(The next time Obama touts the nuke “deal” as one of his greatest achievements, will he agree with Rouhani?– DM)
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Photo: Wikipedia.
Iran’s president has expressed his complete satisfaction with the outcome of the nuclear deal reached between the Islamic Republic and world powers in July, regime-aligned Tasnim News Agency reported on Thursday.
Hassan Rouhani hailed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – which went into effect on Sunday – as “one of Iran’s greatest successes” against the West. He stressed that Iran had only agreed to the final version of the deal after “30 months of tough talks,” and that Tehran’s negotiators almost walked away three times.
Rouhani said that Iran had made sure the JCPOA would lead to the termination of the United Nations’ nuclear-related sanctions against Tehran, accomplishing the country’s long-term goals and objectives “without exception.”
Among the many way one can get a waiver is an exception for individuals who traveled to Iran “for legitimate business-related purposes” after the nuclear deal was signed.
So the new restrictions made Kerry’s new best pals in Iran angry, and they strong-armed us, and the administration gave them what they wanted. Great.
************************
Less than two months after the terror attacks in San Bernardino, which involved one terrorist who was here on a visa waiver, President Obama has made it easier to travel to the United States from terror hotspots around the globe.
The revised requirements announced Thursday pertain to changes passed by Congress in the Visa Waiver Program.
Lawmakers had sought new restrictions to tighten up the program – which allows visa-free travel for residents of eligible countries — in order to prevent Europeans who have joined ISIS from entering the United States. Under the newly passed Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, nationals of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Sudan as well as other travelers who have visited those countries since Mar. 1, 2011 now must apply for a visa in order to travel to the U.S.
The administration implemented those changes Thursday — but with some changes of its own.
The changes are that they are making it easier to get waivers. Waiver meaning you won’t need a new visa to enter this country, even if you came by way of ISIS zones, as long as you meet certain criteria.
Among the many way one can get a waiver is an exception for individuals who traveled to Iran “for legitimate business-related purposes” after the nuclear deal was signed.
House Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte decried the move, saying “The Obama Administration is essentially rewriting the law by blowing wide open a small window of discretion that Congress gave it for law enforcement and national security reasons,” according to Fox News.
ISIS and other terror groups rely heavily on their unconventional and diffuse pool of resources and recruits. This is why the “lone wolf” definition of terror is sorely in need of update. That they will take advantage of this easing of the rules is hardly speculative. Nor would it be difficult. It’s another example of the Obama administration playing politics with American security.
Which politics?
The new restrictions had previously been criticized by the Iranian government which suggested the U.S. might be violating the nuclear deal by penalizing legitimate business travel to the country.
So the new restrictions made Kerry’s new best pals in Iran angry, and they strong-armed us, and the administration gave them what they wanted. Great.
Thousand of Basij soldiers stage mock seige of Temple Mount in Iran. (photo credit:FARS)
If anyone needed proof how the lifting of sanctions on Iran will hurt Israel’s security, this week provided two examples.
Just days after implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement, we received a reminder that Iran and its proxies remain dangerous enemies of Israel.
Five Palestinians from the Tulkarm area were arrested for planning to carry out terrorist attacks under instructions from Hezbollah, the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) said on Wednesday.
The head of the cell, Mahmoud Za’alul, had been recruited through social media networks. Using encrypted messages, he enlisted five more men from the Tulkarm area; they were ordered to gather intel and plan terrorist attacks, including preparing explosive vests for suicide bombings.
Hezbollah funded their operation by sending them $5,000 through money changers.
Now that the “crippling” economic sanctions on Iran have been removed, the resources at its disposal – and as an extension at Hezbollah’s – will be significantly greater.
In Lebanon, meanwhile, Hezbollah is consolidating its political power. On Monday, in a development that is nothing short of earth shattering, Samir Geagea, leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces party, publicly endorsed his rival, the formal general Michel Aoun, for president of Lebanon.
In so doing, Geagea abandoned his loyalty to Saad Hariri, head of the anti-Syrian Future (Al-Mustaqbal) Movement, for an alliance with the enemy camp headed by Hezbollah, which supports Aoun for president.
This opens the way to the appointment of a pro-Iranian president in Lebanon.
Hezbollah and Iran are undoubtedly pleased with the development. If Aoun is elected president, Hariri’s influence – and the influence of Hariri’s main patron, Saudi Arabia – will be greatly diminished.
Finally, in the Gaza Strip, Iran has over the past few months been providing funding to a new terrorist group called Al-Sabireen Movement for Supporting Palestine. Al-Sabireen, which means “the patient ones” in Arabic, was formed in the wake of a break between Tehran and the two largest terrorist organizations operating in Gaza – Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Neither organization has acquiesced to Iran’s demand to support President Bashar Assad in Syria.
Both have incensed the Iranians by remaining silent on Saudi attacks in Yemen against the Iranian-backed Houthis. Both face their worst financial crisis in two decades after Iran’s decision to cut off support.
Al-Sabireen’s emblem – a gun sprouting from the center of its name in Arabic – is nearly identical to Hezbollah’s.
So far, the organization has about 400 followers in the Gaza Strip, each one receiving a monthly salary of $250-$300, while the senior officials get at least $700, according to The Jerusalem Post’s Palestinian Affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh. Iran has been supplying Al-Sabireen with weapons used to attack Israel.
The Iranians are believed to have supplied their new terrorist group in the Gaza Strip with Grad and Fajr missiles that are capable of reaching Tel Aviv. Also, Iranian funds channeled through Al-Sabireen are said to be used to support the families of killed or arrested terrorists living on the West Bank.
The Iranian-backed organization is also wooing Fatah members. Scores of militiamen once belonging to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction in the Gaza Strip have allied themselves with Al-Sabireen. Most were attracted by the money.
The rise of an unshackled Iran’s influence in the region is bad for Israel. But it is also bad for many of the US’s Sunni allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. A shared enemy has created a shared interest – the curtailing of Iranian influence.
Implementation of the JCPOA might delay Tehran’s nuclear weapon program. The removal of sanctions, however, has set the stage for the Islamic Republic to increase its destabilizing influence. Iran and its proxies must be stopped.
Iranian military leaders also have revealed that at least 200,000 troops have been stationed in Iraq, Syria, and Libya and will work to combat U.S. forces in the region.
************************
The leader of Iran’s Basij military organization claimed on Wednesday that the United States released $1.7 billion in cash assets to Iran “in a bid to buy [the] freedom of its spies held by Tehran,” according to the country’s state-controlled press.
Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the Basij commander, said that the $1.7 billion release, which purportedly includes the repayment by the United States of a $400 million debt and $1.3 billion in interest, was awarded to Iran in order to secure the release of five Americans who were freed by Iran over the weekend.
“The annulment of sanctions against Iran’s Bank Sepah and reclaiming of $1.7mln of Iran’s frozen assets after 36 years showed that the US doesn’t understand anything but the language of force,” Naqdi was quoted as saying on Wednesday during a speech before the Basic forces in Tehran.
This particular cash release was not formally part of the nuclear deal, Naqdi claimed.
“This money was returned for the freedom of the US spy and it was not related to the [nuclear] negotiations,” he said.
In exchange for the release of the five prisoners, the United States pardoned or dropped sanctions on 21 Iranian accused of breaching sanctions by aiding the Islamic Republic’s illicit nuclear program.
Meanwhile, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei praised the country’s military on Wednesday for the temporary detainment of 10 U.S. sailors early last week.
“They displayed Iran’s identity and power against the enemy aggression,” Ayatollah Khamenei was quoted as saying to Iranian officials on Wednesday. “The Iranian officials should also show similar actions in all other fields and show powerful reaction wherever the enemy violates Iran’s national interests.”
Iranian military leaders also have revealed that at least 200,000 troops have been stationed in Iraq, Syria, and Libya and will work to combat U.S. forces in the region.
“A massive numberless popular force similar to Basij [volunteer forces] has been formed in Iraq, Syria and Libya against internal and foreign plots which is necessary for the survival of resistance,” Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, was said during a speech in Tehran on Wednesday.
