Posted tagged ‘U.S. Congress’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Op-Ed The consequences of a bad deal with Iran

July 26, 2015

Op-Ed The consequences of a bad deal with Iran, LA Times, John Bolton, July 26, 2015

American weakness has brought us to this difficult moment. While we obsessed about its economic discomfort, Iran wore its duress with pride. It was never an even match. We now have to rely on a tiny ally to do the job for us. But unless we are ready to accept a nuclear Iran (and, in relatively short order, several other nuclear Middle Eastern states), get ready. The easy ways out disappeared long ago.

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

President Obama has made an art form of attacking his opponents rather than substantively defending his own policies, most recently regarding the Vienna agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. Essentially, Obama argues that we must either accept his wretched deal or go to war to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

As is typical, Obama posits the wrong choice, apparently to distract from the unpleasant reality that the agreement won’t work. It will not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. So the real choice we are faced with is dealing with the consequences of military action or the consequences of a nuclear Iran. Neither is palatable, but the latter is far worse. If the real objective is stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, preemptive military action is now inescapable.

This rock-and-hard-place outcome has long been foreseeable. Iran’s dogged determination to become a nuclear-weapons state was fiercer and stronger than the West’s frail response. Assuming Iran scrupulously complies with every provision agreed to in Vienna — an absurdly unlikely scenario given the ayatollahs’ objectives and history — its ambitions for nuclear weapons will simply have been delayed eight to 10 years.

In all likelihood, the ayatollahs are already at work violating the accords. After all, Iran has systematically breached its voluntarily-assumed obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for more than 30 years. Now the president’s deal will allow Iran to keep the fruits of its violations. Yes, the deal includes restrictions on uranium enrichment, but Tehran can retain its enrichment program, with guaranteed international assistance in improving it. These concessions are fatal mistakes.

Moreover, Iran’s ballistic missile efforts — its development of the means to deliver nuclear weapons all over the world — will barely be touched. Nor does the deal in any way address Iran’s clandestine weaponization efforts, which it has denied and hidden from the International Atomic Energy Agency with great skill.

Last week, the news that the administration has not even seen the texts of two agreements between the energy agency and Iran, both crucial to implementation of the Vienna accords, only raises further doubts. President Obama must provide the texts of these “side deals” to Congress before any serious consideration of the overall agreement is possible.

Some critics of Obama’s plan advocate scuttling the deal and increasing economic sanctions against Iran instead. They are dreaming. Iran and the United States’ negotiating partners have already signed the accords and are straining at their leashes to implement them. There will be no other “better deal.” Arguments about what Obama squandered or surrendered along the way are therefore fruitless. As for sanctions, they were already too weak to prevent Iran’s progress toward the bomb, and they will not be reset now. To paraphrase Bruce Springsteen, “These sanctions are going boys, and they ain’t coming back.”

Patrick Clawson, the director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, provided the most recent thumbs-down assessment of sanctions: “Iran has muddled through the shock of the sanctions imposed in 2012, and its structural [economic] problems are not particularly severe compared to those of other countries.” He estimates Iran’s nuclear and terrorism-support programs to cost only about $10 billion annually. No wonder administration officials have testified that sanctions (including those imposed piecemeal before 2012) did not slow Iran’s nuclear efforts.

Nor will the deal’s “snapback” mechanism (intended to coerce Iran back into compliance if it breaches its obligations) change that reality. Tehran’s belligerent response is expressly stated in the agreement’s text: “If sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments … in whole or in part.” Tehran does risk losing some future economic benefits should sanctions snap back, but by then it will have already cashed in the assets the deal unfreezes and signed new lucrative trade and investment contracts.

Once those benefits begin flowing all around, the pressure on world governments will only increase to ignore Iranian violations, or to treat them as minor or inadvertent, certainly not warranting the reimposition of major sanctions. The ayatollahs have dusted off Lenin’s barb that “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them,” and applied it to the age of nuclear proliferation.

If diplomacy and sanctions have failed to stop Iran, diplomacy alone will fail worse. Like it or not, we now face this unpleasant reality: Iran probably will violate the deal; it may not be detected doing so and if detected, it will not be deterred by “snapback” sanctions. So we return to the hard question: Are we prepared to do what will be necessary to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

Obama most certainly is not, which means the spotlight today is on Israel.

If Israel strikes, there will be no general Middle East war, despite fears to the contrary. We know this because no general war broke out when Israel attacked Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in 1981, or when it attacked the North Korean-built Syrian reactor in 2007. Neither Saudi Arabia nor other oil-producing monarchies wanted those regimes to have nuclear weapons, and they certainly do not want Iran to have them today.

However, Iran may well retaliate. At that point, Washington must be ready to immediately resupply Israel for losses incurred by its armed forces in the initial attack, so that Israel will still be able to effectively counter Tehran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be its vehicles for retaliation. The United States must also provide muscular political support, explaining that Israel legitimately exercised its inherent right of self-defense. Whatever Obama’s view, public and congressional support for Israel will be overwhelming.

American weakness has brought us to this difficult moment. While we obsessed about its economic discomfort, Iran wore its duress with pride. It was never an even match. We now have to rely on a tiny ally to do the job for us. But unless we are ready to accept a nuclear Iran (and, in relatively short order, several other nuclear Middle Eastern states), get ready. The easy ways out disappeared long ago.

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Europe, Foreign policy, Hamas, Hezbollah, IAEA, IDF, Iran - secret deal, Iran / Israel War, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian economy, Iranian military sites, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Israel, John Bolton, Kerry, Khamenei, Middle East, Obama, Obama's America, P5+1, Sanctions, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 4 Comments

Congress can’t see the P5+1 side deals available to Iran’s Parliament

July 25, 2015

Congress can’t see the P5+1 side deals available to Iran’s Parliament, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 25, 2015

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

Iran scam Part III

Kerry says that although he has neither read nor even seen the”classified” side deals between Iran and the IAEA about the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program, he has been fully briefed, knows “exactly” what they say and will brief Congress in closed session.

Parts I and II of this series deal with the bases for and absurdities of the January 14th U.S. approval of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. From a national security perspective, the published “deal” was absurd even without recently discovered but secret and “classified” side deals about the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program. With them, the “deal” has gone from merely absurd to insane.

The “deal” and U.S. law

The  nuke deal provides that the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will

negotiate separately with Iran about the inspection of a facility long-suspected of being used to research long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, signed by Obama on May 22, 2015,

amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to direct the President, within five days after reaching an agreement with Iran regarding Iran’s nuclear program, to transmit to Congress:

the text of the agreement and all related materials and annexes; . . . [Emphasis added.]

It does not exclude any related materials, “classified” or not such as “side deals,” from those required to be provided to the Congress. However, they have been “classified” and cloaked in secrecy to achieve that end.

The side deals

We do not know precisely what the side deals say; only the signatories, Iran and the IAEA, know. However, according to an article titled Iran Bombshell: It Will Inspect Itself,

This week brought the stunning news that Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) had discovered, during a meeting with IAEA officials, the existence of secret side deal between the IAEA and Tehran— a side deal that will not, like the main nuclear agreement, be shared with Congress. So critics of the agreement were understandably eager to hear an explanation from Secretary of State John Kerry when he and other senior administration officials testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. [Emphasis added.]

The hearing produced a new bombshell: In its investigation of Iran’s past nuclear-weapons-related work, the IAEA will rely on Iran to collect samples at its Parchin military base and other locations. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

In his questioning of administration witnesses, Risch said:

Parchin stays in place. Now, does that sound like it’s for peaceful purposes? Let me tell you the worst thing about Parchin. What you guys agreed to was [that] we can’t even take samples there. The IAEA can’t take samples there. [Iranians are] going to be able to test by themselves! Even the NFL wouldn’t go along with this. How in the world can you have a nation like Iran doing their own testing? [Emphasis added.]

. . . Are we going to trust Iran to do this? This is a good deal? This is what we were told we were going to get when we were told, “Don’t worry, we’re going to be watching over their shoulder and we’re going to put in place verification[s] that are absolutely bullet proof”? We’re going to trust Iran to do their own testing? This is absolutely ludicrous.

The issue became even more interesting when Senator Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), who learned about the side deal from Risch’s question, had the following exchange with Kerry:

Menendez: “Is it true that the Iranians are going to be able to take the samples, as Senator Risch said? Because chain of custody means nothing if at the very beginning what you’re given is chosen and derived by the perpetrator.”

Kerry: “As you know, senator, that is a classified component of this that is supposed to be discussed in a classified session. We’re perfectly prepared to fully brief you in a classified session with respect to what will happen. Secretary Moniz has had his team red-team that effort and he has made some additional add-ons to where we are. But it’s part of a confidential agreement between the IAEA and Iran as to how they do it. The IAEA has said they are satisfied that they will be able to do this in a way that does not compromise their needs and that adequately gives them answers that they need. We’ve been briefed on it, and I’d be happy to brief you.” [Emphasis added.]

Menendez: “My time is up. If that is true, it would be the equivalent of the fox guarding the chicken coop.”

Here’s a video of Sen. Menendez questioning Kerry. The interesting part begins at about 10:00 into the video.

Kerry acknowledged that he had neither read nor even seen the side deals but that he and his scientific expert, Secretary Moniz — who leads the effort to uncover the non-existence extent of any “possible military dimensions” (PMD) of Iran’s nuke activities — have been fully briefed and know “exactly” what the side deals say. They promised to tell members of Congress in closed session.

A blast from the past

A blast from the past

Kerry and Moniz, like others in the Obama administration, are committed to the “deal” and to having the Congress accept rather than reject it. Kerry would be very “embarrassed” if the “deal” were killed. So would Obama. It is reasonable to expect that any briefings they provide will be conducted with those goals firmly in mind — just as it is reasonable to expect that Iranian inspections of, and collection of samples from, Parchin and other military sites will be conducted with the goal of negating the existence of any “possible military dimensions.”

Are there additional side deals that have yet to be discovered and reported? At this point, probably only Iran and the IAEA know.

It’s “Déjà vu all over again”

In a “blast from the past,” the UN agency charged with ensuring that all of Syria’s chemical weapons were disposed of properly did not do so:

International inspectors failed to stop Syria from stockpiling chemical weapons, in spite of an international agreement in 2013, according to a new report by the Wall Street Journal on Friday. International inspectors were skeptical of Syria’s claims to have disposed of its stockpiles, but were afraid that reporting violations would destroy the overall deal: “Members of the inspection team didn’t push for answers, worried that it would compromise their primary objective of getting the regime to surrender the 1,300 tons of chemicals it admitted to having.” [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

The Syrian guards assigned to inspections convoys also drove slowly, failed to destroy chemical weapons when asked to do so, and appeared to be intermingled with Iranian soldiers who were guarding Syrian chemical weapons sites. As a result, Syria remains unaccountable.

The IAEA faces comparable difficulties in evaluating Iran’s “possible military dimensions” and, if reports about the side deals are even partially accurate, will continue to bow to Iranian interests in denying the existence of those dimensions.

Conclusions

The “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program are why a “deal” was deemed necessary. Aside from its military dimensions, there would have been few objections to a peaceful Iranian nuclear program devoted to electrical generation, medical research and the like. Iran’s conduct over the years and continuing through the present has belied its claims about the exclusively peaceful nature of its actions.

The Obama administration seeks to keep the members of Congress — and the “little people” who elect them — ignorant of gaping holes in the P5+1 “deal,” particularly those relevant to Iran’s militarization of nukes, the most important of all gaping holes thus far discovered. It is now obfuscating, and will continue to obfuscate, the IAEA – Iran side deals.

As a signatory to the side deals with the IAEA, Iran has the texts. The Iranian parliament will approve or reject the “deal,” apparently after the sixty day period granted to the U.S. Congress to review it. The Iranian parliament will be subject to pressures and obfuscations by the Khamenei regime, their nature depending on whether it wants the deal to be approved or rejected. Between shouts of “death to America” and “death to Israel,” Khamenei has given mixed signals about his desires. The Iranian parliament, unlike the U.S. Congress, will likely see the texts of the side deals if, as is also likely, they drastically limit IAEA investigations of Iran’s nuke militarization activities and hence enhance the “deal’s” appeal.

By whom have the texts of the side deals been “classified?” The Obama administration? Treating the texts as “classified” is very likely a ploy to avoid Congressional and public scrutiny. Kerry and Moniz claim to know “exactly” what the unread side deals say, and contend that they will tell members of Congress, in closed session, what they know. They will do so with the goal of making the “deal” appear to be as good for Obama as they can. They may very well persuade many if not most Democrats to approve the “deal.”

If the Obama administration even approached being as transparent as Obama has often claimed, He would waive all relevant classifications and allow the briefings to be in open, rather than closed, session, with the full texts of all side deals before the members of the Congress and available to the public at large. He won’t. He could (but won’t) be threatened with impeachment for blocking legislative action by the Congress. Even if Obama were threatened, He would know it to be an empty gesture; the Senate would reject any bill of impeachment adopted by House.

At least until Obama has left office (hopefully, in January of 2017), we are stuck. Like Obama’s America, Israel, perhaps in conjunction with Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations, has the ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear weaponization facilities which threaten them. Whether they, unlike Obama’s America, have the will to do it is a different matter.

ADDENDUM

According to a Washington Examiner article posted this evening,

House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insisted in a letter to President Obama that the administration hand over any side agreements between Iran and the IAEA as well, saying that’s what’s required by a law passed earlier this year giving Congress a chance to review the deal.

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, IAEA, Iran - secret deal, Iran / Israel War, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian military sites, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian Threats, Israel, Kerry, Khamenei, Obama, Obama administration, Obama's America, P5+1, Parchin, State Department, Syria - chemical weapons, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Kerry I’ll be embarrassed in front of Ayatollah if Irand deal is killed

July 24, 2015

Kerry I’ll be embarrassed in front of Ayatollah if Irand deal is killed, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 24, 2015

john-kerry (2)Come on guys, don’t embarrass John Kerry in front of his cool Ayatollah friends.

As a bonus, if the Iran nuclear sellout deal dies, John Kerry will be too embarrassed to show his long face in Vienna again. Or Havana or Tehran.

If you won’t think of the Ayatollahs, won’t you think of John Kerry forced to retire back to his windsurfing tax-free Elba with his rich wife, too humiliated to negotiate with any more terrorists?

A congressional vote to undermine the Obama administration’s diplomatic negotiations with Iran would be a major setback for the United States on the world stage and personally humiliating Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday.

“I would be embarrassed to try to go out,” Kerry said during remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations. “What am I going to say to people after this? ‘Come negotiate with us.’ ‘Can you deliver?'”

“Do you think the ayatollah is going to come back to the table if Congress refuses this and negotiate this again?” he added.

Come on guys, don’t embarrass John Kerry in front of his cool Ayatollah friends.

John Kerry really wants Iran’s Supreme Ayatollah to like him so he can get invited to all his cool “Death to America” parties. He’s still haunted by memories of the time Russia wouldn’t return his phone calls for a week or ask him to the prom.

Kerry’s slip acknowledges that the entire facade of the “moderate” president is meaningless and it’s the Ayatollah that matters. Also the Ayatollah hasn’t actually approved the deal. But there’s another angle.

John Kerry is whining that America will look bad if it pulls back from the deal now. But Obama had no problem violating agreements with Israel, Poland and Libya. Here’s an example.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is denying that there were understandings between the Bush Administration and the Sharon and Olmert governments that limited natural growth of settlements but permitted some construction within agreed constraints.

Today, Elliott Abrams, who headed the Mideast team at the Bush White House and participated in the key discussions with Israeli officials about the settlements freeze issue, weighed in with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal stating forcefully that, “There were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank…principles that would permit some continuing growth….They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003….The prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation — the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank…For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist.”

Nobody in Obama Inc. was embarrassed to violate a deal with Israel. And that was a deal in which Israel did its part by withdrawing from Gaza.

Kerry whines that he would be embarrassed in front of the Ayatollah if Congress rejects a deal that wasn’t even finalized and in which Iran has yet to do its part.

But that’s just where the priorities of this administration are.

The Ayatollah is a “cool” enemy of the United States whom Kerry wants to impress. Just like he wanted to impress the Viet Cong in Paris and the Sandanistas and Assad. But he could care less what allies like Israel or Poland think.

They like America. So they’re not cool. There’s no need for the administration’s manchildren to impress them or win their approval.

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Iran scam, Israel, Kerry, Khamenei, Obama, Obama's America, P5+1, Settlements, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Iran Bombshell: It Will Inspect Itself

July 24, 2015

Iran Bombshell: It Will Inspect Itself, Center for Security Policy, Fred Fleitz, July 24, 2015

I am glad that Senator Risch ignored the Obama administration’s ridiculous demand to treat the side deal as a classified matter. One has to ask, Classified from whom? Certainly not for Iran, since it is a party to the agreement. I believe Obama officials insisted the deal was classified in order to keep knowledge of it from the American people, and possibly from Middle Eastern states such as Israel and Saudi Arabia that oppose the agreement.

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

This week brought the stunning news that Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Representative Mike Pompeo(R., Kan.) had discovered, during a meeting with IAEA officials, the existence of secret side deal between the IAEA and Tehran — a side deal that will not, like the main nuclear agreement, be shared with Congress. So critics of the agreement were understandably eager to hear an explanation from Secretary of State John Kerry when he and other senior administration officials testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday.

The hearing produced a new bombshell: In its investigation of Iran’s past nuclear-weapons-related work, the IAEA will rely on Iran to collect samples at its Parchin military base and other locations.

As a former intelligence analyst experienced in the collection of environmental samples for investigations of weapons of mass destruction, I found this allegation impossible to believe when I heard Senator James Risch (R., Idaho) make it yesterday morning.

In his questioning of administration witnesses, Risch said:

Parchin stays in place. Now, does that sound like it’s for peaceful purposes? Let me tell you the worst thing about Parchin. What you guys agreed to was [that] we can’t even take samples there. The IAEA can’t take samples there. [Iranians are] going to be able to test by themselves! Even the NFL wouldn’t go along with this. How in the world can you have a nation like Iran doing their own testing?

. . . Are we going to trust Iran to do this? This is a good deal? This is what we were told we were going to get when we were told, “Don’t worry, we’re going to be watching over their shoulder and we’re going to put in place verification[s] that are absolutely bullet proof”? We’re going to trust Iran to do their own testing? This is absolutely ludicrous.

The issue became even more interesting when Senator Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), who learned about the side deal from Risch’s question, had the following exchange with Kerry:

Menendez: “Is it true that the Iranians are going to be able to take the samples, as Senator Risch said? Because chain of custody means nothing if at the very beginning what you’re given is chosen and derived by the perpetrator.”

Kerry: “As you know, senator, that is a classified component of this that is supposed to be discussed in a classified session. We’re perfectly prepared to fully brief you in a classified session with respect to what will happen. Secretary Moniz has had his team red-team that effort and he has made some additional add-ons to where we are. But it’s part of a confidential agreement between the IAEA and Iran as to how they do it. The IAEA has said they are satisfied that they will be able to do this in a way that does not compromise their needs and that adequately gives them answers that they need. We’ve been briefed on it, and I’d be happy to brief you.”

Menendez: “My time is up. If that is true, it would be the equivalent of the fox guarding the chicken coop.”

The revelation that Iran will collect samples concerning its own nuclear-weapons-related activity makes the whole agreement look like a dangerous farce. This is not just an absurd process; it also goes against years of IAEA practice and established rules about the chain of custody for collected physical samples.

Senator Risch suggested in his remarks that the IAEA would remotely monitor the Iranians’ taking of samples by video. But even if there were a reliable way to ensure that Iranian “inspectors” were carefully monitored, took samples from locations identified by the IAEA, and provided these samples directly to IAEA officials, the process would still be a sham, since it would still place unacceptable limitations on IAEA inspections. To be meaningful, IAEA inspectors must have unfettered access to suspect facilities and be free to take samples anywhere, using whatever collection devices they choose. Only by collecting samples at locations and with methods that Iranian officials may not have anticipated can inspectors reliably find possible evidence of nuclear-weapons-related work that Iran tried to clean up.

That the Obama administration would agree to let Iran collect its own samples at Parchin (where explosive testing related to nuclear-warhead development reportedly took place) and other sites is consistent with reports that surfaced in June (and about which I wrote National Review articles on June 15 and June 17) that Kerry had offered to let Iran off the hook for past nuclear-weapons-related work. Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei reportedly rejected this offer as being insufficiently generous.

Remember also that Kerry told reporters on June 16: “We’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another. We know what they did.” Kerry walked back this comment, but I believe it represented part of the Obama administration’s negotiating strategy in the Iran talks.

The Obama administration claims that the Iran–IAEA side deal is a confidential and bilateral arrangement reached between IAEA officials and Tehran, and says that it has been briefed on the deal but not seen its actual language. As I wrote here on July 23, I find this impossible to believe, since the apparent arrangement so clearly reflects Secretary Kerry’s attempt last month to make concerns about Iran’s past nuclear-weapons-related work go away.

I am glad that Senator Risch ignored the Obama administration’s ridiculous demand to treat the side deal as a classified matter. One has to ask, Classified from whom? Certainly not for Iran, since it is a party to the agreement. I believe Obama officials insisted the deal was classified in order to keep knowledge of it from the American people, and possibly from Middle Eastern states such as Israel and Saudi Arabia that oppose the agreement. I also believe that Congress would not know about this matter at all if IAEA officials had not told Senator Cotton and Congressman Pompeo about it.

Possibly making the situation worse, Fox News analyst Monica Crowley said in a tweet yesterday that there are additional side deals. Omri Ceren, managing director of the Israel Project, a nonprofit advocacy organization, e-mailed me yesterday, writing that “the Israelis are saying there will be several more.”

These new developments indicate that not only did the Obama administration negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran that was worse than anyone outside the Obama administration knew only a few days ago, but it also tried to shield a sham inspections process from congressional review, in violation of the law. The entire nuclear agreement is not just a bad deal; it is a deal that now displays the bad faith of the Obama administration toward Congress and the American people. The secret side agreements are yet another compelling reason for a large bipartisan majority in Congress to reject the dangerous nuclear accord with Iran.

Categories: Arab nations, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, IAEA, Iran - secret deal, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian military sites, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Israel, Kerry, Obama, Obama's America, P5+1, Parchin, Sen. Menendez, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Eyes wide shut

July 24, 2015

Eyes wide shut, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, July 24, 2015

On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spent more than four hours trying to defend the nuclear deal before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Grilled by Republicans furious at the Obama administration’s total surrender to Iran, Kerry remained true to character: He doubled down on meaningless platitudes with self-righteous indignation.

In fairness to America’s top diplomat, whose stupidity is only matched by President Barack Obama’s evil, how else could he respond to rational concerns but to get on his high horse? Indeed, all he had at his disposal in the face of the emerging details of the agreement, each more shocking than the next, was a feeble attempt to invert reality and ridicule his critics in the process.

Referring to a “Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran” commercial aimed at persuading Congress to vote against the agreement and currently airing across the U.S., Kerry argued, “The alternative to the deal we’ve reached isn’t what we’re seeing ads for on TV. It isn’t a better deal, some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran’s complete capitulation. That’s a fantasy, plain and simple.

This was Kerry’s way of insisting that he had not been “bamboozled” by his Iranian counterparts, as Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) asserted, nor “fleeced,” as committee chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) accused.

In other words, no wool was pulled over his eyes. Not by the Iranians, at any rate. They were clear all along. And loud, as Kerry can attest, since he was the target of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s repeated abusive outbursts during the negotiations.

No, if Kerry was “bamboozled” or “fleeced” by anyone it was Obama, who told him to secure a deal at any and all cost, because doing so would be better in the short run. As for the long-term repercussions, well, that would be a future administration’s headache.

The way Obama and Kerry both justify the travesty is even less comforting. They claim that since Iran was going to pursue nuclear weapons anyway — and support terrorism anyway, and violate terms anyway, and threaten to wipe Israel off the map anyway, and burn American flags anyway — it would be wiser to join them than beat them.

The logic is mind-boggling. But it does shed light on the administration’s attitude towards Israel.

Obama has been bent on earning the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded — simply for entering the Oval Office — by completing a contract with Iran. Kerry has been obsessed with procuring a document declaring “peace” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in order to become a Nobel laureate himself.

His dreams were dashed, however, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was unwilling to cross certain red lines. Though Netanyahu did agree to negotiations, the release of well over 1,000 Palestinian terrorists, a halt in settlement construction, groveling before Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and a slew of slights from the White House, he refused to commit Israel to suicide.

It is thus that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would not come to the negotiating table. Had the P5+1 countries not given Iran reason to believe that their red lines were merely rhetorical, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — Iran’s “supreme leader” in every respect — would not have allowed his puppets to parlay with American and European representatives in the first place.

No wonder Obama and Kerry can’t stand Netanyahu. If the president of the United States can roll over and abdicate to a sworn enemy, who does the prime minister of Israel think he is to remain steadfast?

Understanding this is crucial. What it means is that Obama’s camp is right — and Netanyahu’s is wrong — about not having been able to hold out for a “better deal.” Iran, like the Palestinians it supports, has one goal in mind: demolishing the enemy.

It remains to be seen whether Obama will garner enough support in Congress to enable him to veto opposition to the agreement, which gives Iran carte blanche for its genocidal-weapons development and billions of dollars to bolster global terrorism.

At the moment, it’s not looking good. What’s worse is an annex in the agreement that provides for cooperation between the P5+1 and Iran “to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.”

This clause is causing a stir in Israel. It was also the focus of a question raised by presidential hopeful Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) during the Senate hearing. He wanted to know if it means the U.S. would be required to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from a potential Israeli military strike.

“No,” retorted Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, on hand with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to help Kerry through the ordeal. Rubio was not convinced.

He did issue a warning, however: “The Iranian regime and the world should know that this deal is your deal with Iran … and the next president is under no legal or moral obligation to live up to it.”

What the rest of us need to know is which will come first, an Israeli attack or a Republican in the White House?

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, IAEA, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian Threats, Israel, Kerry, Khamenei, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama's America, P5+1, Red Lines, Sanctions, Two state solution, U.S. Congress, United Nations
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Report: International inspectors fail to stop Syria chemical weapons

July 24, 2015

Report: International inspectors fail to stop Syria chemical weapons, Breitbart, Joel B. Pollak, July 24, 2015

(“It’s like Déjà vu all over again.” Please see also, Kerry raps Menendez over ‘classified’ Iran clause, update. — DM)

ap_iranian-foreign-minister-mohammad-javad-zarif_ap-photo4-640x420Carlos Barria/Pool via AP

The Syrian regime, however, imposed harsh restrictions on UN inspectors. ““We had no choice but to cooperate with them,” Scott Cairns, one of the leaders of the UN inspections team, told the Journal.

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

International inspectors failed to stop Syria from stockpiling chemical weapons, in spite of an international agreement in 2013, according to a new report by the Wall Street Journal on Friday. International inspectors were skeptical of Syria’s claims to have disposed of its stockpiles, but were afraid that reporting violations would destroy the overall deal: “Members of the inspection team didn’t push for answers, worried that it would compromise their primary objective of getting the regime to surrender the 1,300 tons of chemicals it admitted to having.”

After President Barack Obama failed to enforce his 2012 “red line” against dictator Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in the ongoing Syrian civil war, the U.S. agreed to a Russian-brokered agreement in Geneva that provided for the regime to ship its stockpiles abroad while international inspectors gained access to its production and storage facilities.

The Syrian regime, however, imposed harsh restrictions on UN inspectors. ““We had no choice but to cooperate with them,” Scott Cairns, one of the leaders of the UN inspections team, told the Journal.

Initially, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had reported that Syria’s declarations about its chemical weapons program matched its own assessments of what the regime possessed. However, the CIA turned out to have underestimated Syria’s capacity, the Journal reports.

The Syrian guards assigned to inspections convoys also drove slowly, failed to destroy chemical weapons when asked to do so, and appeared to be intermingled with Iranian soldiers who were guarding Syrian chemical weapons sites. As a result, Syria remains unaccountable.

The report comes as the Obama administration attempts to persuade Congress that the international inspections regime under a new deal with Iran will be sufficient to monitor that country’s nuclear program, including unknown nuclear facilities and military sites. Critics say that the inspections regime is not tough enough to allow proper verification of Iranian compliance. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee learned Thursday that UN inspectors may rely on the Iranian regime to provide environmental test samples from its own military sites.

In his State of the Union address in January 2014, President Barack Obama said: “American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve–a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear.

In a speech in September 2014 about ISIS, he said: “It is America that helped remove and destroy Syria’s declared chemical weapons so they cannot pose a threat to the Syrian people–or the world–again.”

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, IAEA, Iran - secret deal, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian military sites, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Kerry, Obama, Obama's America, P5+1, Syria - chemical weapons, U.S. Congress, United Nations
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Kerry: U.S. will Help Iran Protect its Nuclear Program From Sabotage

July 24, 2015

Kerry: U.S. will Help Iran Protect its Nuclear Program From Sabotage, Washington Free Beacon, via You Tube, July 23, 2015

(Kerry: However, we will not protect Iran’s facilities against an Israeli attack. We will just “coordinate” with Israel. Right. — DM)

 

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Kerry, Obama, Obama's America, P5+1, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Kerry raps Menendez over ‘classified’ Iran clause

July 23, 2015

Kerry raps Menendez over ‘classified’ Iran clause, Times of Israel, July 23, 2015

(Why, other than the likely embarrassment of the Obama Administration, would such a matter be “classified?” — DM)

John Kerry rebukes fellow Democrat Robert Menendez for revealing what he says is a “classified” clause in the Iran nuclear deal stating that Iran will be the one to provide the UN atomic agency with samples from sites with suspected nuclear activity.

“That is a classified component of this,” Kerry says when the New Jersey senator asks about the section of the deal. Menendez says it is “the equivalent of the fox guarding the chicken coop.”

 

UPDATE

Here is a video of Sen. Menendez questioning Secretary Kerry and others about the “deal.” The relevant question and answer begin at 10:oo into the video.

 

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, IAEA, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Kerry, Obama, Obama's America, P5+1, Sen. Menendez, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Live Blog: Over 10,000 at #StopIranRally in Times Square

July 23, 2015

Live Blog: Over 10,000 at #StopIranRally in Times Square

by Breitbart News 22 Jul 2015

via Live Blog: Over 10,000 at #StopIranRally in Times Square – Breitbart.

Best speech of the night: Judging by how widely it is being shared on Facebook, this was the winner, from former U.S. Rep. Allen West.

Quote:

I want President Barack Obama to know one thing: You may say that you have done something that no one else has ever done. You know why no one else has ever done it? ‘Cause it’s a damn stupid thing that you just did.

A close second–Caroline Glick’s speech, which brought tears to more than a few eyes:

8:30 p.m. EDT: The rally finally ends. As the speakers continued, a full hour past the scheduled end of the rally, so did the enthusiasm and intensity.

Juan Hinojosa traveled from Brooklyn to participate in the rally. He said, “As an American I am disgusted with President Obama, the Democratic Party and the weak GOP in Congress. They are a disgrace to this nation and I cannot wait until 2016 when Obama’s gone.”

Stop Iran Rally (Breitbart News)

Stop Iran Rally (Breitbart News)

7:30 p.m.EDT: The rally, stretching six blocks long and over 10,000 strong, was due to end at 7:30, but continues with a roster of speakers, including Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Former Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), and many others.

7:25 p.m. EDT: A family protests.

7:10 p.m. EDT: Conservative Jerusalem Post columnist (and occasional Breitbart News contributor) Caroline Glick gives a fiery speech attacking the Iran deal: “This deal gives the mullahs $150 billion as a signing bonus…that’s real money that you’re putting the hands of murderers!”

She warns that even if Iran abides by the agreement, “in ten years’ time it can build nuclear weapons at will.” She calls on Sen. Schumer and several of New York’s Democratic U.S. Representatives.

“You know what to do, unless you have no honor and no shame….You will not only vote against this deal, you will talk to all of your friends in the Democratic Party…you will tell them you can claim to care about the security of the United States of America and support this deal.”

She concludes: “Tell your lawmakers. Tell your friends. Tell the President of the United States to kill this deal. To preserve life, to preserve liberty, to preserve freedom, this deal must be killed.

“Thank you, God bless America, Am Israel Chai.”

Caroline Glick at Stop Iran Rally (Screenshot)

6:55 p.m. EDT: Advocates for the American captives, and for victims of Iranian-backed terror, take the stage. The anger against Obama is severe: “You couldn’t even pronounce their names properly….You, Mr. President, have become our national nightmare.”

The organizer takes the stage as well to lead chants: “Where is Chuck? Kill this deal! Where is Chuck? Kill this deal!”

6:45 p.m. EDT: Former CIA director James Woolsey, another Democrat, criticizes the Obama administration for ignoring the pro-democracy protests in 2009, and focuses his remarks on the totalitarian nature of the Iranian regime.

6:35 p.m. EDT: Alan Dershowitz, noted Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, comes to the stage. He says that it is important that opposition to the Iran deal remain bipartisan: “It is a bad deal for Demcorats. It is a bad deal for liberals. I am here opposing this deal as a liberal Democrat.”

Dershowitz attacks the way in which the deal is being handled, with democracy being “ignored” as the Obama administration circumventing Congress. “That is not the way democracy should operate. This deal is essentially a treaty. It binds the United States in a multi-national way. This treaty should be submitted to the Senate for two-thirds approval. But the president won’t do that.”

Dershowitz criticizes Obama for taking the military option “off the table,” which allowed Iran “to negotiate with us as equals,” which is how the deal that resulted was so good for Iran and so bad for everyone else.

He warns that Benjamin Netanyahu will take “whatever actions” he has to take to stop Iran. The crowd cheers.

6:20 p.m. EDT: Organizers estimate attendance at the Stop Iran Rally at over 10,000 in Times Square.

The rally hears from presidential candidate and former New York governor George Pataki, who led the state during 9/11.

He takes a dig at Hillary Clinton: “She has embraced this agreement…Hillary, let me tell you one thing: America does not need as our next president another appeaser-in-chief.”

6:10 p.m. EDT: Organizer Jeffrey Wiesenfeld continues the focus on Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), “Where are you, Chuck?” He tells the crowd about White House efforts to twist the arms of wavering Democrats, warning that the Obama administration will give a green light to “pro-Israel” Democrats to vote against the bill once they have enough votes in hand to pass it.

“This is our civil rights! Our right to live! It will not be enough if those Congress members say they are opposing the bill
because they got permission from Valerie Jarrett.”

He warns Schumer to round up votes against the bill, or “we will throw you the hell out.” The crowd roars. He offers Schumer “a chance for redemption” if he stands up to Obama and rallies opposition to the deal. “Chuck, this is your moment! This is your time to make the decision.”

(“Shomer” means “guardian” in Hebrew.)

5:50 p.m. EDT: Fox News contributor Monica Crowley offers the most powerful speech of the rally so far: “Everybody who’s here tonight in Times Square wants to save Western Civilization before it’s too late,” she says. “Never again! Seventy years after the Holocaust, have we forgotten already?”

She adds: “Of the countless destructive things President Obama has done, this deal is the most dangerous of all….President Obama says that he can basically do what he wants because ‘he’s got a pen and a phone.’ Well, guess what, Mr. President? We’ve got pens and phones, too.”

Crowley singles out

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)

2%

, daring him to lead. She said that Schumer would not be able to get away with voting against the deal once enough votes were secured for its passage.

Finally, Crowley attacks Hillary Clinton, who received a round of boos from the crowd, taking her to task for supporting the Iranian regime while toppling the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak. At a black-tie dinner in Bahrain, Crowley says, “She [Clinton] literally chased the Iranian foreign minister around the room, and got blown off by the Iranian foreign minister, not once, but twice.”

5:40 p.m. EDT: The rally is well under way, kicking off with a speech by prominent publisher and editor Mort Zuckerman. His address is heavy on detail, but mentions of the Iranian regime and Secretary of State John Kerry draw loud boos from the crowd, now apparently several thousand strong.

5:00 p.m. EDT: One very important theme at the rally, as Jacob Kornbluh points out in the tweet below, is the central role that New York’s own Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) will play. The self-described “guardian of Israel” has declined to oppose the Obama administration in recent battles, but is said to be carefully weighing his response to the Iran deal. The entire rally could be described as a giant message to Schumer, because if he opposes the deal, other Democrats will follow (and vice versa).

4:50 p.m. EDT: The rally features photographs of the four American captives in Iran: Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, Robert Levinson and Jason Rezaian.

Crowd are gathering with signs–some handed out, some clearly home-made.

4:45 p.m. EDT: Demonstrators are arriving in significant numbers, along with national media. Fox News devoted a segment to the rally, and their cameras are there to record the action.

One of the main organizations behind the protest, StandWithUs, has tweeted a list of 19 key U.S. Senators, all Democrats, that it is asking the public to contact.

If just 13 Democrats join Republicans in opposing the deal, they will override a presidential veto and the deal will fail (assuming a similar two-thirds majority can be assembled in the House).

***

The event was coordinated by the Jewish Rapid Response Coalition, a grassroots organization concerned with the potential for a nuclear-armed Iranian regime.Over 100 partners are sponsoring the rally.

Other rallies are scheduled this week and next nationwide. A partial list is here.

The idea for the Stop Iran Rally came to fruition following the nuclear accord agreed to by the P5+1 world powers (US, UK, Germany, France, China, Russia) and the Iranian regime. Organizers expect that thousands of concerned Americans will be at the Times Square rally.

Featured speakers will include:

Caroline Glick (Jerusalem Post Columnist)

Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor)

George Pataki (Fmr. Gov. of New York and Current Republican Candidate For President)

Monica Crowley (Political Commentator)

James Woolsey (Fmr. Director of the Central Intelligence Agency)

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)

88%

Former Congressman Allen West (R-FL)

Richard Kemp (Fmr. Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan)

Breitbart News will be there with timely interviews from the major players at the event.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The emperor is stark naked

July 22, 2015

The emperor is stark naked, Israel Hayom, Judith Bergman, July 22, 2015

It did not take the Europeans long to approve the Iran nuclear deal. On Monday, less than a week ‎after the deal was finalized, the European Union had already given its blessing. Given the fact that the EU is a massive body consisting of 28 countries that rarely agree on any foreign policy ‎issues, certainly not those of such a magnitude, it is rather noteworthy that they could find such sweet ‎unison over the most infamous political deal since Chamberlain’s deal with Hitler.

‎”It is a balanced deal that means Iran won’t get an atomic bomb,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius ‎said, “It is a major political deal.”

Sure it is.

Especially for the likes of France and Germany, which can barely contain themselves at the ‎prospect of doing business with the Iranian regime. It has been 12 years since the Europeans could legally ‎engage in trade with the genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic and generally murderous regime of the ‎mullahs and they are not wasting any time, now that the opportunity has resurfaced.

In fact, the ink was barely dry on the nuclear deal when German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel — who ‎also happens to be economy and energy minister and is therefore as senior a German official as Germany could get without ‎actually sending Angela Merkel herself — rushed himself and a group of representatives from German ‎companies and industry groups onto a plane for a three-day visit to Iran. ‎

Trying, yet utterly failing, to make the trip appear a little more dignified than the simple naked greed that ‎it represents, the vice chancellor “urged Iran at the start of [the] three-day visit to improve its relationship ‎with Israel if it wanted to establish closer economic ties with Germany and other Western powers,” ‎according to Reuters.

If Germany wanted Iran to take that poor show of accommodating Israeli concerns seriously, it might ‎have tried to contain itself just a little longer to at least see whether the U.S. Congress approves the ‎deal. However, as we all know, time is money and the Germans are well known for being efficient.

Yet, the Germans are far from the only ones lining up for immediate business with the Iranians. Fabius is due to visit Iran next week. “I find it completely normal that ‎after this historic deal was signed, France and Iran should restart normal relations,” Fabius said. Before ‎the sanctions took effect, French companies Peugeot and Renault were making billions of euros from ‎their involvement with the Iranian auto industry. Similarly, French company Total was heavily involved in ‎the oil sector. France is not missing a beat in bringing this lucrative trade back into la République.

The French employers’ federation, MEDEF, is due to visit Iran in September. So is Austria. The EU, which is ‎eager to find alternative suppliers of energy at a time when relations with Russia are rather tense, may ‎reopen an EU delegation in Tehran.

Notice how the European political elites consider it, in the French foreign minister’s words, “completely ‎normal” to do business with a heinous regime like Iran, which breaks every single rule in the book of human rights, the bible from which the Europeans pedantically lecture Israel ‎on every possible occasion. It is ostensibly in the name of those very same human rights that the EU wants to boycott Israeli products in order to avoid choking on an Israeli orange from beyond the ‎Green Line.‎

Yet these days the streets of Europe are eerily quiet and completely devoid of protests, as the citizens of ‎Europe demonstrably could not care less about the fact that their countries will now once again be trading ‎in a major way with the Iranian regime.

Where is the outrage, as it becomes increasingly clear that the EU, out of commercial ‎considerations for the lucrative trade and oil flowing from such a deal, has supported the agreement with ‎Iran? Where are the boycotts, divestment and sanctions? Where are the flotillas?

What European lawmaker, bureaucrat or ordinary citizen cares at all that women and children, political ‎prisoners and homosexuals are tortured and summarily executed in Iran, when Iranian oil and money will ‎now flow freely into the EU? ‎Is it of any concern to any of the European that Iran is a regime with genocidal intentions toward Israel and cares for ‎nothing but its own survival?‎

The hypocrisy and the double standards have become so thick and obvious that Hans Christian Andersen’s proverbial emperor is walking stark naked through the streets of Europe. However, should a ‎child appear to point out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes, no one would care to listen.

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Economy, Europe, European Union, Foreign policy, France, Germany, International Community, Iran scam, Iranian economy, Israel, Obama, Obama's America, P5+1, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »