Posted tagged ‘Khamenei’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Leader Outlines Major Observations in JCPOA Implementation

October 21, 2015

Leader Outlines Major Observations in JCPOA Implementation, Tasnim News Agency (Iran), October 21, 2015

139406041520538615968453

[T]hroughout the 8-year period of implementing the JCPOA, imposing any sanctions, at any level and under any pretext –such as the “recurring and fabricated allegations of terrorism and human rights violation – by any of the parties to the talks”, will be tantamount to breach of the JCPOA and the administration will be obligated to take the necessary measures under the Clause 3 of the Iranian Parliament’s plan and cease the JCPOA activities.

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

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei in a letter to President Hassan Rouhani highlighted nine main points that the administration will need to take note of regarding the course of implementing a final nuclear deal with six world powers.

In the letter, Ayatollah Khamenei appreciated the efforts made by the country’s different bodies involved in the course of nuclear negotiations with the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany) and the consequent efforts to evaluate the deal.

The Leader, however, noted that the nuclear agreement, dubbed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), contains “ambiguities, structural weak points and multiple points that could inflict heavy losses on the country” at present and in the future in case of lack of strict and constant vigilance.

Ayatollah Khamenei then explicated the observations that the administration should make about the JCPOA and its implementation.

The first point in the Leader’s letter was the necessity for the full termination of the anti-Iran sanctions under the JCPOA.

Since the purpose of Iran’s approval to the nuclear negotiations was the removal of “cruel economic and financial sanctions”, and given the fact that the termination of the sanctions has been subjected to completion of Iran’s undertakings, there needs to be “firm and sufficient guarantees” to avert the other side’s breach, Ayatollah Khamenei underlined.

The US president and the European Union must declare that the anti-Iran sanctions have been “fully lifted”, the Leader noted.

The second observation in the letter was the categorical rejection of imposition of any new sanctions against Iran, which the Leader described as a breach of the JCPOA in which case the Iranian administration would be obligated to stop implementing the deal.

Third, the Leader further said, throughout the 8-year period of implementing the JCPOA, imposing any sanctions, at any level and under any pretext –such as the “recurring and fabricated allegations of terrorism and human rights violation – by any of the parties to the talks”, will be tantamount to breach of the JCPOA and the administration will be obligated to take the necessary measures under the Clause 3 of the Iranian Parliament’s plan and cease the JCPOA activities.

The rest of the observations are as follows:

4. Measures to renovate the Arak plant, which should keep its heavy (water) nature, will begin only after signing a definite and safe contract on an alternative plan and sufficient guarantee for its implementation.

5. The trade of the available enriched uranium with the yellowcake (a type of uranium concentrate powder) with a foreign government will take place when a secure contract with sufficient guarantees is signed. The mentioned trade and exchange (of materials) should occur gradually and in multiple times.

6. In accordance with the bill passed by the Majlis (parliament), a necessary plan should be devised and meticulously discussed by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) for mid-term development of (the country’s) nuclear energy industry, including ways to make progress in the next 15 years, leading to the production of 190,000 SWUs (Separative Work Units).

7. The Atomic Energy Agency of Iran (AEOI) should organize research and development in different aspects in such a way that at the end of the 8-year period, there will be no technological shortages for achieving the level of enrichment as accepted in the JCPOA.

8. As for ambiguities in the JCPOA, it should be stressed that the other side’s interpretation is not accepted, and that the reference (for interpretation) is the text of the negotiations.

9. The existence of complexities and ambiguities in the JCPOA and the possibility of breach of commitments and deception on the part of the other side, especially the US, necessitate that a strong, observant and smart committee be formed to monitor the progress of works, fulfilment of the other side’s commitments and  realization of the observations mentioned above. The committee’s arrangement and responsibilities should be formulated and approved by the SNSC.

Categories: Foreign policy, Funding terrorism, Iran - human rights, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran centrifuges, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Khamenei, Obama's legacy, P5+1
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

European Influx of Militiamen Loyal To Iran Could Pose Problems

October 20, 2015

European Influx of Militiamen Loyal To Iran Could Pose Problems, Investigative Project on Terrorism, John Rossomando, October 19, 2015

1249

Evidence uncovered on social media indicates that members of Iranian-trained Shiite militias may be entering Europe as refugees, a London-based Iraqi émigré group says. The Foreign Relations Bureau – Iraq (FRBI) identified images of 48 men on Facebook and Twitter who it says fought with Iranian-trained Shiite militias in Iraq and now are in Europe.

FRBI came into existence in 2014 and promotes women’s rights, equality, Iraqi independence from foreign control, and a non-sectarian approach to governance.

FRBI’s list shows pictures of militiamen in uniform and carrying weapons. Alongside those images are pictures showing the same people wearing Western street clothes and standing in places such as Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Greece and Finland. This same list also includes 16 people belonging to Iraq’s security services who similarly made their way to Europe and who FBRI accuses of crimes against the Iraqi people.

These militias engaged in serious human-rights abuses in places like Tikrit after they ousted the Islamic State, and Iraqi security forces similarly engaged in unlawful killings, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). FRBI refers to HRW’s research about human-rights abuses in Iraq as a reason why these men should not have been allowed into the E.U.

Images of these fighters began surfacing on social media in August and early September, said FRBI spokesman A. Al-Mahmoud.

“Our lists are compiled with the efforts of some of our affiliate analysts who follow social media of all sorts mainly militia related pages whom suddenly started posting images from within the EU as the refugee situation escalated,” Al-Mahmoud said in an email to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). “A public page was then set up on our website to document what can be from these accounts in hope that media would find it easier to have what they need all in one page.”

Thus far, FRBI has no evidence that the influx of Shiite militiamen into Europe has been organized or orchestrated by Iran or any organized crime syndicate in Europe, but the scale of the militiamen’s migration is unprecedented, Al-Mahmoud said.

They may have varying motivations, he said. Some may fear war crimes prosecutions and are trying to remake themselves into refugees. Others may no longer care about their government’s or clergy’s goals.

The men regularly posted images of themselves on the battlefield, Al-Mahmoud said, then suddenly began posting images showing them in Europe, which led FBRI to believe they had infiltrated the wave of refugees.

No matter the reasons for their move, FRBI fears these men are on a collision course with European values and trapped by a vicious sectarian ideology that makes them a potential threat to their host countries. It alleges that some of these men may have participated in war crimes in Iraq.

“[M]ost of the people who did join the militias do have sectarian leanings and they will export their irrational thought of non co-existence outside Iraq, which will collide with other open and liberal societies, so they will bring their problems with them,” Al-Mahmoud said. “Finally, the background they are from is very low and poor with minimal education; unskilled and foreign, they will quickly find it easy to get into the criminal/theft and drug world adding more problems to the European Union immigrant communities already suffering from stereotyping and media pressure.

“They were paid members of organizations that were trained to kill under religious banners; this is the first time they have come out of Iraq in such large numbers.”

The men belonged to deadly militias such as Al-Hashid al-Shaabi and its subsidiaries such as: Kataib Hizballah (aka Hizballah Iraq), Kataib Imam Ali militia, Saraya al-Salam militia (Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Peace Brigades) – all of which are trained and strongly influenced by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Qods Force under the command of Gen. Qasem Soleimani. He emerged as a controversial figure in the discussions of the Iranian nuclear deal.

Kataib Imam Ali militia formed from splinter elements of al-Sadr’s militia that fought American forces during the Iraq War and remain “extremely anti-American,” said Phillip Smyth, an adjunct fellow at the Washington Institute and an expert on Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. Kataib Imam Ali militiamen have been implicated in human-rights abuses similar to those carried out by the Islamic State (ISIS), he said. In one case, a video showed a militiaman dismembering the burned corpse of a Islamic State fighter as if he were “shwarma,” which sparked a reprisal video by the Islamic State in which two Shiite fighters were burned to death.

An IPT review of the information provided by FRBI lends credence to its contention that Shiite fighters have entered Europe among groups of refugees.

