Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    So part of President Obama's recent treaty work with Iran was the promise that we would be able to verify compliance. There was, of course, silence on the questions of how that would work given our need to give them 30 days notice.

    But in a, frankly bizarre, twist of events. The UN has agreed to allow the Iranians to inspect themselves at several key military sites.

    Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
    ...
    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.
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-19-13-06-05



    I think this kind of odd side deal is a great example of why this is a terrible negotiating platform, one even some Democrats don't support.

    So I'm curious, does anyone here still support this deal? Or better yet, can someone explain how this treaty will actually slow Iranian nuclear concerns?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. Thanks Lukecash12, MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  3. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,134
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So part of President Obama's recent treaty work with Iran was the promise that we would be able to verify compliance. There was, of course, silence on the questions of how that would work given our need to give them 30 days notice.

    But in a, frankly bizarre, twist of events. The UN has agreed to allow the Iranians to inspect themselves at several key military sites.
    Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
    ...
    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.
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-19-13-06-05



    I think this kind of odd side deal is a great example of why this is a terrible negotiating platform, one even some Democrats don't support.

    So I'm curious, does anyone here still support this deal? Or better yet, can someone explain how this treaty will actually slow Iranian nuclear concerns?
    This is a good post and good topic.

    Treaties that we sign should be expected to provide some benefit to the U.S. So, I guess the real litmus test for signing this treaty should be, what is the benefit to the U.S?

    As your post clearly shows, the chances that this treaty will stop, or even slow, an Iranian nuclear program seems far-fetched. I certainly don't see how it improves on the current situation where Tehran was under huge sanctions and restrictions. Now, to find out that Tehran gets to self-monitor.. are you kidding? What is the point of having inspections at all? Why don't we go full Foster Dulles and just hand every single nation their own nuclear stockpile. We'll just roll the dice, pray every nation-state actor is rational, and hope for the best. At this point, what difference does it make? For Obama's sake, if Iran isn't bluffing and decides to wage war on Israel, as they have promised to do for decades, may god have mercy on his soul.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  4. Thanks Lukecash12, Squatch347 thanked for this post
    Likes theophilus liked this post
  5. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    The information provided in the OP is parsed and does not provide a clear picture of what this means.

    This exceptional arrangement is related to a site in particular that is believed by the IAEA to have been sanitized over a decade ago from illegal activities. It's got nothing to do with sites that need to be monitored for present possible wrong doing.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  6. #4
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    This exceptional arrangement is related to a site in particular that is believed by the IAEA to have been sanitized over a decade ago from illegal activities. It's got nothing to do with sites that need to be monitored for present possible wrong doing.
    Because Iran can't possibly move activities to this site right?

    Actually, you are incorrect as well. It is believed that the high-explosive detonator work that has gone on at Parchin was stopped about a decade ago (or perhaps hardened underground like most Iranian military sites starting around that time period).

    But sanitizing the site only began this summer (http://www.bloombergview.com/article...te-intel-warns). So evidence of activity could well be in place. Heck, by this logic we might as well not conduct any inspections at all because Iranians are likely sanitizing all inspectable locations, right?

    Now, if the site had been sanitized, and if no future wrong doing is planned at the site, why would Iranian officials be so adamant about refusing IAEA access?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because Iran can't possibly move activities to this site right?
    A legitimate concern taken in isolation. But you seem to be ignoring the competence of the IAEA in these matters.

    but sanitizing begun this summer
    Your right thank you for the correction but that's besides the point. Verifications are meant to control present and future compliance, not investigate the past.

    Now, if the site had been sanitized, and if no future wrong doing is planned at the site, why would Iranian officials be so adamant about refusing IAEA access?
    Because it remains an important military base where Iran would like to keep a healthy level of secrecy (like any other country would for it's own). Considering it's been raped with the most sophisticated attack (Stuxnet), a series of assassination of its top scientists and a suspicious explosion on that very base a year ago, the concerns are rational.

    On reasonable grounds, I favor the credibility of the IAEA to negotiate for itself a reasonable verification agreement against the credibility of this Congress that acts consistently as an extension for Israel's current government.
    Last edited by Vandaler; September 1st, 2015 at 02:24 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  8. #6
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    A legitimate concern taken in isolation. But you seem to be ignoring the competence of the IAEA in these matters.
    And what competence would that be? They haven't exactly shown a stellar track record on inspection issues.

