7 ms·

Iran agreed to provide "Managed access". Iraq inspections all over again.

by hodwik 11y ago

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
Source? I've seen the opposite, that the IAEA and others will have unfettered access wherever they want, otherwise the sanctions come back into effect immediately.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- hodwik 11y ago
  https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dZJjpUMZsAEdLYME80B5lNtLhJv1M&q=%22managed+access%22+iran&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQqgIwAGoVChMI-cCE3MzaxgIVio8NCh0cqQF6 https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dZJjpUMZsAEdLYME80B5l...
EliRivers 11y ago
If there's one thing we learned from the invasion of Iraq, it's that access for inspections doesn't matter. Iraq complied, the UN reports all indicated that there were no WMDs, the people who wanted to invade just made up some nonsense bullshit anyway. Hans Blix, Jan 2003: "...access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect... cooperated rather well". Iran just watched a neighbour get invaded and seriously screwed over for basically no reason. Access for inspections is irrelevant.
- hodwik 11y ago
  Access most certainly matters, we wouldn't have made that mistake with Iraq had we had reliable access. If you recall, one of the "smoking guns" that the administration used to move into Iraq were intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi Republican Guard members. Those conversations mentioned "hiding" something before the inspectors got to a site. Since Iraq (like Iran) was allowed a few days before any visit, it was believed at the time that they were shifting materials whenever the inspectors came. I recall even liberal media organizations poking fun at the inspectors -- about how they were playing a game of chase with the Iraqis. Remember this graphic, much shown in the media? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_UN_Iraq_presentation%2C_alleged_Mobile_Production_Facilities.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_U... Had no such rule been in place, they could have moved that day to inspect the site, and would have realized there was nothing to be found. Hans Blix also said, in December 2012, (from wikipedia:) that the Iraqi weapons declaration filed on December 7 "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts. So the US was not alone in that position. and Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. (These are not a WMD, and Iraq is permitted "battlefield" missiles. However, Iraq's missiles were limited by UN instruction to a diameter of 600mm, and the Al-Samoud II has a diameter of 760mm). These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said
  - user_0001 11y ago
    Not forgetting the US uncessingly trying to undermine the weapon inspections to their own end, according to Blix [1] Before Blix was sent in, again the cover of "International" weapons inspection (note, not US inspections) were subverted by the US spying and constant attempts to discredit the results if they were wrong (wrong as in not the US version of events) [2] [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2966639.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2966639.stm [2] http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/07/world/us-spied-on-iraq-under-un-cover-officials-now-say.html http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/07/world/us-spied-on-iraq-und...
    - hodwik 11y ago
      [1] Blix didn't say the US "uncessingly" tried to undermine the inspectors. He said that he believed there had been a single leak from someone in the US Government about Blix's failure to report two weapons, and was unable to say who did it -- "Also disturbing, he said, was the question of who was responsible for the falsification." [2] Spy agencies spy. That is to be expected.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    It's messier even than that. Iraq didn't have WMDs, but they wanted their neighbors to think that they did. But they wanted the inspectors to think that they didn't. So they couldn't have the inspections be unambiguously clear that Iraq had nothing, because then Iraq's neighbors wouldn't fear Iraq as much. So they tried to play this game of doubt, and the US reached the conclusion that Iraq wanted its neighbors to reach.
  - EliRivers 11y ago
    Remember this graphic, much shown in the media? The bullshit made up nonsense about mobile WMD factories? Yes. I recall that the thinking was that there were entire convoys of these driving around in deserts somewhere. They had to exist, right, because that explains why we can't find the WMDs. The decision had been made. Access was irrelevant because the invasion was going to happen anyway. Any number of "smoking guns" could have been found, or just plain fabricated as necessary.
- rhino369 11y ago
  It's more complicated than that. Iraq stopped cooperating with UN inspectors in 1998. And from 1998 til 2003 there was no access for inspections. The US thought resuming inspections were a ploy to avoid the war, which was already in late stages of planning.
smileysteve 11y ago
> Iraq inspections all over again. The big difference being that Iraq had started a war (violated UN rules) and so was bound to the treaty while Iran has not violated UN rules and "volunteers" to this treaty.

Iran agreed to provide "Managed access". Iraq inspections all over again.

by hodwik 11y ago

Iran agreed to provide "Managed access". Iraq inspections all over again.

Source? I've seen the opposite, that the IAEA and others will have unfettered access wherever they want, otherwise the sanctions come back into effect immediately.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
hodwik 11y ago
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dZJjpUMZsAEdLYME80B5lNtLhJv1M&q=%22managed+access%22+iran&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQqgIwAGoVChMI-cCE3MzaxgIVio8NCh0cqQF6 https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dZJjpUMZsAEdLYME80B5l...

EliRivers 11y ago

If there's one thing we learned from the invasion of Iraq, it's that access for inspections doesn't matter. Iraq complied, the UN reports all indicated that there were no WMDs, the people who wanted to invade just made up some nonsense bullshit anyway. Hans Blix, Jan 2003: "...access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect... cooperated rather well". Iran just watched a neighbour get invaded and seriously screwed over for basically no reason. Access for inspections is irrelevant.

hodwik 11y ago
Access most certainly matters, we wouldn't have made that mistake with Iraq had we had reliable access. If you recall, one of the "smoking guns" that the administration used to move into Iraq were intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi Republican Guard members. Those conversations mentioned "hiding" something before the inspectors got to a site. Since Iraq (like Iran) was allowed a few days before any visit, it was believed at the time that they were shifting materials whenever the inspectors came. I recall even liberal media organizations poking fun at the inspectors -- about how they were playing a game of chase with the Iraqis. Remember this graphic, much shown in the media? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_UN_Iraq_presentation%2C_alleged_Mobile_Production_Facilities.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_U... Had no such rule been in place, they could have moved that day to inspect the site, and would have realized there was nothing to be found. Hans Blix also said, in December 2012, (from wikipedia:) that the Iraqi weapons declaration filed on December 7 "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts. So the US was not alone in that position. and Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. (These are not a WMD, and Iraq is permitted "battlefield" missiles. However, Iraq's missiles were limited by UN instruction to a diameter of 600mm, and the Al-Samoud II has a diameter of 760mm). These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said
- user_0001 11y ago
  Not forgetting the US uncessingly trying to undermine the weapon inspections to their own end, according to Blix [1] Before Blix was sent in, again the cover of "International" weapons inspection (note, not US inspections) were subverted by the US spying and constant attempts to discredit the results if they were wrong (wrong as in not the US version of events) [2] [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2966639.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2966639.stm [2] http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/07/world/us-spied-on-iraq-under-un-cover-officials-now-say.html http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/07/world/us-spied-on-iraq-und...
  - hodwik 11y ago
    [1] Blix didn't say the US "uncessingly" tried to undermine the inspectors. He said that he believed there had been a single leak from someone in the US Government about Blix's failure to report two weapons, and was unable to say who did it -- "Also disturbing, he said, was the question of who was responsible for the falsification." [2] Spy agencies spy. That is to be expected.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  It's messier even than that. Iraq didn't have WMDs, but they wanted their neighbors to think that they did. But they wanted the inspectors to think that they didn't. So they couldn't have the inspections be unambiguously clear that Iraq had nothing, because then Iraq's neighbors wouldn't fear Iraq as much. So they tried to play this game of doubt, and the US reached the conclusion that Iraq wanted its neighbors to reach.
- EliRivers 11y ago
  Remember this graphic, much shown in the media? The bullshit made up nonsense about mobile WMD factories? Yes. I recall that the thinking was that there were entire convoys of these driving around in deserts somewhere. They had to exist, right, because that explains why we can't find the WMDs. The decision had been made. Access was irrelevant because the invasion was going to happen anyway. Any number of "smoking guns" could have been found, or just plain fabricated as necessary.
rhino369 11y ago
It's more complicated than that. Iraq stopped cooperating with UN inspectors in 1998. And from 1998 til 2003 there was no access for inspections. The US thought resuming inspections were a ploy to avoid the war, which was already in late stages of planning.

smileysteve 11y ago

> Iraq inspections all over again. The big difference being that Iraq had started a war (violated UN rules) and so was bound to the treaty while Iran has not violated UN rules and "volunteers" to this treaty.