President Obama has gambled again with America's national security and that of our allies in The Middle East.
His record of gambling is associated with a lot of deaths in Syria, Libya, Benghazi and elsewhere. His foreign policy achievements are underwhelming.
This time Obama promises he can put tooth paste back in the tube in the event his good faith gamble fails. Now that sanction lifting has begun the desire to do business with Iran is more likely to dictate policy not Iran's veracity, adherence to this agreement and/or their promises.
I pray Obama's approach will cause Iran to renounce their nuclear ambitions but nothing suggests this will prove to be the case or that re-imposition of sanctions will be doable.
Tough sanctions brought Iran to the table but coming to the table was not the goal of sanctions. Preventing Iran having a nuclear weapon was the primary goal and a secondary goal was the collapse of the current Iranian regime.
Obama pulled Iran's chestnuts out of the fire just as sanctions were beginning to bite hard and now Obama tells us to trust him once again. Was this precipitous action taken because Obama was in dire need of relief from his domestic failures?
What I see is a president who has made lying an official act of governance and leadership while accepting the word of a regime that has a history of lying asking Americans to trust him once again.
De-ja Pooh! See1 , 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d below.)
===
What the candidate I support for Congress says about Obama's deal with Iran:
|
Dr. Bob Johnson for Congress | P.O. Box 16401 | Savannah, Georgia | GA | 31416
|
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Dershowitz: Iran Deal 'Cataclysmic Error of Gigantic Proportions'
By Greg Richter
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said Sunday that the Obama administration was naive and had possibly made a "cataclysmic error of gigantic proportions" in its deal to ease sanctions on Iran in exchange for an opening up of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
"I think it could turn out to be a cataclysmic error of gigantic proportions," Dershowitz said of the deal, which he described as "naive."
"It could also turn out to be successful, to be the beginning of a negotiated resolution," Dershowitz told Newsmax on Sunday. "But I think the likelihood of it being the former is considerably greater."
Dershowitz said he thought the administration of President Barack Obama did a poor job of negotiating the deal.
"I think it's thoughtful and intelligent Americans vs. naive Americans," he said.
The deal, announced late Saturday night in the United States, makes it more likely Iran will develop a nuclear bomb, likely creating the need for a future military strike by Israel or the United States, Dershowitz said.
It also increases the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia obtaining nuclear weapons as well, he said.
The Harvard Law School professor thinks there is at best a 10 percent chance that the administration can change attitudes among Iran's Islamist leadership.
"But when you weigh that against the 30 or 40 percent chance that they're dead wrong – nuclear bomb wrong – then it's a very bad assessment of risk and benefits," he told Newsmax.
"This is first-year negotiating theory, and this administration gets a D-minus with grade inflation," Dershowitz said. "You don't let up on sanctions that are working."
Other countries, such as China, are taking the deal as a green light to do business with Iran, he said. All the nuclear experts, Iran experts and congressional experts he has spoken with oppose the deal, he said.
Israel has spoken out against the deal, and Saudi Arabia is known to be wary of Iran. But it is a mistake to think of it as a dispute between Israel and Saudi Arabia on one hand and the United States on the other, Dershowitz said. "This is a highly disputed and contested issue within the United States."
Dershowitz counts himself among the skeptics.
"I think it's a bad deal for America and a bad deal for the West," he said. "The risks to world peace are far greater than the potential benefits to world peace."
American negotiators used the wrong model, Dershowitz said. They used the model of Syria where the administration "accidentally backed into a good result instead of the North Korea model, which is much more parallel.
"North Korea does not pose a direct threat to the United States. Iran does," Dershowitz said. "You think that we'd learn from our mistakes in North Korea."
Dershowitz said that if Iran fails to comply, he hopes Congress ratchets up the sanctions once the six months are complete. But he isn't sure that will be possible since China and other nations will be doing business with them by then.
"I think we have hurt our sanction regime irretrievably by this measure," he said.
