Iran apparently faces little U.S. pressure to fully recount its nuclear past amid a global push to rein in its current efforts, the New York Times reports.
Obama insiders said Iran would never offer a look at many of its sensitive facilities in a possible package deal to assure other countries that it is not seeking a nuclear-arms capacity, the newspaper reported on Tuesday. Negotiators from Washington and five other capitals want to restrict the nation’s bomb-usable nuclear activities under terms they hope to finalize with Tehran by July 20, when an interim accord with the Persian Gulf power is schedule to expire.
Still, no potential agreement would reveal Iran’s level of expertise on matters that could help it to assemble a nuclear bomb if it decided to do so, according to the Times. A lack of full transparency would leave U.S. intelligence officials with the task of ensuring that Iran does not secretly pursue nuclear arms, despite their mixed historical success in conducting such oversight.
A top U.N. nuclear watchdog official added that it is “not possible to find out everything” about Iran’s past nuclear activities, including possible elements geared toward weapons development.
“Some documents have disappeared,” International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Yukiya Amano told the newspaper last week. “Some people have already died. In some cases, Iran does not give us access.”
He added that his organization has “not yet made a specific request” to interview Mohsen Fahkrizadeh, the possible leader of nuclear-arms efforts in Iran.
In Washington, lawmakers on Tuesday aired worries about “the enormous challenge of monitoring and verifying any potential final agreement with Iran,” as House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) put it.
In a classified meeting, panel members “noted that the onus is on Iran to prove that it has not engaged in a covert weapons program,” Royce said in prepared comments.
- 1 Why George W. Bush Won’t Go to the GOP Convention
- 2 Democrats Plan to Pound Trump Before He’s Nominated
- 3 Schools in Poor Areas Have More Students with Mental Health Needs
- 4 Is Trump Rich Enough to Fund a General-Election Campaign?
- 5 The 1 Easy Way Donald Trump Could Have Been Even Richer: Doing Nothing
What We're Following See More »
Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."
In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin gives Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the longread treatment. The scourge of corrupt New York pols, bad actors on Wall Street, and New York gang members, Bharara learned at the foot of Chuck Schumer, the famously limelight-hogging senator whom he served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. No surprise then, that after President Obama appointed him, Bharara "brought a media-friendly approach to what has historically been a closed and guarded institution. In professional background, Bharara resembles his predecessors; in style, he’s very different. His personality reflects his dual life in New York’s political and legal firmament. A longtime prosecutor, he sometimes acts like a budding pol; his rhetoric leans more toward the wisecrack than toward the jeremiad. He expresses himself in the orderly paragraphs of a former high-school debater, but with deft comic timing and a gift for shtick."
President Obama has announced another round of commutations of prison sentences. Most of the 58 individuals named are incarcerated for possessions with intent to distribute controlled substances. The prisoners will be released between later this year and 2018.
The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"