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.

6 comments:

  1. "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's funny how according to all these pundits, if we accept the deal we'll get the same results. But the never-ceasing warmongering remains the same, deal or no deal, and in their eyes Iran will always be just a few weeks or months from getting the bomb.

    Another Munich? By the time Munich came around in 1938, permitting Nazi Germany to annex the German-speaking Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, Germany and Japan had left the League of Nations, Germany had marched in and remilitarized the Rhineland, Germany had annexed Austria, Japan had invaded Manchuria and China, and Italy had invaded Ethiopia. I don't think there is anything credible about the claim that this deal is another Munich. Meanwhile, no matter how bad an actor it may be, Iran may be the only credible obstacle to ISIS in the region.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wise words from my friend, Rabbi Jerry Levy:

    We are living on the cusp of history.



    Not only is AIPAC out to destroy a deal that represents the best chance for the future of America, Israel, Iran and the Middle East... but they are making us Jews appear as self-absorbed war-mongers who don't give a damn about the rest of the world...



    How long will the American public... to say nothing of our American Jewish public-at-large... to say nothing of our young American Jews... continue to put up with this dangerous lobbying??



    I'm afraid of a reaction that will isolate Israel just as South Africa was isolated (even Saint Reagan was unable to prevent BOTH houses of Congress from overriding his veto of the sanctions-against-South-Africa bill). I'm afraid that middle America will increasingly come to resent the use of our tax dollars to fund ultra-Orthodox / West Bank settler / Sheldon Adelson / Benjamin Netanyahu intransigence... and that our senators and representatives will get that message... and that our youngsters will continue to be alienated from a Jewish state that no longer represents their values.



    This is what AIPAC wants us to believe:

    "After more than 20 months of negotiations, the United States and its negotiating partners announced a nuclear agreement with Iran. Throughout the negotiations, AIPAC outlined five critical criteria for a good deal. Unfortunately, the proposed agreement is fundamentally flawed in each of these vital areas.

    "The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 established a procedure for congressional review of any nuclear agreement with Iran. Congress must now oppose this deal, which would leave Iran as a nuclear threshold state, thereby jeopardizing U.S. interests and posing an existential threat to Israel and other American allies."




    After sharing its flawed analysis, AIPAC has the unmitigated chutzpah to urge that we tell our members of Congress to oppose this deal.





    But for the sake of our beloved United States of America, for the survival of our beloved State of Israel, and indeed for the survival of our world, we need to be peace-mongers:

    The international agreement reached in Vienna is the best chance for keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It meets all the requirements of a "good deal."



    It creates the most rigorous, intrusive inspection regime in history. It opens Iran's program to the light of day, keeping illicit military uses off the table. It protects the international sanctions regime, allowing them to snap back into place if Iran cheats. It puts a long-term, lasting end to Iran's nuclear ambitions. And it cripples Iran's nuclear infrastructure, blocking every pathway to a bomb.



    We need to tell our senators and representatives that a strong negotiated agreement is the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that this agreement meets all the key points needed for a "good deal."





    As Americans who are concerned about the security of Israel, the Middle East, and the entire world, we must urge them to support this agreement.




    Then, and only then, as our Israeli brothers and sisters like to say, yih-yeh tov: the future will be good!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If thee is doubt about my comment regarding the Ayatollah just read page 4 in today's (Sunday) New York Times.

      Delete
  3. Bob Thank you for making it clear that all American Jews are not opposing the pact, nor does religion cause them to blindly follow the lead of an Israel government. My conclusions which I have not explained in detail come from reading multiple sources including the so called left and right publications,both pro and anti Obama who I voyed for twice. I have scanned the 159 page document and have found that most of the objections are factual.
    Are you aware of the Ayatollah's comments this weekend in which he reiterated his attacks on America and its allies? He has the say in Iran which you and I ultimately have in our Republic. To him the deal is a piece of useful paper, and will not alter the ultimate goal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Old Doc, you made a simple easy to understand case for why the Iran deal not only does not do what it was said to be intended to do, but will in fact do quite the contrary, to say in mildly. I leave you with this quote, not for those who believe it is a good deal, because they will not agree, but to those who see if for what it is. "“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
    Marcus Tullius Cicero

    Angelo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the Democratic Party is so much better then that Evil Republican one !!

      Delete