rickyp wrote: https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/up ... -argument/

for instance:

Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true

As Twain said, "a lie travels 50 miles before the truth has put its boots on". (Mark, not Shania)

At the risk of out-Dicking former Vice President Cheney himself on the subject of executive authority, Congress is a “branch of government” in precisely the same way that college basketball fans are a “sixth man.” We don’t let fans call plays, other than as some kind of preseason stunt. I am not particularly interested in congressional views about the Iran deal.

Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t.

Let’s get this straight. The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared sites — that means all of the time — including centrifuge workshops, which are not safeguarded anywhere else in the world. Inspectors have immediate access to these sites.

That leaves the problem of possible undeclared sites. What happens when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suspects that prohibited work is occurring at an undeclared site? This is the problem known as the “Ayatollah’s toilet.” It emerged from the challenge of inspecting presidential palaces in Iraq in the 1990s, which — despite UNSCOM’s demands for immediate access — the Iraqis argued were off-limits.

Far from giving Iran 24 days, the IAEA will need to give only 24 hours’ notice before showing up at a suspicious site to take samples. Access could even be requested with as little as two hours’ notice, something that will be much more feasible now that Iran has agreed to let inspectors stay in-country for the long-term. Iran is obligated to provide the IAEA access to all such sites — including, if it comes down to it, the Ayatollah’s porcelain throne.

But that’s not all. The Iran deal has a further safeguard for inspections at undeclared sites, the very provision that Schumer and other opponents are twisting. What happens if Iran tries to stall and refuses to provide access, on whatever grounds? There is a strict time limit on stalling. Iran must provide access within two weeks. If Iran refuses, the Joint Commission set up under the deal must decide within seven days whether to force access. Following a majority vote in the Joint Commission — where the United States and its allies constitute a majority bloc — Iran has three days to comply. If it doesn’t, it’s openly violating the deal, which would be grounds for the swift return of the international sanctions regime, known colloquially as the “snap back.”

This arrangement is much, much stronger than the normal safeguards agreement, which requires prompt access in theory but does not place time limits on dickering.

rickyp wrote:If these facts are in direct contrast to Schumer's claims, why is that?
I think the possible answer is that Schumer is being irresponsible or ignorant or both - hence the tone the author takes.

So, two op-eds disagree

rickyp wrote:fate

So, two op-eds disagree

Which op-ed are you talking about that disagrees with Jeffrey Lewis?
And yes, if Lewsis can be proven wrong, then Schumer is right.
But the evidence that Lewis links and indeed the evidence presented by the 29 scientists (i linked before) and the Israelis security officers .... says Schumer is wrong.

Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.

Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.

rickyp wrote:fate

So, two op-eds disagree

Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative.

It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.

A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.

To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great

Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally

A majority of the Commission (at least five of the eight members) could then inform Iran of the action that it would be required to take within three more days.[37][38] The majority rule provision "means the United States and its European allies—Britain, France, Germany and the EU—could insist on access or any other steps and that Iran, Russia or China could not veto them."[37] If Iran did not comply with the decision within three days, sanctions would be automatically reimposed under the snapback provision

rickyp wrote:schumer

Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally

Needs a majority of the 8 political entities in the commission. US, UK, EU, France, Germany - there's 5.
Don't need China or Russia.
If US can't convince 4 other nations .....

If sanctions are required ...the same simple majority is required.

A majority of the Commission (at least five of the eight members) could then inform Iran of the action that it would be required to take within three more days.[37][38] The majority rule provision "means the United States and its European allies—Britain, France, Germany and the EU—could insist on access or any other steps and that Iran, Russia or China could not veto them."[37] If Iran did not comply with the decision within three days, sanctions would be automatically reimposed under the snapback provision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Com ... _of_Action

Schumer is distorting reality.
The unilateral actions of the US did not create this agreement. And unilateral actions could not sustain it.
Moreover, he's been told by the Germans that if the deal falls through, there will be no negotations going forward. So his "option" is fantasy.

The shadowy Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani recently visited Moscow to meet with senior Russian leaders, according to two Western intelligence sources, despite a travel ban and U.N. Security Council resolutions barring him from leaving Iran.

On July 24, one week before Secretary of State John Kerry testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee and faced questions about the newly struck nuclear deal, Soleimani arrived in Moscow for meetings with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and President Vladimir Putin. It was not immediately clear what the Iranian leader discussed, but the revelation comes as the United Nations and European Union arms embargo against Iran is slated to be lifted in five years as part of the comprehensive nuclear agreement announced July 14 from Vienna.

He acknowledged that a majority was all that was needed, but also explained why that might be difficult, even impossible, in some circumstances

Iran has a record of not keeping a single international agreement since the Revolution.

rickyp wrote:fate

He acknowledged that a majority was all that was needed, but also explained why that might be difficult, even impossible, in some circumstances

And yet he thinks scrapping the agreement, and starting fresh, its going to be possible to get a "better agreement".
Even though he's been told directly by the German's that its not possible....
He's guilty of fantasizing .

The nature of the committee was a reason that the agreement was possible.
Acting unilaterally the US could achieve nothing. If the US is unable to convince on of the EU. UK, France or Germany of the need to act there's probably a good reason. (If only Bush had required the same kind of support before the rash decision in Iraq)

fate

Iran has a record of not keeping a single international agreement since the Revolution.

Whats your impeccable source for this claim?

Iran has a record of not keeping a single international agreement since the Revolution.

Whats your impeccable source for this claim?

Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal

The Islamic Consultative Assembly (the Parliament) of the Islamic Republic of Iran approved the bill presented by the Government to join the [said Convention] on 27 July 1997, and the Guardian Council found the legislation compatible with the Constitution and the Islamic Tenets on 30 July 1997, in accordance with its required Constitutional process. The Islamic Consultative Assembly decided that:

The Government is hereby authorized, at an appropriate time, to accede to the [said Convention] - as annexed to this legislation and to deposit its relevant instrument.

rickyp wrote:fate

Iran has a record of not keeping a single international agreement since the Revolution.

rickyp

Whats your impeccable source for this claim?

Once gain you make a claim without support, and become offended when challenged to back up your claim.
What was your source? Some blogger ?

Iran has signed very few International Agreements since 1980. So the opportunity to break any is limited.
I did some research, and the one you might have pointed to is the 1993 convention on chemical weapons. Iran has been accused of breaking that deal, with the assistance of Pakistan, China and Russia. But the treaty has such poor compliance verification that the US hasn't been able to make a credible claim.

The choice isn't between some imagined "tougher negotiation" and the agreement. It is between "nothing" and the agreement.
Which is better.
The US military thinks the agreement is better.