UN to let IRAN inspect its self! Great Job Kerry and Obama!!
- Thread starter SIXERS24
- Start date
Funny that the Israeli defense folks don't seem to agree....they obviously have a MUCH bigger stake here.
What's the Pope say about this....oh....wait....we don't listen to the Pope anymore. This Cafeteria Catholicism gets complicated! Go read some Arch Books!
LOL dishonest twit. The IDF didn't know about this secret deal either, did they. Oh, and the Israeli government ALSO has a bigger stake and they are incredibly alarmed by this deal (you know the ones who have actually read and have inside knowledge of the deal). I could see why this would be difficult for you to understand because unless you have bright little charts to help you out things tend to go right over your head.
How come you can't define cafeteria Catholic? You throw it out constantly but you obviously don't know what it means. Do you honestly want to continue to make an *ss of yourself. Wait, of course you do. You use terms you don't even know the meaning. What a tool. I guess that's why you need colorful little charts to help you because you aren't very bright.
Better get these guys up to speed then...as CLEARLY you have 'better intel' than they do...
Israeli Military Brass Support Iran Deal
Posted on August 5, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
Haaretz reports that an impressive list of top Israeli military brass support the deal with Iran. These military leaders wrote a letter to Netanyahu urging him to support the Iran deal.
Because it’s hard to read names jammed together without any organization, here’s a list of some of the military bigwigs (all now retired) who signed the letter:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/08/israeli-military-brass-support-iran-deal.htmlPosted on August 5, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
Haaretz reports that an impressive list of top Israeli military brass support the deal with Iran. These military leaders wrote a letter to Netanyahu urging him to support the Iran deal.
Because it’s hard to read names jammed together without any organization, here’s a list of some of the military bigwigs (all now retired) who signed the letter:
- Shlomo Gaza, Chief of Intelligence, Major General
- Carmi Gillon, Director of Israel Security Agency
- Ami Ayalon, Vice Admiral, Director of Israel Security Agency
- Itamar Yaar, Colonel Deputy Israeli National Security Council
- Arie Pellman, Israeli Security Agency official
- Amiram Levin, deputy of the Mossad director, Major General
- Itzhak Barzilay, Mossad official
- Nathan Sharony, Major General, head of planning for the armed forces
- David Ben Bashat, Vice Admiral
- Micha Ram, Vice Admiral
- Alex Tal, Vice Admiral
- Amira Dotan, Brigadier General, member of Parliament
- Uzi Eilam, Brigadier General, Director of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission
- Aviezer Yaari, Major General
- Giora Romm, Major General
- Moshe Lichtman, Major General
- Amram Mitzna, Major General, member of Parliament
- Abraham Almog, Brigadier General, Medal of Courage
- Asher Levy, Brigadier General
- Yossi Gonen, Brigadier General
- Giora Inbar, Brigadier General
- Arie Keren, Brigadier General
- Yoram Cohen, Brigadier General
- Shlomo Egozy. Brigadier General
- Yosef Eyal, Brigadier General
- Asaf Agmon, Brigadier General
- Uriel Agmon, Brigadier General
- Yoram Agmon, Brigadier General
- Amos Amir Brigadier General
- Mordechai ‘Motke’ Ben Porat, Brigadier General
- Shaul Gavoli, Police Major Geneneral, LDF Brigadier General
- Ilan Paz, Brigadier General
- Yitzhak Rabin, Brigadier General
- Giora Ram (Furman), PhD, Brigadier General
- Yaron Ram, Brigadier General
- Gilad Ramot, Brigadier General
- Gilad Raz, Brigadier General
- lftach Spector, Brigadier General
- Benny Taran , Brigadier General
- Aharon Vardi, Brigadier General
- Shlomo Waxe. Brigadier General
- Izak Zamir, Brigadier General
- Gadi Zohar, Brigadier General
- Amnon Reshef, General
- Ran Ronen, General
- Danny Rothschild, General
- Efraim Halevy, Mossad Director; former head of National Security Council
- Shlomo Ben-Ami, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Internal Security
- Shlomo Brom, brigadier general; former director of IDF strategic planning division; former deputy national security advisor
- Uzi Arad, national security advisor
- Dov Tamari, military intelligence chief; former head of special operations
- Chuck Freilich, deputy national security advisor
- Yitzhak Ben-Yisrael, Chair of Israel’s space agency; former IDF general
- Uzi Even, lead scientist at Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor
- Eran Etzion, Deputy Head of the Israeli National Security Council; former Head of Policy Planning at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
- Israel Ziv, major general
- Eli Levite, deputy director general of Israel’s atomic energy commission
So what? The negotiators, diplomats, who know the players and the details, DON'T support the plan. Plus, none of the above knew about the "Self reporting" side deal at Parchin, did they? No, they didn't. So, that's like saying most baseball fans favor drug testing but we find out later the players are allowed to turn in their blood, their blood isn't drawn at a hospital/clinic.
You are giving the Iranians $100B+ which will be used to fund terrorism. By lifting the economic sanctions you also take heat off the government to reform the government. There's a reason you let diplomats, politicians negotiate these deals, and military leaders don't.
This isn't complicated. Obama stated this deal would not rely on trust, but would be dependent on verification. Parchin is absolutely based on trust, not verification.
I'm betting they have a LOT more information on this issue than you can get off the internet...
1. Accept the deal
2. Scuttle the deal and go to war
3. Scuttle the deal and allow Iran to do what it wants...including potentially building a bomb within a year or two
Once again....there is no choice 4.
2. Scuttle the deal and go to war
3. Scuttle the deal and allow Iran to do what it wants...including potentially building a bomb within a year or two
Once again....there is no choice 4.
Irrelevant. I'm betting they have a LOT less information than the diplomats and Bibi. Oh, and the IAEA which has additional side deals with Iran which NOBODY knows the details. LOL.
A veteran international nuclear official questioned the authenticity of a document The Associated Press relied upon for its controversial report that Iran would be allowed to inspect Parchin, a site suspected of hosting illicit nuclear activity over a decade ago. He said the document contains wrong terminology and other signs it may be fake.
Tariq Rauf, the former head of verification and security policy coordination at the International Atomic Energy Agency, told The Huffington Post that a document the AP described as a transcript of a draft agreement between Iran and the IAEA, published on Thursday, appears bogus, designed to undermine the real agreement and the broader nuclear pact negotiated between Iran, the U.S., and five world powers.
"In my personal view, this is not an authentic document," Rauf said. "Likely a crude attempt to hinder the JCPOA and the Road-map," he added, referring to the Iran nuclear deal, and the parallel agreement between Iran and the IAEA over an investigation into the possible military dimensions of Parchin, an Iranian military site thought to have been used for illicit nuclear weapons work prior to 2003.
The AP published an exclusive report on Wednesday alleging that the IAEA had tasked Iran with conducting inspections at Parchin.
The IAEA and the State Department implied in vaguely worded statements that the article's claims were inaccurate, but declined to comment specifically on the arrangement between Iran and the IAEA, citing confidentiality obligations.
The AP stood by its story, and on Thursday published what it said was a complete transcription of a draft of the document, outlining the parameters for the IAEA's probe into Parchin. The news agency cited two anonymous officials who it said confirmed that the draft version it published does not differ from the final version Iran and the IAEA agreed upon.
But Rauf said he immediately spotted signs that made him question the authenticity of the leaked document. Rauf, who worked for the IAEA from 2002 to 2011, now directs the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's arms control program.
In an annotated version of the document, provided to HuffPost, Rauf describes 13 instances of incorrect terminology and practices that are inconsistent with IAEA safeguards methods.
IAEA Parchin Agreement
Rauf suggested the leaked document may have surfaced in a way similar to the "Niger Letter," forged documents leaked prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq that purported to show Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was purchasing 500 tons of uranium a year from Niger. Former President George W. Bush cited the findings in his 2003 State of the Union speech as evidence that Hussein was developing nuclear weapons.
Such a charge is explosive, considering the historical implications it invokes. Coming amid an increasingly tense debate over the passage of the larger Iran nuclear accord, it seems likely to only add additional layers of distrust to the debate.
"We have been transparent in our reporting," wrote John Daniszewski, the AP's senior managing editor for international news, in an emailed statement to HuffPost. "We obtained the draft from one source and authenticated it with two other sources who have firsthand knowledge of the final version. These two sources said the final version did not change substantively from the draft. No officials have disputed the accuracy of AP's report. We are confident of our reporting that this draft is authentic and contained these points."
In declining to comment on the document -- even if because of confidentiality agreements -- both the White House and the IAEA also give the impression that they don't believe the initial draft obtained by the AP is substantially different from the final version.
Even if the AP's Parchin document is an authentic representation of the IAEA agreement, however, interpreting what the language in it implies or means has been difficult.
AP's report on Wednesday said the wording of the agreement suggests the IAEA will be "barred from physically visiting the site." But the text of the document published Thursday says, "Iran will provide to the Agency ..." leaving it unclear whether officials from the nuclear watchdog agency will be allowed to enter Parchin. Iran has allowed IAEA officials into Parchin in the past.
The initial AP report included a quote from the leaked document that, taken out of context, implied that Iran would not use materials provided by the IAEA to collect samples from Parchin: "Activities will be carried out using Iran's authenticated equipment consistent with technical specifications provided by the agency." But in the full text of the arrangement published on Thursday, the second part of that sentence states that Iran will use the IAEA's containers and seals.
The document relates to a confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA that lays out a roadmap for the agency to resolve questions about whether Iran conducted illicit nuclear activity at Parchin in the past. U.S. officials say they have been briefed on the contents of the arrangement, but are not allowed to see the actual text of the document. The IAEA is scheduled to wrap up its investigation by the end of the year. On Saturday, the agency reported that Iran had turned over the required written documents before the deadline to do so.
Even under ideal conditions, it's unclear whether the IAEA's investigation into Parchin would be able to uncover new information. The Iranians have long been suspected of conducting tests to explode nuclear warheads at Parchin, a site known to be used to develop conventional rockets, ammunitions, and explosives. But a 2007 U.S. intelligence report found that the Iranians had ceased nuclear weapons-related activity in 2003 -- giving them 12 years to scrub, repaint and resurface the facility.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...5d67d53e4b020c386de2f7e?kvcommref=mostpopular
Tariq Rauf, the former head of verification and security policy coordination at the International Atomic Energy Agency, told The Huffington Post that a document the AP described as a transcript of a draft agreement between Iran and the IAEA, published on Thursday, appears bogus, designed to undermine the real agreement and the broader nuclear pact negotiated between Iran, the U.S., and five world powers.
"In my personal view, this is not an authentic document," Rauf said. "Likely a crude attempt to hinder the JCPOA and the Road-map," he added, referring to the Iran nuclear deal, and the parallel agreement between Iran and the IAEA over an investigation into the possible military dimensions of Parchin, an Iranian military site thought to have been used for illicit nuclear weapons work prior to 2003.
The AP published an exclusive report on Wednesday alleging that the IAEA had tasked Iran with conducting inspections at Parchin.
The IAEA and the State Department implied in vaguely worded statements that the article's claims were inaccurate, but declined to comment specifically on the arrangement between Iran and the IAEA, citing confidentiality obligations.
The AP stood by its story, and on Thursday published what it said was a complete transcription of a draft of the document, outlining the parameters for the IAEA's probe into Parchin. The news agency cited two anonymous officials who it said confirmed that the draft version it published does not differ from the final version Iran and the IAEA agreed upon.
But Rauf said he immediately spotted signs that made him question the authenticity of the leaked document. Rauf, who worked for the IAEA from 2002 to 2011, now directs the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's arms control program.
In an annotated version of the document, provided to HuffPost, Rauf describes 13 instances of incorrect terminology and practices that are inconsistent with IAEA safeguards methods.
IAEA Parchin Agreement
Rauf suggested the leaked document may have surfaced in a way similar to the "Niger Letter," forged documents leaked prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq that purported to show Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was purchasing 500 tons of uranium a year from Niger. Former President George W. Bush cited the findings in his 2003 State of the Union speech as evidence that Hussein was developing nuclear weapons.
Such a charge is explosive, considering the historical implications it invokes. Coming amid an increasingly tense debate over the passage of the larger Iran nuclear accord, it seems likely to only add additional layers of distrust to the debate.
"We have been transparent in our reporting," wrote John Daniszewski, the AP's senior managing editor for international news, in an emailed statement to HuffPost. "We obtained the draft from one source and authenticated it with two other sources who have firsthand knowledge of the final version. These two sources said the final version did not change substantively from the draft. No officials have disputed the accuracy of AP's report. We are confident of our reporting that this draft is authentic and contained these points."
In declining to comment on the document -- even if because of confidentiality agreements -- both the White House and the IAEA also give the impression that they don't believe the initial draft obtained by the AP is substantially different from the final version.
Even if the AP's Parchin document is an authentic representation of the IAEA agreement, however, interpreting what the language in it implies or means has been difficult.
AP's report on Wednesday said the wording of the agreement suggests the IAEA will be "barred from physically visiting the site." But the text of the document published Thursday says, "Iran will provide to the Agency ..." leaving it unclear whether officials from the nuclear watchdog agency will be allowed to enter Parchin. Iran has allowed IAEA officials into Parchin in the past.
The initial AP report included a quote from the leaked document that, taken out of context, implied that Iran would not use materials provided by the IAEA to collect samples from Parchin: "Activities will be carried out using Iran's authenticated equipment consistent with technical specifications provided by the agency." But in the full text of the arrangement published on Thursday, the second part of that sentence states that Iran will use the IAEA's containers and seals.
The document relates to a confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA that lays out a roadmap for the agency to resolve questions about whether Iran conducted illicit nuclear activity at Parchin in the past. U.S. officials say they have been briefed on the contents of the arrangement, but are not allowed to see the actual text of the document. The IAEA is scheduled to wrap up its investigation by the end of the year. On Saturday, the agency reported that Iran had turned over the required written documents before the deadline to do so.
Even under ideal conditions, it's unclear whether the IAEA's investigation into Parchin would be able to uncover new information. The Iranians have long been suspected of conducting tests to explode nuclear warheads at Parchin, a site known to be used to develop conventional rockets, ammunitions, and explosives. But a 2007 U.S. intelligence report found that the Iranians had ceased nuclear weapons-related activity in 2003 -- giving them 12 years to scrub, repaint and resurface the facility.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...5d67d53e4b020c386de2f7e?kvcommref=mostpopular
4. Dont let the Iranian access the hundreds of billions of dollars that even Obama and Susan Rice have admitted will go in part towards terrorism!!!!!!!
Well sure, if you're craving war with Iran, ANY agreement is crappy.
4. No deal and Iran can try to do what it wants (it can breakout in 2-3 months anyway - what would you do if they break the deal?), while sanctions remain in place forever and Iran does not get $150 billion.
