Experts Praise Iran Deal, Despite Congressional Concerns

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/2015/07/18/experts-praise-iran-deal-despite-congressional-concerns/30261893/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/14/its-a-damn-good-deal-iran-nuclear-agreement-joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action/

http://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/news/stanford-experts-assess-iran-nuclear-deal

Anytime/anyplace inspections - no

No path to nuclear bomb - no

Destroy enrichment centrifuges - no

Arms embargo - no

Conditions on released funds - no

Terrorist and proxy wars sponsorship limits - no

American citizens released - no

Human rights and opening information/education - no

PkrBum wrote:Anytime/anyplace inspections - no

No path to nuclear bomb - no

Destroy enrichment centrifuges - no

Arms embargo - no

Conditions on released funds - no

Terrorist and proxy wars sponsorship limits - no

American citizens released - no

Human rights and opening information/education - no

Try reading what the experts are saying, not what your party wants you to repeat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/21/more-new-and-disturbing-things-about-the-iran-deal/

1. The 24-day inspection stall: Olli Heinonen, the former deputy direct general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says the 24-day period that allows Iran to stall inspectors is a recipe for cheating. “Much of this equipment is very easy to move. So you can take it out over the night … and then there is this dispute settlement time which is 24 days —you will use that to sanitize the place, make new floors, new tiles on the wall, paint the ceiling and take out the ventilation.”

2. Military sites: The BBC Monitoring Trans Caucasus Unit (provided to Right Turn by an Iran specialist) translates from Farsi the following: “Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has said that Iran has secured its right to deny access to its sites for nuclear inspection and to ballistic missiles as part of a deal concluded with six world powers on 14 July.” The deal does not, in portions publicly available, determine whether the inspectors have access to military sites. Iran’s defense minister proclaimed military sites are off limits and now Zarif echoes that position. If this is so, the deal is a fraud.

3. Snapbacks: The BBC Monitoring Trans Caucus Unit also reports, “Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has said that the arrival of foreign companies in the Iranian market is going to be the biggest barrier for re-imposing sanctions on Iran, and that the USA is very concerned about this. ‘Swarming of businesses to Iran for investing their money is the biggest barrier for such an action [re-imposing sanctions on Iran], and American officials have been very concerned about this,’ Zarif said on 21 July in an open parliament session to brief MPs on the content of a nuclear deal concluded with six world powers on 14 July.” Zarif correctly states that even the snapback provisions don’t allow snapbacks for minor violations (“He noted that according to the deal, the sanctions can be re-imposed on Iran only in case of serious violation of its obligations and not in case of small-scale violations.”) Between the limits on the types of issues that trigger snapbacks, the grandfather clause and the difficulty in re-establishing sanctions once businesses are in the snapbacks amount to a fraud. The sanctions system is not coming back once it is destroyed.

4. Iran is not North Korea: As we know, a similar agreement to this Iran deal was entered into with North Korea, which proceeded to cheat and continue enrichment. North Korea it is believed now has multiple nuclear bombs. The Iran deal is worse, as Max Boot explains: “Though Iran has agreed to reduce the number of operational centrifuges from 9,500 to 6,000, to shrink the amount of low-enriched uranium in its possession from 10,000 kilograms to 300, and to make changes at several facilities to prevent them from being used to create nuclear weapons, all of these steps are reversible. Iran is not destroying its nuclear weapons infrastructure as [Libya] did. Nor is it giving up ballistic missiles, renouncing terrorism or making restitution for past attacks. It is only freezing its nuclear program, as North Korea did.” But Iran is not North Korea: “The larger problem is that, like North Korea, Iran is a big country: If the government wants to hide something, it will likely succeed. Compliance depends on voluntary cooperation. Perhaps Iran will cooperate, but so far, it has not come clean with the IAEA about 12 existing ‘areas of concern’ regarding the ‘possible military dimensions’ of its nuclear program.”

PK answer of NO on all of those points is simply wrong.......My yes answer to  each of those is closer to the truth.  I have given a detailed response on other threads, but it appears the cut and paste world of Mr. Markle is as good as it can get when pretending we are discussing the actual agreement, and yes the experts have it right......the folks who lack cognitive skills and common sense have done what they do with every issue........superficial analysis with little substance or context......it really comes down to threshold intelligence.