New revelations about Iran deal

Votto

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2012
54,003
53,003
3,605
New Revelations Reveal Greater Falsehoods of the Iran Deal

It seems that barely a week goes by without a new and troubling revelation emerging related to the Iran Deal. Most recently, we learned from the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) that Iran was allowed to selectively violate several provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in order to meet the conditions necessary for the Islamic Republic to begin receiving relief from economic sanctions.

The falsehoods that characterize the Deal actually predate the agreement itself. As far back as December 2013, President Obama said that Iran did not need its fortified underground nuclear facility in Fordo, nor its facility in Arak. But the White House must have known that at virtually the same moment, the P5+1 was concluding negotiation of an early draft of the Iran Deal in which Iran was allowed to keep both facilities, albeit with some restrictions.

Barely three months before the JCPOA was concluded, we heard from Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes that the agreement would guarantee “anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access” to Iran’s nuclear facilities. That, we later heard from Rhodes himself, was also not true (he claimed they had never sought such a regime).


Once the JCPOA was revealed to the public, the White House went to great pains to talk up the agreement’s inspections regime.

Around the same time, President Obama declared that sanctions on Iran, “…for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic missile program, will continue to be fully enforced.” And in congressional testimony, Secretary of State Kerry affirmed that sanctions on the Iranian ballistic missile program would continue unchanged, saying, “the exact same language in the [previous] embargo is in the agreement with respect to [missile] launches.” We later learned, though, that the language (which would become UN Security Council Resolution 2231) had been softened from a previous resolution, giving the administration cover for not vigorously responding to the missile test violations that later occurred.

Once the JCPOA was revealed to the public, the White House went to great pains to talk up the agreement’s inspections regime. As part of the Iran Deal, the president said, “…inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location.” We now know that Iran was allowed to use its own personnel to inspect Parchin, a key site believed to have been involved in nuclear warhead development. (It’s also worth noting that the “self-inspection” was the result of a secret side deal between Iran and the IAEA that the White House didn’t initially disclose to Congress.)

It had been longstanding U.S. policy that Iran would be required to own up to its previous weaponization activities in order to reach any kind of nuclear agreement whatsoever. Speaking to PBS in April 2015, Secretary Kerry said of this acknowledgment, “They [Iran] have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a deal; it will be done … It will be part of a final agreement. It has to be.“ But several weeks later, Kerry was singing a different tune. “We’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another,” he said, without explaining this massive policy shift.

More recently, we learned from German intelligence that over at least the last year, Iranian proxies sought dual-use technology with both missile and nuclear applications, in contravention of UN sanctions. And ISIS (the think tank) issued another report around the same time indicating that Iranian businesses were attempting to acquire carbon fiber, which has both nuclear and missile applications. The State Department waved off the former report and seemed to ignore the latter.

In a rare moment of candor while speaking to the New York Times, Rhodes reveled in how skillfully the White House was manipulating public opinion.

In a rare moment of candor while speaking to the New York Times, Rhodes reveled in how skillfully the White House was manipulating public opinion. Casually divulging his view of the press corps, Rhodes said, “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns … They literally know nothing.” To ‘educate’ them, he built an “echo chamber,” into which the White House produced experts that said exactly what the White House wanted them to say.

So the administration has repeatedly been caught misrepresenting the content of the Deal, its negotiated terms, and even how it sold the agreement to the public. When instances of violations come to light, the administration’s response is nothing short of willful ignorance. In the waning months of the president’s term, it seems fair to wonder: How can we trust that anything we’re hearing about the supposed success of the JCPOA?

As it has frequently done in the past, Congress should hold the White House to account by independently verifying Iran’s compliance with the Deal. Only an ad hoc verification mechanism — supervised by the Legislative Branch and providing a check on inaction by the Executive — can give the American people confidence that Iran is living up to its obligations.
 
good lord what now? I can't bear to read it. BOs right hand snake......
th.jpg


 
Trump isn't going to rip up the Iran nuclear deal on day one as president...

Iran Deal Endangered if Trump Seeks to Renegotiate Its Terms
Nov 11, 2016 | WASHINGTON — Donald Trump isn't going to rip up the Iran nuclear deal on day one as president, but his vows to renegotiate the terms and increase enforcement could imperil an agreement that has put off the threat of Tehran developing atomic weapons. Emboldened Republican lawmakers are already considering ways to test Iran's resolve to live up to the deal.
As a candidate, Trump issued a variety of statements about last year's pact. He called it "stupid," a "lopsided disgrace" and the "worst deal ever negotiated," railing against its time-limited restrictions on Iran's enrichment of uranium and other nuclear activity, and exaggerating the scale of U.S. concessions. Trump said that he doesn't want to simply tear up the agreement. Instead, he spoke of reopening the diplomacy and declared that unlike President Barack Obama's diplomats, he would have been prepared to walk away from talks. Trump's exact plans are vague, however, and a renegotiation would be difficult. Iran has little incentive to open talks over a deal it is satisfied with. And none of the other countries in the seven-nation accord has expressed interest in picking apart an understanding that took more than a decade of stop-and-go diplomacy and almost two full years of negotiation to complete.

As Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said: If the U.S. tears up the agreement, "we will light it on fire." President Hassan Rouhani said this week no country could simply change what was agreed, pointing to a U.N. Security Council resolution that endorsed the package. The deal, which went into effect in January, forced Iran to pull back from the brink of nuclear weapons capacity in exchange for an end to many of the U.S. and European sanctions that devastated Iran's economy. It has been largely respected despite undiminished U.S.-Iranian tensions throughout the Middle East, including their support for rival sides in Syria and Yemen's civil wars.

Each side has leverage: Iran doesn't want a new onslaught of U.S.-led economic pressure and America would be alarmed by any Iranian escalation of its nuclear program. But the accord rests on fragile ground, with powerful contingencies in Washington and Tehran vehemently opposed and looking for any excuse to break it apart. In such a climate, it's unclear what Trump's demands for a renegotiation might mean. "The agreement is valid only as long as all parties uphold it," State Department spokesman Mark Toner acknowledged Wednesday in the agency's first briefing since Trump's stunning election victory over Hillary Clinton to become the 45th president.

Last summer, Walid Phares, a Trump adviser on the Middle East, said Trump wouldn't pull out of an agreement with America's "institutional signature," but rather revise elements through one-on-one negotiations with Iran or with a larger grouping of allies. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the pro-deal Arms Control Association, said that re-litigating the deal would unsettle American allies, with no clear picture of what Trump would be trying to accomplish. Trump could also send the deal to Congress, whose Republican majority has opposed it.

MORE

See also:

With Trump, a Major US Shift in Mideast
Nov 11, 2016 | President-elect Donald Trump's positions on Middle East issues, if carried out, could bring yet more volatility to the world's most combustible region.
Besides vowing to rip up the international nuclear deal with Iran, Trump says he will ramp up the war on Islamic State militants; he could make the Palestinians more desperate by siding with Israel's hard-line right wing. He also seems set to end the Obama administration's cold shoulder toward authoritarians like Egypt's Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi. Trump has most often been vague and sometimes outright contradictory about plans in the Mideast. And his stances could change. His call for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. worried many in the region, but he has since watered down that stance, and many opinion-makers in the Gulf at least call it simply campaign rhetoric.

laqtah-syria-1500-11-nov-2016-ts600.jpeg

U.S.-backed fighters deployed during fighting with the Islamic State group in the village of Laqtah, north of Raqqa, Syria.​

Overall, Trump has shown a focus on fighting Islamic militants and favoring strongmen who do so. He's shown less concern with human rights or the complicated minutiae of the Mideast's many factions and interests. That is a simpler, black-and-white stance in the eyes of some, but it can also bring a backlash.

Islamic State, Iraq and Syria

Trump pledged repeatedly to intensify the war against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, saying crushing the group is his main priority. What is less clear is how — and what impact it would have on the conflicts in both countries and the complex alliances that the Obama administration has tried to balance. Trump has given little policy or vision on the wars beyond the vows to defeat IS. In Syria, the rebels may be the biggest losers.

In contrast to the Obama administration's support for the opposition — equivocal as it may have been — Trump said the rebels may be "worse" than President Bashar Assad and that defeating the Islamic State group is more important than removing the Syrian leader. That suggests he could drop any backing. Moreover, he says he wants more and better cooperation against IS with Russia, Assad's main ally. Trump says he will step up airstrikes, vowing to "bomb the hell" out of the militants. He has criticized the slow pace of the fight and at one point called for up to 30,000 U.S. troops to be deployed in Iraq — six times the current level. He later seemed to back down, saying "few troops" would be needed.

MORE
 
There will be questions about this deal for years. When we finally get answers I believe the democrat party will not like those answers. This was either a sophomoric failed attempt at a lasting legacy for Obama or it was the unthinkable. That he was trying to harm Israel by leveling the nuclear playing field in the middle east. One way or the other he has done great damage to the United States in the process.
 

Forum List

Back
Top