Archive for the ‘Iran scam’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Iranian Hezbollah Organization Issues Threats Of Physical Harm Against Former Iranian Presidents Rafsanjani And Khatami, Calls On President Rohani To Cancel JCPOA

May 3, 2016

Iranian Hezbollah Organization Issues Threats Of Physical Harm Against Former Iranian Presidents Rafsanjani And Khatami, Calls On President Rohani To Cancel JCPOA, MEMRI, May 3, 2016

“Mr. President, you bear responsibility for every martyr whose blood has been spilled. If you look at all the breaches of promise and disruptions by ‘the Great Satan,’ America, and declare firmly that you are cancelling the JCPOA because of America’s violations [of it], history will never forget your heroic and revolutionary move; the heart of the Imam Mahdi will also rejoice because of you.

**************************

In an April 12, 2016 interview, Mahdi Abdi, the director of affairs for the northwestern provinces and towns for the coordination council of the fundamentalist organization Hezbollah Iran, which is affiliated with Iran’s ideological circles, warned leaders of Iran’s pragmatic camp, including Expediency Council chairman and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani and former president Mohammad Khatami, not to undermine the status of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The interview was published by the organization’s Hezbollah Press website.

Echoing Khamenei’s accusations of treason against Rafsanjani,[1] Abdi accused both Rafsanjani and Khatami of treason, and threatened them with physical harm. He also demanded that they stop calling for the release of the 2009 Green Protest leaders – former Majlis speaker Mehdi Karroubi and former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as well as Mousavi’s wife – who have been under house arrest since 2011.

Reminding Iranian President Hassan Rohani of what happened to Iranian officials who criticized Iran’s Islamic Revolution and the path of its founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Abdi warned him to neither trust the U.S. nor follow it, or to face the consequences. He also called on him to cancel the JCPOA.

The following are the main points of the interview. It should be noted that following its publication, the piece was removed from the website.

“This Is Hezbollah’s Final Warning To Hashemi [Rafsanjani] And The Grey Fox, [Former President] Mohammad Khatami, And To Anyone Who Even Thinks About Marginalizing The Imam Khamenei”

“The heart of [Iranian] Hezbollah is bleeding because of the tremendous disloyalty and the great treason of the unwise and two-faced [pragmatic camp leaders Rafsanjani and Rohani]. Imam Khamenei need not feel alone today because certain individuals who are betraying Islam and the Revolution are daring to boast and to express opinions in society, while others dare to speak about an end to the arrest of the hated leaders of the ‘2009 fitna’ [Mousavi and Karroubi]. [These traitors are] publishing [such statements] freely online and talking about it, and [expecting] the security apparatuses to remain silent.

“The hated leaders of the ‘fitna’ should thank God that they are under arrest. Otherwise, Hezbollah would not have given them a chance to breathe. This is Hezbollah’s final warning to Hashemi [Rafsanjani] and the grey fox, [former president] Mohammad Khatami, and to anyone who even thinks about marginalizing the Imam Khamenei, trampling the principles and foundations of the Islamic Revolution, and seeking to present the plan for a leadership council [as Rafsanjani recently proposed as a replacement for the position of Supreme Leader] in order to weaken the Rule of the Jurisprudent.

“If they are thinking of sparking more ‘fitna’ in Iran, Hezbollah will activate its popular punishment units, the ones called The Martyrs For the Revolution and Islam, and, once and for all, blind the eyes of the ‘fitna.'”

To President Rohani: “Hezbollah Obeys The Orders Of The Imam Khamenei And Will Never Allow These Things, Which Contradict Islam, To Be Carried Out In Iran”

“Mr. President [Rohani], many times the Koran called on Muslims to learn from history. We look at history today and see what became of those who trusted foreigners, especially those who trusted the bloodthirsty ‘Great Satan’ America. They all suffered harm, and ultimately ended up regretting having trusted America.

“If Islamic Iran wishes today to receive aid from the ‘arrogant nations,’ chiefly America, it must turn its back on the civilization of Islam and on the descendants of [Imam] Ali [that is, the Shi’ites] and must melt into their false civilization, must deny jihad, must abandon the oneness of God, and must enable them [i.e. the ‘arrogant nations’] to boycott Iran, using the human rights [issue] as an excuse. Or, much like the backwards Arab countries, [Iran] must hand over its interests and its oil in favor of the interests of the arrogance and of America, must back down from the explicit Koranic commandment about supporting the oppressed, and must form a friendly alliance with the occupying Israel.

“All the above contradict the original, noble civilization of Mohammad’s Islam. Hezbollah obeys the orders of the Imam Khamenei, and will never allow these things, which contradict Islam, to be carried out in Iran – because all the days are [the days of] Ashura [the Shi’ite days of mourning for the Imam Hossein who died in the Battle of Karbala in 680] and all the lands are [the lands of] Karbala – unless we lose our minds. Hezbollah will never forget all of this.