    And I'm also not sure how I'm ignoring it, the IAEA won't be investigating or operating at this site, correct?


    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    Verifications are meant to control present and future compliance, not investigate the past.
    But their past compliance reflects directly on their credibility on this issue. We need to remember that this is a regime that is claiming it has never worked to develop nuclear weapons, while buying weapons material during the treaty negotiations.

    It also is directly relevant for monitoring future compliance as it sheds light on likely research avenues, technology levels and gives inspectors a hint at what they should be looking for to detect ongoing research.


    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    Because it remains an important military base where Iran would like to keep a healthy level of secrecy (like any other country would for it's own). Considering it's been raped with the most sophisticated attack (Stuxnet), a series of assassination of its top scientists and a suspicious explosion on that very base a year ago, the concerns are rational.
    One would likely expect such attacks, and such demands for inspections, if one was a country clearly developing nuclear weapons, who is the world's leader in sponsoring domestic terrorist organizations, and which has repeatedly called for the extermination of a group of people.

    Iran is not some aggrieved party here, they are a destabilizing influence that routinely funds the targeting of civilians by associated group and which is bent upon the destruction of
    the only westernized democracy in the region. Not to mention its goal, of course, to eliminate us as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    On reasonable grounds, I favor the credibility of the IAEA to negotiate for itself a reasonable verification agreement against the credibility of this Congress that acts consistently as an extension for Israel's current government.
    Well aside from the slight at Congress, why would we trust the IAEA to negotiate for itself on our best interest here?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. Thanks Lukecash12 thanked for this post
  10. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And what competence would that be?
    The competence of the IAEA is unique in its expertise, independence and neutral approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And I'm also not sure how I'm ignoring it, the IAEA won't be investigating or operating at this site, correct?
    “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.”
    Yukiya Amano – Director General of the IAEA
    https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/stat...l-yukiya-amano

    You have no evidence to counter the statement above since the terms of the agreement are confidential.
    You should know that the leak to AP can very well be an attempt at derailing the vote in Congress by casting the agreement in a bad light. (By the way, the AP story has since been revised because it’s characterization of the Parchin military base was inappropriate).
    Who leaked the document to AP at this time and to what end?



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Iran is not some aggrieved party here, they are a destabilizing influence...
    Your characterisation of Iran is not useful, since it’s the credibility of the IAEA that is at stake. No one is demanding that we trust Iran at its words alone. That proposition is a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why would we trust the IAEA to negotiate for itself on our best interest here?
    A far more intersting question is why does this only seem to matter to the American Congress and not other countries that also also have a vested interest in seeing this Iranian deal go well and be effective? Do you have any other echoes from France? Germany? Russia? UK? China? All these countries have put themselves on the line in the P5+1 negociations.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  11. #8
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    The competence of the IAEA is unique in its expertise, independence and neutral approach.
    I'm not sure why should agree with that point, the IAEA missed North Korea's nuclear weapons development, they were issuing reports that Iraq was not seeking nuclear weapons in the 1990s until a separate UN investigation proved that it was, they failed completely to detect Libya's failed program, and were unable to do anything related to Syria's possible program when they were given evidence of activities following an Israeli air raid. http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/15...-iaea-be-saved


    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    You have no evidence to counter the statement above since the terms of the agreement are confidential.
    You should know that the leak to AP can very well be an attempt at derailing the vote in Congress by casting the agreement in a bad light. (By the way, the AP story has since been revised because it’s characterization of the Parchin military base was inappropriate).
    Who leaked the document to AP at this time and to what end?

    His statement seems to say, "no its fine, trust us." Does he say that IAEA inspectors will be on site? Or that IAEA equipment will be used?

    Your dismissal of the leak carries very little water. The AP correction was to the wording of Parchin as a military base rather than a nuclear facility, hardly a major correction. The rest reads like unfounded speculation and a bit of a conspiracy.

    Regardless, we have at least one source that the AP felt was good enough to trust (the AP hardly being a GOP friendly institution) that says IAEA inspectors will not be on site and no IAEA equipment will be used.

