An astoundingly good deal

The deal is strong on many terms, but it strongest on what was always going to be among the most crucial: inspections.

Whatever number of centrifuges Iran has or doesn't have, whatever amount of uranium it's allowed to keep or forced to give up, none of it matters unless inspectors have enough authority to hold Tehran to its end of the deal — and to convince the Iranians that they could never get away with cheating. To say the US got favorable terms here would be quite an understatement; the Iranians, when it comes to inspections, practically gave away the farm.

"I would give it an A," Stein said, in April, of the framework. When I asked why: "Because of the inspections and transparency."

Demssuck wrote:He is still out of range of the Shahab missiles, for him it's a good deal.

Demssuck wrote:It's weak in the sense that the agreement pretty much has no enforceable parts unless Iran wants it enforced. There are enough ways for Iran to violate the agreement and never suffer one consequence.

PkrBum wrote:Can inspections take place anywhere anytime 24/7?

nadalfan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Can inspections take place anywhere anytime 24/7?

I'm pretty sure you know the answer, you said you read the agreement...read the article and the reasoning behind why he thinks this is a good deal and see if you agree or disagree with the expert.  He presents various scenarios of what happens if they don't comply with the terms. And while you read keep the alternative in mind

knothead wrote:Evidently we have far more nuclear/policy experts here that I ever imagined,
who knew????

2seaoat wrote:Can inspections take place anywhere anytime 24/7?

The answer is a resounding YES. If they request a site to inspect and the Iranians say no, and they go through the entire process in the agreement, the inspection takes place and the nuclear material if any leaves clear detectable radiation which cannot be masked.  The President and the inspectors have said with certainty once a request is made that they can immediately monitor the site from various sources 24/7, and a violation will be certainly detected.  The illogical Israeli Prime Minister logic comparing the process of inspections to giving the meth dealer notice to dump the drug down the toilet, fails because there is no toilet with nuclear material which is detectable years after storage, and no exit  from the site without 24/7 technology which can track transfers of equipment.   Locked up tight, but the talking points are directed at low IQ folks who think radioactive materials are like meth which you can dump down a toilet.  There most certainly will be 24/7 monitoring and certain inspections which could happen three months after a site was identified and still find a violation.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Demssuck wrote:He is still out of range of the Shahab missiles, for him it's a good deal.

Markle wrote:That's a resounding LIE and you know it.  I know, you have little else to do except stir the pot.

Did not need to read the rest of your word salad.  You simply don't want to know the facts.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:That's a resounding LIE and you know it.  I know, you have little else to do except stir the pot.

Did not need to read the rest of your word salad.  You simply don't want to know the facts.

I think you have suffered a major propaganda failure with this deal... Your message fails to resonate.

Bob wrote:You assholes don't know any more about this deal than I do. You go looking for blogs and half-assed news accounts that tell you what you want to hear, and then you come on here and infect the rest of us with your fucking ignorance.

Bob wrote:You assholes don't know any more about this deal than I do.  You go looking for blogs and half-assed news accounts that tell you what you want to hear,  and then you come on here and infect the rest of us with your fucking ignorance.

boards of FL wrote:It seems that more often than not, whether it be economic policy, energy policy, climate science, and now nuclear proliferation, what generally happens is that we have experts in those respective field on one side of the argument and right-wing talking heads from the media on the other.

Experts versus media blowhards.

And on this forum, it generally breaks down to educated people who can communicate coherently for more than a sentence and qualify their arguments, versus uneducated people who can only interject "Dems suck!" and "Bad ideas fail".  

SheWrites wrote:I'm glad to see the work Sec. Kerry has done to secure this plan with Iran.  I have no comment on whether it will work or not.  But I'm glad we're talking peace instead of calling up troops to send into a winless battle.

Give peace a chance.  Give up your diehard cause just because you don't care for the party in office.  Rise above the banter and agree we need peace.  If you can't agree on peace...wow...you might need to reassess life a bit.  Constantly looking for the negative to prove a point for "your team"  is getting really old.  We need to move forward and I want that forward motion to be peaceful.