For example, the Facebook page of Al-Hashid al-Shaabi militia member Ali Spaaki shows a clear progression from being on the battlefield in Iraq in June to making his way across Europe throughout September and on to Helsinki, Finland on Oct. 4. Spaaki’s Facebook page shows him getting off a ferry along with a crowd of people in a picture posted to his timeline on Sept. 20 in front of a Greek-flagged ferry and a large crowd. A related photo, also taken Sept. 20, shows him standing in front of a boat that reads “Bodrum” [Turkey] on its stern as its homeport, suggesting the ferry may have departed from that Turkish town. Bodrum has become a “magnet” for refugees, and large numbers of refugees have left the town hoping to make it to Greece since the summer, according to news reports. Spaaki’s departure date came weeks after the body of Aylan Kurdi, a toddler refugee, washed up onshore near Bodrum.

A similar story can be told by examining the Facebook page belonging to Al-Hashid Al-Shaabi fighter Mustafa Al-Azawi. There, he explicitly discusses his effort to enter Greece on the island of Lesbos on Sept. 17 via Izmir, Turkey, which news reports say is a common point of departure for refugees. Pictures on Al-Azawi’s timeline of himself posing on the shore of the island and of inner tubes and a crowd of likely refugees happened the same day a Getty Images photographer captured an image of migrants arriving on Lesbos. Days earlier, on Sept. 10, Al-Azawi posted Google Maps images of routes to Lesbos on Facebook, suggesting he planned his route to the island. Like Spaaki, Al-Azawi’s Facebook page shows his travel across Europe before making his to his final destination in Oulu, Finland on Oct. 3.

Al-Mahmoud also worries these militiamen could become entangled in organized crime and become involved in Iranian-controlled social organizations across Europe, and they will be used for Iran’s political ends.

“A lot of them believe in … Iran’s guiding ideology, and that political and social matters are presided over by Ayatollah Khamenei … so they follow what he says,” Smyth said. “They (Iraqi Shiite militiamen in Europe) do pose a risk.

“These groups believe that both America and the State of Israel are their existential foes.”

In the past, Hizballah supporters living in Europe, Canada or the United States have engaged in criminal activities. This includes cigarette smuggling in the U.S. and accusations of organized crime in Canada and in the E.U. Hizballah supporters also plotted and carried out terrorist attacks in Argentina and Bulgaria. Although these Iraqi militias are not part of Hizballah, they are branches on the same Iranian Qods Force tree – first cousins in effect.

Shiites who support Hizballah and Iran in places like Sweden already have been recruited as foreign fighters by Iranian proxies to fight in Iraq, said Smyth, who traveled to Scandinavia last year on a related research trip. Having a passport from someplace like Sweden means a foreign fighter can come and go from hot zones like Iraq or Syria without the same hassles someone traveling on a Lebanese, Syrian or Iraqi passport.

While most attention has been given to Sunni foreign fighters traveling to Syria and Iraq to fight for the Islamic State and other Sunni jihadist groups, Smyth said, not enough attention has been given to Shiite fighters with ties to Iran.

“You now have a new transnational threat that is loyal to the Iranians, that is anti-American, is anti-Western, is anti-Israel,” Smyth said. “There is a direct threat that’s there.”

It is hard to tell how many people on the FRBI list actually are refugees or if they are in the E.U. vacationing or are there for some other reason. But Smyth sees them as a national-security threat either way.

“Here are examples of these guys when they are out of uniform, when they are possibly still militiamen, and they are traveling to Europe, which says something. How did they get there with a visa? Why, after all of this has been publicized, are they all still going?” Smyth asked in a phone interview with the IPT. “There are already examples of Shia militiamen, Hizballah for instance, who have used Western passports to go different places and to engage in bad deeds.”

This also has U.S. Customs officials concerned. The ease in which these Shia militiamen have entered Europe raises fears that they will be able to travel to the U.S. on E.U. passports, said one Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent who spoke under the condition of not being named. Anyone with a passport from places like Germany, Sweden can easily get on a flight to the U.S. without the sorts of hassles they might experience traveling on an Iraqi or a Syrian passport.

A spokeswoman for Europe’s top law enforcement agency, EUROPOL, told the IPT her agency was unaware of any organized effort by terrorist organizations to infiltrate the E.U. However, none of the Shia militia groups whose members have made their way to Europe are listed as terror groups by the E.U.

“There are however concerns about the use of the Mediterranean routes. While the majority of irregular migrants and refugees are in search of safety, other groups such as returning foreign fighters and other individuals linked to IS (Islamic State), might make use of the services provided by the organized crime groups,” EUROPOL spokeswoman Agnieszka Biegaj wrote in an e-mailed statement. “Given the hazardous nature of the illegal migratory routes, from a terrorists’ perspective, it makes more sense to use regular travel methods and other resources such as false or genuine travel documents.”

Categories: Asylum seekers, Europe, European Union, Iranian proxies, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamism, Israel, Khamenei, Multiculturalism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Khamenei’s new book preaches hatred and annihilation of America

October 13, 2015

Khamenei’s new book preaches hatred and annihilation of America, Front Page Magazine, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, October 13, 2015

(Please see also, The Iranian Majlis Has Not Approved The JCPOA But Iran’s Amended Version Of It. — DM)

bazzi-top-1024x750

[C]an we consider ]US] policy an informed one when the US is compelled to continue to please and spoil the Islamic Republic — by turning a blind eye on its egregious human rights abuses, imprisonment of American citizens without fair and due process, support of  terrorist groups, sabotage of US foreign policy, national, and security interests in the region — all so that Iranian leaders will stick to the nuclear deal?

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

Ironically, as the financial rewards and the improved legitimacy that have resulted from Obama’s nuclear deal continue to benefit the Iranian ruling clerics, the Iranian political establishment’s hatred towards the United States is reaching its peak. 

This week, the highest authority in the Islamic Republic, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, banned and forbade any further talks and negotiations between his country and the United States: “Negotiation with US is forbidden.”

In addition, he recently made his new e-book available for download in English. The Ayatollah points out: “The regional nations truly hate America and its European branch, England. This hatred is not limited to our people: all regional nations hate them … Why do they complain about being hated? Yes, we hate you.” The book advocates for annihilating America and Israel. It rants about how the Muslim world hates the US and Israel.

As a result, how can President Obama stand behind his promise that the nuclear deal is going to make the ruling clerics of the Islamic Republic more rational, less hostile to the United States and Israel, more civilized and a more constructive player in the region?

Adding to the intrigue is the fact that the theocratic leader has not even officially endorsed the nuclear deal, although the sanctions on the country are being gradually lifted. His strategy is to pull out of the nuclear deal after all economic sanctions have been lifted and Iran has obtained full nuclear capabilities.

The timing of the Supreme Leader’s announcement and other recent equally inflammatory statements is important since they come after the Islamic Republic has ensured that the nuclear deal is sealed and Tehran will be receiving over $150 billion in the short term and other additional financial rewards when the economic sanctions are fully lifted.

In addition, the Supreme Leader has heightened his anti-American and anti-Semitic views and speeches after getting indirect assurance from the Obama administration that the US will not impose any kind of sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Even in the future, no sanctions will be imposed on Iran’s human rights abuses, support for terrorism, or any other outlandish inhumane actions.

As the Secretary of State John Kerry pointed out to US senators, Congress won’t be able to impose new sanction on the Islamic Republic. The administration’s rule of not imposing sanctions applies to anything, whether related to nuclear issues or not, because as Mr. Kerry pointed out, he does not desire to show the Islamic Republic that the US is projecting “bad faith.”

This suggests that the administration will support the Iranian leaders in any way possible in order to show good faith, while Iran’s paramount leader is calling for the complete annihilation of the US and Israel, and increasing his military interventions in the region by dominating Baghdad, Damascus, Lebanon, and Sana’a. He has demonstrated clear support for terrorists groups, is determined to scuttle US national, economic and security interests, and has consistently increased his anti-American and anti-Semitic speeches and foreign policies.

