castro anytime we want. I'm not suggesting that we do that, but I also don't think we should let them dictate the terms. This all suggests to me that Obama is begging these countries to come to the table and make a deal with him and that walking away from the table isn't an option for us no matter how little we're getting out of the deal. This is about legacy-building, not about what's in the best interests of the United States.

 

[chango]

I've never brought this up before - because I know the reaction from this crowd. . but why does the US get to tell the rest of the world what they can and cannot do?

 

[Clean]

Obama and Kerry have lied since day 1 about this "treaty". Their repeated statements to the effect that this deal isn't based on trust, it's based on verification, etc.,etc., which they have been chanting like a mantra, were bald faced lies! They deliberately misled the American people. They knew Iran would never agree to strict inspections. Iran said it wouldn't allow strict inspections from the get-go. So, the Obama Administration allowed the inspection details to be pulled into secret side agreements which they hoped would never become public.

Hopefully enough Democrats will have the cohones to do what is right for America, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Clean]

oh yeah, and there's this too.

Iranian leaders prevented a top International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) official from disclosing to U.S. officials the nature of secret side deals with the Islamic Republic by threatening harm to him, according to regional reports.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite

 

[WorsterMan]

This administration seems to mostly negotiate / deal from a reactionary position of weakness. Thus you get a treaty like this, one that gives Iran what they want: a pathway to a nuclear bomb(s). The administration has deceived itself by including terms and side deals that are supposed to provide inspections and verifications of compliance. Trust them.

Bologna - this is a legacy building treaty.

I think enough Democrats will see this treaty for what is and vote against it along with enough Republicans and it will be defeated, but we will see.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I've never brought this up before - because I know the reaction from this crowd. . but why does the US get to tell the rest of the world what they can and cannot do?

Chango, it's a fair question to ask. We don't really get to tell the rest of the world what they can and cannot do. We can't commit force against everybody, and even when we do, we do it foolishly and imprudently. Our will frequently isn't done. (See Vietnam. See Korea. See Iraq.)

However, we have more control than other nations, because we have more economic and military leverage than anybody else. Because of our size and willingness to spend money, most nations want access to the US markets and business. That's why it hurts when we impose economic sanctions. If Tanzania imposed an embargo on China, they would barely notice. If the United States imposed an embargo on China, they'd turn into the old Soviet Union or worse. Furthermore, if someone threatens our interests, we can bring enormous military force to bear to stop them if we have the political will to stop them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to assume that you think it's a bad thing that we have that kind of leverage. People who think that point to some of the stupid things we've done over the years in which we've misused our leverage, and they have a point. The problem that I have with that mentality is that if we unilaterally give up our leverage, it won't disappear into thin air. Others will get it, as they had it before, and though we're certainly not always benevolent, it's highly unlikely that our successors would be more benevolent, just as our predecessors (countries like Great Britain, Germany, the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, etc.) were not. As screwed up as the world is, the pre-American world order was bloodier. Europe and Asia were almost constantly in various states of war, and Africa and South Asia were colonized, so if any strife arose, British, Dutch, German, Italian, or French troops would just start killing people until the opposition was gone or subdued.

With respect to Iran, I honestly don't feel a very a strong urge to forcibly prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. It would take a massive invasion and occupation to really prevent that, and it just isn't worth that kind of effort. Even if it was, our people's hearts wouldn't really be in it, so we'd screw it up like we screwed up Iraq. If Iran wants to develop a bomb, that's fine. However, it's definitely against our interests if they get a bomb, and we owe it to our own people and our allies not to help them by giving them access to US money and business.

One other thing, we could be a lot tougher than we are. We have an embargo on Cuba (which I favor lifting because the real purpose for that embargo is now gone) and have trade sanctions on Iran, but many nations don't follow us on those restrictions. For example, I can walk down into my village here in Germany and buy Cuban rum and cigars. What if the US decided to impose an embargo on any nation that didn't honor our embargo on Cuba and our sanctions on Iran? If Germany was going to lose access to the US consumer market by trading with Cuba and Iran, they'd throw throw those countries under the bus in two seconds. That would be seriously throwing our weight around, so as much as we seem to push people around, we're go pretty light compared to what we could be doing without even using military force.

 

[Horn6721]

Chango
That is a fair question. Let me ask you; are you asking WHY us? Or are you asking why there should be a dominant nation?

 

[theiioftx]

Very simply, if we do not somebody else will. Should we have stopped Hitler?

 

[Horn6721]

So BO sent letters to the Chinese, German, French, and British governments assuring them that companies doing business with Iran will not come under penalty??

WHEN Iran violates the agreement( and the ONLY reason they already haven't is the agreement hasn't been signed) BO proudly spoke of his get tough " snap back" sanctions, Now we learn he is telling the other countries not to bother with that> They can continue to make money off Iran even when Iran violates the agreement.


as far as caring whether a country like Iran get a nuke who trusts the radical leaders in Iran to NOT use it?

 

[Seattle Husker]

as far as caring whether a country like Iran get a nuke who trusts the radical leaders in Iran to NOT use it?

Raises hand! It's not that I trust Iran but I don't believe countries are suicidal in general. People in power have a strong desire for self preservation. See N. Korea and Saddam Hussein. Sure they'd use them as leverage and create a lot of bluster but despite their public proclamations they know the cost of using it. MAD is real and as long as that's a policy with teeth then they won't use it even if they could take out Tel Aviv.

