Who Bamboozled Whom?

MICHAEL DORAN  7-30-15

Those who think the Iranians outwitted us fail to recognize one very important thing: the White House never intended to contain Iran.

About the author:  Michael Doran is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC.  Before coming to Hudson, Doran was a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Previous assignments included:  Senior Director at the National Security  Council, ( responsible for helping to devise and coordinate United States strategies on a variety of Middle East issues, including Arab-Israeli relations and U.S. efforts to contain Iran and Syria); senior advisor in the State Department and a deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Pentagon. He received a B.A. from Stanford and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Near Eastern studies from Princeton.He has published extensively in Foreign Affairs, The American Interest, Commentary, Mosaic Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The New York Times.

The nuclear deal with Iran is a wildly lopsided agreement.  Whereas Iran received permanent concessions, the United States and its partners managed only to buy a little time. The agreement will delay the advent of a nuclear-capable Iran for about a decade—and much less than that should Tehran decide to cheat. Meanwhile,THANKS to the deal, Iranian influence in the Middle East is set to grow. All of these benefits accrue to Iran without its ever having given any guarantee that it will change its revolutionary, expansionist, and brutal ways.

Why did the Obama administration accept such a deal? In trying to answer this question, some critics have claimed that the president and his negotiator, Secretary of State John Kerry, were simply noMATCH for their opponents. The Iranians, so the argument goes, are master negotiators—they play chess while the Americans play checkers.  “You guys have been bamboozled and the American people are going to pay for that,” Senator Jim Risch of Idaho told Kerry during recent hearings on the nuclear deal.

One sympathizes with the senator’s frustration, but his criticism is misplaced. The Iranians are not nearly so talented as claimed. While Foreign Minister Javad Zarif did exhibit skill in the negotiations, he also resorted to blatantly underhanded tactics that, opposite a different American team, would have rebounded against him. Zarif made concessions one day, only to revoke them the next; raised new issues at the eleventh hour; and blurred the lines of authority between himself and the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to the point where Kerry never knew for certain whether a deal could actually be cut.

These were the tactics of a used-car salesman, not a master statesman. If the White House had been so inclined, it could have invoked them as justifying a redoubling of the pressure on Iran. But the president and the secretary of state consciously rejected that path—and not for the first time.

In November 2013, the administration agreed to an interimDEAL that both granted Iran the right to enrich and accepted the idea that all restrictions on the Iranian program would be of limited duration. In so doing, the interim deal already incorporated the main lines of the comprehensive agreement that we see before us today. And long before November 2013INDEED, from the very beginning of his presidency—Obama has consistently dangled before the Iranians the prospect of gaining what they have most wanted: to become, in his words, “a successful regional power.” Toward that end, as he has stipulated on more than one occasion, the message he has sent to Tehran is that it would have more to gain by working with us than by defying us.

This is what many of Obama’s critics, including in Congress, have yet to absorb. When theySUGGEST that the White House has been taken in, they tacitly assume that the president shares their goal of containing and rolling back Iran—an enemy power bent on ousting the United States from the Middle East and vanquishing America’s allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia foremost among them—but has somehow become confused about how best to achieve this. But he does not see Iran that way at all.

In his news conference after the signing of the comprehensive agreement, Obama emphasized that the deal only “solves one particular problem”—that is, the nuclear issue. But he also expressed the hope that it would also “incentivize” the Iranians “to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative.” This gets to the heart of his approach, adumbrated again and again in his own statements and in those of his key advisers. Here is the president in a January 2014 interview in theNew Yorker:

If we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion—not funding terrorist organizations, not trying to stir up sectarian discontent in other countries, and not developing a nuclear weapon—you could see an equilibrium developing between Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran.

And here more recently is Ben Rhodes, the deputy national-security adviser for strategic communication: “We believe that a world in which there is aDEAL with Iran is much more likely to produce an evolution in Iranian behavior.”

In Obama’s eyes, containment is a fool’s errand, andCONTINUING to treat Iran as a pariah will simply ensure that it will never help us damp down Middle Eastern turmoil. To him, therefore, the nuclear deal is not an end in itself; it is a means to the larger end of a strategic partnership that will conduce to his sought-for “equilibrium” in the Middle East. It is only because of the president’s awareness that the very idea of such a strategic partnership is anathema to a majority of the members of Congress, as it is to America’s allies in the Middle East, that he has pretended otherwise, framing the deal as a narrowly conceived and heavily qualified arms-control agreement that will in any case not affect America’s interest in countering Iranian mischief.

Of course, the agreement is no such thing, and Congress is right to be treating it with the utmost gravity. Much of the debate centers on technical questions—on whether the inspection regime is tight enough, the snap-back mechanism reliable enough, and the enrichment quotas restrictive enough. In addition to these far-from-trivial issues, critics also point to the havoc in increased Iranian aggressiveness that the deal promises to bring to the Middle East and elsewhere. By immediately channeling upward of $150 billion to Iranian coffers, it will inevitably contribute to funding the regime’s terror network. (Significantly, a cessation of Iran’s support for terror was not a condition of sanctions relief.) And as economic ties with Europe and Asia expand, and new avenues of diplomatic and military cooperation open up with Russia and China, Iran will become ever more confident and bellicose.

The White House has replied to the latter concerns by claiming that the regime will spend its windfall on butter, not guns. “They’re not going to be able to suddenly access all the funding that has been frozen all these years,” President Obama asserted in April—and besides, he added, “a lot of that MONEY] would have to be devoted to improving the lives of the people inside of Iran.”

Even to some advocates of the deal, the absurdity of this argument—when in the course of human history has getting $150 billion at theSTROKE of a pen ever convinced anyone to change his ways?—is too patent to be ignored. Thus, Nicholas Burns, a distinguished former diplomat and a staunch supporter of the nuclear agreement, has acknowledged its deficiency in this respect and has joined a growing chorus in proposing an antidote. “This is no time to help Iran augment its power in a violent and unstable region,” Burns has testified to Congress. “Instead, the U.S. should impose a containment strategy around Iran until it adopts a less assertive and destructive policy in the region.”

Unfortunately, Burns and others advancing this view are caught in the same contradiction as are Obama’s critics; inadvertently, both parties are reinforcing the fiction that Obama is truly interested in containing Iran. In fact, the White House has consistently displayed an aversion to countering Iran. Time and again, America’s allies in the Middle East have begged the president to help them curtail Iranian influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, and time and again he has refused. His aspiration for equilibrium is instead based on the conviction that,THANKS to his diplomacy, Iran will voluntarily come to place limits on its own ambitions. With that aspiration, the nuclear deal—an explicit recipe for strengthening all elements of Iranian power, political, military, and economic—is entirely compatible.

Indeed, even if Obama were toAGREE with the need for punitive measures to curb Iran’s “malign influence,” in the phrase of Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, the deal will vastly complicate any such project. One of the text’s more remarkable passages reads: “Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this [agreement].” With this statement the Iranians have warned America that any action designed to weaken Iran will be met with nuclear blackmail.

If the Iranian nuclearPROGRAM has been a knife held at America’s neck, the deal has, temporarily, moved the knife away by at most a few centimeters. To achieve this paltry, equivocal, and evanescent benefit, the deal has permanently ceded diplomatic leverage to Iran and nullified vigorous containment as a serious option. Anyone who claims otherwise has certainly been bamboozled—but not by the Iranians.

WHAT INFORMATION COLLECTED BY ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE REVEALS ABOUT THE IRAN TALKS By Ronen Bergman July 29, 2015

One might disagree  with prime minister Netanyahu's  tone, clashing head-on and bluntly with  president Obama over the nuclear agreement with Iran. That said...

 the intelligence material  gives rise to fairly unambiguous conclusions: that the Western delegates crossed all of the red lines that they drew themselves and conceded most of what was termed critical at the outset; and that the Iranians have achieved almost all of their goals.

WHAT INFORMATION COLLECTED BY ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE REVEALS ABOUT THE IRAN TALKS By Ronen Bergman   July 29, 2015

Over the years of negotiation, concession after concession from the West

• 
  

On Nov. 26, 2013, three days after the signing of the interim agreement (JPOA) between the powers and Iran, the Iranian delegation returned home to report to their government.ACCORDING to information obtained by Israeli intelligence, there was a sense of great satisfaction in Tehran then over the agreement and confidence that ultimately Iran would be able to persuade the West to accede to a final deal favorable to Iran. That final deal, signed in Vienna last week, seems to justify that confidence. The intelligence—a swath of which I was given access to in the past month—reveals that the Iranian delegates told their superiors, including one from the office of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, that “our most significant achievement” in the negotiations was America’s consent to the continued enrichment of uranium on Iranian territory.

That makes sense. The West’s recognition of Iran’s right to perform the full nuclear fuel cycle—or enrichment of uranium—was a complete about-face from America’s declared position prior to and during the talks. Senior U.S. and European officials who visited Israel immediately after the negotiations with Iran began in mid 2013 declared,ACCORDING to the protocols of these meetings, that because of Iran’s repeated violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, “Our aim is that in the final agreement [with Iran] there will be no enrichment at all” on Iranian territory. Later on, in a speech at the Saban Forum in December 2013, President Barack Obama reiterated that in view of Iran’s behavior, the United States did not acknowledge that Iran had any right to enrich fissile material on its soil.

In February 2014, the first crumbling of this commitment was evident, when the head of the U.S. delegation to the talks with Iran, Wendy Sherman, told Israeli officials that while the United States would like Iran to stop enriching uranium altogether, this was “not a realistic” expectation. Iranian foreign ministry officials, during meetings the Tehran following the JPOA, reckoned that from the moment the principle of an Iranian right to enrich uranium was established, it would serve as the basis for the final agreement. And indeed, the final agreement, signed earlier this month,CONFIRMED that assessment.

The sources who granted meACCESS to the information collected by Israel about the Iran talks stressed that it was not obtained through espionage against the United States. It comes, they said, through Israeli spying on Iran, or routine contacts between Israeli officials and representatives of the P5+1 in the talks. The sources showed me only what they wanted me to see, and in these cases there’s always a danger of fraud and fabrication. This said, these sources have proved reliable in the past, and based on my experience with this type of material it appears to be quite credible. No less important, what emerges from the classified material obtained by Israel in the course of the negotiations is largely corroborated by details that have become public since.

In early 2013, the material indicates, Israel learned from its intelligence sources in Iran that the United States held a secret dialogue with senior Iranian representatives in Muscat, Oman. Only toward the end of these talks, in which the Americans persuaded Iran to enter into diplomatic negotiations regarding its nuclear program, did Israel receive an official report about them from the U.S.GOVERNMENT. Shortly afterward, the CIA and NSA drastically curtailed its cooperation with Israel on operations aimed at disrupting the Iranian nuclear project, operations that had racked up significant successes over the past decade.

On Nov. 8, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry visited Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saw him off at Ben Gurion Airport and told him that Israel had received intelligence that indicated the United States was ready to sign “a very badDEAL” and that the West’s representatives were gradually retreating from the same lines in the sand that they had drawn themselves.

Perusal of the material Netanyahu was basing himself on, and more that has come in since that angry exchange on the tarmac, makes two conclusions fairly clear: The Western delegates gave up on almost every one of the critical issues they had themselves resolved not to give in on, and also that they had distinctly promised Israel they would not do so.

One of the promises made to Israel was that Iran would not be permitted to stockpile uranium. Later it was said that only a small amount would be left in Iran and that anything in excess of that amount would be transferred to Russia forPROCESSING that would render it unusable for military purposes. In the final agreement, Iran was permitted to keep 300kgs of enriched uranium; the conversion process would take place in an Iranian plant (nicknamed “The Junk Factory” by Israel intelligence). Iran would also be responsible for processing or selling the huge amount of enriched uranium that is has stockpiled up until today, some 8 tons.

The case of the secret enrichment facility at Qom (known in Israel as the Fordo Facility) is another example of concessions to Iran. The facility was erected in blatant violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty, and P5+1 delegates solemnly promised Israel at a series of meetings in late 2013 that it was to be dismantled and its contents destroyed. In the final agreement, the Iranians were allowed to leave 1,044 centrifuges in place (there are 3,000 now) and to engage in research and in enrichment of radioisotopes.

At the main enrichment facility at Natanz (or Kashan, the name used by the Mossad in its reports) the Iranians are toCONTINUE operating 5,060 centrifuges of the 19,000 there at present. Early in the negotiations, the Western representatives demanded that the remaining centrifuges be destroyed. Later on they retreated from this demand, and now the Iranians have had to commit only to mothball them. This way, they will be able to reinstall them at verySHORT notice.

Israeli intelligence points to two plants in Iran’s military industry that are currently engaged in the development of two new types of centrifuge: the Teba and Tesa plants, which are working on the IR6 and the IR8 respectively. The new centrifuges will allow the Iranians to set up smaller enrichment facilities that are much more difficult to detect and that shorten the break-out time to a bomb if and when they decide to dump the agreement.

The Iranians seeCONTINUED work on advanced centrifuges as very important. On the other hand they doubt their ability to do so covertly, without risking exposure and being accused of breaching the agreement. Thus, Iran’s delegates were instructed to insist on this point. President Obama said at the Saban Forum that Iran has no need for advanced centrifuges and his representatives promised Israel several times that further R&D on them would not be permitted. In the final agreement Iran is permitted to continue developing the advanced centrifuges, albeit with certain restrictions which experts of the Israeli Atomic Energy Committee believe to have only marginal efficacy.

As for the break-out time for the bomb, at the outset of the negotiations, the Western delegates decided that it would be “at least a number of years.” Under the final agreement this has been cut down to one yearACCORDING to the Americans, and even less than that according to Israeli nuclear experts.

As the signing of the agreement drew nearer, sets of discussions took place in Iran, following which its delegates were instructed to insist on not revealing how far the country had advanced on the military aspects of its nuclear project. Over the past 15 years, a great deal of material has been amassed by the International Atomic Energy Agency—some filed by its own inspectors and some submitted by intelligence agencies—about Iran’s secret effort to develop the military aspects of its nuclearPROGRAM (which the Iranians call by the codenames PHRC, AMAD, and SPND). The IAEA divides this activity into 12 different areas (metallurgy, timers, fuses, neutron source, hydrodynamic testing, warhead adaptation for the Shihab 3 missile, high explosives, and others) all of which deal with the R&D work that must be done in order to be able to convert enriched material into an actual atom bomb.

The IAEA demanded concrete answers to a number of questions regarding Iran’s activities in these spheres. The agency also asked Iran to allow it to interview 15 Iranian scientists, a list headed by Prof. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, whom Mossad nicknamed “The Brain” behind the military nuclear program. This list has become shorter because six of the 15 have died as a result of assassinations that the Iranians attribute to Israel, butACCESS to the other nine has not been given. Neither have the IAEA’s inspectors been allowed to visit the facilities where the suspected activities take place. The West originally insisted on these points, only to retreat and leave them unsolved in the agreement.

In mid-2015 a new idea was brought up in one of the discussions in Tehran: Iran would agree not to import missiles as long as its own development and production is not limited. This idea is reflected in the final agreement as well, in which Iran is allowed to develop and produce missiles, the means of delivery for nuclear weapons. The longer the negotiations went on, the longer the list of concession made by the United States to Iran kept growing, including the right to leave the heavy water reactor and the heavy water plant at Arak in place and accepting Iran’s refusal ofACCESS to the suspect site.

It is possible to argue about the manner in which Netanyahu chose to conduct the dispute about the nuclear agreement with Iran, by clashing head-on and bluntly with the American president. That said, the intelligence material that he was relying on gives rise to fairly unambiguous conclusions: that the Western delegates crossed all of the red lines that they drew themselves and conceded most of what was termed critical at the outset; and that the Iranians have achieved almost all of their goals.

***

Iran deal: See dealer for details

by David Suissa

Posted on Jul. 28, 2015 at 1:39 pm

The more I get into the Iran nuclearDEAL, the more it feels like the television show "Mad Men"— you know, those slick advertising geniuses who seduce you with promises but downplay the fine print.

It’s like one of those radio commercials for hot new car deals, where the announcer chokes on his breath at the end while reading the qualifiers: “MSRP excludes taxes, title, other options and dealer charges, higher MSRP will affect lease price, dealer sets actual prices, lessee responsible for insurance, closed-end lease offered to approved customers only through participating dealers, additional charges mayAPPLY at lease end, supplies limited, offer ends March 1. See dealer for details.”

Oh my, what aDEAL.

Well, it certainly reminds me of the Iran deal, which is littered with fine print, some of it quite treacherous. This is particularly ominous when we’re dealing with an evil regime that virtually everyoneAGREES has a pedigree in cheating and cannot be trusted.

“Anytime, anywhere” was a wonderful promise… until we discovered the qualifier that Iran can delay inspections of its nuclear sites by more than 24 days. In fact, the process is so cumbersome and bureaucratic it can easily stretch out,ACCORDING to the Wall Street Journal, to three months or more.

Three months or more! That’s like telling a drug dealer you’ll be busting his house next Tuesday at noon. As Jackie MasonNOTED, restaurants in New York City have a much tougher inspections regime than what we negotiated with Iran, because they can be inspected at any time without any notice.

Why is this issue so critical?

Because a super tough inspections regime was supposed to be our consolationPRIZE for allowing Iran to keep its nuclear infrastructure. If you’ll recall, the original goal of diplomacy was pretty straightforward: America and its partners would make a major concession—the end of nuclear sanctions—in return for Iran making a major concession—the end of its nuclear program.

When we decided to concede to Iran the right to keep most of its nuclear infrastructure, inspections became the decisive deal point. AnythingSHORT of ironclad would seriously weaken the deal. Can anyone argue with a straight face that the inspections regime we negotiated is ironclad? 

As bad as that is, though, it gets worse.

“Anytime, anywhere” came with another sexy promise: “snapback sanctions.” In combination, these two promises created an irresistible sales pitch: “We’ll surely catch Iran if it cheats, and when we do, the sanctions will snap right back!”

Irresistible, yes, but wait until you see the fine print.

Simply put, in the unlikely event that we ever do catch Iran cheating and try to "snap back" sanctions, there won’t be many sanctions left to snap back to.

Here is how Washington Institute executive director Robert Satloff explains it: “Let's say that the UN Security Council does order the reimposition of sanctions. According to my read of the agreement, all contracts signed by Iran up until that point are grandfathered in and immune from sanctions. That means one can expect a stampede of state-to-state andPRIVATE sector contracts -- some real, many hypothetical -- all designed to shield Iran from the impact of possible reimposition of sanctions, thereby weakening the impact of the punishment." 

In other words, Iran can quickly rack up a slew ofDEALS with Russia, China and Europe worth over $100 billion, and, even if we catch them building a nuclear bomb behind our back, we will have zero power to undo those deals.

I don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat, this fine print stinks.

The grandfather loophole is especially lethal. After all, once the Persian mullahs make their irrevocable deals, why would they need us? Why should they fear us? It will be difficult enough to catch them cheating-- what will restrain them if they’re not even afraid to get caught?

As the emotions are heating up in our community over this deal, I’d like toSUGGEST a less emotional reaction: Stay calm andSTUDYthe fine print.

I have, and that’s why I oppose the deal. It’s full of nasty surprises. There are many other examples, like the sneaky switch from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, which says Iran shall not undertake anyACTIVITY related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, to the current deal, which only says Iran is called upon not to undertake suchACTIVITY. From the mandatory “shall” to the permissive “called upon”— sneaky, indeed.

The Iran nuclear deal may be complex and hard to understand, but, in my book, the real danger is in the fine print. Study it closely. This is not about partisanship or politics. It’s about something we all have in common: We hate getting ripped off, especially by slick Mad Men.

Obama’s secret Iran deals exposed

 Marc A. Thiessen     WASHINGTON POST July 27,2015

President Obama promised that his nuclearDEAL with Iran would not be “based on trust” but rather “unprecedented verification.” Now it turns out Obama’s verification regime is based on trust after all — trust in two secret side agreements negotiated exclusively between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that apparently no one (including the Obama administration) has seen.

Worse, Obama didn’t even reveal theEXISTENCE of these secret side deals to Congress when he transmitted the nuclearACCORD to Capitol Hill. The agreements were uncovered, completely by chance, by two members of Congress — Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) — who were in Vienna meeting with the U.N.-releated agency.

Marc Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.View Archive

• Facebook

In an interview, Pompeo told me that he and Cotton were meeting with the deputy director of the IAEA and the agency’s two top Iran negotiators just days after the nuclear accord was announced, when they asked how the agency will carry out verification at the Iranian military complex at Parchin. IAEA officials told them, quite casually, that the details were all covered in agreements negotiated between the IAEA and the Iranian government. It was the first they had heard of the side deals.

Pompeo says they asked whether they could see those agreements. He says IAEA officials replied, “ ‘Oh no, of course not, no, you’re not going to get to see those.’ And so everybody on our side of the table asked, ‘Has Secretary Kerry seen these?’ ‘No, Secretary Kerry hasn’t seen them. No American is ever going to get to see them.’ ”

It turns out that only the two parties — the IAEA and Iran — get to see the actual agreements (though you can see a picture of Iranian and IAEA officials holding up what appear to be the secret accords here).

In other words, Obama is gambling our national security and handing over $150 billion in sanctions relief to Iran, based on secret agreements negotiated between the IAEA and Iran that no U.S. official has seen.

“We need to see these documents in order to evaluate whether or not verification is ample to make such a big concession to the Iranians,” Pompeo says. “No member of Congress should be asked to vote on an agreement of this historic importance absent knowing what the terms of the verificationPROCESS are.”

In fact, the Obama administration’s failure to transmit these sideDEALS to Congress is a violation of the law. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which Obama signed into law, explicitly states that the president must transmit the nuclear agreement along with “all related materials and annexes.” That clearly covers any side agreements covering the verification of Iran’s compliance.

Susan Rice told reporters the administration “provided Congress with all of the documents that we drafted or were part of drafting and all documents shared with us by the IAEA.”SORRY, that’s not what the law requires.

But the administration cannot hand over what it apparently does not have. For Pompeo, that raises even more troubling questions. “Why on earth is the president letting the negotiations [on verification] be negotiated by someone other than us?” he asks. How can it be that the administration would “do a deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, that’s spent its entireEXISTENCE cheating, and we would sign off on a deal with them whose core provisions are completely unknown to our side? It’s remarkable.”

What is in the secret sideDEALS? According to Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the sideDEALSGOVERNING inspections of the Parchin military complex allows Iran to collect its own soil samples, instead of IAEA inspectors. That is like letting Lance Armstrong collect his own blood samples for a doping investigation. “I suspect if we’re able to actually go over [these agreements], you find half a dozen that you would stare at and realize we really didn’t get verification,” Pompeo says.

Congress should insist on seeing the side deals before it votes on the IranACCORD. The only way to stop the agreement is for Congress to override the president’s veto through a resolution of disapproval with a two-thirds vote in both houses. That would require 13 Senate Democrats and 45 House Democrats to vote no — which would have been highly unlikely until the revelation of these secret deals.

It remains to be seen whether the revelation of the secret side deals will make it impossible for Democrats to vote in favor of the Iran agreement. How, Pompeo asks, can they explain to their constituents that they voted for a nuclear deal with Iran without knowing how it will be verified?

“My mission in the next 45 days is to convince 45 House Democrats to override the veto,” Pompeo says. “It’s a long climb, but this is important.”

 Critical Point  Against  the  Iran nuclear program deal… The window , within which the United States and/or Israel can take effective military  action ( in  case  Iran significantly violates  the deal ), is closing rapidly.

A  major  defense for the Iran deal is that if the deal fails – be it in a week or in decades – the United States will always have the same military option available.The U.S. military option depends on the ability of B-2 stealth bombers loaded with Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs to reach strategic Iranian
targets

.

The B-2 can carry out the mission today – but there is great uncertainty that
this will be the case in the future. The Russians claim: “Neither the Northrop B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber nor Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk can fly undetected from Russian missiles." [Major General Sergei] Babakov, the head of Russia’s anti-aircraft missile troops.” US ‘Stealth’ Bombers Can’t Hide From Russian Anti-Aircraft Missiles –Sputnik News 5 July, 2015.}

The Russians have announced their intention to sell these missiles in the very near future to Iran. Iran has announced its  intention to purchase these missiles. This is a cash transaction for which Iran will have the resources due to sanction relief. Russia, on its part, will gain the resources to promote its upgrade of its missile forces in support itother endeavors in Eastern Europe.  {Anti-Aircraft missiles are classified  as   defensive systems and thus not considered subject to any supply restrictions on Iran.}

 Now  the question becomes: suppose the United States has  the" will to act" and has a the desire to act––– would  the US have the capability to act a few years down the road...with Iranian strategic sites  PROTECTED?

With Iran having deployed air  defense systems systems that can track and shoot down B-2’s threatening strategic Iranian sites---the answer is: NO!

Would ground invasion be a feasible alternative? Even if the United States had the will to send in ground forces – they would have to enter combat  under
the unprecedented condition of operating without the benefit of air cover, At
 best, it would be long, costly, and very unpopular in  the United States, in the Mideast, and in the rest of the world.

Would  Special Forces operations be a feasible alternative against a program in widely dispersed and fortified installations? The answer is: very highly doubtful… and a best, marginal with limited short-term results.

THUS, ANY  CLAIM  THAT FUTURE U.S. PRESIDENTS WILL ALWAYS   HAVE THE MILITARY OPTION IF THE DEALIS VIOLATED IS ,UNFORTUNATELY, BOTH UNTRUE AND DECEPTIVE.

Additional areas of concern for consideration .. for the pending review of the  proposed  nuclear agreement with Iran

1.     Former IAEA Official: JCPoA has No Verification Method to Detect Iran Computer Systems Designed to Simulate Nuclear Blast 

 Former senior IAEA official ,Olli Heinonen, said there will be no verification procedure under the recently announced nuclear dealt detect if Iran decides to develop computer systems for simulating or detonating nuclear weapons. 

Speaking during a House Financial Services hearing on Wednesday, 27-year IAEA veteran Heinonen said there were several items related to nuclear development as determined by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the official name for the Iran deal announced on July 14, that were “extremely difficult to verify given their non-nuclear nature and lack of easy signature to spot.”

“[These] items include, inter alia, designing, developing, acquiring, or using computer  models to simulate nuclear explosive devices, and designing, developing, fabricating, acquiring, or using multi-point explosive detonation systems suitable for a nuclear explosive device,” he said.

Heinonen — who is also a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs — cast doubt on the deal’s ability to ensure reliable monitoring of Iran’s undeclared nuclear sites, which Iranian leaders routinely reject are open for inspection.

Ranking the JCPoA’s verification mechanisms on a 1-10 scale, he gave verifying Iran’s undeclared sites as nuclear free a middling 5 score, perhaps given concerns Iran could actually use the deal to bar nuclear inspectors’ access for weeks.

 Directly countering the public assurances given by other  members of the Obama administration that the UN inspectors would have immediate, around-the-clock access to  any suspect facilities in Iran,  Secretary of State John Kerry testified this week that that demand had  never even been raised in the several years of negotiations.

2.     Iran buys 100 Russian refueling aircraft for its air force to reach any point in the Mid East

 Iran has placed an order for 100 Russian IL78 MKI tanker aircraft for refueling its air force in mid-flight, The transaction runs contrary to the ten-year arms embargo embodied in the nuclear accord the six world powers have just signed with Iran.

These tanker planes can simultaneously refuel 6-8 warplanes. Their acquisition brings Israel, 1.200km away – and the Middle East at large - within easy range of Iranian aerial bombardment. It puts Iran ahead of Israel in mid-air refueling resources.

Secretary of State John Kerry can expect some really hard questions during his trip on exactly how the Vienna accord makes the region safer, when Iran’s first act after signing is to arm itself with a huge fleet of Russian in-flight fuel tankers to expand and strengthen its range and power for aggressive  aerial  actions.

3.     Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Advisor Susan Rice in both testimony and TV appearances differ greatly when describing the specific provisions of the proposed Iranian nuclear agreement.

One specific example is shown in the video clips of 2 TV appearances that occurred nearly simultaneously. John Kerry states that Iran will not use the billions of dollars and is now receiving in cash to fund terror. When asked whether Iran can send money to Hezbollah, Houthis, or Shia militia in Iraq, US Secretary of State John Kerry unequivocally  assures the interviewer that Iran cannot and will not fund terror.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqE3Tdf9qtI

On the other hand, Susan Rice in her near simultaneous TV appearance on CNN directly contradicted this  what John Kerry had clearly affirmed  in his interview. In response to questions, Rice stated that  Iran will be able to  fund terror.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqE3Tdf9qtI

4.     At least 500 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were directly linked to Iran and its support for anti-American militants 

— a newly disclosed statistic that offers grim context for the Obama administration's diplomatic deal with the Iranian regime aimed at curtailing the rogue nation's nuclear ambitions.

That figure underscores the controversy surrounding Washington's deal with Tehran, a long-sought goal for the president — but one that is fiercely opposed by many  critics.

. Scores of American personnel were killed or maimed by highly lethal bombs, known as explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, that Iran manufactured and supplied to Shiite militias across the border in Iraq. Many EFPs were powerful enough to destroy U.S. Humvees and breach tank hulls.

The startling number emerged last week as Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican and Army veteran who served as an infantry officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressed the issue at a confirmation hearing.  "Senator," Dunford responded, "I know the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that were killed by Iranian activities, and the number has been recently quoted as about 500. We weren't always able to attribute the casualties we had to Iranian activity, although many times we suspected it was Iranian activity even though we didn't necessarily have the forensics to support that."

The Defense Department does not specifically track casualties linked to Iran. The 500 estimate is a ballpark figure based on intelligence assessments, according to a Pentagon official familiar with Dunford's remarks.

The memory of those deaths was surely a factor in the caution signaled by the Pentagon on Tuesday afternoon, after Obama's announcement of this landmark deal between Iran, the U.S. and five other countries.

"As we implement this historic agreement, deterrence remains a major component of America's national security," Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in a statement. The U.S. military will remain ready to "check Iranian malign influence" and "utilize the military option if necessary," he added.

The Iranian-made EFPs first appeared in Iraq in 2005 and for years were the most lethal weapon that American troops faced during the eight-year Iraq war.

Unlike the typical improvised explosive devices U.S. troops encountered there, the EFPs used more sophisticated technology and required more skilled milling to produce. Also known as "shaped" explosives, they used curved copper plates to direct or "shape" the bomb blast.

The estimate of 500 American deaths is probably on the low side, said David "Bo" Bolgiano, a retired Army Special Forces officer who deployed to Iraq in 2006 and 2007 with the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, an organization created by the Pentagon to rapidly address the number of casualties inflicted by roadside bombs and other IEDs.

"It's very difficult to quantify because, when you have an IED explosion that occurs in theater, you'd have to connect the dots and say, 'Well, we have three U.S. casualties tied to that IED,' and then that IED is tied to a specific copper-plated EFP from Iran. Often times, those forensics are missing," Bolgiano said in an interview.

"The big EFPs from Iran were fairly easy to identify because of the metallurgy involved and the copper plate formation," he said. "We had beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof that Iran was the main supplier of the copper-plate EFPs," said Bolgiano.

Troops referred to them as "IEDs," but that's not completely accurate, Bolgiano said.

"Improvised is a little bit misleading because it makes it sound like a basement bomb-maker, and that was not the case. The shaped charges, the copper plates, the components were anything but unsophisticated. They were designed and at the level anything that any other non-Western government would have," Bolgiano said.

Cotton contends that number is much greater than 500, with still more American troops wounded in action as a result of Iran's influence on U.S. adversaries in both war zones.

A spokeswoman for the senator, Caroline Rabbit, said Tuesday that Iran "has the blood of hundreds of Americans on its hands and this deal only gives them billions of dollars to continue killing Americans." She was unable to provide Military Times with a more-detailed breakdown of those statistics, nor was the Pentagon.

Dunford, who pending confirmation will become only the second Marine to serve as the U.S. military's top officer, referred to Iran as a "malign force," telling lawmakers that, despite a nuclear agreement, Iran will continue to exert its influence across the Middle East. One need look no farther than the Red Sea, where this past spring American naval vessels moved to block an Iranian arms shipment bound for rebel forces fighting the American-backed government in Yemen.

"If confirmed as the chairman," Dunford said, "I'll make sure that our leadership has a full range of military options to deal with Iranian activity."

.

EU Should Be Pushed on Treatment of ‘Occupied Territories’

Evelyn Gordon   07.22.2015 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/07/22/eu-occupied-territories-israel/?utm_source=COMMENTARY+Magazine+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6df33a0d2e-newsletter_5_04_2015_5_4_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a6a27453af-6df33a0d2e-197988421

Responding to today’s Times of Israel interview with Fatou Bensouda, prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, legal expert Eugene Kontorovich tweeted, “you got to ask #Bensaouda questions & didnt ask about an inquiry into settlements in Cypru[s]?” But Bensouda could actually offer a reasonable response to this challenge about double standards. The people who couldn’t – and who should therefore be hounded about it at every conceivable opportunity – are senior European Union officials who insist that any facilitation of IsraeliACTIVITY in the “occupied West Bank” is illegal, yet happily facilitate Turkish activity in occupied Northern Cyprus, Moroccan activity in occupied Western Sahara, Chinese activity in occupied Tibet, and much more.

Just today, Reuters revealed that an influential European think tank is urging the EU to go beyond its current drive to label Israeli settlement products and impose numerous additional sanctions, from restricting interaction between European banks and Israeli banks that do business in the settlements (i.e. all of them) to refusing to recognize degrees from Israeli educational institutions in the West Bank. The European Council of Foreign Relations is technically an independent organization, but, as ReutersCORRECTLY noted, its “proposals frequently inform EU policy-making.” In 2013, the council proposed five different measures against Israeli activity in the West Bank; two years later, three of the five have been largely adopted, either by the EU itself or by individual member states: excluding settlement produce from EU-Israel trade agreements, severing contact with Ariel University (which is barred from the EU’s Horizon 2020 researchPROGRAM) and advising European companies against doing business in the settlements.

But as Kontorovich has pointed out repeatedly, the EU has no qualms about facilitatingACTIVITY in other territories that it deems occupied. For instance, the EU has an entire program to direct funding to Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus; inter alia, the program finances infrastructure projects,SCHOLARSHIPS for students and grants to businesses. And lest one think this is equivalent to EU projects to help Palestinians, think again: Turkish settlers, who constitute anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of the population (depending on whose estimates you believe), are eligible; nor is the program barred from funding projects that directly or indirectly benefit these settlers. That’s in sharp contrast to the West Bank, where European countriesrefuse to fund any project that might benefit Israeli settlers, even if it benefits the Palestinians far more.

Similarly, Kontorovich noted, the EU reached an agreement with Morocco in which it actually pays Morocco for access to fisheries in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara. InSHORT, the EU is paying the occupier for the right to deplete the occupied territory’s natural resources.

And, of course, numerous European companies and organizations do business in such territories; from French conglomerates like Total and Michelin to British universities.

Nor can the EU argue that Palestinians are unique in objecting to such activity. Indeed, the PLO’s Western Saharan counterpart, the Frente Polisario, is currentlysuing in the Court of Justice of the European Union over the Morocco fisheries agreement, yet the EU is vigorously defending the deal.

Moreover, Israel has a far stronger legal claim to the West Bank than do any of the “occupiers” the EU has no problem doing business with. The League of Nations awarded this land to a “Jewish nationalHOME,” and that international mandate was preserved by the UN Charter’s Article 80; the territory had no other recognized sovereign when Israel captured it from an illegal occupier (Jordan) in a defensive war; and UN Security Council Resolution 242 explicitly reaffirmed Israel’s right to keep at least part of the captured territory. Thus if the EU were going to discriminate among “occupied territories,” it should by rights discriminate in Israel’s favor rather than against it.

Bensouda could reasonably respond that a prosecutor has no business commenting on hypotheticals; she can onlyADDRESS actual cases that arrive on her doorstep. But the EU can’t use the excuse that the issue is hypothetical; it’s already neck-deep in discriminatory treatment.

This issue should, therefore, be raised with every EU official at every possibleOPPORTUNITY – by Israeli officials, journalists, and American Jewish leaders. It might not influence EU policy, but at least it would lay bare to the world what actually lies behind it. There’s a name for treating Jews differently than all other peoples. It’s called anti-Semitism.

Israel United Against Iran Deal, So Should Those Who Claim to Be Its Friends
Jonathan S. Tobin   07.23.2015

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/07/23/israel-united-against-iran-deal/?utm_source=COMMENTARY+Magazine+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6df33a0d2e-newsletter_5_04_2015_5_4_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a6a27453af-6df33a0d2e-197988421


This morning during a Senate hearing on the Iran nuclear deal, Secretary of State John Kerry tried to pour cold water on the notion that friends of Israel are obligated to oppose the pact. Citing a Washington Post op-ed titled “How the Iran deal is good for Israel, according to Israelis who know what they’re talking about,” Kerry treated the piece that cites the opinions of a few retired officials that agree with him as proof that his claim that the result of his two years of negotiating with Iran would benefit the Jewish state as well as the United States. A similar piece in the Forward by J.J. Goldberg quotes some of the same figures. Taken together, they seem to make a strong case that the pro-Israel community ought to either sit out the Iran deal fight in Congress or even support the agreement. But the two articles leave out a couple of important facts about Israeli opinion about the Iran deal. One is that most of those quoted are either disgruntled former officials who hold a grudge against Prime Minister Netanyahu for not keeping them in office, or ideological opponents of the man who has won three consecutive elections. The other is that while Netanyahu’s political foes in the Knesset are as sharply critical of the prime minister as the Obama administration, they have joined him in forming a united front against the Iran deal as a deadly threat to the country’s future. That’s a point that any American that claims to be a friend of Israel needs to consider before they consider backing the administration’s push for détente with the Islamist regime.

As Jeffrey Goldberg, who has been the administration’s unofficial mouthpiece on Israel issues and their dutiful amanuensis when it comes to smears of Netanyahu,noted in The Atlantic last week, the man that Washington desperately wanted to win the Knesset election in March has turned on Obama. Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog was the darling of the White House earlier this year as the administration moved heaven and Earth in a failed attempt to influence the Israeli electorate to reject Netanyahu’s bid for a third straight term as prime minister. As Goldberg wrote, Herzog’s line on the Iran negotiations last winter was that he trusted Obama to get a “good deal” with Tehran. But rather than continuing his effort to cozy up to the administration, Herzog now completely agrees with Netanyahu’s evaluation of the deal. As Goldberg wrote:
In a telephone call with me late last night, Herzog’s message was very different. The deal just finalized in Vienna, he said, “will unleash a lion from the cage, it will have a direct influence over the balance of power in our region, it’s going to affect our borders, and it will affect the safety of my children.”
Iran, he said, is an “empire of evil and hate that spreads terror across the region,” adding that, under the terms of the deal, Iran “will become a nuclear-threshold state in a decade or so.” Iran will take its post-sanctions windfall, he said, and use the funds to supply more rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon, more ammunition to Hamas in Gaza, and “generally increase the worst type of activities that they’ve been doing.”
The other major figure in the Israeli opposition, Yair Lapid, the leader of the Yesh Atid Party has also chimed in with harsh criticism of the agreement with Iran. In fact, the administration has achieved something that is generally considered impossible: uniting the Zionist parties of the Knesset from right to left. Netanyahu, Lapid, and Herzog and the leaders of the other parties normally can’t agree on anything. But Obama and Kerry have brought them together to denounce a deal that all know makes their region more dangerous while also presenting an existential threat to Israel’s future.
As I noted earlier this week, there is nothing in the deal that will prevent Iran from using the vast windfall it gets from sanctions relief to help fund its terrorist auxiliaries and allies that face off against Israel. Both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza can expect to get a share of the flood of cash that President Obama is allowing Tehran. Kerry’s claims that such transfers won’t be allowed are absurd since even National Security Director Rice conceded, it will be their money.
Nor is anyone of stature in Israel’s political establishment on either side of the left-right divide buying the idea that the loose restrictions that will soon expire can do anything to stop an Iranian bomb. Like American critics of the Iran deal, they consider the administration’s arguments that there are no alternatives to their appeasement policy short of war to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Having discarded all the enormous political and economic leverage it held over Iran in 2013, it is disingenuous, if not completely dishonest of Obama and Kerry to say that theirs is the best option. Having effectively spiked a the chances that tougher sanctions would bring Iran to its knees when they began bowing to Iranian dictates in the talks, their current claim that opponents are warmongers has no credibility.
Some Israelis, Lapid in particular, do criticize Netanyahu for his strident opposition to Obama’s Iran strategy over the last two years. Seeking to make political hay out of this catastrophe for Israel, they argue that if Netanyahu had been nicer to Obama or at least not criticized him publicly, the U.S. might not have signed such a horrible deal.
This is nonsense. Netanyahu may have made some tactical mistakes in the last few months, in particular his decision to address Congress in March. He gave a great speech but it did nothing to stop Obama and even served the administration’s interests by diverting attention away from their policies and allowing Democrats to rally ’round their “insulted” president. But President Obama has been determined to create a new détente with the Islamist regime since the day he entered office. In doing so, he has discarded every other U.S. interest in the talks including the need to stop Iranian support for terrorism, its anti-Semitism, its determination to destroy Israel, its quest for regional hegemony and its ballistic missile program, in order to get a deal at any price. Netanyahu had no chance to alter Obama’s course.
But Israel’s rare political unity on the issue should influence Americans who care about the Jewish state. If Netanyahu, Herzog and Lapid all agree that the deal is terrible, no member of the Congress or the Senate who wishes to present themselves as friends of Israel should be allowed to get away with claiming that he knows better than these leaders, no matter how many disgruntled retired Israeli spooks can be assembled to contradict them.
Efforts by the administration’s left-wing allies to undermine the unity of the pro-Israel community should be dismissed out of hand. The deal is a clear and present danger to Israel’s future and should be treated as a litmus test of backing for Israel as well as reliability on U.S. security. All members of the House and Senate — especially those, like Senator Chuck Schumer that have staked their reputations as being guardians of Israel’s security — should be put on notice that they must choose between loyalty to Obama and what is right

Top three consequences of the Iran nuclear deal   Video published on Jul 22, 2015 The conventional wisdom over the last few decades has been that Iran is racing towards a nuclear weapon. Iran wants a bomb, "the bomb." But the real challenge for us is to understand that perhaps Iran doesn't want just a bomb. AEI Senior Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Danielle Pletka explains the unintended consequences of the nuclear deal with Iran.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0e_pXa6xg8

OBAMA'S IRAN DEAL: EVERY LINE A FANTASY

Joseph Raskas  7-21-15

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=13243

The most ironic thing about the nuclear deal struck in Vienna is that it not only secures Iran's path to the bomb, it also creates the very condition it was supposed to prevent: nuclear proliferation. Instead of enhancing the nuclear nonproliferation regime, the resultant impact of the Pollyannish P5+1 deal will be the destruction of theACCORD that was meant to prevent the nuclear arms race in the first place.

The Obama administration has collapsed on nearly every condition that constitutes a good deal: no dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, no sunset clause, no anytime, anywhere inspections, no curbing of Iran's ballistic missile program, noCONTINUATION of the arms embargo and no confronting Iran's sponsorship of terror.

On the contrary, the deal provides Iran with $140 billion in sanctions relief and allows it to retain an industrial-sized nuclear weaponsPROGRAM -- with the capacity to build hundreds of nuclear bombs and develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking the U.S. -- even if Iran complies with the deal. If Iran violates the deal, it can increase centrifuge production, and then project power on unforeseen levels.

Besides the core requirements, a good deal must also garner the perception among key actors in the region that it will actually achieve its intended effect. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia, the linchpin of nuclear nonproliferation policy, remains unpersuaded that the deal blocks Iran's path to a bomb, which is why it is pondering its ownPROGRAM. The kingdom will move to purchase a nuclear bomb off the shelf from Pakistan the moment Iran is inevitably perceived to have the bomb, prompting a cascade of nuclear proliferators in its wake. At that point, Iran will almost certainly shed its P5+1 obligations and match the Saudis tit-for-tat.

In other words, after kneecapping the International Atomic Energy Agency, alienating allies and shredding the sanctions regime, the Obama administration won't even have a denuclearized Middle East to show for it. Instead, the deal will increase the reach and brazenness of Iran -- not only to complete the production of its nuclear program, but also toCONTINUE the capture of other countries without consequence.

Rather than serving as a case study in nuclear deterrence, the P5+1 deal is a model for recalcitrant regimes seeking to use non-compliance to attain an enrichment program. The message is apparently this: Ratchet up aggression, double down on demands, and eventually non-compliance will be rewarded with a legitimized nuclear program -- the way Iran has.

From the outset of his presidency, President Barack Obama has placed a priority on reducing the threat caused by nuclear proliferation, and he intended the P5+1 deal to be the touchstone of that legacy. But in effect he has granted an imperial, theological power an open road to a nuclear bomb and windfalls of cash to fund terrorism, subversion and destabilization across the globe.

It's time for Democrats in Congress to admit that everything Obama thought he knew about Iran is wrong.

This deal is neither absolutely necessary nor a fait accompli. Congress should step away from it immediately, showing its disapproval of the deal and blocking the lifting of sanctions. Congress should then override Obama's dangerous abuse of executive power, restoring America to a position of strength, not weakness.

Op-Ed: Iran’s Nuclear ‘Obligations’ Are All Voluntary

 Iran’s Nuclear ‘Obligations’ Are All Voluntary

Mark Langfan  Arutz Sheva 7    7-20-15

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17252#.Va3o4ypVikq

A crucial point in the Iran agreement has been ignored. Iran’s Nuclear ‘Obligations’ Are All Voluntary

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’sSECURITY 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.

But don’t believe me, let’s read the first operative paragraph on page 7:

"Iran and E3/EU+3 will take the following voluntary measures within the timeframe as detailed in this JCPOA and its Annexes.

NUCLEAR

A. ENRICHMENT, ENRICHMENT R&D, STOCKPILES

1. Iran's long term plan includes certainAGREED limitations on all uranium enrichment and uranium enrichment-related activities including certain limitations on specific research and development (R&D) activities for the first 8 years, to be followed by gradual evolution, at a reasonable pace, to the next stage of its enrichment activities for exclusively peaceful purposes, as described in Annex I. Iran will abide by its voluntary commitments, as expressed in its own long-term enrichment and enrichment R&D plan to beSUBMITTED as part of the initial declaration for the Additional Protocol to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement."  (Bold added.)

First, the sentence leading into the first paragraph explicitly says the rest of the JCPOA is merely “voluntary measures.”  And despite Iran’s actions being voluntary, Obama is immediately, “voluntarily,” and unilaterally dropping all the sanctions in return for Iran’s “voluntary” future compliance to a voluntary document?  Didn't Obama, the Harvard Law School grad, Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review, understand from this language that the entire JCPOA is merely “voluntary”?  Of course he did.

Next, under paragraph A.1 the JCPOA, everything that Iran may “voluntarily” follow, in the future, hangs on Iran’s “own long-term enrichment and enrichment R&D plan to be submitted” sometime in the undefined future.  Therefore, from the start of the first operative paragraph, the entire rest of the JCPOA is a legal nullity as far as Iran’s nuclear 'obligations’  are concerned. 

Iran isn’t obligated to do aSINGLE thing. Under the JCPOA, Iran is empowered to write its own “voluntary” plan at some indeterminate time in the future.  There is no deadline for Iran to submit its own plan.  And, then Iran may “voluntarily” comply with a plan which it writes by itself (most likely in Farsi, so no one will understand it.).”

InSHORT, Obama has given the world’s leading state sponsor of terror a "get out of nuclear sanctions" jail pass along with $140 Billion dollars in return for its “voluntary” compliance with a future plan that it is empowered to write by itself. 

. . . . 

Evaluating the negotiated Iranian-P5 +1 deal

This evaluation represents the direct concerns to US security interests expressed in the prepared testimonies  of Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter; current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff  Gen. Martin Dempsey  and Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, President Obama's nominee to be the next  chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

 Direct threats to US interests  included  compromise of US cyber security; the feasibility of Iranian ICBM/nuclear attacks on the East Coast of the United States; the danger to US naval vessels and the inability the US Navy  to keep open international waterways based on the improvement of Iranian missiles; the increased ability due to increased resources of the Russians to threaten the European Union and Eastern European countries; the ability of Iran to further dominate Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and to destabilize Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.

This draft is being circulated for review and comment….Itis subject to revision and extension. 

WHAT WE GET:

-       Iran reduces by about half the number of centrifuges actively enriching uranium{ none will be destroyed; research on advanced centrifuges will be permitted to continue}

-     Iran reduces its stockpile of enriched uranium from about five tons to 300 kilograms

-       Iran repurposes its heavy water reactor in Arak so it does not produce plutonium

-       An unspecified increase in inspections by the IAEA{ US inspectors  will not be allowed to enter Iranian facilities ; military facilities  will be off-limits to inspection; in case of dispute, resolution is through several committees, on each of which Iran is represented –––24 day clock only starts running after a final approval by all committees is obtained.}

WHAT IRAN GETS:

Sanctions relief:

-       Almost every type of U.S., EU, and UN sanctions are lifted

-       Repeal of six UN Security Council resolutions declaring the Iranian nuclear program illegal.

-       Top IRGC and Quds Force terrorists removed from the sanctions list, including Qassem Suleimani, leader of Iran’s campaign against U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and Ahmad Vahidi, mastermind of the 1994 Jewish community center bombing in Argentina that killed 85 people

-       The removal from the sanctions list of approximately 800 people and legal entities, including 23 out of 24 Iranian banks

-       $100 to $150 billion to be unfrozen and given to Iran with no restrictions on its use to purchase arms and fund terrorism, including funding for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Assad regime in Syria {  Supreme Leader, Sayyid Ali Khamenei ,in order to firmly cement his control of the situation ,will most likely allocate much of the increased revenue to internal economic development. --However, even a small percentage of these additional resources being devoted to international terrorism will provide an extensive increase in the capability of Iran to attain its regional aspirations.--Ali Khamenei  has promised significant increased resources to all of the agencies involved in internal security. He is also pledged additional resources to the Revolutionary Guard Corps for their operations in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. in addition, the following specific pledges have been made: Iran  has pledged to provide Hezbollah with  guidance systems for their 100,000 missiles aimed at Israel.  Irani  has  pledged to to fund the re- building of the terror tunnels against Israel.   Iran has pledged to replenish all of the missiles that Hamas fired against Israel.}

Nuclear program:

-       Iran keeps every one of its nuclear centrifuges

-       Iran keeps its entire physical nuclear infrastructure, including the enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz and the nuclear reactor at Bushehr

-       Iran permitted to continue research and development on all of its advanced centrifuge designs, reducing nuclear breakout time at the end of the deal to weeks

-       Iran permitted to transition its allowed enrichment of uranium from older centrifuge designs to advanced designs

-       No “anywhere, anytime” inspections. Iran can delay inspection of any site for at least 24 days

-       No requirement that Iran fully disclose past nuclear weapons research and development (known as the PMD issue)

-       The P5+1 western powers pledge to collaborate with Iran on nuclear technology   [also on the technology  of countering cyber attacks against Irans' nuclear, missile and other weapons programs]

-       Restrictions on enrichment – part of the “sunset” of the deal – are lifted after eight years

-       If Iran is thought to have violated the deal, in order to “snap back” sanctions a dispute resolution process must be undertaken that can last two and a half months, after which the matter can be referred to the UN Security Council.

 At the UNSC, the re-imposition of sanctions can be vetoed by Russia, which stands togain billions of dollars from arms sales to a non-sanctioned Iran. [Russia has announced that it intends to sell Iran advanced ICBM technology  to Iran which will enable Iran's missiles to threaten Washington, New York, Boston and the entire US East Coast; and  provide resources to Russia who has  announced they intend to upgrade their ICBM programs, both qualitatively and quantitatively. to improve their ability  to confront the United States in Russia's current struggle in Ukraine and in is expected future struggles  in Eastern Europe. Both Russia and Iran announced  the intention of Russia to sell Iran the latest in a missile air  defense systems s which would make the Iranian nuclear/missile force nearly invulnerable to any sort of aircraft and/or missile attack.}

CONCESSIONS UNRELATED TO NUCLEAR PROGRAM:  

-       Ballistic missile embargo... lifted after eight years

-       Conventional arms embargo …lifted  after five years

-       Iran keeps U.S. hostages 

Defeating Israel with Humanitarian Law. 

Steve Apfel  7-19-15

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17243?utm_source=emailcampaign2370&utm_medium=phpList&utm_content=HTMLemail&utm_campaign=ISRAPUNDIT+DAILY+DIGEST+JULY19%2F15#.VawRkypVikp

The legal way the to get rid of Israel is through International Humanitarian Law. Humanitarian Law is notAPPLICABLEwhen Israel is attacked, only when it defends itself.

The time-honored role of the exiled Jew was to be downtrodden, bearded and bookish. Then Zionist dreamers pulled a mini state out of the hat, and went on toWIN war after war. Even non-belligerents were bamboozled. The idea of military “Yids”, even without the victorious part, was a travesty. To put the clock back offended powers cloned a funny law to neuter the juggernaut. Afterwards, they hoped and trusted, mortal enemies would do what mortal enemies always did when Jews were downtrodden in exile.     

To the cognoscenti the funny law is known as IHL – International Humanitarian Law. Calls to indict Israel for war crimes rely on it implicitly, as well they might. IHL is an anti-Semite’s dream.APPLIED with careful malice it holds the means to transform Israel from a light unto the nations into a Lucifer with killing power. I devote a full chapter in my book, Hadrian’s Echo  to the liberties that Israel ‘critics’ take with IHL, and what a ready weapon it can be to make Jews pay for being strong. If the Chosen won’t succumb to physical onslaught, let themDEAL with morale-sapping verbal onslaught. Curse the life out of Israel!

The vindictive onslaught, under the half-hidden banner, Make war with law, breaks down into four elements that chill the heart.   

• The agenda: To bring the offensive nation to its knees by expelling it as a pariah from the world community.
• The design: to hamstring the IDF, so making the work of terror groups that much easier.
• The trap: To set the legal bar high enough (far higher than elsewhere on earth) to ensure that Israel fails to clear it.
• The looked-for result: To blow the whistle, then to haul Israel and its leaders before the UN, the media, the court of public opinion and the International Criminal Court.

Together the elements amount toDENYING Israel the right to defend itself. For that purpose IHL is a God-send. 

If the Chosen won’t succumb to physical onslaught, let themDEAL with morale-sapping verbal onslaught.

Without a class of effective ‘Jew-prosecutors’ the project would be dead in the water. The UN Human Rights Council appoints them from a shortlist of law professors. The type has long been among the worst of anti-Semites. Recall that the Einsatzgruppen, Nazi execution squads that roamed Russia to eradicate Jews, town by town, had law academics in the ranks. One commander, Otto Ohlendorf, hadDEGREESfrom three universities and a doctorate in jurisprudence.

Today, law academics, at the UN’sBIDDING, make use of IHL to criminalize Jews. Some, like John Dugard and Richard Falk, are given the title, ‘Rapporteur’ with a brief to drum up crimes that turn Israeli leaders into a criminal class. Others, like Richard Goldstone and Mary McGowan Davis,head up commissions tasked by the Human Rights Council to find Israel guilty after every mini war with Gaza. For these hired ‘hitmen’ malleable, Jew-trapping IHL is the perfect weapon.

How deftly they employ it. While conceding to Israel the universal right to defend its people, the hitmen in legal attire lay down conditions that amount to the following: the IDF may not kill the enemy, injure the enemy, or damage property belonging to the enemy. It takes only one of the above to happen for the whistle to blow. Needless to say the demand to wage war safely so that that no one gets hurt and nothing gets damagedAPPLIES to Israel and only to Israel. That’s one red light.

“The aspiration of every legal system,” says Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz “is to beGOVERNED by the objective rule of law rather than the ad hoc decisions of biased human beings.” Dershowitz compares this foundation principle to the modus operandi of appointed, and self-appointed, IHL implementers, the latter being people who make a living (a good one)by keeping UN-hirelings supplied with Israeli  offences. They work, Dershowitz observes, in reverse order. Back to front, they begin with Israeli actions rather than with neutral law that governs the acts of all other states. They then proceed to measure acts of the IDF “against unrealistic, anachronistic and abstract principles that could not be, and have never been, applied to (other militaries.)”

In this way a constant supply of crimes is guaranteed. One Israeli outfit, B’Tselem, actually boasts about its productiveRATE. “The Guardian, The New York Times, Washington Post, AP, CNN, NBC, and many other news channels used our essential data. The UNREPORT on the 2014 Gaza Conflict cited our figures and findings more than those of any other (NGO).” So wrote Oded Diner of B’Tselem, appealing to donorsTO OPEN their wallets.  

Abstract law was one red light. A second red light is that concern for Palestinian lives does not drive the demand on Israel to wage war safely. Assad the butcher of Syria starved to death hundreds of Palestinians, and the human rights apparatus was caughtSTUDYING its toenails. Here were the same Palestinians that Israel is forbidden to harm, but that Syria may slaughter with impunity. No IHL policemen and prosecutors scrambled for IHL when Assad did his dirty deeds.

The word ‘disproportionate’ sets off another red light, ticks a third box. UN-hired hands rely heavily on that word, never stopping to explain how and why IDF acts are disproportionate. Some don’t even wait to gather evidence. Christine Chinkin, law professor at the London School of Economics, simply can’t suppress the impulse to demonize weapon-wielding Jews. “Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defense - it’s a war crime. Israel’s (disproportionate) actions amount to aggression, not self-defense.” When delivering her verdict Chinkin had yet to set foot in Gaza; had not weighed a shred of evidence for herself.

Professor Dugard, another hitman, is better at keeping up a professional front. “It is not possible to adopt an armchair attitude inASSESSINGIsrael’s response to suicide bombings and Palestinian violence. Israel is entitled to a wide margin of appreciation in its response.  But, even allowing for this, it is suggested, on the basis of evidence provided, that Israel’s response to terror is disproportionate.”

That word again. Has it a dimension that can be measured? Probably not when even a law professor takes disproportionate to mean what he considers to be excessive force – force that offends him. But how much weight to give the feelings of an investigator whose brief it was to hear no evil, speak no evil, report no evil about crimes that Palestinians commit? Hired hitmen indict Israel without legal argument. Jews kill indiscriminately. Period.

The International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia long ago confessed: thereare no hard and fast rules for disproportionate force, or forTARGETINGcivilians. War crimes have to be proven one by one, case by case. The Jew prosecutor not only fails to do that, he applies no objective yardstick whatever. One terrorist victim of Israel is a victim too many. An Israeli attack is simply an attack that MacGowan Davis and her ilk don’t like – or an attack by people they don't like.

Concerning all of this, Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer posed the right question. Charles Krauthammer     “If no military tactic is permissible for Israel, what's left? Ah, but that's the point. What's left? Nothing. The whole point is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. The world isTIRED of these troublesome Jews, six million, refusing every invitation to national suicide.” 

It’s right there, in the small print of the funny law: “No right to live.”