Krauthammer: 'Who Is the One Actually Making Common Cause with Iran’s Hard-Liners, Mr. President?'

Krauthammer already knew in 2009!

Krauthammer: 'Who Is the One Actually Making Common Cause with Iran’s Hard-Liners, Mr. President?' (NATreview).

We don’t know what’s in these side deals. And we will never know, says the administration. It’s “standard practice,” you see, for such IAEA agreements to remain secret.

Well, this treaty is not standard practice. It’s the most important treaty of our time. Yet, Congress is asked to ratify this “historic diplomatic breakthrough” (Obama) while being denied access to the heart of the inspection regime. 

Congress doesn’t know what’s in these side agreements, but Iran does. And just this past Monday, Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to the supreme leader, declared that “entry into our military sites is absolutely forbidden.”

One secret side deal could even allow Iran to provide its own soil samples (!) from Parchin.
And now satellite imagery shows Iran bulldozing and sanitizing Parchin as we speak. The verification regime has turned comic.

This tragicomedy is now in the hands of Congress or, more accurately, of congressional Democrats. It is only because so many Democrats are defecting that Obama gave the AU speech in the first place. And why he tried so mightily to turn the argument into a partisan issue — those warmongering Republicans attacking a president offering peace in our time. Obama stooped low, accusing the Republican caucus of making “common cause” with the Iranian “hard-liners” who shout “Death to America.”

Forget the gutter ad hominem. This is delusional. Does Obama really believe the Death-to-America hard-liners are some kind of KKK fringe?

They are the government, for God’s sake — the entire state apparatus of the Islamic Republic from the Revolutionary Guards to the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei who for decades have propagated, encouraged, and applauded those very same “Death to America” chants. 

Common cause with the Iranian hard-liners? Who more than Obama?

For years, they conduct a rogue nuclear weapons program in defiance of multiple Security Council declarations of its illegality backed by sanctions and embargoes. Obama rewards them with a treaty that legitimates their entire nuclear program, lifts the embargo on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles, and revives an economy — described by Iran’s president as headed back to “the Stone Age” under sanctions — with an injection of up to $150 billion in unfrozen assets, permission for the unlimited selling of oil, and full access to the international financial system.

With this agreement, this repressive, intolerant, aggressive, supremely anti-American regime — the chief exporter of terror in the world — is stronger and more entrenched than it has ever been. Common cause, indeed. Read the full story here.

@MarkGKirshner Why didn't they get the keys of the White house? https://t.co/mXKWQUWhkc

— MFS - The Other News (@MFS001) August 8, 2015

Senior Iranian Official Reveals Details About Secret Talks between Ahmadinejad and The Obama'Admin'.

Senior Iranian Official Reveals Details About Secret Talks between Ahmadinejad and The Obama'Admin'. (Rferl).


Iranian President Hassan Rohani has been credited with easing tensions between Tehran and Washington and helping secure a nuclear deal with world powers last month in Vienna.

But after he came to power in 2013, the self-proclaimed moderate was stunned to learn that secret talks between the two countries -- which ultimately paved the way for the accord -- had begun at least two years earlier, according to former Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi.

"When Rohani learned about the details of the talks, he couldn’t believe it," Salehi, who currently heads Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, was quoted as saying in an interview published this week by the daily Iran newspaper.

The Associated Press first revealed the unprecedented secret exchanges between Tehran and Washington in a November 2013 report that said meetings between mid-level U.S. and Iranian officials began in 2011 in Oman.

But Salehi’s interview, published on August 4, provides the most detailed account of the talks divulged by an Iranian official to date.

He said that the exchanges were conducted with the blessing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and initiated via several messages from U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration that were delivered to Iran by Omani officials.

These included a handwritten note that Salehi says he did not take seriously at first.

According to Salehi, Khamenei set several conditions for the secret talks: Negotiators should only focus on the nuclear issue and aim for immediate, concrete results rather than talking for the sake of talking.

Khamenei, who is deeply suspicious of the United States, also said that Iran’s demands, including “its right to enrich uranium,” should be pursued in the talks, Salehi added.

After Khamenei gave the green light, disagreements remained among Iran’s decision makers, according to Salehi.

An initial meeting nevertheless took place sometime in 2012 in an undisclosed location in the Omani capital of Muscat, he said.

Iran had sent a delegation led by the then-deputy foreign minister for European and American affairs, Ali Asghar Khaji, according to Salehi’s account.

The U.S. delegation was led by Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, who has since retired, he said.

"The Americans were astonished in the first session. They said: 'We can't believe this is happening. We thought Oman was joking; we’re not ready to talk to you!'" Salehi said in the interview.

Hmmmm.......The Talks did not start because they were 'Moderates' ; they were negotiating with Ahmadinejad while he was advocating a world without Israel or Zionism.......'High crimes and misdemeanors'.  Read the full 'story' here.

Iran's BFF Kerry ‘profoundly disagrees’ with Schumer, Engel on Iran.

NorthVietnam's Iran's BFF Kerry ‘profoundly disagrees’ with Schumer, Engel on Iran. (TOI).

US Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday he “profoundly disagrees” with the reasoning behind decisions by two prominent Democratic lawmakers to vote against the nuclear deal he negotiated with Iran.

Speaking in the Vietnamese capital, Kerry said the facts do not bear out the arguments made by the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat Chuck Schumer, and the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel. He said he respects the right of lawmakers to make their own decisions about the merits of the deal, but said rejection does not offer any alternative than a drumbeat to conflict.

Schumer and Engel, both from New York, announced Thursday that they would oppose the deal. Schumer is the first Democratic senator to say he will vote no on the deal, which would curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from crippling sanctions.

Schumer complained that the pact does not allow inspections “anywhere, anytime” and that the United States cannot demand inspections unilaterally.

Kerry said he has great respect for both Engel and Schumer, and called Schumer a friend, noting he served with him in the Senate.

“I obviously profoundly disagree with the judgements made,” Kerry said. He said that with 25 years of uranium tracking, “it is physically impossible to build a bomb.”

“It’s a question of eliminating options in a realistic way,” he added. “I would respectfully suggest that rejection is not a policy for the future, it does not offer any alternative.”

Kerry said that if the deal is rejected, “there will be a hue and cry about Iran’s continued activity and that will lead people to put pressure on military action since the United States would have walked away from the diplomatic solution.”

Video - Iran Nuclear 'Garage Sale' Deal: Sometimes, somewhere inspections.

Russian technology to shoot down B-2 stealth bombers might be sold to Iran in future?

Russian technology to shoot down B-2 stealth bombers might be sold to Iran in future? HT: IMRA.


Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA - 7 August 2015:

IMRA contacted two experts who write about defense technology asking them to react to the claim by Russian Major General Sergei Babakov that Russia has the technology to shoot down B-2 stealth bombers and the possibility that Iran may buy and implement this technology, thus effectively denying the United States a conventional surgical strike option.

Their responses:

I agree with your analysis...I have been thinking about a longer piece on stealth in general, because like any other technology it has a half life, and I think we are on the downward slope as to what can be achieved given advances in radar and other detection systems such as the Czech-developed (now US owned) Vera system (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor).? Incidentally Vera is an interesting story in and of itself and I analyze it in my forthcoming book Technology Security and National Power: Winners and Losers. Dr.Stephen D. Bryen SDB Partners

Other professional appointments Senior staff director of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Trade Security Policy Founder and first director of the Defense Technology Security Administration Commissioner of the U.S. China Security Review Commission

“... it does not surprise me that the Russians (and the Chinese) have systems that can detect and potentially shoot down a B-2. That's clearly a reason behind LRS-B, but by the time that platform gets into service, the GBADS threat will have developed further. It does raise the question whether the very long development cycles for new combat aircraft are an Achilles heel given the quicker development cycles and incremental improvement of defence systems including counter-stealth radars. A better solution than a small number of very advanced bombers might be larger numbers of lower-tech but capable bombers carrying lots of really advanced high-speed long range cruise missiles. If you need to penetrate an IADS then invest in a small number of advanced UCAVs or find an entirely different approach to precision attack on a hardened or mobile target. The point is, the current operational paradigm is on borrowed time from my perspective.”

Dr. Malcolm Davis Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Faculty of Society and Design, Bond University Australia Other professional appointments Assistant Director - Strategic External Relations and Education - Strategic Policy Division, Department of Defence Assistant Director - Strategic Policy Guidance - Strategic Policy Division, Department of Defence

IMRA wrote to Dr. Avner Golov:

You write that "the United States must rehabilitate the credibility of a military option in the form of a surgical strike". Given that the American surgical strike plan today hinges on the use of B-2 stealth bombers with bunker busters and the Russians already claim to have the ability to shoot down B-2's (Major General Sergei Babakov quoted in US ‘Stealth’ Bombers Can’t Hide From Russian Anti-Aircraft Missiles SputnikNews Military & Intelligence 17:50 05.07.2015(updated 18:01 05.07.2015)) isn't it reasonable to assume that there is a significant possibility that within the next decade Iran will have in place an anti-aircraft system that effectively denies the United State a conventional surgical strike option?

Dr. Avner Golov replied:

Regarding your very interesting question: my advice is to treat General Babakov's statement with a grain of salt. Every anti-aircraft system has a weak link and if there is one air force that has the capability to find this link and exploit it is the US Air Force. I can think at least on one other country that can develop similar capabilities if needed in the next decade.

However, it is anything but clear that Russia will sell this advanced system (whose extended form is not yet operational) to Iran in the next decade, after the embargo-related-sanctions are lifted. There is a Russian commitment to arm Iran with the S-300 system but this decision was postponed so far. Before start talking about more advance systems, the Russian will have to deliver this promise and it is going to take a while as both the US and Israel will surely act to prevent it.

Lastly, a decade is a long time: the negotiations over the agreement and its interpretation have just started. A new president in the US is going to enter the White House in 2016 and nobody knows what the future holds for the Iranian regime.

Altogether, right now it seems that the prospects for Iran to deny the American military option de facto are low. As US-Israel cooperation in the field of active defense missile systems taught us: when the US and Israel collaborate even the sky is not the limit. Maintaining a credible military option against Iran is not different in this regard. Hmmmm.......Anymore doubts the Obama 'admin' gave Iran the means to build and keep he bombs? Read the full story here.

Obama's BFF Iran Denied So far U.S. Inspectors Access to Iran’s Scientists.

Obama's BFF Iran Denied So far U.S. Inspectors Access to Iran’s Scientists.(WSJ).

Are you surprised?

Iran so far has refused to allow United Nations inspectors to interview key scientists and military officers to investigate allegations that Tehran maintained a covert nuclear-weapons program, the head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog said in an interview Wednesday.

Iran’s stance complicates the International Atomic Energy Agency’s probe into Tehran’s suspected nuclear-military program—a study that is slated to be completed by mid-December, as required by the landmark nuclear agreement forged between world powers and Iran on July 14 in Vienna.

The IAEA and its director-general, Yukiya Amano, have been trying for more than five years to debrief Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, an Iranian military officer the U.S., Israel and IAEA suspect oversaw weaponization work in Tehran until at least 2003.

Mr. Amano said Tehran still hasn’t agreed to let Mr. Fakhrizadeh or other Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists help the IAEA complete its investigation. 

The Japanese diplomat indicated that he believed his agency could complete its probe even without access to top-level Iranian personnel.

“We don’t know yet,” Mr. Amano said about the agency’s interview requests. “If someone who has a different name to Fakhrizadeh can clarify our issues, that is fine with us.”


Tehran repeatedly has denied it ever had a secret nuclear weapons program. Hmmm.........Why was the Obama 'Admin' parroting Iran's terms? Read the full story here.

The American Jewish Committee Announces Opposition to Iran Deal: Alternative is Not War.

The American Jewish Committee Announces Opposition to Iran Deal: Alternative is Not War. (Algemeiner).

The American Jewish Committee announced its opposition to the Iran deal on Wednesday, after “three weeks” of discussions with top Obama administration officials, lawmakers and diplomats from Europe, Israel and Arab countries.

Though it heard arguments from President Barack Obama (who called the deal on Wednesday the “strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated”), Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and even spoke directly with Secretary of State John Kerry, the group said it was convinced the Iran deal would not prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

In fact, the group expressed concern that the agreement pursued by the Obama administration and five other world powers — China, Iran, the U.K., France and Germany — paved the way for Iran to become a nuclear threshold state “even if it never violated the deal.”

In a statement released by AJC Executive Director David Harris, the group said it could not accept the nuclear deal because of the fundamental nature of the Iranian regime, and because it could trigger a nuclear and conventional arms race in the Middle East thus endangering U.S. interests and destabilizing the world’s most volatile region.

The group rejected the charge that the alternative to the Iran deal is war — a claim underscored by Obama when he compared the Iran deal to diplomacy that prevented the Cuban missile crisis from leading to an armed confrontation.

“We do not support war against Iran, nor have we ever advocated for the use of force, though we have always believed in a credible military option as a way of convincing Iran of our seriousness of purpose,” wrote Harris. “We understand that opposing this deal raises important questions about the future that no one can answer today with certainty, much as we believe that, faced with strong American leadership, Iran would find it in its own best interests to return to the negotiating table sooner or later. But we know with greater certainty that this deal raises still more ominous questions about the future.”

The Algemeiner

Dershowitz: Obama Should Stop Attacking and Start Answering.

Dershowitz: Obama Should Stop Attacking and Start Answering. (Matzav).By Alan Dershowitz.

President Obama, in his desperation to save his Iran deal, has taken to attacking its opponents in personal ways. He has accused critics of his deal of being the same republican war mongers who drove us into the ground war against Iraq and has warned that they would offer “overheated” and often dishonest arguments. He has complained about the influence of lobbyists and money on the process of deciding this important issue, as if lobbying and money were not involved in other important matters before Congress.

These types of ad hominem arguments are becoming less and less convincing as more democratic members of Congress, more liberal supporters of the President, more nuclear experts and more foreign policy gurus are expressing deep concern, and sometimes strong opposition to the deal that is currently before Congress.

I, myself, am a liberal Democrat who twice voted for President Obama and who was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Part of the reason I was opposed was because I considered, and still consider, Iran a much greater threat to the security of the world and to the stability of the Middle East than Iraq ever was. In my newly published e-book The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?, I make arguments that I believe are honest, fair and compelling. I recognize some advantages in the deal, but strongly believe that the disadvantages considerably outweigh them and that the risks of failure are considerable. My assessment is shared by a considerable number of other academics, policy experts and other liberal Democrats who support President Obama’s domestic policies, who admire Secretary Kerry for his determination, and who do not see evil intentions in the deal.

The President would be well advised to stop attacking his critics and to start answering their hard questions with specific and credible answers.

Questions that need answering include the following:

• Even after the expiration of the nuclear agreement, will American policy remain that Iran will never under any circumstances be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? Or is it now our policy that Iran will be free to do whatever it wants to do once the deal expires?


• After the major constraints contained in the deal end, or were the deal to collapse at any point, how long would it take Iran to produce a deliverable nuclear bomb?

• Would the United States allow Iran to begin production of a nuclear arsenal when the major constraints of the deal end?

• Does the deal reflect a reversal in policy from President Obama’s pre-reelection promise that “My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon”? If not, will President Obama now announce that it is still the policy of the United States that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon?


• How exactly will the inspections regime work? Precisely how much time will the Iranians have between a request for inspection and the inspection itself? What precisely will they be permitted to do during this hiatus? And why do they need so much time if they don’t plan to cheat?

• What will President Obama do if Iran is caught cheating on this deal during his administration?


• Precisely when will which sanctions be lifted under the agreement? Do provisions that prevent the P5+1 from imposing new sanctions apply even if Iran is found to be in violation of its commitments under the agreement? When exactly will sanctions prohibiting the sale of weapons, and particularly missile technology, be lifted?

If and when these and other important questions about the deal are answered—directly, candidly, and unambiguously—Congress will be in a better position to answer the fundamental questions now before it: would rejecting this deeply flawed deal produce more dangerous results than not rejecting it?

If so, what can we now do to assure that Iran will not acquire a nuclear arsenal? The answers to those questions may profoundly affect the future of the world.

So the President should spend more time on substance and less on personal attacks.

Alan Dershowitz is an emeritus professor of law at Harvard Law School.

U.S. Senators emerge furious from closed-door Iran briefing after being Stonewalled once again.

U.S. Senators emerge furious from closed-door Iran briefing after being Stonewalled once again.(TheHill).

Multiple Senate lawmakers emerged fuming from a nearly two-hour closed-door briefing with the globe’s top nuclear watchdog on Wednesday, frustrated by what they perceived as unnecessary stonewalling.

The Foreign Relations Committee briefing answered few questions about the secret “side deals” attached to the nuclear agreement with Iran, many said.

Instead, the meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano left many Republicans feeling more frustrated than before.

“I would say most members left here with greater concerns about the inspections regime than they came in with,” Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said after the meeting.

Corker has maintained that he has yet to decide whether he will vote to block the main agreement when it comes before Congress next month. However, he appeared more willing than ever to try and kill it on Wednesday.

“You should put me in the very, very skeptical column,” he said.

“This is a valuable meeting,” added Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.). “I’m so grateful the director general came over here, but his answer was not very reassuring.” Hmmmm......High crimes and misdemeanors are the words the Senators should be pronouncing, this 'admin' has been hiding all it's 'actions' since day one. Read the full story here.

Satellite imagery confirms that Obama's BFF Iran has renewed sanitization of Parchin military site.

Satellite imagery confirms that Obama's BFF Iran has renewed sanitization of Parchin military site. HT: CarlInJerusalem, ISIS Online.

US intelligence officials have informed Congress that it has detected that Iran is 'sanitizing' its Parchin facility outside Tehran where Western countries are virtually certain it has carried out nuclear weapons development activity in the past.

The 'sanitizing,' which is being carried out in broad daylight, is apparently a last-ditch effort by Tehran to thwart the ability of IAEA inspectors to reconstruct the extent of the PMD's (possibly military dimensions) of Iran's nuclear program at Parchin. This is from Eli Lake and Josh Rogin.

Intelligence officials and lawmakers who have seen the new evidence, which is still classified, told us that satellite imagery picked up by U.S. government assets in mid- and late July showed that Iran had moved bulldozers and other heavy machinery to the Parchin site and that the U.S. intelligence community concluded with high confidence that the Iranian government was working to clean up the site ahead of planned inspections by the IAEA.

The intelligence community shared its findings with lawmakers and some Congressional staff late last week, four people who have seen the evidence told us. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence briefed lawmakers about the evidence Monday, three U.S. senators said.

“I am familiar with it,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr told us Tuesday. “I think it’s up to the administration to draw their conclusions. Hopefully this is something they will speak on, since it is in many ways verified by commercial imagery. And their actions seem to be against the grain of the agreement.”

Burr said Iran’s activities at Parchin complicate the work of the IAEA inspectors who are set to examine the site in the coming months. IAEA's director general, Yukiya Amano, was in Washington on Wednesday to brief lawmakers behind closed doors about the side agreements. “They are certainly not going to see the site that existed. Whether that’s a site that can be determined what it did, only the technical experts can do that,” Burr said. “I think it’s a huge concern.”

The Obama administration is already spinning.

A senior intelligence official, when asked about the satellite imagery, told us the IAEA was also familiar with what he called "sanitization efforts" since the deal was reached in Vienna, but that the U.S. government and its allies had confidence that the IAEA had the technical means to detect past nuclear work anyway.

Another administration official explained that this was in part because any trace amounts of enriched uranium could not be fully removed between now and Oct. 15, the deadline for Iran to grant access and answer remaining questions from the IAEA about Parchin. So what? I'm not a nuclear expert, but couldn't removing soil or destroying buildings result in the uranium concentration in the area being lower?Read the full story here and here.

Pres. Hussein Obama trying to scare Israel with Iranian rocket strike.

Hussein Obama threatening Israel with Iranian rockets: 'If Congress Strikes Down Iran Deal, Rockets Will Rain On Tel Aviv'. (YNet).

President Barack Obama told Jewish leaders on Tuesday that if the nuclear deal signed between world powers and Iran is rejected by Congress, the United States will be forced to attack Tehran, which will lead to Hezbollah retaliating with rockets on Tel Aviv.

“Israel would bear the brunt of a US military strike,” Obama told 22 American Jewish leaders from the Anti-Defamation League, Orthodox Union and J Street, and others, during a meeting at the White House.

The president asserted that if Congress votes against the agreement, the Islamic Republic will back out of it and he will then face pressure from those who oppose the deal to militarily strike Tehran.

“It would be destructive both to the US and to Israel,” Obama warned. “An American military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities will not end with Iran declaring war on us. Iran’s defense budget is $15 billion. The American defense budget is $600 billion. What Iran would do, and could do, is respond a-symmetrically by increasing its support of terrorism.”
“Hezbollah rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv,” he stressed.

While Iran won’t attack the United States directly, it could attack American targets across the world, or arming and funding its proxies on Israel’s borders, Obama said.

The president said he was willing to meet with Prime Minister  Netanyahu to discuss how to increase Israel’s security, “but he won’t meet with me.”

“Meeting me would be, for him, like waving a white flag, and Netanyahu wants us to keep fighting over the agreement,” Obama said. Obama is expected to meet with Netanyahu in the next two months, but not before the prime minister’s speech at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York in September.

The president’s meeting with Jewish leaders, held at the White House’s Cabinet Room on the president’s 54th birthday, was “serious” and “cordial” but at times “contentious,” according to some participants. Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and Obama’s adviser Ben Rhodes were also present.


While admitting the agreement was “by no means perfect,” the president asserted it only had minor issues. “This deal is extremely good for national security of US and Israel as well,” he said. Hmmm...Any more doubts on who's side he is on? Read the full story at Ynet News Israel.

Video - Israeli PM Netanyahu, Urges US Jewish Leaders to Speak Out

Min Steinitz - If I were American, I would oppose the agreement / MFA: Deficiencies in the Iran nuclear deal

Min Steinitz - If I were American, I would oppose the agreement / MFA: Deficiencies in the Iran nuclear deal. HT IMRA.

#1. Minister Steinitz: "If I were American, I would oppose the agreement." (Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)

Energy, National Infrastructures and Water Minister Dr. Yuval Steinitz, today (Tuesday, 4 August 2015), released the following statement in reply to recent remarks by US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz regarding the nuclear agreement with Iran:

"If I were American, I would oppose the agreement.

I would oppose the agreement because it ensures from the outset Iran's becoming a nuclear power capable of producing dozens of atomic bombs per month, ten years from today.

I would oppose the agreement because it is likely to lead to a nuclear arms race between Iran and the Sunni Arab states – in complete contravention of the avowed policy of the US.

I would oppose the agreement because even in the short term, the inspections are not immediate and invasive, as was promised at the start.

I would oppose the agreement because it harms the national security of the United States, Israel and every Western country."

Minister Steinitz met with US Energy Secretary Moniz approximately two months ago in Washington for talks on the Iranian nuclear issue and other energy matters as well.

#2. MFA: Deficiencies in the Iran nuclear deal Deficiencies in the Iran nuclear deal 03 Aug 2015.

The agreement is supposed to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and should include an enforcement mechanism. However, no such mechanism exists. Instead, conflicts can only be resolved by mutually agreed consensus.

1. Inspections of suspicious sites

There are strong concerns regarding the access request mechanism:

First of all, permission to visit suspicious sites could take far longer to arrange than 24 days. The 24-day countdown starts only after the IAEA turns to Iran with its suspicions concerning a particular site (thereby revealing to the Iranians the intelligence-based information the IAEA possesses). Iran subsequently must supply an answer, but no time limit is specified for the Iranian response. It is entirely possible that a long time will pass, possibly even months, without an Iranian reply. During that time, the IAEA cannot request to visit the site (which would start the 24-day countdown).

It is important to note that Iran will be able to cover up any signs of prohibited activity within the 24-day period, particularly if this activity does not involve fissile material (for example, calculations on the output of a nuclear explosion or experiments using metal with a radioactive signature that is not uranium).

Another important point to stress is that if Iran decides not to permit a visit to the site even after the 24-day countdown no automatic enforcement is applied. Instead, the matter is passed on to the Joint Commission, which will have another 65 days to make a decision. It is also possible that the commission's discussion will end without imposing any enforcement measures, allowing Iran to refuse entry to the inspectors, again without any punishment or enforcement actions.

Moreover, Iran has already signaled its unwillingness to allow inspections of an entire category of sites: In Iran’s letter to the President of the Security Council of July 20th it declares "such (military) facilities will not be subject to inspection"

2. The agreement does not include an enforcement mechanism

The agreement, which has a technical character, is supposed to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. To achieve that goal, it should include an enforcement mechanism, so that Iran’s violations of the agreement (or its overly expansive interpretations of gray areas) would be dealt with by enforcement actions. However, no such mechanism exists. The so-called “snap back option” can only handle major violations. All other Iranian violations that fall short of "significant non-performance” cannot be addressed through the agreement’s mechanisms. This means that the agreement is based on an all or nothing approach that is not capable of dealing with the wide range of problematic Iranian behaviors that will probably arise.

3. The conflict resolution mechanism relies on reaching consensus

Instead of an enforcement mechanism, the agreement includes a conflict resolution mechanism. This mechanism is designed to only resolve conflicts that can be mutually agreed-upon by consensus. In the absence of such a consensus, this mechanism would be effectively paralyzed. As this agreement concerns major conflicting interests between the sides, the chances of arriving at a good-faith consensus are slender.

4. Issues with “snap back” sanctions

In theory, any of the P5 powers can reinstate the sanctions through the UN Security Council and no veto is permitted. However, according to the agreement and repetitive statements by Iran, should the “snap back option” be utilized, Iran will withdraw from the agreement. Hence, any of the five states that believes that the snap back option should be deployed can only do so if it is willing to bear the consequences: the dissolution of the agreement. This creates a strong deterrent effect against activating "snap back" of the sanctions.

5. The agreement is unmanageable

Although the published nuclear agreement is long and contains many details, in many topics the language used in the agreement is vague, lacking detail or is not explicit enough to prevent widely varied interpretations of their contents. Given its history in the nuclear field, Iran will probably exploit these unclear or unequivocal formulations to its benefit.

6. The procurement channel for nuclear-related products is not tight, and enforcement ability is incomplete:

Security Council resolution 2231 of July 20th established a channel for monitoring the acquisition of products or raw materials used for nuclear-related activities. The monitoring is based on declarations by the exporting state and Joint Commission supervision. However, the mechanism leaves too much up to the judgment of the exporting state, as to whether the products or materials must be declared, and to the way their use will be monitored. It is very likely that Iran will exploit this gap to its own advantage.

Also, if a third party discovers violations in this area (such as a product or service that should have been declared but was sold not through the procurement channel), there is no effective recourse that allows sufficient enforcement of the matter.

7. Removal of the arms embargo and restrictions regarding ballistic missiles:

The agreement includes the removal of the embargo on Iranian armaments and restrictions regarding its ballistic missiles after five and eight years respectively. However, the agreement purports to be limited to the nuclear issue (this is one of the justifications for not including other destabilizing Iranian behaviors, such as its support of terrorism).

Furthermore, during the period while the embargo is still in place, there will be no effective enforcement mechanisms: in the framework of canceling previous Security Council resolutions, the Sanctions Committee and the Panel of Experts that were in charge of enforcing the embargo on Iran were also canceled. Allegedly, the embargo’s implementation will be monitored by some mechanism in the Security Council Secretariat; however, this mechanism has not yet been formulated, it will probably not be comprised of experts but rather political figures, and the result will be, again, lack of effective enforcement in the event that violations are discovered.

It is important to note that Iran and the P5+1 agreed ahead of time that a violation of the embargo would not constitute a violation of the nuclear agreement, but only(!) of Security Council resolution 2231; this according to the Iranian negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Iran has already announced that it will not honor these restrictions because they are, according to Iran, "illegal" – just as in the past it didn’t honor the Security Council resolutions that are canceled due to the agreement. Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who continues to receive weapons (including advanced missiles) from Iran, conveyed a similar message.

8. The possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program are not a condition of the agreement:

It seems that the PMD issue (IAEA examination of Iran’s past military nuclear program) was not included as a condition of the agreement’s implementation or for the removal of sanctions. This makes it difficult to determine the extent of Iran’s military nuclear program in the past. Furthermore, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, said in this context that Iran has understandings with IAEA and that the conclusions of the reports that will be submitted by the IAEA are known to Iran in advance. This issue is important not only to understand what Iran did in the past and what the possible penalization is for this action, but also in order to understand what should be done in the future to prevent Iran from progressing with its military program under the auspices of a legitimate civilian program according to the agreement.

9. Legal aspects:

It should be noted that only parts of the agreement were drafted under Chapter VII, Article 41of the UN Charter (which allows non-military sanctions in the event of a violation). This weakens the legal force of the agreement.

Video - Is Iran Less Dangerous to the World Thanks to Iran Deal?

Israeli PM Netanyahu: Iran deal will bring war, ‘nightmare’ atomic arms race.

Israeli PM Netanyahu: Iran deal will bring war, ‘nightmare’ atomic arms race. (TOI).

The world powers’ nuclear deal with Iran will lead to war and a “nightmare” regional nuclear arms race, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned in an online address to American and Canadian Jews on Tuesday evening.

Netanyahu, who has been seeking to sway US lawmakers to thwart the agreement, accused the deal’s supporters in the Obama administration of spreading “disinformation about the deal and about Israel’s position” in its bid to rally support.

He pointed out a series of “fatal flaws” in the deal, and asserted that it “doesn’t block Iran’s path to bomb,” but rather “paves” its path to the bomb.

The agreement, a legacy foreign policy project of US President Barack Obama, gives Iran “two paths to the bomb,” enabling Tehran to obtain a weapon either by keeping the deal and waiting for it to elapse, or by violating it, Netanyahu warned.

The Conference of Presidents and Jewish Federations in the US and Canada had encouraged viewers of Netanyahu’s address to join the call through computers and cellphones as well as through group viewings at Jewish institutions.

During his brief address Tuesday, the prime minister responded to several questions that had been sent in in advance.

One of the questions related to Israel’s alternative to the nuclear deal – the administration has insisted that there is no viable alternative to the deal, and that opponents had no solution to offer other than war.

“Increase the sanctions, increase the pressure,” Netanyahu said, in presenting his alternative to the deal, asserting that Iran would not back away from the negotiating table, even if subjected to harsher sanctions, and would abide more stringent curbs on its nuclear program.

He argued that the opposition to the deal across the Israeli political spectrum was indicative of the “dangerous” nature of the agreement.

“A huge majority of Israelis” oppose it, he said, claiming that since it is not a partisan issue in Israel, it shouldn’t be a partisan issue in the US either. “Rise above partisan politics,” he urged. “Judge [the deal] on substance, and on substance alone.”

“Oppose this dangerous deal,” he implored.

Netanyahu accused supporters of the deal of trying to “stifle debate” and said they have been misrepresenting the agreement in order to win support.

“This deal will bring war,” he warned. “Iran can keep the deal or Iran can cheat on the deal,” Either way, it will have the bomb, Netanyahu said, before adding, “hundreds of bombs.”

Furthermore, he said, addressing the audience, Iran has been building intercontinental ballistic missiles in order “to hit you,” not Israel.

He also predicted a nuclear arms race in the Middle East — “the most volatile part of the planet” — in the wake of the deal.

“That’s a real nightmare,” Netanyahu added.

“Here’s the bottom line,” he said. “Oppose this bad deal.” Read the full story here.

Arabs tell Kerry: ”We want Iranian cooperation, not meddling,”

Arabs tell Kerry: ”We want Iranian cooperation, not meddling,” (IMRA).

QUOTE:”Iran’s nuclear deal should bring stability and ‘good neighborliness’ rather than interference, Gulf Arab states told US Secretary of State Kerry”

DOHA — Iran's nuclear deal should bring stability and “good neighborliness” rather than interference, Gulf Arab states told US Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday[3 Aug] as they began talks on the merits of its historic accord with world powers.

Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid Al-Attiyah, welcoming US Secretary of State John Kerry to Qatar for the talks with the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), said the alliance wanted to spare the region “from any dangers and threats from nuclear weapons”.

This should be done by authorizing the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes in line with international rules, he said, speaking for the GCC as host of the meeting.

“We look forward with hope to the nuclear agreement ... leading to the preservation of security and stability in the region, and we emphasize the importance of cooperation with Iran based on principles of good neighborliness, non-interference in internal affairs and solving disputes peacefully.”

Al-Attiyah spoke of the urgency of resolving the crises in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, but also complained that “the Middle East is suffering from the failures of the peace process due to the Israeli occupation” of Palestinian land. He accused Israel of “intransigence” in dealing with the Palestinians and said it must end its “illegal blockade of Gaza.”

“We call on the United States of America to exert more efforts to go back to the peace process,” he said before journalists were ushered out of the room.

Kerry, who did not speak while reporters were present, is not traveling to Israel on this trip and US leverage with the current Israeli government is limited, given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's vehement and vocal opposition to the Iran deal.

US officials rejected suggestions that Kerry was not visiting Israel this week because the administration has given up hope on convincing Netanyahu of the merits of the agreement. Kerry's main goal, however, is to follow up on a May meeting that President Barack Obama hosted for Arab leaders at Camp David. At that meeting, Obama promised Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates enhanced security cooperation and expedited defense sales to guard against a potential Iranian threat.

Kerry has acknowledged concerns about Iran's behavior in the Middle East but says it would be easier to deal with if Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon. He said the agreement struck by world powers with Iran in Vienna last month is the best way to do that.

“Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities in the region — and that is why it is so important to ensure that Iran's nuclear program remains wholly peaceful,” he said on Sunday in Egypt before flying to Qatar. “There can be absolutely no question that the Vienna plan, if implemented, will make Egypt and all the countries of this region safer than they otherwise would be.”

Kerry's visit to Qatar follows one last week by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who also stopped in Kuwait and Iraq to present Tehran's side of the nuclear deal. — Agencies. Hmmm.......Seems all of Obama & Kerry's 'friends' agree Israel is the problem.

Video - The Iran Nuclear Deal - by Prager University

The Iran Nuclear Deal

As Congress debates whether to approve or oppose the nuclear agreement reached with Iran, we've produced this crucially important video with Dennis Prager--a video that answers the deal's biggest questions:Is the agreement a good or bad deal? Would it make it harder or easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Would it make Iran and its terror proxies stronger or weaker? Should the U.S. Congress support or defeat the deal? Watch the video to understand the deal in 5 minutes.Share it so that others can understand.

Posted by Prager University on Monday, August 3, 2015

'Kill the Bad Deal' - 218 lawmakers sign on to resolution expressing 'firm disapproval' of deal

'Kill the Bad Deal' - 218 lawmakers sign on to resolution expressing 'firm disapproval' of deal. (WB).

At least 218 Republican lawmakers have signed on to support a resolution expressing “firm disapproval” of the nuclear deal, which would provide Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief while enabling it to continue work on ballistic missiles and other nuclear research.

The measure, which is being led by Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill) and was first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, comes as Congress takes 60 days to review the deal before voting on it.

Many lawmakers, including a growing number of Democrats, have come out against the deal, citing concerns it does not do enough to limit Iran’s nuclear program.

Critics remain most concerned about portions of the deal that will ban U.S. inspectors from Iran’s nuclear sites and remove restrictions on the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program.

In the weeks since the deal was signed, critics have warned that it will only embolden Tehran’s intransigence, including its illicit nuclear relationship with North Korea. Hmmmm.....'Yes WE CAN'. Read the full story here.

Video - conference at the National Press Club in Washington on the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Republican Jewish Coalition Demands Pres Hussein Obama Stop Demonizing Jews.

Republican Jewish Coalition Demands Pres Hussein Obama Stop Demonizing Jews. (TJP).By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus.

Last week President Obama held a conference call with interested Americans, seeking to directly sell them on the nuclear deal the U.S. and its P5+1 partners made with Iran.

Many Jews who listened on the call were taken aback by what they heard as coded anti-Semitic language being used by the President to attack those who are critical of the deal.

On Friday, the Republican Jewish Coalition issued a statement demanding that Obama stop demonizing the critics of the Iran deal with code words for Jews.

Matt Brooks, the executive director of the RJC, quoted the President’s comment, that the “lobbying taking place on the other side is fierce, well-financed and relentless.”

Brooks responded, “Some of us have been around long enough to remember how Jewish groups – including Jewish Republicans – came down hard on the first President Bush for similar remarks.

“Apparently, the President’s claim that he ‘welcomes a robust debate’ was just rhetoric – like his administration’s repeated pledges to make Iran submit to ‘anytime, anywhere’ inspections.

“Jewish leaders need to hold President Obama to the same standards they held the first President Bush. And President Obama should stick to the facts and stop demonizing Americans who are rightly skeptical of his dubious deal with the Tehran regime.”

As at least one observer noticed, in addition to using code words like “lobby” and “well-financed,” President Obama also repeated the idea that “the same people who are opposing the Iran deal got us into the Iraq war.” 

The “neocons” are frequently blamed for pulling the U.S. into the Iraq war, and “neocons” is frequently a code word for Jews. Hmmm......The upright (honorable, intrinsically good) man out of the good treasure [stored] in his heart produces what is upright (honorable and intrinsically good), and the evil man out of the evil storehouse brings forth that which is depraved (wicked and intrinsically evil); for out of the abundance (overflow) of the heart his mouth speaks. - Luke 6:45