It did not take the Europeans long to approve the Iran nuclear deal. On Monday, less than a week after the deal was finalized, the European Union had already given its blessing. Given the fact that the EU is a massive body consisting of 28 countries that rarely agree on any foreign policy issues, certainly not those of such a magnitude, it is rather noteworthy that they could find such sweet unison over the most infamous political deal since Chamberlain’s deal with Hitler.
”It is a balanced deal that means Iran won’t get an atomic bomb,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said, “It is a major political deal.”
Sure it is.
Especially for the likes of France and Germany, which can barely contain themselves at the prospect of doing business with the Iranian regime. It has been 12 years since the Europeans could legally engage in trade with the genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic and generally murderous regime of the mullahs and they are not wasting any time, now that the opportunity has resurfaced.
In fact, the ink was barely dry on the nuclear deal when German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel — who also happens to be economy and energy minister and is therefore as senior a German official as Germany could get without actually sending Angela Merkel herself — rushed himself and a group of representatives from German companies and industry groups onto a plane for a three-day visit to Iran.
Trying, yet utterly failing, to make the trip appear a little more dignified than the simple naked greed that it represents, the vice chancellor “urged Iran at the start of [the] three-day visit to improve its relationship with Israel if it wanted to establish closer economic ties with Germany and other Western powers,” according to Reuters.
If Germany wanted Iran to take that poor show of accommodating Israeli concerns seriously, it might have tried to contain itself just a little longer to at least see whether the U.S. Congress approves the deal. However, as we all know, time is money and the Germans are well known for being efficient.
Yet, the Germans are far from the only ones lining up for immediate business with the Iranians. Fabius is due to visit Iran next week. “I find it completely normal that after this historic deal was signed, France and Iran should restart normal relations,” Fabius said. Before the sanctions took effect, French companies Peugeot and Renault were making billions of euros from their involvement with the Iranian auto industry. Similarly, French company Total was heavily involved in the oil sector. France is not missing a beat in bringing this lucrative trade back into la République.
The French employers’ federation, MEDEF, is due to visit Iran in September. So is Austria. The EU, which is eager to find alternative suppliers of energy at a time when relations with Russia are rather tense, may reopen an EU delegation in Tehran.
Notice how the European political elites consider it, in the French foreign minister’s words, “completely normal” to do business with a heinous regime like Iran, which breaks every single rule in the book of human rights, the bible from which the Europeans pedantically lecture Israel on every possible occasion. It is ostensibly in the name of those very same human rights that the EU wants to boycott Israeli products in order to avoid choking on an Israeli orange from beyond the Green Line.
Yet these days the streets of Europe are eerily quiet and completely devoid of protests, as the citizens of Europe demonstrably could not care less about the fact that their countries will now once again be trading in a major way with the Iranian regime.
Where is the outrage, as it becomes increasingly clear that the EU, out of commercial considerations for the lucrative trade and oil flowing from such a deal, has supported the agreement with Iran? Where are the boycotts, divestment and sanctions? Where are the flotillas?
What European lawmaker, bureaucrat or ordinary citizen cares at all that women and children, political prisoners and homosexuals are tortured and summarily executed in Iran, when Iranian oil and money will now flow freely into the EU? Is it of any concern to any of the European that Iran is a regime with genocidal intentions toward Israel and cares for nothing but its own survival?
The hypocrisy and the double standards have become so thick and obvious that Hans Christian Andersen’s proverbial emperor is walking stark naked through the streets of Europe. However, should a child appear to point out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes, no one would care to listen.
Secretary-general Amano (left) with AEOI’s Salehi (Image: IAEA)
The technical issues are now being resolved in a political framework. They have set a time frame and, God willing, the issue must be resolved by December 15.”
********************
The PMD (Possible Military Dimensions) issue that includes an investigation of suspicions that Iran previously conducted a military nuclear program, was one of the main stumbling blocks between Iran and the P5+1 group and primarily between Iran and the United States and the EU3. These suspicions are based inter alia on a November 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report that the agency had information on Iran’s performance of activities related to nuclear weapons development until 2003 and that some of these activities were possibly continuing.[1] Iran persistently refused to respond to all the IAEA’s questions and due to its refusal to cooperate fully with the IAEA the UN Security Council passed six anti-Iran resolutions demanding that Iran cooperate immediately with the IAEA on this topic in order to disclose the truth.
On July 14, 2015, the day the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action agreement between Iran and the P5+1 was declared, IAEA Secretary-General Yukio Amano and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran chief Ali Akbar Salehi, one of the lead Iranian negotiator, signed a “roadmap agreement” in which Iran committed to provide the IAEA with clarifications and explanations on the PMD. Amano announced that if Iran would cooperate fully with the IAEA (as opposed to its conduct up to now) he could submit his conclusions by December 15, 2015. Under the agreement the lifting of sanctions enters into effect only following the IAEA report’s submission.
In an interview to the Iranian channel IRIB on July 21, 2015, Salehi disclosed that Iran has reached an understanding with the IAEA regarding the PMD; that now problems are solved on the political level and since political backing exists, the IAEA cannot do whatever it wants as it did in the past when such political backing did not exist. Therefore, the IAEA’s PMD investigation would be most positive for Iran. Salehi explained that the IAEA had to act reasonably otherwise it would be the loser.
Below is the transcript of Salehi’s IRIB interview:
Salehi: “By December 15, at the end of the year, the issue (of the PMD) should be determined. The IAEA will submit its report to the board of governors. It will only submit it. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will continue independently of the results of this report. We have reached understandings with the IAEA. God willing, there will be very positive results. We do not accept the PMD issue, the (suspicions against) Iran’s past (military nuclear) activity. We are resolving this in a political-technical framework, in order to deny them any pretext. Look, if it was decided that the (IAEA) will not be convinced no matter what… As the saying goes: If someone pretends to be asleep, you cannot wake him up. If someone does not want to be convinced, it does not matter how hard you try. You tell him that it is daytime, and he tells you that it’s night. If the IAEA was not meant to be convinced in the regular track, it would never be convinced, regardless of what we did. They presented 18 questions, we answered them (but couldn’t convince them), and there is nothing more that could be done. Now that the technical issues are being resolved on the political level, the pace has picked up. The technical issues are now being resolved in a political framework. They have set a time frame and, God willing, the issue must be resolved by December 15.”
Interviewer: “But considering the IAEA’s bad record regarding…”
Salehi: “In short, they will be the losers. As I have said, the issue has received political backing. The work of (the IAEA) must be reasonable. They cannot do anything unreasonable. When there is no political backing, they do whatever they want, but now there is political backing, and the issue should be resolved, and God willing, it will be.”
State Department spokesman John Kirby repeatedly refused to answer direct questions from MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Wednesday over whether he knew about reported “side deals” between Iran and the nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that would not be subject to scrutiny by Congress or the American public.
“I won’t speak for the IAEA,” Kirby said. “What I can tell you is that all relevant documents to this deal, certainly all those in our possession, have been delivered to Congress. They were delivered over the weekend, and they’ll have access to everything that we have access to.”
The U.N. nuclear watchdog plays the critical role of verification in the agreement by seeking to ensure Iran is not violating it with illicit nuclear activity.
National Review reported on two Republicans issuing a press release that they’d discovered these deals while meeting with IAEA officials in Vienna
Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) issued a press release today on a startling discovery they made during a July 17 meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency officials in Vienna: There are two secret side deals to the nuclear agreement with Iran that will not be shared with other nations, with Congress, or with the U.S. public.
One of these side deals concerns inspection of the Parchin military base, where Iran reportedly has conducted explosive testing related to nuclear-warhead development. The Iranian government has refused to allow the IAEA to visit this site. Over the last several years, Iran has taken steps to clean up evidence of weapons-related activity at Parchin.
The other secret side deal concerns how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran’s nuclear program. In late 2013, Iran agreed to resolve IAEA questions about nuclear weapons-related work in twelve areas. Iran only answered questions in one of these areas and rejected the rest as based on forgeries and fabrications.
Scarborough was unsatisfied with Kirby’s answer and pressed him repeatedly to give a definitive answer to whether the U.S. had knowledge of these details or whether such “side deals” existed at all. The exchange went on:
SCARBOROUGH: But Admiral, does the State Department know of secret side deals between Iran and the IAEA? Do you know of secret side deals between Iran and the IAEA? Does Secretary Kerry know of secret side deals between Iran and the IAEA?
KIRBY: What we know is that the IAEA will be working with Iran to make sure that they have the information and access that they need to be able to verify Iran’s commitments to this deal.
SCARBOROUGH: But that’s not the question I asked. That’s not the question I asked, Admiral. Are you all familiar with side deals between the IAEA as it pertains to Iran’s nuclear program that we don’t know about?
KIRBY: This isn’t about side deals, Joe. This is about making sure the IAEA gets the access they need to verify Iran’s commitments, and they’re going to do that. I can’t speak for the IAEA. What I can do is speak for the State Department, and I can say definitely that every relevant document –
SCARBOROUGH: But you certainly can speak to your knowledge and Secretary Kerry’s knowledge and the State Department’s knowledge and the White House’s knowledge. Do you all have knowledge of these side deals?
KIRBY: We know that the IAEA is going to work with Iran to make sure they get the access they need. How they do that and what manner they do that, I’m going to let them speak to that.
Co-host Mika Brzezinski cut in.
“It sounds like there’s side deals,” she said.
“I’m just trying to get a yes or a no,” Scarborough said.
Kirby looked perturbed at this point.
“I can’t really answer it any better than I did,” he said. “I mean, the IAEA needs to get the access to verify Iran’s compliance and they’ll do that. How they work with Iran on that is really for them to speak to. What I can you tell you though is every relevant document in this deal, and there’s a lot of them, everything has been delivered to Congress, and they’re going to get ample time to speak to Secretary Kerr and Secretary Moniz to answer all their questions.”
Scarborough concluded the exchange by saying Kirby actually could have answered better with a simple yes or no, but he moved on.
President Barack Obama’s strange self-delusion for Iran to become a more “formidable regional power” has already triggered an undeclared new era for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
Despite this established ignominy of an emboldened Iran strengthened by Obama’s naive policies at the expense of Israel and Sunni Arab allies, the White House suggestion that they “sought to pursue diplomacy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon that could set off a nuclear arms race” is based on fantasy.
Whichever way they try to spin it, Obama’s rhetoric that the deal “cut off every pathway to nuclear weapons, prevented a nuclear arms race in the Middle East” doesn’t match reality.
The deal explicitly acknowledges that Iran is gaining benefits no other state would gain under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In terms of its nuclear development, instead of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, that program is now protected.
Such a deal, one that allows a leading state sponsor of terror to retain the ability to develop nuclear weapons, threaten Israel, continue their hegemonic ambitions and support for terrorism is a historic nadir of the Obama presidency.
As Obama’s secret letter to Ayatollah Khamenei makes clear, securing the deal simply legitimizes Tehran, a de facto regional US ally standing on the threshold of a nuclear weapon.
It is a shame that the Obama administration’s total capitulations were made in areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The fake Iran deal does confirm Israeli and Sunni Arab Muslims fears that they can no longer depend on the Obama administration to protect their vital national security interests.
Even worse, Obama had given up on its stated goals of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and his dumb promise to fight a bad deal while underwriting the expansion of Iranian hegemony unquestionably was not just only reckless but cynical.
As it turned out, “détente” with Iran is the main goal of the Obama’s pretend diplomacy. In essence, Obama’s “appeasement” is not diplomacy and his secret back-channel negotiations with the fanatical, corrupt and Machiavellian terrorist regime is treason.
The moment Obama become an advocate for the “Islamic State of Iran” that enjoys the benefits of no real verification regime and no real consequences for serial violations of UN nuclear weapons resolutions, he has lost all credibility to govern our great nation. Similarly, when Obama negotiated away Israel’s existence, he became the real enemy of Israel.
Not surprising, the Obama administration considers both the US and Israel to be key threats to peace in the world. Given that Obama has done all it can to [prevent an Israeli preemptive strike, from leaking Israeli attack scenarios to denying Israel air space over Iraq, the fact that he] coordinated with the Iranian regime –and attempted to cut off weapons shipments to Israel in the midst of its war with Iranian proxy terror group Hamas, his statements about the strength of this deal carry no weight at all.
On the other hand, Obama’s flawed perspective and deception on a grand scale significantly risks the collapse of 50 year US alliance structure in the Middle East, contravenes 70 years of US nonproliferation policy and endangers 45 years of a landmark international treaty (NPT) whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.
Quite unfortunately, the Iran deal set a dangerous precedent that allows rogue states and radical fundamentalist elements in particularly issuing veiled threats to quickly go nuclear. With Iran getting active on the borders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, those regimes would be foolhardy not to attempt to develop a nuclear capacity –especially given that Obama has shown there are no detriments to doing so.
Equally disturbing, Obama has given all the Sunni Arab Gulf countries the pathways to build civilian nuclear energy programs with possible military dimensions.
Ironically, Obama has created a major void allowing an opening for many potential benefits, that it holds for Russia. In the last six months, Russia has struck three significant nuclear deals with long-time US Middle East allies: Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
An unnamed sources told the Al Arabiya TV network that Saudi Arabia and Russia agreed to build 16 nuclear reactors that Russia would play a significant role in operating. France became the first country to sign feasibility studies to build two nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia potentially worth more than $10 billion.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) also noted that “the Arab Gulf states have acquired and are acquiring some of the most advanced and effective weapons in the world.”
One of many unintended outcomes of the nuclear talks is the emergence of covert Saudi and Gulf State alliance with their former archenemy, Israel. The Saudis and the Israelis have had five “secret” meetings to discuss common defense and intelligence issues related to Obama’s policy of strengthening Iran economically while permitting the terror state to become a potential nuclear power with a breakout capacity that is unknowable.
Tehran’s shocking nuclear bravado aside, the Middle East is going to experience another historic moment with the visit of Saudi Prince Talal bin Waleed to Israel in what could be the most significant move toward peace between the Arabs and Israelis since Egypt’s Anwar Sadat’s iconic trip to Israel.
Saudi Prince Talal denounced the growing waves of anti-Semitism in the region and praised Israel as the region’s sole democratic entity. Calling for Muslims in the Middle East “to desist from their absurd hostility toward the Jewish people,” the prince went on to announce that Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has instructed him to open a direct dialogue with Israel’s intellectuals in pursuit of amicable ties with all of Israel’s Arab neighbors.
Amid the despair in the region generated by Obama’s Iran policy, this could be the most promising breakthrough toward peace between Arabs and Israelis.
In arrogantly thinking he alone could decide the future of the Middle East, Obama has unleashed the unintended consequences that frequently shape great events: in this instance for the betterment of all the peoples of the Middle East but ultimately to the detriment of America’s interests.
Now, the moment of decision had finally come, Israelis must accept the risks and unintended consequences of preventive war rather than wait until Iran’s nuclear bombs are built.
Either way, for as long as the highly imperfect Iranian accords have not been ratified or rejected by Congress, a preemptive strike of Iran’s nuclear facilities is not an option.
Unless, Iran’s magical collaboration with the Obama administration ends up restocking its Iranian proxies with sophisticated radars and weapons from Russia, China and the United States, or facing the imminent threat of a nuclear attack- Israel will not hesitate to deploy the “Samson option”.
And as long as the imminent proxy wars in the Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, Gaza or Lebanon remain conventional, Israel’s response would remain reciprocally non-nuclear.
President Obama won’t allow Congress to review two key aspects of the Iranian Nuclear deal, Republican lawmakers learned from international partners last week. Under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the International Atomic Energy Agency would negotiate separately with Iran about the inspection of a facility long-suspected of being used to research long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.
“The Obama administration has failed to make public separate side deals that have been struck for the ‘inspection’ of one of the most important nuclear sites—the Parchin military complex,” said Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) in a statement Tuesday. “Not only does this violate the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, it is asking Congress to agree to a deal that it cannot review.” The IAEA has been trying to gain access to the Parchin site since 2005, but Iran has refused, even as it apparently demolished various parts of the complex. “The hardliners do not want to grant any concessions unless Iran is suitably rewarded,” International Institute for Strategic Studies director Mark Fitzpatrick told the BBC in 2014, after reports emerged of explosions at the base.
The terms of the current agreement wouldn’t allow Congress to review any concessions the IAEA makes to get into the site. “Even members of Congress who are sympathetic to this deal cannot and must not accept a deal we aren’t even aware of,” said Pompeo. The IAEA will also separately negotiate “how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program,” according to a release from Pompeo’s office. Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Pompeo, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, learned of the arrangement while meeting with the IAEA in Vienna, Austria last week. “That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny,” Cotton said in a statement to the press.
The lack of interest of the U.S. and the UN in addressing this issue sends a bad signal to Tehran, one that implies the international community has let its guard down and Iran is free to increase its transgression at its leisure. In particular, the U.S. government is both morally and legally responsible to take action in this regard and prevent another disaster from coming to pass. But on the broader scale, the idleness of the Obama can have dire implications on its own efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear and terrorist venturing.
**********************
The massive giveaways to Iran in the nuclear deal it struck with the P5+1 on July 14 were premised on the false assumption that concessions would render Tehran more docile. U.S. President Barack Obama has spoken on several accounts on how economic regrowth would convince the Iranian regime to shift away from its nuclear and regional ambition and to become a more constructive actor in the region and across the globe. But there are already indications that the mullahs ruling Iran are becoming bolder in their regional venturing and meddling in neighboring countries, with the first signs appearing in Iraq.
According to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, simultaneous with the declaration of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) in Vienna, elements of the Iranian regime in the Iraqi government ratcheted up repressive measures against Camp Liberty, an obsolete U.S. military compound in the adjacency of the Baghdad International Airport which houses thousands of Iranian refugees.
The residents of the camp, members of the Iranian opposition group People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MeK), have been living under harsh, prison-like conditions by the orders of Faleh al-Fayyadh, National Security Advisor to the Iraqi Prime Minister, a holdover from the cabinet of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a staunch ally of the Iranian regime.
While temperatures in Iraq are soaring at around 50 degrees Celsius (122 deg. Fahrenheit), Iraqi security forces are preventing the entrance of vital necessities into the camp, including food, fuel, medical, and logistical supplies. Given the camp’s worn infrastructure and lack of facilities for storage, the blockade is threatening to trigger a humanitarian crisis in the camp as life in the camp will soon come to a halt. It is noteworthy that the forces ostensibly in charge of the camp’s protection are deeply affiliated with the Iranian regime and are responsible for a number of attacks and massacres against the residents.
In 2013, similar measures undertaken by Iraqi forces eventually culminated into the mass-slaughter of 52 of the camp’s residents, an operation carried out by special forces under the strict orders and control of the Iraqi Prime Ministry Office and in coordination with the Iranian embassy in Baghdad. There is grave concern that a similar atrocity will occur if quick action is not taken to prevent further violation of the rights of the residents.
The residents of Camp Liberty have been recognized as “persons of concern” by the UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, and designated as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention by U.S. forces after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and the UN (which happen to be the only bodies that have direct access to the camp aside from the Iraqi government) are effectively sitting out the disaster while it develops and while Iran-backed forces tighten the noose around the camp.
The intensification of persecution of Camp Liberty takes place in the backdrop of increased Iranian influence in Iraq as Tehran moves to strengthen its proxy militia units and expand its influence over Iraqi soil and politics, an endeavor that has driven a wedge through the sectarian divide plaguing the country and has effectively deadlocked the U.S.-led effort to roll back the advances of the Islamic State, an extremist group that has rampaged through Iraq and Syria in the past year. Regrettably, the Obama administration is taking the issue lightly and is giving tacit approval to Iranian meddling in Iraq.
The MeK was the first party to sound the alarm on Iran’s covert nuclear program in 2002 — the focus of a standoff between Tehran and the international community which has lasted to this day — and has since been the source pertinent information regarding secret aspects of Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions. The plots being carried out against the group are a worrying sign of Tehran might be trying to neutralize the opposition in order to pave its way for cheating on the nuclear accord without fear of being exposed.
The lack of interest of the U.S. and the UN in addressing this issue sends a bad signal to Tehran, one that implies the international community has let its guard down and Iran is free to increase its transgression at its leisure. In particular, the U.S. government is both morally and legally responsible to take action in this regard and prevent another disaster from coming to pass. But on the broader scale, the idleness of the Obama can have dire implications on its own efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear and terrorist venturing.
To view Khamenei’s statements on Iran’s regional policy as disturbing is like being disturbed by feeding habits of sharks. What’s disturbing here is the combination of naivety and wishful thinking that led the Obama administration to reach this agreement with Iran.
***********************
Towards the end of the nuclear negotiations with Iran, the mullahs’ negotiators talked about the possibility of cooperating strategically with the U.S. on regional matters, in the event the sides reached a deal. Even “Supreme Leader” Ali Khamenei joined in, declaring that “if the other side avoids its ambiguity in the talks, it’ll be an experience showing it’s possible to negotiate with them on other issues.”
This was an enticing prospect to dangle before Barack Obama. For him, the hope of U.S.-Iran cooperation on “other issues” has always been a major incentive for reaching a deal.
But now that the deal has been reached, the mullahs have changed their tune. Last Friday, Khamenei threw cold water on the idea of cooperating with the U.S., making it clear that Iran will continue to be our deadly adversary. Khamenei stated:
Our policy toward the arrogant U.S. government won’t change at all. We have no negotiations with America about various global and regional issues. We have no negotiations on bilateral issues.
We will always support the oppressed Palestinian nation, Yemen, Syrian government and people, Iraq, and oppressed Bahraini people, and also the honest fighters of Lebanon and Palestine.
Khamenei also reiterated Iran’s support for Hezbollah:
Americans can support the child-killing Zionist government, and call Hezbollah terrorist? How can one interact, negotiate, or come to an agreement with such a policy?
The instinct of the liberal foreign policy establishment in cases like this is to dismiss such talk as being for domestic political consumption. But John Kerry knows the Iranian regime is serious and, fearful of being made to look like an idiot when Iran makes good on Khamenei’s promises, he declined to take the liberal default position.
Instead, though raising the possibility that the statement might not reflect policy, Kerry stated: “I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy.”
It’s encouraging to see Kerry taking what the “Supreme Leader” says at face value. Unfortunately, it’s also late in the day.
Kerry went on to state that if Khamenei’s statement really is Iran’s policy, “it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling.”
It is, to be sure. But Kerry acts like Khamenei’s statement came out of the blue. Absurd!
As noted, Iran forbore to some extent on such pronouncements as the parties to the nuclear negotiations closed in on an agreement. But how could Kerry have believed that this obvious negotiating tactic reflected a change in Iran’s fundamental regional aims?
To view Khamenei’s statements on Iran’s regional policy as disturbing is like being disturbed by feeding habits of sharks. What’s disturbing here is the combination of naivety and wishful thinking that led the Obama administration to reach this agreement with Iran.
Omri Ceren writes to draw attention to Bill Gertz’s Free Beacon article on the ludicrous inspections regime established under the deal with Iran. Omni writes:
Last April – in the immediate days after the Lausanne framework was announced – Obama administration officials assured reporters that it was a good deal because the verification regime would include anytime/anywhere inspections [a][b][c]. Then there was a range of hearings and forums held in early June – which was the lead-up to Vienna – at which IAEA veterans, nuclear experts, and top US intelligence officials confirmed that indeed anytime/anywhere access to suspicious sites was a minimum prerequisite to verifying a deal with Iran [d][e][f][g]).
Then the Vienna talks began and it became clear that the administration would cave to Iranian intransigence on verification. White House validators started trying to convince reporters that technology could be a substitute for robust access [h][i].
Then the talks ended and it was confirmed that Iran will be allowed to block IAEA inspectors for 24 days at a time. The administration is doubling down on the technology talking point and making it mostly about “environmental sampling.” White House communications staffers have begun using the phrase as their two-word answer to any questions about the collapse on inspections. Energy Secretary Moniz repeated it over and over again on last weekend’s Sunday talk shows [j]. White House validators got the hint and have begun invoking it as well yesterday [k]. The argument is that the IAEA’s technology is so good that – even though they have almost a month to destroy evidence – the Iranians could never “sanitize” a site so well that the IAEA couldn’t detect nuclear activity.
There are a couple of reasons why that argument doesn’t hold up.
(1) Diplomatic – Even if the IAEA could detect that *some* kind of nuclear activity had occurred in a sanitized site, the Iranians will have destroyed enough evidence to prevent the agency from determining *what* kind of activity occurred. The goal of verification is not just detection but detection to a sufficient degree that a diplomatic response can be justified. No country is going to be confident enough to blow up the deal without the IAEA being certain that significant cheating had occurred, and being able to explain what it was.
(2) Scientific – It’s just not true. The IAEA’s technology is not good enough. A month isn’t enough time for the Iranians to dismantle a big site like Natanz, but that’s not where they’ll cheat. They’ll cheat in smaller facilities that can be easily dismantled and scrubbed in a couple of weeks. Olli Heinonen – who is the former Deputy Director General of the IAEA, and who worked at the agency for 27 years, and who sat atop its verification shop as head of the Department of Safeguards – explained to reporters today that the Iranians could assemble all the parts they needed for a nuclear bomb in a building that’s just 239 square yards [full article linked above]. And unlike a facility like Natanz, small buildings can in fact be sanitized in 24 days:
Much of this equipment is very easy to move… So you can take it out over the night… and then there is this dispute settlement time which is 24 days – you will use that to sanitize the place, make new floors, new tiles on the wall, paint the ceiling and take out the ventilation… This [nuclear] equipment can be taken out in one or two nights. How long will it take for you to renovate your home? It doesn’t take three weeks… Secretary Kerry has said if there is big installation, 24 days is enough… But there are certain activities where unfortunately in my view, it’s not enough.
This isn’t a theoretical debate. In 2003 the Iranians delayed access to the Kalaye Electric Company for two weeks and completely scrubbed it. They pulled the same trick with the Lashkar Abad laser uranium enrichment plant.
It’s just not true that they can’t dismantle a covert facility in 24 days, and even if it was true they could still dismantle enough to ensure that no country would be confident enough to call them out for cheating.
[H]e has maneuvered the Republican-controlled Congress into a position where they will need a two-thirds majority in both Houses to prevent his unilaterally negotiated agreement from going into effect — just by not calling it a treaty.
If he is that savvy at home, why is he so apparently incompetent abroad? Answering that question may indeed require us to “think the unthinkable,” that we have elected a man for whom America’s best interests are not his top priority.
********************
Distinguished scientist Freeman Dyson has called the 1433 decision of the emperor of China to discontinue his country’s exploration of the outside world the “worst political blunder in the history of civilization.”
The United States seems at this moment about to break the record for the worst political blunder of all time, with its Obama administration deal that will make a nuclear Iran virtually inevitable.
Already the years-long negotiations, with their numerous “deadlines” that have been extended again and again, have reduced the chances that Israel can destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, which have been multiplied and placed in scattered underground sites during the years when all this was going on.
Israel is the only country even likely to try to destroy those facilities, since Iran has explicitly and repeatedly declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
How did we get to this point — and what, if anything, can we do now? Tragically, these are questions that few Americans seem to be asking. We are too preoccupied with our electronic devices, the antics of celebrities and politics as usual.
During the years when we confronted a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, we at least realized that we had to “think the unthinkable,” as intellectual giant Herman Kahn put it. Today it seems almost as if we don’t want to think about it at all.
Our politicians have kicked the can down the road — and it is the biggest, most annihilating explosive can of all, that will be left for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with.
Back in the days of our nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union, some of the more weak-kneed intelligentsia posed the choice as whether we wanted to be “red or dead.” Fortunately, there were others, especially President Ronald Reagan, who saw it differently. He persevered in a course that critics said would lead to nuclear war. But instead it led to the peaceful conclusion of the Cold War.
President Barack Obama has been following opposite policies, and they are likely to lead to opposite results. The choices left after Iran gets nuclear bombs — and intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond Israel — may be worse than being red or dead.
Bad as life was under the communists, it can be worse under nuclear-armed fanatics, who have already demonstrated their willingness to die — and their utter barbarism toward those who fall under their power.
Americans today who say that the only alternative to the Obama administration’s pretense of controlling Iran’s continued movement toward nuclear bombs is war ignore the fact that Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facilities, and Iraq did not declare war. To do so would have risked annihilation.
Early on, that same situation would have faced Iran. But Obama’s years-long negotiations with Iran allowed the Iranian leaders time to multiply, disperse and fortify their nuclear facilities.
The Obama administration’s leaking of Israel’s secret agreement with Azerbaijan to allow Israeli warplanes to refuel there, during attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, was a painfully clear sabotage of any Israeli attempt to destroy those Iranian facilities.
But the media’s usual practice to hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil in the Obama administration buried this news, and allowed Obama to continue to pose as Israel’s friend, just as he continued to assure Americans that, if they liked their doctor they could keep their doctor.
Some commentators have attributed Barack Obama’s many foreign policy disasters to incompetence. But he has been politically savvy enough to repeatedly outmaneuver his opponents in America. For example, the Constitution makes it necessary for the President to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate to make any treaty valid. Yet he has maneuvered the Republican-controlled Congress into a position where they will need a two-thirds majority in both Houses to prevent his unilaterally negotiated agreement from going into effect — just by not calling it a treaty.
If he is that savvy at home, why is he so apparently incompetent abroad? Answering that question may indeed require us to “think the unthinkable,” that we have elected a man for whom America’s best interests are not his top priority.
(The views expressed in this post are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM) Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
The current “deal” is based on a long-standing scam
Part I of this series, published on July 14, 2015, pointed out what should be a glaring consistency in the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” first made available on that date, and the November 24, 2013 Joint Plan of Action: neither provides for any “anytime -anywhere” inspections of Iran’s nuclear weaponization or missile sites. That consistency has been little remarked upon elsewhere.
Secretary Kerry now acknowledges that he never sought such inspections.
Leaving aside the twenty-four day lag between an IAEA request to inspect suspect facilities — which Kerry says is just fine — he claims that we now have a “unique ability” to get the U.N. Security Council to force inspections and reinstate sanctions. However, any effort to do so would almost certainly be vetoed by one or more Security Council members. The permanent members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States — five of the members of P5+1 which approved the “deal.”
“I think this is one of those circumstances where we have all been rhetorical from time to time,” Sherman said in a conference call with Israeli diplomatic reporters. “That phrase, anytime, anywhere, is something that became popular rhetoric, but I think people understood that if the IAEA felt it had to have access, and had a justification for that access, that it would be guaranteed, and that is what happened.” [Emphasis added.]
Speaking to the BBC after the nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers was reached, Kerry said that the more than $100 billion that Iran is set to receive “is going to make all the difference in the world is just – it’s not true.”
Acknowledging Iran is an international player in wreaking terror across the globe, Kerry said, “What Iran has done for years with Hezbollah does not depend on money.” He similarly stated Iran’s support of the Houthi rebels against the government in Yemen has not “depended on money.” [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
In its most recent report, the State Department wrote, “Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Lebanese Hezbollah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran.”
In 2010 alone, State reported “Iran provides roughly $100-$200 million per year in funding to support Hezbollah.”
Secretary Kerry is almost certainly wrong, on that as on other aspects of the “deal.”.
Here’s Megan Kelly’s wrap up.
Iran may reject the “deal.”
There are at least glimmers of hope that Iran may reject the “deal,” unanimously endorsed by the UN Security council today.
A UN Security Council resolution endorsing Iran’s nuclear deal that passed on Monday is unacceptable, the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Mohammed Ali Jafari was quoted as saying by the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.
“Some parts of the draft have clearly crossed the Islamic republic’s red lines, especially in Iran’s military capabilities. We will never accept it,” he was quoted as saying shortly before the resolution was passed in New York. [Emphasis added.]
On Saturday, the Fars News Agency reported that the Majlis threatened to reject the agreement’s provision on ballistic missiles, which call for an international embargo on missile technology to be extended for eight years–a significant, last-minute concession by the U.S.
Iran wants unrestricted ballsitic missile development and access to conventional arms dealers abroad.
“The parliament will reject any limitations on the country’s access to conventional weapons, specially ballistic missiles,” said Tehran MP Seyed Mehdi Hashemi.
. . . .
In addition, the nuclear deal says that the Majlis will ratify the Additional Protocol (AP) to the Non-Proliferation Treaty–but it does not say when.
The AP is the key to long-term monitoring of Iranian nuclear research and development by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Without approval of the AP, Iran may hide key information about its nuclear activity, and may accelerate advanced centrifuge research immediately when the nuclear deal expires, among other hazards. (Even then, its commitments under the AP will be somewhat voluntary.) [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[W]hile the interim agreement of Nov. 2013 provided that Iran would ratify the AP within one year, there is no such deadline in the final Iran deal. The AP is merely to be applied “provisionally,” while the Majlis decides whether to accept it or not.
Meanwhile, if the Obama administration has its way, the U.S. Congress will have no opportunity to amend the deal–and will have to accept the lifting of international sanctions regardless of whether legislators accept or reject the agreement. [Emphasis added.]
Iranian leadership’s opposition to the “deal” appears to have come from Iran’s Supreme leader and the Iranian Parliament has the authority to reject the “deal.”
As expected, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s reaction to the nuclear deal was utterly different from that of President Hassan Rouhani. Right after the agreement was announced on July 14, Rouhani appeared on state television and praised the outcome. Yet when he and other officials visited Khamenei’s home a few hours later, the Supreme Leader did not say anything about the deal apart from a few lines thanking the negotiators. This reticence signaled to hardliners that they should increase their attacks on the agreement. [Emphasis added.]
America’s Supreme Leader, on the other hand, has been pushing vigorously to force the U.S. Congress to approve it, with no way to change it.
The “deal,” and Obama’s foreign policy in general, are rooted in His affinity for Islam
Obama may or may not be a Muslim. However, He thinks very highly of Islam and deems it the “religion of peace.” It would be ironic were Obama’s Iran “deal” to be rejected by Iran.
Obama is the first US president who genuinely conceives of Islam as not inherently opposed to American values or interests.
. . . .
It is through this Islamo-philic prism that the Obama administration’s attitude to, and execution of, its foreign policy must be evaluated – including its otherwise incomprehensible capitulation this week on Iran’s nuclear program. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
The inspection mechanism provided for in the nascent deal make a mockery of Obama’s contention (July 14): “… this deal is not built on trust; it is built on verification,” and, “Because of this deal, inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location… [They] will have access where necessary, when necessary.”
One can hardly imagine a more grossly misleading representation of the deal – so much so that it is difficult not to find it strongly reminiscent of the Muslim tactic of taqiya (the religiously sanctioned deception of non-Muslims). [Emphasis added.]
Indeed, immediately following the announcement of the agreement, Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, made a stunning admission to CNN’s Erin Burnett. Starkly contradicting the president’s contention of “access where necessary, when necessary,” Rhodes conceded, “We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called anytime, anywhere,” which is diametrically opposed to the impression he conveyed in April this year when queried on this issue. [Emphasis added.]
In His capacity as America’s Imam in Chief, Obama has consistently claimed that the “religion of peace” has nothing to do with the Islamic State or with Islamic terrorism (of which he claims there is none) — such as the recent murder of four members of the U.S. Marines and one member of the U.S. Navy — committed in the name of Allah. The Daily Beast has posted some of the terrorist’s writings. They include these statements:
“I would imagine that any sane person would devote their time to mastering the information on the study guide and stay patient with their studies, only giving time for the other things around to keep themselves focused on passing the exam,” Abdulazeez wrote. “They would do this because they know and have been told that they will be rewarded with pleasures that they have never seen.”
This life is that test, he wrote, “designed to separate the inhabitants of Paradise from the inhabitants of Hellfire.”
. . . .
“We ask Allah to make us follow their path,” Abdulazeez wrote. “To give us a complete understanding of the message of Islam, and the strength the live by this knowledge, and to know what role we need to play to establish Islam in the world.” [Emphasis added.]
Obama apparently considers the Islamic Republic of Iran to be Islamic — and therefore peaceful — despite its widespread support for its terrorist proxies. That may explain the credence He gives to Supreme Leader Khamenei’s alleged fatwa preventing Iran from obtaining nukes. Obama and Khamenei have frequently referred to it in support of that proposition, although no text been produced. According to a Washington Post article dated November 27, 2013,
Oddly, the Iranian Web site does not provide the text of the original fatwa — and then mostly cites Western news reports as evidence that Khamenei has reiterated it on several occasions. The fatwa does not appear to be written, but in the Shiite tradition equal weight is given to oral and written opinions.
. . . .
Just about every Alfred Hitchcock thriller had what he called a “MacGuffin” — a plot device that gets the action going but is unimportant to the overall story. The Iranian fatwa thus appears to be a diplomatic MacGuffin — something that gives the Americans a reason to begin to trust the Iranians and the Iranians a reason to make a deal. No one knows how this story will end, but just as in the movies, the fatwa likely will not be critical to the outcome. [Emphasis added.]
Even if one believes the fatwa exists — and will not later be reversed — it clearly appears to have evolved over time. U.S. officials should be careful about saying the fatwa prohibits the development of nuclear weapons, as that is not especially clear anymore. The administration’s statements at this point do not quite rise to the level of earning Pinocchios, but we will keep an eye on this issue. [Emphasis added.]
“Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain,” he said. “And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution. My message to you—the people of Iran—is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek. [Emphasis added.]
“As I have said many times before, I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully, with diplomacy,” Obama said. “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon. [Emphasis added.]
Isn’t that special! Why, in light of the alleged fatwa, does Iranian television broadcast simulations of nuclear attacks on Israel?
A short animated film being aired across Iran, shows the nuclear destruction of Israel and opens with the word ‘Holocaust’ appearing on the screen, underneath which a Star of David is shown, Israel’s Channel 2 reported on Tuesday.
Khamenei’s Death to America rants are considered an excellent reason to have a “deal.”
Similarly, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was fond of saying “God Damn America.”
Obama apparently understood Khamenei’s words, but perhaps He didn’t understand Jeremiah’s words.
Conclusions
Elected on a platform of Hope and Change, Obama has brought us many changes; very few, if any, of those changes provide a basis for hope, at least until He has left office. Some will be difficult, if not impossible, even then to ameliorate. During His remaining time in office, He will continue to do His worst to eliminate any vestigial hope we may have. The “deal” with Iran is only one of the many changes for the worse that He has wrought.
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments