Andrew Klavan: Obama’s Clown-Car Diplomacy, Truth Revolt via You Tube, April 10, 2015
The Fable of the Bees, Washington Free Beacon, Matthew Continetti, April 10, 2015
(Please see also, 28 Times Obama Said He’d Prevent Iran from Getting a Nuclear Weapon | SUPERcuts! #184 — DM)
Complacency is an understandable response to peace and security. Some problems do go away if you leave them alone. But the world is not the Rose Garden, and the consequences of nuclear attack or nuclear war would be far worse than bug bites. Sometimes it’s right to worry, it’s right to be afraid, it’s right to have the flyswatter nearby. The hornets will strike, and when they do it will be more painful if we have let our guard down.
*********************
A beautiful day: warm, sunny. A garden in bloom filled with the laughter of children. Frolic beneath the whitewashed façade of a stately and classic old house. A friendly man in dress shirt and trousers reads aloud. Then: screams.
The young ones listening to the man are terrified. Bees have been spotted. The kids are afraid. The man, a father of two, projects calm. He pauses from his book—Where the Wild Things Are—and says, “It’s okay guys. Bees are good. They won’t land on you. They won’t sting you. They’ll be okay.”
Doesn’t work. The bees are buzzing, menacing. A few of the kids cry out. The man changes his strategy. He admonishes the children. “Hold on, hold on, you guys are wild things,” he says. “You’re not supposed to be afraid of bees.” Laughter from parents, normalcy restored. The man resumes his tale.
An amusing interruption of an otherwise placid White House Easter Egg Roll? Undoubtedly. But some in the press said more was going on, that this encounter between the innocents, President Obama, and the swarm held a more profound significance.
“‘Bees are good,’ Obama says as children scream,” read the Politico headline. “Perhaps no president in history has made a stronger case for protecting pollinators than Barack Obama,” wrote the Washington Post. “Obama trying to reassure children about bees is a perfect metaphor for his foreign policy,” pronounced a writer for Vox.com, who most recently confused New Hampshire with Vermont.
I say Vox.com is right. “Bees won’t sting you” is an apt slogan for Obama’s attitude toward the world. But I say too that his attitude is patronizing, unrealistic, dangerous. Bees do sting. And kill. And the real wasps of the world, the terrorists and criminals and psychopaths and autocrats, with their knives and box-cutters and bombs and guns and tanks and missiles and rockets and ICBMS—they sting, they hurt, they kill even more. They won’t be “okay.”
“If you stay calm and more or less ignore the bee,” writes Vox.com, “the odds are that things will be fine.” Sure, someone one day will be hurt, even die. “But panicking at every bee sighting would be counterproductive.” In the real world of states and ideologies and nuclear proliferation, “America’s superpower status should make us willing to embark on new diplomatic initiatives and avoid counterproductive panics over minor issues.”
We have here all of the components of the liberal mindset: the threat deflation, the technocratic elitism, the preoccupation with the behavior of the stronger party vis-à-vis the weaker one, the depersonalization of non-Western actors, whose ideas and motives and ambitions and emotions are justified or ignored or explained away.
Bees aren’t dangerous and, Obama says, “Iran understands that they cannot fight us.” John Kerry tells Congress, “We are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world,” as a Caliphate is proclaimed in Mesopotamia, as Russia threatens nuclear war, devours Ukraine, and buzzes NATO allies, as jihadist attacks spread, as China builds a system of artificial islandsto expand its regional power.
Worried? Settle down. You’re being irrational, inflating threats, acting out like a spoiled and ignorant brat. Liberals know better. We have this situation under control. Leave it to us—and do not, if you are a member of Congress, try to interfere. It’s America that must not panic but exercise restraint, to bind itself in a thousand petty contracts and agreements, in corrupt institutions, to guarantee that we don’t act rashly, aggressively, or alone.
What most concerns liberals is not the barbarism of our enemies but our conduct toward them. Not the habits of the bee but the decorum of the children. For who can control bees? They behave instinctively. And who can influence Putin? He’s encircled, stuck in the last century. The Iranians? We burned them pretty badly with that whole Mossadegh thing. Terrorism? We can pursue the terrorists, for sure, and we can apprehend them or kill them. They’re not warriors but criminals, and the grievances and furies that drive them can’t be suppressed through force alone. They have to burn themselves out.
Comforting thoughts. And especially attractive to Americans, who are protected by two great oceans, who exist in an unacknowledged confederation with our northern neighbor and whose biggest challenge with the citizens of our southern one is that they all seem to want to move here. Insanely rich, we are anxious over having too much to eat, over the consequences of increasing longevity. We Democrats prefer commerce to conflict, domestic affairs to international ones. We can afford not to panic. Or so it seems.
But try telling an Israeli that bees won’t sting. A Syrian. A Kurd. A Ukrainian. A Nigerian, or a Kenyan. You most likely will be laughed at. Revealed as naïve. Explain to the Saudis and Jordanians and Egyptians, to the Poles and Lithuanians, to the Japanese and South Koreans that America is engaging with rogue regimes because to respond to them in the traditional postwar manner would be “counterproductive.” Our allies will laugh.
Complacency is an understandable response to peace and security. Some problems do go away if you leave them alone. But the world is not the Rose Garden, and the consequences of nuclear attack or nuclear war would be far worse than bug bites. Sometimes it’s right to worry, it’s right to be afraid, it’s right to have the flyswatter nearby. The hornets will strike, and when they do it will be more painful if we have let our guard down.
In which case there will be only one option.
Via You Viewed Editorial, April 10, 2015
There is no better deal with Iran, Israel Hayom, Prof. Efraim Inbar, April 9, 2015
If inspections, sanctions, sabotage and political isolation ever had a chance to stop Iran from getting the bomb (this was always a dicey proposition), that certainly is no longer the case. It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop a determined state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran from building a nuclear bomb. It remains to be seen whether Israel has elected the leader to live up to this historic challenge.
***********************
The debate over the pros and cons of the Iran nuclear framework agreement negotiated between the P5+1 and Iran at Lausanne (April 2, 2015) is simply irrelevant. The search for truth in the conflicting versions about the details of the deal coming out of Washington and Tehran is of no consequence. And the steps suggested by Israel and other critics to improve the efficacy of the deal (by more stringent inspections and so on) will not change much. The deal is basically dangerous in nature, and needs to be rejected outright.
The deal permits Iran to preserve stockpiles of enriched uranium, to continue to enrich uranium, and to maintain illegally-built facilities at Fordow and Arak. Even in the absence of a signed full agreement, the U.S. and its negotiating partners already have awarded legitimacy to Iran’s nuclear threshold status. In all likelihood, the United States, quite desperate to get a formal deal, will make additional concessions in order to have a signed formal deal — which won’t be worth the paper on which it is printed.
This outcome has been a foregone conclusion since November 2013, when the U.S. agreed to the “Joint Plan of Action” on Iran’s nuclear program. Already back then, the U.S. decided not to insist any longer on the goal of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, ignoring several U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding no uranium enrichment, as well as discarding the security concerns of American allies in the Middle East (primarily Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt — who better understand the regional realities).
Middle Easterners clearly discern an Iranian diplomatic victory in this accord, which should not surprise anybody. Iranians are much more adept at negotiating than Americans. Iran is getting more or less what it wanted: the capability to produce enriched uranium and to research weapon design; agreement to keep its missile program intact; and no linkages to Iranian behavior in the region. The deal is a prelude to nuclear breakout and Iranian regional hegemony.
Indeed, with no attempt to roll back the Iranian nuclear program, as was done in Libya, we are progressing toward the North Korean model. Those two are the only options in dealing with nuclear programs of determined states such as Iran. Iran’s nuclear program benefited in many ways from assistance that originated in Pakistan and in North Korea (both are nuclear proliferators despite American opposition). Compare the recent statements by President Obama to the speeches of President Clinton justifying the agreement with North Korea (October 1994). Their similarities are amazing; an indication of the incredible capacity of great powers for self-delusion.
What counts is not the Obama’s administration expression of satisfaction with the prospective deal, but the perceptions of Middle East actors. For example, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have deplored the fact that the U.S. is bestowing international legitimacy on Iran’s status as a nuclear threshold state. They probably believe the interpretations of the deal offered by Tehran more than those professed in Washington. Therefore, they will do their best to build a similar infrastructure leading inevitably to nuclear proliferation in the region — a strategic nightmare for everybody.
Unfortunately, no better deal is in the offing. Whatever revisions are introduced cannot change its basic nature. The accord allows Iran to have fissionable material that can be enriched to weapons grade material in a short time and Tehran can always deny access to inspectors any time it chooses. This is the essence of the North Korean precedent.
Obama is right that the only alternative to this deal is an Iranian nuclear fait accompli or the bombing of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Obama’s penchant for engagement, his reluctance to use force, and his liberal prism on international relations (which adds rosy colors to international agreements) has led to this miserable result.
Netanyahu is wrong in demanding a better deal because no such deal exists. Yet denying its ratification by the U.S. Congress could create better international circumstances for an Israeli military strike. In fact, criticism of Obama’s deal with Iran fulfills only one main function — to legitimize future military action. Indeed, Netanyahu is the only leader concerned enough about the consequences of a bad deal with the guts and the military capability to order a strike on the Iranian key nuclear installations.
If inspections, sanctions, sabotage and political isolation ever had a chance to stop Iran from getting the bomb (this was always a dicey proposition), that certainly is no longer the case. It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop a determined state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran from building a nuclear bomb. It remains to be seen whether Israel has elected the leader to live up to this historic challenge.
Ayatollah Khamenei Outlines Requirements of Final Iran Nuclear Deal, Tasnim News Agency (Iranian), April 9, 2015
(All bold face print is from the original. — DM)
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei on Thursday defined the main points that a final nuclear deal between Iran and world powers should involve, but refused to adopt a stance on the Lausanne statement that entails no binding commitment.
Addressing a gathering in Tehran on Thursday, Ayatollah Khamenei said he has not taken a position on a statement released by Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany) after the most recent round of nuclear talks in the Swiss city of Lausanne, because nothing has been still agreed upon, nor have the parties reached any binding agreement.
“What has happened so far does not guarantee either the principle of an agreement, or the negotiations that lead to an agreement or even the content of an agreement, and it does not even guarantee that these talks would result in a deal, so congratulation has no meaning,” the Leader said.
The comments came after Iran and the six powers on April 2 reached a framework nuclear agreement after more than a week of intensive negotiations in Lausanne, Switzerland, with both sides committed to push for a final, comprehensive accord until the end of June.
Ayatollah Khamenei then reaffirmed strong support for a deal that respects the Iranian nation’s dignity, and rejected as “untrue” the reports on his opposition to any agreement.
The Leader, however, underlined that “no deal is better than a bad deal.”
Imam Khamenei then explained that he has only outlined the “general issues, the main guidelines, frameworks and red lines” regarding the nuclear talks and has not specified the details.
“I am not indifferent to the negotiations, but have not interfered in the details of the talks so far, and will not interfere in future either,” the Leader stressed.
The Supreme Leader then pointed to the unreliable nature of the US, an obvious sign of which he said was a biased fact sheet that Washington issued only two hours after the Lausanne statement was declared.
“Drafting such a statement (fact sheet) within two hours is not possible, so they (Americans) had been busy preparing a flawed and wrong statement contrary to the content of the talks at the same time that they were negotiating with us.”
The Leader further called on the country’s negotiators to hold consultations with the critics of the Lausanne statement to better deal with the talks, something known as “rapport” among Iranians.
Imam Khamenei once again made it clear that the talks with the US revolve only around the nuclear issue and nothing else, but at the same time noted that such nuclear negotiations provide an experience to test the possibility of talking on other subjects if Washington puts aside objections.
But, the Leader added, if the US keeps raising objections, Iran’s experience of mistrust of the US will be corroborated.
Commenting on the main points that have to be stipulated in a possible final nuclear deal, Ayatollah Khamenei pointed to the removal of anti-Iran sanctions all at once, adding, “This issue is very important and the sanctions should be completely terminated at the very day of the agreement.”
“If the removal of sanctions is to be conditioned by a new process, the fundamental of negotiations will be nonsense, because the purpose of the talks is lifting of the sanctions,” the Leader said.
The Supreme Leader also categorically rejected foreign access to the country’s “security and defensive” sectors under the pretext of nuclear monitoring.
Imam Khamenei said Iran’s military capabilities must be upheld and strengthened day by day, stressing that Iran’s backing for its “brothers” in the resistance front in different regions should never be diminished.
Moreover, the Leader voiced opposition to any deal that subjects Iran to “unconventional” monitoring and would make it a special case in the world, underlining that monitoring of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program should be conventional, like the other countries.
Iran’s “scientific and technical developments in different dimensions” was another requirement that the Leader emphasized a deal must include.
Ayatollah Khamenei finally said the responsibility lies with the country’s negotiators to fulfill those necessary demands in the talks, calling on them to “find the correct ways of negotiations” by using the view points of the informed and reliable individuals and listening to the critics.
‘Iran to publish facts document to counter American lies’, Israel Hayom, April 8, 2015
Iran could build bomb today but isn’t doing so because of ayatollah’s religious decree, not because of sanctions, Iranian FM reportedly tells parliament • “We made significant achievements in exchange for unimportant concessions,” says Iranian lawmaker.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (left) with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani | Photo credit: AFP
Iran could build a nuclear bomb today if it wanted and is only refraining from doing so because of a fatwa (religious decree) issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not because of international sanctions, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif reportedly said on Tuesday during a closed hearing at the Iranian parliament, Majlis.
According to one of the participants, Zarif said the country’s foreign ministry would soon publish a “document of facts” about the nuclear deal with world powers.
“Zarif told us that his office hadn’t intended on releasing such a document, but reversed its decision because of the Americans’ lies,” said Iranian lawmaker Hussain Naqvi al-Hussaini.
Another Iranian parliamentarian, Gholamali Jafarzadeh Imenabadi, said Zarif told the parliament that Iran is not going to permit online cameras for inspection purposes at nuclear facilities. The reason for the decision, allegedly conveyed by Zarif, was because cameras have supposedly been used in the past to help assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.
Also in attendance was Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, who presented the Majlis with the technical aspects of the framework deal. Salehi, who participated in the negotiations in Lausanne, reportedly told his audience that world powers consented to enter negotiations with Iran because they had no other choice.
“We made significant achievements in exchange for unimportant concessions,” said Iranian lawmaker Nozar Shafi.
Meanwhile, Zarif and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani have reportedly garnered the support of Revolutionary Guard commander Mohammad Ali Jafari, who demanded immediate sanctions relief in exchange for a deal.
Iran’s supreme leader, Khamenei, did not voice his opposition to the deal, widely interpreted as silent consent. With that, some 200 Iranian hardliners protested in Tehran against the framework deal.
Iran news report: Tehran will start using fastest centrifuges on day deal takes effect, Times of Israel, April 8, 2015
FARS agency quotes Zarif, Salehi telling MPs they’ll inject gas into IR-8 centrifuges, a breach of US-published framework terms that would make a mockery of deal.
Iran will begin using its latest generation IR-8 centrifuges as soon as its nuclear deal with the world powers goes into effect, Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief told members of parliament on Tuesday, according to Iran’s semi-official FARS news agency.
If accurate, the report makes a mockery of the world powers’ much-hailed framework agreement with Iran, since such a move clearly breaches the US-published terms of the deal, and would dramatically accelerate Iran’s potential progress to the bomb.
Iran has said that its IR-8 centrifuges enrich uranium 20 times faster than the IR-1 centrifuges it currently uses.
According to the FARS report, “Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief both told a closed-door session of the parliament on Tuesday that the country would inject UF6 gas into the latest generation of its centrifuge machines as soon as a final nuclear deal goes into effect by Tehran and the six world powers.”
It said that Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) head Ali Akbar Salehi made the promise when they briefed legislators on the framework agreement, and claimed the move was permitted under the terms of the deal.
“The AEOI chief and the foreign minister presented hopeful remarks about nuclear technology R&D which, they said, have been agreed upon during the talks (with the six world powers), and informed that gas will be injected into IR8 (centrifuge machines) with the start of the (implementation of the) agreement,” FARS quoted Javad Karimi Qoddousi, a member of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, as saying.
Qoddousi said the Iranian Foreign Ministry plans to release a fact sheet presenting Iran’s version of the framework understandings in the next few days. “Those issues that have stirred serious concern among the Iranians will be revised and released in this fact sheet,” he said.
Earlier Tuesday, Israel Radio reported that Zarif told the lawmakers that Iran was capable of producing an atomic bomb at any given moment, but will refrain from doing so due to religious Islamic injunctions against such a move.
A general view of Iran’s parliament in Tehran, Aug. 28, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Ebrahim Noroozi)
Major differences have emerged between the P5+1 powers and Iran over what was agreed in the framework deal.
“Parameters” detailed by the US leave no doubt whatsoever, however, that the use of anything other than the most basic, first generation IR-1 centrifuges is barred for 10 years, and that even R&D on advanced centrifuges will be severely constrained.
“Iran will only enrich uranium at the Natanz facility, with only 5,060 IR-1 first-generation centrifuges for ten years,” the US parameters state. “Iran has agreed to only enrich uranium using its first generation (IR-1 models) centrifuges at Natanz for ten years, removing its more advanced centrifuges… Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 models to produce enriched uranium for at least ten years,” the US document adds. “For ten years, enrichment and enrichment research and development will be limited to ensure a breakout timeline of at least 1 year. Beyond 10 years, Iran will abide by its enrichment and enrichment R&D plan submitted to the IAEA, and pursuant to the JCPOA, under the Additional Protocol resulting in certain limitations on enrichment capacity.”
A French fact-sheet seen by The Times of Israel takes a similar position. It provides for Iran to gradually introduce the use of IR-2 and IR-4 centrifuges to enrich uranium after 12 years. It does not provide for the use of IR-8 centrifuges. The French fact sheet does specify that Iran will be allowed to continue R&D work on the advanced IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges.
A document issued by the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Friday also does not assert an Iranian right to use IR-8 centrifuges. Its only reference to the IR-8 is as follows: “According to the reached solutions, Iran will continue its research and development on advanced machines and will continue the initiation and completion phases of the research and development process of IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, and IR-8 centrifuges during the 10-year period of the Comprehensive Plan for Joint Action.”
Recent Comments