Nuclear Accord with Iran

[knowknow456]

So today, the US has signed what can only be described as a historic nuclear accord with Iran. The risk is high. As far back as many people can remember, Iran has been our sworn enemy. Deals of this type can and occasionally are circumvented. There is firm opposition to this agreement in both countries. Yet, the fact the deal even came together at all after twenty months of negotiating is a positive sign. Personally, I think the potential payoff is worth the risk. In any event, the deal deserves its own thread "off the ship".

 

[hall58]

Years & years of negotiations are better and infinitely cheaper than war! I hope are Congress will support this. There is already too much American & allied blood lost!

 

[HALL85]

I don't know how you can call a one day old agreement "historic", Is it historic because an agreement was signed? Time will tell if it was a good strategy or not. Negotiation is better than war, but if it allows you enemy to build an arsenal....

 

[SPK145]

Not worth the paper it was printed on, Iran can be trusted to abide by this no more than North Korea bides by its agreements.

This is just another "check the box without solving anything" issue like Obamacare.

 

[knowknow456]

I happen to think it is historic, but could certainly settle on a lesser word - "important" gets the point across. Generally speaking the strategy of reducing nuclear tension is always sound. The risk is high but strangely enough, giving Iran time to build an arsenal is not uppermost in my thoughts. Iran has had the ability to enrich uranium for years and have been on the precipice of making a nuclear weapon, with or without sanctions in place. Even with the agreement in place the path to illicit nuclear success remains unchanged and just because there is an agreement doesn't mean any legitimate state will suddenly endorse a nuclear Iran.

 

[SPK145]

What a joke........


From The USA Today
Robbins: Iran can still get the bomb
James S. Robbins 11:05 a.m. EDT July 14, 2015
Not enough authority to verify compliance. Unworkable mechanism to enforce agreement.

(Photo: Joe Klamar, AFP/Getty Images)

The proposed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between the United States, Iran and other negotiating partners, contains a number of flaws, any one of which should be fatal to the deal.

Sanctions bait and switch:

Iran is subject to a variety of economic sanctions, imposed to punish the Islamic Republic for various types of misbehavior — nuclear proliferation, support for terrorism, ballistic missile programs, financial crimes, and human rights violations. The Obama administration pledged that the only sanctions in play in this deal were those dealing solely with the nuclear program, but the list of removable sanctions in Annex II relates in some way to every aspect of Iran's misbehavior. As well, the notion that sanctions will quickly "snap back" into place should Iran cheat is questionable at best, since it would require the UN Security Council and the European Union to respond swiftly when some members may not want to disrupt their emerging business relationships with Iran. This is in addition to the tens of billions no-strings-attached "signing bonus" Iran will receive when its oil assets held abroad are unfrozen. Even the White House admits that money could be used to energize terror networks.


USA TODAY

Deal can't be enforced:

President Barack Obama said that the means to verify the agreement are strong, but that is largely based on hoping Iran will cooperate. Iran has not agreed to robust "anytime, anywhere" nuclear inspections. They have not agreed to a heightened level of scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has already been frustrated by Iran's lack of cooperation. Snap inspections have been replaced by pre-approved "managed" inspections, with no guaranteed access to all Iranian nuclear sites, or to military facilities where secret research may be carried out. These are weaker verification provisions than under the 1990s Agreed Framework with North Korea under which Pyongyang still developed nuclear weapons. Last month, Mr. Obama said he would walk away from a deal with verification that amounted to "a few inspectors wandering around every once in a while," but that seems to be what he got.

Lack of trust:

President Obama says that the agreement is not based simply on trusting Iran. But can we trust the White House? Last week, German intelligence reported that Iran attempted to obtain illegal nuclear and missile technology, banned under previous agreements and the Joint Plan of Action that framed the current talks. The White House virtually ignored this report, not wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the talks with a deal so near. Will the administration vigorously respond when Iran cheats again? Don't bet on it. The White House has made it clear that the nuclear agreement with Iran is a deeply personal affair for Mr. Obama. It is being pitched to skeptical Democrats as a legacy issue for the Obama presidency, a deal too big to fail. If the proposed agreement goes into force, the standing order in the executive branch will be "don't rock the boat." So ironically, we can trust the regime in Tehran to cheat; we just can't trust the White House to notice.


