Many pieces have been written recently containing incorrect or misleading information about the Iran nuclear agreement. You have to wonder if the authors had not read the full text of the agreement or are just repeating the talking points propagated by the deal’s opponents.

A case in point is the Aug. 11 letter to the editor (“Kerry got bamboozled on Iran nuclear deal”) by Peter A. Longley.

Mr. Longley, in his denunciation of Secretary of State John Kerry, implies that inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities will require a 24-day waiting period. This is far from the truth.

The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared nuclear sites – that means all of the time – including all aspects of the uranium enrichment process. Inspectors will have immediate (24/7) access to these sites.

If an undeclared suspicious site is detected, Iran could grant access to the International Atomic Energy Agency within 24 hours. By requesting further clarification, Iran could delay inspection for as much as three weeks, during which time the site would be closely watched, making it very difficult to hide environmental evidence of covert uranium enrichment.

If violations are then found, Iran would be subject to a “snapback” of the sanctions and condemnation by the world community.

Regarding the side deals, they do not exist. The IAEA does have confidential agreements with all countries (including Iran) that have embraced the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

These agreements (or “secret side deals” referred to by some) are designed to protect the commercial and industrial secrets of individual nations and have nothing to do with the nuclear deal.

Mr. Longley also refers to Iran collecting its own samples for testing by the IAEA. This is simply not true and, like many other claims made by the opponents of this agreement, has no basis in fact.

Richard G. Schmitt

Falmouth