PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #201
You'd best learn these two facts:
I never lie, and I'm never wrong.
. In 2015, President Obama promised when he tried to sell the deal to a skeptical American public that the Iranians agreed to the "most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime, ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history," based on "unprecedented verification." Moreover, Obama adviser Ben Rhodes reassured the public repeatedly that the deal included "anywhere, anytime" inspections and 24-7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities.
But in reality, the administration repeatedly lied to the American public by misrepresenting the deal and the nature of the inspections Iran agreed to. The robust inspections referred only to Iran's declared nuclear sites. Other sites that the IAEA has suspicions about, including all military sites and undeclared nuclear sites, fell under a separate cheating-friendly procedure.
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
Instead, the deal stated that in order to allay IAEA concerns, Iran would give access within a 24-day time frame, after the IAEA made a request to visit a suspected site. Furthermore, the deal stated that if Iran refused the access, the Islamist state and the IAEA would have additional 14 days to resolve the agreement among themselves. If they failed to agree, a joint commission comprising the six member-nations who are parties to the agreement would consider the matter for an additional week.
In conclusion, according to the agreement, Iran can continue its uranium enrichment program and continue developing its weapon program at its many military sites, and every time the IAEA suspects anything, the Iranians can have 24 days at a minimum and 45 days maximum to delay the access, sanitize the sites, or transfer the unauthorized nuclear work to another unauthorized military site.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/obama_and_irans_nuclear_lies.html#ixzz5nH0Ua9im
More????
“Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close
Iran can easily stretch out the inspection of suspect nuclear sites for three months or more.”
Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close
Drop back when you need another spanking.....you dunce.
You have proven one things, that you are not very smart.
Read with at least a little comprehension.
{...
One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them. In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.
...}
It is NOT nuclear production sites that there was a controversy about surveillance and manual inspections.
It was MILITARY sites.
Which was the same ruse we pulled on Saddam.
The goal of the US military has nothing at all to do with nuclear nonproliferation, but of cataloging Iran's military complexes so that they can be easily neutralized by our NEXT illegal attack on one of the remaining Mideast powers.
We knew for certainly that Saddam never had any significant WMD, and no ambitions to create them, at all.
So then our insistence on gaining access had nothing at all to do with compliance verification.
The IAEA NEVER needs personal access to verify compliance with nuclear nonproliferation.
The IAEA always instead uses electronic means, and never uses personal access.
The ONLY reason to every insist on personal access is if one instead wants to steal military secrets.
No HONEST person would ever insist on personal access.
That is never necessary to verify nuclear nonproliferation treaties.
"New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
Iran is not "complying at all" with the landmark nuclear deal and continues to prevent international nuclear inspectors from accessing key sites suspected of housing the regime's sensitive atomic weapons program, according to the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
New Secretive Iranian Nuclear Sites Spark Concern in Congress
I'm never wrong.
America. A military occupational presence in 70% of the nations on the planet, supporting 73% of the planet's dictatorships. And still can't be satisfied.
Perhaps you should learn what "occupational presence" means before you next post.
Take your time.
It means what it has always meant sans the gaslighting and unconstitutional rationales. The US has not had a legal constitutional war since WWII.
Show us where all "your" military is "protecting" you.
Take yours love.
No fears.....I can help:
Search Results
Web results
Military Occupation | Definition of Military Occupation by ...
www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › military occupation
Definition of military occupation. : control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory.
So, we've learned that you are a fool, huh?