Bitcoin Forum

https://twitter.com/elliosch/status/621353423225679873

Your bias is glaring.  :D :D :D

How about showing someone close to the deal talking about it? Like the Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/energy-secretary-moniz-on-iran-deal-details-485133379890

I don't even like Rachel Maddow, but your link is a joke.

Wilikon is one of the worst, dumbest fundamentalist fuck posters on this forum. I have him on ignore after trying to engage him many times in rational discussion.

The deal is a joke.

U.S. and Iranian officials confirmed Thursday that no American nuclear inspectors will be permitted to enter the country’s contested nuclear site under the parameters of a deal reached with world powers this week, according to multiple statements by American and Iranian officials.

Under the tenants of the final nuclear deal reached this week in Vienna, only countries with normal diplomatic relations with Iran will be permitted to participate in inspections teams organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The revelation of this caveat has attracted concern from some analysts who maintain that only American experts can be trusted to verify that Iran is not cheating on the deal and operating clandestine nuclear facilities.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-bans-u-s-inspectors-from-all-nuclear-sites/


**************************************


One of the administration’s key selling points is not the deal itself but what happens if there is no deal. In his news conference Wednesday, the president argued that no agreement all but means war. Administration officials have long argued that no deal would lead U.S. allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, to walk away from sanctions, that Iran would accelerate its efforts for a weapon (achieving “breakout” status), and that Israel might strike. But selling the nuclear agreement on negative counterfactuals isn’t the most effective strategy, particularly when so many Republicans and Democrats are already opposed. The president spent a fair amount of time in the opening remarks of his news conference talking about what happens if there is no deal; this strengthens the impression that it’s hard to market the accord on its merits. His approach is designed to create a binary choice: If you oppose this accord, you bear responsibility for whatever happens. That “I know best and you’re irresponsible if you don’t agree” approach is offensive, not only to many Republicans but also to Democrats whose support the president needs to pass the deal.

Meanwhile, there is no one on the Iranian side to help sell this agreement. This isn’t a peace treaty with heroic actions and actors (certainly not on the Iranian side). The administration is in the terrible position of having to defend the agreement and, in a sense, defending Iran, because even the most articulate Iranian voices are viewed as proxies or shills of the Iranian regime. There is no Anwar Sadat, Nelson Mandela, King Hussein, or Yitzhak Rabin who can inspire and sway Congress or U.S. public opinion. One poll released Tuesday found that a majority of Americans don’t believe Iran will abide by an agreement. Iranian denunciations, particularly from hard-liners, will raise questions about Iran’s commitment to the agreement. It doesn’t help that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has not wholeheartedly endorsed the agreement and has questioned the trustworthiness of U.S. negotiators.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/is-obama-building-a-case-on-iran-nuclear-deal-or-undermining-it/


*************************************************


Last December, when I interviewed the leader of Israel’s left-leaning Labor Party, Isaac “Bougie” Herzog, at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Forum, he said, in reference to nuclear negotiations with Iran: “I trust the Obama administration to get a good deal.”

In a telephone call with me late last night, Herzog’s message was very different. The deal just finalized in Vienna, he said, “will unleash a lion from the cage, it will have a direct influence over the balance of power in our region, it’s going to affect our borders, and it will affect the safety of my children.”…

Herzog’s militancy on the subject of the deal places the Obama administration in an uneasy position. While the administration can—and has—dismissed Netanyahu as a hysteric, the eminently reasonable Herzog, who is Secretary of State John Kerry’s dream of an Israeli peace-process partner, will find receptive ears among Democrats for his criticism.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/israel-isaac-herzog-iran-nuclear-deal/398705/


**************************************************


Iran will now become the largest country to rejoin the global marketplace since the breakup of the Soviet Union. By some estimates, Iran’s economy will grow by an additional two percentage points, to more than 5 percent GDP growth, within a year. After an additional 18 months, GDP growth could reach 8 percent…

Iran has the fourth largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, estimated at 157.8 billion barrels. That’s enough to supply China for 40 years. Iran already produces 2.8 million barrels per day. The International Energy Association forecasts that an end to sanctions will allow Iran to ramp up production by an additional 600,000 to 800,000 barrels per day within months, roughly 4 percent of global output. The re-entry of Iranian oil to the global market could lower 2016 forecasts for world crude oil prices by $5-$15 per barrel. That’s good news for oil consumers but bad news for Saudi Arabia, which stands to lose significant market share in years to come as both Iran and Iraq increase production and exports…

Critics of the deal insist that more money for Iran means more problems for the Middle East. Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran are already fighting via proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, but Iranian and Saudi military spending have not been comparable. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the Saudi government spent more than $80 billion on defense in 2014. The U.S. Congressional Research Service has reported that Iran spent just $15 billion. As sanctions relief injects more money into the Iranian economy, this rivalry will intensify. Even under sanctions, Iran continued to fund Hezbollah operations in the region, which analysts believe cost Tehran between $60 million and $200 million a year. Tehran also found ways to funnel $1 billion to $2 billion a month to prop up the Assad regime in Syria.

http://time.com/3961650/iran-nuclear-deal-economy/


*******************************************************


The agreement provides for “snap back” sanctions, which essentially lifts the suspension of sanctions in the event of an Iranian violation. Clearly, the snap-back function is designed to deal with a major breach of an agreement, particularly because Iran explicitly states in the agreement that it will stop implementing its nuclear obligations if sanctions are re-imposed. So what happens if Iran cheats along the margins? For example, if they enrich uranium to 7% not the permitted 3.67%. The snap-back function makes little sense in this circumstance but the Joint Commission that brings together all the negotiating parties could obviously address such an issue of non-compliance. In this case, however, Iran will likely to declare it made a mistake and say it will stop doing it.

Sound fine? Not really. Given Iran’s track record, it will likely cheat along the margins to test the means of verification and see how it might be able to change the baseline—and there needs to be a penalty for each such act of non-compliance and preferably not only by the US…

As such, deterrence is what will matter. Iran must have no doubts that if we see it moving toward a weapon that would trigger the use of force. Declaring that is a must even now. Proving that every transgression will produce a price will demonstrate that we mean what we say.

http://time.com/3960110/iran-will-cheat-then-what/


*********************************************************

Whatever the motives of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in agreeing to this nuclear deal may have been, one of them was not to undermine the revolution and the hardline authoritarian nature of the state’s control. On the contrary, the purpose of the nuclear deal was to consolidate the regime’s position and to manage public expectations by creating a stronger economy and garnering more international legitimacy.

It is the cruelest of ironies that the very nuclear issue that has made Iran an outlier has now given the regime an opportunity to begin to end its international isolation. But there are other factors that limit how fast and far this process can go. The Supreme Leader, who has yet to endorse the agreement, has a need to placate hardliners and counter the rise of pro-negotiations elites such as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The best way to do that is to keep at a distance from Washington, and perhaps even to demonstrate Iran’s revolutionary credentials by toughening its image. Indeed, Iran is unlikely to accommodate U.S. interests by abandoning Syrian President Bashar al Assad, or by weakening its support for Hezbollah or for Shiite Iraqi militias…

To use an arms control agreement to significantly realign U.S. policy with a repressive state that has expansionist designs in a turbulent region is a very long shot. The Iranian deal is not a peace treaty that has produced an end state with a nation that plays by internationally accepted norms and conventions. There are no Iranian heroic actors in this drama, no Sadats, Rabins, or King Husseins capable of transforming U.S. political or public attitudes about the Iranian regime. Should Iran change — should it start to show real flexibility on regional issues — that might provide an opening for real change in the bilateral relationship. Releasing the Americans the regime is holding would be a start. Right now, I wouldn’t count on it. The Middle East may be the a region of miracles, but don’t expect one in the U.S.-Iranian relationship.