Iran wouldn't exist as we know it should they actually use a nuke. In fact, the next country that uses one on an enemy will likely find the world fighting them.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Raises hand! It's not that I trust Iran but I don't believe countries are suicidal in general. People in power have a strong desire for self preservation.

Be careful, SH. You're probably right about Iran, but there are Islamic groups that are suicidal, hence the willingness to use suicide as a weapon. For example, if ISIS somehow got an atomic bomb and a way to deliver it, I do think they'd use it. If it actually looked like they were close to getting one, I would hope that we would wake up and stop them.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Be careful, SH. You're probably right about Iran, but there are Islamic groups that are suicidal, hence the willingness to use suicide as a weapon. For example, if ISIS somehow got an atomic bomb and a way to deliver it, I do think they'd use it. If it actually looked like they were close to getting one, I would hope that we would wake up and stop them.

I wouldn't say the same about non-nation state actors like ISIS. As soon as you have borders and are accepted into the global economic system, there is a lot more to lose. The religious leaders of Iran have been in power for 35+ years. They've lived a very comfortable life and have a lot of influence in the Middle East. Why would they give all that up for a one-time shot to poke Israel in the eye? The current situation has to be more palatable than an invasion on their soil.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
You say countries aren't suicidal.You are so far, based on history, correct.
Islamic radicalism in a new and different force whether it is the sunni ISIS or Iranian shia, each faction has been willing to commit unspeakable atrocities using suiciders or other extreme methods.
Add in the deep seated fervor against the Big and Little Satans it is IMO foolhardy to think Iran wouldn't use a nuke. After all you can be sure The Ayyatolah and Iranian President will not be in Iran if they decide to use a nuke. Neither of them ha shown particular regard for the well being of their citizens.

Why were so many other nations against Iran getting nukes?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Furthermore, both this deal and the Cuba deal seem to illustrate that we're negotiating as though we don't have any cards at all.

For whatever reason, that is the Obama administration style. My theory is that when you believe that your nation is "at fault", that you have no moral authority and are in some way the cause of the issue at hand, you are averse to using the leverage that you have now as a successful nation. I think where most people see negotiation, Obama sees "imposing our will", and he doesn't want to do that.

The religious leaders of Iran have been in power for 35+ years. They've lived a very comfortable life and have a lot of influence in the Middle East. Why would they give all that up for a one-time shot to poke Israel in the eye?

I take a lot of comfort in this, and I think there's much truth to it. It's funny how most of the suicide bombers are the young guys and not the established leaders. I think the majority of the radical leaders have very little interest in dying for their faith. I could be wrong on that.

However, I am also worried that the leaders believe (rightly so) that the West is extremely ambivalent toward using force at this point, and even moreso about using nuclear force. They may well believe that arming a group with WMDs, letting them carry out the act and then disavowing the act will keep them safe, and sadly, it probably will.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Husker
You say countries aren't suicidal.You are so far, based on history, correct.
Islamic radicalism in a new and different force whether it is the sunni ISIS or Iranian shia, each faction has been willing to commit unspeakable atrocities using suiciders or other extreme methods.
Add in the deep seated fervor against the Big and Little Satans it is IMO foolhardy to think Iran wouldn't use a nuke. After all you can be sure The Ayyatolah and Iranian President will not be in Iran if they decide to use a nuke. Neither of them ha shown particular regard for the well being of their citizens.

Why were so many other nations against Iran getting nukes?

At this point we'll have to agree to disagree. ISIS is NOT the same as the Ayatollah in their goals or methods. The former is hell bent for bringing about a Caliphate although I suspect that should they actually be able to formalize their borders and create a country their rhetoric would change. The latter is content with simply being the gnat for Israel and the West. It gives them leverage as a Shia leader and influence in the region with countries like Lebanon and Syria.

However, I am also worried that the leaders believe (rightly so) that the West is extremely ambivalent toward using force at this point, and even moreso about using nuclear force. They may well believe that arming a group with WMDs, letting them carry out the act and then disavowing the act will keep them safe, and sadly, it probably will.

The response doesn't have to be nuclear but merely overwhelming force. Clearly they have to believe that the US and it's allies would be willing to use it's military might to blitzkrieg Iran should any significant WMD attack like a "nuke" be tied to them. Iraq and Afghanistan were overwhelmed for much less. That alone is a MAD-like deterrent. All the Middle East leverage they've spent millions on would disappear overnight. Why does Iran want a nuke? Leverage. They see what it gives North Korea. The leverage only exists if you don't use it though. The fear of a rogue nation using it is the source of the leverage. When fear becomes reality then the rogue nation becomes too dangerous to not be dealt directly with using overwhelming military force.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker?
" The latter( Iran) is content with simply being the gnat for Israel and the West"

Iran is some big gnat then and now thanks to lifting sanctions this gnat will grow much larger.
I don't see working desperately to get nukes a sign of " being content".

 

[Texas007]

why would he agree to this? because:
1. He is an incompetent ideologue
2. you have to throw out the idea that he is negotiating from a standpoint of doing what is actually best for the US
3. he does not care about the results of any of his policies, he only cares that he can have a press conference to tell us he has "done something", where he can spin about how great he is.
4. there is no one to hold him accountable for his failures so what difference does it make.

why would he do this? have you not been paying attention the last 7 years? it's what he does.

 

[Horn6721]

double O 7
" there is no one to hold him accountable for his failures so what difference does it make"

We have never had a POTUS who so obviously cared more for his legacy that the country that elected him.
every day more comes out that reveals this.
Sad