    We have 0 sources countering that assertion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    Your characterisation of Iran is not useful, since it’s the credibility of the IAEA that is at stake. No one is demanding that we trust Iran at its words alone.
    It is in the sense that you seemed to be defending their insistence that we not be able to visit military sites for security reasons. Iran's preference on that front is mitigated by the fact that they are not coming to the table as an equal party here. They are coming to the table as a state sponsor of the terrorist organizations. They are coming to the table after announcing (and then announcing it after the meeting) their intent on genocide. They are coming to the table while simultaneously violating provisions not only of the negotiation, but their proposals for the final treaty as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    A far more intersting question is why does this only seem to matter to the American Congress and not other countries that also also have a vested interest in seeing this Iranian deal go well and be effective? Do you have any other echoes from France? Germany? Russia? UK? China? All these countries have put themselves on the line in the P5+1 negociations.
    Perhaps that is more a result of the news organizations you choose to frequent?

    Germany's negotiating team has faced significant criticism based on its makeup being primarily of economic development rather than security members. It is implied by many in the Bundestag that the German government is more interested in business deals than verifying compliance. http://www.jpost.com/International/G...n-visit-409741

    Likewise Minister Hammond has come under fire in the British Parliament for being a bit niave not only on the inspections process, but on the possible repercussions of a lack of compliance. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Ira...and-off-409066
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. Thanks Lukecash12 thanked for this post
  13. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure why should agree with that point, the IAEA missed North Korea's nuclear weapons development, they were issuing reports that Iraq was not seeking nuclear weapons in the 1990s until a separate UN investigation proved that it was, they failed completely to detect Libya's failed program, and were unable to do anything related to Syria's possible program when they were given evidence of activities following an Israeli air raid.
    Perhaps we can agree that role of the IAEA is difficult to carry and that it's genuine in it's efforts to carry out it's mandate. The failures you describe above are better seen as failures from intelligence agencies who have immense budgets and virtually no limits in regard to the manner in which they collect information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    His statement seems to say, "no its fine, trust us." Does he say that IAEA inspectors will be on site? Or that IAEA equipment will be used?
    Yes, that's exactly what he says.

    What YOU seem to say is that there are no possible mitigating controls to assure the integrity of the process or that the IAEA was not able to negociate these controls. You have no evidence to justify that scepticism and the AP article is silent on the subject of mitigating controls.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your dismissal of the leak carries very little water.
    ...
    Regardless, we have at least one source that the AP felt was good enough to trust (the AP hardly being a GOP friendly institution) that says IAEA inspectors will not be on site and no IAEA equipment will be used.
    I'm not saying the AP story is false... I'm saying it only serves to muddy the waters rather then provide real information. Specially knowing that the IAEA is not in a position to defend the content of the agreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Perhaps that is more a result of the news organizations you choose to frequent?
    I meant that there is no significant reactions to the AP story other then that from in the US where there is politicking and posturing going on right now.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  14. #10
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    Perhaps we can agree that role of the IAEA is difficult to carry and that it's genuine in it's efforts to carry out it's mandate.
    I’m not sure I can agree to that. The IAEA isn’t something that is “genuine” it is an organization. An organization of people who have incentives. I would rather phrase what you wrote as “the IAEA is a group of people who respond to incentives, one of which is to carry out the role assigned to their organization.” I would also point out that another large, and probably more pressing given the timelines, incentive they were operating under, was the pressure to get a deal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    The failures you describe above are better seen as failures from intelligence agencies who have immense budgets and virtually no limits in regard to the manner in which they collect information.
    Well I’m not sure why we would pawn off the responsibility just on the IC. Regardless, how is that , different in this case? NK, Syria, and Libya were all submitting IAEA reports. Iraq had IAEA inspectors in place as part of the run up to that revelation. Inspectors that spectacularly missed what Mossad was able to find.

    In fact, given the way that all the example I offered were revealed, if we are serious about preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, we should just offer Mossad additional funding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    Yes, that's exactly what he says.
    Please support or retract that assertion. Because you seem to imply that he is claiming the exact opposite of what made the leak a revelation in the first place. Please support that Yukiya Amano stated that IAEA inspectors would be on site and that IAEA equipment will be used.


