There is a difference between the way that amateurs talk
about inspecting nuclear sites, and the way that professionals do. It is sad –
very sad – to see that the professionals are serious people who come mostly from
the Eurasian Continent whereas the amateurs are clowns that come mostly from
the Anglophile world.
The only bright spot in all of this is that the White House
is putting out adult-like explanations telling audiences what's in the
inspection regime it has negotiated with Iran as a member of (P5+1) team. The
disheartening thing is that an increasing number of clowns in America are
coming forward and doing the disservice of noise-polluting the airwaves as well
as the pages of the print media, with useless verbiage on the subject, not
knowing what they are talking about.
Again, you could count on the editors of the Wall Street
Journal to gather the most laughable arguments and build around them a case
that can only make you smile derisively. You can see a sample of that in the
editorial they wrote under the title: “The Iranian Inspections Mirage” and the
subtitle: “Tehran
will have much time and many loopholes to exploit.” It was published in the
Journal on July 22, 2015.
Using a version of the newly discovered and already tiring
technique of attacking the White House with a tool you might call “here's is
what they said then and here's what they say now,” the editors begin their
dissertation by listing what they say were the claims made then by President Obama.
However, because they could not find something he says now that would
contradict those claims, they went on to reveal that: “A closer look tells a
different story”.
To do that, the editors point to the sayings of “experts
[that] have long insisted needs to be a condition of any agreement.” But
looking over the entire editorial to see where they might have found such
experts, you find them quoting one member of the Iraq inspection team who said
very little that's useful, and you find them refer to the troupe of clowns who
call themselves Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Here is the passage in which they refer to the former Iraq inspector:
“There is a lot the regime can do [to hide material] in a
few hours, let alone days, Charles Dueffer, the former Iraq weapons inspector,
told us last week. 'So this allows room for Iran to maneuver and potentially
hide much of what it is doing regarding weapons design or component testing.'”
Note that the editors do not say what exactly the expert was
referring to when he said “this allows.” Note also that he said “potentially
hide.” And note that he spoke only of weapons design or components testing. The
reality is that in this kind of inspections, the thing that matters most is the
degree to which uranium was enriched. And given that the half-life of this
material is measured in the hundreds of thousands of years, the Iranians are
not going to hide it in 24 days.
Because the agreement gives “Access to Iran 's entire
nuclear supply chain,” such material – if not discovered by inspecting the
sites – will be deduced by the discrepancies detected along the supply chain.
As to the weapons design, it has been pointed out repeatedly that there is
enough information on the internet to help even a high school student design
such weapon on a computer in his room without the parents knowing about it.
Speaking of components testing, the one thing that matters
is the performance of capacitors determining in nanoseconds the simultaneity
with which the nuclear mass is hit on all sides. This can be tested in a
one-room machine shop equipped with a high performing oscilloscope the size of
a computer monitor. If that's how these people wish to catch the Iranians
cheat, they might as well chase a wild goose.
Anything else that's said with regard to the inspection
regime is useless talk. But perhaps what disturbs the folks at the Foundation
for Defense of Democracies – beside the fact that they are naturally disturbed
– is the absence of the things that were allowed in Iraq ,
and are not in Iran .
Stories surfaced then about Jewish influenced so-called
inspectors who amused themselves by “attacking” the kitchen refrigerators where
they poked sharp objects into jars of marmalade and bars of butter to see if
Saddam was hiding WMDs in those items.
It may be that this is so important to these people, they
called on the Anglophile Congress of the United States to “locate, inspect
and then broadcast those holes [in the inspection regime] to educate the
public.”