It's really time to stop listening to the spin, and to first view the actual document. It's only four pages long, and will take you about that many minutes to understand.
The chief question is not the quality of the terms (they are actually pretty good), but the quality of the inspection regime to be carried out by the IAEA. It is pretty robust for a six-month interim agreement, and the IAEA (whether we like to admit it or not) has a pretty good track record of either conducting inspections or announcing publicly that it was unable to do so.
It is also a potential road to peace rather than war, which I know bothers a lot of people.
For those who worry that tomorrow Iranian nukes will begin raining down on Israel, let's recall that it took Pakistan 26 years to develop nuclear weapons, and that our "friends" the Saudis have a simpler regime for acquiring them--they simply intend to buy them.
Given past history I'd argue that real Saudi purchased nukes are just as big a threat to Israel and world stability than imagined Iranian bombs. But that's just me.
1 comment:
"...those who worry that tomorrow Iranian nukes will begin raining down on Israel..." are curiously silent about the fact that Israel has been "raining down" death on the Palestinians for over 6 decades.
The IAEA's has a "pretty good track record of ... conducting inspections" in states signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, such as Iran. But Israel is not such a state, so Dimona is off-limits to the IAEA.
Post a Comment