'Catastrophic': Denmark reacts to US break with Europe over Iran deal

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Are you absolutely sure of that?

Yes , as your link points out.

The agency will have cameras that provide 24-hour monitoring at the Natanz facility, which has 5,000 centrifuges, and inspectors will have daily access to the facility for 15 years. Within a year, there will be 130 to 150 inspectors in Iran.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

What makes you want to be against Iran?

a reply to: gortex

Please show me any signed deal you can find.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: gortex

Please show me any signed deal you can find.

Plenty of footage of the signing that took place at the Geneva Palace of Conventions on March on 23rd Nov 2013 - sorry cant post vids or pics on here but type it into youtube and/or google image search to see the sigantures.

The origin of the claims that have suddenly arisen in some political and media circles date to an article by AP on 19th Aug 2015.
-------

An unconfirmed Associated Press report had cited a draft document suggesting the IAEA would not send its own inspectors into Parchin but would instead get data from Iran on the site.

“I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work,” IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano said in an unusually strongly worded statement on Thursday.

www.reuters.com... 0820

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: gortex

Please show me any signed deal you can find.

Plenty of footage of the signing that took place at the Geneva Palace of Conventions on March on 23rd Nov 2013 - sorry cant post vids or pics on here but type it into youtube and/or google image search to see the sigantures.

Sorry, there isn't, because it's not signed by anyone from Iran.

The Obama administration has disclosed to Congress that this summer's controversial nuclear arms agreement with Iran was never signed and is not legally binding, according to a new report this week.

The State Department made the disclosures in a letter to Kansas congressman Mike Pompeo, a Republican, who had written the department to inquire why the agreement as submitted to Congress in July did not bear the signature of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

'The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,' Julia Frifield, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs wrote Pompeo last Thursday.

What you saw was a dog and pony show to make it look like it was a legitimate signed document when in fact it is not.

It would be like a landlord bringing in a lease that they signed and you didn't because you never signed any lease. Obama's administration admitted it's not a binding agreement, it's just a hope and a prayer.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack


The nations have had 16 months to prepare their reactions. There was never any doubt that President Trump was pulling out of the deal.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: gortex

Please show me any signed deal you can find.

Plenty of footage of the signing that took place at the Geneva Palace of Conventions on March on 23rd Nov 2013 - sorry cant post vids or pics on here but type it into youtube and/or google image search to see the sigantures.

Sorry, there isn't, because it's not signed by anyone from Iran.

The Obama administration has disclosed to Congress that this summer's controversial nuclear arms agreement with Iran was never signed and is not legally binding, according to a new report this week.

The State Department made the disclosures in a letter to Kansas congressman Mike Pompeo, a Republican, who had written the department to inquire why the agreement as submitted to Congress in July did not bear the signature of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

'The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,' Julia Frifield, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs wrote Pompeo last Thursday.

What you saw was a dog and pony show to make it look like it was a legitimate signed document when in fact it is not.

It would be like a landlord bringing in a lease that they signed and you didn't because you never signed any lease. Obama's administration admitted it's not a binding agreement, it's just a hope and a prayer.

Iran did let inspectors inspect, but only at sites they chose, which was none of the sites where they 'could' have possibly be working on nukes.

It was a sh!t deal. It's like being a drug dealer and not allowing the cops to go inspect your poppy field outback, but sure they can go inspect your cute little tomato garden. The only thing the pull out accomplished was to create a new agreement that is capable of actual results.

a reply to: Flesh699

It was never about results, it was about image. Obama wanted the appearance of success.

a reply to: gortex

Yes, the link does point that out, it also continues:

But Natanz is more of the exception to the rule than the rule itself. For suspected sites where surveillance is not spelled out in the agreement, inspectors may have to wait up to 24 days for access. Some experts say that’s sufficient to detect violations, while others disagree

Let us look elsewhere and see what has been said on the matter, shall we?

International inspections at Iran’s major nuclear sites continue, but Iran does not allow the additional inspections needed to guard against a clandestine effort that would have been possible with a comprehensive nuclear deal.

What If There Is No Iran Nuclear Deal - Defense One

Under the treaty's basic safeguards, inspectors can check only acknowledged nuclear installations. That leaves a dangerously large loophole, permitting construction of illegal, unmonitored facilities. Iran exploited this to build a plant that can turn natural uranium into the highly enriched form used in bombs. Fortunately, the I.A.E.A. learned of the installation before it became operational. That plant, at Natanz, will now be monitored to make sure that no highly enriched uranium is used to make bombs. But Iran may have other secret plants.

Iran's Nuclear Ambitions - NYT

But U.S. lawmakers reviewing the deal ahead of an approval vote have honed in on the IAEA’s role. Some say a window to resolve disputes between Iranian officials and the agency over inspection sites that could stretch as long as 24 days gives Iran too much time to scrub evidence of potential nuclear activity. They also say separate agreements the agency brokered with Iran governing access to military sites and clarifying the program’s past weapons dimensions are crucial to determining if the deal should be approved, yet those documents remain undisclosed.

The concerns came to light Wednesday, when Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., returned from the agency’s Vienna headquarters after failing to access the details of what they termed “secret side deals” between Iran and the IAEA to which they argue Congress should be privvy. While the content of those additional agreements has not been made public, their existence has never been a secret. IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano announced on July 14, the same day the nuclear deal was reached, that the agency and Iran had signed a road map designed to answer questions about Tehran’s past nuclear activities.

...

We can never expect, not just with Iran but any country, the IAEA to again certify a negative. And unless you had millions of inspectors fanning out over a country, combing everything that could possibly be an industrial site – which is far, far out of the realm of the feasible – we can't expect them to do that," Pillar says. "We can expect them to do what they've done with other countries, which is to make sure none of the declared facilities are put to weapons use … and act promptly and with as much expertise as they can muster on any reports or accusations that are brought to them."

Iran, along with any other nation monitored by the IAEA, has the right to reject inspectors of any nationality for any reason. American and Israeli inspectors are not accepted by Tehran.

Monitoring Iran: A Hopeless Task? - US News & World Report

Declared facilities might have been monitored and there was, what, one facility that was going to be watched 24/7, but what about undeclared facilities? From the moment a site is suspected, 24 days can elapse before inspections could be allowed, more than enough time to clear a facility out.

originally posted by: DerBeobachter

This seriously compels me to question, wth are they supporting Iran?

Wth should they any longer support the deal breaking, lying, false flag using, blackmailing, regime changing axis of evil, "U"SA, Israel and Saudi Arabia?

For world peace??????
It`s like you would have supported Germany, Italy and Japan in the second world war, for world peace!

Still carrying the anger over hitlers defeat i see. look the deal was never ratified. Iran never stopped enriching if they can do as they claim. once again declaring peace in our time EU?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: gortex

Please show me any signed deal you can find.

Plenty of footage of the signing that took place at the Geneva Palace of Conventions on March on 23rd Nov 2013 - sorry cant post vids or pics on here but type it into youtube and/or google image search to see the sigantures.

Sorry, there isn't, because it's not signed by anyone from Iran.

The Obama administration has disclosed to Congress that this summer's controversial nuclear arms agreement with Iran was never signed and is not legally binding, according to a new report this week.

The State Department made the disclosures in a letter to Kansas congressman Mike Pompeo, a Republican, who had written the department to inquire why the agreement as submitted to Congress in July did not bear the signature of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

'The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,' Julia Frifield, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs wrote Pompeo last Thursday.

What you saw was a dog and pony show to make it look like it was a legitimate signed document when in fact it is not.

It would be like a landlord bringing in a lease that they signed and you didn't because you never signed any lease. Obama's administration admitted it's not a binding agreement, it's just a hope and a prayer.

But if it wasn't signed by anyone in Iran why did the UN, IAEA, International Community say they signed it, lists them as a signatory. It's an executive agreement under UN/IAEA terms. Pompeo himself refered too it as such just two weeks ago after the Israeli files on Iran were shown and he's been a notorious war hawk on Iran for decades, though Bolton is far worse.

It may be true that the Iranian Pres didn't sign it, but I think it's incredibly far fetched for the deal to be how Friefield claims and Israel, Saudi etc would never mention it and the international community would disagree with the claims. At least one of them is lying or distorting the truth, not sure which one yet.

originally posted by: gortex
under the deal they were monitored without the deal they aren't.

Under the deal Iran chose the location and timing of whatever is going to be inspected, while the inspectors were under heavy inspections from the Iranians, probably so they won't look where they "shouldn't".

The chief inspector of the United Nations nuclear watchdog has just resigned. Wonder why? Trump admin saw through the BS.

The Iran deal did nothing but make sure Iran goes nuclear the same way Israel did - under the radar and with global help.
Not only that, but nobody said a damn thing about their ballistic missile program which they invested in heavily right after the deal.

I cannot possibly believe anyone is that naive to think ANY IAEA inspection can stop a nation from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Lots of supporters of the Iranian regime coming out of the woodwork. At least they are now out in the open and we know who supports terrorism.
It's so nice that they are not hidden anymore.

As for the govt. of Denmark. Who cares?

It is well past time to demand terrorist governments around the world to give up their goals or be forcibly removed.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: gortex

Please show me any signed deal you can find.

Plenty of footage of the signing that took place at the Geneva Palace of Conventions on March on 23rd Nov 2013 - sorry cant post vids or pics on here but type it into youtube and/or google image search to see the sigantures.

Sorry, there isn't, because it's not signed by anyone from Iran.

