As I suggested in a previous post, if we think it's important to try to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and think it's our place to do so, then I would prefer a more threatening (and unilateral, as it would have to be) approach. Something like... Sign this agreement which basically says you're gonna let us do whatever we want whenever we want for as long as we want in order to verify that you aren't doing any of the things, related to nuclear materials and activity, that we don't want you to be doing. Hopefully we don't need to paint a picture for you to understand what the OR ELSE might look like, but if we do then ask and we'll do so.
Something like that would of course never happen. Whether it makes sense or not, or whether it would be too dangerous to do or not, we wouldn't have the stomach to do it. I'm realistic about that, so I don't offer that up as a plausible scenario.
As for what I'd have wanted to see in this deal, staying within the realm of realistic expectations, for starters that would be something much closer to anytime, anywhere inspection authority for the IAEA. Making some allowances for reasonableness, maybe a requirement that Iran allow the IAEA access to any undisclosed site as soon as reasonably possible but no later than 24 hours after a request is made. If for some reason the Iranians thought they shouldn't have to grant access to a particular site, e.g., because doing so might reveal sensitive military stuff, or if the Iranians otherwise failed to grant access within 24 hours, the matter would go to the Joint Commission. (I think I'd also want to alter the makeup of the Joint Commission and/or the voting requirements for it to require access or order that other things be done.) Then the Joint Commission would decide whether access had to be granted or not, say within 24 hours, and the Iranians would have no more than 12 more hours to comply.
I'd also want a process whereby the Joint Commission could make a determination that Iran had intentionally stalled in granting access without good reason to do so (with some possible good reasons spelled out, such as the sensitive military stuff I referred to). If such a determination was made, Iran would then lose the ability to stall in the future by pushing the matter to the Joint Commission, it would instead be required to grant access as soon possible after it was requested whether it wanted to or not. Maybe the maximum window would close some. Of if they failed to comply with the as soon as possible requirement, the Joint Commission would have the authority to set a much shorter time window. I'd also want the IAEA to have some authority to monitor a site it had concerns about even before it was granted access to it, to possibly be able to observe activities meant to cover up undisclosed activity.
The time periods might not be exactly what I've suggested, but 3 plus weeks of stall ability is too much - way too much. At most Iran should get a few days, and only that to the extent it has been acting in good faith. There should be provisions that allow the Joint Commission (or some other deciding body) to alter the rules, to limit Iran's stall ability, if it is determined that they'd acted in bad faith.