    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    I meant that there is no significant reactions to the AP story other then that from in the US where there is politicking and posturing going on right now.
    This seems more like “hear no evil” than an actual supportable position. Do you have evidence that there is no other reaction outside the US? Or is it simply that you haven’t heard of any personally?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    ... if we are serious about preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, we should just offer Mossad additional funding.
    That's pretty much the heart of what I'm saying... the world is not relying on the IAEA but on the IC to find out if Iran is secretly ramping up it's nucleo-military capacity. The value add of the IAEA is to provide neutral reporting of compliance that would pave the way for lifting sanctions when reports come clean. Not much more.

    There are crazy amounts of ressources given to the IC around the world that makes this point of verification a little silly. So much so, that now that the political theater is over in the U.S. we will never read about this subject again. Not exactly an argument, but I'm sticking my neck out and you may pound it in me if I'm wrong. I very rarely am though.

    Increase the amount the U.S. gives to Isreal to fund Mossad? I don't care... fine if it's warrented.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Please support or retract that assertion. Because you seem to imply that he is claiming the exact opposite of what made the leak a revelation in the first place. Please support that Yukiya Amano stated that IAEA inspectors would be on site and that IAEA equipment will be used.
    He said what he said... that there is a deal that he can't discuss. Hence it's just like you paraphrased... he said "Trust me". and not much more.

    You're sidestepping my main point... that there are likely mitigating controls that cannot legally be disclosed which makes this entire debate sterile for lack of information. I therefore suggest we wait patiently for more information to surface but like I pointed out earlier, I doubt we will ever ear again about this matter.
    Last edited by Vandaler; September 12th, 2015 at 05:39 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  16. #12
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    That's pretty much the heart of what I'm saying... the world is not relying on the IAEA but on the IC to find out if Iran is secretly ramping up it's nucleo-military capacity.
    There are a couple of issues I think with this view point. The first is that we aren’t trying to discover whether they are ramping up their ability to produce nuclear weapons, but rather dismantling the existing program in place to develop them. That is a relatively difficult process given the points I’ve raised in this thread and elsewhere:

    1) Iran has already acted in bad faith, breaking treaty and table promises (pre-conditions agreed to in order to start negotiations) multiple times during the negotiation.

    2) We have limited our capacity to detect what they are doing by offering generous pre-warning notices and by, in this case, allowing them to use their own personnel and own equipment.

    The IC must use data for its analysis and to the extent that we are limiting that data or calling it into question by allowing its creation by unfriendly actors, we are limiting the usefulness of the IC’s analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    There are crazy amounts of ressources given to the IC around the world that makes this point of verification a little silly. So much so, that now that the political theater is over in the U.S. we will never read about this subject again
    Well that certainly doesn’t seem to be the case here as we still see quite a bit of discussion here (and I think, more tellingly, in Israel) about it.

    And of course there will be the inevitable discussion when Iran is first caught breaking the treaty and we do nothing about it.

    And again when they detonate a weapon which seems to be somewhat inevitable as even its supporters don’t claim the treaty is aimed at stopping development.

    I’m also not sure why would place so much faith in the IC here as well. The IC was the one that was 100% sure that Sadaam had an active program for WMDs (we can set aside the political rhetoric and agree I think that this was a pretty universally held position). The same community that claimed North Korea was incapable of producing a nuclear weapon. The same community that has likely been altering intel reports on ISIS capabilities for political reasons as well (at least here in the US).


    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    He said what he said... that there is a deal that he can't discuss. Hence it's just like you paraphrased... he said "Trust me". and not much more.
    Well, no, not exactly. My position is that a leak of the agreement indicates that the IAEA will allow Iranians to inspect an Iranian site with Iranian equipment. For support I am citing an AP journalist and the AP’s credibility in researching its sources.

    Your position is “no, they will be on site” and your support is a quote from Yukiya Amano saying “I can’t discuss the deal.”

    You see how that support doesn’t actually touch on the claim you made. “I can’t discuss it” is not the same thing as “We will be on site.”

    The last statement still needs to be either supported or retracted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    You're sidestepping my main point... that there are likely mitigating controls that cannot legally be disclosed which makes this entire debate sterile for lack of information. I therefore suggest we wait patiently for more information to surface but like I pointed out earlier, I doubt we will ever ear again about this matter.
    I didn’t sidestep that point at all, but addressed it by pointing out that the IAEA has a horrific track record even with better access, so we have no reason to believe their controls would be effective and by pointing out that the nature of the possible controls used make them, essentially by definition, weaker than being on site.

    Your last statement is patently incorrect given that we are discussing ratification and release of funds prior to when that information would be available. You don’t give someone a loan before they release their financial information to you by saying “they could well have a source of income, we just don’t know.”
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    There are now details of said mitigating controls... This article is from the same journalist that initially published the leak.

    "Deputy IAEA Director General Tero Varjoranta said that there have been over 40 instances of letting a country being inspected use their own nationals to do their own sampling and that the process is only a small part of a rigid regimen established by the agency to make sure there is no cheating. He said the criteria at Parchin included: invasive monitoring by video and still cameras while the sampling took place; GPS tracking of the sampling process; IAEA agreement on where the samples were to be taken; review by unspecified peers of the inspection process; risk assessment and strict observance to make sure that procedures were followed step by step."We feel fully confident that the process and the result so far are fully in line with our safeguards practices," he said, standing next to Amano at a Vienna news conference.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/72239...ear-inspectors

    I am satisfied that the facts of the matter are clearly enough exposed and don't really wish to debate this further since it becomes a matter of opinion going forward. I jumped in because I felt the the initial report was not providing enough information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    ... the IAEA has a horrific track record even with better access
    This however merits further debate. Can you support that claim?

    Off course, it has to be relevant support... meaning support that the IAEA has a horrific track record of enforcing accurate controls for specific, known sites. Do you have any evidence where the AEIA was enforcing controls in a particular place and they failed to detect something non-compliant?

    Last edited by Vandaler; September 21st, 2015 at 11:59 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  18. #14
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Iranians to inspect thier own nuclear sites?

    Quote Originally Posted by Van
    I am satisfied that the facts of the matter are clearly enough exposed and don't really wish to debate this further since it becomes a matter of opinion going forward. I jumped in because I felt the the initial report was not providing enough information.
    Understood, as my final closing I will offer a few rebuttal quotes both from the source offered in the last post as well as the headline concerning the initial samples being gathered today.

    Former IAEA deputy director general Olli Heinonen has described Iran as a particularly sensitive case however, saying he knows of no other case where a country under investigation for possibly trying to make nuclear weapons was permitted to use its own personnel to collect environmental samples as part of the investigation.
    ibid

    He appeared to be referring to the building where the agency suspects that weapons experiments were conducted in the past. The agency has frequently said that subsequent renovation work at and near the building could hamper the IAEA probe, a position Amano repeated on Monday.
    ibid


    He did not name the place, but did say that he and Tero Varjoranta, the IAEA's chief inspector, visited a building previously only monitored by satellite technology, and indicated it had been altered.
    "Inside the building, we saw indications of recent renovation work. There was no equipment in the building," he said before appearing to criticise past construction work at Parchin.
    "As I have stated in my reports.. the extensive work that has been conducted at the location since early 2012 undermines the agency's ability to conduct effective verification there.
    "Our experts will now analyse this information and we will have discussions with Iran in the coming weeks."
    Iran had previously refused permission to enter Parchin, highlighting its military function and stressing the IAEA had already conducted inspections in 2005 that yielded nothing.
    http://news.yahoo.com/iran-hands-iae...005156026.html


    None of the proposed controls by the IAEA are really that reassuring. Iran has had months to not only cover up the areas where samples could be taken, but evidence that they have sterilized the area in the last few months is plainly apparent.

    That they also have months to rehearse the exact route and view cameras would take as they moved through the building and, apparently, picked the sample themselves, sounds a lot more like Kabuki theater than an impartial inspection.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: December 30th, 2012, 08:07 PM
  2. Web sites you visit a lot
    By Xanadu Moo in forum Community Advice Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: July 9th, 2006, 07:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •