The Bipartisan Letter That Toughened The Agreement

++The New York Times has an article very well worth reading about the nuclear deal and how a letter by a bipartisan group of experts on nuclear matters made the thing better.

++The importance of the article was in the specifity of the improvements. The group in the letter complained about the nature of the inspection regime. The result is that the IAEA will double again its presence in Tehran from 50 to 150 people who will use the surveillance equipment of their choosing. This is unique because the country being monitored usually gets to choose the method of surveillance which has become cumbersome and slow in other cases.

++The group commented that the likelihood the agreement will be observed by Iran is that the deal lays out its requirements in such detail that it is very difficult not to adhere to it. They were astonished at the access to the nuclear sites and the provision to even inspect military sites suspected on working on nuclear matters. The latter is important because for some reason American politicians believe it is natural for foreign militaries to simply allow investigators to casually show up at a site and be allowed entrance. Col. Wilkinson blasted this idea yesterday. 

++A few of the signatories commented that this was a far better agreement than they thought possible and that its inspection regime is so far more invasive than any other arms agreements they have worked on.

++Their assessment is a far cry from the Times of Israel's blast about the verification and the lifting of sanctions.

++On sanctions,it should be remembered that the UK's Cameron told the United States at the end of May that sanctions had "reached a high water mark" and were not sustainable because the European countries had paid a terrible price for adhering to the agreement.