“Mr. President, tomorrow history will judge, and coming generations will ask: ‘Has the nation achieved anything from pouring concrete into the heart of Iran’s science [i.e. into the heavy water reactor in Arak, as required under the JCPOA]? Why do the officials still trust foreigners, although they repeatedly break their promises?’

“Mr. President, you bear responsibility for every martyr whose blood has been spilled. If you look at all the breaches of promise and disruptions by ‘the Great Satan,’ America, and declare firmly that you are cancelling the JCPOA because of America’s violations [of it], history will never forget your heroic and revolutionary move; the heart of the Imam Mahdi will also rejoice because of you.

“In the Islamic Republic [of Iran], the president, in his various terms of office, is legitimate so long as he truly believes, in thought and in action, in the rule of the jurisprudent. We must learn from history – from the fate of people such as [president Abolhassan] Bani Sadr [deposed in 1981] and [Ayatollah Hossein Ali] Montazeri [designated heir of Ayatollah Khomeini, who spent the latter years of his life under house arrest until his death in 2009], who trampled the line of [the rule of the jurisprudent], and were shamed and humiliated.”

Abdi concluded the interview by referring to a tweet by Rafsanjani about the current era as “an age of talks and not missiles”[2] and said: “It is enough to respond to Rafsanjani with a single word, and to say that had the Islamic State [ISIS] entered Iran and captured your daughter, you would have known the value of Iran’s missile and defense industry, and of the heroic deeds of the brave men of the IRGC.”

 

Endnotes:

 

[1] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6373, Power Struggle Between Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei’s Ideological Camp And Rafsanjani’s Pragmatic Camp Intensifies – Part III: Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Speaks Out Against Pragmatic Camp Leaders Rafsanjani, Rohani, April 5, 2016.

[2] MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 6373, Power Struggle Between Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei’s Ideological Camp And Rafsanjani’s Pragmatic Camp Intensifies – Part III: Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Speaks Out Against Pragmatic Camp Leaders Rafsanjani, Rohani, April 5, 2016.

 

Categories: Hezbollah, Iran scam, JCPOA, Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Rouhani
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Admin Withholding Details of ‘Potentially Illegal’ Deal to Buy Iranian Nuke Materials

April 27, 2016

Obama Admin Withholding Details of ‘Potentially Illegal’ Deal to Buy Iranian Nuke Materials, Washington Free Beacon, , April 27, 2016

"part
Part of Arak heavy water nuclear facilities is seen, near the central city of Arak, 150 miles southwest of the capital Tehran / AP

Officials from both the Treasury and Energy departments told the Free Beacon that details about the payment are being withheld until the purchase is complete. Iran is expected to deliver the heavy water to the United States in the “coming weeks,” officials confirmed.

**********************************

Obama administration officials are declining to provide specific details about an unprecedented upcoming purchase of Iranian nuclear materials, an $8.6 million exchange that is likely to be funded using American taxpayer dollars, according to conversations with multiple administration officials and sources in Congress.

The administration is preparing to purchase from Iran 32 tons of heavy water, a key nuclear material, in a bid to keep Iran in compliance with last summer’s comprehensive nuclear agreement.

But administration officials have declined to provide specific details to Congress and reporters about how exactly it will pay for the purchase, as well as other information, until the deal has been completed.

The effort to withhold key information about the purchase, which is likely to be paid in some form using U.S. taxpayer dollars, is causing frustration on Capitol Hill, according to multiple sources who disclosed to the Washington Free Beacon that the administration is rebuffing congressional attempts to discern further information about the deal.

Experts further disclosed to the Free Beacon that the exchange is likely to legitimize Iran’s research into plutonium, knowledge that would provide the Islamic Republic with a secondary pathway to a nuclear weapon capability.

Officials from both the Treasury and Energy departments told the Free Beacon that details about the payment are being withheld until the purchase is complete. Iran is expected to deliver the heavy water to the United States in the “coming weeks,” officials confirmed.

“We cannot discuss details of the payment until after the purchase is complete,” a Treasury Department official who was not authorized to speak on record told the Free Beacon. “The Department of Energy’s Isotope Program plans to pay Iran approximately $8.6 million dollars for 32 metric tons of heavy water.”

The administration will use an offshore third party to facilitate the transfer of cash to Iran, according to officials in both the Treasury and Energy departments.

“Regardless of whether or not this is in U.S. dollars, this licensed transaction is limited in scope. This routing through third-country financial institutions is similar to the mechanism that has been used for years to allow other authorized transactions—such as for exports of food and medicine—between the United States and Iran,” the treasury official said, referencing a loophole in U.S. sanctions that permits transactions of a humanitarian nature.

An Energy Department official confirmed that officials “cannot discuss details of the payment until after the purchase is complete.”

The exchange is being handled by the Energy Department’s Isotope Program, which routinely conducts transactions of this nature, according to the official.

“DOE’s Isotope Program produces and distributes a variety of isotopes that are in short supply for industrial and medical purposes,” an Energy Department official told the Free Beacon. “Transactions like this one are regular business for the program.”

Iran’s excess heavy water “will help to fulfill a substantial portion of U.S. domestic market demand this year,” according to the official, who said that “over the past few years, there have often been constrained supplies of heavy water.”

The administration further “expects to resell the purchased heavy water at commercially reasonable prices to domestic commercial and research buyers, including Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Spallation Neutron Source, where it would be used to increase the efficiency of the facility,” the source said.

Congressional critics of the arrangement accuse the administration of using this sale as part of a larger plan to help Iran gain access to the American financial system and U.S. dollar.

“Subsidizing Iran’s production of heavy water is a dangerous move,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) told the Free Beacon. “It stimulates Iran’s nuclear industry, opens the door to the use of U.S. dollars to facilitate Iranian trade and illicit financing, and provides U.S. tax dollars to the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism.”

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz “is aware of these dangers, which is why he stressed that this is a one-time purchase,” said Cotton, the author of a new amendment that would block the administration from engaging in similar purchases with Iran in the future. “I want to hold him and President Obama to that vow, particularly in light of the many promises broken and redlines erased by this administration in the course of negotiating the Iran deal.”

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), a member of the House intelligence committee, accused the administration of funding Iran’s nuclear pursuits in contradiction of last summer’s agreement aimed at winding down Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

“The Obama administration’s deal with the Mullahs in Tehran to purchase heavy water demonstrates a disturbing, potentially illegal, willingness of the administration to subsidize Iran’s nuclear program,” Pompeo told the Free Beacon. “This purchase allows the Iranians to offload previously unsellable product and it destigmatizes the act of doing business in Iran.”

Pompeo said it is irresponsible to pursue this deal without first providing lawmakers detailed information about whether Iran will directly receive taxpayer dollars.

“This purchase is being made without explanation as to how Iran will receive these funds or what steps the administration is taking to prevent what will almost certainly be U.S. taxpayer dollars from possibly being used to support terrorist activities, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, or Iran’s ballistic missile program,” Pompeo said. “Of course, the reality is that once that money is in the hands of the Ayatollah, there is no way to prevent the funds from being diverted toward any of those purposes—a fact that seems to concern no one at the White House.”

A larger debate has been taking place in Washington over Iranian and European demands that the United States grant Iran access to dollars, a move the administration has publicly opposed and promised Congress would not take place.

However, sources indicate that the heavy water exchange could be the first sign that the administration is caving on this promise.

 Mark Dubowitz, head of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy’s Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance, told theFree Beacon that Iran is producing excess nuclear material in order to wring more cash from the nuclear deal.

“Iran has created a clever scheme—produce too much heavy water so as to break the nuclear agreement, then get the Obama administration and eventually U.S. companies to pay Tehran using the U.S. dollar to get rid of it,” Dubowitz explained. “These U.S. subsidies will help Tehran perfect its heavy water production skills so it will be fully prepared to develop its plutonium bomb-making capabilities when restrictions on the program sunset over the next 10-15 years.”

“This scheme also will open the door to further dollarized transactions as the administration green-lights the greenback for a regime with a decades-long rap sheet of financial crimes,” he added.

A senior congressional source familiar with the trade disclosed that administration officials are declining to disclose key details about the deal.

“The administration is being coy about how the financial mechanics of this deal will work,” the source told the Free Beacon. “But the bottom line is that U.S. taxpayer dollars will be used, and used for a purchase directly connected to Iran’s nuclear program. This is an attempt by the administration to slowly open a door that leads to the wide acceptance of Iran’s nuclear industry and to the use of U.S. dollars by Iran to conduct trade.”

“Many in Congress—on both the Republican and Democratic sides—won’t stand for that, and will move to shut that door tightly,” the source said.

Categories: Iran - Arak heavy water reactor, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran - secret deal, Iran scam, Iranian heavy water sales, Iranian nukes, Obama and Iran
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama’s Double Standard Toward Netanyahu

April 26, 2016

Obama’s Double Standard Toward Netanyahu, The Gatestone Institute, Alan M. Dershowitz, April 26, 2016

As President Obama winds up his farewell tour of Europe, it is appropriate to consider the broader implications of the brouhaha he created in Great Britain. At a joint press conference with Britain Prime Minister, David Cameron, President Obama defended his intrusion into British politics in taking sides on the controversial and divisive Brexit debate. In an op-ed, Obama came down squarely on the side of Britain remaining in the European Union — a decision I tend to agree with on its merits. But he was much criticized by the British media and British politicians for intruding into a debate about the future of Europe and Britain’s role in it.

Obama defended his actions by suggesting that in a democracy, friends should be able to speak their minds, even when they are visiting another country:

“If one of our best friends is in an organization that enhances their influence and enhances their power and enhances their economy, then I want them to stay in. Or at least I want to be able to tell them ‘I think this makes you guys bigger players.'”

Nor did he stop at merely giving the British voters unsolicited advice, he also issued a not so veiled threat. He said that “the UK is going to be in the back of the queue” on trade agreements if they exit the EU.

1562UK Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama take a question at a press conference, on whether it is appropriate for Obama to say whether or not the UK should remain in the European Union, April 22, 2015.

President Obama must either have a short memory or must adhere to Emerson’s dictum that “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Recall how outraged the same President Obama was when the Prime Minister of a friendly country, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke his mind about the Iran Deal.

There are, of course, differences: first, Israel has a far greater stake in the Iran Deal than the United States has in whatever decision the British voters make about Brexit: and second, Benjamin Netanyahu was representing the nearly unanimous view of his countrymen, whereas there is little evidence of whether Americans favor or oppose Brexit in large numbers.

Another difference, of course, is that Obama was invited to speak by Cameron, whereas, Netanyahu was essentially disinvited by Obama. But under our tripartite system of government — which is different than Britain’s Unitary Parliamentary system — that fact is monumentally irrelevant. Netanyahu was invited by a co-equal branch of the government, namely Congress, which has equal authority over foreign policy with the president and equal authority to invite a friendly leader. Moreover, not only are the British voters divided over Brexit, but Britain’s Conservative Party itself is deeply divided. Indeed, the leading political figure in opposition to Britain remaining in the European Union is a potential successor to Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party. So these differences certainly don’t explain the inconsistency between Obama’s interference in British affairs and his criticism of Netanyahu for accepting an invitation from Congress to express his country’s views on an issue directly affecting its national security.

So which is it, Mr. President? Should friends speak their minds about controversial issues when visiting another country, or should they keep their views to themselves? Or is your answer that friends should speak their minds only when they agree with other friends, but not when they disagree? Such a view would skew the market place of ideas beyond recognition. If friends should speak about such issues, it is even more important to do so when they disagree.

A wit once observed that “hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” It is also the currency of diplomacy and politics. That doesn’t make it right.

The President owes the American people, and Benjamin Netanyahu, an explanation for his apparent hypocrisy and inconsistency. Let there be one rule that covers all friends — not one for those with whom you agree and another for those with whom you disagree. For me the better rule is open dialogue among friends on all issues of mutual importance. Under this rule, which President Obama now seems to accept, he should have welcomed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s advocacy before Congress, instead of condemning it. He owes Prime Minister Netanyahu an apology, and so do those Democratic members of Congress who rudely stayed away from Netanyahu’s informative address to Congress.

Categories: BREXIT, Britain, Cameron, European Union, Foreign policy, Hypocrisy, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Israeli security, Netanyahu, Obama and European Union, Obama and Israel
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

A policy of hypocrisy

April 25, 2016

A policy of hypocrisy, Israel Hayom, Dr. Haim Shine, April 25, 2016

Judging by his approach to complex national and international issues, U.S. President Barack Obama is very frustrated. The frustration is natural for someone who made big promises, almost messianic ones, and is now leaving behind nothing more than a trail of shattered dreams. During his eight years in office, the United States has gone from being a leading superpower, a pillar of Western civilization, to a state that is hesitant, indecisive and alarmingly slow to respond. Its domestic economy is faltering, sowing uncertainty and insecurity among the large middle class.

Needless to say, the success enjoyed by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is an expression of a great number of Americans who grew up hearing about how their flag was raised on Japan’s Mount Suribachi on the island of Iwo Jima toward the end of World War II, and who are now watching with heartache as their beloved flag is being lowered to half-mast before being taken down altogether.

In an effort to gather up the pieces of his crumbling legacy, Obama set out on his final trip to the Middle East and Europe. America’s long-time allies feel betrayed. Their resentment is clear. Relationships between countries are not disposable. The Obama administration’s deference to Iran has had major implications on its ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. A divided Egypt is still paying the price for Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

The state of Israel, which has led the struggle against a nuclear Iran for a long time, has by now come to terms with the fact that the United States was duped by the fake smiles of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his friends in Tehran. Singing Passover songs in Hebrew won’t change the fact that Obama has not changed, after having sided entirely with the mendacious Palestinian narrative of victimhood.

Leaders in the Middle East cannot decide whether Obama is a naive president or one who is willing to sacrifice his fundamental values and his credibility just so he can leave behind what he sees as a positive sentence in the books of history — a sentence that will be erased with record speed.