http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2015/07/obama_iran_illusion_of_realignment_in_the_middle_east_111321.html


*************************************************************


As the state media under Khamenei’s control and the various other media under hardliner control seem poised to interpret the deal as a loss for Iran, Rouhani has few outlets for communicating with the people and steering the news in his favor. Even fellow reformists have seriously criticized his media team as the weakest compared to previous presidents. Since Rouhani has already raised public expectations about the deal’s immediate economic impact, the hardliners may use the actual pace of economic improvements — i.e., slow and uneven at best — to convince people outside their constituency that the agreement was not that crucial for Iran’s economy, and that what the country has gained from the talks was not worth what it gave up in the nuclear program. Perhaps sensing this potential problem, Rouhani’s team may now be trying to temper the exaggerated expectations. For example, his economic advisor Masoud Nili recently warned that “the sanctions relief would provide us with capabilities but does not make a miracle…If we do not manage the existing gap [between public expectations and reality], we may face a situation worse than when we were under sanctions.”

Hardliners are well prepared to control public opinion in the wake of the nuclear deal. They will likely refrain from congratulating Rouhani and the negotiating team for signing the agreement, instead focusing on its “irrelevance” to economic improvement — even at the risk of exacerbating public disappointment if the people do not see tangible change in their living conditions.

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2015/07/16/the_nuclear_deal_weakens_irans_moderates_111324.html


*************************************************


When President Obama called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday to discuss the nuclear deal with Iran, the American president offered the Israeli leader, who had just deemed the agreement a “historic mistake,” a consolation prize: a fattening of the already generous military aid package the United States gives Israel…

But, as in previous talks with Mr. Obama, Mr. Netanyahu refused to engage in such talk “at this juncture,” the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail the private discussions. And on Tuesday, as administration officials fanned out to make the case for the Iran agreement, one aide suggested in a phone call to Jewish and pro-Israel groups that Mr. Netanyahu had rebuffed their overtures because he believes accepting them now would be tantamount to blessing the nuclear deal, say people involved in the call who did not want to be quoted by name in describing it…

“The idea that somehow Israel would be compensated for this deal in the way the Gulf states would be is rejected by this prime minister as signaling that he is somehow silently acquiescing to it,” said David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The negative optic would be, he is being bought off from his principled opposition. He sees any package now as muddying what he sees as the moral clarity of his objection.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/middleeast/us-offers-to-help-israel-bolster-defenses-yet-nuclear-deal-leaves-ally-uneasy.html?_r=0


***************************************************


[T]he agreement will end up unfreezing around $150 billion in assets to a regime that has neglected its own domestic economy so it could prop up a Syrian dictator at war with his own citizens — to the tune of billions of dollars. The initial reaction from America’s traditional Middle Eastern allies has been a combination of shock and horror. Just as they see an Iran more brazen than ever, Obama is talking about the possibility of a new relationship with their archenemy…

But there’s no ignoring that the deal also leaves most of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in place. After 10 years, Iran can enrich as much uranium as it likes. After 15 years it can begin enrichment at the facility it hid from the world, built into a mountain near Qom. What message does it send to the rest of the world that a country that built up an industrial-scale nuclear program (and stonewalled the International Atomic Energy Agency in the process) will be allowed to keep it in exchange for allowing the enhanced monitoring and inspections it previously agreed to and then reneged on 12 years earlier? It doesn’t seem like a solid foundation for Obama’s long-held dream for a world free of nuclear weapons…

Maybe the real benefit, at least from Obama’s perspective, is that the nuclear deal will pave the way for America’s full exit from the Middle East. After more than a decade of war and nation-building, the region is less stable and more dangerous than it was on 9/11. The Atlantic’s Peter Beinart, who supports the deal, says what its critics are really doing is “blaming Obama for the fact that the United States is not omnipotent.” Perhaps we have reached the limits of what American leadership can do in that part of the world. But if that’s true, Obama should have the decency to level with us about it. This deal is not an affirmation of American leadership. It’s a recognition of American exhaustion.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-14/iran-deal-is-obama-s-middle-east-exit-strategy


