Saturday, July 18, 2015
WHY IT IS BAD
This was to be a brief return to the Iran Deal since family will take precedent this coming week however even the abridged the support material resulted in a long document
Congress will have 60 days to consider the deal. If it votes to reject it, Obama has promised a veto which may be difficult to override.
However that may be a moot action since the USA plans to introduce resolutions in the UN Security Council that if adopted will confirm the provisions of the “Deal” and the USA will have to abide. Obama could use this maneuver to defeat any binding Congressional objection.
My searching the internet and columnists and editorials in the Washington Post, New York Times has only resulted in a scarcity of favorable opinions. Moreover all of them are compromised by “a flawed deal is better than no deal”.
This thinking is fueled by a fear that if we reject the deal Iran will go on an aggressive course to (1) destabilize the Mid-East, (2) to produce the bomb, and (3) spread terror in the West especially the USA.
It was fear of war that led to Munich. It was Munich that gave Hitler the impression that England, France and the USA were so afraid of war that he could go unfettered in his piecemeal attempt to dominate Central and Eastern Europe and the Mid-East, precipitating the most destructive war in history.
To ignore the fact that the Ayatollah is as aggressively bent as Hitler was, is a fatal mistake.
Some of the commentary I read; Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post noted that Obama made 17 erroneous or misrepresentation statements in his press conference; a few are:
1. “With this deal, we cut off every single one of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program.” Not true. After eight years, the precise restrictions end. Oops, he says it himself: “And Iran’s nuclear program will be under severe limits for many years.”
5. “And my hope is that building on this deal, we can continue to have conversations with Iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave. But we’re not counting on it.” This is the most bizarre comment of all. What basis is there for hope? And if we don’t count on it, we are giving an aggressive regime access to conventional arms, billions of dollars and an industrial-size nuclear infrastructure.
6. “So this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior.” Well, maybe that is the most outrageous confession.
15. “The only argument you can make against the verification and inspection mechanism that we’ve put forward is that Iran is so intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon that no inspection regime and no verification mechanism would be sufficient because they’d find some way to get around it because they’re untrustworthy.” That is precisely correct which is why he blew it by letting them keep their nuclear infrastructure.
16. “So the issue of the arms embargo and ballistic missiles is a real concern to us, has been of real concern to us, and it is in the national security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from sending weapons to Hezbollah, for example, or sending weapons to the Houthis in Yemen that accelerate a civil war there.” Again, this is part of a long and rambling answer. This was never supposed to be on the table and we lose any leverage if we lift the embargo.
2. “With this deal, if Iran violates its commitments, there will be real consequences, nuclear-related sanctions that have helped to cripple the Iranian economy will snap back into place.” False again. The deal spells out laborious inspection procedures that include a 24-day notification period. Parchin, for example, is not even included. To snap back sanctions, a committee including Russia and China must agree by a majority.
Parchin is the military facility where most of Iran’s past nuclear arms-related work was carried out.
Additionally, the draft agreement made public on Tuesday contains no stated limits on Iran’s Russian-made Bushehr nuclear power facility that analysts say could produce plutonium for dozens of bombs.
On the nuclear power-generating Bushehr reactor, Henry Sokolski, director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said that leaving it out of the accord was a mistake.
“That reactor can produce enough plutonium for dozens of bombs per year,” he said. “Iran could remove the fuel from the reactor and use a small, cheap reprocessing plant to extract plutonium, and get its first bombs in a matter of weeks.”
Also, the accord will lift international sanctions on several Iranian entities currently engaged in supporting terrorism and building ballistic missiles, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)- the IRGC Qods Force, and the Al Ghadir missile command.
The Qods Force is Iran’s Islamist military and covert action force that has been engaged in backing terrorism.
The Qods Force is regarded as the main foreign policy tool for special operations and terrorist support to Islamic militants, including Hezbollah and the Taliban.
Administration officials said in a phone briefing for reporters that future U.S. sanctions relief will be limited and will not be lifted on measures targeting Iranian terrorism support or human rights violations.
United Nations arms sanctions blocking military sales to and from Iran will be lifted in five years under the deal, and sanctions prohibiting sales of ballistic missiles to Tehran will end in eight years. U.S. restrictions will remain. This is a sunset provision and there is not prohibition for them being lifted earlier.
Iran and some non-Iranian participants in the Vienna talks had pushed for immediate end to both arms and missile sales.
China and Russia, however, could begin selling arms to Iran covertly right away. Both nations have done so in the past.
Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy from 2005 to 2009, a scholar in residence at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, with Ray Takeyh a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations wrote that. “Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, did not enter into Tuesday’s historic deal with six world powers to reset relations with the West. It was the promise of more than $100 billion in sanctions relief, rather, that greased the wheels of the recently completed diplomacy in Vienna. And though the windfall of cash will certainly strengthen its position, the real prize for Iran was regaining access to SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, is the electronic bloodstream of the global financial system that has been off-limits to the country since March 2012.” ( also Jonathan Schanzer, Mark Dubowitz. FP Group 7/18)
· Yes there may the danger of Iran increasing its support of international terrorist groups or even overt attacks of the Sunni nations that are opposing it in the region as well as Israel; but I believe that this is a lesser danger now than what an empire seeking Iran will, be able to start 10 years from now. I also believe that this document does not accomplish what it is supposed to do.