Reddit reviews Iran's Nuclear Program and International Law: From Confrontation to Accord
We found 2 Reddit comments about Iran's Nuclear Program and International Law: From Confrontation to Accord. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Uh oh, someone is pretending to be an international arms control lawyer on reddit and doesn't know who he's talking to.
>ocol. Iran's Safeguards Agreement from 1974 included a provision in Article 73 that allows the IAEA to inspect any site if they believe Iran's explanations and information furnished does not meet the standards of honesty and accuracy required
Ummm please stop making up total BS and acting like you know what you're talking about when you quite obviously do not.
This is not at all the case and you have nothing to back such a bs claim.
Allow me to educate you a bit.
https://www.amazon.com/Irans-Nuclear-Program-International-Confrontation/dp/0199377898
The NPT and the IAEA are two separate things. The IAEA is not a nuclear weapons police force in charge of finding hidden nuclear weapons programs, it is just another international organization in charge of promoting nuclear power by setting stadnards etc.
The NPT requires signatories to maintain safeguards with the IAEA (the one Iran signed in 1974 was the standard as that signed by other countries) and under the terms of this safeguards agreement you cited -- had you actually read it and understood it you'd see this -- the role of the IAEA is
EXCLUSIVELY to measure the amount of nuclear material and compare it to the countries declarations to ensure that there has been no diversion of nuclear material to non-peaceful uses which the IAEA has certified to be the case in every single IAEA report on Iran, ever.
So I suggest you educate yourself before spouting total nonsense
http://lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/index.htm
Iran supports Hezbollah, a legitimate Lebanese political party that won massive support in parliamentary elections there
Iran backed Nelson Mandela when the US had labeled him a terrorist and while Israel was trying to sell nukes to tthe racist apartheid regime in S Africa, so what's your point?
And ps there's no distinction between "private financiers" and the Saudi officials when it comes to state money there.
As for BS claims that Iran backed the Taliban or militias in Iraq
>"There were parts coming from Iran, there was parts also coming from other countries" said Brig.-Gen. Guy Laroche. "I cannot say from what I see on the ground that Iran is behind that." http://www.ctvnews.ca/top-general-says-no-evidence-iran-behind-ieds-1.269717
Even US Sec Def Gates said he didn't have proof implicating Irans' govt in arming the Taliban
>"We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it is smuggling, or exactly what is behind it." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSFLE35878420070604
British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577.html
Top US General: No Evidence Iran Arming Iraqis http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17129144/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-general-no-evidence-iran-arming-iraqis/
Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq Arms link http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/23/world/fg-iraniraq23/2
The US even refused Iranian cooperation over Al Qaeda
>Iranian diplomats made clear at the time they were looking for broader cooperation with the United States, but the Bush administration was not interested ... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-gave-us-help-on-al-qaeda-after-9-11/
Iran even offered to give BinLadin's son to the US but the Bush admin refused
>http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913323,00.html
>Ummm please stop making up total BS and acting like you know what you're talking about when you quite obviously do not.
Reality: All claims have been sourced.
>Allow me to educate you a bit.
>https://www.amazon.com/Irans-Nuclear-Program-International-Confrontation/dp/0199377898
Reality: Linking books from one international lawyer's opinions does not constitute a specific response to any claim made.
>The NPT and the IAEA are two separate things. The IAEA is not a nuclear weapons police force in charge of finding hidden nuclear weapons programs, it is just another international organization in charge of promoting nuclear power by setting stadnards etc.
Reality: True, and uncontested in any post.
>The NPT requires signatories to maintain safeguards with the IAEA (the one Iran signed in 1974 was the standard as that signed by other countries)
Reality: True, and uncontested.
>had you actually read it and understood it you'd see this -- the role of the IAEA is
>EXCLUSIVELY to measure the amount of nuclear material and compare it to the countries declarations to ensure that there has been no diversion of nuclear material to non-peaceful uses
Reality: True, and uncontested. The original claim made was that military sites must be opened for inspection on suspicion of violation of safeguards even under the NPT, making Iranian refusal of any grounds for inspection appear threatening to Saudi Arabia, rightly or wrongly.
>which the IAEA has certified to be the case in every single IAEA report on Iran, ever.
Reality: Misleading, at best.
Reality: A 2011 IAEA report noted that the IAEA can verify non-diversion of declared material, but due to Iranian non-cooperation, cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran (p. 10). The IAEA therefore said it could not verify that Iran's program was "entirely peaceful". This is contrary to the goal of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement concluded with Iran, which states in Article 1:
>The Agency shall have the right and the obligation to ensure that safeguards will be applied, in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement, on all source or special fissionable material in all
peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of Iran, under its jurisdiction or carried out under its
control anywhere, for the exclusive purpose of verifying that such material is not diverted to nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Reality: The IAEA could not undertake this function because Iranian noncompliance made it impossible to have "credible assurance" of Iranian use of nuclear material solely for peaceful purposes.
