AP EXCLUSIVE: UN TO LET IRAN INSPECT ALLEGED NUKE WORK SITE

[madville]

Source: AP

VIENNA (AP) -- Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied - trying to develop nuclear weapons.


Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05

[tularetom]

1. Fox, meet henhouse

This is really not helpful.

[madville]

2. Schumer is probably calling other Democrats now

Saying I told you so.

[blm]

83. And he'd be lying just as AP here is lying to YOU, its trusted audience

who the fascist elite rely on to further their propaganda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141183184#post11

[global1]

3. Are We Sure That What Is Being Said....

was interpreted correctly or is there a misunderstanding somewhere. This just doesn't make sense. Something is rotten in Denmark (and Iran).

[Senator Tankerbell]

4. The author of this article

has apparently been accused of spreading Israeli propaganda in the past.
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/the-aps-george-jahn-serves-up-israeli-propangada-on-iran-yet-again

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/ap-iran-nuclear-bomb

[madville]

5. Accused by pro-Palestinian websites

Noted.

[Senator Tankerbell]

6. What's wrong with being pro-palestinian?

[7962]

11. Its like Hillary being criticized by Jeb.

[Senator Tankerbell]

16. Even if the criticism is factually accurate?

[happyslug]

35. You have a low post count, but some people on DU like to kill the messenger...

Certain people on DU have a tendency to attack the source of a report when they can NOT attack the report itself. Thus you will see people attacking cites like Russia's RT, the British papers and other sources of reports they dislike. Now some of the attacks on sources are valid (Fox News is the classic example of a bad source of news) but others are just hating the message and since they can not attack the message they attack the messenger (Russia's RT has been a good source of basic news, but you have to watch it, RT does put a Russian slat to its news, something some people object to). You see a slat in Al Jazeera (Through it is a pro Qatar slat, which is sometimes weird for Qatar is both a Wahhabi Sunni Nation AND Independent of the House of Saud that rules Saudi Arabia).

Hang on, get use to such attacks for once you get use to them, you will ignore them and get some good information on DU and hopefully you will provide some good information.

[StoneCarver]

37. I have to say

What's up with the "low post count" tag. I've been a member for a few years and have a low post count but I read it everyday. What pisses me off is people who post bs "YEA" or "WAY TO GO"! -and it counts as a post. There's nothing thoughtful there. I've seen people get a high "post count" who have NOTHING valuable to say -at all (sorry). The Chinese say, "he who says does not know, and he who knows does not say". I've watched great posters (girlgonemad, dixiegirl, warpy, guiderglider, etc.) disappear. One of the few worth listening to and left is OmahaSteve.

DU sure has changed over the years and it breaks my heart to see great thoughtful people leave. They made DU what it was -not just a blog run as a garbage can over your head being hit with sticks!
Stonecarver

[happyslug]

38. I read a lot of people on DU, and I hate it when people leave do to attacks by others

Thus all I wanted to point out that the person I was writing to should stay with DU despite the attacks made on him or her. I have seen to many attacks on new DUers that end up forcing them out of DU without just cause. At times many of the people on DU want to attack and attack not listen or even read. You have to work around such people and that is all I was pointing out to the person I made my comment to. guiderglider had a recent posting on Peak Oil where she pointed out the attacks on Peak Oil and that the concept of Peak oil is dead for right now. I made my comment that Peak Oil is alive and well, but not talked about for the people who see nothing but doom and gloom can not use Peak Oil as the next Doom and Gloom and thus no longer discuss Peak Oil (even through the recent fall in the price of oil is part of what Peak Oil will produce from time to time). And on the other hand the people who refuse to accept Peak Oil are just gloating that they have proved once again that Peak Oil is a fiction (Even when the theory of Peak Oil fully explains the recent fall in price).

Dixiegirl last post was August 20, 2015 (today):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1182627

Warpy also posted today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7092700

Girlgonemad last posted in 2012:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1538678

Just a comment that most people stay, but we often miss each other for DU is getting bigger and bigger and that means more people posting and more posts and we lose track of people for long periods of time. Yes, some people leave, but try to get them to stay should be the job of every member of DU (please note this excludes people who should NOT be on DU and are removed by the DU administrators, that is a group we can live without and to keep DU, DU we have to exclude such disruptors).

[whathehell]

54. You should say, as calling out people for low post counts violates DU Rules. n/t

[LanternWaste]

84. Bias calling our bias is not too credible.

Bias calling our bias is not too credible.

[renegade000]

8. Ok, you can aim to discredit the source, but...

you have to admit the whole graph thing is laughably bad propaganda...

[randome]

19. Right up there with the Bibi-Bomb!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[geek tragedy]

15. So in your mind being pro-Palestinian is a bad thing. This explains

your urge to see a war with Iran with the resulting death toll.

[madville]

18. Bias is a two-way street

A pro-Palestinian website has no more credibility than a pro-Israeli website to me, they are both biased by the agendas they support.

[geek tragedy]

22. lol, as if you would dismiss a site as "pro-Israeli"

You've not once ever questioned anything claimed by the Israeli government.

[madville]

26. I do see their point

They have a vested interest in this deal since Iran publicly states they want to destroy Israel. As long as we stayed out of it, I really wouldn't care if they destroyed each other.

[padfun]

59. Actually I think you have it backwards

You are using a misquote to claim that "Iran publicly states they want to destroy Israel".

Iran doesn't publically state that. Show us the source or a link.

On the other hand, Israel constantly threatens Iran and because of this, I really think that Iran should be allow nukes just to defend themselves. That or have Israel get rid of theirs.

[still_one]

31. Here is a non pro-Palestinian website

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Jahn

and Garath Porter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Porter

[still_one]

30. Not apparently, he does

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Jahn

[leftynyc]

40. I just saw an administration official

trying to defend this by saying the UN inspectors will be involved. This is a major problem and gives anyone (Dem or Rep) all the evidence they need to vote against the deal. You may trust Iran but the vast majority of Americans do not. And really? You're whining about Israeli propaganda and using Mondoweiss as a reliable source? YOu either don't know about Mondoweiss or you don't really mind propaganda when it comes from the side you agree with.

[Enrique]

7. wow this sounds bad

and the all caps make it sound even badder.

But it also sounds like something that will dissolve upon further reporting.

[geek tragedy]

17. Actually, if you read the full article it reveals that this involves

stuff that happened ten years ago, at a non-nuclear site, involving nuke delivery systems, not nuclear weapons themselves.

In other words, it doesn't involve inspections of current facilities nor does it involve anything regarding the development of nuclear weapons.

[7962]

20. Meanwhile, the 24 day waiting period remains intact.

[geek tragedy]

21. Iran deal opponents now have their "death panels" lie, and it's a whopper

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/19/9176415/iran-deal-inspections-24-days

The debate over the Iran nuclear deal may now have its own version of "death panels," a provision that is both a point of overwhelming criticism and largely fictitious.

"Particularly troublesome, you have to wait 24 days before you can inspect," Sen. Chuck Schumer told reporters last week, explaining why he is opposing the deal.

Conservative media have hammered at this idea: that nuclear inspectors must wait 24 days before visiting any place in Iran that is not a declared nuclear site. Sometimes they imply or outright state, as in the case of this staggeringly misleading but representative Fox News story, that the 24-day wait applies even to known nuclear sites.

This certainly sounds scary. It sounds, as the critics often say, like those bumbling appeasers in the Obama administration have handed Iran the ability to cheat on the deal and then prevent inspectors from catching them.

Fortunately, this is all largely false. It's a lot like "death panels," in which Obamacare critics took a benign fact about the health-care bill — it would include end-of-life counseling — and then spun it up into a massive lie about how President Obama was going to cancel Granny's life-sustaining medications and send her to an early grave. This is an issue on which nuclear deal critics have taken a small truth and then exaggerated, distorted, and outright lied about it to make it into something very different.

You guys on Team PNAC are really persistent, gotta give you that.

[7962]

23. Wow, thats a long article to TRY to explain it away. And pretty much failing.

The facts in the article itself even shows that Iran can delay inspections be not allowing the inspectors in. If this deal really had teeth, inspections would be allowed everywhere, anytime. They're not. And military sites are still off limits. Ridiculous.
Seems as though that right-winger Sen Schumer would be corrected in his assumptions.

We'll see how long this farce lasts. Iran has never kept any other agreement.

[geek tragedy]

24. you didn't read the article.

The declared nuclear sites include any place where nuclear work is happening: uranium mines, uranium plants, centrifuge factories, and of course enrichment sites, which means the places where centrifuges spin up nuclear material. At those sites, inspectors do not have to wait. They will have nuclear sites under continual monitoring.

More derp.

But what about the rest of the country? What if inspectors worry that Iran might be conducting secret nuclear work someplace else? It's happened before, after all. But this was always going to be a hard problem, and so-called "anytime, anywhere" inspections are not realistically possible: Generally, only countries that have lost a war can be forced to agree to something so obtrusive. And a country like Iran, which fears an attack from the US, worries that Western inspectors could abuse access to military sites to give their governments intelligence on Iran's non-nuclear military programs.

Those who were insisting that inspectors would have access to anywhere in Iran, immediately, are really pushing a war, since that's the ONLY way that's ever going to happen, as it amounts to a complete surrender of sovereignty.

Moreover:

What critics have done is look at this timeline and focus on the fact that in the most extreme possible scenario, the time between when inspectors demand access and when they get access could be as much as 24 days. Weirdly, this assumes that not just Iran but even the US and its allies will push delays as long as possible, but that is only one of the smaller problems with this idea.

This is a lot more than just misleading — it is a wild distortion of how inspections in general, and this inspection regime in particular, will work, based on a series of misleading or outright dishonest claims about how the deal works.

There is so much that is deceptive about this line of bullshit being thrown around by you folks in the pro-war camp that the article had to be long.

Schumer is a dissembling warmongering pig.

[7962]

33. A lot of their work is/has been done at military sites.

Like I said, we'll see how this goes. A dog that has always bitten, usually continues to bite.
Certainly I COULD be wrong, we'll see within a couple years.

[LuvLoogie]

36. And a shrouded mirror

denies the dog's reflection.

[randome]

25. You can't 'hide' radiation in 24 days. You're determined to put the worst possible light on this.

It may not be perfect but it's a step forward and it provides for some stability in the Middle East. That's something to celebrate.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[7962]

34. "Stability"? Not if another 1/2 dozen countries get nukes.

Which is what will happen if they think iran is going to get one.

[karynnj]

60. Without the deal, Iran could get a bomb within a few months

They already have enough enriched uranium for 10 bombs -- and Netanyahu said they were 3 months from a bomb when he spoke at the UN in 2012 - before the negotiations froze their development. If the deal fails, that is where they are NOW.

It is really hard to believe that you are worried about a possible bomb 10 or 15 years from now, but don't see the problem NOW. What do you think will happen if there is no deal that will prevent this.

A unicorn deal that Iran will magically agree to?

Secondary sanctions on all countries that deal with Iran as Schumer suggests - without mentioning these countries could include France, Germany, Italy, UK etc That should work. Not to mention, sanctions did NOT work to halt progress on a bomb, they did harm Iran and brought them to the table. Incidentally, Schumer spoke of secondary sanctions because he knows that the other countries and the UN's sanctions would be lifted. His idea is arrogant and full of chutzpah. The rest of the world would react to this -- and it will hurt us.

War -- which the opponents say is unfair to mention -- so, maybe I should say "military action" which somehow does not lead to war .... and which Israeli sources say would push Iran back 3 to 5 years. 10 years, with no military action, sounds pretty good.

[7962]

87. But they keep saying they dont have a weapons program, so how would that be possible?

Its supposed to always have been about nuclear power? They have always denied trying to achieve a weapon

[karynnj]

88. Ask Netanyahu or the UN that put the sanctions in place

Also, if you believe this, there is no reason to have set international sanctions as a penalty for moving towards a nuclear bomb.

[7962]

92. Of course I dont believe it, its just what they've insisted.

[blm]

85. RW media knows SO much more than nuclear scientists. GOP voters have been swallowing

the swill of Rev Moon's propaganda media for 3 decades and now know EVERYTHING, dontchaknow?

[blm]

78. LOL - The AP article was propaganda that YOU are supporting.

Try reading the facts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141183184#post11

[randome]

9. Wow. A thread here and in GD. This must really bug you.

The U.N. will handle whatever inspections of past sites the way they want. And the U.S. and the other signatories to the treaty will handle inspections of suspect current sites the way they want.

