By criticizing and blaming the U.S. for not honoring the terms, Rouhani plans to exploit President Obama’s weak point, as the negotiating team has been doing all along, by invoking Obama’s fear that Tehran might pull out of the nuclear deal — a move that would highlight the failure of the accord. This tactic will, as usual, successfully pressure the administration to give Tehran even more geopolitical and economic “carrots,” and pursue a policy with Iran of agreeing to even more concessions.
Rouhani’s tactical shift is intended to reinforce Iran’s entrenched revolutionary ideal of anti-Americanism, appease Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards, and ensure his second term presidency.
Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif will be attending the 71st session of the UN General Assembly in New York this week.
Based on the latest developments, all signs point to a tactical shift by Rouhani, in which his messages and tone will be quite different this year.
In the previous sessions of the UN General Assembly, Rouhani and his team adopted a diplomatic tone in order to have the UN Security Council lift sanctions against Iran. He praised the success of the nuclear agreement, its contribution to peace and its prevention of more tension and potential conflagration in the region. Iran’s objective was achieved: a few months later, when all four rounds of the Security Council sanctions were removed, billions of dollars and billions of cover-up stories arrived, all cost-free gifts from the U.S.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks at the UN General Assembly, September 26, 2013. (Image source: president.ir)
After achieving these goals for Iran’s ruling politicians, Rouhani’s message this year will switch to blaming the U.S. for all sorts of injurious shortcomings in the nuclear agreement, which Iran, incidentally, still has not signed.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has sent hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran, and has hidden Iran’s supposed non-compliance with the nuclear deal to which it never officially agreed in the first place. The deal, in fact, seems only to have existed in the overheated imaginations of the US and other gullible members of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Nevertheless, the U.S. has ignored what Iran’s violations could be, and has assisted Tehran in evading any terms of the nuclear agreement it wished.
In addition, now that Iran has seen that the U.S. had lost all political leverage to pressure Tehran through the Security Council sanctions, and that, as critics of the deal had repeatedly and urgently warned, sanctions could not be “snapped back,” partly due to the veto power of Russia and China, Rouhani will be openly delivering the hardline messages of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the generals of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who enjoy power over Iran’s economic and political systems.
Khamenei and the senior cadre of the IRGC draw their legitimacy and power from the revolutionary principle of opposing the U.S., the “Great Satan.”
After the billions of dollars from the nuclear deal were delivered, the regime’s anti-American remarks and behavior only increased. For Rouhani, any expectation of rapprochement with the U.S. must be prevented, and also any domestic political liberalization prevented from occurring.
Reasons for Rouhani’s tactical shift in more publicly adhering to Iran’s revolutionary principle of anti-Americanism also include Iran’s leaders’ awareness that President Obama is tightly and desperately clutching the nuclear agreement until he leaves office: he considers the deal his crowning foreign policy accomplishment and legacy. By criticizing and blaming the U.S. for not honoring the terms, Rouhani plans to exploit President Obama’s weak point, as the negotiating team has been doing all along, by invoking Obama’s fear that Tehran might pull out of the nuclear deal — a move that would highlight the failure of the accord. This tactic will, as usual, successfully pressure the administration to give Tehran even more geopolitical and economic “carrots,” and pursue a policy with Iran of agreeing to even more concessions. Rouhani and Zarif will, as usual, conduct bilateral talks with American diplomats behind the closed doors to make sure they are achieved.
Rouhani’s public shift to Iran’s hard-line political spectrum is also partially pitched to Iran’s upcoming presidential elections. He needs the firm support of the hard-line leaders — fundamentally that of Supreme Leader Khamenei, who enjoys the final say in Iran’s domestic and foreign policy, and that of the IRGC leaders — in order to assure his election to a second term.
By more publicly delivering Khamenei’s message — that the US is not adhering to the terms of the nuclear deal and that it is supposedly the U.S. that has been “breaking oaths and not acting on their commitments and creating obstacles” —
Rouhani is most likely hoping further to endear himself to Khamenei and the IRGC and prove his loyalty.
A recent poll by the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland revealed that the moderate camp’s popularity has not only decreased, but that Iran’s former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
“now represents the single largest threat to Rouhani’s re-election, and trails the once-popular incumbent by only eight points. Suddenly, the ex-president [Ahmadinejad] seems once again to be a real political contender.”
Rouhani had also promised the Iranian people that the nuclear deal would improve their economic life. Since the implementation of the nuclear deal, however, the Iranian people have (unsurprisingly) not seen the fruits of the deal and the billions of dollars that the government has received. Rouhani will undoubtedly be trying to distract people’s attention from blaming the Iranian government by pointing to the U.S. as the culprit.
In one of his latest speeches, Khamenei pointed out that the U.S. is attempting to “destroy Iran’s economic relationships with other countries.” He added:
“Was it not supposed to be so that the unjust sanctions would be removed and it would have an effect on people’s lives? After six months, is there any tangible effect on the lives of the people? If not for America violating its oaths, would the administration not be able to do many things during this time? … Of course it has been some years that I have been repeating this about the lack of trust with America, but for some it was hard to accept this reality.”
Another issue on Rouhani’s agenda will be to promote, at the governmental level, business deals and trade, which will further financially benefit the IRGC and Khamenei, not Iran’s private sector.
Rouhani will more likely attempt to justify Iran’s military adventurism in the region by playing the anti-terrorism card, even though Iran is still the leading sponsor of terrorism.
Rouhani’s government will most likely focus on spreading the narrative of Khamenei and the IRGC, that Iran is an indispensable force in fighting the Islamic State and other extremist groups; that regional and global powers need to join Iran in this battle, and that Iran is the victim of terrorism in the region. In addition, Rouhani will presumably attempt to buttress the argument that the international community needs to support the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in order to defeat terrorism.
Rouhani’s tactical shift is intended to reinforce Iran’s entrenched revolutionary ideal of anti-Americanism, appease Khamenei and the IRGC, and ensure his second term presidency.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientists and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He can be reached atDr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu.
US said to have secretly eased Iran nuclear deal terms To meet deadline, P5+1 negotiators allowed Tehran to bypass restrictions on uranium and heavy water, report says
A meeting at the P5+1 talks with Iran at UN headquarters in Vienna, on July 3, 2014 (photo credit: AFP/Joe Klamar)
The United States and world powers that negotiated last year’s nuclear deal with Iran “secretly” agreed to allow the Islamic Republic to evade a number of the agreement’s restrictions in order to meet the deadline for the lifting of international economic sanctions, Reuters reported Thursday.
