It wasn't a deal. It was a surrender. No no, not I surrender, the Iranians are going to become our friends now.
The Real Reason Obama Did the Iran Deal - Leslie H. Gelb
According to top administration officials, Mr. Obama has always been after something much bigger than capping Iran's nuclear program, and he got it - the strategic opportunity to begin converting Iran from foe to "friend." Iranian negotiators understood well what's been driving the U.S. president, and they have used the prospect of becoming "a friend" as their best bargaining card. For over a year now in small private conversations and strolls, they have been painting rosy pictures of Iranian-American cooperation.
The Iranian list of possibilities goes to most of Washington's principal worries in the Middle East. They would step up their fighting alongside Iraqi troops to combat the Islamic State in Iraq. And they would do much more in Syria to go after the forces of ISIS there. They spoke of finding "solutions" to the civil war in Yemen. They raised hopes of forging better relations with America's "partners" in the Gulf.
However, they said little or nothing about Lebanon, so as not to jeopardize the strong position there of their Hizbullah allies, or about their backing of Hamas in Gaza. And U.S. diplomats couldn't get anything positive from them about Israel, the country that feels greatly threatened by Iran. The writer, a former senior State and Defense Department official, is President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Daily Beast)
The Real Reason Obama Did the Iran Deal - Leslie H. Gelb
According to top administration officials, Mr. Obama has always been after something much bigger than capping Iran's nuclear program, and he got it - the strategic opportunity to begin converting Iran from foe to "friend." Iranian negotiators understood well what's been driving the U.S. president, and they have used the prospect of becoming "a friend" as their best bargaining card. For over a year now in small private conversations and strolls, they have been painting rosy pictures of Iranian-American cooperation.
The Iranian list of possibilities goes to most of Washington's principal worries in the Middle East. They would step up their fighting alongside Iraqi troops to combat the Islamic State in Iraq. And they would do much more in Syria to go after the forces of ISIS there. They spoke of finding "solutions" to the civil war in Yemen. They raised hopes of forging better relations with America's "partners" in the Gulf.
However, they said little or nothing about Lebanon, so as not to jeopardize the strong position there of their Hizbullah allies, or about their backing of Hamas in Gaza. And U.S. diplomats couldn't get anything positive from them about Israel, the country that feels greatly threatened by Iran. The writer, a former senior State and Defense Department official, is President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Daily Beast)
[h=1]7 DEVASTATING FACTS ABOUT OBAMA’S IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL[/h]
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
by WYNTON HALL17 Jul 20151772
[h=2]As Iran and President Barack Obama cheer and champion their controversial nuclear deal, critics are roundly condemning the deal as a historic and catastrophic agreement that will strengthen Iran and imperil national security for America and its allies.[/h]Here, then, are seven facts about Obama’s proposed Iran nuclear deal Americans should know:
1. U.S. Nuclear Inspectors Are Banned From Inspecting Iran’s Nuclear Sites
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice admitted to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that “no Americans will be part of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspection teams.”
The administration’s claim that the deal provides inspections “anytime, anywhere” is also false. Obama’s deal allows Iran to block inspector access to any undeclared nuclear site. As Charles Krauthammer notes, “The denial is then adjudicated by a committee—on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits” and the whole process may take up to 24 days.
2. Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal Lifts Economic Sanctions that Could Boost Iran’s Economy with $150 Billion in Revenue
As the Washington Post reports, “Yet another worry is that the lifting of tough economic sanctions on Iran would provide it with as much as $150 billion in revenue. Some of that money would be spent on infrastructure and the Iranian people. Some of it, critics say, would go to the likes of Hezbollah, Syrian Bashar al-Assad and Iraqi militias that no long ago were killing Americans.”
3. The Obama Administration Admits That ‘We Should Expect’ Iran Will Spend Some of the $150 Billion in Revenues Obama’s Deal Gives Them On Their Military and Possibly Terrorism
In the same interview with Wolf Blitzer, Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice conceded the following: “Yes, it is real, it is possible, and, in fact, we should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now.”
4. On the Very Week Obama Brokered His Iran Nuclear Deal, Large Crowds Across Iran Could Be Heard Chanting “Death to America”—And Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Declared ‘Death to America’ Just Months Ago
As even the Huffington Post noted under a headline titled, “’DEATH TO AMERICA’ JUST LAST WEEK”: “Hatred towards the United States remains a basic tenet of Iran’s ruling system, on display just last week during an annual protest day that saw large crowds across Iran chanting ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’”
Similarly, as CNN reported, Iran’s Supreme Leaders Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for “death to America” as recently as late March of 2015.
5. Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal Does Not Require Iran to Release Any American Prisoners
Obama’s proposed deal with Iran does not require the Iranians to release American prisoners like Iranian-American Christian missionary Saeed Abedini, Iranian-AmericanWashington Post journalist, Jason Rezaian, or U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati.
6. Obama’s Deal Allows Russia and China to Supply Iran with Weapons
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed on Tuesday that “weapons supplies will be possible” under the new deal. As the International Business Times reports, “Russia and China will continue to make weapons deals with Iran under U.N. procedures.” Krauthammer argues that “the net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf.” He added, “Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half century.”
7. 77 Percent of Americans Oppose Obama’s Lifting of Sanctions Against Iran
According to the latest Associated Press-GfK poll, 77 percent of Americans believe U.S. sanctions against Iran should be kept the same or increased, not lifted as Obama’s deal calls for.
Prior to the announcement of Obama’s controversial Iran nuclear deal, 60 percent of Americans disapproved of his handling of U.S. relations with Iran.
This week, Obama embarked on a 60-day campaign to build support for his controversial Iran nuclear deal.
by WYNTON HALL17 Jul 20151772
[h=2]As Iran and President Barack Obama cheer and champion their controversial nuclear deal, critics are roundly condemning the deal as a historic and catastrophic agreement that will strengthen Iran and imperil national security for America and its allies.[/h]Here, then, are seven facts about Obama’s proposed Iran nuclear deal Americans should know:
1. U.S. Nuclear Inspectors Are Banned From Inspecting Iran’s Nuclear Sites
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice admitted to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that “no Americans will be part of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspection teams.”
The administration’s claim that the deal provides inspections “anytime, anywhere” is also false. Obama’s deal allows Iran to block inspector access to any undeclared nuclear site. As Charles Krauthammer notes, “The denial is then adjudicated by a committee—on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits” and the whole process may take up to 24 days.
2. Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal Lifts Economic Sanctions that Could Boost Iran’s Economy with $150 Billion in Revenue
As the Washington Post reports, “Yet another worry is that the lifting of tough economic sanctions on Iran would provide it with as much as $150 billion in revenue. Some of that money would be spent on infrastructure and the Iranian people. Some of it, critics say, would go to the likes of Hezbollah, Syrian Bashar al-Assad and Iraqi militias that no long ago were killing Americans.”
3. The Obama Administration Admits That ‘We Should Expect’ Iran Will Spend Some of the $150 Billion in Revenues Obama’s Deal Gives Them On Their Military and Possibly Terrorism
In the same interview with Wolf Blitzer, Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice conceded the following: “Yes, it is real, it is possible, and, in fact, we should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now.”
4. On the Very Week Obama Brokered His Iran Nuclear Deal, Large Crowds Across Iran Could Be Heard Chanting “Death to America”—And Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Declared ‘Death to America’ Just Months Ago
As even the Huffington Post noted under a headline titled, “’DEATH TO AMERICA’ JUST LAST WEEK”: “Hatred towards the United States remains a basic tenet of Iran’s ruling system, on display just last week during an annual protest day that saw large crowds across Iran chanting ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’”
Similarly, as CNN reported, Iran’s Supreme Leaders Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for “death to America” as recently as late March of 2015.
5. Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal Does Not Require Iran to Release Any American Prisoners
Obama’s proposed deal with Iran does not require the Iranians to release American prisoners like Iranian-American Christian missionary Saeed Abedini, Iranian-AmericanWashington Post journalist, Jason Rezaian, or U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati.
6. Obama’s Deal Allows Russia and China to Supply Iran with Weapons
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed on Tuesday that “weapons supplies will be possible” under the new deal. As the International Business Times reports, “Russia and China will continue to make weapons deals with Iran under U.N. procedures.” Krauthammer argues that “the net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf.” He added, “Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half century.”
7. 77 Percent of Americans Oppose Obama’s Lifting of Sanctions Against Iran
According to the latest Associated Press-GfK poll, 77 percent of Americans believe U.S. sanctions against Iran should be kept the same or increased, not lifted as Obama’s deal calls for.
Prior to the announcement of Obama’s controversial Iran nuclear deal, 60 percent of Americans disapproved of his handling of U.S. relations with Iran.
This week, Obama embarked on a 60-day campaign to build support for his controversial Iran nuclear deal.
[h=2]Iran’s Nuclear ‘Obligations’ Are All Voluntary[/h]
A crucial point in the Iran agreement has been ignored.
By Mark Langfan, INN
Last week President Barack Obama churlishly scolded his Iran-Nuclear-Deal critics, exhorting them to read the Iran Nuclear agreement before they criticize it. Fortunately, one doesn’t have to read far into the 159 pages of diplomatic wordiness, or be a nuclear physicist or rocket scientist to understand the extent of Obama’s security fraud against the United States and the free world.
In fact one only has to read the first operative paragraph on page 7 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), announced on July 14, 2015, but not actually signed by any of the parties (including Iran) to realize that Iran is not even contractually “signed” on the JCPOA in contrast to other Nuclear Arms treaties, such as START. Reading the first paragraph, one quickly realizes that all of what Obama piously claims to be Iran’s Nuclear ‘obligations’ under the JCPOA are actually entirely voluntary measures and not obligatory. So, under the JCPOA, Iran is not actually obligated to do anything, meaning that Iran can never be in “violation” of JCPOA because all of Iran’s requirements are voluntary.
Read more...
A crucial point in the Iran agreement has been ignored.
By Mark Langfan, INN
Last week President Barack Obama churlishly scolded his Iran-Nuclear-Deal critics, exhorting them to read the Iran Nuclear agreement before they criticize it. Fortunately, one doesn’t have to read far into the 159 pages of diplomatic wordiness, or be a nuclear physicist or rocket scientist to understand the extent of Obama’s security fraud against the United States and the free world.
In fact one only has to read the first operative paragraph on page 7 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), announced on July 14, 2015, but not actually signed by any of the parties (including Iran) to realize that Iran is not even contractually “signed” on the JCPOA in contrast to other Nuclear Arms treaties, such as START. Reading the first paragraph, one quickly realizes that all of what Obama piously claims to be Iran’s Nuclear ‘obligations’ under the JCPOA are actually entirely voluntary measures and not obligatory. So, under the JCPOA, Iran is not actually obligated to do anything, meaning that Iran can never be in “violation” of JCPOA because all of Iran’s requirements are voluntary.
Read more...
[h=2]Expert: The Americans Surrendered to Iran[/h]
Dr. Harold Rhode of Ariel University says there were never any real negotiations between Iran and the West. Rather, the Americans gave in.
By Shimon Cohen, INN
Dr. Harold Rhode, a former analyst for the Pentagon on the Middle East and today a lecturer at the Ariel University in Samaria, on Sunday told Arutz Shevathat the deal between Iran and the West was in fact an American concession to Iran.
“There were no negotiations, only an American concession to Iran,” said Rhode, who studied the Persian language in Mashhad, Iran during the revolution. “The Iranians did not give up anything,” added Rhode.
“For the Iranians, the agreement is a step along the way. The negotiations start with the agreement,” he continued, noting he wrote a study for the United States administration about how Iran holds negotiations.
Read more...
Dr. Harold Rhode of Ariel University says there were never any real negotiations between Iran and the West. Rather, the Americans gave in.
By Shimon Cohen, INN
Dr. Harold Rhode, a former analyst for the Pentagon on the Middle East and today a lecturer at the Ariel University in Samaria, on Sunday told Arutz Shevathat the deal between Iran and the West was in fact an American concession to Iran.
“There were no negotiations, only an American concession to Iran,” said Rhode, who studied the Persian language in Mashhad, Iran during the revolution. “The Iranians did not give up anything,” added Rhode.
“For the Iranians, the agreement is a step along the way. The negotiations start with the agreement,” he continued, noting he wrote a study for the United States administration about how Iran holds negotiations.
Read more...
Iran Dictator Calls for the Muslim World to Unite and Destroy Israel, says the US created ISIS
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei went into a conspiracy-laden tirade on Saturday, blaming the “arrogant powers” for getting in the way of the Muslim world’s mission to unite and destroy Israel.
“If the Islamic Ummah were united and relied on their own commonalities, they would certainly be a unique power in the international political scene but big powers have imposed such divisions on the Islamic Ummah to pursue their own interests and safeguard the Zionist regime [of Israel],” Khamenei said in remarks to commemorate the end of Ramadan.
Khamenei also defended Iran’s support for its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, which is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, and the Assad regime in Syria.
“The Americans dub the Lebanese resistance as terrorist and regard Iran as a supporter of terrorism because of its support for the Lebanese Hezbollah, while the Americans, themselves, are real terrorists,” Khamenei said. Hezbollah was originally created by Tehran’s first “Supreme Leader” with the mission to “turn Lebanon to a graveyard for Jews,” according to its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
The Iranian dictator claimed that al-Qaeda and the Islamic State terror group were created by the United States, according to Iran’s state-controlled media. The U.S. “have created al-Qaeda and Daesh [ISIL]” and “support the wicked Zionists [Israel],” he said.
The U.S. cannot criticize Iran’s support for Hezbollah’s “resistance” movement because the U.S. supports the “Zionist, terrorist and infanticidal” Israelis, added Iran’s ruler.
The “Supreme Leader” declared victory over the United States in Tehran’s recent nuclear agreement with world powers, saying, “This is the outcome of the Iranian nation’s resistance and bravery and the creativity of dear Iranian scientists.”
He predicted that in the case of war with the United States, The U.S. “will emerge loser,” PressTV reported.
Khamenei swore to never engage the Americans in dialogue over regional differences, asking, “Our policies and those of the US in the region are 180 degree different, so how could it be possible to enter dialogue and negotiations with them (Americans)?”
In declaring victory over the U.S. in nuclear negotiations, he added, “today, they [world powers] have been forced to accept and stand the spinning of thousands of centrifuges and continuation of research and development in Iran, and it has no meaning but the Iranian nation’s might.”
Noticeably, Khamenei’s more-controversial comments were left out of a CNN story on his remarks.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei went into a conspiracy-laden tirade on Saturday, blaming the “arrogant powers” for getting in the way of the Muslim world’s mission to unite and destroy Israel.
“If the Islamic Ummah were united and relied on their own commonalities, they would certainly be a unique power in the international political scene but big powers have imposed such divisions on the Islamic Ummah to pursue their own interests and safeguard the Zionist regime [of Israel],” Khamenei said in remarks to commemorate the end of Ramadan.
Khamenei also defended Iran’s support for its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, which is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, and the Assad regime in Syria.
“The Americans dub the Lebanese resistance as terrorist and regard Iran as a supporter of terrorism because of its support for the Lebanese Hezbollah, while the Americans, themselves, are real terrorists,” Khamenei said. Hezbollah was originally created by Tehran’s first “Supreme Leader” with the mission to “turn Lebanon to a graveyard for Jews,” according to its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
The Iranian dictator claimed that al-Qaeda and the Islamic State terror group were created by the United States, according to Iran’s state-controlled media. The U.S. “have created al-Qaeda and Daesh [ISIL]” and “support the wicked Zionists [Israel],” he said.
The U.S. cannot criticize Iran’s support for Hezbollah’s “resistance” movement because the U.S. supports the “Zionist, terrorist and infanticidal” Israelis, added Iran’s ruler.
The “Supreme Leader” declared victory over the United States in Tehran’s recent nuclear agreement with world powers, saying, “This is the outcome of the Iranian nation’s resistance and bravery and the creativity of dear Iranian scientists.”
He predicted that in the case of war with the United States, The U.S. “will emerge loser,” PressTV reported.
Khamenei swore to never engage the Americans in dialogue over regional differences, asking, “Our policies and those of the US in the region are 180 degree different, so how could it be possible to enter dialogue and negotiations with them (Americans)?”
In declaring victory over the U.S. in nuclear negotiations, he added, “today, they [world powers] have been forced to accept and stand the spinning of thousands of centrifuges and continuation of research and development in Iran, and it has no meaning but the Iranian nation’s might.”
Noticeably, Khamenei’s more-controversial comments were left out of a CNN story on his remarks.
[h=1]THERE IS NO IRAN DEAL: WEST, IRAN DIFFER SHARPLY OVER TERMS[/h]
JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
by JOEL B. POLLAK20 Jul 20151032
[h=2]The United Nations Security Council voted 15-0 on Monday to pass Resolution 2231, which endorses the Iran nuclear deal–“the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] signed in Vienna by the five permanent members of the Council, plus Germany, the European Union and Iran.” However, there are already sharp disagreements between Iran and the rest of the world as to what that deal actually means.[/h]Iran’s Foreign Ministry claims, for example, that the deal does not actually cover its ballistic missile program, as advertised. Restrictions on ballistic missiles are to be ended after eight years, according to the JCPOA. However, Iran says, according to the Times of Israel, that the UN Security C0uncil resolution and the deal do not apply to its own missiles because they “have not been conceived to carry nuclear weapons.”
Similarly, there is confusion as to whether the deal prevents Iran from accelerating its nuclear program after the deal expires, or whether that is just an option. Such (voluntary) restrictions would have to be approved under the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the Iranian parliament is supposed to ratify, but there is no deadline for it to do so; it could wait until deal expires, in theory.
Alan Dershowitz, who has worked on UN resolutions on the Middle East, suggests there may not have been a “meeting of the minds” on the Iran deal at all: “Is it a postponement for an uncertain number of years — 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 — of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon? Or is it an assurance that ‘Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon?'”
These differences go far beyond the usual disputes over the precise interpretations of terms in an agreement. There seems to be a wide gulf between Iran and the West about what, in fact, is covered by the agreement. Other areas of confusion in the deal include access for international inspectors to Iranian military sites, which the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps apparently is refusing to accept or allow.
It will be hard to enforce a deal that is not, in fact, an agreement.
by JOEL B. POLLAK20 Jul 20151032
[h=2]The United Nations Security Council voted 15-0 on Monday to pass Resolution 2231, which endorses the Iran nuclear deal–“the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] signed in Vienna by the five permanent members of the Council, plus Germany, the European Union and Iran.” However, there are already sharp disagreements between Iran and the rest of the world as to what that deal actually means.[/h]Iran’s Foreign Ministry claims, for example, that the deal does not actually cover its ballistic missile program, as advertised. Restrictions on ballistic missiles are to be ended after eight years, according to the JCPOA. However, Iran says, according to the Times of Israel, that the UN Security C0uncil resolution and the deal do not apply to its own missiles because they “have not been conceived to carry nuclear weapons.”
Similarly, there is confusion as to whether the deal prevents Iran from accelerating its nuclear program after the deal expires, or whether that is just an option. Such (voluntary) restrictions would have to be approved under the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the Iranian parliament is supposed to ratify, but there is no deadline for it to do so; it could wait until deal expires, in theory.
Alan Dershowitz, who has worked on UN resolutions on the Middle East, suggests there may not have been a “meeting of the minds” on the Iran deal at all: “Is it a postponement for an uncertain number of years — 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 — of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon? Or is it an assurance that ‘Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon?'”
These differences go far beyond the usual disputes over the precise interpretations of terms in an agreement. There seems to be a wide gulf between Iran and the West about what, in fact, is covered by the agreement. Other areas of confusion in the deal include access for international inspectors to Iranian military sites, which the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps apparently is refusing to accept or allow.
It will be hard to enforce a deal that is not, in fact, an agreement.
On Iran, Congress Should Just Say No - Eric Edelman and Ray Takeyh
A careful examination of the nuclear agreement with Iran reveals that it concedes an enrichment capacity that is too large; sunset clauses that are too short; a verification regime that is too leaky; and enforcement mechanisms that are too suspect. The scale of imperfection is so great that the judicious course is to reject the deal and renegotiate a more stringent one.
Prior to the 2013 interim accord, the Obama administration's position rested on relatively sensible precepts. The U.S. insisted that, given Iran's practical needs, it should only have a symbolic enrichment program of a few hundred centrifuges. These prudent parameters were overtaken by a cavalcade of concessions.
The U.S. in effect abandoned the goal of preventing development of an Iranian nuclear capability in favor of managing its emergence. Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy from 2005 to 2009, is a scholar in residence at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. (Washington Post)
A careful examination of the nuclear agreement with Iran reveals that it concedes an enrichment capacity that is too large; sunset clauses that are too short; a verification regime that is too leaky; and enforcement mechanisms that are too suspect. The scale of imperfection is so great that the judicious course is to reject the deal and renegotiate a more stringent one.
Prior to the 2013 interim accord, the Obama administration's position rested on relatively sensible precepts. The U.S. insisted that, given Iran's practical needs, it should only have a symbolic enrichment program of a few hundred centrifuges. These prudent parameters were overtaken by a cavalcade of concessions.
The U.S. in effect abandoned the goal of preventing development of an Iranian nuclear capability in favor of managing its emergence. Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy from 2005 to 2009, is a scholar in residence at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. (Washington Post)
"When the Villain Is Laughing, You Know Something Is Wrong" - Israeli UN Ambassador Ron Prosor (Permanent Mission of Israel to the UN)
Following the UN Security Council meeting on Iran on Monday, Israel's ambassador Ron Prosor said:
Today, you have awarded a great prize to the most dangerous country in the world. The international community is taking steps to lift the sanctions on Iran without first waiting to see if Iran complies with even a single obligation in the agreement.
This agreement gives Iran a seat on the commission which will decide whether or not it has violated the agreement. This is like allowing a criminal to sit on the jury which will decide his own fate.
You haven't changed Iran's destructive ideology, which goes beyond proliferating deadly weapons and funding terror. You have given the source of the problem - Iran - money, stability at home, and time to carry out its destructive ideology.
You can find Iran's fingerprints in every corner of the globe, targeting innocent civilians, smuggling arms, financing terrorist groups, and engaging in illegal proliferation activity. Now, what did the world do to respond to Iran's growing empire of terror? It voted to empower it. It voted to strengthen it. It voted to fund their expansion.
The Iranians are laughing in everyone's face. When the villain is laughing, you know something is wrong. When we hear laughter from a country whose Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, says that even after the agreement is signed, Iran will continue the battle against the United States, Iran will continue supporting terrorists in the Middle East and around the world - something is wrong.
When we hear laughter from a country whose president, just days before the agreement was signed, marches at the head of a parade in Tehran in which American and Israeli flags are burned - something is wrong.
We in Israel tend to take it seriously when someone threatens to destroy us. In future years, the consequences of this mistake will become clear to all, but for Israel, tomorrow is already too late.
Following the UN Security Council meeting on Iran on Monday, Israel's ambassador Ron Prosor said:
Today, you have awarded a great prize to the most dangerous country in the world. The international community is taking steps to lift the sanctions on Iran without first waiting to see if Iran complies with even a single obligation in the agreement.
This agreement gives Iran a seat on the commission which will decide whether or not it has violated the agreement. This is like allowing a criminal to sit on the jury which will decide his own fate.
You haven't changed Iran's destructive ideology, which goes beyond proliferating deadly weapons and funding terror. You have given the source of the problem - Iran - money, stability at home, and time to carry out its destructive ideology.
You can find Iran's fingerprints in every corner of the globe, targeting innocent civilians, smuggling arms, financing terrorist groups, and engaging in illegal proliferation activity. Now, what did the world do to respond to Iran's growing empire of terror? It voted to empower it. It voted to strengthen it. It voted to fund their expansion.
The Iranians are laughing in everyone's face. When the villain is laughing, you know something is wrong. When we hear laughter from a country whose Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, says that even after the agreement is signed, Iran will continue the battle against the United States, Iran will continue supporting terrorists in the Middle East and around the world - something is wrong.
When we hear laughter from a country whose president, just days before the agreement was signed, marches at the head of a parade in Tehran in which American and Israeli flags are burned - something is wrong.
We in Israel tend to take it seriously when someone threatens to destroy us. In future years, the consequences of this mistake will become clear to all, but for Israel, tomorrow is already too late.
[h=2]Iran: ‘We Will Trample Upon America’[/h]Friday prayers take anti-American turn
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Adam Kredo
July 20, 2015 12:12 pm
A senior Iranian cleric delivered Friday prayers in Tehran while standing behind a podium that declared, “We Will Trample Upon America,” according to photos released by Iran’s state-controlled media.
Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani, who was handpicked by the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader to deliver the prayers, delivered a message of hostility toward the United States in the first official remarks since a final nuclear deal was signed between Iran and world powers in Vienna last week.
A Persian-language message on the podium declared, “We will trample upon America” while the English phrase “We Defeat the United States” can be seen underneath.
Friday prayers are known for being officially sanctioned by the state and a sign of the supreme leader’s thinking on various issues. Analysts who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon about the anti-American tone of last week’s prayers said it is a sign Tehran believes it bested the United States in the talks.
“The slogans of the Iranian nation on Al-Quds Day show what [Iran's] position is,” said the Middle East Media Research Institute. “The slogans ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’ have resounded throughout the country, and are not limited to Tehran and the other large cities. The entire country is under the umbrella of this great movement [of 'Death to America'].”
The nuclear accord has already been subjected to much criticism by lawmakers and experts who maintain that Iran will be permitted to keep its core nuclear structure in tact while receiving billions of dollars in economic sanctions relief.
The deal also lifts international bans of Iran’s ballistic missile program, as well as restrictions on its ability to purchase conventional military arms on the open market.
Iran’s defense minister on Monday said the deal also will prohibit all foreigners from inspecting Iran’s “defensive and missile capabilities” at sensitive military sites.
“Missile-related issues have never been on agenda of the nuclear talks and the Islamic system will resolutely implement its programs in this field,” Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan was quoted as saying on Monday following a meeting with Iran’s defense ministry.
U.S. officials are being deceptive when they claim that international inspectors will have full access to Iran’s key military sites, Dehqan said.
“The U.S. officials make boastful remarks and imagine that they can impose anything on the Iranian nation because they lack a proper knowledge of the Iranian nation,” he was quoted as saying.
Dehqan went on to claim that Americans must “realize that they are not the world’s super power and no one recognizes them as such any longer.”
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes, said that the official remarks by Iranian officials and clerics are meant to mock the Obama administration.
Supreme Leader Ali “Khamenei is toying with Obama right now, humiliating him, but Obama is too self-absorbed to realize it,” Rubin said. “The best analogy to this would be if Roosevelt made peace with Hirohito who gave a speech under the banner ‘We will bomb Pearl Harbor anyway.’”
“There’s a reason why Obama doesn’t want Congress to see the agreement,” Rubin added. “That is because to examine the agreement is to recognize that it’s more an unconditional surrender than an arms control agreement.”
SHARE
TWEET
Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani / AP
BY: Adam Kredo
July 20, 2015 12:12 pm
A senior Iranian cleric delivered Friday prayers in Tehran while standing behind a podium that declared, “We Will Trample Upon America,” according to photos released by Iran’s state-controlled media.
Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani, who was handpicked by the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader to deliver the prayers, delivered a message of hostility toward the United States in the first official remarks since a final nuclear deal was signed between Iran and world powers in Vienna last week.
A Persian-language message on the podium declared, “We will trample upon America” while the English phrase “We Defeat the United States” can be seen underneath.
Friday prayers are known for being officially sanctioned by the state and a sign of the supreme leader’s thinking on various issues. Analysts who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon about the anti-American tone of last week’s prayers said it is a sign Tehran believes it bested the United States in the talks.
“The slogans of the Iranian nation on Al-Quds Day show what [Iran's] position is,” said the Middle East Media Research Institute. “The slogans ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’ have resounded throughout the country, and are not limited to Tehran and the other large cities. The entire country is under the umbrella of this great movement [of 'Death to America'].”
The nuclear accord has already been subjected to much criticism by lawmakers and experts who maintain that Iran will be permitted to keep its core nuclear structure in tact while receiving billions of dollars in economic sanctions relief.
The deal also lifts international bans of Iran’s ballistic missile program, as well as restrictions on its ability to purchase conventional military arms on the open market.
Iran’s defense minister on Monday said the deal also will prohibit all foreigners from inspecting Iran’s “defensive and missile capabilities” at sensitive military sites.
“Missile-related issues have never been on agenda of the nuclear talks and the Islamic system will resolutely implement its programs in this field,” Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan was quoted as saying on Monday following a meeting with Iran’s defense ministry.
U.S. officials are being deceptive when they claim that international inspectors will have full access to Iran’s key military sites, Dehqan said.
“The U.S. officials make boastful remarks and imagine that they can impose anything on the Iranian nation because they lack a proper knowledge of the Iranian nation,” he was quoted as saying.
Dehqan went on to claim that Americans must “realize that they are not the world’s super power and no one recognizes them as such any longer.”
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes, said that the official remarks by Iranian officials and clerics are meant to mock the Obama administration.
Supreme Leader Ali “Khamenei is toying with Obama right now, humiliating him, but Obama is too self-absorbed to realize it,” Rubin said. “The best analogy to this would be if Roosevelt made peace with Hirohito who gave a speech under the banner ‘We will bomb Pearl Harbor anyway.’”
“There’s a reason why Obama doesn’t want Congress to see the agreement,” Rubin added. “That is because to examine the agreement is to recognize that it’s more an unconditional surrender than an arms control agreement.”
A senior Iranian cleric delivered Friday prayers in Tehran while standing behind a podium that declared, “We Will Trample Upon America,” according to photos released by Iran’s state-controlled media.
Sounds like something Guesser would applaud.
Sounds like something Guesser would applaud.
Ex-Intel Chief: Iran Deal Good for Israel
Yes, it’s true: If Obama can toughen the penalties for cheating and pivot to confronting Iran’s support for terrorism, he will enhance Israel’s security.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes the Iran nuclear deal is a “stunning historical mistake.” Meanwhile, Israel’s opposition Labor Party, Republicans here at home, and much of the American Jewish community are joining him in denouncing the agreement signed last week.
But many former senior intelligence and national security officials in Israel disagree. While they think the deal is flawed and that Netanyahu deserves credit for raising the alarm on Iran years ago, they also believe that the historic agreement is—on balance—in the national security interest of the State of Israel.
I spoke recently with Ami Ayalon, a former head of Shin Bet, the Israeli internal security service, and a former chief of the Israeli Navy. Even as he explained that the issue “is not black and white,” he reeled off a list of former defense ministers and chiefs of Shin Bet and Mossad who agree with him that “when it comes to Iran's nuclear capability, this [deal] is the best option.”
“When negotiations began, Iran was two months away from acquiring enough material for a [nuclear] bomb. Now it will be 12 months,” Ayalon says, and the difference is significant to anyone with a background in intelligence. “Israelis are failing to distinguish between reducing Iran’s nuclear capability and Iran being the biggest devil in the Middle East,” he says.
Why has the response been more emotional than logical? “It’s very easy to play with fears in a fearful society,” he says.
For a country that usually has a sure sense of its own security interests, Israel can be strangely obtuse about the true existential threats it faces. Many Israelis and American Jews resent Jimmy Carter for his strong views opposing the occupation of Palestinian territories and his use of the word “apartheid” to describe the situation there. They rarely recognize that by engineering the Camp David Accords, Carter removed the existential threat posed by the Egyptian army, the only force capable of driving Israel into the sea.
Now they dislike President Obama for striking a deal that, at a minimum, delays Iran’s ability to destroy Israel with a nuclear bomb.
Ayalon and several of the other Israeli war heroes who appeared in The Gatekeepers, an acclaimed 2012 documentary about Shin Bet, endorse Obama’s best argument for the agreement—that the alternative is much worse.
Just imagine what would happen if Congress overrides Obama’s veto and kills the deal. No one seriously disputes that the sanctions regime would quickly collapse; Russia is already planning its new business deals with Iran and the Europeans aren’t far behind. The idea that a tougher United States could by itself force better terms is a dangerous fantasy. With rejection, we would get the worst of both worlds. Iran would have much of its oil money back, but without the most intrusive inspections in history (24/7 monitoring of its nuclear facilities), 98 percent reductions in uranium stockpiles, and the many other provisions that sharply reduce its existential threat to Israel.
At that point, Iran--freed of an international coalition arrayed against it, and led by Tehran hard-liners empowered by the American decision--would have no reason not to race to a bomb.
Then we would risk a war full of unintended consequences that would be blamed by the world on the U.S. Congress buckling to Israeli pressure. And it wouldn't go well. Ayalon cites Israeli intelligence estimates that U.S. bunker-buster bombs would at best set back Iran’s nuclear program by two to four years, or roughly a fifth as long as required by the terms of the new deal. And that’s assuming a war-weary United States would even fight.
Sound advice. Before long, the president should assert that violations of the agreement would bring not just “snap-back” sanctions but military action. In his weekly radio address on Saturday, he said that despite the deal expiring in 10 to 15 years, U.S. policy preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is “permanent.” That’s a start.
In the meantime, the superiority of diplomacy to war may be best understood in the case of the Arak heavy water reactor, which produces the deadly plutonium most easily used to build nuclear weapons. Under the deal, Arak’s plutonium threat is ended, an achievement that has been strangely downplayed this week. At the same time, the huge underground nuclear installation at Fordow will be much more effectively neutered by a corps of IAEA inspectors with unfettered access than by bombs that might have trouble penetrating the solid rock above it.
Netanyahu’s arguments against the deal, meanwhile, are getting pathetic. Last week, he latched onto the 24 days Iran can delay before allowing inspectors into its ostensibly non-nuclear military facilities. This is like giving a drug dealer 24 days to get rid of his stash, the prime minister said. Iran could just “flush the meth down the toilet.”
What a perfect example of the level of debate in the U.S. and Israel, where a catchy sound bite substitutes for basic science and common sense. With the half-life of uranium-235 at 703.8 million years, 24 days is a nanosecond. Soil samples gathered by inspectors would quickly identify the presence of fissile material. As Obama drily pointed out, “This is not something you hide in a closet, put on a dolly and move somewhere.”
Obama was right to be annoyed that Netanyahu and so many Israeli and American critics denounced the agreement before reading it. Compare that to 1978, when Jimmy Carter signed a hugely unpopular treaty turning over the Panama Canal to the Panamanians. Carter’s White House privately asked all 100 senators to pledge to hold their fire until they were briefed on the details by the State Department. Ninety-nine of them (everyone except Jesse Helms) agreed. That was when the Senate actually was a “deliberative body” instead of a television studio.
As the balance of power in the Middle East shifts more toward Iran, Obama is making it clear that Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states will all get “unprecedented” security assurances from the U.S. (He has already provided record amounts of military aid to Israel, which Israelis and some American Jews rarely credit.)
More important, Obama has in recent days repeatedly mentioned troublesome Iranian arms shipments and support for terrorist organizations. Until now, Iranian proxy wars have been a third-tier presidential issue. Now they will move to the top of Washington’s foreign policy agenda, with Republicans frustrated by the nuclear deal likely to pound away on these threats to Israel’s security, thereby helping Israel confront them over time.
Ayalon and other Israeli intelligence experts believe it’s inevitable that Iran will test Obama or his successor’s resolve, likely by dragging its feet with the help of the complex dispute resolution process spelled out in the appendix of the deal.
By my reading of the appendix, the weakest sections involve the specifics of how the newly created Joint Commission will litigate claims. While majority rule on the Commission means that the U.S. and its European allies don't need Russia and China to enforce inspections, the complicated appeals system that includes vague “advisory groups” is a feast for Iranian lawyers.
Obama must avoid the situation President Clinton faced in the 1990s, when North Korea cheated gradually on a nuclear deal and built a bomb without significant impediments. He’ll need to identify and publicize every Iranian delay or lack of cooperation and spell out the consequences.
On Iran’s regional misbehavior, Obama should now pivot to a much tougher policy of interdicting Iranian arms shipments, which would enhance Israel’s security even if Tehran now has lots more money for mischief. An international peace conference on the future of Syria proposed by Russian President Putin—now being considered by the U.S.—would offer another chance for checking Iran, which is the primary backer of Bashir Assad’s murderous regime. Any future cooperation with Iran on battling ISIS, which is inching closer to the Jewish State’s borders, is also in Israel’s interest.
For six years, Barack Obama has been cautious about calling out Iran. To convince China and Russia not to veto sanctions in the Security Council, he spoke softly. Harsh condemnations might have complicated the nuclear deal, which was rightly his first priority. The same went for pushing too hard on Iran’s outrageous imprisonment of four innocent Americans.
Now the president will have a much freer hand to confront Iran on its non-nuclear behavior, and has more political incentive to do so. Like the deal itself, that’s good for the world in general, and Israel in particular.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/21/ex-intel-chief-iran-deal-good-for-israel.html
Yes, it’s true: If Obama can toughen the penalties for cheating and pivot to confronting Iran’s support for terrorism, he will enhance Israel’s security.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes the Iran nuclear deal is a “stunning historical mistake.” Meanwhile, Israel’s opposition Labor Party, Republicans here at home, and much of the American Jewish community are joining him in denouncing the agreement signed last week.
But many former senior intelligence and national security officials in Israel disagree. While they think the deal is flawed and that Netanyahu deserves credit for raising the alarm on Iran years ago, they also believe that the historic agreement is—on balance—in the national security interest of the State of Israel.
I spoke recently with Ami Ayalon, a former head of Shin Bet, the Israeli internal security service, and a former chief of the Israeli Navy. Even as he explained that the issue “is not black and white,” he reeled off a list of former defense ministers and chiefs of Shin Bet and Mossad who agree with him that “when it comes to Iran's nuclear capability, this [deal] is the best option.”
“When negotiations began, Iran was two months away from acquiring enough material for a [nuclear] bomb. Now it will be 12 months,” Ayalon says, and the difference is significant to anyone with a background in intelligence. “Israelis are failing to distinguish between reducing Iran’s nuclear capability and Iran being the biggest devil in the Middle East,” he says.
Why has the response been more emotional than logical? “It’s very easy to play with fears in a fearful society,” he says.
For a country that usually has a sure sense of its own security interests, Israel can be strangely obtuse about the true existential threats it faces. Many Israelis and American Jews resent Jimmy Carter for his strong views opposing the occupation of Palestinian territories and his use of the word “apartheid” to describe the situation there. They rarely recognize that by engineering the Camp David Accords, Carter removed the existential threat posed by the Egyptian army, the only force capable of driving Israel into the sea.
Now they dislike President Obama for striking a deal that, at a minimum, delays Iran’s ability to destroy Israel with a nuclear bomb.
Ayalon and several of the other Israeli war heroes who appeared in The Gatekeepers, an acclaimed 2012 documentary about Shin Bet, endorse Obama’s best argument for the agreement—that the alternative is much worse.
Just imagine what would happen if Congress overrides Obama’s veto and kills the deal. No one seriously disputes that the sanctions regime would quickly collapse; Russia is already planning its new business deals with Iran and the Europeans aren’t far behind. The idea that a tougher United States could by itself force better terms is a dangerous fantasy. With rejection, we would get the worst of both worlds. Iran would have much of its oil money back, but without the most intrusive inspections in history (24/7 monitoring of its nuclear facilities), 98 percent reductions in uranium stockpiles, and the many other provisions that sharply reduce its existential threat to Israel.
At that point, Iran--freed of an international coalition arrayed against it, and led by Tehran hard-liners empowered by the American decision--would have no reason not to race to a bomb.
Then we would risk a war full of unintended consequences that would be blamed by the world on the U.S. Congress buckling to Israeli pressure. And it wouldn't go well. Ayalon cites Israeli intelligence estimates that U.S. bunker-buster bombs would at best set back Iran’s nuclear program by two to four years, or roughly a fifth as long as required by the terms of the new deal. And that’s assuming a war-weary United States would even fight.
Ayalon and his colleagues believe the best way for Obama to reassure Israel and help sell the agreement at home is to ramp up his rhetoric.
But even with a deal, the U.S. needs to make it seem as if we would. Ayalon and his colleagues believe the best way for Obama to reassure Israel and help sell the agreement at home is to ramp up his rhetoric. They fault him for not spelling out more serious consequences for when (not if) Iran cheats, and for when the deal expires. Obama “doesn't have the right combination of the language of peace and the language of war,” Ayalon told me. “He has to make it very clear that while he believes in diplomacy, he also knows how to use force.”
Sound advice. Before long, the president should assert that violations of the agreement would bring not just “snap-back” sanctions but military action. In his weekly radio address on Saturday, he said that despite the deal expiring in 10 to 15 years, U.S. policy preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is “permanent.” That’s a start.
In the meantime, the superiority of diplomacy to war may be best understood in the case of the Arak heavy water reactor, which produces the deadly plutonium most easily used to build nuclear weapons. Under the deal, Arak’s plutonium threat is ended, an achievement that has been strangely downplayed this week. At the same time, the huge underground nuclear installation at Fordow will be much more effectively neutered by a corps of IAEA inspectors with unfettered access than by bombs that might have trouble penetrating the solid rock above it.
Netanyahu’s arguments against the deal, meanwhile, are getting pathetic. Last week, he latched onto the 24 days Iran can delay before allowing inspectors into its ostensibly non-nuclear military facilities. This is like giving a drug dealer 24 days to get rid of his stash, the prime minister said. Iran could just “flush the meth down the toilet.”
What a perfect example of the level of debate in the U.S. and Israel, where a catchy sound bite substitutes for basic science and common sense. With the half-life of uranium-235 at 703.8 million years, 24 days is a nanosecond. Soil samples gathered by inspectors would quickly identify the presence of fissile material. As Obama drily pointed out, “This is not something you hide in a closet, put on a dolly and move somewhere.”
Obama was right to be annoyed that Netanyahu and so many Israeli and American critics denounced the agreement before reading it. Compare that to 1978, when Jimmy Carter signed a hugely unpopular treaty turning over the Panama Canal to the Panamanians. Carter’s White House privately asked all 100 senators to pledge to hold their fire until they were briefed on the details by the State Department. Ninety-nine of them (everyone except Jesse Helms) agreed. That was when the Senate actually was a “deliberative body” instead of a television studio.
As the balance of power in the Middle East shifts more toward Iran, Obama is making it clear that Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states will all get “unprecedented” security assurances from the U.S. (He has already provided record amounts of military aid to Israel, which Israelis and some American Jews rarely credit.)
More important, Obama has in recent days repeatedly mentioned troublesome Iranian arms shipments and support for terrorist organizations. Until now, Iranian proxy wars have been a third-tier presidential issue. Now they will move to the top of Washington’s foreign policy agenda, with Republicans frustrated by the nuclear deal likely to pound away on these threats to Israel’s security, thereby helping Israel confront them over time.
Ayalon and other Israeli intelligence experts believe it’s inevitable that Iran will test Obama or his successor’s resolve, likely by dragging its feet with the help of the complex dispute resolution process spelled out in the appendix of the deal.
By my reading of the appendix, the weakest sections involve the specifics of how the newly created Joint Commission will litigate claims. While majority rule on the Commission means that the U.S. and its European allies don't need Russia and China to enforce inspections, the complicated appeals system that includes vague “advisory groups” is a feast for Iranian lawyers.
Obama must avoid the situation President Clinton faced in the 1990s, when North Korea cheated gradually on a nuclear deal and built a bomb without significant impediments. He’ll need to identify and publicize every Iranian delay or lack of cooperation and spell out the consequences.
On Iran’s regional misbehavior, Obama should now pivot to a much tougher policy of interdicting Iranian arms shipments, which would enhance Israel’s security even if Tehran now has lots more money for mischief. An international peace conference on the future of Syria proposed by Russian President Putin—now being considered by the U.S.—would offer another chance for checking Iran, which is the primary backer of Bashir Assad’s murderous regime. Any future cooperation with Iran on battling ISIS, which is inching closer to the Jewish State’s borders, is also in Israel’s interest.
For six years, Barack Obama has been cautious about calling out Iran. To convince China and Russia not to veto sanctions in the Security Council, he spoke softly. Harsh condemnations might have complicated the nuclear deal, which was rightly his first priority. The same went for pushing too hard on Iran’s outrageous imprisonment of four innocent Americans.
Now the president will have a much freer hand to confront Iran on its non-nuclear behavior, and has more political incentive to do so. Like the deal itself, that’s good for the world in general, and Israel in particular.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/21/ex-intel-chief-iran-deal-good-for-israel.html
House Republican: Obama Administration Won’t Release Full Iran Deal to Congress SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 PRINT ARTICLE EMAIL ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by JOEL GEHRKE July 21, 2015 7:22 PM @JOELMENTUM President Obama won’t allow Congress to review two key aspects of the Iranian Nuclear deal, Republican lawmakers learned from international partners last week. Under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the International Atomic Energy Agency would 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 IAEA has been trying to gain access to the Parchin site since 2005, but Iran has refused, even as it apparently demolished various parts of the complex. “The hardliners do not want to grant any concessions unless Iran is suitably rewarded,” International Institute for Strategic Studies director Mark Fitzpatrick told the BBC in 2014, after reports emerged of explosions at the base. MORE IRAN NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS IAEA TELLS CONGRESSMEN OF TWO SECRET SIDE DEALS TO IRAN AGREEMENT THAT WON’T BE SHARED WITH CONGRESS ON IRAN, THE U.N. GOES FIRST HOW TO IGNORE OBAMA’S STRAW MEN AND OVERRIDE THE TERRIBLE IRAN DEAL The terms of the current agreement wouldn’t allow Congress to review any concessions the IAEA makes to get into the site. “Even members of Congress who are sympathetic to this deal cannot and must not accept a deal we aren’t even aware of,” said Pompeo. The IAEA will also separately negotiate “how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program,” according to a release from Pompeo’s office. Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Pompeo, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, learned of the arrangement while meeting with the IAEA in Vienna, Austria last week. “That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny,” Cotton said in a statement to the press.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421453/iran-deal-hidden-congress-Obama-admin-house-republican-
From the Above:
“The Obama administration has failed to make public separate side deals that have been struck for the ‘inspection’ of one of the most important nuclear sites—the Parchin military complex,” said Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) in a statement Tuesday. “Not only does this violate the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, it is asking Congress to agree to a deal that it cannot review.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421453/iran-deal-hidden-congress-Obama-admin-house-republican-
From the Above:
“The Obama administration has failed to make public separate side deals that have been struck for the ‘inspection’ of one of the most important nuclear sites—the Parchin military complex,” said Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) in a statement Tuesday. “Not only does this violate the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, it is asking Congress to agree to a deal that it cannot review.”