USA TODAY

Bottom Line — Iran Can Still Get the Bomb:

The point of this exercise was supposed to be denying Iran's pathways to develop nuclear weapons. Instead, Secretary of State John Kerry's team has delivered a deal while acknowledging that Iran already had the capacity to "breakout" to nuclear capability in three months. Under the proposed deal the breakout time will be reduced to near zero in under a decade. It gives Iran nearly twice the number of centrifuges that Pakistan needed to develop its nuclear weapon, does not give inspectors the authority they need to verify compliance and has no workable mechanism to enforce the deal should Iran cheat. Yet it revitalizes Iran's economy and gives the regime billions to fund its terror networks. The proposed agreement would not make the world a safer place, and may lead to the very thing it claims to prevent.

James S. Robbins writes weekly for USA TODAY and is the author of The Real Custer: From Boy General to Tragic Hero.

 

[Seton75]

I am skeptical. Except for Netanyahu, the rest of the world seems to think it is a good thing.

Kinda shocking that a writer for the Wash Times is speaking out against the pres. They are generally so supportive...

 

[shu09]

All the hawks on the right and the nutjob Netanyahu are against it, so that usually means it's a good deal. I'd like to see the specifics, but it seems good on the surface.

 

[SnakeTom]

It's much too early to tell if this would be a good deal or not. What worries me is that with all the money that they will gain from the lifting of the sanctions, there is nothing to prevent them from expanding their promotion and funding of international terrorism. I think negotiation is far better than dropping bombs but can we trust Iran is a very big question.

Tom K

 

[SnakeTom]

All the hawks on the right and the nutjob Netanyahu are against it, so that usually means it's a good deal. I'd like to see the specifics, but it seems good on the surface.

I don't particularly like PM Netanyahu & do think he complains too much about too many things, but trying to protect his country does not make him a nut job.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Agree with Tom on Netanyahu. Interesting that both Israel and other Arab countries in the region hate the deal. Finally one thing they agree on which should give you pause.

 

[Belluno]

All the hawks on the right and the nutjob Netanyahu are against it, so that usually means it's a good deal. I'd like to see the specifics, but it seems good on the surface.

How I wish that nutjob were in the White House rather than the delusional guy we're stuck with. Netanyahu has the best interests of his country in mind; Obama is the modern day Neville Chamberlain. Poor Israel, left hanging out to dry.

Last week our Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs head both testified that under no circumstances should restrictions on conventional weapons and ICBMs be removed. Guess what the Obama/Kerry team let happen. They never take the advice of their military experts and this one is particularly galling, as we were told this treaty was to cover only nuclear capability, so the release of American prisoners would not be addressed. While they continue to languish in Iranian jails, Iran will be free to arm itself legally in a few years. Illegally they're probably doing it this minute. Our ace negotiators can't even free American prisoners, much less be trusted to get a good deal with an untrustworthy, murderous opponent..

So, tell us, what is good about this "on the surface." And BTW as was stated in the hearings, the "I" in ICBM stands for Intercontinental which means it can reach New York or even New Jersey. Sleep well, America.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

well since the looney tune above me is against the deal, now I'm REALLY for it.

 

[PiratePride]

Israelis and Saudis and the rest of Sunni Arabia are getting kind of cozy....... think the rest of the middle east will stand still while Iran gets stronger militarily because of this deal???? Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas are ecstatic.

I don't know all the details of the deal... but it sure smells pretty bad at this point. What did the US get out of this???? A new partner??? that is a sworn enemy????

Lots of questions. It will get vetted in the Congress.... but no matter what, Obama will veto when Congress tries to over turn it and it will become the law..... (and it will not be ignored like our immigration laws are ignored... but that's grist for another thread)

Menendez has already come out pretty strongly against it... so there is some bi-partisan opposition to the deal. Most likely not enough to over come a veto.

 

[knowknow456]

Congress can and should vet this agreement but in the end this is a partisan issue. I believe almost all Republicans will vote party line to reject so the question is whether the President can keep enough Democrats in line to avoid a veto override. Conventional wisdom says yes although I think the vote will be very close.

Either way, this is an executive action not a law. Incoming President Clinton, or Trump for that matter, can pull out of this agreement at any time. That is why the earlier comparison to Obamacare is incorrect.

 

[shu09]

If Netanyahu were in the White House, that would be absolutely frightening. Nuclear war with Russia and China would be almost assured.

The thing people forget about Iran is that if it launched even one nuclear missile at Tel Aviv, you can bet that Israeli, US and British nukes landing on Tehran wouldn't take long. Iran will never attack Israel for that reason.