According to the report, several “knowledgeable” officials involved in the negotiations told the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security that Tehran was permitted to exceed the agreed-upon limits of how much low-enriched uranium could be kept at its nuclear facilities. Low-enriched uranium can be purified into weapons-grade uranium.
The institute also said that the P5+1 negotiating powers — the US, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia — also permitted Tehran to ship 50 tons of heavy water from its Arak facility to Oman and keep it there under Iranian supervision.
Its president, David Albright, said the “exemptions or loopholes are happening in secret, and it appears that they favor Iran.”
P5+1 officials agreed to the terms so that Iran would be in compliance with the agreement by the January 16 deadline to have the sanctions lifted, the report said.
The interior of the Arak heavy water production facility in Arak, Iran, October 27, 2004. (AP/Fars News Agency, File)
An unnamed White House official told Reuters the role of the joint commission of negotiating powers was “not secret,” but declined to specifically address the institute’s assertions on any loopholes.
Albright — who served as an inspector with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency team that investigated former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program — expressed concern that the exemptions risked setting a precedent for Iran seeking additional waivers.
He said a full report detailing the exemptions afforded Tehran by P5+1 negotiators would be published by his institute later on Thursday.
Iran has insisted it is not interested in nuclear weapons, and the pact is being closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA said Tehran has essentially kept to its commitments since the agreement was implemented, a little more than six months after Iran and the six powers finalized it on July 14, 2015.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or any of its other editors. — DM)
A recent article by David Samuels at the New York Times Magazine, based on an interview with Obama’s foreign policy guru Ben Rhodes, purported to explain how, and about what, the Obama administration lied to get public support for the Iran Scam. According to the article, the principal Obama lie involved who was the Iranian president when the negotiations with Iran began. It’s much deeper and worse than that. As Paul Harvey would say, “Here’s “the rest of the story.”
Iranian President Rouhani was elected on June 15, 2013 and assumed office on August 3d. According to Rhodes,
negotiations started when the ostensibly moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected president, providing an opening for the administration to reach out in friendship. In reality, as Samuels gets administration officials to admit, negotiations began when “hardliner” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still president. [Emphasis added.]
There is no necessary inconsistency — about a month and a half elapsed between Rouhani’s election and becoming the Iranian president. However, that is of little if any consequences.
Mr. Rosen, interviewed in the above video, touches, very briefly, on other problems with the Iran scam. Back in the world of reality, “we” had been negotiating with Iran during Ahmadinejad’s presidency for a couple of years, during which “we” gave Iran everything it requested. This article is intended to provide substantially more information and analysis of what happened and why during “our” secret bilateral negotiations with Iran.
The Negotiations
According to interviews with Iranian vice president and Atomic Energy Organization head Ali Akbar Salehi, translated and published by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) on August 17, 2015, secret bilateral negotiations between the Obama and Iranian regimes had begun much earlier and included Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State, William Burns. During those negotiations, the U.S. conceded that Iran’s right to Uranium enrichment would be respected, that Iran’s missile programs would be left out of any deal and that its efforts to develop nuclear warheads and other devices would be ignored. Obama had essentially caved in to Iran’s demands even before the existence of negotiations was acknowledged.
In an interview published in the daily Iran on August 4, 2015 under the title “The Black Box of the Secret Negotiations between Iran and America,” Iranian vice president and Atomic Energy Organization head Ali Akbar Salehi, who is a senior member of Iran’s negotiation team and was foreign minister under president Ahmadinejad, revealed new details on the secret bilateral talks between Iran and the U.S. that started during Ahmadinejad’s second presidential term. According to Salehi, U.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. Ernest Moniz, whom Salehi knew from his period as a doctoral student at MIT, was appointed to the American negotiation team at Salehi’s request, a request which the Americans met within hours. [Emphasis added.]
Salehi added that Khamenei agreed to open a direct channel of negotiations between Iran and the U.S. on the condition that the talks would yield results from the start and would not deal with any other issue, especially not with U.S.-Iran relations. Following this, Salehi demanded, via the Omani mediator Sultan Qaboos, that the U.S. recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and received a letter from Qaboos expressing such American recognition, which he relayed to Ahmadinejad. [Emphasis added.]
The secret bilateral Iran-US negotiations had begun with a letter for Iran delivered to an Omani official. Salehi told an Omani intermediary.
‘I am not sure how serious the Americans are, but I will give you a note. Tell them that these are our demands. Deliver it on your next visit to Oman.’ I wrote down four clear issues, one of which was official recognition of rights to [uranium] enrichment. I figured that if the Americans were sincere in their offer, then they must agree to these four demands. Mr. Suri gave this short letter to the mediator, and stressed that these were Iran’s demands. [He added that]if the Americans wished to solve this issue, they were welcome to, otherwise dealing with White House proposals would be useless and unwarranted…
“All the demands in the letter were related to the nuclear challenge. These were issues we have always come against, such as closing the nuclear dossier [in the Security Council], official recognition of [Iran’s] right to enrich [uranium], and resolving the issue of Iran’s actions under the PMD [Possible Military Dimensions]. After receiving the letter, the Americans said: ‘We are certainly willing and able to easily solve the issues Iran has brought up.’ [Emphasis added.]
The first meeting between the Iranian and American negotiating teams began following eight months of coordination. Iran
sent a team to Oman that included the deputy foreign minister for European and American affairs, Mr. [Ali Asghar] Khaji, as well as several CEOs. The Americans were surprised in the first meeting and said, ‘We cannot believe this is happening. We thought Oman was joking. We aren’t even prepared for these talks with you.’
“Q: What was the level of the team that the Americans dispatched?
“A: It included Assistant Secretary of State William Burns. They said: ‘We only came to see if Iran was truly willing to negotiate.’ Our representative gave them the required response and eventually there were talks on this issue. The initial result was achieved and the ground was prepared for further coordination. [Emphasis added.]
“Q: How were the Americans convinced that the Iranian diplomats who were dispatched had the necessary authority?
