Iran Nuke Deal

flenser

New Member
AnabolicLab.com Supporter
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/01/why-iran-distrusts-the-us-in-nuke-talks/

April 1, 2015
By Ray McGovern

The Iranians may be a bit paranoid but, as the saying goes, this does not mean some folks are not out to get them. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his knee-jerk followers in Washington clearly are out to get them – and they know it.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the surreal set of negotiations in Switzerland premised not on evidence, but rather on an assumption of Iran’s putative “ambition” to become a nuclear weapons state – like Israel, which maintains a secret and sophisticated nuclear weapons arsenal estimated at about 200 weapons. The supposed threat is that Iran might build one.

Israel and the U.S. know from their intelligence services that Iran has no active nuclear weapons program, but they are not about to let truth get in the way of their concerted effort to marginalize Iran. And so they fantasize before the world about an Iranian nuclear weapons program that must be stopped at all costs – including war.

Among the most surprising aspects of this is the fact that most U.S. allies are so willing to go along with the charade and Washington’s catch-all solution – sanctions – as some U.S. and Israeli hardliners open call for a sustained bombing campaign of Iranian nuclear sites that could inflict a massive loss of human life and result in an environmental catastrophe.

On March 26, arch-neocon John Bolton, George W. Bush’s Ambassador to the United Nations, graced the pages of the New York Times with his https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/28/nyt-publishes-call-to-bomb-iran/ for an attack on Iran. Bolton went a bit too far, though, in citing the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of November 2007, agreed to unanimously by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Perhaps he reasoned that, since the “mainstream media” rarely mentions that NIE, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” he could get away with distorting its key findings, which were:

“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. … We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. …

“Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”

An equally important fact ignored by the mainstream media is that the key judgments of that NIE have been revalidated by the intelligence community every year since. But reality is hardly a problem for Bolton. As the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, Bolton made quite a name for himself by insisting that it was the proper function of a policy maker like him – not intelligence analysts – to interpret the evidence from intelligence.

An ‘Embarrassment’

So those of us familiar with Bolton’s checkered credibility were not shocked by his New York Times op-ed, entitled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Still less were we shocked to see him dismiss “the rosy 2007 National Intelligence Estimate” as an “embarrassment.”

Actually, an embarrassment it was, but not in the way Bolton suggests. Highly embarrassing, rather, was the fact that Bolton was among those inclined to push President Bush hard to bomb Iran. Then, quite suddenly, an honest NIE appeared, exposing the reality that Iran’s nuclear weapons program had been stopped in 2003, giving the lie not only to neocon propaganda, but also to Bush’s assertion that Tehran’s leaders had admitted they were developing nuclear weapons (when they had actually asserted the opposite).

Bush lets it all hang out in his memoir, Decision Points. Most revealingly, he complains bitterly that the NIE “tied my hands on the military side” and called its findings “eye-popping.”

A disgruntled Bush writes, “The backlash was immediate. [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad hailed the NIE as a ‘great victory.’” Bush’s apparent “logic” here is to use the widespread disdain for Ahmadinejad to discredit the NIE through association, i.e. whatever Ahmadinejad praises must be false.

But can you blame Bush for his chagrin? Alas, the NIE had knocked out the props from under the anti-Iran propaganda machine, imported duty-free from Israel and tuned up by neoconservatives here at home.

In his memoir, Bush laments: “I don’t know why the NIE was written the way it was. … Whatever the explanation, the NIE had a big impact — and not a good one.”

Spelling out how the Estimate had tied his hands “on the military side,” Bush included this (apparently unedited) kicker: “But after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?”

It seems worth repeating that the key judgments of the 2007 NIE have been reaffirmed every year since. As for the supposedly urgent need to impose sanctions to prevent Iran from doing what we are fairly certain it is not doing – well, perhaps we could take some lessons from the White Queen, who bragged that in her youth she could believe “six impossible things before breakfast” and counseled Alice to practice the same skill.

Sanctions, Anyway, to the Rescue

Despite the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community, the United States and other countries have imposed unprecedented sanctions ostensibly to censure Iran for “illicit” nuclear activities while demanding the Iran prove the negative in addressing allegations, including “intelligence” provided via Israel and its surrogates, that prompt international community concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.

And there’s the rub. Most informed observers share historian/journalist Gareth Porter’s https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/31/phasing-out-sanctions-bedevil-iran-talks/ that the main sticking point at this week’s negotiations in Lausanne is the issue of how and when sanctions on Iran will be lifted. And, specifically, whether they will be lifted as soon as Iran has taken “irreversible” actions to implement core parts of the agreement.

In Lausanne, the six-nation group (permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) reportedly want the legal system behind the sanctions left in place, even after the sanctions have been suspended, until the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officially concludes that Iran’s nuclear activities are exclusively peaceful – a process that could take many years.

Iran’s experience with an IAEA highly influenced by the U.S. and Israel has been, well, not the best – particularly since December 2009 under the tenure of Director-General Yukiya Amano, a Japanese diplomat whom State Department cables reveal to be in Washington’s pocket.

Classified cables released by Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning and WikiLeaks show that Amano credited his success in becoming director-general largely to U.S. government support – and promptly stuck his hand out for U.S. money.

Further, Amano left little doubt that he would side with the United States in the confrontation with Iran and that he would even meet secretly with Israeli officials regarding their purported evidence on Iran’s hypothetical nuclear weapons program, while staying mum about Israel’s actual nuclear weapons arsenal.

According to U.S. embassy cables from Vienna, Austria, the site of IAEA’s headquarters, American diplomats in 2009 were cheering the prospect that Amano would advance U.S. interests in ways that outgoing IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei never did.

In a July 9, 2009, cable, American chargé Geoffrey Pyatt – yes, the same diplomat who helped Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland choose “Yats” (Arseniy Yatsenyuk) to be the post-coup prime minister of Ukraine – said Amano was thankful for U.S. support for his election,” noting that “U.S. intervention with Argentina was particularly decisive.”

A grateful Amano told Pyatt that as IAEA director-general, he would take a different “approach on Iran from that of ElBaradei” and that he “saw his primary role as implementing” U.S.-driven sanctions and demands against Iran.

Pyatt also reported that Amano had consulted with Israeli Ambassador Israel Michaeli “immediately after his appointment” and that Michaeli “was fully confident of the priority Amano accords verification issues.” Pyatt added that Amano privately agreed to “consultations” with the head of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission.

In other words, Amano has shown himself eager to bend in directions favored by the United States and Israel, especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program. His behavior contrasts with that of the more independent-minded ElBaradei, who resisted some of Bush’s key claims about Iraq’s supposed nuclear weapons program, and even openly denounced forged documents about “yellowcake uranium” as “not authentic.” [For more on Amano, see Consortiumnews.com’s “https://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/24/americas-debt-to-bradley-manning/.”]

It is a given that Iran misses ElBaradei; and it is equally clear that it knows precisely what to expect from Amano. If you were representing Iran at the negotiating table, would you want the IAEA to be the final word on whether or not the entire legal system authorizing sanctions should be left in place?

Torpedoing Better Deals in 2009 and 2010

Little has been written to help put some context around the current negotiation in Lausanne and show how very promising efforts in 2009 and 2010 were sabotaged – the first by Jundullah, a terrorist group in Iran, and the second by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. If you wish to understand why Iran lacks the trust one might wish for in negotiations with the West, a short review may be helpful.

During President Barack Obama’s first year in office, the first meeting of senior level American and Iranian negotiators, then-Under Secretary of State William Burns and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, on Oct. 1, 2009, seemed to yield surprisingly favorable results.

Many Washington insiders were shocked when Jalili gave Tehran’s agreement in principle to send abroad 2,640 pounds (then as much as 75 percent of Iran’s total) of low-enriched uranium to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that does medical research.

Jalili approved the agreement “in principle,” at a meeting in Geneva of representatives of members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. Even the New York Times acknowledged that this, “if it happens, would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly, and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit.”

The conventional wisdom in Western media is that Tehran backed away from the deal. That is true, but less than half the story – a tale that highlights how, in Israel’s (and the neocons’) set of priorities, regime change in Iran comes first. The uranium transfer had the initial support of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And a follow-up meeting was scheduled for Oct. 19, 2009, at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

The accord soon came under criticism, however, from Iran’s opposition groups, including the “Green Movement” led by defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has had ties to the American neocons and to Israel since the Iran-Contra days of the 1980s when he was the prime minister who collaborated on secret arms deals.

At first blush, it seemed odd that it was Mousavi’s U.S.-favored political opposition that led the assault on the nuclear agreement, calling it an affront to Iran’s sovereignty and suggesting that Ahmadinejad wasn’t being tough enough.

Then, on Oct. 18, a terrorist group called Jundullah, acting on amazingly accurate intelligence, detonated a car bomb at a meeting of top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commanders and tribal leaders in the province of Sistan-Baluchistan in southeastern Iran. A car full of Guards was also attacked.

A brigadier general who was deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces, the Revolutionary Guards brigadier commanding the border area of Sistan-Baluchistan, and three other brigade commanders were killed in the attack; dozens of other military officers and civilians were left dead or wounded.

Jundullah took credit for the bombings, which followed years of lethal attacks on Revolutionary Guards and Iranian policemen, including an attempted ambush of President Ahmadinejad’s motorcade in 2005.

Tehran claims Jundullah is supported by the U.S., Great Britain and Israel, and former CIA Middle East operations officer Robert Baer has fingered Jundullah as one of the “good terrorist” groups benefiting from American help.

I believe it no coincidence that the Oct. 18 attack – the bloodiest in Iran since the 1980-88 war with Iraq – came one day before nuclear talks were to resume at the IAEA in Vienna to follow up on the Oct. 1 breakthrough. The killings were sure to raise Iran’s suspicions about U.S. sincerity.

It’s a safe bet that after the Jundullah attack, the Revolutionary Guards went directly to their patron, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, arguing that the bombing and roadside attack proved that the West couldn’t be trusted. Khamenei issued a statement on Oct. 19 condemning the terrorists, whom he charged “are supported by certain arrogant powers’ spy agencies.”

The commander of the Guards’ ground forces, who lost his deputy in the attack, charged that the terrorists were “trained by America and Britain in some of the neighboring countries,” and the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guards threatened retaliation.

The attack was front-page news in Iran, but not in the United States, where the mainstream media quickly consigned the incident to the memory hole. The American media also began treating Iran’s resulting anger over what it considered an act of terrorism and its heightened sensitivity to outsiders crossing its borders as efforts to intimidate “pro-democracy” groups supported by the West.

Despite the Jundullah attack and the criticism from the opposition groups, a lower-level Iranian technical delegation did go to Vienna for the meeting on Oct. 19, but Jalili stayed away. The Iranians questioned the trustworthiness of the Western powers and raised objections to some details, such as where the transfer should occur. The Iranians broached alternative proposals that seemed worth exploring, such as making the transfer of the uranium on Iranian territory or some other neutral location.

But the Obama administration, under mounting domestic pressure to be tougher with Iran, dismissed Iran’s counter-proposals out of hand, reportedly at the instigation of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and neocon regional emissary Dennis Ross.

If at First You Don’t Succeed

Watching all this, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan saw parallels between Washington’s eagerness for an escalating confrontation with Iran and the way the United States had marched the world, step by step, into the invasion of Iraq.

In spring 2010, hoping to head off another such catastrophe, the two leaders dusted off the Oct. 1 uranium transfer initiative and got Tehran to agree to similar terms on May 17, 2010. Both called for sending 2,640 pounds of Iran’s low-enriched uranium abroad in exchange for nuclear rods that would have no applicability for a weapon. In May 2010, that meant roughly 50 percent of Iran’s low-enriched uranium would be sent to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched uranium for medical use.

Yet, rather than embrace this Iranian concession as at least one significant step in the right direction, U.S. officials sought to scuttle it by pressing instead for more sanctions. The U.S. media did its part by insisting that the deal was just another Iranian trick that would leave Iran with enough uranium to theoretically create one nuclear bomb.

An editorial in the Washington Post on May 18, 2010, entitled “http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051703455.html (Bad Bargain),” concluded wistfully/wishfully: “It’s possible that Tehran will retreat even from the terms it offered Brazil and Turkey — in which case those countries should be obliged to support U.N. sanctions.”

On May 19, a New York Times’ editorial rhetorically patted the leaders of Brazil and Turkey on the head as if they were rubes lost in the big-city world of hardheaded diplomacy. The Times wrote: “Brazil and Turkey … are eager to play larger international roles. And they are eager to avoid a conflict with Iran. We respect those desires. But like pretty much everyone else, they got played by Tehran.”

The disdain for this latest Iranian concession was shared by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was busy polishing her reputation for “toughness” by doing all she could to undermine the Brazil-Turkey initiative. She pressed instead for harsh sanctions.

“We have reached agreement on a strong draft [sanctions resolution] with the cooperation of both Russia and China,” Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 18, making clear that she viewed the timing of the sanctions as a riposte to the Iran-Brazil-Turkey agreement.

“This announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide,” she declared. Her spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, was left with the challenging task of explaining the obvious implication that Washington was using the new sanctions to scuttle the plan for transferring half of Iran’s enriched uranium out of the country.

Obama Overruled?

Secretary Clinton got her UN resolution and put the kibosh on the arrangement that Brazil and Turkey had worked out with Iran. The Obama administration celebrated its victory in getting the UN Security Council on June 9, 2010, to approve a fourth round of economic sanctions against Iran. Obama also signed on to even more draconian penalties sailing through Congress.

It turned out, though, that Obama had earlier encouraged both Brazil and Turkey to work out a deal to get Iran to transfer about half its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for more highly enriched uranium that could only be used for peaceful medical purposes. But wait. Isn’t that precisely what the Brazilians and Turks succeeded in doing?

Da Silva and Erdogan, understandably, were nonplussed, and da Silva actually released a copy of an earlier letter of encouragement from Obama.

No matter. The tripartite agreement was denounced by Secretary Clinton and ridiculed by the U.S. mainstream media. And that was kibosh enough. Even after Brazil released Obama’s supportive letter, the President would not publicly defend the position he had taken earlier.

So, once again. Assume you’re in the position of an Iranian negotiator. Trust, but verify, was Ronald Reagan’s approach. We are likely to find out soon whether there exists the level of trust necessary to start dealing successfully with the issue of most concern to Iran – lifting the sanctions.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
 
The Deal

It’s a good one – but can it survive the US Congress?

by Justin Raimondo, April 03, 2015

The http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-iran-nuclear-obama-statement-idUSKBN0MT26L20150402 of a “framework” for an agreement with Iran to limit its nuclear research and development had all the drama of a thriller – the extended negotiations, dragging out over several days and deadlines, the anticipation, the furor surrounding the process, and of course the naysayers carping from the sidelines, all focused the attention of the world like a laser.

President Obama did a masterful job in presenting https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf of the deal in his speech: unlike his critics, he sounded like a true statesman, one who is looking to history, and not the next election or the next day’s headlines.

He stated clearly what are the alternatives to the peaceful resolution of this brewing conflict: war, or walking away from the negotiations – imposing heavier sanctions, blinding ourselves to what is going on in Iran, and following a course that eventually leads us back down the road to war. And he made a very important point, one that is not often brought up these days: we have been here before.

During the cold war we faced the Soviet Union, a far more dangerous adversary. Instead of launching World War III, we negotiated with them – an enemy that had vowed to destroy us, and, unlike Iran, actually had the means to do so – and thus avoided a global conflagration. Citing John F. Kennedy – “We must never negotiate out of fear, but we must never fear to negotiate” – the President conjured cold war ghosts that are today largely forgotten: but those of us who lived through the Cuban missile crisis will never forget.

http://www.macon.com/2015/04/02/3674466_irans-agreement-to-slash-nuclear.html?rh=1 (This is a very good deal): Iran has agreed to cut its installed centrifuges by two-thirds. It has agreed not to enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for at least 15 years. It has agreed to significantly reduce its stockpile of low enriched uranium. No new enrichment facilities will be built for 15 years. The “robust” inspection of Iran’s nuclear fuel supply chain will endure for 25 years.

The Fordow facility will be reconfigured so that it will no longer be used to enrich uranium: two-thirds of its centrifuges and infrastructure will be eliminated. Advanced centrifuges will be removed from the Natanz facility.

The inspections regime imposed by the P5+1 is the most stringent in the history of such procedures. As the President put it, “If Iran cheats, the whole world will know.”

The current “breakout” time for Tehran to develop a workable nuclear bomb is about 3 months: under the proposed deal it will be at least a year. Their cheating, if it occurs, will be readily apparent. The sanctions will be lifted only if and when Iran complies with the agreement, in stages as compliance is verified.

What we have here is an airtight deal – http://bigstory.ap.org/article/233eba228913428d81e7a465a77daca6/text-agreement-iran-its-nuclear-program (here is the actual text) – one that seems technically unassailable, and is certain to keep the Iranian nuclear program in a box from which it would be next to impossible for Tehran to climb out of without being detected.

So what’s the catch?

As I said in my last column, the US Congress is the catch, the fly in the ointment that could nix this deal and lead us down the path to another war in the Middle East. Nothing has been signed. What we have is a framework, one that will lead to a fuller agreement in June – if Congress doesn’t step in and stop it.

Alas, the chances of our solons signing on to this agreement are dim, at best. Approval depends on the most warlike institution in American politics – the Republican party, which currently holds a majority in both houses. And as we have seen, the bitter partisanship that has poisoned the political atmosphere for many years has reached a fever pitch over the prospect of a deal with Iran: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/heres-a-list-of-the-gop-senators-who-signed-the-iran-letter/ (47 GOP Senators) went so far as to release an open letter to the Iranian leadership warning them that any agreement signed by this administration http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last (won’t be honored) once they’re in power.

If they do succeed in blocking this historic pact, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/poll-2-to-1-support-for-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2015/03/30/9a5a5ac8-d720-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html (you can be sure) they won’t occupy the White House any time soon – and may well lose their congressional majority, to boot. Certainly they would deserve to. Such obstructionism and naked partisanship would hand Hillary Clinton – no dove, to be sure – a political gift, making her look like a reasonable centrist in the face of the GOP’s extremism.

Yet the War Party doesn’t care about that. That’s because the coalition leading the assault on this deal doesn’t owe its allegiance to any party on American shores.

The opposition to this deal is coming straight from Tel Aviv, and only from Tel Aviv. And the overwhelming majority of Republican leadership – in Congress, and in the party hierarchy – is merely an adjunct of the Israel lobby. This is the meaning of the behind-the-scenes deal between House Speaker John Boehner and the Israeli ambassador to bring Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress and make the case against the deal before it was even struck. That’s the meaning of the “open letter,” authored by scary neocon Sen. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/10-horrifying-facts-about-gop-senator-tom-cotton, which sought to abort the agreement in embryo. Both Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a point of traveling to Israel and canoodling with Netanyahu while the Lausanne talks were going on, pledging their undying support – and taking their marching orders.

A more disgusting display of treachery in the service of a foreign power hasn’t been seen since the heyday of the Communist Party USA.

Nothing has been signed: that’s the weak link in the chains that bind the War Party. Anything can happen in the next few months to ruin the chances for peace. Israel has been http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20499.htm to attack Iran unilaterally for years, including during these negotiations, and they are not above launching a provocation – one that will ignite a conflict that would envelope the entire Middle East and much of the world.

The prospects for peace have never been brighter – and the war clouds on the horizon have never been darker. And that’s where we stand: in the no man’s-land between triumph and disaster.
 
Joshua Muravchik is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. [Nutbag]

War with Iran is probably our best option. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-best-option/2015/03/13/fb112eb0-c725-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
 
[Borowitz] Peace with Iran Could Limit Ability to Bomb It, Warns McCain.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...n-could-limit-ability-to-bomb-it-warns-mccain

Shortly after world powers successfully negotiated a nuclear-framework agreement with Iran, Sen. John McCain warned that a lasting peace with the Middle Eastern nation “could greatly limit our ability to bomb it.”

“President Obama is hailing this framework as something that could enhance the prospects for peace in the Middle East,” McCain told reporters at the United States Senate. “For those of us who have looked forward to bombing Iran for some time now, that would be a doomsday scenario.”

“The Iranians know well and good that if they abandon their nuclear program exactly the way we’ve asked them to, we can kiss bombing them goodbye,” he said, shaking his head ruefully. “It’s a damn shame.”

As for President Obama, McCain added, “Sometimes I think the President cares more about making the Iranians happy than about making the people who want to bomb the Iranians happy.”

With the deadline for finalizing a nuclear treaty with Iran set for June 30th, McCain said that there was still a chance that talks could break down and allow the United States to bomb it, but added, “I’m not getting my hopes up.”

“If we all wake up on July 1st and we’re at peace with Iran, don’t say I didn’t warn you,” he said.
 
Joshua Muravchik is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. [Nutbag]

War with Iran is probably our best option. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-best-option/2015/03/13/fb112eb0-c725-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
Always amazed at how much more political hacks know about Iran's nuclear ambitions than all the US Intelligence agencies combined : )
 
[Borowitz] WASHINGTON - President Obama is "recklessly leading the United States into peace," former Vice President Dick Cheney said on Fox News Channel today.

Blasting the nuclear framework treaty with Iran, Cheney said, "Thanks to Obama, the U.S. defense industry is missing out on a solid fifteen-year quagmire."

According to Cheney, "The President doesn't even need to make up a reason to invade Iran the way we did with Iraq -- these bastards actually have uranium." Shaking his head at the President "stubbornly rushing headlong into peace," Cheney added, "I don't know how he sleeps at night."

11113727_10153250198015681_6720485905849821303_n.jpg
 
[Borowitz] WASHINGTON - President Obama is "recklessly leading the United States into peace," former Vice President Dick Cheney said on Fox News Channel today.

Blasting the nuclear framework treaty with Iran, Cheney said, "Thanks to Obama, the U.S. defense industry is missing out on a solid fifteen-year quagmire."

According to Cheney, "The President doesn't even need to make up a reason to invade Iran the way we did with Iraq -- these bastards actually have uranium." Shaking his head at the President "stubbornly rushing headlong into peace," Cheney added, "I don't know how he sleeps at night."

View attachment 22510

I despise Cheney, that bastard needs to be put on trial along with Bush as a war criminal. Strip them of all their wealth and assets before trial, like how law enforcement does to drug dealers. Take all their wealth and pay reparations to all the veterans (and the families of soldiers who fell in battle) who fought their war and then go about spreading their money out to all the other innocent victims that were impacted, and if there is anything left, give the rest back to the taxpayers. Anyone who profited off of the Iraqi war owes veterans reparations for misleading them into war under false pretenses first and foremost.

It disturbs me that people like Dick have power in this country. I wish he had been dropped off in Fallujah during the spring of '04. Fucking cocksucker.
 
Last edited:
Dick Cheney’s Ongoing Descent Into Insanity Accidentally Clarifies Iran Debate.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/cheneys-ongoing-descent-clarifies-iran-debate.html

Every so often Dick Cheney will appear in public to vocalize his latest irritable mental gesture. Today he appeared with right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt to assert the following: “I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard, but you know, if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing.”

Cheney’s regular utterances tend to meld together into an undifferentiated belligerent growl, but in this case he is (inadvertently) telling us something useful. The former vice-president is endorsing, or at least half-endorsing, the right-wing belief that to dismiss Barack Obama as a naif and a failure is far too kind.

No, Obama is carrying out a secret plan to undermine American power.

Versions of this theory have been fleshed out by such figures as Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Giuliani, and Dinesh D’Souza. They hold that Obama, driven by well-hidden black rage, seeks to humiliate the country that has oppressed African-Americans.

This line of thought, while too deranged for Republican leaders to publicly endorse, has a great deal of influence among conservatives. Cheney’s comments serve as the latest illustration of the delusional paranoia running through even the very highest levels of the Republican Party.
 
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/08/iran-military-sites-off-limits-to-inspectors/
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/author/mrubinaeiorg/ | @mrubin1971
twitter_handle.png
04.08.2015 - 12:30 PM


President Barack Obama called the framework agreement Secretary of State John Kerry and other representatives of the P5+1 reached in Lausanne “historic.” Alas, as time passes and more is learned about the agreement and Iran’s understanding of it, the more it does seem to be “historic,” but for all the wrong reasons.

One of the key concerns of the international community and the International Atomic Energy Agency has been “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program (see the annex to this IAEA report for a listing of these). Much of the work Iran conducted on military dimensions of a nuclear program occurred in Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities and on their bases.

Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan today said that the Lausanne Framework does not commit Iran to provide international inspectors access to such military facilities. From http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13940119001292 (Fars News):

Iranian Minister of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan has rejected reports on inspection of the country’s military facilities being included in the recent deal achieved by Iran and the world powers (P5+1) in Switzerland’s Lausanne on April 2, Fars news agency reported on April 8. According to Fars, commenting on “domestic media highlighting such baseless claims by foreign media about the Lausanne agreement,” Dehqan said, “Such actions do not serve national interests, but in fact set the ground for enemy’s excessive demands… The Supreme Leader’s, the government’s approach and the determination of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear negotiating team together do not allow the other party to impose anything on the Iranian nation.” Referring to “false claims by foreign media outlets such as the Guardian newspaper” on inspection of the country’s military facilities being a part of the Lausanne statement, Dehqan stressed: “There is no such agreement. Basically, inspection of military facilities is a red line and no inspection of any kind from such facilities would be accepted.”​

So the Iranian government now contradicts President Obama’s announcement and the State Department fact-sheet with regard to when sanctions will be lifted, centrifuges, enrichment, and even plutonium. Now let’s add inspections and possible military dimensions to the list. Obama is right. The Lausanne agreement is historic. It will be studied by generations of diplomats who will use it to illustrate American naïveté, Iranian duplicity, and the dangers of not actually gaining agreements in writing.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/08/iran-military-sites-off-limits-to-inspectors/#.VSVttpPvXfM.twitter
 
I doubt anyone (well, except maybe Obama) expects the deal to actually go through. Iran may also be pushing back due to both Russia and China saying they are fully behind the deal. I seriously doubt there was a significant misunderstanding of the terms on either side.

China is especially interested in peace, since it has agreed to install an oil pipeline from Iran to Pakistan. Of course, no one in Congress, especially on the "right", wants that to happen. I figure the deal will be dead long before the first deadline, or it will be extended indefinitely.
 
Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School's Center for Civil-Military Relations; and a senior editor of the Middle East Quarterly. Between 2002 and 2004, Rubin worked as a staff adviser for Iran and Iraq in OSD/ISA/NESA at the Pentagon, in which capacity he was seconded to Iraq. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/author/mrubinaeiorg/
 
Iran nuclear deal poses scientific challenges
From predictions of nuclear ‘break-out’ to monitoring for ‘sneak-out’, scientific expertise is central to the success of the preliminary accord.
http://www.nature.com/news/iran-nuclear-deal-poses-scientific-challenges-1.17296


The nuclear agreement thrashed out between Iran and six world powers last week represents a landmark piece of diplomacy, with science at its heart.

The ‘framework’ deal is designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme is used for peaceful means. In exchange, the country will obtain some relief from sanctions that have crippled its economy. The result of eight days of intense negotiation in Lausanne, Switzerland, the deal is still preliminary and does not exist in written form, though it has been outlined in a document released by the United States. On 6 April, 30 leading nuclear-security experts, mostly from the US, voiced support for the accord. However, crucial details and issues must still be resolved before 30 June, the deadline for reaching a final, written agreement.

Much as US and Soviet leaders relied on physicists to work out nuclear-weapons reductions and reliable verification procedures during the cold war, those negotiating the Iran deal are looking to scientists for confidence in its technical underpinnings. Here are three nuclear capabilities that a written agreement will need to address, ranked in increasing order of difficulty.

Break-out

Sneak-out

Weapons research



 
Why Iran hawks can't be honest about what they really want
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/10/8379927/iran-hawks-lindsey-graham

As The Hill's Jordan Fabian points out today in a sharp article, at the time Sen. Graham was outraged by the interim deal, saying "you can't trust the Iranians" and pledging that Congress would pass new sanctions, thus violating America's commitment in the interim deal and killing it.

Now, as Fabian notes, Graham suddenly loves the interim deal. He's said the US should not sign a comprehensive final deal with Iran at all, but rather should just stick to the interim agreement for the remainder of President Obama's time in office. The interim deal "has worked pretty well for the world," he said on Face the Nation, but the US should "not do a final deal" until Obama leaves office. In other words, he wants to halt the diplomatic process outright.

Graham's spokesman explained to Fabian that the senator "wasn’t wild about the interim deal when it was announced but it’s looking better in light of what President Obama is now discussing."

If you want to understand Graham's seemingly baffling flip-flop, you need to understand that Iran hawks like Graham believe that Obama is focusing on the wrong issue. The fundamental problem isn't Iran's nuclear program, they believe: it's that the Iranian regime is so fundamentally evil that America's only viable choice is to destroy it outright. But proposing war with Iran is wildly unpopular, so they can’t actually say that. Instead they need to say something else — something less unpopular — that makes a deal impossible.
 
Paul Skeptical of Senators' Motives in Iran Deal Demand
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/11/paul-skeptical-senators-motives-iran-deal-demand/


Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul on Saturday cast skepticism on the motives of senators who want a congressional review of President Barack Obama's emerging nuclear deal with Iran — a group that includes his son, a newly minted presidential candidate.

"I think the Congress has a point — whatever you agree to, we want to review it — but I strongly disagree with the motivation of that statement made by so many members of Congress, especially in the Senate," Paul said during a speech at a Libertarian conference at the University of Texas at Austin.

"'We have this constitutional responsibility to review this agreement,'" Paul added in a mocking tone. "What a joke that is. That's not reasonable. They're out to stop peace. They're terrified that peace might break out."
 
Iran is not planning on, and has never planned on blowing up Israel, or anyone else. Eventually developing nuclear weapons? That they would want to do.
 
Note that the link is to the print page to get around Haaretz' goofy registration prompt. Just click cancel to avoid printing the page.

Netanyahu told cabinet: Our biggest fear is that Iran will honor nuclear deal

Netanyahu expressed concern that Iranian compliance with the agreement will lull the world into complacency over the bomb threat, according to officials.
By Barak Ravid 00:30 12.04.15

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at a recent meeting of the security cabinet that if a comprehensive nuclear agreement between Iran and the six world powers is indeed signed by the June 30 deadline, the greatest concern is that Tehran will fully implement it without violations, two senior Israeli officials said.

The meeting of the security cabinet was called on short notice on April 3, a few hours before the Passover seder. The evening before, Iran and the six powers had announced at Lausanne, Switzerland that they had reached a framework agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and that negotiations over a comprehensive agreement would continue until June 30.

The security cabinet meeting was called after a harsh phone call between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama over the agreement with Tehran.

The two senior Israeli officials, who are familiar with the details of the meeting but asked to remain anonymous, said a good deal of the three-hour meeting was spent on ministers “letting off steam” over the nuclear deal and the way that the U.S. conducted itself in the negotiations with Iran.

According to the two senior officials, Netanyahu said during the meeting that he feared that the “Iranians will keep to every letter in the agreement if indeed one is signed at the end of June.”

One official said: “Netanyahu said at the meeting that it would be impossible to catch the Iranians cheating simply because they will not break the agreement.”

Netanyahu also told the ministers that in 10 to 15 years, when the main clauses of the agreement expire, most of the sanctions will be lifted and the Iranians will show that they met all their obligations. They will then receive a “kashrut certificate” from the international community, which will see Iran as a “normal” country from which there is nothing to fear.

Under such circumstances, the prime minister said, it will be very difficult if not impossible to persuade the world powers to keep up their monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program, not to mention imposing new sanctions if concerns arise that Iran has gone back to developing a secret nuclear program for military purposes.

It was decided during the security cabinet meeting to try to persuade the Obama administration to improve the agreement. However, Netanyahu and most of the ministers agreed that the only way to stop the agreement, even if it was unlikely to succeed, was through Congress. Thus, a good deal of Israeli efforts will focus on convincing members of Congress to vote for the Iran Nuclear Review Act, proposed by the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Bob Corker, that could delay implementation of a deal if one is reached.

Corker’s bill calls for a 60-day delay in implementing any signed nuclear deal, during which time Congress would scrutinize all the agreement’s details. The bill requires senior administration officials to provide Congress with detailed reports on the deal as well as attend Congressional hearings on the subject. Corker’s bill also states that American sanctions that were imposed by law would only be lifted if within the 60 days allotted for scrutiny of the agreement, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs declared their support for the pact.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is to meet Tuesday for its first vote on the Corker bill, after which it will be voted on by the entire Senate. The White House is opposed to the bill and is threatening to veto it. At this point, in addition to all 54 Republican senators, nine Democratic senators have also expressed their support for the bill, leaving it four Democratic senators short, so far, of the 67-vote majority that would make the bill veto-proof.

The pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC, which coordinates its activities with the Israeli embassy in Washington and the prime minister's bureau in Jerusalem, has begun over the past few days to exert pressure on Democratic senators – both publicly and privately – to get them to vote for the Corker bill.

AIPAC also claimed over the weekend on its official Twitter account that the framework of the current agreement would make it possible for Iran to become a threshold nuclear state within 15 years and therefore pressure should be brought to bear on Congress to vote for the Corker bill.

Netanyahu and Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, want to see changes inserted in the bill that will make it more binding, and even turn it into one that prevents an agreement with Tehran rather than delaying it.

One change Netanyahu is seeking is a new clause that the deal with Iran be considered a treaty; an international treaty signed by the United States must be approved by a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

The Republican senator from Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, reportedly intends to demand at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that this clause be added to the bill.

Meanwhile, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, considered one of the Republican Party’s potential candidates for the 2016 presidential campaign, wants to see an amendment to the bill adopting Netanyahu’s demand that Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist be part of any comprehensive agreement signed at the end of June.

However, if the Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes in favor of one or both of these amendments in its meeting Tuesday, it could lead Democratic senators, who had already agreed to support the original deal with Iran, to change their minds.
 
Back
Top