Wednesday, June 24, 2015

President Obama’s deal with Iran requires America to give Tehran state of the art nuclear technology

Yet another reason this nuclear deal with Iran will be a complete disaster and put the entire world in more danger.

From AP:

The United States and other nations negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran are ready to offer high-tech reactors and other state-of-the-art equipment to Tehran if it agrees to crimp programs that can make atomic arms, according to a confidential document obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. 

The draft document — one of several technical appendices meant to accompany the main text of any deal — has dozens of bracketed text where disagreements remain. Technical cooperation is the least controversial issue at the talks, and the number of brackets suggest the sides have a ways to go not only on that topic but also more contentious disputes with little more than a week until the June 30 deadline for a deal.

Read more....

For 6 years it has not been the policy of the U.S. that Iran’s march to nuclear weapons be “leashed”, but that we would not tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, a policy re-validated by President Obama just this year. Yet, the latter very clearly has now morphed into the former, and in just a few months.


Clearly, President Obama is retreating from the Middle East and North Africa, as he’s materially retreated from Asia, South America and Eastern Europe . Obama was never particularly attentive to the Pacific Rim countries. It’s all about better focusing on and funding domestic free cheese factories and Band-Aid dispensaries.

If this is suffered to stand, it could become the most obvious gambit that succeeded in geopolitical history. And have us wondering what happened first to our regional allies, then to what was going to be a friendly Iran, once they have as many warheads and delivery vehicles as Israel.

The critical flawed assumption underlying these negotiations is that the Iranians will act in a “rational” way in the sense that western democracies define “rational.” The Iranian definition of “rational” is fundamentally different from ours.

For Iran, it may be “rational” to destroy Israel, even if the consequence is that much of Iran will also be destroyed. The Iranians therefore don’t negotiate with the objectives we attribute to them.

Perhaps the best example of this is North Korea, which is starving its people in order to maintain a million plus man army (over 5% of its population), nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. That is irrational in any common understanding of the word, but to the North Korean government it makes sense.

The sanctions were hurting Iran, but they probably weren’t impeding the nuclear weapons program. Iran’s concern was primarily that its people and commercial sector were being so harmed by the sanctions that the mullahs feared their own people would turn against them.

The sanctions will now be eased, allowing the Iranian civilian/commercial sectors some respite, and, perhaps after a short pause to keep the inspectors happy (Iran will disclose to the inspectors only the facilities the west already knows about), covertly ramp up the weapons program.

What did this bad deal with Iran over its nuclear program actually accomplish? Nothing.

Iran has played Obama for an idiot with this nuclear deal. John Kerry is too vacuous to know he was conned.

If the Iranians are serious about this agreement let them grant free and easy access to all their nuclear sites for verification of this treaty.

For 6 years under the Obama administration, it’s been the stated policy of the United States not “to slow down” Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, but that we would not tolerate such weapons in Iranian hands. Apparently, this immense sea-change, unannounced and substantially undiscussed, is only a few months old, since Rouhani offered the gambit that Khamenei approved. “We’ll pretend to like you as we build our bomb if you let us sell our oil”.

So, Iran will still insist that their nuclear program is peaceful and always was, adding that they deserved respect from the West. How has this familiar refrain changed in any way in five years? What really was accomplished in this grand accord that serves to defend western interests and the cause of stability in the Middle East and North Africa?

Iran has given up nothing for the first easing of sanctions that likely will morph into additional easings, and with no verifiable dismantling of nuclear weapons program infrastructure. In the meantime, will have the use of billions that they did not before, to continue policies of destabilization through the region, including a Syria that has become largely a religious war for their support of Bashar al-Assad.

How is this agreement materially better than the one described by the French as a “sucker deal”?

At this stage, the only thing that can derail this “sucker deal” is Congress. They don’t need to strengthen sanctions, they merely need to require that we re-impose those that will be eased by this agreement. That would be most wise. A “break-out” by Iran calls for absolute global embargo of them.

Do not accept for one moment what we are being fed by the Obama administration about this deal with Iran. Iran is giving up not 1 iota of capability; not 1 gram of production capacity and not 1 centrifuge.

No comments:

Post a Comment