Europe is also discouraged by the United States. Obama’s indecisiveness regarding the madness in Syria has allowed Russia to take significant steps in the Middle East and Europe. The failed efforts to confront the Syrian problem have contributed to the tsunami of migrants flooding Europe and all the resulting consequences for European society and its security. Add to this, of course, the financial crisis currently threatening to destroy the European Union, the seeds of which were sown in 1992 with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

It is against this backdrop that the British are expected to decide via referendum whether or not to remain a part of the European Union. During his recent visit to England, Obama spoke out strongly against Britain’s potential separation from the EU. This was a crude and disproportionate effort to meddle in another state’s affairs — an expression of his desire to evade blame for the collapse of the European Union. In his mind, British citizens are expected to forgo their opinions and best interests in favor of his legacy.

It is therefore unclear why Obama unleashed his fury at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when the latter made tireless efforts to convince Congress and the American public not be deceived by the dangerous nuclear deal. How much hypocrisy does it take to allow yourself to do things that you reprimand others for doing? Immanuel Kant saw this kind of behavior as a basic moral failure. Luckily for Britain’s citizens, Obama cannot veto their decision.

Categories: Allies, Britain, Donald Trump, Egypt, European Union, Foreign leaders, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Israel, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, Netanyahu, Obama and European Union, Obama and Iran, Obama and Israel, Obama and Palestinians, Obama's hypocrisy, Russia, Syria war
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Washington Says Not Opposed to Foreign Banks’ Trade with Tehran

April 23, 2016

Washington Says Not Opposed to Foreign Banks’ Trade with Tehran, Tasnim News Agency, April 23, 2016

Iran and banks

On Thursday, US State Department Spokesman John Kirby said Washington had scrambled expert teams, “akin to a roadshow,” to assure world bankers that they can do trade with Iran.

“We certainly are not trying to become an obstacle in any way of foreign banks and institutions working with Iran through the sanctions relief process,” Kirby said.

************************

US Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington is not against foreign banks’ investment and presence in Iran following the removal of anti-Tehran sanctions, stressing that the banks are free to do business with the Islamic Republic.

“The United States is not standing in the way and will not stand in the way of business that is permitted with Iran since the (nuclear deal) took effect,” Kerry told reporters on Friday, sitting alongside Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a New York hotel, AFP reported.

“I want to emphasize we’ve lifted our nuclear-related sanctions as we committed to do. And there are now opportunities for foreign banks to do business with Iran,” he further said.

The Iranian foreign minister, for his part, said Iran “has implemented its part of the bargain.”

“We hope that the statement made today by Secretary Kerry will begin to open the difficult path that had been closed because of concerns that banks had about the US approach toward implementation of the commitments under the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear agreement). We see serious implementation of all the JCPOA benefits that Iran should derive from this agreement,” he added.

Zarif also emphasized that serious differences still remain between Tehran and Washington.

On Thursday, US State Department Spokesman John Kirby said Washington had scrambled expert teams, “akin to a roadshow,” to assure world bankers that they can do trade with Iran.

“We certainly are not trying to become an obstacle in any way of foreign banks and institutions working with Iran through the sanctions relief process,” Kirby said.

While the JCPOA, the 159-page nuclear agreement between Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany) came into force in January, some Iranian officials have complained about the US failure to fully implement the accord.

Last month, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said Americans have yet to fulfill what they were supposed to do as per the nuclear deal.

Iran still has problems in its banking transactions or in restoring its frozen assets, because Western countries and those involved in such processes are afraid of Americans, Imam Khamenei said, criticizing the US for its moves to prevent Iran from taking advantage of the sanctions removal.

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran scam, Kerry
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

OMRI CEREN: Analyze This,

April 22, 2016

OMRI CEREN: Analyze This, Power Line, Scott Johnson, April 22, 2016

Omri Ceren writes from The Israel Project with the latest development in our partnership with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Omri writes:

Heavy water is a relatively rare form of water that is used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The nuclear deal forbids Iran
from stockpiling more than 130 tonnes of heavy water at any given time.

But the Iranians have been overproducing. In February they violated the nuclear deal by going over the 130 ton cap, and they had to ship out their excess material to get back into compliance [a][b]. Instead of halting heavy water production in the aftermath of the violation, they continued producing and now may be in danger of violating the deal again.

So – per the Wall Street Journal this morning – the Obama administration will buy the heavy water from Iran in order to “safeguard its landmark nuclear agreement.” The Iranians will be saved from their own overproduction causing them to violate the deal. Some things to look out for:

1) The purchase will almost certainly involve dollars, and therefore indirect access to the U.S. financial system. The administration is refusing to clarify that:

U.S. law still bans Iran from entering the American financial system or conducting business in dollars. The Obama administration is deliberating ways to help Iran conduct dollarized trade without allowing it to directly access the U.S. system, according to U.S. officials. U.S. officials wouldn’t specify how the Department of Energy would pay Iran for the heavy water.

2) The money will almost certainly be taxpayer money, and it may be going to fund terrorism. Congress is trying to get answers on those questions from the administration:

The chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), wrote Mr. Moniz on April 18 to seek clarity on the terms of the deal. He specifically asked how the U.S. would pay for the heavy water and what guarantees the administration had that the funds wouldn’t be used by Tehran to fund its military or terrorist groups.

3) The Obama administration will be keeping alive a part of Iran’s nuclear program that can be turned around and used for producing nuclear weapons:

Some nuclear experts said the U.S. move comes close to subsidizing Iran’s nuclear program in a bid to keep the agreement alive. They said Tehran’s production of heavy water will remain a concern, especially when the constraints on its nuclear program are lifted after 10 to 15 years as part of the agreement. “We shouldn’t be paying them for something they shouldn’t be producing in the first place,” said David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank.

4) The administration’s broader goal for the sale is to mainstream Iran’s nuclear program and encourage other countries to begin relying on Iran for nuclear materials. That’s not extrapolation. It’s their actual spin, which is already appearing elsewhere this morning in sympathetic articles: that thanks to this purchase, Iran’s nuclear program will no longer be an international pariah and other countries will begin purchasing nuclear material from Iran [c]. Those countries will potentially be beyond future U.S. pressure, should a future administration want to limit Iran’s heavy water production:

The U.S. hopes its initial purchase will give other countries the confidence to purchase Iran’s heavy water in the coming years… U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said… “That will be a statement to the world: ‘You want to buy heavy water from Iran, you can buy heavy water from Iran. It’s been done. Even the United States did it.’”

[a] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov-2016-8-derestricted.pdf
[b] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0VZ2D1
[c] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/us-goes-shopping-iran-s-nuclear-bazaar-will-buy-heavy-water-science

Categories: Iran - Arak heavy water reactor, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran and terror, Iran scam, Iranian heavy water sales, Iranian nukes, nuclear material, Obama and Iran
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Video and Cartoon of the day

April 21, 2016

(Please see also, Obama in Riyadh: Iran nuclear deal sign of ‘strength, not weakness’. — DM)

 

Peaceful Iran

 

Categories: Humor, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Obama and Iran
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama in Riyadh: Iran nuclear deal sign of ‘strength, not weakness’

April 21, 2016

Obama in Riyadh: Iran nuclear deal sign of ‘strength, not weakness’ Washington Examiner, Susan Crabtree, April 21, 2016

Obama in Saudi ArabiaPresident Obama said, “Even as Iran is calling us the great Satan, we were able to get a deal done that reduces their nuclear stockpiles. That’s not a sign of weakness, that’s a sign of strength.” (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

President Obama vigorously defended his nuclear negotiations at the end of a summit of Persian Gulf state leaders and a rocky visit to Saudi Arabia aimed at reassuring the anxious ally and seeking more support for the fight against the Islamic State.

While the president acknowledged Saudi concern that the United States should not be “naïve” when dealing with Iran, he cited previous presidents’ willingness to engage in talks with Russia during the height of the Cold War as models to follow.

“John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan still negotiated with the Soviet Union even when the Soviet Union was threatening the destruction of the U.S.,” he said.

“That’s the same approach we have to take. Even as Iran is calling us the great Satan, we were able to get a deal done that reduces their nuclear stockpiles. That’s not a sign of weakness, that’s a sign of strength.”

Obama said he told Gulf leaders that the U.S. has to operate on a “dual track” with Iran in order to “be effective in our defense and hold Iran to account.

“But we also have to have the capacity to enter into a dialogue to reduce tensions and identify ways in which we [can engage] more reasonable forces inside of Iran and negotiate with the countries in the region so we don’t see an escalation and proxy fight across the region.”

Obama’s statement came the day after tensions flared between Obama and Saudi King Salman during a meeting Wednesday night that lasted more than two hours.

Afterward, the White House tried to tamp down talk of the frayed relationship by saying the meeting helped “clear the air” between the two leaders.

“I think it was a very open and honest discussion where they were able to address a whole range of issues … some of which we have been in agreement on and some [which have been] a source of tensions,” said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.

Categories: Iran scam, Obama and Iran, Obama's weakness, Saudi Arabia
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

First Nude Protest Against Hijab in the Islamic Republic

April 21, 2016

First Nude Protest Against Hijab in the Islamic Republic, Front Page Magazine, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, April 21, 2016

kl

As many Iranians have told me, and as I myself experienced in Iran from 2000-2009, there is always a way to protest Sharia and Islamic law, even if one lives under a theocratic, despotic, Islamist and authoritarian regime such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. Standing against the draconian laws of the Iranian regime and the ruling mullahs, a young Iranian woman has just demonstrated this in an usual way: by a nude protest.  The repercussions of such an action are very grave under the Islamic law of the Iran.

The Iranian woman in this video is marking the first nude protest in the Islamic Republic. This woman is standing against the barbarian Sharia laws present in the Islamic Republic by writing on her body “I’d Rather Be a Rebel, Not a Slave.”

Several women, whom I have interviewed, have created similar videos, but they are waiting to leave Iran to post the videos. If a women gets arrested by the Iranian police for such an act, she will be tortured, repeatedly raped, and then executed for charges such as “fessad on Ardth,” “corruption on earth,” violating Allah’s, the Quran’s, and the Islamic laws of the Islamic Republic. The crime is also referred to as “muharabeh” “ enmity against Allah.”

In my recently published book, the memoir “Allah, a God Who Hates Women,” I illustrate in detail how the religion of Islam has provided a powerful platform for men, the ruling authorities in Iran, other Muslim countries, and Western Muslim men to dehumanize women, suppress and oppress them, and treat them like slaves. This is all happening while many Muslim women believe that they should follow the rules. Having lived most of my life in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria, I came to have first-hand experience regarding the intersection of Islam, the Quran, Muhammad, Allah, Mullahs, Sheikhs, authorities, repression, and women.

The suppression, oppression, and domination of women can reach intolerable levels under Sharia and Islamic laws. Some women decide to protest, rebel and revolt, while others decide to remain silent either due to the imposed fear of Allah (the God created by Muslim men) or due to materialistic gains that they achieve by following Islamic laws.

The religion of Islam provides the language for men to dominate women by the Sharia law, which takes possession of women’s bodies. The domination begins once a girl is born.

We should also remember that Islam infiltrates a political establishment and social beliefs very meticulously and often covertly. For example, before Sharia law was imposed on the Iranian population, almost no one would have thought — and in fact people ridiculed the idea — that Islamic law might be instituted in Iran. No one would have thought that a modern secular and civilized country might, all of a sudden, go thousands of years back to an uncivilized legal system.

No one would have thought that compulsory hijab would be imposed, that the legal marriage age for girls would be dropped from 18 to 9 years old, that speaking your mind or criticizing Islam, Muhammad or Allah would lead to execution, that the weight of the testimony of women would be half of that of men.

No one would have thought that the religion of Islam would take over so fast. But that is exactly what happened repeatedly, not only in the Islamic Republic, but also in many other places. The Islamists look for the momentum, and before anyone notices, they spread their local Sharia laws to larger social, political, and economic establishments and then they establish their Islamist judicial system, an Islamist army, and Islamist executive and legislative branches to advance their ideological principles by force.

When many liberal politicians, leaders, or scholars laugh at the idea that Islam might penetrate Western society and that Sharia law might infiltrate the social and political establishments of Western democratic countries, they have to take another look at history and concrete examples.

Finally, we should remember that President Obama is releasing billions of dollars to the same Iranian regime that does not grant its citizens basic human rights, does not allow them to wear what they like, to dance, or to listen to the music they desire.  We are giving money to the same regime that is ranked number one in rate of executions. We are giving money to the same regime that will execute women for asking for their rights. But regardless of the appeasement policy of President Obama towards the ruling clerics, many people in Iran will continue to stand against and resist the despotic and barbarian Islamist laws of Iran until either the regime is overthrown or completely reformed.

Categories: Iran - human rights, Iran and women, Iran scam, Iranian law
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

OMRI CEREN: Dollarizing Iran (2)

April 21, 2016

OMRI CEREN: Dollarizing Iran (2), Power Line, Scott Johnson, April 21, 2016

(Please see also, U.S., Iran Are Negotiating An Obama-Rohani Meeting. Here’s a key point from the article:

Following Khamenei’s recent harsh attacks on what he termed the U.S. administration’s misconduct and its failure to implement the economic and banking aspects of the JCPOA,[4] Khamenei’s representatives from Iran’s pragmatic camp have been openly talking with U.S. officials in order to extract from the U.S. more concessions that are not part of the JCPOA.

— DM)

On Tuesday Eli Lake reported on the State Department’s letter to the governors of all 50 states as well as some local officials asking them to reconsider any laws on the books that called for divesting state funds from businesses interacting with Iran’s economy, or laws that would deny contracts to companies that do business with Iran. Following up on Lake’s report, Seth Lipsky noted that the “delicate wording — the wheedling tone — of the administration letter suggests that Secretary of State Kerry knows he has no authority to demand that states retreat from their laws against the Iranian regime.” It is imperative in the view of the Obama administration that we fund and otherwise facilitate Iran’s ventures. Now Omri Ceren writes from the Israel Project to update readers on developments in our unfolding partnership with the Islamic Republic of Iran:

On Monday Secretary Kerry met with Iranian FM Zarif in New York. His comments after the meeting suggest that he and Zarif are preparing this Friday to announce new American concessions facilitating Iranian access to the U.S. dollar [a]:

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, did you reach any agreement (inaudible) with the dollar issue and the (inaudible) sanctions issue?

SECRETARY KERRY: We agreed to – we’re both working at making sure that the JCPOA, the Iran agreement – nuclear agreement – is implemented in exactly the way that it was meant to be and that all the parties to that agreement get the benefits that they are supposed to get out of the agreement. So we worked on a number of key things today, achieved progress on it, and we agreed to meet on Friday. After the signing of the climate change agreement, we will meet again to sort of solidify what we talked about today.

Note specifically Kerry’s claim that the Iranians are entitled to the concession under the terms of the deal: “the benefits that they are supposed to get out of the agreement.” He made the same claim two weeks ago, in comments that were promptly picked up by Iranian state media [b]. That’s not how the deal was sold last summer. Back then top Treasury officials explicitly and repeatedly declared that prohibitions on Iranian dollar access would remain in place to maintain U.S. leverage on Iranian terrorism, human rights violations, ballistic missile development, etc. [c].

But then a month ago the Iranians started declaring that they weren’t getting the relief they’re entitled to because of banking sanctions, and they demanded dollar access lest they walk away from the deal [d][e][f][g]. Within weeks of the new Iranian demands the AP and WSJ confirmed that the administration was planning to offer dollar-related concessions, which the AP noted “would reverse a ban that… the administration had vowed to maintain” [h][i][j]. That triggered a Congressional backlash, forcing the administration to publicly declare that no new concessions were planned [k].

Now it looks like concessions are back on the agenda, and so are Secretary Kerry’s claims that the Iranians are entitled to them. On Monday evening – few hours after his meeting with Zarif – Kerry again suggested that the Iranians aren’t getting all the relief they’re due, saying they’ve only gotten $3 billion of $55 billion in escrowed oil funds [m]:

Do you remember the debate over how much money Iran was going to get?… We calculated it to be about $55 billion when you really take a hard look at the economy and what is happening. Guess what, folks; you know how much they have received to date as I stand here tonight? About $3 billion.

That’s a strange claim to make. 1st, there’s no reason it would be true: during the 17 month JPOA negotiation period the Iranians repatriated $700 million of escrowed oil funds per month, or $11.9 billion total. So a mechanism exists for getting Iran those funds. 2nd, statements from Iran suggest it’s false: the Iranians declared in February that they had been given full access to $100 billion in escrowed reserves [l]. The State Department’s Marie Harf responded by blaming Treasury for underestimating the windfall at $50 billion – an estimate that Kerry repeated – but she didn’t suggest that the Iranians were wrong about having been given access to their escrowed funds [n].

Journalists spent Tuesday trying to figure out what Kerry could have been suggesting, and if he was intentionally echoing the Iranian position. The debate spilled into the State Department press briefing [o]. The AP’s Matt Lee: “he’s making the Iranians’ argument here, right?… saying that the Iranians are correct when they complain… that the Iranians have a point here.” CNN’s Elise Labott: “he’s trying to tell the Iranians they’re going to get their money?” Reuters’s Lesley Wroughton: “Is it because of the financial restrictions that the Iranians are arguing about?”

State Department spokesman Kirby repeatedly denied that Kerry had intended to echo Iranian talking points.

[a] http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/04/255977.htm
[b] http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/04/06/459389/Kerry-Iran-US-dollar/
[c] http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-23-15%20Lew%20Testimony.pdf%5D%5Bhttp://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/SzubinTranscript20150916-v2.pdf
[d] https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/707981817434009600
[e]http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/03/iran-sanctions-jcpoa-banking-khamenei-nowruz-speech.html
[f]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-trade-finance-idUSKCN0WO1Y3
[g] http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/the-real-threat-to-the-iran-deal-tehrans-banking-system/%5D
[h] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2c1eb1820154a518deb12b85882536e/gop-worries-obama-leaving-door-open-new-iran-relief
[i]http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
[j] http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-moves-to-give-iran-limited-access-to-dollars-1459468597%5D
[k] http://www.jta.org/2016/04/13/news-opinion/politics/amid-rumors-white-house-rules-out-giving-iran-access-to-us-dollar
[l] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-claims-100-billion-now-freed-in-major-step-as-sanctions-roll-back/2016/02/01/edfc23ca-c8e5-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html
[m] http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/04/255951.htm
[n] https://twitter.com/marieharf/status/694371008459988992
[o] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/04/255961.htm#IR

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran scam, JCPOA, Kerry, Obama and Iran
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »