The Republican-majority Congress will vote whether to approve the agreement, in which guards against Iran’s nuclear weapons capability are exchanged with removal of economic sanctions, in September.
Advertisement
It provides up to a 24-day delay before Iran is forced to comply with inspections of nuclear sites on their military bases – far from “anywhere, anytime” that the American people were promised. The IAEA will be able to review the Iranians’ work after the fact. The Obama Administration was not a direct party to the agreement, but apparently was aware of it.
Acknowledging what he said were “flaws” in the agreement, Nadler argued that the deal reached between the P5+1 powers and Tehran was the best available outcome. It is suspected of carrying out experiments on high explosives – the kind required to detonate a nuclear weapon.
Unlike some other Democratic legislators, like Sen.
“President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust”, said the Republican Speaker John Boehner. Obama says our cooperation with Iran will help contain ISIS. It will take some new provocation, probably involving a big cheat on the nuclear program, to get any kind of global sanctions reinstated against Iran.
Washington and Beijing are at odds on a number of issues – from China’s increasingly aggressive maritime claims, which have angered its Asian neighbors, to its alleged cyber intrusions, including the massive hack of data about US government personnel that many reports have blamed on Beijing.
Faced with persistent – and potentially decisive – skepticism from congressional Democrats on the Iran nuclear deal, President Obama this week offered new and far-reaching assurances on the tough course the US will continue to follow to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.
Step back: Obama’s letter clearly admits that the years following the deal will be increasingly violent ones for Israel and our Sunni Gulf allies – and he’s right. But Republicans pointed to it as more evidence that negotiators unwisely agreed to rely on assurances from Iran rather than verifiable inspections.
It could be a matter of priorities. However he does admit that “if Iran does not abide by this deal, it’s possible that we won’t have any other choice than to act militarily”.
He also stressed that Iran’s considerations have been fully addressed within the framework of Tehran-IAEA cooperation.
A part of the treaty, or the United Nations side agreement as it were, was apparently meant to be kept secret but was somehow “leaked”.
The alternative might well have been no inspection at Parchin any kind.
“I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices”, he said. “They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way”, he said.
“I think [the Iranian leadership] have a long-term plan which they are going to implement and that the agreement serves”. “I asked every single ambassador if they would go back to the negating table if we rejected the deal and they all said no”. “Just as importantly, the IAEA is comfortable with the arrangements, which are unique to the agency’s investigation of Iran’s historical activities”.
Advertisement
“No one could say Iran showed no flexibility and did not want to solve the problem”.