See? It's still easy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[6chars]

10. In related news, OJ Simpson to search for real killer

Iran is going to inspect to see whether Iran was building weapons?

"The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied - trying to develop nuclear weapons."

"That wording suggests that - beyond being barred from physically visiting the site - the agency won't get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance."

I mean, it's still a great deal and all, but does this at all concern any of the deal's champions?

[7962]

12. To be explained away at a later date. As soon as they can come up with something! nt

[still_one]

28. You know who George Jahn is?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Jahn

[geek tragedy]

14. No, because we happen to know that Parchin isn't even a nuclear research site.

Whether Iran was developing technology to deliver nuclear weapons was part of the deal, but the bigger part of the deal concerns Iran's nuclear research itself.

Sorry, you members of Team Bomb Bomb Iran swung and missed again.

[gcomeau]

89. No, it doesn't concern at all, seeing as the story was bullshit.

Someone deliberately "leaked" HIGHLY MISLEADING information in an obvious attempt to sabotage the deal, and AP has been walking it back since they figured out they were taken for suckers.

[geek tragedy]

13. Parchin is a NON-NUCLEAR site.

The NUCLEAR sites are:

Fordow
Natanz
Arak

plus a few others.

Parchin is a rockets/conventional explosives site.

[still_one]

27. The author, George Jahn, here is some background on him

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Jahn

and here is some information on another misleading article George Jahn pushed:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/12/george-jahn-doubles-down-on-fake-iran-graph-.html

[still_one]

29. Here is what the Guardian has to say about George Jahn on a related matter

a few years back:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/ap-iran-nuclear-program-graph-explanation

Anyone want to take the AP story by George Jahn at face value, I have some WMDs to show you in Iraq. Maybe we can ask Judy Miller what she thinks?

This guys credibility is zilch

[leftynyc]

42. An administration official has

already confirmed this story and tried to defend it by saying the UN would be involved. So you can stop trying to shoot the messenger and deal with the fact this is a real problem and all anyone needs to vote against the deal.

[karynnj]

43. the ap already updated it's story and the administration never confirmed the story

The administration backed the UN and IAEA. That is not the same as backing the AP story.

[leftynyc]

46. You're dreaming if you think

Americans have even one ounce of trust in the UN doing anything. That's why this deal had to made in the first place. I support the deal but it seems every single day there is more ammunition given to those who want to vote against it. And that's the administration's fault for dribbling out this kind of crap. I know DU trusts the oh-so-trustworthy mullahs in Iran but the vast majority of Americans do not.

[karynnj]

63. the administration does not trust the mullahs and has said so

[leftynyc]

70. It really doesn't look that way

when this kind of news comes in dribs and drabs. Just put the deal on the table, let everyone take a look (except for the stuff that is highly classified - and really, that should be very little) and let them decide.

[karynnj]

71. that is what they did in multiple hearings and many

Speeches and talk shows.

As to this "news", it is a distortion and is part of a concerted right wing effort to derail the agreement. They, including Bibi, have been clear that this is an all out fight. We all know that if he thinks he is right Bibi is willing to lie.

[leftynyc]

73. No - speeches is not what I'm talking about

Unless people see the deal that has been signed, it's open to any interpretation that anyone wants to give it. There is simply no excuse for something like what the AP reported to be coming out in the press. I mean we need to see the agreement. It's been signed in our names and frankly between being called a traitor by the left and and an antisemite from the right, both sides are behaving badly.

[karynnj]

74. The deal has been published and is on various websites

There are parts like the Iran/IAEA details that are NOT public - nor will they be because they explicitly detail where everything is in Iran. Frankly, no country would agree to a deal where all of that was in the public domain. Neither the US or Israel would allow all that information to be public. (Note that this pertains not to a current nuclear site, but a military site.)

I agree that "traitor" goes too far and I have mostly seen it for Schumer and Menendez with respect to their party and President. I prefer to simply say they are wrong. Note that NONE of their peers or the President have used that language, which is better than Bibi's government where officials have not only called Obama and Kerry names, including anti-semitic and delusional, but Bibi PERSONALLY misrepresented the Hamas demands for the cease fire as "Kerry's" after Kerry, who was given them by Qatar passed them to Israel - a similar thing done every time as neither the US or Israel will talk directly to Hamas. Bibi had the chutzpah to take this to the entire Knesset for a vote and presented as the US plan! Why? because the grass needed more cutting. (This by the way, is when Netanyahu completely lost my respect.)

I don't see the two sides as equal in behaving badly. Netanyahu has made it completely clear he will use the Republicans to deraail this deal. Yet when Obama responds and defends himself, some have called him out for pointing out -- truthfully - that AIPAC has put $40 million behind fighting this. It is not antisemitic to speak of the Israeli lobby working against the President when they are doing just that. Not just in spending money, but many Jewish groups that I have some contact with have spammed their members - including some like Haddassah which was always non partisan. (On the other side, the reform statement admits most of its members are for the deal, but says they stay neutral because most Israelis are against it In the Jewish world, I have read many times that we will have more influence if we speak with one voice -- and those saying it all represent the RW/Likud voice - even when they are out of power in Israel. In fact, this issue may be what shatters that argument once and for all.)

[leftynyc]

77. Well, maybe because you personally

haven't been called both a traitor and antisemitic you don't see it equally but I certainly do. But I'm completely agnostic about the deal - I could argue both sides convincingly. You will notice that the vast majority of American people against the deal are not Jewish - in fact, none of the republicans voting against the deal are Jewish, yet I see plenty of blame for AIPAC and none for any organization other than the Jewish one. That has not gone unnoticed.

[geek tragedy]

64. "I know DU trusts the oh-so-trustworthy mullahs " still getting your information

from John Bolton?

You all in the warmongering crowd have been pimping this bullshit story nonstop.

You all should be ashamed, but warmongers who cite John Bolton at DU typically don't have any shame.

[leftynyc]

51. I did a google search and

couldn't find one article from the AP or anywhere else that tells of the AP backing off their story. You're the second person to make the claim and neither of you has provided any proof. Coincidence?

[karynnj]

53. Here's one link

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.672049 Note their comments on the AP and then look at what people posted on the author. This may not have been a mistake, but intentional misinformation.

[still_one]

49. I am pointing out that the story is misleading at best. It is an intentional

Last edited Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:06 AM - Edit history (1)

misrepresentation. The OP gives the impression that "Iran will do its own nuclear inspections", and that simply is not true. The arrangement between the IAEA and Tehran relates only to past military activity, and that UN inspectors, including IAEA Director Yukiya Amano would be on site to supervise the Iranians at every step of the way.

[leftynyc]

52. It doesn't look misleading to me

You're conflating two different things - sites that were previously known and those that may come up in the future.

[still_one]

55. AP has removed the claim that Iran would be making the inspections themselves, rather than UN

inspectors, and some other errors:

"An AP expose of the draft agreement reached between Iran and the IAEA initially said Wednesday that Iranian representatives would be able to inspect Parchin without any intervention by UN inspectors, who would not even be allowed into the suspected compound. 
A few hours after AP released the initial details of the agreement, a revised report emerged overwriting some of the more troubling issues pertaining to the inspection of Parchin.
For instance, the news agency removed from its report the claim that it was Iranian scientists themselves who would be inspecting the air and soil samples at Parchin, rather than UN inspectors. It also removed the claim that the number of air and soil samples taken from within suspected nuclear sites would be limited to seven."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.672049

So yes, I would say the initial story was misleading, in a similar way when the NY Times said that the justice department was looking into criminal activity of Hillary's emails.

Both stories had some elements of fact in them, yet, the most critical aspects of the stories were wrong. NY Times quietly revised its story 3 times, without an apology. AP has already edited this story once.

In addition, this reporter has been noted not be as through as he should be, so yes, based on some of his past assertions, I question his accuracy. I want an independent verification in other words.

When Judy Miller reported their were WMDs because of the metal tubes in Iraq, the NY Times did not allow room for a contrary view from non-administration government officials in the know at the time.

[leftynyc]

56. And I can't find that revised report ANYWHERE

2 different google searches came up empty.

[still_one]

62. and I cannot either. However, I still question the original stories' implication

until I get more clarification.

Even within the original story there appears to be some ambiguity:


"The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue in public.

The document is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.

Iran is to provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."

