One of the problems with having a compliant, subservient media is that the public gets reassured far too easily about things that don't really call for such reassurance. The focus of the media's coverage on the Iran nuclear deal has been that it's "historic" and that it prevents Iran from getting nuclear weapons - in large part because of the ability of the U.S. and its allies to inspect Iran's nuclear sites.
Obama says it, the media repeats it, you think that's how the deal works. Anyone in the media could get access to the deal and read it, but most don't. There's stuff to do, deadlines to meet, people not clapping enthusiastically enough for Caitlyn Jenner. Hey, what do you expect from them?
Well. Hillel Fradkin and Lewis Libby (remember him?) actually read the full text of the agreement, and in today's
Wall Street Journal they explain that the reality of how the inspections would work is a far cry from the way Obama tries to pass it off:
Opportunities for delay abound. Iran will presumably want to know what prompted the IAEA’s concern. The suspect site identified by the IAEA is likely to be remote, and Iran will no doubt say that it must gather skilled people and equipment to responsibly allay IAEA concerns. Iran may offer explanations in stages, seeking IAEA clarifications before “completing” its response. That could take a while.
Only if Iran’s “explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns” may the IAEA then “request access” to the suspect site. Oddly, the agreement doesn’t specify who judges whether the explanations resolve concerns. If Iran claims that it has a say in the matter, the process may stall here. Assuming Iran grants that the IAEA can be the judge, might Iran claim that the “great Satan” improperly influenced IAEA conclusions? Let’s assume that Tehran won’t do that.
Now the IAEA must provide written reasons for the request and “make available relevant information.” Let’s assume that even though the IAEA may resist revealing the secret sources or technical means that prompted its suspicions, Iran acknowledges that a proper request has been supplied.
Only then do the supposed 24 days begin to run. First, Iran may propose, and the IAEA must consider, alternative means of resolving concerns. This may take 14 days. Absent satisfactory “arrangements,” a new period begins.
During this period Iran, “in consultation with” the Joint Commission, will “resolve” the IAEA concerns “through necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA.” The Joint Commission includes China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K, the U.S., the European Union and, of course, Iran. Not exactly a wieldy bunch.
The Iranians will likely claim that “consultation” with the Joint Commission doesn’t bind Tehran, just as the U.S. president isn’t bound by consultations with Congress. The agreement says the consultation process will not exceed seven days, but Iran can point out that the nuclear deal doesn’t specify when Iran and the IAEA must reach agreement and “resolve” IAEA concerns.
In the absence of Iran-IAEA agreement, a majority of the Joint Commission has seven days to “advise” on the “necessary means” to resolve the matter. Iran may fairly argue that the commission’s right to “advise” is not the same as a right to “determine” the “necessary means.” Lastly, the agreement provides that “Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.” But what “necessary means” are these? As noted, the agreement refers to “necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA.” So these additional three days don’t even begin until an agreement is reached.
While all this is going on, of course, the Iranians can be moving equipment to other sites and dressing up the sites in question to look like they are not what everyone knows they are. When Obama talks about "snapback sanctions" the implication is that the now-lifted sanctions go back in place the second Iran cheats. In reality, the mere process of trying to determine if Iran is cheating is extremely cumbersome, and the likelihood of everyone involved agreeing to reimpose the sanctions is extremely low. You do that, you've just admitted that your "historic" deal was a big failure. Do you really see all these nations agreeing to take this step over an alleged violation that they can't even verify because the process of getting in and having a look is as complicated as the deal makes it?
Remember this, too. Much of the substance of the soon-to-be-lifted sanctions concerns the freezing of Iranian assets. Once they're unfrozen, the Iranians take that money and do whatever they want with it. Do you really think they're going to put it in a position where the international community could freeze it again, even if it had the will to do so?
This is like the coverage of ObamaCare insofar as the media largely accepted claims Obama made about how the law would work in practice. Why, it will expand coverage. It will reduce premiums. It will "bend the cost curve down." When people pointed out that these things were very unlikely to happen that way in practice, or that other complications would surely result, the response of the media was to shrug and say, hey, none of what you're talking about is in the bill.
Because what a document says is supposed to happen and what will actually happen are usually two different things, and people with brains in their heads have to apply some critical thought to the likely real-life implications of measures politicians take. That wasn't done with ObamaCare, and it wasn't done with this Iran deal either. People are starting to figure out that Iran can't be trusted, especially when
our own government admits they're probably going to use their newfound wealth to fund terrorism.
But if people would apply a critical eye to some of these things once in awhile, we might have a clue before we let our leaders make idiotic deals like this. Then again, if we had a clue we wouldn't have elected such idiotic leaders in the first place.
You realize, of course, there's zero chance that Congress kills this deal because all you need is one-third of either house (not both) to back the deal and an Obama veto is sustained. That's because Mitch McConnell caved on the proposition that this should have been submitted to the Senate as a treaty, thus clearing the way for Obama to basically operate under his own authority in making a deal putting nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue, terrorist regime.
In case anyone cares anymore about the Constitution, which I don't think many do.