Congress should take preemptive action by passing authorization in advance to allow the president to increase sanctions and deploy the military option in the event Iran crosses a red line, Dershowitz said. That way, the president doesn't have to go to Congress after red lines are crossed.
"I think that would send a powerful message to Iran that the military option is still on the table," he said.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton suggested the White House struck the deal out of fear that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear facilities as it did those of Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007.
Dershowitz said that since Israel was not consulted on the agreement, it isn't bound by it and is within its rights to defend itself.
Israel "has the absolute right to prevent a country that has threatened its destruction from developing nuclear weapons," he said. "That's a right in law, it's a right in morality, and it's a right in diplomacy."
1a)Schumer: 'Disappointed' by Deal, New Sanctions 'More Likely'
Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York said he was disappointed in the interim deal reached in Geneva regarding Iran’s nuclear program, saying "it does not seem proportional" because "Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions."Schumer released the following statement on the deal regarding Iran's nuclear program:
"I am disappointed by the terms of the agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations because it does not seem proportional. Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions.
"It was strong sanctions, not the goodness of the hearts of the Iranian leaders, that brought Iran to the table, and any reduction relieves the psychological pressure of future sanctions and gives them hope that they will be able to gain nuclear weapon capability while further sanctions are reduced. A fairer agreement would have coupled a reduction in sanctions with a proportionate reduction in Iranian nuclear capability.
"The goal of the administration is to eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear weapons-making capability by the end of the final negations; it is still my hope they can achieve that goal.
"As for additional sanctions, this disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December. I intend to discuss that possibility with my colleagues."
"I am disappointed by the terms of the agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations because it does not seem proportional. Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions.
"It was strong sanctions, not the goodness of the hearts of the Iranian leaders, that brought Iran to the table, and any reduction relieves the psychological pressure of future sanctions and gives them hope that they will be able to gain nuclear weapon capability while further sanctions are reduced. A fairer agreement would have coupled a reduction in sanctions with a proportionate reduction in Iranian nuclear capability.
"The goal of the administration is to eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear weapons-making capability by the end of the final negations; it is still my hope they can achieve that goal.
"As for additional sanctions, this disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December. I intend to discuss that possibility with my colleagues."
1b)
Iran's Nuclear Triumph
Tehran can continue to enrich uranium at 10,000 working centrifuges.
President Obama is hailing a weekend accord that he says has "halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program," and we devoutly wish this were true. The reality is that the agreement in Geneva with five Western nations takes Iran a giant step closer to becoming a de facto nuclear power.
CHAMBLISS: I think you're going to see a strong movement in the United States Senate to move ahead to tighten sanctions.
Now, there will have to be some time frame in there. They've done this deal. And this can be done without the approval of Congress.
So for the next six months, it looks like this deal is going to be in place. And it may be that we have to pass a resolution that puts sanctions on effective three months, four months, six months, whatever it might be.
But now is just not the time to ease sanctions when they are working.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're (INAUDIBLE)...
CHAMBLISS: We've got all of the leverage in the negotiation. And we've let them out of the trap.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So your bottom line is if a permanent deal does not roll back the Iranian nuclear program, you're going to push ahead for more and tighter sanctions on the Iranian economy?
CHAMBLISS: Exactly. George, we have trusted the Iranians before, just like the North Koreans on nuclear issues, and what have we gotten for it? They continue to hide their development of these weapons. And, you know, in spite of their agreement here to reduce the enrichment, the 20 percent stockpile they have enriched, they can go to North Korea and buy that from them in a heart beat.
So, when you look at what we have really gotten out of this, it's moving us away from the direction of prevention of them developing a weapon. And that, frankly, is what the American people and what the world wants. And that's why you're seeing Israel and Saudi Arabia and there will be other Middle East countries, I suspect, who come out in opposition to this short-term agreement.
Start with the fact that this "interim" accord fails to meet the terms of several United Nations resolutions, which specify no sanctions relief until Iran suspends all uranium enrichment. Under this deal Iran gets sanctions relief, but it does not have to give up its centrifuges that enrich uranium, does not have to stop enriching, does not have to transfer control of its enrichment stockpiles, and does not have to shut down its plutonium reactor at Arak.
Iran nuclear talks at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Sunday, Nov. 24, 2013. Associated Press
Mr. Obama's weekend statement glossed over these canyon-sized holes. He said Iran "cannot install or start up new centrifuges," but it already has about 10,000 operational centrifuges that it can continue to spin for at least another six months. Why does Tehran need so many centrifuges if not to make a bomb at the time it pleases?
The President also said that "Iran has committed to halting certain levels of enrichment and neutralizing part of its stockpiles." He is referring to an Iranian pledge to oxidize its 20% enriched uranium stockpile. But this too is less than reassuring because the process can be reversed and Iran retains a capability to enrich to 5%, which used to be a threshold we didn't accept because it can easily be reconverted to 20%.
Mr. Obama said "Iran will halt work at its plutonium reactor," but Iran has only promised not to fuel the reactor even as it can continue other work at the site. That is far from dismantling what is nothing more than a bomb factory. North Korea made similar promises in a similar deal with Condoleezza Rice during the final Bush years, but it quickly returned to bomb-making.
As for inspections, Mr. Obama hailed "extensive access" that will "allow the international community to verify whether Iran is keeping its commitments." One problem is that Iran hasn't ratified the additional protocol to its International Atomic Energy Agency agreement that would allow inspections on demand at such sites as Parchin, which remain off limits. Iran can also oust U.N. inspectors at any time, much as North Korea did.
Then there is the sanctions relief, which Mr. Obama says is only "modest" but which reverses years of U.S. diplomacy to tighten and enforce them. The message is that the sanctions era is over. The loosening of the oil regime is especially pernicious, inviting China, India and Germany to get back to business with Iran.
We are told that all of these issues will be negotiated as part of a "final" accord in the next six months, but that is not how arms control works. It is far more likely that this accord will set a precedent for a series of temporary deals in which the West will gradually ease more sanctions in return for fewer Iranian concessions.
Iran will threaten to walk away from the talks without new concessions, and Mr. Obama will not want to acknowledge that his diplomatic achievement wasn't real. The history of arms control is that once it is underway the process dominates over substance, and a Western leader who calls a halt is denounced for risking war. The negotiating advantage lies with the dictatorship that can ignore domestic opinion.
Mr. Obama all but admitted this himself by noting that "only diplomacy can bring about a durable solution to the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program." He added that "I have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully, rather than rush towards conflict." Rush to conflict? Iran's covert nuclear program was uncovered a decade ago, and the West has been desperately trying to avoid military action.
The best that can be said is that the weekend deal slows for a few weeks Iran's rapid progress to a nuclear breakout. But the price is that at best it sets a standard that will allow Iran to become a nuclear-capable regime that stops just short of exploding a bomb. At worst, it will allow Iran to continue to cheat and explode a bomb whenever it is strategically convenient to serve its goal of dominating the Middle East.
This seems to be the conclusion in Tehran, where Foreign Minister Javad Zarif boasted that the deal recognizes Iran's right to enrich uranium while taking the threat of Western military action off the table. Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini also vouchsafed his approval, only days after he denounced the U.S. and called Jews "rabid dogs."
Israel has a different view of the deal, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling it a "historic mistake." He and his cabinet will now have to make their own calculations about the risks of unilateral military action. Far from having Israel's back, as Mr. Obama likes to say, the U.S. and Europe are moving to a strategy of trying to contain Israel rather than containing Iran. The French also fell into line as we feared they would under U.S. and media pressure.
***
Mr. Obama seems determined to press ahead with an Iran deal regardless of the details or damage. He views it as a legacy project. A President has enormous leeway on foreign policy, but Congress can signal its bipartisan unhappiness by moving ahead as soon as possible to strengthen sanctions. Mr. Obama warned Congress not to do so in his weekend remarks, but it is the only way now to stop the President from accommodating a nuclear Iran.
1c) Analysis - U.S.-Iran thaw starts to reshape Mideast power balance
An interim international deal on Iran's nuclear programme could tilt the balance of power in the Middle East towards Tehran after two years of popular revolts that have weakened leading Arab nations.
Sunday's agreement opens the way for a thaw in U.S.-Iranian confrontation that has lasted almost as long as the U.S.-Soviet Cold War, alarming Israel and Gulf Arab rulers who fear a new regional hegemon deeply hostile to their interests
The deal to curb but not scrap Iranian uranium enrichment, which the West has long believed was meant to develop a bomb, has implications far beyond weapons proliferation in a war-scarred region critical to world oil supplies.
For some Gulf Arab states, which see Tehran as a regional troublemaker, and for Israel, which regards Iran as a mortal threat, the Geneva agreement means they have failed to dissuade Washington from a course they suspect will end in tears, such is their distrust of the Islamic Republic.
Iran will grow richer and stronger through the easing and eventual lifting of sanctions that have shackled its economy, emboldening its Islamist rulers to step up support to Shi'ite Muslim allies in Arab countries, critics of the deal say.
In contrast, supporters of the accord say a rapprochement between two powers so long at odds could help stabilise a region in turmoil and reduce sectarian strains that have set Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims bloodily against each other.
Mistrust has been mutual, as it was in the post-World War Two impasse between the West and the Soviet Union.
The United States and Iran have had no official ties since 1980 after Iranian students occupied the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking 52 diplomats hostage in protest against Washington's admission of the former Shah after he was toppled by the Islamic revolution.
"HISTORIC MISTAKE"
With the historic Arab power centres of Egypt, Syria and Iraq all weakened by uprisings and sectarian strife, a new start with Tehran has emerged as an enticing potential win for a U.S. administration in search of a foreign policy success.
Rami Khoury of the American University of Beirut described the interim deal restricting Iran's nuclear work as a "very good thing" that could eventually lead to rapprochement between Tehran's clerical rulers and U.S.-allied Gulf Arab states.
"If the negotiations continue on and keep working, and the sanctions are slowly removed, it will revive Iran's economy, and eventually its liberal movement and I think we will slowly see social and political progress in the country," Khoury said.
"In the short run it encourages cooperation between the United States and Iran to try and deal with Syria and stop the violence there. Right now there is a common threat developing, the (Sunni militants) who will bomb the Iranians, bomb the U.S., as we've seen, so they're everybody's enemy right now."
Experts say Gulf Arab countries will try to piece together a diplomatic and security strategy with like-minded countries to reduce their vulnerability to a resurgent Iran now eagerly contemplating a future free of crippling sanctions.
For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the interim deal was a historic mistake because "the most dangerous regime in the world took a significant step towards obtaining the world's most dangerous weapon."
He reaffirmed a long-standing Israeli threat of possible military action against Iran, although a member of his security cabinet acknowledged the interim accord limited that option.
At the heart of Gulf Arab concerns is a belief that the moderate Iranian officials who negotiated the nuclear deal are not the hard men in charge of what they see as Shi'ite meddling in Sunni Arab countries. Those forces remain dominant in the Revolutionary Guards and intelligence services.
Gulf Arabs cite as a prime example Iranian support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, member of a sect that is an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam, who has waged a 2-1/2-year-old war against mostly Sunni rebels backed in part by Gulf Arabs.
A senior Gulf Arab official close to Saudi government thinking told Reuters the kingdom's attitude continued to be characterised largely by "suspicion", based on Iranian involvement in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain.
"MISCHIEF"
"The atomic arsenal is not their only arsenal - it is the mischief arsenal they have that worries us," he said.