That wording suggests that - beyond being barred from physically visiting the site - the agency won't get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.

While the document says the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how."

So I will agree that there appears to be something out of the ordinary, the details are not really known yet

[still_one]

75. There are several things that have come out subsequently. For one thing, AP definitely distorted

the facts with the head line they used in the original AP story. The Obama administration has said the following:

"The Obama administration is acknowledging that Iranians would be involved in inspections of the sensitive Parchin military site under a draft arrangement with the U.N., but officials are stressing that they are not the only ones who would be investigating the Iranian location long believed to have hosted covert militarized nuclear activity.

A senior State Department official said that the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, would have "total oversight" of sampling and inspections of Parchin under the agreement between the agency and Iran over access to the site.

"Iran is not self-inspecting," the official said, though this official would not deny that Iranian inspectors will "play a role."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-inspections-parchin/index.html


Second, there is further controversy about AP revisions that are in LBN:

Potentially Deal-Shattering Report About Iran Inspections Has Some Issues

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141183184


Based on the timing, this smells a lot like the Iraq WMDs redux

[blm]

79. AP's propaganda reeks to high heaven. Surprised you didn't smell it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141183184#post11

[geek tragedy]

80. That poster bases their opinions on what John Bolton tells them to think

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1043628
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1043626

[Darb]

39. WHAT IS THAT YOU ARE SAYING?

Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as anyone else.

[leftynyc]

41. That's a much different argument

than Iran has agreed to be inspected by the UN on any sites that are suspicious which is how this deal was sold. An administration official has already confirmed this story so the usual suspects can quit trying to shoot the messenger.

[karynnj]

44. link please that says specifically what AP misreported nt

This is simply an attempt to throw things into chaos. Go to Haaretz and there you will find an article that says the AP backed off.

[leftynyc]

45. I saw the administration guy on CNN

at around 5:45 AM this morning. You want to think I'm a liar, go for it. I don't give a shit.

[karynnj]

50. I am not calling you a liar

I am saying that the AP itself has backtracted. http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.672049

administration guy is pretty vague. My point is not that you are a liar, but that the story - which always seemed suspect - is not accurate. (I was posting using a phone and in a hurry so did not include the link, which I would have done if I was at a computer, which I now am.)

[geek tragedy]

67. If you're suggesting the administration has confirmed that it's going to allow

Iran to inspect its own active nuclear sites, then yes you're lying.

Is that what you're suggesting?

[7962]

47. You actually think that? Then there is little help for you.

I didnt know there was a "right" to nuclear weapons.

[padfun]

61. It's called sovereignty

[Darb]

68. Thank you.

Apparently some others here seem to think they themselves should be the arbiter of who should and shouldn't have nuclear power or nuclear weapons. The zeal with which the above poster operates make him or her very suspect in his or her motives. I am betting "his".

[Darb]

69. Don't bite off more than you can chew.

Jussayin'.

[7962]

72. HA! Good to know we've got DUers who are fine with North Korea & Iran having a nuke!

Such equal opportunity folks we have here!
Such fine countries that threaten to wipe others off the face off the earth.

[blm]

81. How many RW fundie Republicans here in US would 'Nuke em' or 'Glass em' or

'Turn it into a parking lot' or 'Blast it back to the stone age'?

BTW - the professional propagandists who enjoy your trust are now backpedaling on this BS story, aren't they?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141183184#post11

[7962]

86. Yes, but they also dont run the country like the Ayatollahs do.

As I say repeatedly, we'll see how long this great deal lasts before they cheat. Like they have on every other agreement theyve ever signed

[Darb]

91. There are none so blind,

you know the rest.

[7962]

93. Yet what I say is true. Look up the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

Signed it, then broke it. Among others.

[blm]

95. Horsepoo - Half of the pro-war voices are sitting in Congress and Senate.

Where's your far better alternative? NO ONE HAS AN ALTERNATIVE that even comes close to being as comprehensive as this deal. Neither do YOU.

[7962]

96. Many folks have better ideas. Pretty simple, really.

Give up all your nuclear materials and allow unfettered inspections to all facilities without advance notice. If you want nuclear power, allow a 3rd party to provide the fuel & remove the waste.
And start abiding by the earlier treaties & agreements you signed and have violated.
There, that was easy wasnt it?