>So I suggest you educate yourself before spouting total nonsense
Reality: All claims are sourced.
>http://lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/index.htm
Reality: Does not contest any point directly. Unclear response.
>Iran supports Hezbollah, a legitimate Lebanese political party that won massive support in parliamentary elections there
Reality: Hezbollah won 2 additional seats. Hezbollah's allies made significant gains, but are not Iranian-backed groups with military presence. Hezbollah retains 13 seats in a 128 seat Parliament.
Reality: Hezbollah's political clout does not change its terrorist status. The group remains a terrorist organization in the eyes of the liberal world. Hezbollah continues to plan and organize attacks targeting civilians for political purposes.
>Iran backed Nelson Mandela when the US had labeled him a terrorist
Reality: Source required.
>and while Israel was trying to sell nukes to tthe racist apartheid regime in S Africa, so what's your point?
Reality: This has been contested heavily, but the only allegations relate to allegations of an Israeli offer of sale in March 1975. This would be prior to the Iranian Revolution, and therefore could not physically be during the time you claim that Iran was backing Nelson Mandela, unless you are referring to the Shah backing Mandela.
>And ps there's no distinction between "private financiers" and the Saudi officials when it comes to state money there.
Reality: False. The Saudi government has, in the past, cracked down on private financiers. It has not done this regularly, but there is a separation that has turned towards crackdowns in recent years, despite prior ambivalence or tacit support.
>"There were parts coming from Iran, there was parts also coming from other countries" said Brig.-Gen. Guy Laroche. "I cannot say from what I see on the ground that Iran is behind that." http://www.ctvnews.ca/top-general-says-no-evidence-iran-behind-ieds-1.269717
Reality: Article is from 2008. This is highly misleading. Afghan officials do not allege mere arms transfers. US intelligence does not allege mere arms transfers, but also funding. RAND think-tank reports describe this in further detail historically.
Reality: Article quotes NATO refusal to name Iran as source of IED materials. NATO's head in 2016 explicitly named Iran as a funding source for the Taliban. Your information is outdated.
>"We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it is smuggling, or exactly what is behind it." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSFLE35878420070604
Reality: Incorporate above response. Also note article date of June 2007. US SecDef Gates said less than two weeks later that intelligence did tie Iran's government to the shipments.
Reality: US SecDef Gates reiterated that Iran was supporting the Taliban in 2010 under President Obama.
Reality: You are misrepresenting the information presented with misleading and outdated sources.
>British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577.html
Reality: Article is also from October 2006. Please incorporate above responses.
Reality: In 2008, British special forces uncovered evidence of Iran funding the Taliban.
Reality: In 2007, the British Army reported Iran supplies of missiles to the Taliban for use on British troops.
Reality: In 2011, British forces seized shipments of Iranian weapons bound for the Taliban.
Reality: You distorted and misled once more.
>Top US General: No Evidence Iran Arming Iraqis http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17129144/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-general-no-evidence-iran-arming-iraqis/
Reality: Note article date of February 2007. Incorporate above sources.
Reality: Note article relates to arms to Iraqis, not Taliban.
Reality: In April 2007, two months after your article, Gen. Peter Pace stated that Iran was sending weapons to Iraq.
>Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq Arms link http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/23/world/fg-iraniraq23/2
Reality: Note article date is January 2007. Incorporate above points, which thoroughly rebut argument.
>The US even refused Iranian cooperation over Al Qaeda
Reality: True, but uncontested and unrelated to above points.
>Iran even offered to give BinLadin's son to the US but the Bush admin refused
Reality: True, but uncontested, and unrelated. Bin Laden's fourth son, a middling operative, was not a high-value target as well.
Reality: Your own sources have all stated Iran funded, aided, and abetted Taliban and Iraqi militia actions. The 9/11 Commission Report and Bin Laden files confirm that Iran has assisted Al Qaeda. Iran has assisted Hezbollah. Iran has assisted Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. Iran has at times not complied with IAEA Safeguards Agreements credibly, and is required under these agreements to open military sites for inspection upon suspicion per former deputy director-general of the IAEA Olli Heinonen and the Agreements and the IAEA Board of Governors, but refuses to open any military sites for any reason. This has, for good reason or not, led to fear by the Saudis, who have thus withdrawn their support for the JCPOA.