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 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.
“Islam belongs in Europe… I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.” — Federica Mogherini.
Under the treaties establishing the EU, there are no democratic checks on figures such as Mogherini or on the enormous power they wield.
“It was Hamas’s strategy, not illegal Israeli action — as this report shamefully alleges without a shred of evidence — that was the reason why over 1,000 civilians died in Gaza.” — Col. Richard Kemp.
As a result of the border policies imposed by Mogherini, ISIS’s scheme to augment such a migrant flow with jihadists is now being accomplished.
Mogherini, the official responsible for the EU’s borders represents a sheltered elite, convinced that the solution to problems in the Middle East and North Africa is importing their populations into Europe.
Given the capitulation to Iran’s geopolitical ambitions represented by the agreement reached in Vienna on July 14, a spotlight is likely to fall on the pivotal role played by Europe’s chief diplomat.
Few guessed that while stating the “security of the world” was at stake during negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Federica Mogherini also felt “political Islam” should be a part of Europe’s future.
Not funny. Federica Mogherini (left) represented the European Union in nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a millenarian Shi’ite theocracy that calls for the annihilation of America and Israel. At right, Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif. (Image source: European Union)
The European Union’s unelected High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy made her pro-Islamist remarks in a speech delivered last month in Brussels.
While heading up Europe’s combined delegation in the Austrian capital, and purportedly tasked with staving off Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Mogherini, a former member of the Italian Communist Youth Federation, also took to tweeting in Arabic.
The assertions made by Mogherini to the Islam in Europe conference, before she left for Vienna, reveal the thinking of a key figure behind the dangerous concessions given to Iran as a result of its continued intransigence and the West’s continued surrender to it.
It should therefore surprise no one that Syria’s President Assad has congratulated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on his “great victory” in negotiations from which the Jewish state — which had the most to lose based on Iran’s constant threats to obliterate it — was excluded.
As talks progressed, the Supreme Leader of Iran was pictured trampling on an Israeli flag, with the accompanying caption on Khamenei’s official website reading: “The Zionist regime is condemned to vanish.”
Mogherini first gained notoriety after her statement to the United Nations Security Council on May 11, during which she dismissed pushbacks against the flood of migrants illegally crossing the Mediterranean.
As a consequence of the border policies of the European Commission, of which Mogherini is also Vice-President, the number of immigrants pouring into Europe by land has now exceeded those crossing by sea.
Local authorities in Hungary are struggling to cope with refugee camps filled with rioting migrants shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (Arabic for “Allah is Greater!”).
There seems no recognition of the generosity of a nation that is exhausting its resources to give Muslims asylum from conflict.
The speech given by Mogherini in Brussels on June 24 demonstrates why she believes that the growing migration crisis her actions have orchestrated should be welcomed:
“Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and — what matters most — in Europe’s present and future. Like it or not, this is the reality.”
She continued:
“We need to show some humble respect for diversity. Diversity is the core feature of our European history, and it is our strength. … We need to understand diversity, understand complexity. … For this reason I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.”
Under the treaties establishing the EU, there are no democratic checks on figures such as Mogherini or on the enormous power they wield. Only representatives elected to the European Parliament can quiz members of the European Commission.
There is also no democratic way for MEPs to repeal any of the laws applied across the EU, authored by the commission’s bureaucrats, or to fire any of its officials.
Regrettably, Mogherini’s speech chose not to delve into which aspects of the “diversity” represented by “political Islam” Europe should embrace: The subhuman status afforded to non-Muslims such as Christians and Jews, perhaps; or the death sentence faced by Muslims who seek to leave Islam or reform it? Or maybe the codified inferiority of females, or the view that democracy, made by man and not Allah is illegitimate, or that it is permissible to counter free speech with violence?
Mogherini’s speech in Brussels — added to the July 3 vote at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) of several European nations in favor of a resolution condemning Israel for war crimes — also highlight a grim reality when viewed in the context of the West’s concessions to Iran.
While political leaders in Europe seek to placate their Muslim populations, Israel is faced with even fewer reliable allies on the world stage as the prospect of a nuclear Iran looms larger.
The UNHRC’s resolution targeting Israel had been prompted by a UNHRC report into last year’s Gaza conflict, during which the Israeli Defense Force had sought to protect the country’s population against constant and indiscriminate rocket attacks.
In an address on June 29, Britain’s Col. Richard Kemp urged the UNHRC to deal with the reality of events in Gaza last summer:
“Hamas sought to cause large numbers of casualties among their own people, in order to bring international condemnation against Israel, especially from the United Nations. … It was Hamas’s strategy, not illegal Israeli action as this report shamefully alleges without a shred of evidence, that was the reason why over 1,000 civilians died in Gaza.”
With only the US voting against the resulting “anti-Israeli manifesto” it was nevertheless endorsed by European nations including France, Germany, the UK, Ireland, and the Netherlands.
As a consequence of several international treaties, these countries and 23 others have unified executive authority on issues of foreign policy into the institutions of the European Union.
To those arguing with the EU’s head of security policy that, “more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe,” Mogherini has a curt answer:
“These people are not just mistaken about Muslims: these people are mistaken about Europe – that is my core message – they have no clue what Europe and the European identity are.”
Claiming that “Islam is a victim,” Mogherini went on to stress that the “caliphate” declared last year by ISIS under the name of the Islamic State, represents “an unprecedented attempt to pervert Islam.”
Led by “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in February ISIS announced its intention to export 500,000 migrants to Europe to create chaos. As his nom de guerre suggests, the PhD in Islamic Studies possessed by Dr. Ibrahim al-Badri comes from the city where the Koran was compiled.
Federica Mogherini’s claim to have a better grasp of political Islam stems from an undergraduate paper she once authored on the subject.
As a result of the border policies imposed by Mogherini, the president of the EU’s judicial cooperation agency, Michèle Coninsx, confirmed on July 6 that ISIS’s scheme to augment such a migrant flow with jihadists is now being accomplished.
It is hard not to conclude that the official responsible for the EU’s borders represents a sheltered elite, convinced that the solution to problems in the Middle East and North Africa is importing their populations into Europe.
Using an Arabic euphemism to describe the Islamic State, Mogherini’s speech concluded:
“Western media like to refer to Da’esh with the word ‘medieval’. This does not help much to understand the real nature of the threat we are facing. Da’esh is something completely new.”
The EU’s chief representative to the talks in Vienna could have done with visiting the museum located on the city’s Karlsplatz. There can be found the following demand for surrender, issued against the Viennese, which post-dates the medieval period by two centuries:
“We order you to wait for us at your residences in the city so we can decapitate you. It will be a pleasure for me to publicly establish my religion and to pursue your crucified god. I will put your sacred priests to the plough and rape your nuns. Forsake your religion or else I will give the order to consume you with fire.”
It was authored by the Muslim caliph reigning in 1683.
When it comes to political Islam, Federica Mogherini is evidently incapable of differentiating between behaviors that are “completely new,” and those that form an established pattern.
That failure makes the diplomatic surrender to the Islamic Republic of Iran, being portrayed by President Obama as a path to a “more hopeful world,” easier to comprehend.
The West’s negotiations were conducted with a millenarian Shi’ite theocracy that calls for the annihilation of America and Israel.
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.
(Our “unique ability” to get the U.N. Security Council to force inspections and reinstate sanctions? Any such effort would almost certainly be vetoed by one or more Security Council members. — DM)
This deal does the opposite of rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. It funds, protects, and perfects the nuclear program.
*****************
Omni Ceren sent out several email messages yesterday updating his readers on the Iran agreement (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or “JCPOA”). I would like to bring the following excerpt from one of the messages to your attention. Omri writes:
The agreement commits the international community to actively helping Iran perfect its nuclear program over the life of the deal (!) On a policy level, it means Iran’s breakout time will be constantly shrinking. On a political level, it means that the deal will be seen as accomplishing the exact opposite of what the Obama administration promised Congress: instead of rolling back Iran’s nuclear program, it will commit the U.S. and its allies to funding and boosting it.
The commitments are sprinkled across the JCPOA and obligate a range of global powers:
– Russian sponsorship/cooperation on nuclear research at Fordow — The Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) will be converted into a nuclear, physics, and technology centre and international collaboration will be encouraged in agreed areas of research. The Joint Commission will be informed in advance of the specific projects that will be undertaken at Fordow…The transition to stable isotope production of these cascades at FFEP will be conducted in joint partnership between the Russian Federation and Iran on the basis of arrangements to be mutually agreed upon.
– European sponsorship of nuclear security, including training against sabotage— E3/EU+3 parties, and possibly other states, as appropriate, are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices…Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage.
– International sponsorship/cooperation of Iranian fuel fabrication, which will help Iran complete its mastery of fuel cycle, making Iran’s program harder more opaque and difficult to regulate — The Joint Commission will establish a Technical Working Group with the goal of enabling fuel to be fabricated in Iran while adhering to the agreed stockpile parameters… This Technical Working Group will also, within one year, work to develop objective technical criteria for assessing whether fabricated fuel and its intermediate products can be readily converted to UF6.
This deal does the opposite of rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. It funds, protects, and perfects the nuclear program.
(Would Chamberlain, in the context of British military weakness but in otherwise comparable circumstances, have made a similar “deal” with Hitler and declared “peace in our time?” — DM)
A generous person might say that this is unimportant — that in Iran, chanting “Death to America” is like throat-clearing.
Surely only an uncharitable person would wonder why Iran’s rulers are buying the technology they would need to repel any attack on their nuclear project at the same time as they are promising the Americans that they are not developing nuclear weaponry.
What exactly is it that the Obama administration thinks has changed about the leadership of Iran? Of all the questions which remain unanswered in the wake of the P5+1 deal with Iran, this one is perhaps the most unanswered of all.
There must, after all, be something that a Western leader sees when an attempt is made to “normalize” relations with a rogue regime — what Richard Nixon saw in the Chinese Communist Party that persuaded him that an unfreezing of relations was possible, or what Margaret Thatcher saw in the eyes of Mikhail Gorbachev, which persuaded her that here was a counterpart who could finally be trusted.
After all, the outward signs with Iran would seem to remain unpromising. Last Friday in Tehran, just as the P5+1 were wrapping up their deal with the Iranians, the streets of Iran were playing host to “Al-Quds Day.” This, in the Iranian calendar, is the day, inaugurated by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, when anti-Israel and anti-American activity come to the fore even more than usual. Encouraged by the regime, tens of thousands of Iranians march in the streets calling for the end of Israel and “Death to America”. Not only Israeli and American flags were burned — British flags were also torched, in a touching reminder that Iran is the only country that still believes Britain runs the world.
The latest in a long line of “moderate” Iranian leaders, President Hassan Rouhani, turned up at one of these parades himself to see the Israeli and American flags being burned. Did he intervene? Did he explain to the crowd that they had got the wrong memo — that America is now our friend and that they ought at least to concentrate their energies on the mass-burning of Stars of David? No, he took part as usual, and the crowds reacted as usual.
Participants in Tehran’s Quds Day rally burn U.S. and Israeli flags, on July 10, 2015. (Image source: ISNA)
It was the same just a few weeks ago, when the Iranian Parliament met to discuss the Vienna deal. On that occasion, after some authorized disputation, the Iranian Parliament broke up, with the representatives chanting “Death to America.”
A generous person might say that this is unimportant — that in Iran, chanting “Death to America” is like throat-clearing. This is just what we are being told — that these messages are “just for domestic consumption,” and don’t mean anything.
Putting aside what they say for a moment, what is it about Iran’s actions that have changed enough to persuade the U.S. government that the Iranian regime might be a regime in transition?
Internally there has been no let-up in the regime’s campaign of oppression against their own Iranian people: hanging people for a range of “crimes,” from being gay to being a poet found guilty of “blasphemy,” continue.
Iran has hanged more than a thousand of these internal “enemies” in the last eighteen months alone, as negotiators sat in Vienna thrashing out a deal. In the wider region, Iran remains the most voraciously ambitious, and perhaps the only successfully outgoing, regional power. In the years since the “Arab Spring” began, only Iran has been able significantly to extend its reach and grip in the region. It now has a vastly increased presence and influence in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It continues to arm its terrorist proxies, including Hezbollah, which in turn continues to increase its build-up of rockets and other munitions on the northern border of Israel.
Iran has not released the four American hostages it continues to hold — Pastor Saeed Abedini, for the crime of converting to Christianity; Washington Post journalist Jason Rezian, on the patently nonsensical charges of espionage; former U.S. Marine Amir Mirza Hekmati, who went to Iran to visit his grandmother; and retired DEA and FBI agent Robert Levinson, who was abducted eight years ago and has not been heard from since early 2013. This, in spite of last-minute requests from Iran to lift a ban on conventional weapons, acceded to by the members of the P5+1, wasting yet another abandoned opportunity actually to get something in return for their total surrender.
From the outside, it would seem that very little has changed in the rhetoric of Iran and very little has changed in the regime’s behavior. That is why the mystery of what change the U.S. administration and its partners see in the eyes of the Ayatollahs is so doubly curious.
Because the nature of the deal makes it exceptionally important that there is some change. In the next decade, in exchange for the supposed “managed inspections” of limited Iranian sites, the Ayatollas are going to enjoy a trade explosion with a cash bonanza of $140 billion unfrozen assets, just to start them off. Throughout that same decade, there will be a lifting of restrictions on — among other things — the sale and purchase by Iran of conventional arms and munitions. Iran will finally be able to purchase the long-awaited anti-aircraft system that the Russians (also of course present at the table in Vienna) want to sell them. This system — among the most advanced surface-to-air missile systems — will be able to shoot down any American, Israeli or other jets that might ever come to destroy Iran’s nuclear project. And surely only an uncharitable person would wonder why Iran’s rulers are buying the technology they would need to repel any attack on their nuclear project at the same time as they are promising the Americans that they are not developing nuclear weaponry.
And it is even more important that the signs of hope located by the U.S. administration are correct, because after all, barring an internal uprising — which the Vienna deal makes more unlikely than ever (having strengthened the diplomatic and financial hand of the regime) — it is safe to say that over the next decade and beyond the Mullahs will remain in charge in Iran.
In the U.S., Germany, France and Britain, by contrast, who knows who will be in charge? In Britain, the Labour party may have romped to victory with, at its head, Jeremy Corbyn MP (currently Labour leadership contender) — a man who has openly and repeatedly praised Hamas and Hezbollah as his “friends.” That would certainly change the dynamics.
But put aside such a potentially unlikely situation and assume that Britain and America simply do politics as usual. In ten years, there will have been four U.S. governments overseeing the implementation of this deal and scrutinizing the inspections-compliance of the Iranian regime.
In the UK, there will have been at least two new governments. Who is to say that all these different governments — of whatever party or political stripe — will pay the same attention, know what to look out for, and feel as robust about totally unenforceable “snapback sanctions” and other details of the implementation of this deal as the signatories to the deal appear to expect? Is it possible that the Iranians actually know this?
Perhaps, after all, there is something in the eyes of the Ayatollahs. Maybe US Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama really have looked into the Iranian leaders’ eyes and seen a smile. But whether it is for the reason they appear to believe is, of course, quite another matter.
Secretary-general Amano (left) with AEOI’s Salehi (Image: IAEA)
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments