President Obama's nuclear deal that apparently isn't a nuclear deal just got a lot worse.
If you've been following this, the Iranians declared on Monday, November 26th that President Obama was lying about the details of what had been agreed to in Geneva in his statement on Saturday and that the 'facts sheet' on the deal was invalid.
“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham told the Iranian press on Tuesday. (Monday, here in America).
Afkham and and the Iranians said that the White House “modified” key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement in the fact sheet.
According to the Iranians, the deal isn't even a deal yet, but a proposed deal in spite of what our president and his team told the nation Saturday.
Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of the interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva, and that the multi-page fact sheet containing details of the agreement released by the White Hoiuse and the substance of President Obama's speech Saturday are invalid”.
“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said.
Afkham and other Iranian officials said that the White House “modified” key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement in the fact sheet.
For instance, they say Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component for developing nuclear weapons, is fully recognized under the draft released by Iran.
“This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein,” the agreement reads, according to a copy released to Iran's official government media.
“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads.
And Iran's 20% enriched uranium, 90% of the way toward weaponization? Half of it is going to be used as 'working stock' to manufacture nuclear fuel, so nothing changes. The rest, according to the Iranians is going to be diluted to 5%. Except Iran has no capacity to dilute it, refuses to ship any of its enriched uranium out of Iran, we have no idea exactly how much 20% enriched uranium Iran has and there is ample time for them to hide it before any inspections commence. And even if Iran did have the capacity to dilute any of their 20% enriched uranium, reconverting it back into material suitable for further enriching to weapons-grade levels only takes a few weeks at most.
Of course, as the Iranians point out in their version of the fact sheet, with respect to the final step and any steps in between, "the standard principle that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' applies."
The Iranians also are pretty much limiting any spot IAEA inspections to Fordow and Natanz. And again, remember that those inspections won't take place for at least three months, thanks to a deal Iran concluded with the IAEA on the sidelines of Geneva.
Even more problematical, the clock on the six moth so-called interim agreement hasn't even started ticking yet, according to the Iranians.And it won't start until "everything is agreed" , as the Iranian draft says.
Meanwhile the sanctions have already been ended to all intents and purposes and will not be reimposed in spite of assurances to the contrary. And the Ayatollahs already have received $12.6 billion in cash from oil revenues and frozen assets, in spite of the fact that there isn't really a deal.
And if it turns out there isn't one as the Ayatollahs keep changing the terms an dmoving the goal posts, Iran is simply going to keep that money.
Even a rank amateur with an IQ with a fighting chance of two digits likely knows enough to keep his money in hand until a deal is concluded.It's a wonder Secretary Kerry returned with his pants and shoes still on.
More to the point, our president and his team have just thrown a lifeline to an evil regime that brutalizes its own people and is one of the main supporters of Islamic terrorism against the West...in exchange for absolutely nothing except the privilege of talking to them.
And it gets even worse. The Iranians refused outright to stop working on their heavy water plant at Arak, which has no peacetime application, and the Obama Administration has signed off on it:
Meanwhile, the US has declared their support for the Iranian to "continue building" their nuclear reactor in Arak. The support is based on terms which prevent Tehran from producing nuclear fuel, or using the heavy water reactor; however, these cannot be constantly monitored, experts claim.
Arak has been a main point of contention between the powers in the context of the agreement; no final conclusion has been reached yet, according to Ma'ariv. Earlier this month, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif stated that while he supports the deal, he will nonetheless continue to facilitate building of the Arak reactor.
The nuclear fuel being produced at Arak can be used to produce plutonium, essentially a second route to weaponization.It has no other peacetime application.
Aa if to emphasize this,Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the lieutenant commander of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard, announced major advances in Iran's ballistic missile technology.
You might recall, at this point what Israeli spokesman Mark Regev had to say to Jake Tapper over at CNN last week, that the U.S. is not a disinterested party here: "The Iranians are building intercontinental ballistic missiles. They're not building them for us. They already have missiles that can hit Israel. They are building them for you."
And our president had the absolute gall,the nerve to go on television last Saturday and tell the nation about what a wonderful agreement we had signed with Iran, something that was touted as a major breakthrough in Pravda-on-the-Hudson and by all the usual suspects.
It's obvious by now that our president has no intention of stopping Iran from achieving nuclear weapons, and as we learn that the president's Iranian-born consigliere Valerie Jarret has been conducting secret, back channel negotiations with Iran for the past year, it's evident that this has been his policy for quite some time, whatever he's said publicly.
And in view of his previous assurances to Iran that the U.S. will not retaliate against Iran as long as the Iranians do not attack any U.S. facilities, the subtext of this is pretty obvious. This is President Obama's way of ultimately distancing America from Israel, something he's been working towards since he first took office.
Nor, of course, will it end with the Jews.
Winston Churchill's response to the 1938 Munich agreement come to mind: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."
This president's willingness to sacrifice our country's security and one of its most valuable allies for his own personal prejudices and domestic political gain just made that outcome a lot more likely.
"It's obvious by now that our president has no intention of stopping Iran from achieving nuclear weapons"
ReplyDeleteYes, it is obvious and some of us have been saying it for years.
And, both Obama and his administration KNOW the consequences of Iran gaining nuclear weapons capability, as the following quotes demonstrate;
"A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained, it would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations and the stability of the global economy ...When we think of the major threats to our national security, the first to come to mind are nuclear proliferation, rogue states and global terrorism." Barack Obama
“the region will be far less stable and far more threatened if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon. It will spur a nuclear arms race. It has risks for greater terrorism. It will be destabilizing."
Kerry said the threat extends beyond the possibility that Iran could actually use the weapon on its enemies, specifically Israel. Iran simply having a nuclear weapon would "spur a nuclear arms race" in the region and could be used to support terrorists groups like Hezbollah, he said. Interview with SecState John Kerry - March 5, 2013
So given all of this, it is also obvious that Obama is, by just his inaction, facilitating a future clear and present danger to the republic.
Some cling to the illusion that Obama's consistent actions in the M.E. are fumbling attempts at appeasement. But that supposition begs the question; if Obama actually did want Iran to gain nukes, what would he do differently?
"...what would he do differently?" First of all, in terms of leadership, Mr. Obama does not appear to be a good leader. A good leader would have, at a minimum, done the following: 1.)Immediately pull all US forces out of the Middle East and elsewhere and redeploy those forces to positions where they have a fighting chance to defend America, 2.)Secure the borders, 3.)Place a moratorium on all immigration for a minimum of 10 years and an indefinite moratorium on immigration from predominantly Islamic countries, 4.)closely monitor the mosques, 5.)develop all of our own oil and gas reserves, 6.) increase our refining capacity, and 7.)perhaps most importantly of all, at least as it pertains to Israel, stop meddling in Israel's affairs making it easier for Israel to engage in military action against Iranian nuclear facilities should this be necessary. Do all of this and we have a much better chance of defending our nation and growing our economy than any thing we are currently doing. I've discussed all of these at length here and elsewhere a number of times.
ReplyDeleteRight now we are in the way with regards to Israel. We need to get out of the way for the good of our own defense. while Israel is fully capable of handling this problem, our own interference is not helpful in this matter either for us or Israel.
Secondly, America's power is strictly limited in this matter. Sanctions were essentially useless. Even if they were kept in place, other nations would simply do an end run around them any way and they were so riddled with loop holes as to make them worse than useless. Furthermore any agreement that might be made would have to have the approval of the other P5+1 members. In other words, the US cannot simply unilaterally make an agreement. This is especially problematic when considering that Russia and China have a visceral hatred of the United States and the European nations don't like us much more either. As such, they'd most likely be pleased to see calamity befall us.
With all of this said, there may be some hope. The "fact sheet" posted on the White House web site would have had to have been vetted by the other members of the P5+1 and they would have needed to sign off on this. In other words, they thought we had a deal. They may not take kindly to being humiliated. As tyrants often do, the Iranians may have overplayed their hand. Let's certainly hope so. Of course these days hatred for America often trumps all other things including common sense. As has been pointed out on this web site and elsewhere a number of times, the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran is not going to stop with the United States and Israel.
Since help from other nations in handling this problem is unlikely to come and we lack a viable military option to deal with it, our best approach is steps 1 to 7 mentioned above. Israel is in a much better position to deal with this via a military operation should that be necessary, which at the moment it appears this will be the only option.
GB: While it does seem clear that Mr. Obama does want to distance the US from Israel as is true for most in the US government. Given America's current dire security situation, I think this is a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I think Mr. Obama and his team really does realize the danger of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Essentially there really isn't any ill will per say with regards to this issue in particular with regards to Israel. Instead it is a case of bad advice and classic incompetence on the part of the Administration and their advisors.
If you reference www.stratfor.com and read the recent article by George Friedman regarding their assessment of Israel's strategic position, since it's known that Stratfor gets much of it's information from US intelligence sources, this pretty much summarizes the thinking on the part of US intelligence who is giving advice to POTUS and his team.
The article by Mr. Friedman is so full of errors it is absolutely breathtaking and hard to know where to begin. The following is by no means exhaustive of the errors contained in the article but it is a brief summary. 1.)The article underestimates Iran's ability to produce and deliver nuclear weapons. 2.)The article overestimates Israeli defense abilities such as being able to intercept a nuclear weapon delivered by ship or truck. 3.)The article blithely assumes that somehow America monitoring of Israeli ports is somehow going to stop Iran from shipping a nuclear weapon out of the country. (Like Iran has not already figured out how to get around that and our "allies" are really going to allow us to intercept an Iranian ship or would back us up should we do so.) 4.)The article underestimates the Israeli ability to conduct a successful military strike on Iran and it underestimates Israeli intelligence capabilities with regards to such an action.
Again, this is not exhaustive but it does scratch the surface. If this were not so serious, Mr. Friedman could serve a comic relief. Actually I realized about six years ago after a pathetic performance by Mr. Friedman on the O'reilly Factor on Fox News that this is not a man who should be taken seriously.
Hard to believe people pay BIG bucks for the services of his company. I think they pay to get what they want to hear. This can be a problem with business personnel. There is a tendency to present customers and potential customers with what they want to hear rather than the facts.
Furthermore Stratfor relies heavily on sources within US intelligence. This is the same bunch who missed it on Iraqi WMD, the Iraqi insurgency, and other matters. Necessary reforms were never made to this group. As such, by relying on them POTUS and his team appear to be making horrific and strategic error.
As for the truth of this situation, as reported by Israelnationalnews, Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon within 36 days. The Israeli experts are not business people peddling a product their customer or potential customer wants to hear but the survival of Israel depends upon them being right. As such, they are more credible and their advice should be sought when formulating US policy toward Iran and the current people supplying the advice.
There is one thing that Mr. Friedman got right. He points out that Israeli influence in America is less than it used to be, however, he mistakenly assumes that Israel has ever had significant influence over US policies.
ReplyDelete