*******************************************************


On its very first page the document says the the deal “will mark a fundamental shift” in how we approach Iran and its nuclear program. You betcha; that’s one true line in the document. Once upon a time, faced with an implacable enemy, Ronald Reagan said we would do what Truman and Kennedy had done: persevere until we had won, until there was a fundamental shift in Soviet conduct or an end to the Soviet Union. Obama is instead throwing in the towel: The fundamental shift in behavior comes from the United States, not Iran. The Islamic Republic remains an implacable enemy, holding hostages, supporting terror, organizing “Death to America” marches even as its negotiators sat in Vienna and Lausanne smiling across the table at John Kerry.

Of course Obama has a theory: The main problems in world politics come from American militarism, aggression, bullying, and the like, and if we open our “clenched fists” to embrace Iran, it will respond in kind. We’ve seen the results of such policies in Russia and North Korea, and most recently in Cuba. In fact Obama’s Iran deal is based on his “Cuba model”: Hand a lifeline to a regime in deep economic trouble and ignore the population of the country and their quest for human rights and decent government. Call it a historic achievement, and above all don’t bargain hard for recompense. For, you see, in these openings to Iran and Cuba we are only righting the historical wrongs America has committed and for which we need to apologize.

People who do not live in and bicycle around in Lausanne or Vienna, but rather try to survive in Israel and the Persian Gulf countries, understand all of this. Iran has won a great victory: A weak country has outmaneuvered and outnegotiated the United States and the EU. Kerry and Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif will probably share a Nobel Peace Prize, which is disgraceful, but Zarif does deserve recognition for producing a far better deal for Iran than he had any right to expect. He owes a huge debt of gratitude to Barack Obama and his view of the world. For the rest of us, the rise of Iran means great danger ahead.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421223/iran-nuclear-agreement-john-kerry-mohammad-javad-zarif


*************************************************


If you think the United States just struck a poor nuclear deal with Iran, you’re right; but if that’s your key takeaway, you’re missing the point. Iran’s nuclear program was last on the list of the Obama administration’s priorities in talking to Tehran. The administration readily caved on Iran’s nukes because it viewed the matter only as a timely pretense for achieving other cherished aims. These were: (1) preventing an Israeli attack on Iran; (2) transforming the United States into a more forgiving, less imposing power; (3) establishing diplomacy as a great American good in itself; (4) making Iran into a great regional power; and (5), ensuring the legacies of the president and secretary of state as men of vision and peace…

The Iran negotiations became Obama’s magnum opus on the theme of listening. Americans listened to Iranians dictate terms, shoot down offers, insult the United States, and threaten allies. America has been humbled indeed.

But such humility is necessary if diplomacy is to be made into a nation-defining ethos. And if we could successfully negotiate with theocratic Iran, then surely Americans would see that diplomacy could conquer all. So, for the sake of proving this abstract principle, Obama foreclosed any non-diplomatic approach to Iran before a deal was reached. As he told Tom Friedman in April, “there is no formula, there is no option, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon that will be more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put forward — and that’s demonstrable.” So declared, so demonstrated.


https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/07/15/iran-nuclear-deal-not-about-nukes/


****************************************************


Obama sees himself as Reagan come again. His disdain for American power, his naïveté, and his incompetence suggest Jimmy Carter as the obvious point of comparison. But Lyndon Johnson is his true soulmate. Johnson like Obama burned to use the federal government to remake the country — but unlike Obama, LBJ succeeded in changing American society with the nation’s support. Unfortunately for Obama, he lacks Johnson’s skill with Congress and his feel for the trajectory of American history. And it’s no longer 1964.

But Obama will be remembered ultimately for the Iran treaty, as Johnson is remembered for Vietnam. Like Johnson, Obama is wrapped in a warm blanket of advisers who flatter his earnest, high-school views of world politics. Like Johnson, he lives in his own delusional world in which he’s commander-in-chief not merely of the military but of the whole blessed nation. Like Johnson, he has been destroyed by the arrogance of power; and his blindness has endangered America. Unlike Johnson, he was never big enough for the job in the first place.

Iran’s Supreme Leader reeks of blood. Obama’s treaty reeks of disgrace and surrender. Vietnam did disastrous damage to America’s military, its intelligence services, and its international standing — damage compounded by Richard Nixon’s crookery and Jimmy Carter’s entire presidency. It took Ronald Reagan to repair the wreckage. Will there be a Reagan to clean up after Obama?


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421235/iran-obamas-vietnam


************************************************

-------------------------------------------
The image of a US bad deal...

stupidly embarrassing attempt to mislead people into cheering for war against iran but then again it only has to be believable enough to mislead half the fat jewmerican mcdonalds eating pig population so who knows maybe it will do its job. in the second part of his answer from the first clip (purposely edited out) he makes clear that he is talking about iran's declared nuclear facilities. known nuclear sites will be under continuous watch under the deal. conventional military sites are not and were never intended to be subject to no restrictions no questions asked inspections. no country on earth would accept such a thing after the iraq debacle where american inspectors operating under un auspices used "wmd" inspections as a pretext to gather intel on iraqi state and military secrets during the 90s and use it against the government in 1998 and 2003.

Obama’s deal to lift sanctions on Iran and allow it to continue the purchase and production of enriched uranium is so bad that his own staff can’t even figure out how to spin for it. It’s so bad that Obama’s opponents don’t even need to craft their own arguments against it — they can just recycle the Obama administration’s arguments against the deal.

Watch as Obama spokesman Ben Rhodes destroys the Iran nuclear deal in only 26 seconds

you can saw on you tube.

So funny to see the Pro-Israel lobby up in arms about the nuclear deal

u guise mad?  :D :D :D

If you have the youtube link post it and I'll add it to the OP.

So funny to see the Pro-Hezbollah lobby up in laughs about the nuclear deal


u guise r mad  :D :D :D

why should we be?


http://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-deal-will-not-stop-iranian-support-for-hezbollah-says-nasrallah/a-18607797

Nasrallah: U.S. will remain the ‘Great Satan’


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4DQMNVBHs0



The Lebanese Hezbollah group said Washington will remain the “Great Satan” following nuclear deal with world powers and it can still count on Iran’s support, its leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Saturday.

In his first public remarks since the agreement was reached this month in Geneva, Nasrallah said he was sure Tehran would confound critics who say it would end support to Hezbollah.

“Did Iran sell its allies down the river during the nuclear talks? No, there was no bargaining” between Iran and the United States, he said in a speech broadcast on a large screen to supporters in Beirut’s southern suburbs, a party stronghold.

Supreme leader “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterated Iran’s position on the resistance movements and its allies, and Hezbollah occupies a special place among them,” Nasrallah added.

“The United States remains the ‘Great Satan,’ both before and after the nuclear accord” reached last week after tough negotiations between Iran and permanent U.N. Security Council members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany.

On July 18, Khamenei warned that, despite the deal, Iran would continue its policy towards the “arrogant” United States and also its support for its friends in the region.


http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/07/25/Hezbollah-U-S-remains-great-Satan-after-nuke-deal.html

Makes sense. Why should the Americans be allowed inside the Iranian nuclear facilities? And the next POTUS has already promised to the Jews that she will bomb Iran as soon as she is elected to the office. So this is a rational decision.

And for those who are complaining. First let the Iranians (or the Russians or the Chinese) access the American nuclear facilities. Then we can discuss whether to allow the Americans inside the Iranian facilities or not.

John Kerry: Lawyer to the Mullahs (Video)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFOd5Oj_kGA

DNC Chair: 'Legitimate cause for concern' with Iran nuclear deal



Published on Jul 27, 2015
DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz says there is "legitimate cause for concern" and has not yet decided whether she will support the president's Iran nuclear deal.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf934o3m_20

Iran agreement: Why you should read Paragraph 36


Last Tuesday, a 159-page PDF of the Iran nuclear agreement dropped into my inbox. Scrolling down to page 19, I checked out Paragraph 36. I suggest you do the same. Plenty of provisions in the Vienna agreement will get attention in the coming weeks, but Paragraph 36 may be the most important of all.

Paragraph 36 tells us when and how the agreement might end. Both friend and foe have touted this deal as “historic” and promised (or moaned) that its provisions will stay in place for the long term. But in practice, this is not a ten-year agreement or a fifteen-year agreement or an eternal agreement. Paragraph 36 tells us the truth: Any party—be it Iran or a future U.S. president—can essentially ditch the Iran nuclear deal with 35 days’ notice.


http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/248667-iran-agreement-why-you-should-read-paragraph-36

I'm glad they done this deal. USA should allied to Iran not Saudi Arabia. Iran is the lesser evil in the Middle East.

Allied? Iran hates the US.
One is less evil than the other... Hard to tell who's on top...

Wilkon is the most ignorant, close-minded troll I've ever seen on a forum board.  :D :D

But his saltiness about this deal tastes so fucking good!!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Iran deal is a great deal and it's a necessary way to against IS.
.                                                               

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/index.html

July 29, 2015: Sen. Tom Cotton's Q&A during Senate Armed Services Committee hearing


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95BNlWr1do4

Want to bomb Iran? Then support the nuclear deal.

That’s the provocative argument coming from Obama administration officials and other backers of the deal as they promote it before a crucial vote in Congress next month.

In meetings on Capitol Hill and with influential policy analysts, administration officials argue that inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities under the deal will reveal important details that can be used for better targeting should the U.S. decide to attack Iran.

“It’s certainly an argument I’ve heard made,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “We’ll be better off with the agreement were we to need to use force.”

Schiff has already announced his support for the Iran deal. But the argument could be useful as the administration tries to persuade centrist Democrats with a hawkish view of Iran to support the agreement, which provides relief from sanctions for Iran in return for curbs and inspections of its nuclear program. Congress is expected to vote on the deal next month.

Obama officials rarely discuss the concept in public, partly out of concern over long-standing tensions between Iran’s clerical regime and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will monitor Iran’s nuclear complex under the deal. Iranian officials have often accused IAEA inspectors of being Western agents.

“I can certainly understand why the Iranians wouldn’t like that argument,” Schiff said. “But then the Iranians have made a lot of arguments that we don’t like.”

On Wednesday, The Associated Press reported that the IAEA has privately agreed to allow Iran to conduct its own environmental sampling, under agency supervision, at a sensitive military base where Tehran is thought to have conducted past nuclear weapons research. The details of the agreement are unclear, but such an arrangement would reflect Iran’s deep suspicion of the IAEA and its concerns that the United Nations agency’s inspections might benefit American war planners.

While U.S. officials are guarded in their discussion of military options, “it’s been on their minds for some time,” said one person who has spoken often with the administration’s Iran policymakers.

Analysts said the military benefits of having a clearer view of Iran’s program is an undeniable feature of the agreement.

“If you want to bomb the program, you should be superexcited about this deal,” said Austin Long, a professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs who studies U.S. military options against Iran. “The more you know about Iran’s nuclear program and the industrial infrastructure behind that program, the better you will be able to target it.”

Although the U.S. is already well aware of Iran’s major nuclear sites, such as its uranium enrichment plants at Fordow and Natanz, Pentagon planners lack detailed knowledge about the country’s “supply chain” — facilities that build essential components like centrifuges as well as its uranium mines and mills.

“These are exactly the kind of things you would want to destroy, so you don’t just cripple their ability to enrich uranium” but also Iran’s ability to reconstitute their enrichment program, Long said.

The White House has aired the argument once — drawing a furious Iranian response. In a July 17 briefing, press secretary Josh Earnest said “the military option would be enhanced” by the deal, adding that U.S. and Israeli targeting decisions “would be significantly informed … based on the knowledge that has been gained in the intervening years through this inspections regime.”

Iran quickly filed a formal complaint about Earnest’s remarks with the IAEA expressing “grave concern.” It accused the U.S. of breaching the deal with a threat, and warned against “any attempt aimed at obtaining its confidential information.”

The July 14 nuclear deal sets up intrusive inspections and monitoring regime that will be managed by the IAEA, which will assign up to 150 inspectors to the country full time. They will have round-the-clock access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, and a mandate to investigate suspected secret nuclear sites. Iran must also describe the entirety of its nuclear program to the IAEA in much greater detail than it has to date. Under IAEA procedures, and the text of the nuclear deal, the U.S. will have access to that information.

Tehran’s suspicions about Western spying and espionage were a major hurdle in the nuclear talks. Iranian officials have charged that the IAEA collaborates with Western intelligence agencies, saying that they pass information to the U.S. and Israel that has facilitated sabotage of Iran’s program and even led to the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists.

After a mysterious 2012 power outage at Fordow and Natanz, for instance, Iran’s nuclear chief warned “terrorists and saboteurs might have intruded the agency.” And when an atomic scientist was murdered earlier that year, one Iranian official complained that people “who came to Iran under the pretext of inspecting the country’s nuclear facilities have identified Iranian scientists and given their names to the terrorist groups.”

On Monday, Iran’s deputy foreign minister said that Iran’s intelligence service would have to approve any IAEA inspectors seeking access the country. The nuclear deal already states that Iran “will generally allow the designation of inspectors from nations that have diplomatic relations with Iran,” apparently excluding Americans from the IAEA team.

The IAEA’s Iran Task Force had an initial full-time staff of 50 inspectors when it was created in 2012. The nuclear agreement envisions a team roughly triple that size, between 130 and 150. The task force includes technical experts, intelligence analysts and nuclear weapons specialists based in Vienna, where the atomic watchdog agency is headquartered.

New insight into Iran’s program isn’t the only benefit seen by U.S. military and intelligence officials, who worked closely with Secretary of State John Kerry’s negotiating team to help shape a deal to their liking.

For instance, the deal requires Iran to stop enriching uranium at Fordow, a facility buried more than 200 feet under mountain rock that presents a challenging target. Iran’s other enrichment facility at Natanz is also underground — but not as deep and thus far more vulnerable to American bunker-buster munitions.

Intrusive IAEA inspections also allow intelligence officials to worry less about keeping watch over Iran’s known nuclear sites, allowing them to focus on the hunt for any nuclear activity Iran might be conducting in secret.

Multiple intelligence arms of the U.S. government are focused on Iran, including the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA’s Iran operations division.

Schiff said he is urging his undecided colleagues to read a classified assessment prepared for Congress by U.S. intelligence agencies, which he said gives him confidence in the ability of U.S. spy agencies to catch Iran in the act of cheating.

He said that Washington would be stepping up cooperation with allies to monitor Iran beyond the declared scope of the nuclear deal’s IAEA inspections.

That point was echoed by Ami Ayalon, a former chief of Israel’s Shin Bet security service, in a recent interview with POLITICO.

“I know something about the American [intelligence] capabilities, and I can tell you that some specific areas, we can improve them with some specific capabilities that we have,” Ayalon said. “I believe that we can reach the point at which, if we share our intelligence… we shall know almost everything what is happening at every site every moment in Iran.”


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/iran-nuclear-deal-argument-bomb-121613.html?hp=t1_r