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.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."