[blm]

97. And then 2 years later without an agreement, then what? Utter nonsense that you think

that your demand is all that it would take. That other nations involved in the process must DO AS YOU SAY, as well. Perhaps you should stop relying on negotiation lessons from O'Reilly…..or Trump.

EVERY leader (but Israel and GOPwarhawks) of every other nation, and the majority of nuclear scientists agree with this deal, while the pro-war morons are claiming they know better.

I'm with the nuclear scientists and peacemakers. You are not.

[7962]

99. Fine. Happy for you. Like I said, we'll see what happens.

You think it'll be kittens & puppies, I dont.
Couple years and we'll know who is more right.

Russia offered the power deal and they were turned down. Because electrical power isnt what they want.
But enjoy!

[blm]

100. So long - O'Reilly and Trump can't be kept waiting.

Can they? Perhaps you can say you were visiting with that brilliant foreign policy scholar, Huckabee…….

[7962]

103. Yes, because anyone who has a problem with it MUST back one of those idiots.

Wonder which one Sen Schumer is voting for?

[geek tragedy]

98. and you can ask them to make you a sandwich while they're at it.

doesn't mean they'll agree to it.

You will be surprised to learn that the George W Bush School of Diplomacy hasn't had a great deal of success.

[blm]

101. Shhh…he's moved on now…to Huckabee School of Foreign Policy.

.

[randys1]

102. Some want war, I just wish they would fight it

[7962]

104. Odd though, how NONE of my comments mention any military action at all.

Nor do I want any.
But you cheerleaders seem to have no problem with making false claims, so have fun.

[Darb]

90. Weak sauce.

I'll alert AIPAC that you have done a good job today, carrying Teabag water while trying to pretend concern.

[7962]

94. When you've got nothing, resort to insults. Typical.

ANd you've got NOTHING. No proof that Iran has ever actually followed the rules of anything thy've ever agreed to. Plenty of proof that they still want to destroy Israel.
We'll see what the next president has to deal with.

[harun]

48. This one doesn't pass the smell test. Pure BS propaganda.

[still_one]

57. The story has subsequently been revised by the AP

"An AP expose of the draft agreement reached between Iran and the IAEA initially said Wednesday that Iranian representatives would be able to inspect Parchin without any intervention by UN inspectors, who would not even be allowed into the suspected compound.
A few hours after AP released the initial details of the agreement, a revised report emerged overwriting some of the more troubling issues pertaining to the inspection of Parchin.
For instance, the news agency removed from its report the claim that it was Iranian scientists themselves who would be inspecting the air and soil samples at Parchin, rather than UN inspectors. It also removed the claim that the number of air and soil samples taken from within suspected nuclear sites would be limited to seven."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.672049

[harun]

58. Looks like it didn't pass their smell test either.

Thanks.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

65. Now if that doesn't call for a "WTF??" nothing does.

[geek tragedy]

66. The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin

The bottom line here is that this is all over a mild and widely anticipated compromise on a single set of inspections to a single, long-dormant site. The AP, deliberately or not, has distorted that into something that sounds much worse, but actually isn't. The whole incident is a fascinating, if disturbing, example of how misleading reporting on technical issues can play into the politics of foreign policy.

There are two kinds of people getting worked up about this:

1) People who know virtually nothing about Iran's nuclear program;

2) People who want a war with Iran

[still_one]

76. AP has deliberately distorted the story. The Obama administration has said the following:

"The Obama administration is acknowledging that Iranians would be involved in inspections of the sensitive Parchin military site under a draft arrangement with the U.N., but officials are stressing that they are not the only ones who would be investigating the Iranian location long believed to have hosted covert militarized nuclear activity.

A senior State Department official said that the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, would have "total oversight" of sampling and inspections of Parchin under the agreement between the agency and Iran over access to the site.

"Iran is not self-inspecting," the official said, though this official would not deny that Iranian inspectors will "play a role."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-inspections-parchin/index.html

Based on the timing, this smells a lot like the Iraq WMDs redux

[blm]

82. Funny thing - those posting their 'concern' over this seem to show up…..

with similar 'concerns' over every propaganda piece written to undermine the WH and Democrats.

Wondering if they'll pop up on the threads where their propaganda is exposed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141183184#post11