"We have had a lot of accords and promises from them in the past. Now, we hope to see a corrective process with this deal."
The disclosure that senior U.S. officials held secret bilateral talks with Iranian counterparts in recent months to prepare for the nuclear agreement may exacerbate Gulf Arab rulers' fears that Washington is willing to go behind their backs to do a deal with Iran.
Many Gulf Arabs suspect that the commercial imperatives that have driven decades of U.S. engagement with them are similar to those driving U.S. outreach to Tehran - business.
"The U.S. has its interests - Iran is a lucrative market. Iranians need a lot of infrastructure for rebuilding that could generate billions of dollars for U.S. and U.K. oil companies," said Abdullatif al-Mulhim, a retired Saudi navy commodore and now a newspaper commentator.
In addition, some Gulf Arabs fret that a United States increasingly self reliant in energy thanks to domestic shale gas might be less committed to guarding the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow artery through which 40 percent of global sea-borne oil exports pass.
Sami al-Faraj, a security adviser to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), said Gulf Arab governments would now work diplomatically and on the security level to ensure they were adequately protected against any resurgent Iranian ambitions.
Gulf Arabs felt slighted by the deal, he suggested.
"Iran is sitting at the high table. We are left with the leftovers."
"MORE WEAPONS"
He added: "We will acquire more weapons...We are going to check if our shopping list is adequate to respond to this."
"We are going to rally other nations that are hurt by this action into a unified diplomatic campaign," Fajr said.
Warming U.S.-Iranian relations could help Assad in Syria.
Some analysts speculate that Washington's need to protect what could become one of its few diplomatic achievements in the region will mean that it will do whatever it needs to keep the Iranian thaw on track.
"Now, the U.S. is even less likely to put serious pressure on Iran over their support of the Assad regime during the negotiations," said Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Doha think-tank.
"And, obviously, with everyone's attention on Iran, Assad has cover to do pretty much whatever he wants."
Emile Hokayem of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, played down the idea that Israel and Gulf Arab states would make common cause in any systematic way against Iran.
"It's a convergence of interest, it's not an alliance," he said. "Each of them could reinforce messages on Capitol Hill, but don't be too carried away by the possibility of direct cooperation."
(Additional reporting By Erika Solomon in Beirut and Rania El Gamal in Dubai, Dan Williams and Maayan Lubel in Jerusalem; Editing by Paul Taylor)
1d) Sen. Chambliss: On Iran: "We've Let Them Out Of The Trap"
STEPHANOPOULOS: You heard Secretary Kerry. He says he hopes the Senate does not move forward -- Congress does not move forward on new sanctions. It sounds like he's going to be disappointed. You're going to push ahead.
CHAMBLISS: I think you're going to see a strong movement in the United States Senate to move ahead to tighten sanctions.
Now, there will have to be some time frame in there. They've done this deal. And this can be done without the approval of Congress.
So for the next six months, it looks like this deal is going to be in place. And it may be that we have to pass a resolution that puts sanctions on effective three months, four months, six months, whatever it might be.
But now is just not the time to ease sanctions when they are working.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're (INAUDIBLE)...
CHAMBLISS: We've got all of the leverage in the negotiation. And we've let them out of the trap.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So your bottom line is if a permanent deal does not roll back the Iranian nuclear program, you're going to push ahead for more and tighter sanctions on the Iranian economy?
CHAMBLISS: Exactly. George, we have trusted the Iranians before, just like the North Koreans on nuclear issues, and what have we gotten for it? They continue to hide their development of these weapons. And, you know, in spite of their agreement here to reduce the enrichment, the 20 percent stockpile they have enriched, they can go to North Korea and buy that from them in a heart beat.
So, when you look at what we have really gotten out of this, it's moving us away from the direction of prevention of them developing a weapon. And that, frankly, is what the American people and what the world wants. And that's why you're seeing Israel and Saudi Arabia and there will be other Middle East countries, I suspect, who come out in opposition to this short-term agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment