Why it is right to scrutinise Obama's nuclear deal with Iran

The Telegraph ^ | 03/28/2015 | Peter Foster

[Rusty0604]

Those who would even question the merits of this deal are dismissed by administration aides as “warmongers”, ...

Unfortunately, there are plenty of worrying signs that is not what is happening in Lausanne, where it now seems Iran will be allowed to keep 6,000 of its centrifuges, considerably more than the 500-1,500 the US originally wanted, or the 4,000 “compromise” offer Washington made a year ago.

Even more worryingly, the US is reportedly considering allowing Iran to keep some centrifuges at Fordow, the impenetrably hardened underground facility that Iran built in secret, and only admitted to having in 2009 ...

Western officials soothingly say there is no need to get hung up on the details, just focus on the one-year “breakout time” that keeps Tehran at least 12 months away from being able to make a bomb and trust to the inspections ...

Only this week the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed that Iran has replied to just one of the 12 questions UN inspectors want answered about its nuclear past, while an IAEA report last month voiced concerns about “undisclosed nuclear related activities” including the “development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Again, officials close to the talks also say it is “unnecessary and unrealistic” to expect Iran to reveal details of its past illegal nuclear activities,...

Without Iran sharing fully about the past, the real danger is that IAEA inspectors will see only the tip of Tehran’s nuclear iceberg,...

This could turn out to be a game-changing deal for the Middle East, or it could not. But however badly Western publics crave peace, no one should simply accept the word of an eager-to-please British foreign secretary or a legacy-hungry US president with a track-record of poor judgments in the region.

[Secret Agent Man]

Because in America our president does not have the power to enter into secret treaties - at all.

[lee martell]

It’s both right and necessary, because the world leaders already know Obama cannot be taken at his word and fully trusted.

[jonatron]

State Department Won't Promise to Tell Americans Iran Deal Details Before It's 'Signed, Sealed, Delivered'

Jen Psaki smiles and would not promise that Americans would get to see the details of a nuclear deal with Iran before it's "signed, sealed, delivered."

Reminds me of the lack of public debate essential to 'consent of the governed' that characterized the passage of the Affordable Healthcare act and the new FCC Internet regulations.