 

[SnakeTom]

If Netanyahu were in the White House, that would be absolutely frightening. Nuclear war with Russia and China would be almost assured.

The thing people forget about Iran is that if it launched even one nuclear missile at Tel Aviv, you can bet that Israeli, US and British nukes landing on Tehran wouldn't take long. Iran will never attack Israel for that reason.

You ignore the fact that Israel is smaller than the State of new Jersey. One nuclear weapon landing there and Israel no longer exists.

Tom K

 

[shu09]

You ignore the fact that Israel is smaller than the State of new Jersey. One nuclear weapon landing there and Israel no longer exists.

While your first statement regarding the size of Israel is correct, your second sentence is 100% false.

 

[SnakeTom]

While your first statement regarding the size of Israel is correct, your second sentence is 100% false.

Let's hope we never have to find out who is correct on this.

TK

 

[knowknow456]

While a Netanyahu presidency would be interesting, we do have some insight into his mindset. Even a provoked first strike by the US against China or Russia would result in our mutually assured destruction. Israel, which has it's own nuclear arsenal, could have, over the last 20 years struck first against Iran. As far as we know, (and may even eventually find out) Iran does not have a nuclear weapon with which to retaliate. So Israel in theory could strike first without guaranteed destruction in return. It did get me thinking. Presumably Russia would be the lone nuclear country to defend Iran. If Russia attacked Israel in response, would the US attack Russia in return, assuming (a big assumption) that the Russian response was "proportional"? (Say Tehran and Tel Aviv were targeted). I am not sure and let's hope we do not have to find out. The bottom line, however, is that despite his rhetoric, Netanyahu has acted rationally when nuclear weapons are involved. Let's hope it stays that way.

 

[shupat08]

PM Netanyahu's government authorizes/supports breaking international laws, UN treaties and the stealing of Palestinian lands in the West Bank used for date farming (West Bank's only true source of income).

BTW, it's amazing how all the nutjob right wingers knew what the 110 pages of the deal said MINUTES after it was signed and announced.

And no one is really mentioning this....

From what our military, intelligence community and politicians tell us (and remember how correct about Iraq they all were??) Before this deal, if Iran wanted to "break out" and build a bomb, they would have been able to in under a year - I think 4-6 months.... And in 3 years if they wanted to "break out" I guess they would still be able to build a bomb.

So, in reality, treaty or not if Iran wanted a bomb, they would build one.

So really, those politicians on the right and PM Netanyahu are actually saying (but none of them are willing to be straightforward about it), they would rather go to war with Iran. Since that is actually the ONLY way to prevent them from building a bomb.

But, newsflash, we are not good at fighting wars.

 

[PiratePride]

Before you castigate those "right wing nut jobs"........ there were plenty of knee jerk reactions from those on the left who immediately embraced the deal.... without knowing what it contained... so please spare us the righteous indignation.

Newsflash to you..... it's not only Republicans who have doubts about the deal. Although I do believe that Obama will cull together at least 34 Senators to support his eventual veto.

We are going to be stuck with this and all it's "unintended consequences". Too bad for my grand kids.

By the way.. our military is quite good at fighting wars..... when not impeded by feckless politicians.

 

[SPK145]

Why do all those who endorse the deal say that the only other option is war?

Why not stick with the sanctions that were crippling Iran??

 

[SPK145]

BTW, it's amazing how all the nutjob right wingers knew what the 110 pages of the deal said MINUTES after it was signed and announced.

Senator Menendez is a right wing nut job???

 

[shupat08]

No, he's Democratic war hawk.

And, according to our own military and intelligence experts, Iran could build a bomb in 4-6 months before this deal, even with those "crippling" sanctions.

So again, they could get a bomb before this deal. Apparently, according to war-hawks, wilsonian democracy practitioners, neo-cons, etc. Iran can even with this deal.

So what would stop them from building a bomb? Apparently nothing.

 

[SPK145]

Nothing is going to stop them now either, just last week they were getting shipments of nuclear material from Russia in violation of earlier sanctions, etc. They will still do whatever they want yet the U.S. got virtually nothing in return just check the box.

 

[shupat08]

Just tried to find an article, since I haven't head of that news, but I cannot find anything on it... Could you provide a link?

And again, so my question is... If this does not stop them (I guess we'll see if a few years if everyone freaking out is correct or not), and they were not stopped before by the sanctions, then what other option is there? Only 1 as far as I can tell.

 

[knowknow456]

I think the question of maintaining the status quo is a valid one and one that will be used to provide political cover for those (particularly Democrats) who vote against the agreement.

That being said, I am less certain that the sanctions are in fact crippling Iran. All indications are they are within easy reach of completing their nuclear development program. In addition, Iran is a major sponsor of state terrorism as it is. The sanctions aren't stopping Iran from doing the bad things they deem vital to their interests. As SPK helpfully pointed out, sanctions are not stopping Iran from looking to obtain nuclear material from Russia.

The question that inevitably follows the status quo argument is - what is the end game? Presumably regime change. The likelihood of democracy breaking out in Iran is remote. More likely, Shiite hardliners will work to crush internal dissent and the end result is a less stable Iran.

Pursuing the status quo is not without its own risks.

 

[SPK145]

Pursuing the status quo is not without its own risks.

Agreed, there is no good answer here.

 

[donnie_baseball]

PM
BTW, it's amazing how all the nutjob right wingers knew what the 110 pages of the deal said MINUTES after it was signed and announced.

Yet you'll defend the Affordable Care Act, which you never read, nor did the signers. Hyprocrisy?

 

[SnakeTom]

The shame is that we as a society have become so politicized. There are many serious issues to discuss and analyze about this treaty but to many if the President is for it they are automatically against and to others if the President is for it they are instanly for it. All without knowing very much about the contents of the proposed treaty. Seems that too many of us have given up our right to think and just blindly follow party line.

Personally I have very mixed views on this and really have to get more details before forming a solid opinion. On one hand I'm definitely for "giving peace a chance" while on the other hand removing the sanctions will give Iran a monetary windfall that they very well could use to continue sponsoring and funding international terrorism. The reality here is that if the treaty goes into affect we won't know the results - good or bad - for many years.

As to the comments of PM Netayahu I certainly can not criticize him for trying to defend his nation, but I do think he tries to meddle into US politics much too much. I don't know if peace is at all possible in that part of the world but PM Netanyahu does little to encourage it.

Tom K

 

[knowknow456]

It is unfortunate that the debate on this Accord will fall almost exclusively along party lines but that is the nature of things I guess. Since you seem to want to study the agreement on it's merits - here is one perspective to consider.

The first question is - what do we (the United States) get from this agreement? The answer is not as bright lined as people would like but that does not mean it doesn't have value. For purposes of this discussion, let's assume the deal lasts the full 15 years and that yes, Iran, at various points, tries to cheat. After all, if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying. Pretty quickly we are going to learn just how close Iran is to completing their nuclear development. This cannot be understated. We have been speculating for 20 years and even if our intelligence is close to the correct answer (a big if) it will be nice to know the facts. The deal also makes it hard for Iran to legitimately continue their development work, resulting in a de-escalation of nuclear tension in the region, which can only be a good thing.

What i have struggled with is why Iran wants this deal. I can't imagine they relish the thought of the US, France, Russia et al all up in their nuclear business. Furthermore, the deal forces them to play one of it's bluff cards. The threat of nuclear retaliation, or for that matter, the threat that someday there might be nuclear retaliation, is a real thing. In addition, it gives us an opportunity to see how their bluffing matches up with the reality of the situation. All in all, this is a sizable concession. The best answer I can come up with is that Iran is playing a card they don't want. Deep down, the risk of being a nuclear country outweighs the benefits. Otherwise, finish the job, declare you are a nuclear nation and change the discourse from "maybe we have one" to "what will you give us give it up".

I think the more likely answer is that Iran is playing the long game here. They look around and see Yemen is a mess (partially through their semi-covert assistance), Iraq can hardly defend itself and Syria is rotting away from the inside out. There is a golden opportunity for them to fill the void and greatly expand their influence in the region. This is a real risk for us since every time the balance of power wobbles, the results are unpredictable and usually bad. I think Iran is smart to think this way and sacrificing their nuclear program for sanction relief (to be blunt for money) and power is worth it for them.

Which brings back the question - how is this good for us (the United States)? Well on the surface it isn't but we have options. For one, this kind of deal should shake Iraq up. If they didn't realize it before, they need to get their act together before they become an Iranian satellite. Sure, we can help them stiffen their army backbone, but they better get their pieces together. We can do the same for Saudi Arabia. Keeping them well armed will balance the terms of the engagement in all these little proxy wars they fight in the smaller countries. Israel can defend itself just fine and we can always give them some goodies to make amends for this transgression to their thought process.

The harsh reality is that the problems of the Middle East are not going away any time soon. The good news is for the most part, Iran is not as interested in "the Great Satan" as they were 30 years ago. Their concerns are more regional now. Of course, it is always fun for them to mock us (the US is "arrogant"!) but the more the battle ground remains over there the better it is for us, and, as an added bonus, these battles will be fought with conventional weapons, with the thought of nuclear Armageddon deeper in the background. The threat of domestic terrorism is neither increased or decreased. i guess more money could mean more elaborate schemes but if we are a target, history has shown that it doesn't take a ton of money to accomplish a terrorist attack.

As a result, this agreement accomplishes a real goal (nuclear de-escalation) without weakening our security in any meaningful way. It deserves an opportunity to work. The good news is this is executive action, not a treaty. it can be repudiated at any time should it become clear Iran was playing us. As has been alluded to in other posts, all the options are bad. I believe that at this point in time, this agreement is the least bad option available to us and to defeat based on partisan rhetoric would be a mistake.

 

[SPK145]

For purposes of this discussion, let's assume the deal lasts the full 15 years and that yes, Iran, at various points, tries to cheat. After all, if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying. Pretty quickly we are going to learn just how close Iran is to completing their nuclear development.

How so with such weak verification methods in the agreement?

 

[PiratePride]

Just tried to find an article, since I haven't head of that news, but I cannot find anything on it... Could you provide a link?

And again, so my question is... If this does not stop them (I guess we'll see if a few years if everyone freaking out is correct or not), and they were not stopped before by the sanctions, then what other option is there? Only 1 as far as I can tell.

I'm not sure about nuclear materials (but can't rule that out given the history of the Soviets... oops I mean the Russians) but there are plenty of articles referencing the Russians supplying Iran with non nuclear weaponry and ICBM systems...... one of my beefs with this deal is that it will be Business as usual.... if not worse for Iran under the deal.. you know... Iran the purveyor of choice for all sorts of assistance to terrorist organizations.... PLUS the shaky verification policies .... PLUS Iran continues to call for Death to America.... etc.... PLUS it is based on trust to a large degree. (ahem... you have to be joking to base any deal with Iran on trust)

One of the main points the administration is stressing was that it avoids war..... because it seems to be a given with the administration that as soon as Iran gets nukes.... that will lead to war. .... but now we have the Saudis (and no doubt the Israelis, plus others in the area rattling sabers of their own...... so good job on easing tensions.

So, let's roll the dice and trust the Iranians and kick the can down the road 10 years or so when they will have nukes and then what?????

 

[knowknow456]

How so with such weak verification methods in the agreement?

There are two levels of verification. The first (and easier) level is what is known and committed to in the agreement. The protocols for verification are documented and as long as they are competently executed, we should be able to confirm compliance with a reasonably high degree of confidence.

The second level is murkier because we are attempting to verify an unknown - i.e., catch Iran cheating. Testing for an unknown variable is very difficult and there is no protocol that can account for every possibility. Based on that highest standard, no agreement would ever be reached about anything, since 100% certainty is not a practical goal.

A completely leak free covert operation will not be caught. However, if there are clues, the agreement allows for inspections. The big issue in the media is that these will not be "snap" inspections.Rather, we have to negotiate for 15 days with Iran to make our case and failing that make our case to the security council for another 15 days. Would I prefer less time between the first accusation and the inspection? Absolutely. But no sovereign nation is going to allow outside inspectors to wander around looking under any rock for a potential violation.

For those that plan on supporting the agreement, the rationale is that first we need to confirm that Iran will do what they committed to. Achieving that goal would be note worthy in and of itself, considering they don't really inspire trustworthiness. In addition, we have the ability to make it difficult to cheat on the margins. Lastly, full out cheating isn't in their best interest if you subscribe to the theory that nuclear weapons are not the primary focus of Iran's intentions

 

[Belluno]

Jackie Mason says NYC restaurants are subject to tougher inspections than Iran is under this agreement. He says you're protected more from a bad tuna fish than you are a nuclear bomb. Restaurants get no warning, Iran will have 28 (sic) days. Funny man.

 

[SPK145]

You guys really ought to actually read the agreement in it's entirety (well the parts that have been released to the public and congress, obviously can't read the parts this most transparent government won't release to the public and congress, what a joke!!!) instead of listening to the media and the politicians.

The 24-day period doesn't even begin until after a number of other methods of consultation and resolution have taken place once any initial concerns are raised.

And why does anyone need ANY period of resolution or not allow snap inspections if one intends to abide by an agreement???

Stupid is as stupid does.............

 

[knowknow456]

I have read the agreement. The negotiations themselves were quite transparent as the American public had a decent understanding of what was happening at each stage of the 20 month negotiation. The completed agreement was released to the public the next day. There are, of course, portions that are classified but that is commonplace in all agreements. No one should be surprised or vexed by this reality. Transparency has not been an issue in this case and implying that it does is not supported by the evidence.

In any event, I previously addressed the issue of conflict resolution, but unfortunately was not precise enough. I will try again for better clarity. Part 36 lays it out pretty well. If either side believes the other party is not following the agreement, they can submit their complaint to the joint commission who has 15 days to resolve the issue.

If after 15 days the issue is unresolved, the complaint can be advanced to the Ministerial level, whereby an independent advisory board would issue a non-binding ruling within 15 days. In the event the parties still do not agree, the Joint Commission has five additional days to resolve the issue.

After that, a period totaling 35 days, the participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under the agreement. At that point, the Security Council will review the situation, and after 30 days the sanctions are to be re-imposed. So, Iran has 35 days to comply in the event of a credible complaint or we revert back to the sanctions (i.e. how things are today) in 65 days.

I personally would prefer some lesser amount of time for complaint resolution, but the timing is not a deal breaker. For the parts of the agreement that are known and expressly agreed to, non-compliance will be easy to spot. For catching the possibility of cheating, I think this agreement is great news. With this agreement we will have, comparatively speaking, unprecedented ability to monitor their nuclear program. Without the deal, there is virtually no chance of uncovering a covert Iranian nuclear program. Overall that is good news.

As far as "snap inspections" - try not to confuse the known with the unknown. Non-compliance by Iran on the parts of the agreement that are documented will result in prompt action from the Joint Commission and the Advisory Board. It will not need 35 days to review the situation. For non-compliance of unknown areas, Iran, as a sovereign nation, has the right to keep its secrets. Based on anytime/anywhere snap inspections, we could, in an extreme case, assert that Iran is keeping plutonium in the Ayatollah's bathroom and in theory they would have to comply and open the bathroom door. No nation will agree to that level of compliance.

 

[SPK145]

Sounds like you only read the 18-page summary as released by the corrupt UN.

See the full agreement here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388/iran-deal-text.pdf

Note paragraphs 74-78 and tell me again about the 35 days.

And transparent? Congress can't get all the side agreements and that's transparent???

 

[knowknow456]

I used the text from the Washington Post. It is the same as your document.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/

Paragraph 74 says the IAEA will do their work with a minimal amount of disruption.
Paragraph 75-77 all refer to concerns over " undeclared nuclear materials or activities, or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA, at locations that have not been declared under the comprehensive safeguards agreement". Basically, this is the portion that pertains to possible cheating and the discussions between IAEA and Iran. Discussions here may get resolved without Joint Commission involvement.

Paragraph 78 says the discussions in 75-77 need to be resolved in 14 days. This is good news since it sets a limit that "negotiations" between Iran and IAEA cannot drag on indefinitely. Iran can only drag it's feet for 14 days. If there is no resolution the Joint Commission has 7 days to make a ruling and Iran has three days to comply. It is unclear to me if this is in additional to the 15 days the Joint Commission has in Paragraph 36 (of the agreement, not the annex). It would seem redundant to review for 7 days, wait 3 days for Iran to not comply then start the 15 day clock over again. However, if that is how it will work then the maximum days for resolution goes from 35 to 59.

Since I preferred less than 35 days for compliance, 59 days would be less good. But again, if we are going down that road the number of days is somewhat inconsequential. The agreement will have collapsed and we move on to life with a potentially nuclear Iran, which isn't much different than what we have now.

As far as the side deal, the intelligence committee will presumably be fully briefed even if the terms are not disclosed to the public. The issue here is not nuclear but military. Is Iran hiding it's nuclear program behind a military wall? Again it will be very hard to prove an unknown but by the same token it will be hard to hide an entire nuclear enrichment program under the guise of "military" secret. The important part will be to prove what was agreed to in the known part of the agreement. If IAEA believes there is non-compliance, the provisions of paragraphs 36 and 74-78 come into play at that time.

I guess I was always under the impression that the IAEA was the confirmation arm of this agreement so the side deal doesn't surprise me. Congress is attempting to discredit IAEA as not capable of performing it's duty. I tend to believe they can, but cannot offer proof.