Which Nuclear Treaty will prove to be worse (POL)?

Poor old DonDiego has noted earlier and with sincere regret that he is not in command of his own investigative reporting staff; he gets his news from news services, like the Associated Press, and news publications, like the New York Post.
That is why poor old DonDiego provides link to his sources.
In this case it appears that the Associated Press has altered its original account of this matter. DonDiego does not hold himself accountable. The interested reader may do as he chooses.

Here is the revised NY Post account: The Nuke Deal’s ‘Honor System’ — Leaving Inspections to Iran, originally reported as news; now cited as editorial.

And an account from Reuters of the original Associated Press account being changed: IAEA Says Report Iran to Inspect Own Military Site is 'Misrepresentation'.

The initial sentence of the original NY Post news story reads:
"A secret side deal to the Iran nuclear agreement allows Tehran to send its own inspectors to investigate a site where it has been accused of developing nuclear weapons, it was ­reported Wednesday."

The revised editorial and the Reuters account of the changes in the AP story leave the issue of inspection at the Parchin military site somewhat unclear.
""I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work," IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano said in an unusually strongly worded statement on Thursday.
Under a roadmap accord Iran reached with the IAEA alongside the July 14 political agreement, the Islamic Republic is required to give the IAEA enough information about its past nuclear program to allow the Vienna-based watchdog to write a report on the issue by year-end.
Iran has long stonewalled an IAEA investigation into the possible military aspects of its past nuclear activities, relating mostly to the period before 2003, saying intelligence spurring the agency's investigation was fabricated.
Iran says its nuclear program has no military dimensions."

As the two articles above, and many others state Parchin has been a primary site of Iran's nuclear development program, apparently including explosives testing related to development of a nuclear bomb.

So it appears that Iran may not be coming clean on its nuclear-weapons related testing at Parchin in past years and that the secret IAEA/Iran "agreements" may, in fact, restrict on-site investigation at Parchin by non-Iranian inspectors based upon the position that Iran's nuclear program is solely applicable to peaceful purposes.

DonDiego suggests that if the actual, really real, honest-to-goodness, now-secret agreements on inspection, . . . and apparently there are several, . . . were simply made public this issue would either disappear or the negotiated agreement would be scuttled. Whichever happened would be the correct path.

DonDiego does not expect this to happen.

Let's see here. The USA facilitates a government, which has vowed to destroy all forms of civilization that is different from their own myopic view of the world, to to use technology to build devices that are capable of fulfilling those vows, and then that government is going to inspect those technological facilities in order to insure that they won't be able to fulfill the vows of that government. What's wrong with the picture? AND, this is okay?

I'm okay with them taking that vow. A little comedy relief is always in order. Go ahead and use facebook to denounce the evils of western society. That makes sense.
Helping those that threaten to kill you is beyond comprehension. Only those with a profound sense of self hatred would enable that kind of insane activity.

Really? We are talking about a country ruled by guys that are still pissed off about who was supposed to lead the faith after Mohammad died. FYI he croaked in 632 almost 1400 years ago. You think it will matter to the mullahs, they will offer another 72 virgins to the idiot that pushes the button.

I'm confused. Chafraho posts this:

"The USA facilitates a government, which has vowed to destroy all forms of civilization that is different from their own myopic view of the world, to to use technology to build devices that are capable of fulfilling those vows, and then that government is going to inspect those technological facilities in order to insure that they won't be able to fulfill the vows of that government."


Who is still on board that we should give this country back their billions of dollars, which amounts to about $25,000 per Iranian citizen? Iran is already negotiating with Russia for a massive military weapons purchase, and the ink isn't even dry.

What benefits does the US get out of this treaty?

Ummmmm, . . . . a brighter future, . . .

The neocon architects of the Iraq war and all of their disciples are clearly against diplomacy.

I'm looking forward to the next general election debate where the Republican candidates promise:
- a quick and easy resolution with Iran revolving around military action
- paying for it with tax cuts

Its like deja vu all over again.

....or the democrats could be re-elected and we could pull our military presence from South Korea, Europe, and America....and funnel the money to Solyndra

I guess the answer to the question is that the US gets nothing out of this treaty. So why sign it?

Umm, . . . because Iran likes it. Iran gets lots of benefits immediately, like $100-billion of frozen assets unfrozen and the embargo on other nations making arms deals with Iran lifted. The Russians have already announced intentions of delivering their most advanced air-defense missiles to Iran; DonDiego will leave figuring out what targets Iran might be most likely to require advanced air defenses to defend as an exercise for the reader.

When historians look back they will recall it as "The Obama Legacy"; of course they will be writing in the language of Farsi, . . . assuming that writing history is still permitted.

n.b.By the way the "nuclear deal with Iran", is technically not a treaty. The following conversation from a House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2015 explains why:
__Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wisc.) : "For 228 years the Constitution provided a way out of that mess [involving the Congress directly in treaty negotiations] by allowing treaties to be [negotiated by the Administrative Branch but] with the advice and consent of 67 U.S. Senators. Why is this [Iran deal] not considered a treaty?”
__Secretary of State John Kerry: "Well Congressman, I spent quite a few years ago trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate. And frankly, it’s become physically impossible. That’s why.”

A "treaty" requires 67 Senators to approve it.
The Congress can declare the Iran Nuclear Deal "illegal" by passing a Law by a majority vote. But if the President vetoes such legislation, the Congress would have to override the veto to block the deal; i.e. a 2/3rds majority in both the House and Senate would be required to disapprove the Iran Nuclear Deal.

So ,it is not a treaty because the President could not get a treaty approved.