By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following recent military actions, President Trump stated that Iran must allow international inspections to verify its nuclear program, and that the United States is open to talks next week. However, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi has indicated that the possibility of new negotiations is complicated by the recent American attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, which caused “serious damage”. The U.S. and Israel have both claimed to have severely damaged Iran’s nuclear capabilities, though the extent of the damage and the future of inspections remains uncertain. Iran has yet to decide whether to allow IAEA inspectors to assess the damage.
Read the original article here
Trump says Iran must open itself to inspection to verify it doesn’t restart its nuclear program. It’s interesting, isn’t it? Because the core concept here is about verifying that Iran isn’t secretly developing nuclear weapons. The idea is to have a system in place where international inspectors can go in and make sure everything is on the up and up, preventing Iran from building a bomb. The key here is “verify,” which underlines the fundamental need for trust and transparency in international relations.
They were already doing this. Back in the Obama administration, there were actually an unprecedented number of inspections by international nuclear inspectors. Surprise spot visits, everything was monitored. The policy was “don’t trust and verify” and it was working.
The irony is thick, isn’t it? It’s like, what was in place before? A deal, a treaty – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – that had those very safeguards built in. This agreement, facilitated by the Obama administration, allowed for inspections and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear facilities to ensure compliance with international standards. The original agreement included procedures for verification and inspection to provide assurance that Iran wasn’t developing nuclear weapons.
Here’s where it gets complicated. Trump’s administration pulled the US out of that deal. Why? Well, a lot of it seemed to boil down to the fact that it was an Obama-era policy, and that’s just not acceptable to the GOP. They were more interested in undoing anything that Obama did, even if it was working and even if it had broad international support. Now, after dismantling the very framework that provided for inspections, Trump is saying Iran needs to open up for inspections. The question is, why would Iran trust the US to uphold any agreement after this experience?
Consider the timing too. The US, under Trump, first tore up the existing agreement and then, in some cases, bombed Iran, even before any negotiations. Now, he’s essentially asking for the same kind of verification that was already in place. It is very hard to imagine Iran being eager to play ball.
It’s not hard to see how this could play out. It really makes you wonder if the intention all along was to create a situation that makes it more difficult for Iran to be forthcoming. This is why the initial reaction from Iran to Trump’s demands is probably, “No thanks.” They have plenty of reasons to doubt the sincerity of such demands.
The whole situation is a bit of a mess. It’s almost like he’s admitting Obama was correct, wanting the same thing, but after completely undermining the tools that could make it happen. The inconsistency, the lack of trust, and the past actions of the US really do undermine any credibility.
It’s hard not to see the potential consequences of this approach. If the US is now asking Iran to do something it previously rejected, and Iran, feeling distrustful and antagonized, then it’s hard to see how this situation leads to anything productive. The situation risks Iran accelerating its nuclear program or seeking to conceal it, leading to a potential arms race or worse. This is what makes the demand for inspections so tricky.
The entire situation underscores how easily the US can undermine its own diplomatic efforts and damage relationships with other nations. This whole thing has a “you broke it, you fix it” feeling to it. The problem isn’t just the immediate situation; it’s the long-term consequences of eroding trust and consistency.