Sunday, May 28th | 3 Sivan 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
September 20, 2015 12:28 pm

The Truth About Mr. Obama’s Iran Deal

avatar by Yedidya Atlas and Rubin Margules

Email a copy of "The Truth About Mr. Obama’s Iran Deal" to a friend
President Barack Obama. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

President Barack Obama. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

There is strident public disagreement between those who support President Obama’s “Iran deal” as a “good agreement” or at least the “best deal one can achieve given the alternative” (i.e.“no deal”), and those who perceive it as a “bad deal,” to the extent that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” Particularly in view of the Senate vote earlier this month, to better understand which side is more accurate in its analysis of the situation, let us remove emotions and party affiliations/loyalties from the discussion and examine the bare facts:

What does Iran get from the agreement?

The agreement allows Iran to ultimately possess a nuclear weapons arsenal and become a regional hegemonic power without changing its rogue policies of “exporting the revolution” (read: massive state support of international terrorism, destabilizing regimes, etc.) or development of advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles that are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead not only to all of Europe but even to American shores – all this besides holding U.S. and other Western hostages with impunity.

Related coverage

May 26, 2017 12:03 pm
0

From Greeley, Colorado to Manchester, England

JNS.org - For those -- like me -- who’d never really given any thought to singer Ariana Grande before the terrorist atrocity at her concert...

The agreement, as noted by a recent report by the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs, legally and safely provides Iran with “the capability to shorten the time required to produce such an arsenal within the next 10-15 years (including the production of fissile material, weaponization, acquiring delivery systems, and improved military capabilities to protect the military nuclear program), so that it would be practically impossible to stop it.”

And this assumes Iran will abide by the agreement and wait. Given Iran’s past record of concealing its nuclear activities, its blatant declarations of hostility towards the U.S. and Israel even before a Congressional vote, and its regime’s openly fanatical Islamic (Shi’ite) aspirations, the situation is far worse.

Even President Obama, speaking before the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and leaders of the Jewish Federations who congregated recently at the White House, openly declared “…I keep on emphasizing we don’t trust Iran. Iran is antagonistic to the United States.  It is anti-Semitic.  It has denied the Holocaust.  It has called for the destruction of Israel. It is an unsavory regime.”

Therefore Mr. Obama declared: “We create[d] a verification and inspection mechanism across the entire nuclear production chain within Iran that is unprecedented — more rigorous than anything that has ever been negotiated in the history of nuclear nonproliferation.”

Except in reality neither Americans nor Canadian inspectors are allowed into Iran; any area of Iran that the Iranian regime designates “military” cannot be inspected (e.g. the Iranian veto on any foreign inspections at the Parchin military base, where Iran has been developing nuclear weapons); Iran can object to any inspection and delay it at least 24 days, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, up to three months. And last but not least, there are two secret side deals to the agreement between Iran and the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that the Obama administration and its own negotiators are not privy to, which Secretary of State Kerry admitted as much to Congress during the recent hearings.

So Mr. Obama cannot even explain what he means when he declares: “A verification and inspection mechanism… that is unprecedented — more rigorous than anything that has ever been negotiated in the history of nuclear nonproliferation,” because even he has no idea what the verification deal is. So the so-called “anytime, anywhere” inspections he repeatedly promised during negotiations do not exist.

Another one of Mr. Obama’s whoppers is his claim that “One of those commitments was that Iran would not get a nuclear weapon… This deal blocks every way — every pathway that Iran might take in order to obtain a nuclear weapon.” This isn’t true even if Iran can be trusted to keep its word, since immediately following the life of the agreement (10-15 years at best), Iran can complete its nuclear bomb in a matter of months — including warheads for the Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles that President Obama and Secretary Kerry agreed that Iran can finish developing outside of the agreement.

As part of the full-press aggressive selling of “the Deal” to a justifiably skeptical Congress, one of the great falsehoods is the so-called “snap-back sanctions.” This is to justify the more than $100 billion of sanctions relief that took a decade to put together – the very economic sanctions that forced the Iranians to the negotiating table. But the Iranians, who entered negotiations initiated by the Obama administration already during the time of Iranian President Ahmadinejad behind the backs of America’s allies in the Middle East understood the Americans have no red lines that cannot be crossed. Hence, the agreement excludes everything but nuclear weapons development, and that is wholly dependent on an untrustworthy Iran suddenly, and, for the first time, keeping its word. And if it doesn’t, Mr. Obama lamely claims he can get his European partners to the agreement — including Russia — to agree to reinstate the sanctions even though they are all lining up to do business in the Iranian market.

As law professor and author Alan Dershowitz, a man who identifies himself as a liberal Democrat who voted for Mr. Obama twice, pointed out in a recent column: “We (America) took off the table the option of rejecting the deal by publicly acknowledging that if we do so, we will be worse off than if we accept even a questionable deal. Yes, the president said he would not accept a ‘bad’ deal, but by repeatedly watering down the definition of a bad deal, and by repeatedly stating that the alternative to a deal would be disastrous, he led the Iranians to conclude we needed the deal more than they did.”

“But the real losers were those countries — our allies — who were not even allowed to participate in the negotiations,” Prof. Dershowitz notes. “Virtually every Middle Eastern leader, with the exception of Syria’s Assad, opposes this deal. Nor do they feel bound by it, since they did not have a vote. The deal was imposed on them, in much the same way the Chamberlain-Hitler deal was imposed on Czechoslovakia in 1938. The difference is that Czechoslovakia did not have the means to defend itself, whereas Israel and some of its Sunni neighbors do have the capacity to try to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal — which the mullahs would use to increase their hegemony over the area and to threaten Israel’s security through its surrogates, Hezbollah and Hamas.”

Hence, as radio host and commentator Dennis Prager recently concluded: “The more one knows about the Iran Deal, the more obvious it becomes that it is not a deal so much as it is a fraud. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of a fraud is “something that is meant to look like the real thing in order to trick people.” Sadly, the price for this fraudulent deal – which didn’t have to end this way – will be paid by America’s closest allies and the even the American people themselves.

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

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Alexi

    If you like the Nuclear program you have… (y’all know the rest)

  • Henrik

    It is astonishing how supporters of this fraudulent deal can look themselves in the mirror, and even more so, when an American president is regularly lying to the American people, and the media keeps shtum.

  • My first time here. Also concerned about Iran, nuclear weapons,US, Israel/US “Connectedness” and where all of my concerns might be headed. So I read the above piece. Forgetting about Right and Wrong, this piece is an example of an Inference flattering a desire, with no concern as for how this inference got started–with apologies to some body I’m plagiarising that I forget.
    What do I mean or need? Easy.
    From the Jewish People especially, I expect no less excellence in argument that I found in this piece.
    HJ.

  • John Train

    GREAT ARTICLE! There is much internal discussion within Iran.

    a. All factions agree that Iran’s interpretation is completely up to what the supreme leader says is the definition of each term and each clause.

    b. Whether or not the Islamic Consultative Assembly will ever actually vote on the agreement …and if they vote, when they vote, their approval or disapproval will be based solely on their back channel instructions with the sole consideration being which vote will be most beneficial in strengthening Iran’s position. There are elements that claim that an affirmative vote might make the terms legally binding rather than just optional and suggestive. The Revolutionary guard and other hardliners will remain opposed giving the Iranians an opportunity to seek additional benefits beyond those already negotiated.

    c. Will Iran cheat? What is permitted to Iran is so broad that it is nearly impossible for them to “cheat” no matter what they do. Iran will exploit every loophole and ambiguity. They will be constantly testing. Since complaints of cheating must be considered by a commission working by consensus and the commission includes Russia, China, the European Union and Iran all that is needed is that one or 2 of the actors find the Iranian interpretation to be reasonably plausible. Since any attempt to reimpose any sanction gives the Iranians the ability to walk away from the entire agreement, the P5 +1 have every incentive to either ignore or downgrade any accusations of cheating. Under this scenario there is no way that anything Iran does will be considered cheating.Further, If Iran is caught cheating and sanctions are in any way “snapped back” this agreement gives Iran the right to WITHDRAW their compliance from all their obligations that they have undertaken. Thus, the incentive is for Iran to strictly observe the provisions of this agreement until the Iranian economy is moving, then to cheat around the edges, and then to walk away from the entire agreement if and when they want to (completely based on their desires and their timetable).

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

    2.Example: The nuclear deal stipulates that Iran will not build any new uranium enrichment facilities for a period of 15 years.
    Just half-a-month after the Iran nuclear deal was signed on July 14, 2015 , the Islamic regime announced construction of two new nuclear facilities in southeastern Iran.{Mohammad Ahmadian, Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), as quoted by FARS, the semi-official News Agency,} While the newly announced nuclear power plants will not necessarily be used to enrich uranium – they will require enriched uranium in order to operate. Ascertaining the usage of the new plants will be difficult because the deal gives Iran 24+ days before any inspection.

    3.Example: Russia has announced that they will sell Iran short-range attack missiles which place US naval forces in danger and give Iran a lock control over the essential waterways {Straits of Hormuz; Bab el- Mandeb} which control approximately 50% of all of the petroleum that is shipped in the world.

    5 Putin regards himself and Russia as big winners and the United States as a big loser on the “Iran deal”. Putin’s thrust is to use Syria as a base for further penetration in the Middle East.This was on Putin’s agenda. Russia has great interest in avoiding unintended interactions with US forces. The US has great interest in avoiding unintended interactions with Russian forces. Concerning Israel, Putin’s introduction of Russian manned air defense weapons and Russian combat forces integrated with Assad’s forces will make Israeli countermeasures against attacks emanating from Syria much more difficult and in some cases impossible.

  • Annie

    Obviously, this deal will have to be cancelled by USA, as nothing can be left unchanged, if there is a will.

Algemeiner.com