5 Comments

  1. donald November 16, 2014 @ 11:44 pm

    < a href = “http://shop.artistfish.ru/?p=14&lol= hookworm@dogmatism.woe“>.< / a >…

    áëàãîäàðñòâóþ….

  2. Evan November 19, 2014 @ 7:53 pm

    < a href = “http://eu.mp3flight.ru/?p=31&lol= brownish@disengage.despondency“>.< / a >…

    good….

  3. dave November 22, 2014 @ 11:31 am

    < a href = “http://ho.albumdom.ru/?p=12&lol= finland@asleep.chapters“>.< / a >…

    áëàãîäàðåí!…

  4. Gerald February 11, 2015 @ 7:30 am

    < a href = “http://org.oldiesmusic.ru/?p=46&lol= filtering@stairway.operators“>.< / a >…

    thanks!…

  5. Hubert February 11, 2015 @ 8:07 am

    < a href = “http://list.songbit.ru/?p=21&lol= vow@angling.fervently“>.< / a >…

    hello!…

The Devil is in the Details

Uncategorized Comments (5)

Former Iraq UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter untangles some of the mess:

Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama’s dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The “rules” Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the “additional protocol”) to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.

This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the “additional protocol” has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.

In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.

While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow”, he is technically and legally wrong.

Read the whole article at the Guardian.

Irancove @ September 29, 2009

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.