“A: [Until] that phase, Iran and America had not been allowed to sit opposite each other at the negotiating table. The fact that Iran had sent a deputy foreign minister to the talks indicated its seriousness. The Americans also noticed how seriously [Iran was taking] the issue. At that meeting, Khaji pressed the Americans to set up a roadmap for the negotiations, and eventually the talks of a roadmap were postponed to the second meeting. At the second meeting, Khaji warned the Americans: ‘We did not come here for lengthy negotiations. If you are serious, you must officially recognize enrichment, otherwise we cannot enter into bilateral talks. But if you officially recognize enrichment, then we too are serious and willing to meet your concerns on the nuclear matter as part of international regulations.‘
International regulations were later agreed upon by the P5+1 negotiators, in the form of the Iran – IAEA secret deals concerning nuke inspections and a UN resolution dealing with Iranian missiles. Neither was included in the Joint Cooperative Plan of Action.
“Of course, at that time we were [still] exchanging various information with the Americans via the [Omani] mediation, and this is documented at the Foreign Ministry. We did not do it in the form of official letters, but rather unofficially and not on paper. The Omani mediator later came to Iran, held talks with us, and then later spoke to the Americans and told them our positions, so that the ties were not severed. But there was no possibility for direct talks.
“Thus, a real opportunity was squandered because, at the time, the Americans were genuinely prepared to make real concessions to Iran. Perhaps it was God’s will that the process progressed like that and the results were [eventually] in our favor. In any case, several months passed and Obama was reelected in America [in November 2012]. I thought that, unlike the first time, we must not waste time in coordinating [within regime bodies], so with the leader’s backing and according to my personal decision, I dispatched our representatives to negotiate with the Americans in Oman. [Emphasis added.]
“Q: Didn’t you have another meeting with the leader about the process and content of the talks?
“A: No. Obviously during the process I wrote a letter to the leader detailing the problems. He said ‘try to solve them.’ He was always supportive but told me to ‘act in a manner that includes necessary coordination [within the regime]. In this situation, I dispatched Khaji to the second meeting in Oman (around March 2013) and it was a positive meeting. Both sides stayed in Oman for two or three days and the result was that the Omani ruler sent a letter to Ahmadinejad saying that the American representative had announced official recognition of Iran’s enrichment rights. Sultan Qaboos sent the same letter to the American president. When Ahmadinejad received the letter, several friends said that this move would be fruitless and that the Americans do not keep [their] commitments. [But] we had advanced to this stage. [Emphasis added.]
. . . . We [then ] prepared ourselves for the third meeting with the Americans in order to set up the roadmap and detail the mutual commitments. All this happened while Iran was nearing the presidential elections [in June 2013]. At that time, the leader’s office told me that I had to cease negotiations and let the next government handle the talks after the results of the elections were known.
. . . .
“Q: What was the Americans’ position in the first meetings between Iran and the P5+1 held during the Rohani government [era]?
“A:After the Rohani government began to operate – along with the second term of President Obama – the new negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 were started. By then, Kerry was no longer an American senator but had been appointed secretary of state. As a senator, Kerry had been appointed by Obama to be in charge of handling the nuclear dossier, and then [in December 2012] he was appointed secretary of state. [Emphasis added.]
“Before that, the Omani mediator, who had close relations with Kerry, told us that Kerry would soon be appointed [U.S.] secretary of state. During the period when the secret negotiations with the Americans were underway in Oman, there was a situation in which it was easier to obtain concessions from the Americans. After the Rohani government and the American administration [of Obama’s second term] took power, and Kerry become secretary of state, the Americans spoke from a more assertive position. They no longer showed the same degree of eagerness to advance the negotiations. Their position became harder, and the threshold of their demands rose. At the same time, on the Iranian side, the situation [also] changed, and a most professional negotiating team took responsibility for negotiating with the P5+1. [Emphasis added.]
As to the reluctance of the American side to make concessions after Kerry had replaced Clinton as the Secretary of State, it must be remembered that “we” had already made all or most of the concessions Iran sought.
Another positive point was that [President] Rohani oversaw the dossier, knew its limits, and as a result succeeded in producing a good strategy to advance the nuclear dossier. At the same time, Rohani took responsibility for everything. Many may have reservations and ask why we were putting ourselves in danger, but Rohani’s willingness to take responsibility was very high. There are those who say, from a political standpoint, that he was willing to take a very great risk, because, had the negotiations not achieved certain results, and had the best results not been achieved, he would have faced waves of criticism. But he took upon himself the risk of [such] criticism. In any event, he agreed to take this responsibility, and, God be praised, even God helped him, and he emerged [from the negotiations] with his head held high.” [Emphasis added.]
At some point, the negotiations broke down over “technical issues.” Salehi, a technical expert as well as a diplomat, found a way to resolve those issues.
A . . . condition was that American experts would come to Iran and talk to me. I said that as vice president I would not enter into a discussion with their experts, because as far as the protocol was concerned, this would create a bad situation and they would say that Iran would capitulate in any situation. This was not good for Iran, but I was willing to quit and to come to the talks not as vice president but as the foreign minister’s scientific advisor. Larijani said ‘he’s right.’ The next day, Fereydoun asked me to come to his office and asked me who my [American] counterpart was. I said, the [U.S.] Department of Energy. Fereydoun called Araghchi and said, ‘Tell [U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs] Ms. [Wendy] Sherman that Salehi is joining the negotiations provided that the American secretary of energy also joins the negotiators.‘ Araghchi and Sherman were the liaison between Iran and America. Araghchi said in this conversation with Fereydoun that on such short notice it was unlikely that they [i.e. the Americans] would send their secretary of energy. I heard [Fereydoun’s conversation with Araghchi]. In short, Fereydoun asked and Araghchi contacted Sherman and a few hours later a report that they welcomed Iran’s proposal arrived. [Emphasis added.]
“Q: How many hours did it take before they [the Americans] said yes?
“A: It didn’t take long. I went to see Fereydoun in the evening and the next day they responded. This was because of the time difference [between Tehran and Washington].
“Q: The general perception was that because Moniz was brought into the negotiating team, you were brought into the Iranian team?
“A: [On the contrary,] Moniz came because of me. In any case, in February [2015] I joined [the negotiations], and praise God, matters moved forward with Moniz.
“Q: Did you and Moniz study together?
“A: Moniz knew me more than I knew him. I saw him at the annual IAEA meeting. When I was a doctoral student at MIT, he had just been accepted as a staff member. He is five years older than me.
“Q: Did you take one of his classes?
“A: No. He knew me because my doctoral studies advisor was his close friend and right hand man in scientific fields. Even now he is an advisor on many of Moniz’s scientific programs. Many of my fellow students are now experts for Moniz. One of them was Mujid Kazimi, who is of Palestinian origin. He recently died. He was two years older than me but we were friends in college. After graduating, he became the head of the MIT Department of Nuclear Science and was a prominent figure who carried out many programs with Moniz.
“Q: How did Moniz treat you initially?
“A: In light of our prior acquaintance, he was excited. We’ve known each other for years and he treated [me] very well. Our first meeting was in public.
“Q: How did you feel when you heard Moniz was coming [to the talks]?
“A: I was very happy. I was assured. I said that the prestige of the Islamic Republic remained intact [because] an Iranian official would not speak to an American expert but rather would negotiate with a high-ranking American official. This was very important. Second, as I said before, he could make a decision [while] an expert could not. We had a very interesting group meeting. The American experts were same ones who had dealt with disarmament vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.
“I said [to Moniz]: ‘I cannot accept your offer for various reasons.’ One American expert said, ‘We do not accept the basic assumption of your calculations.’ I said, ‘Tell us what is the basic assumption of [your] calculations so we can work from there.’ He said ‘we can’t do that.’ I said to them, ‘If you don’t accept our estimation, then tell us [yours]. You say that you cannot because this [exposes] your process. If we show [our] calculation, you will know our working secrets.’ So then I said ‘ok, what do we do now?’ The meeting stagnated.
“Later I thought about it… and said ‘Mr. Moniz, I am here with full authority from my country. Anything I sign will be acceptable to my country. Do you have full authority as well, or does any result achieved here need to be asked and clarified with officials from other countries?’ He said ‘no, I have full authority.’
“Q: Did you have full authority?
“A: Yes. In the scientific discussions, I knew the level of [Iran’s] demands. I said, ‘Mr. Moniz, you made an offer to Iran, and Iran rejects it. I want to ask you a question. If you can answer it [then] I will have no problem with your offer.’ I continued and said: ‘Show me one place on earth where enrichment is taking place using the method you are demanding of us. If you can give me even a single example then I will sign on the spot and we will become the second country to enrich in this method.’ He looked [at me] and then announced that the meeting was over, and we spoke. We had the first private meeting that lasted two or three hours. He said: ‘Mr. Salehi, when I was called [out of the negotiating room, it was because] Obama wanted to speak to me. Now I am free [to continue]. What you said is acceptable [but] there are practical problems with your offer.’ I said, ‘Do you agree? Then I relinquish that proposal.’ Eventually. we reached mutual understandings on this issue. I said ‘let’s start from the top.’ This diplomatic challenge should be published in a memoir so that everyone can understand how we reached 6,000 centrifuges. It is a very nice story… [Emphasis added.]
The Aftermath
Ultimately, Iran’s right to enrich Uranium was fully recognized in the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) and in the subsequent Joint Cooperative Plan of Action (JCPOA). As to the missile aspects of the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program, neither document dealt with Iranian missiles. That was left up to the United Nations Security Council to deal with in its resolution approving the nuke “deal.” In light of Russia’s warm relations with Iran, Russia would most likely veto any proposed Security Council resolution finding Iran in violation of its missile provisions.
The “verification” mechanism was included only in separate and secret “side deal(s)” solely between Iran and the IAEAwhich members of the U.S. Congress were not permitted to see during the pseudo-approval process. According to Kerry, he was not permitted to see them either, but the details were “fully explained” to him.
Here’s a video of Secretary Kerry under questioning about the side deals:
Questions might have been better directed to this Kerry clone; more candid answers might have been provided.
Any pretense that the IAEA will have “any time, anywhere” access to Iran’s military sites was mere rhetoric, as acknowledged by US Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman on July 16th
“I think this is one of those circumstances where we have all been rhetorical from time to time,” Sherman said in a conference call with Israeli diplomatic reporters. “That phrase, anytime, anywhere, is something that became popular rhetoric, but I think people understood that if the IAEA felt it had to have access, and had a justification for that access, that it would be guaranteed, and that is what happened.” [Emphasis added.]
Ms. Sherman was right about the rhetorical nature of administration assertions, but wrong about IAEA access, of which there will apparently be little or none pursuant to the secret deals between Iran and the IAEA.
In an interview on Al Jazeera TV last week Ali Akbar Velayati, Security Adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, stated that
United Nations nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency would not be given access to Tehran’s sensitive military nuclear sites.
. . . .
“First, allow me to emphasize that the issue of the missiles and of Iran’s defensive capabilities were not part of the negotiations to begin with,” Velayati said. [Emphasis added.]
“No matter what pressure is exerted, Iran never has negotiated and never will negotiate with others – America, Europe, or any other country – about the nature and quality of missiles it should manufacture or possess, or about the defensive military equipment that it needs. This is out of the question.” [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Reza Najafi, Iran’s ambassador and permanent envoy to the IAEA, stated over the weekend that “no country is permitted to know the details of future inspections conducted by the IAEA.” [Emphasis added.]
Najafi’s statement could mean (a) that no details about inspection methodology will be disclosed, (b) that no details about inspection results will be disclosed or (c) both. If inspection methodologies — who did the inspections as well as when, where and how, are not disclosed, what useful purpose will they serve, other than for Iran? If details of the results of inspections are not disclosed, that will also be the case. How, in either or both cases, will the members of the P5+1 negotiating teams have sufficient information to decide whether to “snap back” sanctions — if doing so is now even possible — or anything else? [Emphasis added.]
Conclusions
One can only hope that our next president will dispose of the Iranian “deal” as a treaty which Obama refused to submit to the Congress as the Constitution requires or at least ostentatiously ignore it and grant no more concessions.
Otherwise, be not afraid; Obama the Great One — the smartest person in any room and the best President ever — has made us safe. How can one possibly be safer alive than dead?
The United Nations Security Council met in an “emergency” closed door session on Monday March 14th to discuss Iran’s recent testing of ballistic missiles reportedly designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The words “Israel must be wiped out” were written in Hebrew on the side of the missiles. These most recent tests followed in the wake of missile tests conducted last fall, which the Security Council did nothing about at the time.
While North Korea was finally hit with more UN sanctions for its nuclear and missile tests, North Korea’s nuclear weapons collaborators in Iran continue to be let off the hook without even a slap on the wrist.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power told reporters, after the March 14th meeting produced no concrete results, that she will keep trying “no matter the quibbling that we heard today about this and that.” She said that Iran’s missile tests were “in defiance of provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the resolution that came into effect on January 16, on Implementation Day for the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action].”
The quibbler in chief is Russia. Its UN ambassador said that Iran has not violated the resolution and that there was no need for any punitive measures against Iran.
The truth is that the Obama administration is now hoisted with its own petard. Ambassador Power complained that “Russia seems to be lawyering its way to look for reasons not to act rather than stepping up and being prepared to shoulder our collective responsibility.” Yet that would not have been as easy for Russia to do if the Obama administration had not allowed a loophole in the nuclear deal wide enough for Iran to fire a whole bunch of missiles through.
President Obama wanted the nuclear deal with Iran so badly that he gave in to Iran’s last minute demands to preserve its missile program. Iran insisted that all prior UN Security Council resolutions which had unambiguously prohibited Iran’s development, testing or procurement of ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons must be terminated. Otherwise, Iran would not go forward with the JCPOA. To make matters worse, even though Iran had held the JCPOA hostage to its missile demands, the Obama administration also bowed to Iran’s insistence that its missile program would not be covered by the JCPOA itself. Thus, Iran would not be subject to the automatic “snap back” of sanctions when Iran is found to have violated the JCPOA, because its missile tests would be outside the scope of the JCPOA. In fact, the Obama administration agreed to language in the JCPOA to clarify that such separation of Iran’s missile program from the JCPOA was the intent. All reliance for dealing with Iran’s missile tests would be placed on the much weaker Security Council Resolution 2231.
The new Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA but drafted as separate from the JCPOA, used weaker language than the outright prohibition that had existed under the prior resolutions that were now superseded. Calling upon Iran to refrain from doing something is not the same as an enforceable ban. Moreover, even this insipid “call upon” language is included in an annex to the resolution. This annex is little more than a statement of intent by the parties negotiating with Iran, which Iran does not consider binding on itself.
The Obama administration missed the window of opportunity to clamp down on Iran’s missile testing when those tests were being conducted last fall. The previous Security Council resolutions that prohibited Iran’s missile program outright, and the sanctions regime against Iran, were then still in effect. Those resolutions were referenced in the JCPOA itself as still being binding until the JCPOA was actually implemented. Implementation in turn was dependent on verification of Iran’s compliance with certain commitments set forth in the JCPOA having to do with its enrichment and plutonium programs. Until the JCPOA’s formal implementation date of January 16, 2016, when those resolutions were terminated, the missile program ban had not been technically untethered from the JCPOA.
All the Obama administration had to do last fall was to declare Iran in breach of the JCPOA because the missile ban under those resolutions that Iran breached were effectively incorporated into the JCPOA until terminated. The sanctions were still in place. Iran’s assets were still frozen. Russia’s “lawyering” would have done it little good last fall when the United States still had the upper hand both legally and in practical terms. But President Obama frittered away the last real chance to hold Iran’s feet to the fire before the sanctions were lifted. He wanted the nuclear deal to go forward as a centerpiece of his “legacy” and let the next president worry about its fallout.
In fact, instead of pressing the case against Iran and threatening to walk away from the JCPOA when he had the leverage, Secretary of State John Kerry actually defended Iran’s position on its missile tests. “The issue of ballistic missiles is addressed by the provisions of the new United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR), which do not constitute provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” Kerry wrote in a letter to Senator Marco Rubio last September. “Since the Security Council has called upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, any such activity would be inconsistent with the UNSCR and a serious matter for the Security Council to review.”
Rubio raised his concern with Kerry that the language in the new Security Council resolution did not appear to require Iran to refrain from pursuing its ballistic missile tests. Rubio seized upon the weak “call upon” language discussed earlier as the basis for his concern. Kerry’s response was that “if Iran were to undertake them it would be inconsistent with the UNSCR and a serious matter for the Security Council to review.”
Senator Rubio had a right to be concerned. Kerry had deliberately agreed to a circular process to deal with Iran’s missile program violations, which was doomed to fail. To placate Iran, he kicked the can down the road until the JCPOA was actually implemented and the prior, much stronger Security Council missile resolutions that were initially tied into the JCPOA by reference went away. The separation of the JCPOA and the new Security Council resolution was completed as of the formal implementation date. Kerry had to know that once the JCPOA was implemented and in full force, with sanctions lifted and the missile program separated out from the JCPOA with its automatic “snap back” provisions, Russia would likely veto any separate sanctions resolution against its ally and missile purchaser based on Iran’s missile tests. The American people got suckered by President Obama’s reckless concessions.
Iran not only will have a pathway to nuclear enrichment sufficient to produce nuclear weapons when the deal’s restrictions sunset – if not before. Thanks to the Obama administration, Iran presently has a free hand to develop and test ballistic missiles capable of delivering those nuclear weapons along any pathway of attack it chooses.
Iranian leaders publicly broke ranks this week with major Arab Gulf nations in a series of statements criticizing these regional powers for formally designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
The Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, a regional governing coalition comprised of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and Bahrain, announced last week that it is formally designating the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
The GCC joins the United States, Israel, Canada, and a host of other nations in labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organization. These nations, including Saudi Arabia, have already taken steps to blacklist organizations and individuals associated with Hezbollah.
The decision by the coalition of Arab states to go after Hezbollah has sparked outrage in Iranian government, which is now claiming that “Zionists” secretly orchestrated the GCC’s effort.
Regional experts view Iran’s pushback as a sign that Tehran’s ongoing support for extremist groups has made it a pariah among other Arab nations, which have expressed concern Iran will spend the billions of dollars it received as part of the recent nuclear agreement to fund Hezbollah’s terror activities.
“No doubt the move was made upon an order by the Zionists and the sworn enemies of Islam and Great Prophet Mohammad,” said Major Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the Iranian Armed Forces chief of staff, according to Iran’s state-controlled press.
Iranian leaders vowed to continue its support for Hezbollah, which is responsible for killing Israelis and Americans in terror attacks.
“Despite efforts by the House of Saud [Saudi Arabia] and its regional and trans-regional allies, Hezbollah’s deep-seated position will remain intact,” Firouzabadi said. “It will not shift the balance of power in the region. It will not help the Zionists extend their grip on the occupied Palestinian territories.”
Sadeq Larijani, the head of Iran’s judiciary system, also blamed Jewish interests for the GCC’s latest move.
“The resistance movement of Hezbollah in Lebanon protects the integrity of Arabs and Muslims against the Zionist regime,” Larijani said Monday.
Iran’s foreign ministry also took aim at the GCC, specifically Saudi Arabia, which has had poor relations with Iran since its embassy in Tehran was burned down in January. Jaberi Ansari, the spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry, accused the Arab states of aligning with “the occupiers of Palestine.”
“Certain Arab countries are against the Hezbollah resistance movement,” Ansari said. “The movement represents the efforts and ideals of Muslim nations for independence, freedom, justice, and integrity. Hezbollah stands against the Israeli oppression, occupation, racism, and terrorism.”
“Those who are behind the move are knowingly or unknowingly undermining the interests of the Muslim nations,” Ansari claimed.
Regional experts described the verbal conflict between Iran and the GCC as a sign that Hezbollah is becoming increasingly toxic on the international stage.
“It’s getting harder for Iran to defend Hezbollah on the world stage,” Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Treasury Department, told the Washington Free Beacon. “The United States, Israel, Canada, France, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, the EU and Australia have all designated the group, in some form, as a terrorist organization—and it’s increasingly clear that their concerns have increasingly less to do with Hezbollah’s terrorist activities against Israel, and more to do with the group’s global footprint.”
The nuclear deal helped to fuel the GCC’s designation of Hezbollah, according to Schanzer, who serves as vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
“Ironically, had Iran not signed the nuclear deal, it’s unclear whether the recent terrorist designations would have taken place,” Schanzer said. “But with Iran set to receive $100 billion in sanctions relief, one major concern is that Hezbollah will receive a significant portion of those funds for the purpose of terrorist attacks and other activities that would further destabilize the Middle East.”
“With Iran no longer under sanctions, the world is more alarmed about the activities of this Iranian proxy than ever before,” he said.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah also slammed the GCC over the weekend, saying in a video message that Saudi Arabia and its allies in the coalition are losing credibility.
Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters responded Wednesday to the Iranian launch of a ballistic missile that had ‘Israel must be wiped out’ written on it, saying that the Obama administration has positioned America as the perpetual loser in U.S.-Iran relations.
“Our president and the secretary of state have painted themselves into a very dangerous corner in which whatever we do or fail to do, we’re the losers,” Peters said.
Iranian hardliners who launched the missile are out to prove that they hold power both inside Iran post-parliamentary elections and on the global stage post-nuclear agreement, he said.
“This is the Revolutionary Guards and hardliners showing everybody who is still in charge, because, elections not withstanding, the people who hold the guns hold the power,” Peters said.
He said that the launch violates a U.N. Security Council resolution and shows that Iran is “rubbing it in” America’s face that they can “do whatever they want” after the nuclear deal because of the Obama administration’s weakness. As an example, Peters referenced the detention and “torment” of 10 U.S. sailors by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, after which Secretary of State John Kerry thanked the Iranians for their cooperation.
“They can do whatever they want now because this terribly flawed nuclear deal was front-loaded with benefits for Iran, and the benefits we get, if we get them, are spread out over the long-term,” Peters said.
He said that the economic ties Iran is now forging are difficult to sanction even if Obama wanted to punish Iran for the missile launch.
“Even if President Obama decided to abrogate that bad nuclear deal and resurrect sanctions against Iran, it wouldn’t work because Iran has been flooded with European and global corporations signing contracts right and left,” Peters said.
In all, he said, the outlook for a strong U.S. role in relations with Iran is dim.
“I hate to say this about my country, but we’ve lost this one,” Peters said.
Peters is known for his blunt assessments of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. In the past, he has called Obama a “total pussy” on live television.
FILE – This file picture released by the official website of the Iranian Defense Ministry on Sunday, Oct. 11, 2015, claims to show the launching of an Emad long-range ballistic surface-to-surface missile in an undisclosed location. Iran tested a ballistic missile again in November 2015, a U.S. official said Dec. 8, describing the second such test since this summerís nuclear agreement. The State Department said only that it was conducting a “serious review” of such reports. The test occurred on Nov. 21, according to the official, coming on top of an Oct. 10 test Iran confirmed at the time. The official said other undeclared tests occurred earlier than that, but declined to elaborate. The official wasnít authorized to speak on the matter and demanded anonymity. (Iranian Defense Ministry via AP)
Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”
*************************
Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.
Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.
Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”
“If our interests are not met under the nuclear deal, there will be no reason for us to continue,” Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, warned during remarks delivered to a group of Iranian officials in Tehran.
“If other parties decide, they could easily violate the deal,” Araqchi was quoted as saying by Iran’s state-controlled media. “However, they know this will come with costs.”
Araqchi appeared to allude to the United States possibly leveling new economic sanctions as a result of the missile test. The Obama administration moved forward with new sanctions earlier this year as a result of the country’s previous missile tests.
Iran’s latest missile test drew outrage from longtime regime critics on Capitol Hill.
“The administration’s response to Iran’s new salvo of threatening missile tests in violation of international law cannot once again be, it’s ‘not supposed to be doing that,’” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) said in a statement. “Now is the time for new crippling sanctions against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ministry of Defense, Aerospace Industries Organization, and other related entities driving the Iranian ballistic missile program.”
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) warned that the nuclear agreement has done little to moderate Iran’s rogue behavior.
“Far from pushing Iran to a more moderate engagement with its neighbors, this nuclear deal is enabling Iran’s aggression and terrorist activities,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Sanctions relief is fueling Iran’s proxies from Yemen to Iraq to Syria to Lebanon. Meanwhile, Khamenei and the Iranian regime are acting with impunity because they know President Obama will not hold them accountable and risk the public destruction of his nuclear deal, the cornerstone of the president’s foreign policy legacy.”
McCarthy went on to demand that the Obama administration step forward with new sanctions as punishment for the missile test.
Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department had difficulty Monday explaining why the nuclear agreement limits public reporting by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, on potential deal violations by Iran.
Yukiya Amano, the IAEA’s chief, disclosed on Monday that his agency is no longer permitted to release details about Iran’s nuclear program and compliance with the deal. The limited public reporting is a byproduct of the nuclear agreement, according to Amano.
When asked about these comments again Tuesday, a State Department official told the Free Beacon that the IAEA’s reports would continue to provide a complete picture of Iran’s nuclear program, though it remains unclear if this information will be made publicly available.
“There isn’t less stringent monitoring or reporting on Iran’s nuclear program,” the official said. “The IAEA’s access to Iran’s nuclear program and its authorization to report on it has actually expanded. It’s a distortion to say that if there is less detail in the first and only post-Implementation Day IAEA report then that somehow implies less stringent monitoring or less insight into Iran’s nuclear program.”
While the IAEA “needs to report on different issues” under the final version of the nuclear agreement, the agency continues to provide “a tremendous amount of information about Iran’s current, much smaller nuclear program,” the source maintained.
The IAEA’s most recent February report—which was viewed by nuclear experts as incomplete and short on detail—“accurately portrays the status of Iran’s nuclear program,” including its efforts to uphold the nuclear deal, the official added.
“We expect this professional level of reporting to continue in the future,” the official said.
Senior Iranian officials this week accused the Obama administration of failing to uphold its end of the nuclear agreement, saying that the Islamic Republic has not been given full access to international banking tools.
The Iranian leaders “lashed out” at the United States in their comments and maintained that the Islamic Republic continues to have many disagreements with the Obama administration, according to remarks published in the country’s state-controlled media.
“Our differences with the U.S. have remained in place,” Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, a key figure in the nuclear discussions, said Wednesday in front of reporters in Tehran.
“They have not been resolved yet,” Zarif added, explaining that the implementation of the nuclear deal has not soothed relations between Washington and Tehran.
The comments come on the heels of an election in Iran that ushered in a large number of hard-line candidates who hold anti-American views. The Obama administration has declined to comment on the outcome.
The speaker of Iran’s parliament, Ali Larijani, also accused the U.S. of failing to uphold the nuclear agreement.
“After the deal, Iran fully implemented its end of the bargain. Unfortunately, other parties are yet to fully commit themselves to the deal and reciprocate,” Larijani said Wednesday during a meeting in Tehran with Romania’s foreign minister.
Larijani took aim at the United States and other Western governments for not moving quickly enough to grant Iran access to international banks and other markets.
This “delayed compliance” by the West has prevented Iran from moving forward “with its policies and plans to normalize and expand economic, trade, and banking ties with its international partners,” Larijani said, according to the state-controlled Fars News Agency.
When asked to comment on the rhetoric, a State Department official told the Washington Free Beacon that Iran’s comments are misleading and that the U.S. has upheld all of its responsibilities under the deal.
“In exchange for the [International Atomic Energy Agency]-verified completion of Iran’s nuclear steps, we have taken all of the necessary steps to lift the nuclear-related sanctions we committed to lift on Implementation Day,” the official said.
Final vote tallies published following last Friday’s election in Iran show that a large number of hard-line candidates won seats in Iran’s parliament and on its powerful Assembly of Experts, which will install the next Ayatollah.
Obama administration officials continue to tell reporters that they are reserving judgment until more is known about the election results.
While regional experts do not expect the election to spark greater moderation in Tehran, those elected support the nuclear deal, particularly the $150 billion received in sanctions relief.
“The recent elections solidify the support for the deal in the Islamic Republic. Even though the candidate field was rigged, the results were a clear signal that the majority of Iranians approve of the nuclear agreement and expect improvements to their economic situations from it,” said Amir Toumaj, an Iran expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
“The most prominent radical members of parliament who opposed the agreement and impeded President [Hassan] Rouhani’s economic policies were voted out, and the radicals who have seats in the next parliament generally support the deal,” Tourmaj said. “The parliament results, however, are far from clear, as roughly 20 percent of seats will go to runoffs due in April. Rouhani can find a more cooperative parliament to pass his economic policies, though it wouldn’t necessarily be smooth sailing.”
Some U.S. lawmakers also expressed concern about the elections.
“Until Iran stops being the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism, militarily propping up Assad the butcher in Syria, and spreading violence and instability throughout the Middle East, all this talk about ‘reformers’ taking hold in Tehran seems premature,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), a vocal opponent of the Iranian regime, told the Free Beacon earlier this week. “What’s more, some newly-elected ‘reformers’ seem anything but moderate, such as Kazim Jalali, who called for the death penalty against leaders of the Green Movement in 2011.”
Do we have to hijack your planes again?’ Fatah official asks Former negotiator Nabil Shaath slams Western indifference to Mideast suffering, says US ‘has never been an honest broker’ in peace talks
By Times of Israel staff February 8, 2016, 4:43 am
Former Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath in a February 1 interview with the Palestinian Authority’s Awdha TV. (Screen capture/YouTube/MEMRI)
ormer Palestinian peace negotiator Nabil Shaath said in an interview earlier this month that he often asks Westerners whether Arabs have to “hijack your planes and destroy your airports again” to make the world take notice of the Palestinian cause.
In a February 1 interview with the Palestinian Authority’s Awdha TV, translated by MEMRI, Shaath slammed American efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
Asked about a French proposal for an international peace conference, Shaath replied, “Well, anything is better than American control of the negotiations. Anything. The US has never been a reliable honest broker. Never. It is the strategic ally of Israel. Period. Therefore any discussion of a different formula is a positive thing.”
But, he added, “an international conference is not what is needed. What is needed is a smaller framework. Today, at the African Union summit, President [Mahmoud] Abbas reiterated that we want something similar to the 5+1 framework” of six world powers who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran.
“Like it or not, the US will be part of it. But we want France, Germany, Britain, the EU, Russia, China, Brazil, India. From the Arab countries we want Egypt at least. We want a small international framework.”
Shaath then turned to what he described as Western apathy toward suffering in the Middle East.
“If the Syrian problem had not been exported to Europe through the refugees on the one hand and terrorism on the other, the Europeans would not have cared even if the entire Syrian people had died,” he charged.
“But when all of a sudden there were four million Syrian refugees in Europe, 1.2 million of them in Germany alone, and when this was accompanied by Islamic State operations in France and elsewhere, all these countries began to fear that IS might have infiltrated through the refugees. And this started a debate about racial transformation in Europe with the entrance of non-white, non-European, non-Anglo-Saxon races, like the Syrian refugees, the Africans and others. This is what made the Syrian problem the most pressing from their perspective.”
He added: “I always say to these people, after I tell them about Syria and IS: ‘Do we have to hijack your planes and destroy your airports again to make you care about our cause? Are you waiting for us to cut off your oil supply? You always wait for things to reach boiling point and explode, causing you harm, before you intervene to end the crimes and violations.’”
Shaath served as the PA’s first foreign minister, and has served as a top peace negotiator and an influential member of the Fatah Central Committee.
Iran: U.S. to Lift Sanctions in a ‘Few Days’ Republicans pushing last-minute effort to block release of billions Share Tweet Email Hassan Rouhani Hassan Rouhani /
AP BY: Adam Kredo Follow @Kredo0 January 12, 2016 5:00 am
As Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill focus on a last-ditch effort to prevent the Obama administration from awarding Iran $100 billion, the Islamic Republic’s leaders have stated that economic sanctions on the country will be fully lifted in the coming days.
President Hassan Rouhani, in a recent address, promised “good news” in the next few days, hinting that the Obama administration will make good on its promise to fully lift economic sanctions and provide Iran with up to $100 billion in unfrozen cash assets as part of the nuclear deal finalized last year.
Rouhani’s comments comport with recent remarks by Secretary of State John Kerry, who claimed last week that Iran is just “days away” from upholding its own end of the deal, which required it to ship certain nuclear materials to Russia.
As Iran prepares to receive the cash influx, which experts say will revive the country’s long-stalled economy, Republican lawmakers in Congress are focusing on last-minute efforts to block the Obama administration from releasing these cash assets and unraveling sanctions on individuals who have aided Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.) along with a growing coalition of colleagues in both the House and Senate, has put forward legislation that would stop sanctions relief until the Obama administration can officially verify that Iran has ceased all work on a nuclear weapon.
The bill would require the director of national intelligence to launch an investigation into this activity and submit a report to Congress. All sanctions relief agreed to by the Obama administration would be blocked until this report is complete, according to the bill.
The lawmakers maintain that an ongoing United Nations investigation into this activity remains incomplete due to stalling efforts by Iranian hardliners who seek to keep the country’s military work a secret.
“Given the glaring deficiencies of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) PMD report and Iran’s continued brazen missile tests and rocket launches, Congress must take serious action to protect the American people,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kansas), a key sponsor of the House version of the bill and member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement.
“With the impending implementation of the president’s dangerous nuclear agreement with Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, it is absolutely unacceptable that we still do not have a thorough understanding of this regime’s past weaponization efforts,” he said. “This information is critical to our ability to detect and thwart future efforts by Iran to restart its nuclear program.”
Congressional critics of the nuclear deal have repeatedly warned that Iran—designated by the United States as one of the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism—will use the newly unfrozen cash assets to fund its military operations and pursuit of ballistic missiles.
The White House still has not disclosed why it abandoned recent efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran as a result of its multiple ballistic missile tests, which violate U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Some in Congress have speculated that the administration was forced to abandon the new sanctions after Iran threatened to walk away from the deal.
Experts predict that much of the sanctions relief will help fund Iran’s military campaigns in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and elsewhere.
“The lion’s share of the inflow of capital and technology in Iran in the post-implementation day era will go to the” Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s leading military organization, according to Saeed Ghasseminejad, an expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
That money, Ghasseminejad said, “will be used to oppose the U.S. in the Middle East and around the world.” Implementation of the deal will enrich the Revolutionary Guard Corps and give it the tools necessary to push Iran’s extremist ideology across the region, he said.
“The administration should stop acting as Rouhani’s campaign manager and instead has to focus on fighting back against the IRGC’s growing influence in the region by punishing the IRGC for its bad behavior,” Ghasseminejad said.
The State Department maintains that it is prepared to uphold up its end of the deal and lift U.S. sanctions on the day the deal is implemented.
“None of the sanctions specified in the [nuclear deal] will be lifted prior to Implementation Day, which will occur when the [International Atomic Energy Agency] verifies that Iran has completed its relevant nuclear steps,” said a State Department official who was not authorized to speak on record.
“All of the details of the specific actions to be taken by the U.S. and the [European Union] as it relates to the lifting of sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as well as the timing of those actions, are spelled out in the text of the deal,” the official said.
Mark Dubowitz, Foundation for Defense of Democracies executive director and a leading expert on the deal, told the Free Beacon that “Implementation Day is no cause for celebration.”
Iran, he said, “get a patient pathway to a nuclear weapon, intercontinental ballistic missiles and an economy increasingly fortified against future sanctions pressure.”
The United States, on the other hand, gets “a brief pause in their nuclear expansion” due to the shipment on some enriched material to Russia. However, Iran “can easily regenerate” this material and expand it by turning on advanced centrifuges, which more quickly enrich nuclear materials.
“Unless a new president digs us out from under this flawed agreement, the Obama Iran deal will severely erode American deterrence and greatly expand Iranian regime power,” Dubowitz said.
Under the parameters of the deal, the United States is set to suspend most of the sanctions enacted by Congress over the past several years.
This includes the suspension of nearly all sanctions related to Iran’s banking system, its insurance industry, energy and petrochemical sectors, shipping industry, gold trade, and automotive sector, according to the deal.
The major Iranian banks and companies included in the list have long been believed to be supporting the country’s nuclear program and military.
“Other nuclear proliferation-related sanctions will also be lifted,” according to information in Annex II of the nuclear agreement.
Sanctions pertaining to Iran’s commercial airline industry also will be suspended, paving the way for U.S.-owned entities to resume legal trade with Tehran.
Sanctions on those accused of aiding Iran’s nuclear efforts also will be removed from U.S. government lists. This includes certain individuals and companies on the specially designated persons list as well as its list of foreign sanctions evaders .
Additionally, the United States has agreed to eventually remove sanctions on two individuals, Fereidoun Abbasi-Davani and Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, both accused of providing critical support to Iran’s weaponization and nuclear activities.
Experts tracking the deal estimate that after eight years only 25 percent of nearly 650 entities designated by Treasury over the past decade for their role in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program will remain sanctioned.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks at the UN General Assembly, September 26, 2013. (Image source: president.ir)
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments