Iran Nuke Deal

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.


"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." (Just how do they convince members of congress? Anybody want to take a guess?))

"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."(Pressure in the form of what? campaign contributions?)

"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."(Now "Bibi" is telling us what kind of agreement suits him and Israel?)

"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."(Goodness gracious Ronnie, just where has all your campaign contributions come from?)

"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."( Well, of course if he demands it, what else can we do?)

And a lot of people think we run our country!
 
Last edited:
It's Iran. They hate us. Obama is making a deal with the devil. The ol I will drop my gun just give me yours first. They will do what they are gonna do secretly now and have quite sometime to do it. I am a veteran of foreign war and one thing I learned in Iraq is that our American Niave way of thinking does not line up with there's. You can't fight someone using boxing rules while they try and galge your eyeballs out. Let's focus on Isis and Iran as the national debt just keeps going on and on and Americans suffer. There is a reason that a training exercise called jade helm is about to kick off. The U.S. Army don't spend millions of dollars on an exercise for fun. As far as Iran goes it appears more and more evident that they might be the least of our worries.
 
You've used this line before CBS.... Glad to see your still paying attention.:)
I believe the "truth" is something you haven't seen in years, or ever!
 
Putin Lifts Ban on Russian Missile Sales to Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/world/europe/putin-lifts-ban-on-russian-missile-sales-to-iran.html

MOSCOW — President Vladimir V. Putin on Monday approved the delivery of a sophisticated air defense missile system to Iran, potentially complicating negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program and further straining ties with Washington.

The sale could also undermine the Obama administration’s efforts to sell Congress and foreign allies on the nuclear deal, which Iran and the United States are still struggling to complete. It might also reduce the United States’ leverage in the talks by making it much harder for the United States or Israel to mount airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure if the country ignored such an agreement.
 
I was a tad upset with that character's political posturing, I'm getting so sick of hearing it from all of them, and I may have put it a bit crudely. But since you agree you may not know what the "truth" is, let's define what we're talking about. There's probably more than your letting on that we may be in agreement with.
 
Religious Fanaticism Is A Huge Factor In Americans’ Support For Israel.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...aticism-huge-factor-americans-support-israel/

A new poll from Bloomberg Politics contains a finding that, if you really think about it, is quite remarkable: Almost half of all Americans want to support Israel even if its interests diverge from the interests of their own country. Only a minority of Americans (47%) say that their country should pursue their own interests over supporting Israel’s when the two choices collide. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-finds-deep-partisan-split-on-israel-and-iran

It is inconceivable that a substantial portion of Americans would want to support any other foreign country even where doing so was contrary to U.S. interests. Only Israel commands anything near that level of devoted, self-sacrificing fervor on the part of Americans. So it’s certainly worth asking what accounts for this bizarre aspect of American public opinion.

The answer should make everyone quite uncomfortable: it’s religious fanaticism.

bloomberg1.png
 
The Iran nuclear agreement: You can't expect people to walk on water
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/iran-nuclear-agreement-people-iran-cannot-walk-water-1973515559


The vast majority of the Iranian people aspire to have democracy and, thus, want to make a peaceful transition from an Islamic theocracy to a democratic state. They deserve to have democracy and no one should put obstacles in their way. The Iranians know that they mustbuild democracy in Iran. They also know that they cannot walk on water, or create a peaceful democracy in the shadow and threat of war.

But there are western governments, as well as members of the Iranian opposition in diaspora that want Iranians to go through hellfire to achieve their aspirations. More Iranians reject this, because they have closely followed the experiences of other nations in their region over the past decade or so, and see that the Middle East is soaked with blood. They know the fates of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen - nations that were either invaded by the United States, bombed back to the Medieval age (Libya) or destroyed by a sectarian war instigated by US allies in the Middle East (Syria).

None of these nations has become a democratic state. The state of human rights in all of these nations is far worse than before their crippling wars. Their national security systems have collapsed and terrorism has spread. The only “fruits” of the military intervention in the Middle East and North Africa over the past 15 years have been civil wars, terrorism and disintegration of nation states. Since the attacks of 11 September 2001, at leasthttp://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdfhave been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Millions of people have either been injured or have become internal refugees within their own countries or abroad.

Iranian people want democracy, but they are keenly aware that security and peace are the prerequisites for building democracy and respect for human rights. Iranians rejoiced after the joint political statement by Iran and P5+1 was read in Lausanne, Switzerland by Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, outlining the framework of the agreement between the two sides over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Why were the Iranian people so happy and celebrating in the streets? Was the announcement a great victory for their nation? It surely was not politically, because Iran made many concessions, and received comparatively little in return.
 
Morning Plum: If there’s an Iran deal, Congress probably won’t stop it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/16/morning-plum-if-theres-an-iran-deal-congress-probably-wont-stop-it/


Now that the White House has accepted the new Corker-Menendez framework outlining a process for Congress to exercise oversight over any Iran deal, what comes next?

In a piece entitled, “Iran bill unlikely to scuttle deal,” Politico reports this morning that the White House believes the outcome of the battle over the Corker bill is better for the prospects of an Iran deal than many think. As I’ve http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/14/the-new-iran-bill-better-but-still-risky/ (noted), I think the White House accepted the Corker framework largely because it had no choice, and would have preferred no Corker bill at all.

However, there is one point about the Corker framework that needs amplifying, because it suggests the possibility of a very interesting scenario that could get tied up in GOP presidential politics.
 
North Korea Transfers Missile Goods to Iran During Nuclear Talks
Intelligence suppressed by Obama administration

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...s-missile-goods-to-iran-during-nuclear-talks/

North Korea supplied several shipments of missile components to Iran during recent nuclear talks and the transfers appear to violate United Nations sanctions on both countries, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Since September more than two shipments of missile parts have been monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies as they transited from North Korea to Iran, said officials familiar with intelligence reports who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Details of the arms shipments were included in President Obama’s daily intelligence briefings and officials suggested information about the transfers was kept secret from the United Nations, which is in charge of monitoring sanctions violations.

Critics of the U.S.-led nuclear framework agreement reached in Switzerland earlier this month have said one major deficiency of the accord is its failure to address Iran’s missile program, considered a key nuclear delivery system for the Islamist regime.

CIA spokesman Ryan Trapani declined to comment on the missile component shipments, citing a policy of not discussing classified information.

But other officials said the transfers included goods covered by the Missile Technology Control Regime, a voluntary agreement among 34 nations that limits transfers of missiles and components of systems with ranges of greater than 186 miles.

One official said the transfers between North Korea and Iran included large diameter engines, which could be used for a future Iranian long-range missile system.

The United Nations Security Council in June 2010 imposed sanctions on Iran for its illegal uranium enrichment program. The sanctions prohibit Iran from purchasing ballistic missile goods and are aimed at blocking Iran from acquiring “technology related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

U.S. officials said the transfers carried out since September appear to be covered by the sanctions.

Other details of the transfers could not be learned. However, U.S. intelligence agencies in the past have identified Iran’s Islamic Republic of Iran

Shipping Lines (IRISL) as the main shipper involved in transferring ballistic missile-related materials.

A U.S. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/AC.50/2010/7 to the United Nations sanctions committee in 2010 stated that Washington closely cooperates with partner states in monitoring IRISL and other Iranian merchant shipping companies that pass through airports, seaports, and other international borders. The report said the United States takes “steps to prevent transfers of items prohibited by this and by previous Iran-related resolutions.”

The American efforts to block arms transfers are carried out under the George W. Bush administration’s international Proliferation Security Initiative.

A classified State Department https://cablegatesearch.wikileaks.org/cable.php?id=09STATE103755&q=iran%20mtcr from October 2009 reveals that Iran is one of North Korea’s key missile customers.

The cable, made public by Wikileaks, states that since the 1980s North Korea has provided Iran with complete Scud missiles and production technology used in developing 620-mile-range Nodong missiles.

Additionally, North Korea also supplied Iran with a medium-range missile called the BM-25 that is a variant of the North Korean Musudan missile.

“This technology would provide Iran with more advanced missile technology than currently used in its Shahab-series of ballistic missiles and could form the basis for future Iranian missile and [space launch vehicle] designs.”

“Pyongyang’s assistance to Iran’s [space launch vehicle] program suggests that North Korea and Iran may also be cooperating on the development of long-range ballistic missiles.”

A second https://cablegatesearch.wikileaks.org/cable.php?id=09STATE101892&q=iran%20mtcr from September 2009 states that Iran’s Safir rocket uses missile steering engines likely provided by North Korea that are based on Soviet-era SS-N-6 submarine launched ballistic missiles.

That technology transfer was significant because it has allowed Iran to develop a self-igniting missile propellant that the cable said “could significantly enhance Tehran’s ability to develop a new generation of more-advanced ballistic missiles.”

“All of these technologies, demonstrated in the Safir [space launch vehicle] are critical to the development of long-range ballistic missiles and highlight the possibility of Iran using the Safir as a platform to further its ballistic missile development.”

A spokesman for Spain’s mission to the United Nations, currently in charge of the world body’s sanctions committee, said the committee has not received any communications from the United States since Spain took charge of the panel in January.

Security and arms control analysts said the North Korean missile components shipped to Iran highlight the deficiencies of the Iran framework agreement announced earlier this month.

The framework is under fire from Congress. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday held a meeting to discuss legislation that would require the administration to submit a final Iran nuclear agreement to the Senate.

The committee voted to approve a bipartisan bill that would require Senate approval for any final Iran nuclear agreement. The legislation would block the administration from lifting any sanctions on Iran until after Congress approves the formal accord that is to be worked out before June 30. The White House has threatened to veto the legislation if it passes both the House and Senate.

Joseph DeTrani, former director of the National Counterproliferation Center, a U.S. intelligence agency, said North Korea has maintained “close and long term” relations with Iran on the transfer of missiles and missile-related technology.

“U.N. Security Council resolutions prohibit this type of activity, and continued missile-related transfers from North Korea to Iran would be in violation of these Security Council resolutions,” said DeTrani, a former CIA officer and special envoy to North Korea nuclear talks.

“The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), comprised of over 100 countries, was established to monitor such activities and assist with the interdiction of such proscribed transfers. To date, PSI has been relatively successful,” he added.

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton also said the missile transfers would violate U.N. sanctions on both Iran and North Korea.

U.N. sanctions imposed on Pyongyang in 2009 for North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests prohibit the export of missiles and related technology.

“And if the violation was suppressed within the U.S. government, it would be only too typical of decades of practice,” Bolton said. “Sadly, it would also foreshadow how hard it would be to get honest reports made public once Iran starts violating any deal.”

Bolton, who also served as undersecretary of state for arms control in the George W. Bush administration, said he remembers the difficulty of getting the bureaucracy to use the word “violation” instead of diplomatic euphemisms such as “non-compliance.”

Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz also criticized the administration for not publicizing the sanctions violations.

“While it may seem outrageous that the Obama administration would look the other way on missile shipments from North Korea to Iran during the Iran nuclear talks, it doesn’t surprise me at all,” Fleitz said.

“The Obama administration has excluded all non-nuclear Iranian belligerent and illegal activities from its nuclear diplomacy with Iran,” he said. “Iran’s ballistic missile program has been deliberately left out of the talks even though these missiles are being developed as nuclear weapon delivery systems.”

Fleitz said Iran’s role as a state sponsor of terrorism also has been excluded from the nuclear talks, along with Iranian aggression and subversion in the Middle East.

“Since the administration has overlooked this long list of belligerent and illegal Iranian behavior during the Iran talks, it’s no surprise it ignored missile shipments to Iran from North Korea,” he added.

Thomas Moore, a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee arms control specialist, said if the recent missile component transfers are confirmed, “it certainly points out the glaring omission present in the Iran deal: the total lack of anything on its missile threat.”

“If true, allowing proliferation with no response other than to lead from behind or reward it, let alone bury information about it, is to defeat the object and purpose of the global nonproliferation regime—the only regime Obama may end up changing in favor of those in Tehran, Havana and Pyongyang,” Moore said.

Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, also said the latest report of North Korean missile technology exports to Iran “more than suggests why the administration had to back away from securing any ballistic missile limits in its negotiations” with Tehran.

White House National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan declined to comment. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf did not return emails seeking comment.
 
Iran: Efforts to Achieve a Nuclear Accord
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43333.pdf

On November 24, 2013, Iran and the six powers that have negotiated with Iran about its nuclear program since 2006 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany—collectively known as the “P5+1”) finalized an interim agreement (“Joint Plan of Action,” JPA) requiring Iran to freeze many aspects of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from some international sanctions. The period of the interim deal was to be six months, during which time Iran and the P5+1 would attempt to reach a comprehensive deal on the long-term status of Iran’s nuclear program. The JPA has been seen as slowing Iran’s build-up of nuclear material and improving the international community’s ability to identify Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has complied with its JPA obligations, according to the IAEA. Under the JPA, the P5+1 countries have refrained from imposing new sanctions and permitted Iran to repatriate to Iran about $700 million per month in oil sales proceeds. Iran’s oil exports are capped at about 1 million barrels per day—a 60% drop from 2011 levels of about 2.5 million barrels per day. The JPA also permits Iran to sell petrochemicals and trade in gold and other precious metals, and to conduct transactions with foreign firms involved in Iran’s auto sector.

Throughout 2014 and thus far in 2015, the attention of the international community increasingly turned to the potential outcome of negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear accord. The P5+1- Iran negotiations began in February 2014 and reportedly made steady but slow progress, causing several extensions of the JPA. On April 2, 2015, the P5+1 and Iran announced that they had reached an overarching framework for a comprehensive agreement, with the intent of finalizing a detailed agreement by the expiration of the current JPA period on June 30, 2015. The main outstanding issues on which preliminary agreement has been reached center on the size and scope of Iran’s uranium enrichment program; the duration of the comprehensive accord; and the extent of the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions.

The Administration and the other P5+1 governments assert that the framework agreement, if finalized, represents the most effective of several alternatives to ensure that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapons capability. However, some U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as some in Congress, express concerns that the emerging accord does not ensure that Iran could not utilize its nuclear infrastructure to develop a nuclear weapon in a short period of time after the agreement expires. Some countries in the region, including the Persian Gulf monarchies, express concern that a final agreement is likely to prompt a broader U.S.-Iran rapprochement that could cause the United States to retreat from the Middle East. Others assert that an accord would give Iran additional resources to extend its influence in the region. On the other hand, a nuclear agreement could produce greater U.S.-Iran cooperation against the threat to the region posed by the Islamic State organization’s seizure of territory in Iraq and Syria. U.S. officials acknowledge that Iran and the United States have held bilateral talks on the Islamic State and other regional issues at the margins of the negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear accord.
 
Why were international sanctions not brought against Israel? I don't believe they have even yet officially conceded that they have a nuclear arsenal. Most estimates say about 400 nuclear weapons.
 
Why were international sanctions not brought against Israel? I don't believe they have even yet officially conceded that they have a nuclear arsenal. Most estimates say about 400 nuclear weapons.
Because Obama said sanctions don't work [emoji15]
 
AIPAC vs. the Neocons on Iran
http://m.thenation.com/blog/205273-aipac-vs-neocons-iran

There's a fascinating divide emerging over the Corker-Cardin compromise bill that would give Congress a vote on an Iran deal and which unanimously emerged from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week. The compromise, engineered by committee chair Bob Corker (R-TN) and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-MD), softened some provisions in Corker's original bill. With Democrats supporting the bill, the White House perhaps saw the writing on the wall and dropped its opposition—and veto threat—against the new version.

Now, though, Republican hawks in Congress are looking to weigh the bill down with amendments that would certainly invoke a veto. The charge is being led by Sen. Tom Cotton, the combative Arkansas Republican who has emerged as the upper chamber's most vociferous Iran hawk. Cotton has vowed to introduce several amendments that would make congressional approval of any Iran nuclear deal virtually impossible. Several other Republican senators have http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-24/aipac-vs-pro-israel-republicans (promised) to do the same.

What's so fascinating is that AIPAC supports the Corker-Cardin compromise. The flagship Israel lobby group likely sees the bill, which creates a procedure for Congress to vote approval or disapproval of a final Iran nuclear accord, as a good first step to kill the deal it has opposed from the start. The logic would be that enacting Corker-Cardin would lay the groundwork, then the lobby would set about trying to convince enough Democrats to support its anti-diplomacy position to get Congress to vote down the final agreement when that time comes.

A piece today in Bloomberg View headlined the fight between the Israel lobby and the Republican über-hawks as "http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-24/aipac-vs-pro-israel-republicans (Aipac vs. Pro-Israel Republicans)." But it would more accurately be called "AIPAC vs. the Neocons." And we shouldn't forget for a moment that the bankrupt ideology of neoconservatism is behind these efforts; the line between leading neocons and this obstructionism is too easy to trace—and too laughably reminiscent of their misadventure in Iraq.
 
HA..............Kristol is and has always been a hand puppet for the mini-state. He's also an Israeli citizen. Do you wonder where his allegiance lies? What a joke.
 
The odds of an Iran nuclear deal just got better
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/07/the-odds-of-an-iran-nuclear-deal-just-got-higher


One hundred and fifty House Democrats have now signed a http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/05/07/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/Dem_letter_Iran.pdf (letter expressing strong support for President Obama’s ongoing negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program), I’ve learned, improving the chances that an eventual nuclear deal could survive the Congressional oversight process.
 
Back
Top