The Obama administration has disclosed to Congress that this summer's controversial nuclear arms agreement with Iran was never signed and is not legally binding, according to a new report this week.

The State Department made the disclosures in a letter to Kansas congressman Mike Pompeo, a Republican, who had written the department to inquire why the agreement as submitted to Congress in July did not bear the signature of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

'The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,' Julia Frifield, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs wrote Pompeo last Thursday.

What you saw was a dog and pony show to make it look like it was a legitimate signed document when in fact it is not.

It would be like a landlord bringing in a lease that they signed and you didn't because you never signed any lease. Obama's administration admitted it's not a binding agreement, it's just a hope and a prayer.

But if it wasn't signed by anyone in Iran why did the UN, IAEA, International Community say they signed it, lists them as a signatory. It's an executive agreement under UN/IAEA terms. Pompeo himself refered too it as such just two weeks ago after the Israeli files on Iran were shown.

It may be true that the Iranian Pres didn't sign it, but I think it's incredibly far fetched for the deal to be how Friefield claims and Israel, Saudi etc would never mention it and the international community would disagree with the claims. At least one of them is lying or distorting the truth, not sure which one yet.

I am sorry, but are you slow? The "deal" was not signed by either party. If it was a real deal, it would have been voted on in the Senate, so I ask, why didn't the vote go to the Senate? Oh because they didn't have the votes. So you will do what a handful of posters here do. Fake arguments in a circle that just lead back to the original question. We know what you and your ilk are doing. We see right through you

a reply to: BrennanHuff

No I just read the deal and was following it from 2013ish (at the time of the signing I was very dissapointed in the outcome). It's agreed and signed, only the US Trump suppoters claim otherwise. UN, IAEA and the documents prove this is false, or somehow all the rest of the world including is happy to back up Iran.

What does the US senate have to do with the Iranians and G5+1 signing BARJAM?

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: BrennanHuff

What does the US senate have to do with the Iranians and G5+1 signing BARJAM?

We usually go through a process here to ratify agreements. This new to you?

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). ... The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification.

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: BrennanHuff

What does the US senate have to do with the Iranians and G5+1 signing BARJAM?

We usually go through a process here to ratify agreements. This new to you?

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). ... The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification.

No I had to study politics and public admin to get pres creds. The two-thirds approval in the senate applies to Treaties, agreements dont come under this umbrella, though in the interests of the democracy a president should seek it and Obama was wrong not to do so.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: BrennanHuff

What does the US senate have to do with the Iranians and G5+1 signing BARJAM?

We usually go through a process here to ratify agreements. This new to you?

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). ... The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification.

The two-thirds approval in the senate applies to Treaties, agreements dont come under this umbrella, though in the interests of the democracy a president should seek it and Obama was wrong not to do so.

So Obama can act as dictator, and can push usa into "agreements" where there are no actual agreements legally?

I am confused what are you trying to say?

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: BrennanHuff

What does the US senate have to do with the Iranians and G5+1 signing BARJAM?

We usually go through a process here to ratify agreements. This new to you?

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). ... The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification.

The two-thirds approval in the senate applies to Treaties, agreements dont come under this umbrella, though in the interests of the democracy a president should seek it and Obama was wrong not to do so.

So Obama can act as dictator, and can push usa into "agreements" where there are no actual agreements legally?

I am confused what are you trying to say?

That's what he did. He knew he couldn't push through a full blown binding treaty with Iran so watered it down to the point it was relabelled as an agreement to subvert the usual democratic process. It was a terrible deal that had no binding agreements but over the years Iran abided by it, thanks to the Pres being liberal. It needs to be replaced with a proper Treaty before someone like Ahmadinejad gets elected.

As the US has demonstrated any nation, including Iran could legally withdraw from the agreement at any time, it wasn't binding and the onlydpunishment Iran would recieve for doing so is reimposition of sanctions and withdrawal of civillian nuclear support - which aren't exactly sstrong deterrents
t

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: BrennanHuff

What does the US senate have to do with the Iranians and G5+1 signing BARJAM?

We usually go through a process here to ratify agreements. This new to you?

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). ... The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification.

The two-thirds approval in the senate applies to Treaties, agreements dont come under this umbrella, though in the interests of the democracy a president should seek it and Obama was wrong not to do so.

So Obama can act as dictator, and can push usa into "agreements" where there are no actual agreements legally?

I am confused what are you trying to say?

That's what he did. He knew he couldn't push through a full blown binding treaty with Iran so watered it down to the point it was relabelled as an agreement to subvert the usual democratic process. It was a terrible deal that had no binding agreements but over the years Iran abided by it, thanks to the Pres being liberal. It needs to be replaced with a proper Treaty before someone like Ahmadinejad gets elected.

I totally agree with you. Sorry for being an ass...whoooops