Friday, October 20th | 30 Tishri 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
July 22, 2015 11:41 am

Report: Iran Could Stall IAEA Inspectors More Than 78 Days Under Nuclear Deal

avatar by Algemeiner Staff

Email a copy of "Report: Iran Could Stall IAEA Inspectors More Than 78 Days Under Nuclear Deal" to a friend
IAEA Vienna Headquarters.  Photo: Wiki Commons.

IAEA Vienna Headquarters. Photo: Wiki Commons.

Tehran could use the provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal — to stall inspectors at key nuclear sites for months, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

“A close examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more,” said the report.

The issue pertains to provisions in the plan of action meant to settle International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors’ concerns over “undeclared nuclear material or activities.” Essentially, IAEA inspectors provide Iran with their concerns and request clarification, which Iran must address. If Iran does not adequately address the concerns, then nuclear monitors can request access.

This process does not have a set time limit, allowing Iran to drag its feet, for example questioning the source of inspectors’ intelligence that led to their concerns.

Related coverage

October 19, 2017 10:16 am
0

Kurds Flee Homes in Northern Iraq as Iraqi Forces Take Control

Thousands of Kurdish civilians fled their homes in northern Iraq on Wednesday, fearing harassment by government forces and Shiite militias who...

Then the 24-day period in which Iran and nuclear inspectors must resolve concerns or face action by the Joint Commission — comprising the United Kingdom, Untied States, Russia, China, France, Germany and the EU — will commence.

If this fails, then perhaps a country can bring a dispute to the Joint Commission, which will have 15 days to resolve the issue, at which point parties can request 15 days for their foreign ministers to act, or 15 days to request a nonbinding opinion from an advisory board. So this stage could take 30-45 days.

Therefore, Iran could have up to 78 days to stall on providing access to its sites, which many say is clearly more than enough time for Iran to scrub down any possible violations. This is in addition to “three potentially lengthy periods that Iran can stretch out: One of ‘explanations’ before the clock starts, one to agree on necessary means and ‘resolve concerns,’ and one for advisory-board selection near the end,” according to the WSJ report.

This is a far cry from the “anytime, anywhere” access first promised by the White House, though Secretary of State John Kerry denied that option was ever on the table.

 

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Paul

    If Israel lays down its arms there is no more Isreal. I the Arabs lay down their arms, there is peace

  • JohnWV

    “While we’re at it, how about a Citizens for a Nuclear Free Israel effort as well? No need for nukes anywhere in that part of the world. If they give up their nukes, I’m sure the Iranians will as well.” (GKSanDiego in The Hill 7/17/2015)

    • Michael

      If you believe that, I have a fine piece of real estate to sell you. It’s got a great view and utilities are free…

    • Erwin

      Stay being ignorant.

  • I am just an ordinary man but there was no doubt in my mind that the Iranians are cheaters ona gross scale and that Obama wasnt aware of it of course he was He is the most cunny pres the US ever had and the world is going to pay a big prize with a lot of human sacrifices.

  • Julian Clovelley

    It is commonly known that Israel commenced nuclear weapons research sometime around 1957 and first produced a nuclear weapon in about 1966, possibly earlier

    Under the policy of “opacity” in such matters, Israel has NEVER allowed inspection of any kind of its weapons and nuclear program

    This article complains about seventy eight days in relation to Iran.

    Withe Israel it has been fifty-eight years….

    I’d change the subject

    • Lynne T

      Hardly comparable, Julian. Israel has been under existential attack by armies on all of its land borders and beyond. Iran hasn’t, and they keep pretending that they need to enrich uranium for “civilian purposes”.

      You should change yourself, permanently.

    • Mickey Oberman

      Israel has never threatened to annihilate any country nor any people.

      As far as what is “commonly known”.
      Rubbish. It may be what some would guess at and like to believe
      but a competent, unbiased, honest authority has yet to voice any
      provable evidence.

      • Julian Clovelley

        On the contrary Mickey the evidence is overwhelming – and as you quite well know Draconian Punishment is likely for any insider that speaks about the details of the Israeli nuclear arsenal

        The corner stone of Israeli defence policy is the unique possession of weapons of mass destruction in the region – and note I am not even claiming that to be a bad policy. It is the dishonesty however that offends me, and thousands of other people. I do not see it as being any more inherently “immoral” for Iran to possess nuclear weapons – much as I prefer that they didn’t – than for a Right Wing Israeli Government that uses them to defend its Occupied of illegally settled territory, to possess them. Both need to moderate their attitudes and cultures(sic)

        To the outsider there is little particularly moral about the Israeli stance when it steps beyond the provisions of the original Partition agreed by the United Nations. In fact it is seen as imperialist, why wouldn’t it be? It is distressing to find Israel – the area’s only pseudo(sic) democracy – heading away from the moral high ground, and further into a political culture based predominantly on a ridiculous religious fantasy and a ludicrous genetic and genealogical claim – for neither of which there is a shred of evidence. The United Nations Partition Resolution rather optimistically assumed the people involved would grow up as they grew older. Its real aim was to solve an immediate problem and postpone the long term one to a time of greater maturity, that sadly has not eventuated on any side – in part because of America’s own retreat into Fundamentalism and Biblical literalism

        The only safe path for the Middle East is rapid secularisation, modernisation, reconciliation, education and a moving away from mythology, as the dysfunctional core of the human psyche. Small wonder so many Jewish people follow the example of Christians and throw their hands in the air and walk away from all of it, as members of my own family, and numerous Australian families did, over a century ago

    • GWS

      Let’s see, when has Israel threatened to wipe a country off the map? When has Israel shouted Death to ****? Never? Then there is no moral equivalency. Go back to bed.

    • June Grant

      Julian, there is still some ambiguity about Israel’s bomb, but unlike the Iranians, the Israelis have not threatened other members of the UN with death and destruction. It is therefore unrealistic to complain about Israel being silent about its Nuclear programme, even though you believe it really does exist. I’d like to think it does too if only to give our enemies pause.

    • cymbalak

      While it may be true that Israel has nuclear weapons, if they do have it, they never threatened another country with using it against them.How about this Clovelly

    • Kris Kristian

      Julian Clovelly.
      Rubbish.

      Israel has never threatened any country to “wipe them off the face of the earth”
      Iran has threatened Israel and USA.
      Israel wants and needs peace, but the Mullahs and the Muslims and the Arabs want to destroy Israel. They are afraid of Israel because theyregard Israel as a threat to their global expansion
      They knoow that if it comes to saving Israel from destruction of the Jewish state, Iran will be the first to go

  • Scott

    Obama and Kerry are professional serial liars. What did we excpect?

  • steven L

    There is a secret IAEA-Iran deal. What about a secret Obama-Khamenei deal?

    • Ali

      Yes, it exists!

      Iran will help Obama prevent the 2016 election so he can remain president for life.

  • steven L

    Doesn’t matter what Iran does, the six will keep quiet.

  • brenrod

    looks like obama kerry took everyone for a ride

    • Mickey Oberman

      How much resistance did “everyone” but up against this travesty?

      • Julian Clovelley

        And your policy, Mickey, is what?

        Look at the map. A military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would probably be the end of Israel. The only viable policy is one in which co-operation and contact are used to assuage anger

        The attacks on the Administrations Iran Nuclear Policy are really only a disguised push to put a Republican Administration in the White House that winds back the progress towards universal public health care and possible progress towards gun control. The whole pro Republican nonsense is about American domestic policy and nothing more

        Nothing is likely to change with a Republican Administration in the Middle East policy. The one thing that would bring Americans out on the streets would be another war on the scale of Vietnam, with young people dying in their tens of thousands. It would also be the one thing that would make America’s allies – including Australia – tear up defence treaties at the demand of an enraged populace, that has no intention of sending a new generation overseas, to die in a conscript war.

        You see, Micke,y – in all your outrage you have nothing to offer as a practical alternative policy. You seek in an earlier post to deny the reality that Israel has a nuclear weapons facility, so your whole opinion is based on a lie- you remove from the discussion the crucial dynamic – that the Arab territories do see Israel as a genuine imperialist threat – and have an Occupation to prove it

        Israel would be far better putting defensive arguments from within its own territory – including the promise to negotiate the status of Jerusalem, once peace has existed stably for a long period

        The Republican Jewish fantasy is total delusion – in fact a Republican president would likely firm the Arab and Iranian stance against Israel, and make the situation even more dangerous. Knowing this – in the very last days of a Presidential campaign the Republican candidate would retract his middle east stance, and say that “he will continue the previous administrations policy – ‘for the time being’ – pending strategic re-assessment”

        Wise up…

Algemeiner.com