Saturday, November 25th | 7 Kislev 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
August 5, 2015 3:15 pm

Dershowitz: The President Gets Personal About the Iran Deal

avatar by Alan Dershowitz

Email a copy of "Dershowitz: The President Gets Personal About the Iran Deal" to a friend
President Obama defends the Iran nuclear deal. Photo: Screenshot.

President Obama defends the Iran nuclear deal. Photo: Screenshot.

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:

Related coverage

June 30, 2016 3:51 pm
6

Entebbe: Are We Heeding the Lessons?

July 4th marks the 40th anniversary of the rescue of Israeli hostages at Entebbe. Today we are surrounded by international terrorism....

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. Would the United States allow Iran to begin production of a nuclear arsenal when the major constraints of the deal end?
  4. 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”?
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. What will President Obama do if Iran is caught cheating on this deal during his administration?
  8. 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. His new e-book, The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?is now available.

 

 

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Dr. I. Shechter, Jerusalem

    To the inteligent questions of Prof Dershowitz,I would ad a moral one:
    Is America ready to accord a price to a state that declares openly its intention to destroy the state of Israel ?

  • Vivian Warshaw

    Personal attacks are the last measure of a frightened person. He is so afraid that the deal will be rejected by Congress, as it is being right now by the American people, that he will stop at nothing including childish name calling to get his way. Grow up, Barak. Get out of the school yard.

  • Oscar Shank

    Mr. Dershowitz was not against the war on Iraq–read carefully what he actually said back then:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/31/a-hawk-in-drag/

    • Raymond Blum

      President Bush was right to go into Iraq. Saddam Hussein had murdered hundreds of millions of his own people and was his own Weapon of Mass Destruction. President Bush’s idea was to turn Iraq into a Democracy, and that if successful, it might spread to other Middle Eastern countries as well. And he was actually moving in the direction of success, but then all of his efforts were destroyed when President Obama withdrew all American troops from Iraq. This created the vacuum necessary for ISIS to take over that nation.

  • Michael

    Because nobody has attacked Obama. or his family, or his friends, or his supporters, in personal ways, during his presidency.

    • jeff

      I think you miss the point. This isn’t a tit for tat. This isn’t about who may have done wrong in the past.
      Wrong is wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
      This is about a simple concept that has been hammered into my head by way smarter people than I. When someone wants to sell you something, the should talk about the reasons you should want it. They shouldn’t denigrate people who criticize their deal, but provide the response to the criticism.
      The moment the President decided to attack those who have doubts, concerns and criticisms of the Iran deal, I knew the deal was bad.
      The more I learn about the deal, the more questions there are (some of which are excellently expressed by Mr. Dershowitz).
      Comparing the Republican caucus to the Ayatollah? That’s not Presidential.
      Having your proxies at the New York Times write a piece that says that Jewish members of Congress who vote against the deal are showing dual loyalism? That’s atrocious.
      It appears that Mr. Obama is resorting to the Chicago way, which is to say that he is willing to lie, cheat, and steal until he gets precisely what he wants.
      I also second Mr. Dershowitz in saying that I don’t think there is an ulterior motive or nefarious reason for the bad deal. I think President Obama hopes this will be his legacy and everything will work perfectly. I think President Obama is naive. I am sure the President Obama and Secretary Kerry were easily, skillfully, and completely outmaneuvered by Iran. I think the members of the P5+1, in particular China, Russia, and to a lesser degree France, are more interested in the money they will make off of a nuclear Iran than they are in securing a safe future for the U.S., Israel, and the world.

  • nelson marans

    The “ad hominem” attacks by the president on the opponents of his Iranian accord not only demeans the office of the presidency but also the president. Even the president should realize that this deal will give Iran immediate access to the shipment of military equipment from Russia and China, already promised, and establish Iran as the dominant power in the region to the detriment of our allies and ultimately the U. S..
    Fighting for a bad deal, only lessens the final heritage of President Obama.

  • Timothy V. Kumler

    Well, so much the highly touted “transparency” this administration promised in the last two elections!!

  • Zerach Seidman

    If the President was to answer your questions that you propose, the entire agreement with Iran would fall apart. Even if his answers made sense, he is not a trusted person or truthful, and he usually says the exact opposite to what has been agreed anyway. It’s a no win situation. And that goes for Kerry too. Either way, this agreement, if you want to call it that, is a bad deal for the world, and I think Obama knows it and if he doesn’t, he should step down from the Presidency because then he is totally incompetent.

    • zorka

      are very right, Obama knows what he is up to, he knows exactly what his intention, make no mistake, bad, evil, deal!

  • How typical of Mr. Dershowitz. He goes off on the “bad deal” with Iran yet never once mentions the “elephant in the room” (Israel’s illicit nuclear weapons program with missile capability) and still has the chutzpah to call his view “honest.”

    Iran has been required to accept a number of restrictions that Israel has never been asked to accept. For instance, Israel is not a member of the IAEA (Iran is); Israel is not a signatory to the NPT (Iran is); Israel thieved plutonium from NUMAC/Pennsylvania to start its program; ergo Israel’s entire nuclear program has been a clandestine affair done illegally; Israel enriches fissile material without oversight; Israel has never allowed “snap” inspections by outside agencies nor has it allowed any kind of outside inspection regardless of purpose; Israel has attacked every neighboring nation while Iran has not invaded another country in over 300 years.

    So, seeing as Mr. Dershowitz failed to include these very pertinent points, I cannot see his viewpoint as being in any way construed as “honest.”

    • Jim Washington

      Israel has had nuclear weapons for a very long time and has proven a very responsible custodian of this ultimate capability of survival. There is a well founded rumor that during the 1973 Yom Kippur unpleasantness that a certain Milwaukee school teacher Golda Meyerson phone up Dick Nixon and the conversation went something like this: Dick we’re just about out of 155mm rounds and TOW missles and your folks have been really slow about keeping your commitments. Now, Dick, I do have some ordinance left which makes a very big bang and bright light, which I have loaded on some of my Mirages on ramp alert.” The C-7s were in the air before they got off the phone. Talk to any officer who was in USAEUR at the time and they will tell you how urgent the order to load out every thing they could was.

    • David Verson

      Mr. Fornal:

      Please explain how Israel’s nuke program is illicit. You can’t, because there is no law forbidding them from having such a program. Explain also, please ,how their program has been done illegally. Again, you can’t because there is no law you can cite defining their actions as illegal. Your claim of Israel having “attacked” every neighboring nation is, at best, disingenuous as it has done so in response to actual threats to it’s own security.

      With respect to Iran not having attacked another country, you conveniently ignore the war with Iraq. And as far as conveniently ignoring Iran supplying arms to Hezbollah and Hamas, well, it’s a free country so frame your arguments however you want to twist things.

      • Steven Lance Fornal

        David – you must’ve skipped over the points made re Israel not being a signatory to the NPT and not being a member of the IAEA. Without those imprimaturs, Israel’s nuclear weapons program is illegally constituted. States cannot simply decide unilaterally (as Israel does so many times) to do what it wants especially as regards nuclear weapons programs.

        As for your claim that Israel has ALWAYS been defending itself per military conflicts is proven wrong by the facts and by the statements of numerous Israeli leaders (e.g., Menechem Begin when he said, “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” or how about this from General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:
        “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.” (Ha’aretz, March 29, 1972) or how about General Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” (Le Monde, February 28, 1968))

        Your point about Iran funding Hezbollah and Hamas is like saying the US shouldn’t fund Israel as its proxy state in the Middle East; again, what’s good for the goose SHOULD BE good for the gander.

    • Mark Davis

      The points you raise are about as pertinent as your gratuitous use of the word “Chutzpah”, You’re either a self loathing Jew which is a clear indicator of someone in need of psychiatric help or you are an anti Semite masquerading as a Jew. The last time I looked Steven, Israel didn’t have a charter to destroy Iran unlike Iran which does have one to destroy Israel. Not to mention the numerous speeches given by members of the Iranian government and its religious leaders to wipe out the Jewish State and who deny the holocaust. So don’t even attempt to draw comparisons between the two countries.

      • Mark

        Give us a link to the Iranian charter calling for the destruction of Israel. As for the same ol’ same ol’ repetition of the purposely misquoted Ahmadinejad statement, even Israeli intelligence folk have admitted it was a propaganda ploy. Ahmadinejad never said any such thing.

        And, the same ol’ same ol’ charges of Self-hating Jew or anti-Semite are now so lame as to be laughable. I’m distinctly anti-Zionist. I guess now I have to remind you that Judaism is four thousand years old while Zionism is only 135 years old. Not the same.

        Also, questioning facets of holocaust claims isn’t denying the atrocity happened. When any event in history attempts to criminalize study and questioning of any event, you can be sure that’s something isn’t quite right.

    • Raymond Blum

      What is dishonest is to pretend to have a legitimate viewpoint when all it is is antisemitism thinly disguised as anti-Zionism. Obviously different standards are held for Israel than Iran, because Israel is a democracy that does not attack other nations, while Iran is the leading exporter of terrorism around the world and thus cannot be trusted.

    • Scott

      When exactly did Israel threaten to blow anyone off the map?
      You clearly are someone who has no idea what the Middle East is about.
      The Mullah’s DO NOT operate on the Western notion od MAD or normal tit for tat negotiations. Read up a little on the Middle East and you’ll also realize the Palestinians are just ISIS by another name. They have NEVER wanted. state,mother have always wanted a base of operations to continue the Jihad.
      In brief…..
      Your argument is completely specious and comes from a Fundemental misunderstanding of the Islam world.

  • howiej

    Obama’s argument concerning those opposed to his rotten deal, who have read the agreement, can be summed up in the oft quoted refrain, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” If this was such a good agreement, Obama would not have to be beating his fellow Democrats in order to get their support. It may very well come down to loyalty to the president or loyalty to the future of our nation.

    • annie

      howie, more like loyalty to obama and the nation vs loyalty to netanyahu and israel. and the people beating democrats congresspeople to get their support is the israel lobby. it’s your vote or your job. all of them need support from aipac to fill their coffers. obama would not be in this position if a 40 million dollar budget wasn’t allotted to thwarting US diplomacy and bringing down this deal. we all know where that money is coming from because it was reported in the nyt.

    • No, Obama has to continue “beating his fellow Democrats in order to get their support” because they, like the Republicans get sweet funding from Jewish lobbying groups like AIPAC and to vote against Jewish interests is to risk losing their seats.

      Please, at least try to think through the obvious before making these types of tired cliched arguments.

  • Howard Jaeckel

    Professor Dershowitz, you made a terrible mistake in voting for Barack Obama twice, especially since you are a strong supporter of Israel. Nothing in his present demagoguery and demonization of his opponents should surprise you; there were plenty of indications early on.

    Having said that, thanks for your outstanding advocacy for Israel. I have given your book, “The Case for Israel” to several friends to help them combat the campaign of defamation against that admirable country.

    • Raymond Blum

      It is bizarre to me that somebody as brilliant, educated, and proudly Jewish as Alan Dershowitz, would still hold onto voting Democrat, even when the candidate is so blatantly hostile to Israel as Baraq Obama is. But among us traditional Jews, we do tend to vote for the more pro-Israel candidate, which in almost all cases is the Republican candidate.

  • Israel Rozemberg

    Whoa! Dershowitz voted twice for Obama? Right there is an example of why this monstrosity of president is getting away with so much. Ideological enablers, who know better than providing fuel to the ego of that narcissist, kept him in office!

  • David Hersch

    Trust Obama’s record rather than trust Obama. This is the man that coddled Gaddafi and then aided his killers. He cosseted Assad and then applauded the insurgency against him. He courted Mubarak and then cast him out. He has an unseemly eagerness to have a nuclear deal with Iran, an awful regime that actively works to undermine the entire Middle East and provoking America, not to mention the almost endless list or terror and support for terror it has perpetrated across the world, including heinous acts against Americans.

    This is the President that supported Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and then only recently came to terms with the reality of Egypt’s current leadership out of necessity and fear of Russia returning to its pre-USSR role in that country and area.

    Gaddafi was a certifiable nutcase, but, as was the case with the invasion of Iraq, nothing was thought through whilst America under Obama “lead from the back”.

    Obama’s reaction is not just willful, an abuse of his position and power, it is infantile and aggressive in its sales pitch and a reliance on the short attention span of the American electorate and how it is so easily influenced by the media. Obama is a childish schoolyard bully. Hopefully the US Congress has the bipartisan courage to stand up to him and stop him.

    As for Israel standing alone, it will survive Obama, difficult as the next fourteen months will be and she has the means, ability and will to defend herself.

  • LM Howard

    I have just finished reviewing the videotape statements of Jack Lew, Adam Schiff, Mel Levine—all liberal Jewish supporters of the Obama proposed agreement with Iran.

    All articulated the administration’s glib talking points. Let me focus on ONE that they all emphasized:” the robust, intrusive inspections”.

    WHAT WILL NOT BE INSPECTED ARE ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENTS RELATED TO ICBMS. Iran is free to work on guidance, fusing, war head design ,packaging, propulsion, metallurgy, manufacturing and testing, and on anything else I’ve will bring Boston, New York, Washington and the entire United States East Coast within range of their weapons.

    When it comes to the nuclear program ,the inspectors will have absolutely no access to any of Iran’s scientists. Inspectors will have no access to the computers and other equipment used by the scientists. Since much of nuclear development is computer-based models numerous advances can be made without any possibility of detection. Testing these advances can be done on a very small scale in isolated facilities.

    For example: former senior IAEA official , Olli Heinonen, stated that theJCPoA has No Verification Method to Detect Iran Computer Systems Designed to Simulate Nuclear Blast … 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 , the 27-year IAEA veteran Heinonen said there were several items related to nuclear development as determined by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, 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

    • LM…have you posted this type of argument against Israel’s illicit nuclear program developed outside the auspices of the IAEA (Israel is not a member though Iran is)? Israel did not sign onto the NPT (Iran did), doesn’t that concern you? Israel stole plutonium for the start up of their illegal nuclear program from NUMAC/Pennsylvania, doesn’t that bother you? Israel already has ICBM missile capability with nuclear warhead capacity and has attacked every neighboring nation while Iran has invaded no nation in over 300 years, doesn’t that rate an objection?

      But, lastly, doesn’t it bother you that such hypocrisy was on display throughout the negotiations by virtue of what was being asked of Iran but not Israel?

  • Michael Levy

    I doubt whether Obama will respond to these questions but if and when he does, he will skirt around it in he same way in which he made his speech.

  • Florence

    Don’t you know by now that Obama doesn’t like to lose. He will lie through his teeth to make himself look good. He doesn’t care what he says or does on his way to succeeding. From day one when he entered the political scene in Illinois he lied: about his past, his present and now his future. We should be more careful and be thorough in our vetting a newcomer and not be taken in with the litany of his words.

  • Lawrence

    Sorry correction, Dersh does admit he voted for Obama. So still means you have no credibility. You ignored the fact that Obama attended an anti-Semitic church in Chicago for two decades and what that told us. You went along with his bare-faced lying, that is Obama saying he didn’t care for Wright’s bigotry (when Obama wanted to get elected), so Dersh you still have no credibility. Naive in the extreme, and you were not a kid, so no excuses. You should quit from your so-called pro-Israel prattle. Put a sock in it.

  • Lawrence

    Dershowitz gave his support to Obama’s election, twice over. As such the Dersh has no credibility, so why is he featured here? He should be mocked and ridiculed, as much as Obama. Naturally Dersh does not mention that he gave his support to Obama, two times. That would be an admission that Dersh got duped, twice over. Who cares what you think Dershowitz, you have zero credibility, like almost all liberal American Jews.

  • Peter

    He still brings nothing new to the table even after the deal has been negotiated. He should have contributed constructively before the USA signed this agreement. It would be in bad faith if the USA said no after the agreement was signed.

  • Jeffrey Kane

    This is a rather myopic critique of the proposed Iran deal that fails to address its inadequacies from the broader perspective of how U.S. negotiating power should be used to neutralize Iran’s capability to threaten other countries in the region and world and to support terrorism. Here is my list of objections to this proposed deal:
    1. The proposed deal allows Iran to import unlimited amounts of enriched uranium from other countries.

    2. Key portions of the implementation mechanisms of the proposed deal are classified and not even subject to the scrutiny of members of Congress. This can only mean that weaknesses are being concealed that would sink the proposed deal if they were exposed.

    3. Iran is allowed to keep all of its 19,000 advanced centrifuges in storage, ready for reactivation at any time.

    4. Iran has already stated that IAEA inspectors will not be allowed to inspect any military sites (where else would illicit activities be conducted?), which includes any new sites it wants to declare as “military”. This is in direct contradiction to Obama’s claims about the proposed deal and appears to constitute a violation of the proposed deal even before it goes into effect.

    5. Illicit sites can quite easily be designed to avoid leaving any traces of radioactive material that can’t be removed within 24 days.

    6. Development of all the non-radioactive components of a nuclear bomb (i.e., triggers, explosive lenses, tampers, initiators, and reflectors, or alternatively, gun-type mechanisms) does not leave detectable traces and are not prohibited anyway under this proposed deal.

    7. Iran is allowed to continue R&D on further refinements of centrifuges that will ultimately lead to the ability to raise enrichment levels from under 20% to over 90% (i.e., weapons grade) in a far shorter time (i.e., days or weeks, not months) than at present.

    8. The idea of “snap back” sanctions is absurd when the Obama administration simultaneously claims that the failure to reach an agreement with Iran would have resulted in the rapid dissipation of the sanctions by other countries anyway. Once these countries have signed billion dollar trade deals with Iran, their inclination to undo these arrangements on short notice will vanish altogether. However, the argument that other countries would resume trade with Iran if this deal is not approved or violated betrays the true weakness of Obama. A U.S. President with any backbone would respond to these other countries very bluntly: Would you rather trade with the U.S. or Iran? Make a choice, because you can’t have both.

    9. The proposed deal contains provisions that commit the US to protecting Iran’s nuclear facilities from attack by other nations (i.e., Israel), a direct betrayal of Israel.

    10. How would we have “ample ability to respond” to Iranian violations in the future in view of Obama’s admission that he considers a military attack now to be too risky?

    11. A nuclear armed Iran is only slightly more dangerous to Israel than it is now due to its possession of a growing arsenal of IRBMs. Loading these missiles with Anthrax, Sarin, VX, or radioactive waste could kill almost as many Israelis as a nuclear weapon without causing hardly any physical damage (e.g., to Muslim holy sites). To not include the elimination of these offensive capabilities as part of this proposed deal is nothing short of criminal.

    12. It is only at Iran’s insistence that its other belligerent activities were excluded from these negotiations. This leaves the U.S. and its negotiating allies with no leverage to institute sanctions against these other activities because Iran would then claim that doing so violates the nuclear agreement. Thus, this gives Iran a free hand to elevate the threat that Hezbollah poses to Israel and to potentially give Hezbollah the green light to carry out this threat.

    13. The intention of Iran to deliver death and destruction to Israel has just been further demonstrated by its recent signing of purchase agreements with Russia (virtually unreported in the U.S.) for Russia’s most advanced anti-aircraft missile and a fleet of 100 refueling tankers to enable a massive air invasion of Israel. Failing to demand that these purchases be undone as part of this proposed deal with Iran actually places Israel at greater risk of destruction than ever.

    14. Obama’s claim that the only alternative to this proposed deal is war is a transparent lie. Making the threat of military action palpable to Iran if they make any move to reinitiate nuclear activities, doubling down on the sanctions, and maybe even blockading the shipping routes to its ports and prohibiting landing rights at any foreign airports, would very likely instigate major civil unrest in Iran. This would have the mullahs crawling back to the table in short order.

    • Jim Washington

      Superb analysis!!

    • Jeffery, searching the actual documented agreement you refer to re enriched uranium below are the citations; not a single mention of allowance for as you state “allow(ing) Iran to import unlimited amounts of enriched uranium from other countries.”:

      3. Iran will continue to conduct enrichment R&D in a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium.

      7. During the 15 year period, and as Iran gradually moves to meet international qualification standards for nuclear fuel produced in Iran, it will keep its uranium
      stockpile under 300 kg of up to 3.67% enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) or the equivalent in other chemical forms. The excess quantities are to be sold based on international prices and delivered to the international buyer in return for natural uranium delivered to Iran, or are to be down-blended to natural uranium level. Enriched uranium in fabricated fuel assemblies from Russia or other sources for use in Iran’s nuclear reactors will not be counted against the above stated 300 kg UF6 stockpile, if the criteria set out in Annex I are met with regard to other sources.

      12. For 15 years Iran will not, and does not intend to thereafter, engage in any spent fuel reprocessing or construction of a facility capable of spent fuel
      reprocessing, or reprocessing R&D activities leading to a spent fuel reprocessing capability, with the sole exception of separation activities aimed exclusively at the production of medical and industrial radio-isotopes from irradiated enriched uranium targets.

      9.

      The redesigned reactor will use up to 3.67 percent enriched uranium in the form of UO2 with a mass of approximately 350 kg of UO2 in a full core load, with a fuel design to be reviewed and approved by the Joint Commission. The international partnership with the
      participation of Iran will fabricate the initial fuel core load for the reactor outside Iran. The international partnership will cooperate with Iran, including through technical assistance, to fabricate, test and license fuel fabrication capabilities in Iran for subsequent fuel core reloads for future use with this reactor.

      19. For 15 years Iran will not, and does not intend to thereafter, reprocess spent fuel except for irradiated enriched uranium targets for production of radio-isotopes for medical and peaceful industrial purposes.

      25. Iran will not produce, seek, or acquire separated plutonium, highly enriched uranium (defined as 20% or greater uranium-235), or uranium-233, or neptunium-237 (except for use as laboratory standards or in instruments using neptunium-237) for 15 years.

      32. Iran will continue to conduct enrichment R&D in a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium.

      56. Iran will maintain a total enriched uranium stockpile of no more than 300 kg of up to 3.67% enriched uranium hexafluoride (or the equivalent in different chemical forms) for 15 years.

      57. All enriched uranium hexafluoride in excess of 300 kg of up to 3.67% enriched UF6 (or
      the equivalent in different chemical forms) will be down blended to natural uranium level
      or be sold on the international market and delivered to the international buyer in return
      for natural uranium delivered to Iran. Iran will enter into a commercial contract with an
      entity outside Iran for the purchase and transfer of its enriched uranium stockpile in excess of 300 kg UF6 in return for natural uranium delivered to Iran. The E3/EU+3 will facilitate, where applicable, the conclusion and implementation of this contract. Iran
      may choose to seek to sell excess enriched uranium to the IAEA fuel bank in Kazakhstan when the fuel bank becomes operational.

      In case of future supply of 19.75% enriched uranium oxide (U3O8) for
      TRR fuel plates fabrication, all scrap oxide and other forms not in plates that cannot be
      fabricated into TRR fuel plates, containing uranium enriched to between 5% and 20%,
      will be transferred, based on a commercial transaction, outside of Iran or diluted to an
      enrichment level of 3.67% or less within 6 months of its production. Scrap plates will be transferred, based on a commercial transaction, outside Iran. The commercial transactions should be structured to return an equivalent amount of natural uranium to Iran. For 15 years, Iran will not build or operate facilities for converting fuel plates or scrap back to UF6.

      59. Russian designed, fabricated and licensed fuel assemblies for use in Russian-supplied reactors in Iran do not count against the 300 kg UF6 stockpile limit. Enriched uranium in fabricated fuel assemblies from other sources outside of Iran for use in Iran’s nuclear
      research and power reactors, including those which will be fabricated outside of Iran for the initial fuel load of the modernised Arak research reactor, which are certified by the fuel supplier and the appropriate Iranian authority to meet international standards, will
      not count against the 300 kg UF6 stockpile limit. The Joint Commission will establish a Technical Working Group with the goal of enabling fuel to be fabricated in Iran while adhering to the agreed stockpile parameters (300 kg of up to 3.67 % enriched UF6 or
      the equivalent in different chemical forms). This Technical Working Group will also, within one year, work to develop objective technical criteria for assessing whether fabricated fuel and its intermediate products can be readily converted to UF6. Enriched
      uranium in fabricated fuel assemblies and its intermediate products manufactured in Iran and certified to meet international standards, including those for the modernised Arak research reactor, will not count against the 300 kg UF6 stockpile limit provided the Technical Working Group of the Joint Commission approves that such fuel assemblies and their intermediate products cannot be readily reconverted into UF6.

    • Further, Jeffrey…your claim that Iran’s centrifuges would be stored doesn’t add the important restriction as included in the agreement; to wit the centrifuges “will be stored under IAEA continuous monitoring, as specified in Annex I”

      And so go your other analytic points.

  • Dani

    It’s too late for president Obama to back down and a shame for the US. I don’t see a honorable solution for this unhappy situation.

  • Mickey Oberman

    I doubt that Dershowitz will ever receive honest answers from Obama to his questions.

  • Tess

    When will you get it, mr. Dershowitz, this administration that you elected and supported is antiIsrael. You keep makeing excuses but elections have consequences. Stop your liberal spinning. The lobbyists and money he speaks of is code for Jewish money the same money that came his way in both elections and gave him this perfect opportunity to reset the Middle East. By the way, what were your feelings on the Libyian invasion. How’s that working out for you?

  • Mireille Mechoullam

    To Mr Dershowitz: HOLD YOUR BREATH. YOU WILL NEVER GET A DIRECT ANSWER FROM THE PRESIDENT. When he was running for President, he said his administration will be OPEN, There is nothing OPEN about his administration.

  • Greg McFarland

    I cannot believe the POTUS has any sense of reality. Honestly, this is a nightmare. And the questions Mr Dershowitz posted, are direct, basic, and have concern for future events to possibly play out. The fact the president entertains negotiations and an agreement with Iran is lunacy. And as always, history of potential disaster and Iran’s instability for decades, should be an automatic “red flag”. Also, the basic facts are well known. Iran has nothing but rabid hatred towards the US and Israel. There position toward the “infidels” of the US, the Jewish people, and Israel is slaughter and destruction. And it’s becoming more known as this process has moved forward. That it’s neighbors, not including Israel, are not feeling very well about the deal either. I feel Iran’s government, and it’s people are in a state of anarchy. Seems they always were (and are) turbulent, violent, unpredictable, and untrustworthy. B.O. seems, as always, the goal is what “he” wants. Not what Americans wants, the safety and well being of Israel should have, and the rest of the free world needs. His rebuttal is to lash out and verbally attack anybody who doesn’t agree with him. The man as a leader is a travesty.

  • brian ellman

    I am extremely incensed by Obamas remark comparing the GOP (50% of the American electorate) to Iran hardliners who chant “Death to America”
    This man who sat at the feet of Reverend Wright for 20 years and was friend of an avowed terrorist is an anti-Israeli,antiSemite and should be unmasked and brought to task for what is the most un-American,traitorous comment I have ever heard—-it is time for him to go back to Kenya where he belongs

  • Rabbi M. Friedman

    Anything that emanates from Dershowitz is TREIF. On a radio program he described the Torah as BOBOH MASAHAS grand ma stories! He repeated this numerous times on this Jewish radio program. He advocated for one parent being Jewish regardless if its the man and not woman, thus according to Dershowitz children are Jewish if the mother is a gentile!. This is intermarriage according to Judaism and children are not Jewish according to the Torah/Halacha.
    He also advocates for giving up Jewish religious,historical and national sites to the Muslim Arabs.
    He is a blasphemer, traitor to Judaism, Israel and Jews! A Jewish(sic)anti Semite!!!
    rabbimfriedman@yahoo.com

  • ART

    The President wants us to implicitly trust him, to take his word that the treaty is “good”. He got away with the Obama care “pass it then you can read it” approach, The whole process has been shrouded in secrecy, some is understandable but the Congress and the American public have the right to know what the treaty, in its entirety, says. There is also the problem with circumventing the authority of Congress in respect to foreign treaties. This should never have been an executive power treaty. This belongs before Congress as the treaty it is. The Presidents behavior has been reprehensible and untrustworthy

  • wm.j. levy

    Dershowitz is the man who said he would defend Hitler because in his words “everyone deserves a defense”. And because of that is the essence how the Jews came to the Holocaust.

    We don’t get angry at our haters and our killers. Elie Wiesel forgave the Nazis who murdered his family. Who else does that not counting the families of the 9 blacks in Charleston, but there is no possible comparison.

    Jon Stewart said it. “Insult the Jews”. “Apologize”. They forgive you.”

    Stop forgiving them and maked the

  • David Goshen

    President Obama’s greatest mistake was to support the Sheites in their struggle with the Sunis to get full control of the Arab World.A very unwise step for the US which should never take sides in a strugle between the 2 blocks which has been going on for hundreds of years.Taking sides has turned the Middle East into a battle ground which will continue for many years.

  • Harry I Brown

    Is Alan Dershowitz in denial? Does he really expect answers from Obama? I wonder how long it took him to stop believing in Santa Clause?

  • jack shuman

    obama is responding in kind to netanyahou undermining approach of the last 6 years. im so glad that he expressed himself.dershowitz
    has become a shill for netanyahou. and he also knows the truth about the occupation and settlements but hes become prostituted by israel right or wrong approach

  • Dershowitz by his own admission is an Obama sycophant. He voted for a man twice who reveres the sociopath Muhammad who personally decapitated 600-900 unarmed Jews. Anyone who votes for a man who reveres a mass murderer of Jews has no credibility when it comes to Israel.

  • Arthur palgon

    The questions are great , it’s the answers that worry me

  • noanoa

    Obama = Narcissist and thoroughly naive = Dangerous IDIOT !!!

  • Amnon

    You are wasting your time waiting for an answer ,he has no answers except blaming others .As a left wing democrat and a intelligent man Alan Derschowitz should know better than believing a Shia Muslim and Kerry the man that newer openly said that his son in law is a Iranian Muslim whit connections to the regime in Teheran.

  • Julian Clovelley

    There will be no Middle East War with American troops on the ground against Iran

    There is NO way the American people will stomach losing tens of thousands of their children in a Vietnam War style debacle – and NO way they will set their families up for the tens of thousands of suicides that follow modern military conflict

    The Republican Party’s only interest is in capturing the Jewish Vote – In power they would follow Obama’s policies because ultimately the policies are a product of American Intelligence

  • Paul Grad

    The most imperial Presidency since Nixon, using executive orders and calling treaties “deals”, to ram through his agenda. And now his name-calling shows his irrationality when frustrated in his personal goals.

  • Historians in the future will have a hard time determining how
    such a great country as the United States ended up with a leadership so detached from reality. As for the electorate, especially the Jews, it is just incredible how they could not see further than their local liberal concerns while they ended up electing a president who with his absurd appeasement policies is endangering the lives of millions.

Algemeiner.com