“And over-200,000-strong organized popular force has been formed in these countries and it is the same force that no army even of the US and Israel can confront it,” Jafari said.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Obama keeps telling us what America isnot. What does He think she is? Does He think that Obama’s America is America, or that His supporters are what America is? Does He think they make America great? Will America become acceptable to Obama, and hence “who we are,” only after He or His successor finishes her fundamental transformation?
By virtue of the now-implemented Iran nuke “deal,” Iran’s possession of an atomic and/or hydrogen bomb will be delayed for a few years unless she cheats (as in the past), reneges on the “deal” or out-sources nuke development to her long term partner, North Korea.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is now reaping the benefits of more than $100 billion in immediate sanctions relief plus a settlement of Iranian claims amounting to $1.7 billion.
Secretary of State John Kerry said today that the settlement is $400 million debt and $1.3 billion in interest dating back to the Islamic revolution. That’s separate from the sanctions windfall Iran will receive.
Iran will also benefit on a long-term basis from trade with countries formerly prohibited by sanctions.
Back in June 2015, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei had outlined the general policies of the country’s 6th quinquennial development plan.
On defense and security, the proclamation necessitated an increase in Iran’s defense capabilities at the level of a regional power in order to fulfill the national interests by allocating at least 5 percent of the national budget to boosting the defense power. [Emphasis added.]
With increased funding, Iran will be able to increase its already substantial support for Shiite terrorism throughout the Middle East; it will likely do so.
Iranians continue to experience Islamic human rights. Here’s a link to an article titled The Real War on Women in a Nightmarish Islamic Stateby Dr. Majid Rafizadeh. An Iranian-American political scientist and scholar, he is the president of the International American Council and serves on the board of the Harvard International Review at Harvard University.
When it comes to executions, girls are systematically more vulnerable due to the Islamist penal code of Sharia law.
Let’s take a look at the Islamist state of Iran, which creates its laws from the legal codes of Sharia and Quran. The first type of discrimination is related to age: girls are held criminally accountable at the maturity age of 9 Lunar years. (This will automatically put girls at a higher risk of execution by the court.)
Iranian ruling politicians hold the highest record when it comes to the most executions per capita in the world. Intriguingly, in the last two years that the so-called moderate, Hassan Rouhani, has been in office, there have been more than 2000 executions conducted in Iran. That is nearly 3-4 executions a day.
More importantly, Iranian leaders are also the largest executioner of women and female juveniles. Some of these executions were carried out on the mullahs’ charge of ‘Moharebeh’ (enmity with Allah), or waging war against Allah, ifsad-i Fil Arz (Sowing Corruption on Earth), or Sab-i Nabi (Insulting the Prophet). [Emphasis added.]
There are three methods of execution for women and female juveniles: 1. Stoning 2. Public hanging 3. Shooting. Some women are also beaten so severely in the prison that they die before reaching the execution. Shooting, which is the fastest method of the three for execution, has not been used since 2008. Instead, the most common method to execute women is public hanging or stoning. Some of these women are flogged right before they are hanged. Public hanging not only imposes fears in the society but also aims at dehumanizing and controlling women as second-class citizens. According to the Islamist penal code of Iran, women offenses are classified as: Hadd, Diyyih, Ta`zir, and Qisas. [Emphasis added.]
Please read the entire article. Isn’t it heartwarming that “we” are giving even more than a mere $100 billion to Iran? Perhaps some of the new money can be used to buy sharper stones and new devices for hangings. How about some new torture devices?
Islam, The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates
The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) claims to represent Muslims in America. They do represent those who favor terrorism and despise human rights (in the name of which they ironically claim to act).
[T]he Council on American-Islamic Relations, is a prominent Islamic group, but which has a long history of involvement with extremist and terrorist causes. In 2009, during the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis concluded that, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR… with the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas.” [Emphasis added.]
During the trial, CAIR was designated an “unindicted co-conspirator.” As a result of CAIR’s apparent links to a terrorist movement, the Justice Department in 2009 announced a ban on working with CAIR. The FBI also severed relations.
[F]or the past seven years, the Obama White House has opened its doors to the entire spectrum of radical Islamist groups, just like CAIR. These groups have rationalized the actions of Islamic terrorist groups that have killed Americans, warned American Muslims against cooperating with law enforcement, smeared genuine Muslim moderates like Zuhdi Jasser and Asra Nomani as traitors and accused anyone who dared to utter the term “radical Islam” as “Islamophobic.” These are the groups that the White House should have marginalized. The fact that Obama legitimized radical Islamist groups will be his real legacy. [Emphasis added.]
Very few American Muslims, however, seem to feel that CAIR is a legitimate ambassador for American Islam. According to a 2011 Gallup poll, about 88% of American Muslims said that CAIR does not represent them. Muslims all over the world, in fact, apparently do not think CAIR is a moderate or legitimate Muslim group: in 2014, the United Arab Emirates, a pious Muslim state, designated CAIR a terrorist organization, along with dozens of other Muslim Brotherhood organizations.
In reality, American Muslims are extremely diverse, and no single group can claim to speak on their collective behalf. American Islam comprises dozens of different religious sects and political movements, many of which advocate distinctly different ideas. But for Islamist bodies such as CAIR, it suits their agenda if American Muslims are portrayed as a monolithic community. If American Muslims can be seen as homogenous, then a group such as CAIR has a better claim to represent their interests.
Even CAIR’s own research, however, undermines their claim to speak on behalf of American Muslims. A 2011 report reveals that a majority of American mosques are not affiliated with any American Islamic body.
Addressing a conference in 2000, Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, a Muslim cleric and secretary general of the Italian Muslim Assembly, explained that, “[CAIR] is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It works in the United States as a lobby against radio, television and print media journalists who dare to produce anything about Islam that is at variance with their fundamental agenda. CAIR opposes diversity in Islam.”
In truth, CAIR only speaks on behalf of a small extremist ideology that, as discovered by federal prosecutors, emerged across the United States during the 1990s out of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Although CAIR does not represent American Muslims, it managed, before the Holy Land Foundation terror trial in 2008, to persuade a great many people that it did. Enough time has passed that CAIR seems to believe it can try this move once again.
state that Congress believes the Muslim Brotherhood fits the State Department’s criteria of a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The Secretary of State would be required to designate the Brotherhood within 60 days or to provide a detailed report explaining why it does not. Three U.S.-based Brotherhood entities named in the bill are CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). [Emphasis added.]
The House version of the bill (HR3892) was introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) with Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Randy K. Weber (R-TX), Diane Black (R-TN) and Mike Pompeo (R-KS) as original cosponsors. They are now joined by Reps. Steve King (R-IA); Steven Palazzo (R-MS); Kay Granger (R-TX); Jim Jordan (R-OH); Steve Stivers (R-OH); Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); Ilena Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL); Charles W. Dent (R-PA); Bill Johnson (R-OH) and David A. Trott (R-MI).
HR3892 was referred to the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security on December 4, 2015. Two cosponsors, Rep. Gohmert and Rep. Trott, sit on that subcommittee.
The Senate version of the bill (S2230) was introduced by presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and later cosponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). It was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on November 3. Two of Senator Cruz’s presidential rivals, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) sit on that committee and have not taken a position on the bill.
Although the bill has yet to earn bi-partisan support at this early stage, it is supported by members of Congress from different spectrums of the Republican Party. It includes endorsers of the presidential campaigns of Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Kasich and not only supporters of Ted Cruz.
If enacted by the Congress, Obama will almost certainly veto it. If He signs it, He will ignore or bypass it as He often does.
Britain recently declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Here are thirteen quotes from the British Government’s review and Prime Minister Cameron’s official statement:
1. “The Muslim Brotherhood’s foundational texts call for the progressive moral purification of individuals and Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under Sharia law. To this day the Muslim Brotherhood characterizes Western societies and liberal Muslims as decadent and immoral. It can be seen primarily as a political project.”
2. “Aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.”
3. “From its foundation the Muslim Brotherhood organized itself into a secretive ‘cell’ structure, with an elaborate induction and education program for new members…This clandestine, centralized and hierarchical structure persists to this day.”
4. “The Hamas founding charter claims that they are the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Brotherhood treat them as such. In the past ten years support for Hamas (including in particular funding) has been an important priority for the MB in Egypt and the MB international network.”
5. “From at least the 1950s the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood also developed an international network, within and beyond the Islamic world. Europe became an important base for the growing Muslim Brotherhood global network.”
6. “The wider international network of the Muslim Brotherhood now performs a range of functions. It promotes Muslim Brotherhood ideology (including through communications platforms), raises and invests funds, and provides a haven for members of the Brotherhood who have left their country of origin to continue promoting Brotherhood activity.”
7. “[F]or the most part, the Muslim Brotherhood have preferred non violent incremental change on the grounds of expediency, often on the basis that political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamization is complete. But they are prepared to countenance violence—including, from time to time, terrorism—where gradualism is ineffective.”
8. “Muslim Brotherhood organizations and associated in the UK have neither openly nor consistently refuted the literature of Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb which is known to have inspired people (including in this country) to engage in terrorism.”
9. “[The review] concluded that it was not possible to reconcile these [MB] views with the claim made by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in their evidence to the review that ‘the Muslim Brotherhood has consistently adhered to peaceful means of opposition, renouncing all forms of violence throughout its existence.’”
10. “In the 1990s the Muslim Brotherhood and their associates established public facing and apparently national organizations in the UK to promote their views. None were openly identified with the Muslim Brotherhood and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood remained (and still remains) a secret.”
11. “[MB fronts] became politically active, notably in connection with Palestine and Iraq, and promoted candidates in national and local elections…sought and obtained a dialogue with Government….were active members in a security dialogue with the police.”
12. “The Muslim Brotherhood have been publicly committed to political engagement in this country. Engagement with Government has at times been facilitated by what appeared to be a common agenda against al Qaida and (at least in the UK) militant Salafism. But this engagement did not take into account of Muslim Brotherhood support for a proscribed terrorist group and its views about terrorism which, in reality, are quite different from our own.”
13. “Senior Muslim Brotherhood figures and associated have justified attacks against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
The linked article goes on to note that
The U.S. government, without even conducting any kind of review of its own, issued a statement to the Investigative Project on Terrorism rejecting any ban or even any “de-legitimizing” of the Brotherhood at all. [Emphasis added.]
Do the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates represent Obama? Are they or Obama “what we are?” I don’t think so and hope not.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and reformation of Islam
In Heretic (which I reviewed here), Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote,
For years, we have spent trillions on waging wars against “terror” and “extremism” that would have been much better spent protecting Muslim dissidents and giving them the necessary platforms and resources to counter that vast network of Islamic centers, madrassas, and mosques which has been largely responsible for spreading the most noxious forms of Islamic fundamentalism. For years, we have treated the people financing that vast network — the Saudis, the Qataris, and the now repentant Emiratis — as our allies. In the midst of all our efforts at policing, surveillance, and even military action, we in the West have not bothered to develop an effective counternarrative because from the outset we have denied that Islamic extremism is in any way related to Islam. We persist in focusing on the violence and not on the ideas that give rise to it. [Emphasis added.]
Here is a video of which Hirsi Ali was the executive producer. It features Muslim and former-Muslim women discussing Islam and the Islam-mandated male domination of women.
Here’s Part II of Honor Diaries:
Here’s a video characterizing Hirsi Ali as an “Islamophobe.”
Along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Azeezah Kanji — the featured speaker in the above video — has been very active in disparaging Hirsi Ali and Honor Diaries. Like CAIR, she has ties to the Obama White House and was named a “Champion of Change” by the White House in 2011. What changes in Islam does Ms. Kanji champion? None, apparently, of those intrinsic to it.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the CAIR, condemned Hirsi Ali as “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide.”
On becoming a U.S. Citizen
Who better represents American values? Hirsi Ali, once a refugee from Somalia and a proud citizen of the United States since April 25, 2013, or President Obama? In the immediately linked Wall Street Journal article, she offers suggestions on American immigration with which I plan to deal in a subsequent post. In the meantime, here is her 2014 address at the William F. Buckley Program at Yale University on the clash of civilizations. If you have not yet watched it, please do so. If you have watched it, please do so again. I just did. Every time I watch it, there is something I had not previously considered.
Conclusions
To Obama and His acolytes, Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance; the Islamic State, its equally non-peaceful and intolerant franchisees and other comparable terrorist organizations are “not Islamic.” If “not Islamic,” what are they?
Despite Obama’s many statements and gestures, He has yet to convince any Islamic terrorist group that it is not Islamic. He has convinced them only that He is ignorant of Islam, a liar or both. Perhaps He needs a better joke writer.
was very striking for the one-sidedness and disproportion of the president’s concern for religious suffering.
President Obama worried that “politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or fellow citizens.”
But he couldn’t bring himself to worry aloud about the Christians being driven from Middle Eastern countries, the churches being burned from Nigeria to Malaysia, or the 22 Coptic Christians who were beheaded on video on a beach in Libya by Islamic supremacists.
Will our next president at least make a concerted effort to un-transform Obama’s America? Will he name and fight our enemies, foreign and domestic? Or will he simply “go with the flow” and do none of the above. Much depends on who it is and on the composition of the Congress.
During the Democrat Party debate on January 17th, Hillary Clinton “linked herself to the president again and again. And again.” An Obama clone to continue Obama’s fundamental transformation of America is the opposite of what we need. Nor will merely “fixing” broken parts of the governmental apparatus with duct tape and bailing wire be satisfactory. As I wrote last September, To bring America back we need to break some stuff.
In later posts in this series, I hope to deal with immigration, race relations, the ways in which Obama is distorting the Constitution, the decline of education and Obama’s very foreign foreign policy.
Obama and his team are celebrating as if they were FBI agents who successfully conducted a cash for hostages exchange while the criminals went free.
The “diplomacy” that they’re celebrating is one in which Iran gets what it wants and occasionally frees hostages. But since Iran can take more hostages at any time, and since it now has more motivation than ever to do so, there’s nothing to celebrate.
With animals, there’s sometimes a question of who is training whom. Is the owner training the dog to do tricks in exchange for treats. Or is the dog training the owner to give treats in exchange for not making a mess on the floor.
This is the essential question in power relationships.
What Obama has going on with Iran isn’t mutual. It’s a relationship in which Iran’s “moderates” show that Western governments can be trained to give them what they want or they’ll make a mess on the floor by taking hostages or blatantly violating nuclear protocols.
Part of this training program involves deliberate messes so that the number of treats and the owner’s anxiety is redoubled.
Iran creates a crisis. Obama rushes treats and then claims it’s a diplomatic success.
Kerry and co. claim that Iran is being trained to negotiate problems diplomatically. But Iran knows how to do that already. As the nuke negotiations showed, it’s much better at it than Obama and Kerry are. Iran knows how to use diplomacy, but its intentions are not diplomatic. So instead it’s using diplomacy to train Obama and his European allies to dispense more treats even as it continues to pursue a nuclear weapons program.
And the most pathetic part of this is that Obama and the Europeans have been trained to treat every payout like a victory.
The nuclear accord implementation by Iran and the lifting of sanctions may not survive the radical opposition in Tehran – not least, because Iran exports will further depress oil prices.
The nuclear watchdog confirmed Saturday night, Jan. 16, that Iran had fulfilled its side of the nuclear deal with the six world powers and that sanctions could be lifted, after US Secretary of State John Kerry, EU’s Federica Mogherini and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had been kept hanging about for the IAEA’s from early morning for a verdict worth some $100-150 billion to Tehran. The wording did not explicitly confirm that Iran had met all the terms of the nuclear deal or that it had mothballed most of its uranium-enrichment centrifuges.
From the start, the deal was viewed with deep suspicion by Israel, Saudi Arabia and US lawmakers. Even the White House spokesman Josh Earnest was moved to comment Friday that “the United States wants to make sure that Iran doesn’t cut any corners.”
DEBKAfile’s intelligence and Iranian sources account for the delay in publishing the nuclear watchdog’s report by the “corners” Iran was still trying to cut. According to our sources, Iran had managed to dodge compliance with key terms of the nuclear deal. Nine tons of enriched uranium were indeed shipped to Russia, but most expert watchers are dubious about three other commitments:
1. Washington and Tehran have claimed that the Iranians fulfilled their commitment to pour concrete into the core of the Arak reactor to disable its capacity for producing plutonium. Two days ago, on Thursday, Iranian officials denied this had been done: Only a token operation may have taken place, if any.
Officials associated with Iran’s radical Revolutionary Guards, which fought tooth and nail against the nuclear accord, commented that instead of pouring concrete into the Arak reactor, it should be poured into the hearts of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif, for negotiating the accord with the six powers.
Such comments rarely reach the Western media. They are important because they mirror the fierce power struggle ongoing in Tehran, which is heavily fueled by infighting over the nuclear deal and sanctions.
2. That deal provided for the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at the Natanz center to be reduced from 19,500 to 5,050. Our sources report that 9,000 are still in operation.
3. There is no confirmation that the number of centrifuges operating at the underground facility of Fordo was cut down to one thousand, as agreed.
On top of these deviations, the Obama administration admitted last week that the dispute over Iran’s nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, which were tested last month, is still open, in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions. This makes Tehran liable to a fresh set of sanctions, as US officials too have indicated.
The capture of two US patrol boats by the Revolutionary Guards speedboats last Tuesday, with the 10 American sailors aboard forced to surrender before they were released, was clearly a last-ditch attempt by Iran’s radicals to derail the nuclear accord before the Saturday deadline was reached.
That will not be the last such episode: Iran’s radicals may embark on more such actions to counteract the nuclear deal by striking more American targets and looking for trouble with Saudi Arabi and its Gulf allies.
The fact is that the hard-line factions in Tehran don’t want the sanctions lifted, because they see them as net profit for President Rouhani and his moderate conservatives and his leading backer, former president Hashem Rafsanjani, head of the powerful Assembly of Experts.
Iran’s Finance Minister Ali Tayyebnia gave the radicals fodder when he said last week that even $100 billion in cancelled sanctions would not haul the Iranian economy our [sic] of crisis or balance the state budget, because the country’s indebtedness is far in excess of that huge amount.
The Iranian-Saudi row is another factor that could upset the nuclear deal, although paradoxically, since oil prices sank below $30, the Guards and Riyadh have a common interest in its collapse.
Iran’s expected return to an already glutted market – through the removal of sanctions – will drive prices down further. This, neither the Revolutionary Guards Corps, which control Iran’s oil sector, nor the Saudis want to see.
The spiral of hostility launched with the Saudi execution of the prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, followed by the mob attack on the Saudi embassy in Tehran and consulate in Meshaad, and the multiple severance of diplomatic and commercial ties between the Gulf emirates and Tehran, may have the effect of reversing the downward trend of oil prices with a sudden spurt.
Therefore, the rosy prospect the Obama administration paints of a successful landmark deal for curbing Iran’s nuclear capabilities is a far cry from being realized.
Therefore, the rosy prospect the Obama administration paints of a successful landmark deal for curbing Iran’s nuclear capabilities is a far cry from being realized.
U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, is greeted by the U.S. Ambassador to Austria, Alexa Wesner, left, as he steps from his plane Saturday, Jan. 16, 2016, upon his arrival in Vienna, Austria on what is expected to be “implementation day,” the day the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verifies that Iran has met all conditions under the nuclear deal. (Kevin Lamarque/Pool Photo via AP)
Completing a major diplomatic effort over the objections of many in Congress, President Obama lifted economic sanctions against Iran Saturday after the U.N. atomic watchdog agency determined that Tehran has complied with the deal to curb its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
In a statement, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said the sanctions termination provisions of Iran’s landmark nuclear agreement are now in effect.
Mr. Obama signed the orders Saturday afternoon, saying Iran’s compliance with the deal “marks a fundamental shift in circumstances with respect to Iran’s nuclear program.”
The U.S. and Iran also carried out a prisoner swap Saturday, with Iran releasing an American pastor, a Washington Post reporter and three other Americans who had been held.
Removing the sanctions is part of the international agreement reached last year among Iran, the U.S. and five other world powers when Iran agreed to curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Certification by the International Atomic Energy Agency will allow Iran to immediately recoup some $100 billion in assets frozen overseas. Iran will also see huge benefits from new oil, trade and financial opportunities after Western sanctions against it are lifted.
IAEA director general Yukiya Amano said Saturday this means “relations between Iran and the IAEA now enter a new phase. It is an important day for the international community. I congratulate all those who helped make it a reality.”
In Congress, Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, said the administration was lifting sanctions “on the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.”
“As the president himself has acknowledged, Iran is likely to use this cash infusion — more than $100 billion in total — to finance terrorists,” Mr. Ryan said. “This comes just weeks after Tehran’s most recent illegal ballistic missile test, and just days after [Iranian forces] detained 10 American sailors. A bipartisan majority in the House voted to reject this deal in the first place, and we will continue to do everything possible to prevent a nuclear Iran.”
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, California Republican, said the “flawed” deal is allowing Iran to keep much of its nuclear infrastructure.
“The ayatollah won’t even have to cheat to be just steps away from a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Royce said. “Meanwhile, tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief will now start flowing to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Since the nuclear deal was signed, Iran has twice violated U.N. resolutions to test ballistic missiles, fired rockets within 1,500 yards of the U.S.S. Truman, and seized 10 American sailors — all while propping up the murderous Assad regime in Syria. Iran will use this deal to become more militarily aggressive and dominate the region.”
At the same time, the administration engaged in a high-profile prisoner swap with Tehran. Iran agreed Saturday to release four detained Americans in exchange for seven Iranians held or charged in the U.S., while a fifth American detained in Iran, a student, was also released in an unrelated move.
The wife of an Idaho pastor who is among four detained Americans being released from Iran says the news is “a huge burden lifted off.”
Naghmeh Abedini told The Associated Press on Saturday that after she learned that Iran was going to release Pastor Saeed Abedini, she woke her kids up and told them, “Daddy was coming home.”
She said in a telephone interview from Boise that “they were just excited. They couldn’t believe it.”
The Boise man was detained for compromising national security, presumably because of Christian proselytizing, in September 2012. He was sentenced in 2013 to eight years in prison.
Republican presidential candidates Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky welcomed the release of Mr. Abedini, and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said the exchange shows “diplomacy can work even in this volatile region of the world.”
Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and other Republicans say Americans should never have been captured in the first place, and Mr. Rubio blamed the administration’s willingness to do prisoner swaps in the past.
In Iowa, Mr. Rubio said that governments were taking Americans hostage because they believe they can gain concessions from the Obama administration. He mentioned the June 2014 swap in which the United States exchanged Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held by the Taliban for five years, for five top Taliban commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The publisher of The Washington Post says he “couldn’t be happier” to hear that the paper’s reporter, Jason Rezaian, had been released from Iran’s Evin Prison on Saturday.
In a statement, publisher Frederick J. Ryan Jr. also says more information will be available once he has more details and can confirm Mr. Rezaian has safely left Iran.
Mr. Rezaian had been held more than 543 days on espionage and related charges. He is among four detained Americans released Saturday in exchange for seven Iranians held or charged in the U.S.
Among the seven Iranians affected by the U.S.-Iranian prisoner swap is Bahram Mechanic, who has been jailed since his indictment last April on charges of illegally exporting microelectronic technology to Iran.
Defense lawyer Joel Androphy said his client was “elated” to be pardoned Saturday but says Mechanic has “been incarcerated for nine months for a crime that he’s just accused of but did not commit.”
Two other defendants in the case, Khosrow Afghahi and Tooraj Faridi, are also among those being offered clemency.
Mr. Androphy said the products his client was accused of providing to Iran were essentially surge protectors but the Justice Department “blew it up into some sort of national security terrorism threat.” He says Mechanic is “basically a victim of the trade issues between the United States and Iran.”
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Photo: Wikipedia.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments