More hurdles for Iran nuclear deal

[IronFist]

More hurdles for Iran nuclear deal - CNNPolitics.com
Tell me please what's the point of sanctioning Iran? It's not like they are going to make any nukes since they don't have technologies to build nuclear weapons. I understand that Shia Islam is a militant religion and Iran poses a great threat to Israel but Saudi Arabia is even worse yet it's our greatest ally in the Middle East.

 

[waltky]

A bad deal is worse than no deal...

Generals: Deal Puts US in ‘Far Worse Position to Prevent a Nuclear Iran’
September 4, 2015 | Instead of stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the deal brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry puts the U.S. “in far worse position to prevent a nuclear Iran,” two retired generals said in a report released by the New York-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

The report, co-authored by Gen. James Conway (USMC-Ret.) and Gen. Charles Wald (USAF-Ret.), takes a dim view of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed on July 14 by the U.S., Iran and five other countries, flatly stating that it “will not prevent a nuclear Iran.” But by lifting sanctions in return for a pledge not to develop a nuclear bomb, the agreement will give Iran the time and money it needs to upgrade its military capabilities, the generals noted. “Contrary to the false choice between support for the JCPOA and military confrontation, the agreement increases both the probability and danger of hostilities with Iran,” the generals stated.

The deal “both increases the possibility of direct military confrontation with Iran and makes any such confrontation much more perilous.” “Iran will be able to revitalize its defense industrial base in the short term, even if it devotes only a fraction of the $100 billion or more that will be unfrozen as part of the agreement – more than the government’s entire budget for the current fiscal year – to military spending,” including the development of long-range ballistic missiles, they pointed out. “Given the deleterious strategic consequences to the United States, implementation of the JCPOA will demand increased political and military engagement in the Middle East that carries significantly greater risks and costs relative to current planning assumptions.”

Lifting sanctions will also allow Iran to funnel more resources to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, creating “cascading instability” in the region, the report added. “Combined with improved military capabilities, these developments could enable the Iranian regime to create a ‘Shia crescent’ from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean” with “the potential to erase the decades-old balance of power between Iran and its adversaries in the Middle East, replacing it with a level of Iranian dominance not previously seen.”

Other Gulf states would likely “pursue their own nuclear arsenals in response to Iran attaining nuclear weapons,” the generals warned. But “unlike the Cold War, when the spread of nuclear weapons among U.S. allies reinforced deterrence, a proliferation cascade in the Middle East would undermine it, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Israel and potentially others trapped in an inherently unstable multilateral nuclear imbalance.”

Generals: Deal Puts US in ‘Far Worse Position to Prevent a Nuclear Iran’

See also:

Arms Control Experts to Obama: Your Iran Deal Is ‘Not Verifiable'
September 3, 2015 | – On the day President Obama secured enough Senate support to uphold his planned veto of a resolution rejecting the Iran nuclear agreement, dozens of security experts, including top nuclear and arms verification specialists, urged him Wednesday not to veto the measure.

“The signers of this letter have more direct experience in verification matters regarding all areas of arms control and nonproliferation treaties than any existing anywhere in the world,” commented one of the signatories, former assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance Paula DeSutter. “The JCPOA is not verifiable,” DeSutter added. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the formal name of the agreement reached between Tehran, the U.S., and five other powers. The administration asserts that the verification and transparency measures in the deal are the most robust in the history of negotiated nuclear agreements.

Republicans in Congress are expected to vote to disapprove the JCPOA after Labor Day, but the administration on Wednesday secured a 34th Democratic senator’s support for the deal, meaning Obama’s promised veto can now be sustained. The 56 signatories to the letter recalled that Obama has said that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” “Guided by our experience with U.S. and foreign nuclear weapons programs – as well as with the history and practice of arms control, nonproliferation, and intelligence matters, we judge the current JCPOA to be a very bad deal indeed,” they wrote.

Far from meeting Obama’s promise that the agreement would stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, they argued, “it virtually guarantees Iran a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.” “A far better alternative is to reject the JCPOA, strengthen the sanctions, fall back to the NPT [nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty], and take all possible measures to try to enforce it.” The letter quoted the late arms control grandee Paul Nitze as having said, when testifying in 1988 on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, “'Poorly-verified agreements are in reality far worse than having no agreement at all.”

Accompanying the letter was a 14-page attachment detailing what the experts view as “fatal flaws” and weaknesses in the agreement. On verification – an area of expertise for a number of those who signed the letter – the JCPOA was found to be severely wanting. “Verification, far from being strengthened to address Iran’s 30-year history of noncompliance, is rendered completely ineffective by significant ambiguities in the agreement, the lack of an oft-promised ‘anytime, anywhere’ inspection regime and the addition of cumbersome bureaucratic procedures that ensure delay or denial of suspect site inspections,” they wrote.

MORE

 

[Delta4Embassy]

They're just whining because they wanted to go to war. Wars are business opportunities now. Doesn't matter who wins or how long they go on beyond the longer they go on the mor emoney is made and thus the greater the bribes to those politicians who okayed it.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - ever'body gonna die...

Cruz: If Iran ‘Deal Goes Through … Americans Will Die, Israelis Will Die, Europeans Will Die’
September 11, 2015 – At a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to express opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said that if the bargain goes through, it is an “absolute certainty” that “Americans will die, Israelis will die, and Europeans will die” as a consequence.

Given Iran’s ongoing support of terrorism, “It’s worth remembering that if this deal goes through, we know to an absolute certainty, people will die,” said Sen. Cruz on Wednesday. “Americans will die, Israelis will die, and Europeans will die.” For those senators who support the nuclear deal, Cruz said, “Do you value the safety and security of the United States of America? Do you value standing with our friend and ally, the nation of Israel? Do you value the lives of millions of Americans, or do you value more party loyalty to the Obama White House?”

He continued, “[H]ow do you look a mom in the eyes and say I voted to lift sanctions on the man who murdered your son when he was defending this nation?” Wednesday’s rally was organized by the Tea Party Patriots. The deal, announced in July of this year, would lift economic sanctions placed on Iran, and entails a series of provisions designed to prevent the nation from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Under the agreement, Congress is required to vote on the deal before September 17. In the Senate, 42 Democrats have pledged their support for the deal.

In his remarks, Cruz compared Osama Bin Laden and Iran’s leader Ayatollah Khamenei. “Osama Bin Laden never had $100 billion,” said the senator. “He was filled with bilious hatred and using rudimentary tools, murdered nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001.” “We’re now talking about giving the Ayatollah Khamenei, a theocratic, homicidal maniac who hates America every bit as much as Bin Laden did, giving him $100 billion to carry out his murderous plan,” said Cruz. “And let me be clear, if you vote to send billions of dollars to jihadists who have pledged to murder Americans, then you bear direct responsibility for the murders carried out with the dollars you have given,” he said. “You cannot wash your hands of that blood.”

Cruz: If Iran ‘Deal Goes Through … Americans Will Die, Israelis Will Die, Europeans Will Die’

See also:

Disabled Veteran: ‘If You Push’ Iran ‘Deal Through, You Will Have the Blood of U.S. Service Members on Your Hands’
September 10, 2015 | At a press conference in front of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, several speakers expressed opposition to the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, including Brian Mast, a former U.S. Army soldier who lost both of his legs in Afghanistan to Iranian-funded IEDs, who said, “Congress, Senate, President Obama, if you push this deal through, you will have the blood of US service members on your hands.”

The conference was sponsored by the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that focuses on correcting misrepresentations in Middle East policy. The conference was co-sponsored by 11 other organizations.

In addition to Brian Mast, who has artificial legs now because of the IED injuries, former CIA Director R. James Woolsey was also strongly critical of the deal. “The law as passed by the Congress, the Review Act that was passed three months ago, deals with this situation” he said. “It says very clearly that not only all terms of the agreement between Iran and the rest of the countries and the United States, not only do those have to be made available to the United States, they have to be made available within five days of the signing of the agreement,” he said. “That would have been July 14th, so they were due by July 19th, and they didn't come.” “There is not an agreement because the statutory terms were not fulfilled” said Woolsey.

U.S. Army veteran Brian Mast, a bomb technician who served in the elite Joint Special Operations Command. Because of his service and sacrifice, Mast was awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Commendation Medal for Valor, and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal.

In response to a question from CNSNews.com about what was hoped to be accomplished by the press conference, EMET President Sarah Stern said, “We need to communicate to the senators and congressmen living in [the Capitol] that they have got to cast their vote on the side of what America’s always represented.” “America’s always represented what’s good in the world,” she said, “and they’ve always had the courage to be able to fight the good fight of goodness against evil.” “They need to know the American people do not want this deal,” said Stern. “Two out of every three Americans are against this deal. There is more wisdom in the little fingernail of a pinky of the average American than there is in the whole Obama administration” she said.

The bargain, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is a proposed deal between the P5+1 (the five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) and Iran, crafted in response to Iran’s nuclear program. In the Senate, all 54 Republicans and 4 Democrats have declared opposition to the deal, with the remaining 42 Democrats saying they support it. If the resolution of disapproval were introduced under the terms of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, opponents of the deal would need 60 votes to override a filibuster in the Senate and 67 votes to override a presidential veto.

Disabled Veteran: ‘If You Push’ Iran ‘Deal Through, You Will Have the Blood of U.S. Service Members on Your Hands’

 

[waltky]

Sounds like a case of misinterpretation...

WH Suggests Iran Allowing IAEA Courtesy Visit to Military Base Amounts to Giving Access to Inspectors
September 21, 2015 – White House press secretary Josh Earnest suggested Monday that a brief visit to a controversial Iranian military facility by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief and his deputy shows that Iran has now opened military bases to international inspections.

Addressing a press briefing, he recalled “some claims made by critics of the [Iran nuclear] deal that the IAEA would not have access to military sites.” “The fact is that the director-general of the IAEA was at a prominent Iranian military site over the weekend!” Earnest characterized the development as further evidence that criticism of the negotiated nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was unfounded. “I do think that as this agreement moves forward to being implemented, we’ll have many future opportunities to illustrate how the critics and warnings of many of those who opposed the Iran deal are eventually disproven, based on the way the agreement is implemented,” he said.

For more than a decade Iran has forbidden the IAEA access to the Parchin military installation, where the U.N. nuclear watchdog suspects Iran carried out work on designs for detonator devices that could be used in a nuclear weapon and could fit in a ballistic missile warhead. But after the Iranians collected environmental samples at the site last week for examination by the agency, IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano and deputy director-general Tero Varjoranta paid a visit to Parchin at the weekend.

Back in Vienna on Monday, Amano told reporters that the pair had been able to enter a building at the base which the agency has up to now only been able to observe via satellite imagery. “Inside the building, we saw indications of recent renovation work,” he said. “There was no equipment in the building. Our experts will now analyze this information and we will have discussions with Iran in the coming weeks.”

Under the JCPOA, sanctions against Iran may not be eased until the IAEA has resolved outstanding concerns about the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear energy program – that is, past and possibly ongoing activities that have possible applications for the development of a nuclear bomb. According to a confidential IAEA-Iran side deal – a draft of which was leaked to the Associated Press last month – Amano’s visit to Parchin was described as one which Iran would agree to “as a courtesy.” Still, Earnest suggested that the visit was a sign Iran has now opened up Parchin to IAEA inspectors.

MORE

See also:

Iran: No IAEA Inspectors Were Present at Suspect Military Base When We Collected Samples
September 21, 2015 – As many critics of the Iran nuclear deal worried would happen, Iranian officials last week collected environmental samples from a controversial military base to hand over to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – and according to Iran, the U.N. agency’s own experts were not physically present at the time.

Atomic Energy Organization of Iran spokesman Behruz Kamalvandi told the IRNA state news agency Monday that Iranian experts had collected the samples “in the absence of the inspectors affiliated to the International Atomic Energy Agency,” before the samples were handed over to IAEA officials. Despite this, the IAEA insisted Monday that the process at the Parchin base was robust, and the Obama administration maintained that criticism about Iran being allowed to “self-inspect” had been proven false.

Although some critics of the Iran nuclear agreement did use the term “self-inspect,” the broader concern was why the U.S. and its P5+1 partners were complying with Iran’s refusal to allow IAEA inspectors to do the work at Parchin, but rather allowing the Iranians themselves to collect the soil, air and other samples. Exactly how Parchin was to be inspected was the subject of an understanding between Iran and the IAEA which the agency insisted remain confidential, a stance supported by the administration. As a result it was not provided to Congress as part of its review of the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The issue is an important one because Parchin is where the IAEA suspects Iran carried out key research in past years relevant to building a nuclear weapon. Under the JCPOA, the agency must resolve outstanding questions about all past and present Iranian nuclear activities with “possible military dimensions” before sanctions may be lifted.

In Vienna on Monday, IAEA chief Yukiya Amano defended the process. “As a result of experience gained over the years, the agency has, in certain circumstances, permitted states’ representatives to carry out activities in support of the agency’s verification work,” he said. “In the case of Parchin, the Iranian side played a part in the sample-taking process by swiping samples.” “Authentication by the agency of the samples was achieved through use of an established verification process,” Amano said. “The process was carried out under our responsibility and monitoring.”

MORE