Speaking to the commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — who spread terrorism, militarism and Islamist ideologies in the region — Ayatollah Khamenei pointed out that “[w]e are in a critical situation now as the enemies are trying to change the mentality of our officials and our people on the revolution and our national interests.” In addition, with all the advantages that President Obama has given to the Supreme Leader through the nuclear deal, Khamenei stated, “Negotiations with the United States open gates to their economic, cultural, political and security influence. Even during the nuclear negotiations they tried to harm our national interests.”

The Obama administration, on the other hand, insists in not imposing any kind of new sanction because it does not want the Iranian government to get discontent and breach the nuclear deal, as recently made clear by Secretary Kerry.

So, can we consider this policy an informed one when the US is compelled to continue to please and spoil the Islamic Republic — by turning a blind eye on its egregious human rights abuses, imprisonment of American citizens without fair and due process, support of  terrorist groups, sabotage of US foreign policy, national, and security interests in the region — all so that Iranian leaders will stick to the nuclear deal?

In other words, what Secretary Kerry is saying is that any time the Iranian leaders feel discontent, the Obama administration’s policy is to give further bonuses to the ruling clerics and implore them not to back out of the nuclear deal. This coddling has created precisely a situation in which the Iranian ruling clerics have the opportunity to take complete advantage of the American government by exploiting the administration’s weak stance. It seems that when it comes to Iran, President Obama has switched the “carrot and stick” approach to a policy anchored in lavishing rewards on the Iranian leaders.

It is also important not to forget that Iranian leaders were the ones who were desperate for the nuclear deal: they are receiving billions of dollars, global legitimacy, and ensuring their hold on power and pursuit of nuclear objectives, as well as enhancing their regional hegemonic ambitions due to this deal. But since they have smelled the weakness of President Obama, they are more than happy to capitalize on it and exploit it.

As long as the theocratic Islamist political establishment is in power in the Islamic Republic, the Iranian leaders will continue their hatred and anti-American policies towards the US even if the US provides Tehran with its every whim and desire.

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran scam, Khamenei, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's foreign failures, P5+1
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

What could a “harsh” Iranian reaction to Riyadh constitute?

October 10, 2015

What could a “harsh” Iranian reaction to Riyadh constitute? Al-Monitor, Ali Omidi, October 9, 2015

[A]s history has shown, a country’s desire to start a military campaign is not always logical. Iran might decide that no matter what, it must launch a military campaign against Riyadh in order to punish Saudi Arabia.

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

TEHRAN, Iran — Hundreds of Iranian pilgrims were killed in the Sept. 24 stampede in Mina, near Mecca. The incident was followed by Saudi negligence in reporting the situation on time, and failure to collaborate with Iranian authorities. This prompted Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to call on Saudi Arabia to apologize to the “Muslim world” and Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei also accused Riyadh of not fulfilling its obligations in returning the bodies of the Iranian pilgrims, and behaving “maliciously.” He further warned, “The slightest disrespect to tens of thousands of Iranian pilgrims in Mecca and Medina as well as the Saudi government’s refusal to fulfill its duties with regard to the transfer of the pure corpses [of those killed during the hajj] will elicit a harsh and tough reaction from Iran.”

Meanwhile, upon the Oct. 3 return of the bodies of 104 Iranian pilgrims, President Hassan Rouhani issued an additional warning. He said, “So far, our language has been one of brotherhood. When necessary, we have used the language of diplomacy; however, if needed, the language of authority will be used as well.”

Indeed, on the very same day, Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said, “The IRGC has prepared all its possible potentials in order to fulfill the will of the great leader of the Islamic Revolution and make the Saudi dynasty answer for the crimes it committed in Mina and restore the rights of the victims. We are ready and are awaiting orders.” Jafari added, “The Muslim World is tired of the Saudis’ betrayals and ignorance, which reminds us of Abu Lahab, including the massacre of the people of Yemen, displacement of the poor people of Syria, repression of the people of Bahrain, ethnic massacres in Iraq, creation of ethnic tension and support of terrorism. The Saudis shall melt in the anger of the Muslims.”

Lastly, former IRGC Cmdr. Mohsen Rezaei, who is also adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei, warned Riyadh, “Don’t play with fire, because the fire will burn you … don’t follow the example of Saddam [Hussein], who in the middle of the Iraq-Iran War had no way out.”

In response, Saudi Arabia has accused Iran of playing politics with the stampede. “I think the Iranians should think of more productive activities than to play politics with a tragedy that has befallen those people who were performing their most sacred religious duty,” Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told the UN General Assembly. Mindful of the increasingly hostile rhetoric, the question arises of what the “harsh and tough reaction” that Iran has warned of could potentially constitute.

In general, harsh reaction translates into military action. Iran has just finished its negotiations with the six world powers over its nuclear program, and thus considers itself to be in a stronger position. Separately, Iran also assesses that Saudi Arabia is in a desperate situation in Yemen. Therefore, in the case of a possible military confrontation with Saudi Arabia, there are several scenarios that Tehran could consider:

    • A ground campaign. For this kind of campaign to be possible, Iran would need to cross both Iraq and Kuwait. Neither of these countries will allow Iran to enter their territory in order to attack Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this option is not on the table. In addition, such a military campaign requires a large and well-equipped army as well as logistical, financial and economic abilities enjoyed by a superpower. Iran is only considered a mid-level power in the region. There is also the historical example of the US reaction to Iraq’s 1991 invasion of Kuwait for Iran to consider.

 

    • A naval campaign. This would mean that Iran has to travel a distance of 200 miles to reach the eastern coast of Saudi Arabia. Such a campaign is impossible considering the Iranian armed forces’ lack of strategic depth vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, as the latter has the advantage of controlling the sea from land.

 

    • Supporting allies in proxy wars. This would mean that Iran will, more determinedly than ever, support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his fight against opposition forces. Tehran would also support Hezbollah against pro-Saudi elements of the Lebanese government, as well as in Israel, and the Houthis in Yemen. Of course, while supporting Hezbollah and Assad is possible and easy, it is more difficult to give military support to the Houthis since Yemen is under naval blockade. Moreover, UN Resolution 2216 forbids provision of military support to the Houthis. Iran can, however, achieve this goal via smugglers and private contractors.

 

    • Restricting Saudi access to the Strait of Hormuz. Considering Iran’s familiarity with the Strait of Hormuz and the military advantages that it enjoys in this regard, this option is possible. The problem, however, is that this scenario can lead to a battle of tankers, as it did toward the end of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. Indeed, Saudi ships could be prompted to raise a third party flag. In addition, this scenario will give an excuse to world powers to increase their military presence in the Persian Gulf, which runs counter to Iran’s objectives.

 

    • Destroying the bridge that connects Saudi Arabia to Bahrain. The King Fahd Causeway, which is 25 kilometer (15.5 miles) long, was used for the first time in December 1986. If the bridge is destroyed by high-explosives missiles from the air, the Saudi military support for Bahrain is likely to decrease, which will in turn weaken the Bahraini regime. If such an attack is carried out, and Iran at the same time manages to provide opposition groups in Bahrain with logistic and military support, the Bahraini regime is likely to collapse. However, considering that the United States maintains a military presence in Bahrain, it is not possible for Iran to conduct a direct military campaign against Bahrain.

 

    • Supporting the Shiite population of Qatif, in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, with the condition that in case of receiving military and logistic support, the Shiites of Saudi Arabia will rebel with the aim of toppling the Saudi government. Considering that Saudi Arabia has built a very long wall on its border with Iraq, and also considering the distance between the Shiite-inhabited region of Saudi Arabia and Iran, this is hardly a probable option. In addition, there are doubts about whether Saudi Shiites will in fact rebel against their government if provided with such support.

 

  • Firing missiles at Saudi Arabia. As Iran is equipped with multiple types of missiles, it can hit a variety of targets inside Saudi Arabia. Since Saudi Arabia does not have the necessary infrastructure for an effective air defense, such as an Iron Dome, an Iranian missile attack will be effective. The problem, however, is that in such a scenario, Saudi Arabia and its allies will destroy Iran’s oil infrastructure in retaliation.

Considering the options above, and existing limitations, any “harsh” response on the part of Iran will likely be limited to options three through six above. Of course, in case of any kind of confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, all the Arab states of the Persian Gulf — minus Oman — and more than likely the United States and Israel, will offer their complete support to Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, as history has shown, a country’s desire to start a military campaign is not always logical. Iran might decide that no matter what, it must launch a military campaign against Riyadh in order to punish Saudi Arabia. It is therefore more beneficial, for both Iran and Saudi Arabia, to solve their problems via diplomatic means. However, the current exchange of harsh words between Saudi and Iranian officials shows that the situation will either get critical, or the current cold war will continue.

 

Categories: Foreign policy, Iran, Iran - Middle East, Iran military, Iran scam, Israel, Khamenei, Middle East, Obama - Middle East, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, Russia - Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Saudi military, Saudi royal family
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

A word from their Supreme Leader

October 10, 2015

A word from their Supreme Leader, Power Line, Scott Johnson, October 10, 2015

We have yet to see the fatuous fatwa allegedly promulgated by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khameni denouncing the development of nuclear weapons. Yet it has repeatedly been cited by President Obama and others in support of the deadly arrangement into which we have entered with Iran regarding its nuclear program. See, e.g., MEMRI’s reports here and here. The foreboding John Fogerty/Creedence Clearwater Revival song could be put to good use: “I want to know, have you ever seen the fatwa?”

Obama seems to have premised the agreement on hopes for an opening to Iran. Perhaps he doesn’t understand the nature of the Iranian regime. He has an unending train of excuses to mitigate the meaning of their terrorist ventures and ceaseless hostility to the United States. To the extent that Obama can distinguish America’s friends from America’s enemies, he weakens our friends and props up our enemies.

This week Reuters highlighted words actually spoken by their Supreme Leader that tend to belie Obama’s train of thought. In the translation provided in the video Reuters posts with the story, Khamenei states that “negotiation with the U.S. is forbidden[.]” It sounds something like a fatwa of the nonmythical variety. Reuters reports:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday banned any further negotiations between Iran and the United States, putting the brakes on moderates [sic] hoping to end Iran’s isolation after reaching a nuclear deal with world powers in July.

Khamenei, the highest authority in the Islamic Republic, already said last month there would be no more talks with the United States after the nuclear deal, but has not previously declared an outright ban.

His statements directly contradict those of moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who says his government is ready to hold talks with the United States on how to resolve the conflict in Syria, where the two countries back opposing sides.

“Negotiations with the United States open gates to their economic, cultural, political and security influence. Even during the nuclear negotiations they tried to harm our national interests.,” Khamenei was quoted as saying on his website.

Khamenei asserts that in the negotiations leading to the arrangement “the Americans took advantage of a few chances.” I’m thinking those “chances” are of the same nature as the fatuous fatwa, i.e., mythical.

Khamenei’s remarks came in an address Revolutionary Guards Navy commanders. Obama hasn’t been asked about them yet. When asked, he will undoubtedly dismiss them as offered for domestic political consumption, as he has done with the Supreme Leader’s “Death to America” routine. Taking Obama’s interpretation at face value, we have Obama presenting a pure case of projection if there ever was one.

Categories: Death to America, Fatwa, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Khamenei, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, P5+1
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Prominent Iranian Analyst Amir Taheri: Obama Is Capitulating And Chasing Illusions In Deal With Iran

October 6, 2015

Prominent Iranian Analyst Amir Taheri: Unlike Kennedy, Nixon And Reagan, Who Drove A Hard Bargain In Negotiations With Enemies, Obama Is Capitulating And Chasing Illusions In Deal With Iran, Middle East Media Research Institute, October 5, 2015

In an opinion piece published August 25, 2015 in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Amir Taheri, a prominent Iranian analyst, author and columnist, compared Obama’s policy towards Iran to the policies of Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan in their dealings with the U.S.’s main rivals in their day – the USSR and China. Taheri wrote that, in making the deal with Iran, Obama wishes to portray himself as an heir to the tradition established by these presidents of defusing conflict through diplomacy and negotiations. He noted, however, that these leaders negotiated from a position of strength, and pursued a detente with America’s enemies only after the latter had fulfilled important American demands and changed key elements of their policies. For example, Kennedy negotiated with the USSR only after forcing it to remove the nuclear sites from Cuba; Nixon’s normalization with China came only after the latter had turned its back on the Cultural Revolution and abandoned its project of exporting communism, and Reagan engaged with the Soviets only after taking military measures to counter the threat they posed to Europe. Moreover, says Taheri, the U.S. warmed its relations with China and the USSR only after they abandoned their absolute enmity towards it and began regarding it as a rival and competitor rather than a mortal enemy that must be destroyed.

Conversely, says Taheri, Obama demanded nothing of the Iranians before commencing negotiations, not even the release of U.S. hostages. Moreover, he pursued rapprochement with Iran despite the absence of any positive change in this country’s hardline policies and ideologies. On the contrary, America’s overtures only encouraged Iran’s worst tendencies, as reflected in a sharp rise in human rights violations within Iran and in its continued support for terror groups and for Assad’s regime in Syria. The detente with America did not even cause Iran to abandon its calls of death to America, Taheri notes. He concludes “Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan responded positively to positive changes on the part of the adversary,” whereas “Obama is responding positively to his own illusions.”

The following are excerpts from his article:

24977Amir Taheri (Image: Twitter.com/amirtaheri4)

JFK Forced Russia To Remove Its Missiles From Cuba; Obama Obtained Nothing Tangible And Verifiable

“Promoting the ‘deal’ he claims he has made with Iran, President Barack Obama is trying to cast himself as heir to a tradition of ‘peace through negotiations’ followed by US presidents for decades. In that context he has named Presidents John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan as shining examples, with the subtext that he hopes to join their rank in history.

“Obama quotes JFK as saying one should not negotiate out of fear but should not be afraid of negotiating either. To start with, those who oppose the supposed ‘deal’ with Iran never opposed negotiations; they oppose the result it has produced… In one form or another, Iran and the major powers have been engaged in negotiations on the topic since 2003. What prompted Obama to press the accelerator was his desire to score a diplomatic victory before he leaves office. It did not matter if the ‘deal’ he concocted was more of a dog’s dinner than a serious document. He wanted something, anything , and to achieve that he was prepared to settle for one big diplomatic fudge.

“Is Obama the new JFK? Hardly. Kennedy did negotiate with the USSR but only after he had blockaded Cuba and forced Nikita Khrushchev to blink and disband the nuclear sites he had set up on the Caribbean island. In contrast, Obama obtained nothing tangible and verifiable. Iran’s Atomic Energy chief Ali-Akbar Salehi put it nicely when he said that the only thing that Iran gave Obama was a promise ‘not to do things we were not doing anyway, or did not wish to do or could not even do at present.’

“JFK also had the courage to fly to West Berlin to face the Soviet tanks and warn Moscow against attempts at overrunning the enclave of freedom that Germany’s former capital had become. With his ‘Ich bin ein Berliner‘ (I am a citizen of Berlin), he sided with the people of the besieged city in a long and ultimately victorious struggle against Soviet rule. In contrast Obama does not even dare call on the mullahs to release the Americans they hold hostage. Instead, he has engaged in an epistolary courting of the Supreme Guide and instructed his administration in Washington to do and say nothing that might ruffle the mullahs’ feathers.

Nixon Extracted Far-Reaching Concessions From China; Obama Has Only Encouraged The Worst Tendencies Of The Khomeinist Regime

“No, Obama is no JFK.  But is he heir to Nixon? Though he hates Nixon ideologically, Obama has tried to compare his Iran ‘deal’ with Nixon’s rapprochement with China. Again, the comparison is misplaced. Normalization with Beijing came after the Chinese leaders had sorted out their internal power struggle and decided to work their way out of the ideological impasse created by their moment of madness known as The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The big bad wolf of the tale, Lin Biao, was eliminated in an arranged air crash and the Gang of Four defanged before the new leadership set-up in Beijing could approach Washington with talk of normalization.

“At the time the Chinese elite, having suffered defeat in border clashes with the USSR, saw itself surrounded by enemies, especially after China’s only ally Pakistan had been cut into two halves in an Indo-Soviet scheme that led to the creation of Bangladesh. Hated by all its neighbors, China needed the US to break out of isolation. Even then, the Americans drove a hard bargain. They set a list of 22 measures that Beijing had to take to prove its goodwill, chief among them was abandoning the project of ‘exporting revolution’.

“Those of us who, as reporters, kept an eye on China and visited the People’s Republic in those days were astonished at the dramatic changes the Communist leaders introduced in domestic and foreign policies to please the Americans. In just two years, China ceased to act as a ’cause’ and started behaving like a nation-state. It was only then that Nixon went to Beijing to highlight a long process of normalization. In the case of Iran, Obama has obtained none of those things. In fact, his ‘deal’ has encouraged the worst tendencies of the Khomeinist regime as symbolized by dramatic rise in executions, the number of prisoners of conscience and support for terror groups not to mention helping Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.

Reagan Had No Qualms About Calling The USSR ‘The Evil Empire’;  Obama Is Scared Of Offending The Mullahs

“No, Obama is no Nixon. But is he a new Reagan as he pretends? Hardly. Reagan was prepared to engage the Soviets at the highest level only after he had convinced them that they could not blackmail Europe with their SS20s while seeking to expand their empire through so-called revolutionary movements they sponsored across the globe. The SS20s were countered with Pershing missiles and ‘revolutionary’ armies with Washington-sponsored ‘freedom fighters.’

“Unlike Obama who is scared of offending the mullahs, Reagan had no qualms about calling the USSR ‘The Evil Empire’ and castigating its leaders on issues of freedom and human rights. The famous phrase ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!’ indicated that though he was ready to negotiate, Reagan was not prepared to jettison allies to clinch a deal.

“Obama has made no mention of Jimmy Carter, the US president he most resembles. However, even Carter was not as bad as Obama if only because he was prepared to boycott the Moscow Olympics to show his displeasure at the invasion of Afghanistan. Carter also tried to do something to liberate US hostages in Tehran by organizing an invasion of the Islamic Republic with seven helicopters. The result was tragicomic; but he did the best his meagre talents allowed. (NB: No one is suggesting Obama should invade Iran if only because if he did the results would be even more tragicomic than Carter’s adventure.)

“On a more serious note, it is important to remember that dealing with the Khomeinist regime in Tehran is quite different from dealing with the USSR and China was in the context of detente and normalization. Neither the USSR nor the People’s Republic regarded the United States as ‘enemy’ in any religious context as the Khomeinist regime does. Moscow branded the US, its ‘Imperialist’ rival, as an ‘adversary’ (protivnik) who must be fought and, if possible, defeated, but not as a ‘foe’ (vrag) who must be destroyed. In China, too, the US was attacked as ‘arch-Imperialist’ or ‘The Paper Tiger’ but not as a mortal foe. The slogan was ‘Yankee! Go Home!'”

China And USSR Moderated Their Virulent Hate For U.S,; In Iran The Slogan Is Still ‘Death To America’

“In the Khomeinist regime, however, the US is routinely designated as ‘foe’ (doshman) in a religious context and the slogan is ‘Death to America!’ Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei has no qualms about calling for the ‘destruction’ of America, as final step towards a new global system under the banner of his twisted version of Islam. Tehran is the only place where international ‘End of America’ conferences are held by the government every year. The USSR and China first cured themselves of their version of the anti-American disease before seeking detente and normalization. That did not mean they fell in love with the US. What it meant was that they learned to see the US as adversary, rival, or competitor not as a mortal foe engaged in a combat-to-death contest. The Islamic Republic has not yet cured itself of that disease and Obama’s weakness may make it even more difficult for that cure to be applied.

“Détente with the USSR and normalization with China came after they modified important aspects of their behavior for the better. Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan responded positively to positive changes on the part of the adversary. In the case of the USSR positive change started with the 20th congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in which Khrushchev denounced Joseph Stalin’s crimes, purged the party of its nastiest elements, notably Lavrentiy Beria, and rehabilitated millions of Stalin’s victims.

“In foreign policy, Khrushchev, his swashbuckling style notwithstanding, accepted the new architecture of stability in Cold War Europe based on NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Kennedy, Johnson and, later, Nixon and President Gerald Ford had to respond positively. In the late1980s, the USSR offered other positive evolutions through Glasnost and Perestroika and final withdrawal from Afghanistan under Mikhail Gorbachev. Again, Reagan and President George Bush (the father) had to respond positively.

“In the case of China we have already noted the end of the Cultural Revolution. But China also agreed to help the US find a way to end the Vietnam War. Beijing stopped its almost daily provocations against Taiwan and agreed that the issue of the island-nation issue be kicked into the long grass. Within a decade, under Deng Xiaoping, China went even further by adopting capitalism as its economic system.

“There is one other difference between the cases of the USSR and China in the 1960s to 1990s and that of the Khomeinist regime in Tehran today. The USSR had been an ally of the United States during the Second World War and its partner in setting up the United Nations in 1945. Although rivals and adversaries, the two nations also knew when to work together when their mutual interests warranted it. The same was true of the Chinese Communist Party which had been an ally of the US and its Chinese client the Kuomintang during the war against Japanese occupation when Edgar Snow was able to describe Mao Zedong as ‘America’s staunchest ally against the Japanese Empire.’ In the 1970s, Washington and Beijing did not find it strange to cooperate in containing the USSR, their common rival-cum-adversary as they had done when countering Japan.

“In the case of the Islamic Republic there is no sign of any positive change and certainly no history of even tactical alliance with the US.

“Unless he knows something that we do not, Obama is responding positively to his own illusions.”

Categories: Death to America, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Iran scam, Khamenei, Obama - rogue president, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's weakness, P5+1
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 4 Comments

The Iran Nuclear Deal: What the Next President Should Do

October 2, 2015

The Iran Nuclear Deal: What the Next President Should Do, Heritage Foundation, , October 2, 2015

(But please see, The Elephant In The Room. — DM)

The failure of Congress to halt the implementation of the Obama Administration’s nuclear agreement with Tehran means that the U.S. is stuck with a bad deal on Iran’s nuclear program at least for now. Iran’s radical Islamist regime will now benefit from the suspension of international sanctions without dismantling its nuclear infrastructure, which will remain basically intact. Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon is unlikely to be blocked by the Administration’s flawed deal, any more than North Korea was blocked by the Clinton Administration’s 1994 Agreed Framework.

The next President should not passively accept Obama’s risky deal with Tehran as a fait accompli. Instead, he or she should immediately cite any violations of the agreement by Iran, its continued support for terrorism, or other hostile policies as reason to abrogate the agreement. The Bush Administration, faced with bad deals negotiated by the Clinton Administration, eventually withdrew from both the Agreed Framework and the Kyoto Protocol.

Rather than endorsing a dangerous agreement that bolsters Iran’s economy, facilitates its military buildup, and paves the way for an eventual Iranian nuclear breakout, the next Administration must accelerate efforts to deter, contain, and roll back the influence of Iran’s theocratic dictatorship, which continues to call for “death to America.”

How the Next President Should Deal with Iran

Upon entering office, the next Administration should immediately review Iran’s compliance with the existing deal, as well as its behavior in sponsoring terrorism, subverting nearby governments, and attacking U.S. allies. Any evidence that Iran is cheating on the agreement (which is likely given Iran’s past behavior) or continuing hostile acts against the U.S. and its allies should be used to justify nullification of the agreement.

Regrettably, Tehran already will have pocketed up to $100 billion in sanctions relief by the time the next Administration comes to office because of the frontloading of sanctions relief in the early months of the misconceived deal. Continuing to fork over billions of dollars that Tehran can use to finance further terrorism, subversion, and military and nuclear expansion will only worsen the situation.

In place of the flawed nuclear agreement, which would boost Iran’s long-term military and nuclear threat potential, strengthen Iran’s regional influence, strain ties with U.S. allies, and diminish U.S. influence in the region, the new Administration should:

1. Expand sanctions on Iran. The new Administration should immediately reinstate all U.S. sanctions on Iran suspended under the Vienna Agreement and work with Congress to expand sanctions, focusing on Iran’s nuclear program; support of terrorism; ballistic missile program; interventions in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen; human rights violations; and holding of four American hostages (Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, and former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who has been covertly held hostage by Iran since 2007).

The new Administration should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization and apply sanctions to any non-Iranian companies that do business with the IRGC’s extensive economic empire. This measure would help reduce the IRGC’s ability to exploit sanctions relief for its own hostile purposes.

Washington should also cite Iranian violations of the accord as reason for reimposing U.N. sanctions on Iran, thus enhancing international pressure on Tehran and discouraging foreign investment and trade that could boost Iran’s military and nuclear programs. It is critical that U.S. allies and Iran’s trading partners understand that investing or trading with Iran will subject them to U.S. sanctions even if some countries refuse to enforce U.N. sanctions.

2. Strengthen U.S. military forces to provide greater deterrence against an Iranian nuclear breakout.Ultimately, no piece of paper will block an Iranian nuclear breakout. The chief deterrent to Iran’s attaining a nuclear capability is the prospect of a U.S. preventive military attack. It is no coincidence that Iran halted many aspects of its nuclear weapons program in 2003 after the U.S. invasion of and overthrow of hostile regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi, motivated by a similar apprehension about the Bush Administration, also chose to give up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

To strengthen this deterrence, it is necessary to rebuild U.S. military strength, which has been sapped in recent years by devastating budget cuts. The Obama Administration’s failure to provide for the national defense will shortly result in the absence of U.S. aircraft carriers from the Persian Gulf region for the first time since 2007. Such signs of declining U.S. military capabilities will exacerbate the risks posed by the nuclear deal.

3. Strengthen U.S. alliances, especially with Israel. The nuclear agreement has had a corrosive effect on bilateral relationships with important U.S. allies in the Middle East, particularly those countries that are most threatened by Iran, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Rather than sacrificing the interests of allies in a rush to embrace Iran as the Obama Administration has done, the next Administration should give priority to safeguarding the vital security interests of the U.S. and its allies by maintaining a favorable balance of power in the region to deter and contain Iran. Washington should help rebuild security ties by boosting arms sales to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that are threatened by Tehran, taking care that arms sales to Arab states do not threaten Israel’s qualitative military edge in the event of a flare-up in Arab–Israeli fighting.

To enhance deterrence against an Iranian nuclear breakout, Washington also should transfer to Israel capabilities that could be used to destroy hardened targets such as the Fordow uranium enrichment facility, which is built hundreds of feet beneath a mountain. The only non-nuclear weapon capable of destroying such a target is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a precision-guided, 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb. Giving Israel these weapons and the aircraft to deliver them would make Tehran think twice about risking a nuclear breakout.

The U.S. and its European allies also should strengthen military, intelligence, and security cooperation with Israel and the members of the GCC, an alliance of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, founded in 1981 to provide collective security for Arab states threatened by Iran. Such a coalition could help both to contain the expansion of Iranian power and to facilitate military action (if necessary) against Iran.

4. Put a high priority on missile defense. Iran’s ballistic missile force, the largest in the Middle East, poses a growing threat to its neighbors. Washington should help Israel to strengthen its missile defenses and help the GCC countries to build an integrated and layered missile defense architecture to blunt the Iranian missile threat. The U.S. Navy should be prepared to deploy warships equipped with Aegis ballistic missile defense systems to appropriate locations to help defend Israel and the GCC allies against potential Iranian missile attacks as circumstances demand. This will require coordinating missile defense activities among the various U.S. and allied missile defense systems through a joint communications system. The U.S. should also field missile defense interceptors in space for intercepting Iranian missiles in the boost phase, which would add a valuable additional layer to missile defenses.

5. Deter nuclear proliferation. For more than five decades, Washington has opposed the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies such as uranium enrichment, even for its allies. By unwisely making an exception for Iran, the Obama Administration in effect conceded the acceptability of an illicit uranium enrichment program in a rogue state. In fact, the Administration granted Iran’s Islamist dictatorship better terms on uranium enrichment than the Ford and Carter Administrations offered to the Shah of Iran, a U.S. ally back in the 1970s.

The Obama Administration’s shortsighted deal with Iran is likely to spur a cascade of nuclear proliferation among threatened states such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. Such a multipolar nuclear Middle East, on hair-trigger alert because of the lack of a survivable second-strike capability, would introduce a new level of instability into an already volatile region. To prevent such an outcome, the next Administration must reassure these countries that it will take military action to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear capability as well as to deter Iranian military threats to their interests.

6. Expand domestic oil and gas production and lift the ban on U.S. oil exports to put downward pressure on world prices. In addition to sanctions, Iran’s economy has been hurt by falling world oil prices. Its oil export earnings, which constitute more than 80 percent of the regime’s revenue, have been significantly reduced. By removing unnecessary restrictions on oil exploration and drilling in potentially rich offshore and Alaskan oil regions, Washington could help to maximize downward pressure on long-term global oil prices. Lifting the ban on U.S. oil exports, an obsolete legacy of the 1973–1974 energy crisis spawned by the Arab oil embargo, would amplify the benefits of increased oil and gas production. Permitting U.S. oil exports not only would benefit the U.S. economy and balance of trade, but also would marginally lower world oil prices and Iranian oil export revenues, thereby reducing the regime’s ability to finance terrorism, subversion, and military expansion.

7. Negotiate a better deal with Iran. The Obama Administration played a strong hand weakly in its negotiations with Iran. It made it clear that it wanted a nuclear agreement more than Tehran appeared to want one. That gave the Iranians bargaining leverage that they used shrewdly. The Administration made a bad situation worse by downplaying the military option and front-loading sanctions relief early in the interim agreement, which reduced Iran’s incentives to make concessions.

The next Administration should seek an agreement that would permanently bar Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. At a minimum, this would require:

  • Banning Iran from uranium enrichment activities;
  • Dismantling substantial portions of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, particularly the Fordow and Natanz uranium enrichment facilities and Arak heavy water reactor;
  • Performing robust inspections on an “anytime anywhere” basis and real-time monitoring of Iranian nuclear facilities;
  • Linking sanctions relief to Iranian compliance;
  • Ensuring that Iran comes clean on its past weaponization efforts; and
  • Determining a clear and rapid process for reimposing all sanctions if Iran is caught cheating.

The Bottom Line

The nuclear deal already has weakened relationships between the U.S. and important allies, undermined the perceived reliability of the U.S. as an ally, and helped Iran to reinvigorate its economy and expand its regional influence. After oil sanctions are lifted, Iran will gain enhanced resources to finance escalating threats to the U.S. and its allies. The next Administration must help put Iran’s nuclear genie back in the bottle by taking a much tougher and more realistic approach to deterring and preventing an Iranian nuclear breakout.

Categories: Death to America, Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran - Middle East, Iran - secret deal, Iran military, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iran's military spending, Iranian anti-semitism, Iranian military sites, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iranian Threats, Israel, Khamenei, Middle East, Netanyahu, Next US President and Iran scam, Obama - Middle East, Obama - rogue president, Obama and Israel, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Russia, Sanctions, Saudi Arabia, U.S. 2016 elections, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, U.S. politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 4 Comments

The Elephant In The Room

October 2, 2015

The Elephant In The Room, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Yigal Carmon*, October 2, 2015

(Please see also, Iran wants to renegotiate parts of the nuke “deal.” That may be good. Have opponents of the “deal” given up? If so, why? — DM)

It may be that these opponents believe that the agreement is a done deal that cannot be stopped and that the current U.S. administration will follow through with it no matter what. This approach reflects not realism but ignorance. Obviously the administration wants to follow through with the deal. But the deal is no longer in it hands. It is Khamenei who is throwing a spanner in the works, declaring that he will not implement the agreement that the West believed it concluded on July 14.

In order to get Iran to implement the agreement, the language of the JCPOA will have to be changed and a new Security Council resolution will have to be passed. While in theory this would not be impossible, it would require a new process, entailing, at the very least, a public political debate in the West – one that would reveal Iran’s unreliability as a partner and would cost valuable time. And time is not on the side of the U.S. administration.

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

On September 3, 2015, not two months after the July 14 announcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action at Vienna and its celebration at the White House and in Europe, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dropped a bombshell.

In a speech to the Iranian Assembly of Experts, he backtracked from the agreement, demanding a new concession: that the sanctions be “lifted,” not merely “suspended.”[1] If that term is not changed, said Khamenei, there is no agreement. If the West only “suspends” the sanctions, he added, Iran will merely “suspend” its obligations. Giving further credence to his threat, he announced that it is the Iranian Majlis that must discuss and approve the agreement (or not), because it represents the people – when it is well known that the majority of its members oppose it, and Iranian President Hassan Rohani made every effort to prevent such a discussion in the Majlis from taking place.

Adding insult to injury, Ali Akbar Velayati, senior advisor to Khamenei and head of Iran’s Center for Strategic Research, said on September 19 that the negotiations, concluded and celebrated less than two months previously on July 14, are actually “not over yet.”[2]

Khamenei’s demand to replace “suspension” with “lifting” is not just semantic. It is a fundamental change, because the snapback of sanctions – the major security mechanism for the entire agreement – cannot take place with “lifting,” but only with “suspension.”

Ever since Khamenei dropped this bombshell, the Western media has maintained total silence, as if this were a trivial matter not worthy of mention, let alone analysis.

One might understand this reaction on the part of those who support the deal. Perhaps they are shocked, at a loss, and therefore hope that if they pretend they don’t see it, it doesn’t exist. Indeed, this is the futile policy regularly adopted by ostriches.

However, one cannot but be astounded by the silence on the part of the opponents of the deal, including – oddly enough – Israel and the U.S. Republicans. One would expect these opponents to pounce on Khamenei’s statement and raise hell over Iran’s infanticide of the two-month-old agreement. One would expect them to bring it to the forefront of a new debate over the deal in any possible forum – in the U.S., the U.N., and the E.U.

But – nothing.

It may be that these opponents believe that the agreement is a done deal that cannot be stopped and that the current U.S. administration will follow through with it no matter what. This approach reflects not realism but ignorance. Obviously the administration wants to follow through with the deal. But the deal is no longer in it hands. It is Khamenei who is throwing a spanner in the works, declaring that he will not implement the agreement that the West believed it concluded on July 14.

In order to get Iran to implement the agreement, the language of the JCPOA will have to be changed and a new Security Council resolution will have to be passed. While in theory this would not be impossible, it would require a new process, entailing, at the very least, a public political debate in the West – one that would reveal Iran’s unreliability as a partner and would cost valuable time. And time is not on the side of the U.S. administration.

Right now, Iran is exposed almost daily as the ally of Russia against the U.S. Three months after the “historic” agreement declared by the White House, Iran continues to seek “Death to America,” and the Iranian foreign minister, the “hero” of the agreement, needs to apologize in Iran for “accidentally” shaking hands with the U.S. president. The truth of the agreement is emerging, and it is not certain that what Iran is now demanding will pass.

Interestingly enough, the White House’s first reaction was to brush off Khamenei’s demand. Iran, said Josh Earnest, should just do what it what it had undertaken to do in the agreement, and stop roiling the waters.[3]

A more sober response followed. There was hope that the meeting set for September 28 between the P5+1 and Iranian foreign ministers, on the margins of the 70th session of the U.N. General Assembly, would produce a solution, but this hope was in vain. Iranian President Rohani fled back to Iran, on the pretext of the hajj tragedy in Mecca, and no one in the West knows how to proceed.

The Western media, for its part, is perpetuating its total blackout on the issue, hoping perhaps for a miracle in the secret U.S.-Iran talks, which this administration has been conducting for years. But even a secret U.S. concession will be no solution. Even if it were to offer a secret commitment to remove the sanctions altogether, Khamenei will not be satisfied. He openly challenged the U.S., and he needs its public capitulation. He will celebrate publicly any secret concession. Moreover, any new U.S. concession will prompt Khamenei to make ever more demands.

The most recent developments, and the emergence of Russia as a new-old contender for power vis-à-vis the U.S. in the world, particularly in the Middle East, will only encourage Khamenei to cling to his tried and true ally, Russia. Indeed, this administration has no objection to Russia’s resurgence in the Middle East, but Russia’s blatant anti-U.S. stance in every venue except in the private, honeyed Putin-Obama talks will ultimately lead even the blindest of Democrats to realize that Iran is indeed an enemy of the U.S. – as Iran plainly declares – and that any further concessions to it make no sense.

It seems that the worst nightmare of the supporters of the deal – that Iran will do away with the July 14 agreement – is about to come to pass.

*Y. Carmon is president and founder of MEMRI.

Endnotes:

[3] Earnest said: “What we have indicated all along is that once an agreement was reached, as it was back in mid-July, that we would be focused on Iran’s actions and not their words, and that we will be able to tell if Iran follows through on the commitments that they made in the context of these negotiations. And that is what will determine our path forward here. We’ve been crystal clear about the fact that Iran will have to take a variety of serious steps to significantly roll back their nuclear program before any sanctions relief is offered – and this is everything from reducing their nuclear uranium stockpile by 98 percent, disconnecting thousands of centrifuges, essentially gutting the core of their heavy-water reactor at Arak, giving the IAEA the information and access they need in order to complete their report about the potential military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program. And then we need to see Iran begin to comply with the inspections regime that the IAEA will put in place to verify their compliance with the agreement. And only after those steps and several others have been effectively completed, will Iran begin to receive sanctions relief.  The good news is all of this is codified in the agreement that was reached between Iran and the rest of the international community. And that’s what we will be focused on, is their compliance with the agreement.” Whitehouse.gov, September 4, 2015.

Categories: Democrats, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, JCPOA, Khamenei, Obama - rogue president, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's affinity for Obama, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Republicans, Rouhani, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution, U.S. politics, Western media
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Iran wants to renegotiate parts of the nuke “deal.” That may be good.

September 22, 2015

Iran wants to renegotiate parts of the nuke “deal.” That may be good. Dan Miller’s Blog, September 22, 2015

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or those of its other editors. — DM)

 

Iran wants sanctions relief to be lifted, immediately, and not merely suspended. Iran should not get that. If it doesn’t, it may well terminate the “deal” unilaterally. If Iran gets what it wants, the Senate should review the “deal” as a treaty and reject it. Either outcome would be a substantial improvement over the current “deal” and the morass in which it is embedded.

This post is based on a September 21st article at Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) titled “Expected September 28 NY Meeting Between P5+1 Foreign Ministers And Iran Could Signify Reopening Of Nuclear Negotiations To Address Khamenei’s September 3 Threat That If Sanctions Are Not Lifted, But Merely Suspended, There Will Be No Agreement.”

The MEMRI article cites statements by Supreme Leader Khamenei and one of his senior advisers, Ali Akbar Velayat. The latter said, on September 19th,  “the nuclear negotiations are not over yet.” Khamenei has said much the same thing.

Khamenei said, in a September 3, 2015 speech to the Assembly of Experts, that he did not accept the terms of the agreement and demanded that the sanctions be immediately lifted rather than merely suspended; otherwise, he said, there would either be no agreement, or Iran too would merely suspend its execution of its obligations under the JCPOA.

. . . .

“Freezing or suspension [of the sanctions] is unacceptable to me… If they suspend [the sanctions], we too will suspend [what is incumbent upon us]. If we are to implement what [is required of us], the sanctions must be [actually] cancelled.

Iran has thus made clear that it will not abide by the nuke “deal” as written; unless it gets the changes it now demands, it will either terminate the deal or violate it. If, as seems likely for the reasons cited in the MEMRI article, the September 28th meeting involves discussion of the deal, it will either be renegotiated or it won’t be.

If the “deal” is not renegotiated, or is renegotiated and Iran does not get what it demands, it may very well terminate the deal. Iran has already received substantial sanctions relief, is already open for business and is already doing lots of it with many more nations than previously. Termination would be a rebuff to the “Great Satan,” would not damage Iran much economically and it could proceed with its “peaceful” nuke program without even farcical nuke self-inspections.

If The Obama administration and others cave and Iran gets what it demands or enough to satisfy it, the “deal” will be very different from what was previously presented to the Congress under the Corker legislation. That legislation purported to eliminate the constitutional requirement of approval of the “deal” by a two-thirds Senate majority before going into effect and permitted it to go into effect unless rejected by half of the membership of both houses; Obama promised to veto such a rejection and put the “deal” into effect. The House has disapproved the “deal” but the Senate has not acted because of Democrat fillibusters, urged by the White House. Under the new “deal,” the ability of the United States to “snap back” sanctions would be vitiated; a possible but very difficult if not impossible to accomplish, “snap back” had been among the reasons cited by many of those who favored the “deal” (often despite its many other flaws) for supporting it.

If a deal eliminating the “snap back” is struck, Obama, et al, may well claim that it’s none of the business of the Congress since, by virtue of the Corker legislation, it has already eliminated its constitutional authority to deal with the JCPOA as a treaty, regardless of any “minor” change.

I hope, but am less than confident, that both houses of the Congress will reject this contention vigorously and repeal the Corker legislation. Whatever benefits or other legitimacy the Corker legislation may once have been thought to have it no longer has. Repeal will probably require use of the “nuclear option” to invoke cloture to end a Democrat filibuster in the Senate. If — as seems likely — Obama vetoes the rejection, the Congress should state that it no longer considers itself bound by the Corker legislation. Next, the Senate should treat the renegotiated “deal” as a treaty, regardless of whether Obama agrees to send it to the Senate, and reject it. It should do so even if, as also seems likely, that requires use of the “nuclear option” to invoke cloture.

Obama has precipitated what may well become a constitutional crisis. If the Congress does its job, Obama will be the loser and America will be the winner — even if it becomes necessary to take out Iran’s nukes militarily.

Categories: Democrats, IAEA, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian economy, Iranian military sites, Iranian nukes, Kerry, Khamenei, Nuclear option, Obama - rogue president, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, P5+1, Republicans, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Iran appears to wants changes in the JCPOA

September 22, 2015

Expected September 28 NY Meeting Between P5+1 Foreign Ministers And Iran Could Signify Reopening Of Nuclear Negotiations To Address Khamenei’s September 3 Threat That If Sanctions Are Not Lifted, But Merely Suspended, There Will Be No Agreement, MEMRI, September 21, 2015

(If the JCPOA is renegotiated, in any respect, will Congress get another opportunity to challenge it? If so, will a way be found to deal with it as a treaty? The answer to both questions should be yes. — DM)

The expected meeting between the P5+1 foreign ministers and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif may be evidence of a shift in the White House position and also evidence that it intends to discuss the Iranian demand for further concessions from the superpowers.

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

Recent reports indicate that the foreign ministers of the P5+1 are set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in New York on September 28, 2015, on the margins of the UN General Assembly, to “examine the recent developments of the JCPOA.”[1]

On September 20, 2015, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, at a joint press conference in Berlin with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier, that he would meet Zarif in New York to discuss “Iran and other matters.”[2]

Additionally, Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the head of Iran’s Center for Strategic Research, said on September 19, 2015 that “the nuclear negotiations are not over yet.”[3]

As will be recalled, Khamenei said, in a September 3, 2015 speech to the Assembly of Experts, that he did not accept the terms of the agreement and demanded that the sanctions be immediately lifted rather than merely suspended; otherwise, he said, there would either be no agreement, or Iran too would merely suspend its execution of its obligations under the JCPOA. He said: “We negotiated [with the Americans] in order to have the sanctions lifted, and the sanctions will be lifted. Now, if we are supposed to uphold this framework… this completely contradicts the reason for Iran’s participation in the talks to begin with. Otherwise, what was the point of our participation in the talks? We would have continued to do what we were doing [prior to the talks]… The fact that we sat down and held talks and made concessions on certain issues was mainly in order to have the sanctions lifted. If the sanctions are not going to be lifted, there will be no agreement… [Our] officials [i.e. Rohani’s government and his Ministry of Foreign Affairs] should make this clear…

“Freezing or suspension [of the sanctions] is unacceptable to me… If they suspend [the sanctions], we too will suspend [what is incumbent upon us]. If we are to implement what [is required of us], the sanctions must be [actually] cancelled. True, the other side says that some of the sanctions are not [up to them entirely] to be lifted. We say in response that [with regard to those sanctions] we will use our legal rights to freeze them. But regarding [the sanctions that are] in the hands of the American and European governments – those must be totally lifted.”[4]

The apparent meaning of all the above is that the nuclear negotiations, which Iran considers unfinished, will be reopened, with the aim of achieving the complete lifting of sanctions – instead of a mere suspension of them as was agreed in the JCPOA and adopted in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It will also be recalled that following Khamenei’s September 3 demands, on September 4 the White House responded; spokesman Josh Earnest said that Iran was charged with meeting its obligations under the JCPOA: “What we have indicated all along is that once an agreement was reached, as it was back in mid-July, that we would be focused on Iran’s actions and not their words, and that we will be able to tell if Iran follows through on the commitments that they made in the context of these negotiations. And that is what will determine our path forward here.

“We’ve been crystal clear about the fact that Iran will have to take a variety of serious steps to significantly roll back their nuclear program before any sanctions relief is offered – and this is everything from reducing their nuclear uranium stockpile by 98 percent, disconnecting thousands of centrifuges, essentially gutting the core of their heavy-water reactor at Arak, giving the IAEA the information and access they need in order to complete their report about the potential military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program. And then we need to see Iran begin to comply with the inspections regime that the IAEA will put in place to verify their compliance with the agreement.

“And only after those steps and several others have been effectively completed, will Iran begin to receive sanctions relief.  The good news is all of this is codified in the agreement that was reached between Iran and the rest of the international community. And that’s what we will be focused on, is their compliance with the agreement.”[5]

The expected meeting between the P5+1 foreign ministers and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif may be evidence of a shift in the White House position and also evidence that it intends to discuss the Iranian demand for further concessions from the superpowers.

It should be clarified that agreement on the part of the U.S. to lifting the sanctions would constitute a fundamental change to the JCPOA. This is because lifting the sanctions, rather than suspending them, will render impossible a snapback in case of Iranian violations, and the guarantee of a snapback is one of the central justifications for the JCPOA, according to President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry.

Endnotes:

[1] Fars (Iran), September 21, 2015.

[2] State.gov, September 20, 2015.

[3] Fars (Iran), September 19, 2015. It should be mentioned that Majlis member Hamid Rasaei said that the language of the agreement signed by Abbas Araghchi that was delivered to Majlis committees was “a partial document with many translating errors and omissions.” He added that the government must present the agreement to the Majlis in the form of a draft law and that a Majlis committee is currently “examining a version that is neither a proposal nor a draft law.” Tasnim (Iran), September 20, 2015.

[5] Whitehouse.gov, September 4, 2015.

Categories: Foreign policy, Iran scam, Javad Zarif, JCPOA, Kerry, Khamenei, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »