“The Iran Project, Weighing Concerns and Assurances about a Nuclear Deal with Iran” (PDF), is another source J Street links to, in debating the inspections issue. It’s true that citing one paragraph is cherry picking, but do look at this cherry:
“ASSURANCES
“As the DNI has repeatedly pointed out, Iran has not made a decision to pursue nuclear weapons, and so while cheating is certainly a possibility that should be guarded against, it nonetheless would require a change in Iranian policy. One must question why a country that could have developed a nuclear weapon any time over the last decade would now agree to restraints with unprecedented verification and then cheat.”
It really goes on like that, essentially arguing that the reason there’s no need for those 24/7 inspections is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.
Way to go, J Street.
Finally, a masterpiece of lawyerese, titled “Factsheet: Iran and the Additional Protocol.”
It says that “the Additional Protocol is an expanded set of requirements for information and access to assist the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) in its task of confirming that states are using nuclear material for solely peaceful purposes.”
So far so good, now scroll down to the bottom of the article and try to read the following concluding paragraph without losing your spot:
“While some aspects of the Additional Protocol are present in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, (monitoring fissile material stockpiles from cradle to grave, inspections, information regarding fuel cycle research), the signing of the Additional Protocol represents the continuation of these monitoring and verification provisions long after the comprehensive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran is implemented. Those who are worried that Iran will bide time and wait to build a bomb after the deal has phased out should take comfort in the increased access to facilities (both declared and not) and information provided in perpetuity by the IAEA’s Additional Protocol.”
And by “increased access” they presumably mean a 24-day notice.
It is refreshing to return to the AIPAC document which delivers a straight forward message, mostly because it has nothing to conceal:
“Proponents of the proposed agreement will argue that the only alternative to this agreement is military conflict. In fact, the reverse is true. A bad agreement such as this will invite instability and nuclear proliferation. It will embolden Iran and may encourage regional conflict.
“We strongly believe that the alternative to this bad deal is a better deal. Congress should reject this agreement, and urge the administration to work with our allies to maintain economic pressure on Iran while offering to negotiate a better deal that will truly close off all Iranian paths to a nuclear weapon.
“Congress should insist on a better deal.”
Or no deal at all.
