Re: "It's not even partisan - it simply repeats information from the linked sources."
Yeah, right... Your repeat information from highly biased sources (such as Trump's impeachment defense lawyer--Dershowitz) to form a downright silly narrative.
Just from the high-level outline of your "question": you state there are thousands of man-hours of IAEA inspections performed in Iran, but then conclude (using the incorrect information from one of those highly biased sources) that the only verification mechanism is Iran's "self-certification".
FYI, Dershowitz has been repeatedly saying for over a decade that the real solution would be for Israel to bomb the Iranian sites. You'll probably also want to read this story on Dershowitz' claims on Iraq. I'll quote this part I find funny (which also happens to touch on rhetorical questions):
we get to the point of the article, which lies in the final sentence:
“The real question is, would it be worse to err on the side of action that turns out to be unnecessary, or of inaction that exposes us to preventable devastation?”
Camouflaged as a question (albeit a near-rhetorical one), this final statement of the problem offers us a choice between two risks: the risk of finding our action to have been unnecessary, and the risk of devastation. Unnecessary action, or devastation. Devastation, or unnecessary action. You choose. But hurry!