The Israel Project's Omri Ceren talks about the Iran deal
Omri Ceren talked by video from New York City and about the Iran nuclear
deal, his opposition to the deal, and the lobbying effects of other
groups who were supporting the deal. He responded to a video clip from
Daniel Kalik speaking August 16, 2015, and an ad from his J Street
organization supporting the deal. Mr. Ceren responded to telephone calls
and electronic communications, with the telephone lines divided between
those who supported and opposed the deal.
Let's go to the videotape.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, intercontinental ballistic missiles, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Omri Ceren, plutonium, uranium enrichment
Iran's nuclear map - much more than you knew about
There's a great map of Iran's nuclear facilities that's been posted
here.
It's by Olli Heinonen, a senior fellow with the Belfer Center at Harvard
University's Kennedy School and a former deputy director-general for
safeguards at the IAEA, and by Simon Henderson is the Baker fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy
Policy Program at The Washington Institute, specializing in energy
matters and the conservative Arab states of the Persian Gulf.
If you click the link, you can even download a pdf version (which I did). I had no idea that there were this many facilities and I suspect that most of you didn't know either (I thought there were four or five facilities). Most of these facilities will remain intact if President Obama's agreement with Iran goes through and is implemented.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Arak heavy water production plant, Barack Hussein Obama, Bushehr, Fordow nuclear plant, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Natanz, P 5+1, plutonium, uranium, uranium enrichment
Kerry to reject P 5+1 deal?
Does US Secretary of State John Kerry really believe that @Khameni.ir will
ever agree to this?
US Secretary of State John Kerry said a final nuclear accord with Iran
will require that Tehran disclose its past military-related nuclear
activities.
“It will be part of a final agreement. It has to be,” Kerry said
Wednesday during an interview with PBS NewsHour. The secretary of state
insisted: “They have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a
deal, it will be done.”
...
Iran has repeatedly stonewalled the United Nations’ nuclear monitoring
agency from fully investigating the scope of its nuclear ambitions.
However, according to Kerry, that will change under the terms of any
June agreement, which would include “a very robust inspection system.”
It doesn't sound like there's going to be an agreement. Except that Obama-Kerry are so desperate for an agreement that they will concede anything - anything - for a deal to get done.
What could go wrong? (More follows).
Tonight is the 7th night of Passover, which is a holiday day, and which will be followed by the Sabbath. Therefore, this is the last post until Saturday night or Sunday morning (when I already have lots of work awaiting me...).
Chag Sameyach and Shabbat Shalom everyone!
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, inspection, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, nuclear weapons, P 5+1, plutonium, uranium enrichment
Khameni to reject P 5+1 deal?
I would bet on Khameni rejecting the deal over the inspections... and Obama and Kerry conceding that point too. Here's a hint.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Ayatollah Ali Khameni, Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, inspection, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, P 5+1, plutonium, uranium enrichment
Obama administration warns Iran not to be put off by deal's spin
Oh... My... God....
It's astounding just how brazen this administration is.
Here's the
full article.
One problem is that there are two versions.
The
only joint document issued publicly was a statement from Mohammad Javad
Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, and Federica Mogherini, the European
Union foreign-policy chief, that was all of seven paragraphs.
The statement listed about a dozen “parameters” that are to guide the
next three months of talks, including the commitment that Iran’s Natanz
installation will be the only location at which uranium is enriched
during the life of the agreement.
But the United States and Iran have also made public more detailed
accounts of their agreements made in Lausanne, and those accounts
illustrate their expectations for what the final accord should say.
A review shows there is considerable overlap between the two
accounts, but also some noteworthy differences — which have raised the
question of whether the two sides are on the same page, especially on
the question of how quickly sanctions are to be removed.
The U.S. and Iranian statements do not clarify some critical issues,
such as precisely what sort of research Iran will be allowed to
undertake on advanced centrifuges during the first 10 years of the
accord.
“This is just a work in progress, and those differences in fact
sheets indicate the challenges ahead,” said Olli Heinonen, former deputy
director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Obama administration officials insist there is no dispute on what was
agreed behind closed doors. But to avoid time-consuming deliberations
on what would be said publicly, the two sides decided that each would
issue its own statement.
Sounds like yet another version of 'once we vote on the agreement, you can read the agreement.' But this one has potentially much more deadly consequences....
No sooner were the negotiations over Thursday than Zarif sent a tweet
that dismissed the five-page set of U.S. parameters as “spin.”
On
Iranian state television Saturday, Zarif kept up that refrain, saying
Iran had formally complained to Secretary of State John Kerry that the
measures listed in the U.S. statement were “in contradiction” to what
had been accepted in Lausanne.
Zarif, however, did not challenge any nuclear provisions in the U.S.
document. Instead, he complained that the paper had been drawn up under
Israeli and congressional pressure, and he restated Iran’s insistence on
fast sanctions relief, including the need to “terminate,” not just
suspend, European Union sanctions.
It gets worse....
A review of the dueling U.S. and Iranian statements show they differ
in some important respects. The U.S. statement says Iran has agreed to
shrink its stockpile of uranium to 300 kilograms, a commitment the
Iranian statement does not mention.
The Iranian statement emphasizes that nuclear cooperation between
Iran and the six world powers that negotiated the agreement will grow,
including in the construction of nuclear-power plants, research reactors
and the use of isotopes for medical research. That potential
cooperation is not mentioned in the U.S. statement.
The
U.S. statement says Iran will be barred from using its advanced
centrifuges to produce uranium for at least 10 years. Before those 10
years are up, Iran will be able to conduct some “limited” research on
the centrifuges. The Iranian version omits the word “limited.”
The starkest differences between the U.S. and Iranians accounts
concern the pace at which punishing economic sanctions against Iran are
to be removed. The Iranian text says that when the agreement is
implemented, the sanctions will “immediately” be canceled.
U.S. officials have described sanctions relief as more of a
step-by-step process tied to Iranian efforts to carry out the accord.
With three months of hard bargaining
ahead, some experts worry that the lack of an agreed-upon, detailed
public framework can only complicate the negotiations — and may invite
the Iranians to try to relitigate the terms of the Lausanne deal.
“I think it is a troubling development,” said Ray Takeyh, a senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has been critical of the
Obama administration’s handling of the talks. “They will exploit all
ambiguities with creative interpretations.”
And in any event, even assuming an agreement is reached and Iran actually keeps to it, ten years is not a long time.
The fact that the US has admitted that some of what it is saying is 'spin' (see the tweet above, which comes from a part of the article that I skipped) is probably most worrying of all. No one - other than those who were there - knows exactly what was agreed.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, centrifuges, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Natanz, P 5+1, plutonium, uranium enrichment
Nuke deal signed, Obama to threaten Netanyahu later today
An
agreement has been signed between Iran and the P 5+1, and President Hussein Obama is calling Prime Minister Netanyahu later today to make sure that Netanyahu will not take matters into his own hands (see the tweet above - what else could it mean? Obama detests Netanyahu...). Except that it's not much of an agreement, and Iran is laughing all the way to the bank.
After failing to meet a March 31 deadline for the announcement of a
firm political agreement, Secretary of State John Kerry and Javad Zarif,
his Iranian counterpart, said that the sides had agreed in principle to
let Iran continue running major portions of its nuclear program.
Despite threats from Obama administration officials that the United
States would abandon talks if Iran continued to demand greater
concessions, Kerry extended his trip and conducted a series of meetings
aimed at hashing out a statement of progress—a far cry from the detailed
document officials vowed would be finalized by now.
The sides continue to disagree over Iranian demands that it be
permitted to continue key nuclear research and granted the ability to
ramp its program up to industrial capacity after a decade.
However, Zarif said many of these issues are closer to being resolved.
“None of those measures” that will move to scale back Iran’s program
“include closing any of our facilities,” Zarif said. “We will continue
enriching; we will continue research and development.”
“Our heavy water reactor will be modernized and we will continue the
Fordow facility,” Zarif said. “We will have centrifuges installed in
Fordow, but not enriching.”
...
Zarif said that once a final agreement is made, “all U.S. nuclear
related secondary sanctions will be terminated,” he said. “This, I
think, would be a major step forward.”
Zarif also revealed that Iran will be allowed to sell “enriched
uranium” in the international market place and will be “hopefully making
some money” from it.
...
The United Nations also will move to endorse the ongoing Joint Plan of
Action interim deal and terminate all of its previous security council
resolutions on Iran.
...
Zarif told
reporters late Wednesday amid extensive meetings with the United
States and other P5+1 one nations that he was “all smiles” after days of
intensive talks in which Tehran has given little ground on American
efforts to reduce the size of its nuclear program and uranium
stockpiles.
Zarif emphasized that no progress could be made in the talks due to continued United States “pressure” and lack of respect.
Iran in recent days went
back on earlier promises that it would export its stockpiles of
enriched uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon. This
requirement continues to remain one of the key sticking points to
progress.
With the talks slated to continue through June, a majority of Americans say Congress “should be required” to approve the agreement, something the Obama administration has opposed.
Around 55 percent of those surveyed by Fox News said the United
States cannot “trust anything” Iran promises on the nuclear front.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Arak heavy water production plant, Barack Hussein Obama, Fordow nuclear plant, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Mohammad Javad Zarif, P 5+1, plutonium, uranium enrichment
WaPo gives Obama three Pinocchios for claiming that Iran's nuclear program has been halted
The Washington Post's fact checker has give President Hussein Obama three Pinocchio's (out of a possible four) for
lying in his State of the Union message by claiming that Iran's nuclear program has been halted. Three Pinocchio's mean that there is '
significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions' in the claim made.This is from the first link.
Olli Heinonen,
who headed the IAEA’s safeguards section during the 2003-2005 talks
between Iran and three European powers (United Kingdom, France and
Germany), said “it is true that 20-percent enriched uranium stocks have
decreased, but Iran is still producing uranium enriched up to 5-percent
uranium. The latter stocks have actually increased when you talk about
stocks of UF6 [uranium hexafluoride] and other chemical compounds.”
Moreover,
while there has been no installation of new centrifuges, “it appears
that the production of centrifuge components continues. Same with the
Arak reactor. No new nuclear components have been installed, but it does
not mean that the production of those came to halt.”
As Heinonen
put it, “the JPOA is just a step to create negotiation space; nothing
more. It is not a viable longer term situation. The nuclear caravan of
Iran continues and sets a step after a step another fait accompli.”
David Albright,
who heads Institute for Science and International Security, said the
president’s language was “a little bit odd.” He said that the halt in
Iran’s program from 2003 to 2005 was a more substantial suspension of
enrichment activities. (At the Senate hearing, Blinken acknowledged the
United States and its negotiating partners had abandoned United Nations
Security Council demands that Iran halt enrichment as it was clear “Iran
was not going to give up as a practical matter some very limited forms
of enrichment in the event of an agreement.”)
Moreover, Albright
said it was not correct that the 3.5-percent enriched stock had been
reduced; instead it has been converted from one form (“hexafluoride”) to
another (“oxide”), a step that he said was taken largely for cosmetic
(political) purposes. A significant portion of 20-percent enriched
material has also been retained as scrap, rather than converted into
fuel for a research reactor. A key aspect of the talks is to extend the
“break out” period under which Iran could manufacture a nuclear weapon,
but he said as a practical matter the conversion of 3.5 percent to oxide
form would only add about two weeks to the break-out period, since Iran
could reconvert it back into hexafluoride. (Here’s his report on this issue; this paragraph was updated for clarity.)
In effect, the amount of nuclear material available to Iran has gone up “about a bomb’s worth during the JPOA,” Albright said.
This
is where Obama’s speechwriters went awry. Iran’s stock of low enriched
uranium — a “nuclear material” by the IAEA’s definition — has gone up
during the negotiations, largely as a consequence of the dilution of the
near 20-percent material.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Arak heavy water production plant, Barack Hussein Obama, enriched uranium, Iranian nuclear threat, ISIS, lies, plutonium
Here we go: 'Senior Israeli official' slams 'Obama's Mossad lies'
A 'senior Israeli official' has slammed '
Obama's Mossad lies,' a reference to an
article in Bloomberg View by @JoshRogin and @Eli Lake. This is from the first link.
"The fraudulent claims against the Mossad Head were raised by the
Americans yesterday, despite a message that had been transmitted to them
on Tuesday by Intelligence Minister [Yuval] Steintz,” the senior
Israeli source told Channel 2 news.
He added that Israel had gone over the minutes of the meeting between
Pardo and the delegation of senators, and that Pardo had not said what
was attributed to him.
"Leaking the Mossad Head's statements, even if they had not been
falsified, is a serious breach of all the rules,” the senior source
added. “Friends do not behave like this. Information from a secret
meeting must not leak out.”
Pardo denied on Thursday the report – which was carried by Bloomberg news – claiming that the Mossad disagrees with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu about the need to press new sanctions on Iran.
Wow.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez, Yuval Steinitz
Army Radio: @JoshRogin @EliLake story is Barack's revenge
Israel's Army Radio reports that the story by @JoshRogin and @EliLake in Bloomberg's that many are (falsely) interpreting as showing a split between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Mossad on Iran sanctions is
President Obama's revenge for Netanyahu's invitation to address a joint session of Congress.
Sources in Jerusalem told Army Radio Thursday that the story reported in Bloomberg about
disagreement between Netanyahu and the Mossad regarding sanctions on
Iran is US President Barack Obama administration's “revenge” for
Netanyahu's invitation to address Congress.
The invitation was extended by Congress without consulting Obama.
Sorry, but I don't buy this one. If the White House wanted to plant a story, it would have gone to Jeffrey Goldberg or Tom Friedman.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, Mossad, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez, Tamir Pardo
Breaking: Full statement from Mossad head on Iran
The above was just posted on
TwitLonger by Israel Radio reporter Chico Menashe. Here's my translation:
Reaction of the Mossad Chairman to the new crisis with Washington:
On 19 January 2015, Mossad Chairman Tamir Pardo met with a delegation of American Senators. The meeting took place at the Senators' request, and with the Prime Minister's approval.
Contrary to the report, the Mossad Chairman did not say that he opposes additional sanctions against Iran. In the meeting, the Mossad Chairman emphasized the unusual effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on Iran a number of years ago in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.
The Mossad Chairman pointed out that the negotiations with Iran must be conducted using 'carrots and sticks,' and the 'sticks' are currently missing. The Mossad Chairman pointed out that without strong pressure, it will not be possible to bring about significant compromises on the Iranian side.
The Mossad Chairman did not relate to the use of the term 'hand grenade' with respect to the imposition of sanctions, because in his eyes, these are the 'sticks' that will help to obtain a good agreement. He used this term to describe the possibility of creating a temporary breakdown in the talks, at the end of which the negotiations will be restarted under better conditions.
The Mossad Chairman explicitly pointed out that the agreement that is being reached with Iran is bad, and may lead to a regional arms race.
Welcome to Washington Prime Minister Netanyahu.
UPDATE 4:21 PM
Previous posts on this story
here and
here.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, Mossad, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez, Tamir Pardo
And it looks like I was right
In an
earlier post reviewing an article by @JoshRogin and @EliLake, I argued that the Mossad never recommended not putting additional sanctions on Iran.
It looks like I was right.
Developing....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez
No, the Mossad didn't say new Iran sanctions are a bad thing
@JoshRogin and @EliLake report on disagreements between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Mossad about the impact of new US sanctions on Iran. Many are taking the report as a reason (excuse?) to vote against the Kirk-Menendez bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran.
But notice what's left unsaid.
Already, the Barack Obama administration and some leading Republican
senators are using the Israeli internal disagreement to undermine
support for the bill, authored by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat
Robert Menendez, which would enact new sanctions if current negotiations
falter.
Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee --
supported by Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain -- is
pushing for his own legislation on the Iran nuclear deal,
which doesn't contain sanctions but would require that the Senate vote
on any pact that is agreed upon in Geneva. The White House is opposed to
both the Kirk-Menendez bill and the Corker bill; it doesn't want
Congress to meddle at all in the delicate multilateral diplomacy with
Iran.
Israeli intelligence officials have been briefing both Obama
administration officials and visiting U.S. senators about their concerns
on the Kirk-Menendez bill, which would increase sanctions on Iran only
if the Iranian government can't strike a deal with the so-called P5+1
countries by a June 30 deadline or fails to live up to its commitments.
Meanwhile, the Israeli prime minister’s office has been supporting the
Kirk-Menendez bill, as does
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, ahead of what will be a
major foreign policy confrontation between the executive and legislative
branches of the U.S. government in coming weeks.
Evidence of the Israeli rift surfaced Wednesday when Secretary of
State John Kerry said that an unnamed Israeli intelligence official had
said the new sanctions bill would be “like throwing a grenade into the
process.” But an initial warning from Israeli Mossad leaders was also
delivered last week in Israel to a Congressional delegation -- including
Corker, Graham, McCain and fellow Republican John Barrasso; Democratic
Senators Joe Donnelly and Tim Kaine; and independent Angus King --
according to lawmakers who were present and staff members who were
briefed on the exchange. When Menendez (who was not on the trip) heard
about the briefing, he quickly phoned Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron
Dermer to seek clarification.
Barrasso told us Tuesday that different parts of the Israeli
government told the delegation different things. “We met with a number
of government officials from many different parts of the government.
There’s not a uniform view there,” he said.
In a Wednesday morning hearing on Iran at the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Corker talked about the Israel visit and said that
his bill (not the Kirk-Menendez bill) was acceptable to all the Israeli
officials they spoke with. “Some of us were in Israel this weekend over
this very same issue. We have heard no one, no one, say that if Congress
were to weigh in on the final agreement it would in any way destabilize
the negotiations,” Corker said.
Note that the Mossad is
not saying 'don't pass new sanctions.' It's saying 'if you do pass new sanctions, Iran is likely to walk away from the talks. If one accepts the proposition that Iran is using the talks as
cover to continue its nuclear weapons development program, Iran walking away from the talks would probably not be such a bad thing.
Moreover, as Rogin and Lake admit, no one really knows for sure what Iran would do if the Kirk-Menendez bill is passed. If Iran walks away from the talks, it risks isolating itself in the international community. While Russia and China might prevent the Security Council from acting against Iran, if Iran is isolated, it is less likely that Israel - for example - would be inhibited from acting. After all, the West would no longer be able to argue that we have to give negotiations a chance. There would be no negotiations.
Iran's argument that new sanctions would violate the 'spirit of the negotiations'
ought to fall on deaf ears. Iran has violated any spirit that ever existed.
Saying that passing Kirk-Menendez might cause Iran to walk away from the talks is a no-brainer. But it also might not. And even if it did cause Iran to walk away, that might not be such a bad outcome.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez
State Dept: Iranian construction of light water nuclear reactors allowed
The State Department says that
Iranian construction of light water nuclear reactors is allowed under both the UN resolutions and the JPOA (the interim agreement). This is from Adam Kredo.
“We are aware of the announcement and are reviewing the details,”
said the official, who was not authorized to speak on record. However,
“in general, the construction of light water nuclear reactors is not
prohibited by U.N. Security Council resolutions, nor does it violate the
JPOA,” the official said.
The United States remains committed to ensuring the “peaceful” nature
of Iran’s nuclear program, which continues to progress in part as talks
continue through July 1.
“We have been clear in saying that the purpose of the negotiations
with Iran is to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program remains exclusively
for civilian, peaceful purposes,” the official said. “The talks that we
have been engaged in for months involve a specific set of issues
relative to closing off all possible pathways to Iran acquiring a
nuclear bomb. That remains our focus.”
In an email, the Israel Project points out that the JPOA is a total failure:
Diplomatically, new infrastructure gives the Iranians more leverage in negotiations. The more they have, the more they have to bargain with. The JPOA was supposed to freeze the Iranian program to prevent them from improving their position as talks proceeded. It failed. Instead the Iranians spent the last year building up their nuclear program - and their leverage - across all areas:
* Uranium - The JPOA allows unlimited enrichment from 0% to 3.5%, which is about 60% of the effort needed to get to weapons grade levels. Every day they've got 9,000 centrifuges spilling and building up their stockpile. The only caveat is they have to convert the newly enriched gas into oxide, a process that would take them a couple of weeks to reverse.
* Plutonium - The JPOA allows unlimited work on Iran's Arak plutonium factory as long as the Iranians don't touch the reactor at the site, and unlimited work on reactor parts off-site.
* Ballistic missiles - The JPOA allows unlimited work on ballistic missiles.
And now...
* Physical infrastructure - The JPOA allows allowed unlimited construction of full-blown nuclear reactors.
Kredo points out that Iran has now admitted that it is working on ballistic missiles.
Iran also has admitted to building advanced missile sites in Syria—where
it is fighting on behalf of embattled Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad—and has been accused in recent days of also building a
clandestine nuclear facility there.
That story would be
here.
Kredo goes on to add that Rohani is just embarrassing the Obama administration.
“Rouhani went out of his way to humiliate the Obama administration,”
said one senior foreign policy hand who works on the issue. “He picked
the day when negotiations were starting again and his declaration is the
literal definition of building new nuclear technology.”
“And instead of fighting back, the White House is again rolling over
and letting themselves be slapped around,” the source said. “They’ll do
anything—anything—to get a deal with Iran.”
What could go wrong?
Labels: Arak heavy water production plant, Barack Hussein Obama, Bushehr, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1, plutonium, Syrian nuclear program
P 5+1 allowing Iran to do whatever it pleases with its nuclear program
This is way too long to excerpt but Omri Ceren reviews the history of the P 5+1 'negotiations' with Iran and concludes that the Obama administration has
given away the store.
Labels: Arak heavy water production plant, Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez, uranium enrichment, Wendy Sherman
US secretly accuses Iran of secretly violating nuclear interim agreement
Foreign Policy reports that the United States has secretly accused Iran of secretly violating the secret interim agreement between Iran and the P 5+1... by
secretly seeking fuel for its Arak nuclear reactor.
A U.S. delegation informed a U.N. Security Council panel of experts
monitoring Iranian sanctions in recent months that Iranian procurement
agents have been increasing their efforts to illicitly obtain equipment
for the IR-40 research reactor at the Arak nuclear complex.
The American allegations, which have never before been reported, come
more than a year after the Iranian government pledged as part of an
interim agreement with the United States and other big powers to scale
back Iran’s most controversial nuclear-related activities, including the
enrichment of high-grade uranium, in exchange for billions of dollars
in sanctions relief. They stand in stark contrast to recent remarks by
Secretary of State John Kerry, who has repeatedly credited Tehran with
abiding by the terms of the November 2013 pact, which bound Tehran to
suspend some of its work at Arak. “Iran has held up its end of the
bargain,” Kerry said last month in Vienna as he announced a seven-month
extension of the timetable for big-power talks.
The allegation is also sure to add to the mounting congressional
unease over the administration’s ongoing talks with Tehran. Many
lawmakers from both parties believe that the White House is making too
many concessions to Tehran to cement a deal that it sees as central to
the president’s legacy. With the GOP slated to take over the Senate next
month, Iran hawks like Arizona Republican John McCain and Illinois
Republican Mark Kirk are already promising to push through a new package
of economic sanctions, a move that the White House believes would
scupper the delicate talks with Tehran. Both men are likely to see the
new U.N. allegations as proof that Tehran simply can’t be trusted to
abide by the terms of a future deal.
As part of its pact with the United States and other big powers, Iran
has halted some critical construction work at the IR-40 research
reactor, which is already being monitored by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), and in December provided the agency’s inspectors
with “managed” access to a heavy-water production plant at Arak that had
not been subject to IAEA monitoring. Iran is currently in discussions
with the IAEA on establishing a protocol for future monitoring of the
reactor.
The U.S. allegations were detailed in a confidential Nov. 7 report by
an eight-member panel of experts that advises a U.N. Security Council
committee that oversees international compliance with U.N. sanctions on
Iran. The report, which cites an unnamed state as the source of the
allegation, doesn’t identify the United States by name. But diplomatic
sources confirmed that the United States presented the briefing.
The confidential report, portions of which were made available to Foreign Policy,
notes that “one member state highlighted during consultations with the
panel a number of developments regarding proliferation-sensitive
procurement by Iran.” The delegation, the report continued, “informed
the panel that it had observed no recent downturn in procurement” in
recent months. It did cite a “relative decrease in centrifuge enrichment
related-procurement” in recent months. But it added that it had
detected “an increase in procurement on behalf of the IR-40 Heavy Water
Research Reactor at Arak.”
The United States indicated that foreign businesses and purchasing
agents interested in doing business with Iran have been taking advantage
of the improved diplomatic atmosphere to broker new deals with Iran. At
the same time, they say there is overwhelming evidence that Tehran
continues to transfer huge amounts of weapons to its proxies and allies,
including Syria and Iraq. In June, the U.N. panel of experts asserted
that an Iranian shipment of rockets, mortars and other arms seized in
March by the Israeli navy while en route to Sudan violated the U.N. arms
embargo. Only last week, U.S. and Iranian officials confirmed that
Iranian warplanes had launched airstrikes on Islamic State targets in
Iraq, making Tehran and Washington unofficial allies in the fight
against the Islamist group.
The President of the United States seems to believe that if you wish upon a star, your dreams will come true. There might eventually be an agreement reached between Iran and the P 5+1, but if there is, you can bet that Iran will violate it.
The Obama administration has promised over and over again that if Iran violates the interim deal, it would support sanctions. Examples are
here,
here and
here (and there are several more). But instead of taking the lead on additional sanctions, the Obama administration is trying to hide the violations and to enact more 'sanctions relief.'
What could go wrong?
Labels: Arak heavy water production plant, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, P 5+1, plutonium
No kidding: Netanyahu orders Mossad to look for Iranian violations of P 5+1 agreement
As most of you undoubtedly know by now, I generally don't take reports from the Sunday Times of London very seriously. But when I saw this one, my response was "no kidding." The Sunday Times is reporting that Prime Minister Netanyahu has ordered the Mossad to
try to find a smoking gun indicating Iranian violations of the P 5+1 agreement. Gee, ya think?
“Everyone has his own view regarding the Geneva agreement,” the Times
quoted an Israeli intelligence source as saying. “But it is clear that
if a smoking gun is produced, it will tumble like a house of cards.”
The Times
quoted Israeli defense sources as saying that Israeli intelligence was
seeking to uncover clandestine activity in three areas of Iran's nuclear
program - hidden uranium enrichment sites, ballistic missiles and bomb
design.
“Iran would not have invested such a fortune [estimated at
$200 billion] if in the end it does not produce nuclear weapons and
turn Iran into a regional superpower,” the paper quoted an Israeli
official as saying.
And they're not looking for construction at the Arak plutonium plant? Of course they are. And they'd be fools not to look for it. What else can Israel do to stop the Obama juggernaut?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, intermediate range ballistic missiles, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1, plutonium, uranium enrichment
US okays Iran continuing to build Arak plutonium reactor
The Hebrew-language daily Maariv reports that even after 'downgrading' its nuclear capabilities (if that ever happens) as required by the P 5+1 agreement, Iran will be 36 days from a nuclear weapon, AND that the
United States has okayed Iran continuing to build the plutonium reactor at Arak.
Israeli experts have estimated that Tehran's schedule for nuclear
enrichment has only been delayed for up to two weeks, according to the
report, less than one week after a deal has been reached between Western
powers and the Iranian government regarding the nuclear program.
The estimate may confirm Netanyahu's condemnation of the deal - which
is an interim agreement which lifts economic sanctions for a slowing,
but not stopping, of Iran's nuclear production - as a "historic
mistake."
The concern in Israel is that Iran will wait for an international
crisis, or an internal crisis in the United States, as a prime
opportunity to drop a nuclear bomb on its enemies. The deal provides
international support for Iran's nuclear program by allowing it to
continue in any capacity - thus making the global community powerless to
stop a nuclear Iran on legal grounds.
The report states that Iran is likely to fire up their 18,000
centrifuges and produce a nuclear bomb in the event that the Islamic
Republic sees the golden opportunity to use nuclear warfare - deal or no
deal. A nuclear warhead would then be ready in as little as 36 days.
...
Meanwhile, the US has declared their support for the Iranian to
"continue building" their nuclear reactor in Arak. The support is based
on terms which prevent Tehran from producing nuclear fuel, or using the
heavy water reactor; however, these cannot be constantly monitored,
experts claim.
The report also says that Iran does not have the capability of reducing the enrichment level of its already enriched uranium.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Arak heavy water production plant, Barack Hussein Obama, enriched uranium, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1, plutonium
'Like I said, all options are on the table'
(Yes, the title of the post is a translation of the cartoon's
Hebrew caption).
Labels: Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, P 5+1, plutonium, uranium enrichment
Why is the P 5+1 agreement with Iran like Obamacare?
Why is the P 5+1 agreement with Iran like Obamacare? Because
no one read it until after it was signed. And that's the benign reading....
Iran said it would not make "any further advances of its activities" on the Arak reactor, according to text of the agreement.
"The
capacity at the Arak site is not going to increase. It means no new
nuclear fuel will be produced and no new installations will be
installed, but construction will continue there," Zarif told parliament
in translated comments broadcast on Iran's Press TV.
But experts have said an apparent gap in the text
could allow Tehran to build components off-site to install later in the
nuclear reactor. It was not immediately clear if Zarif was referring to
this or other construction activity.
Just like when the Obama administration couldn't wait for a vote for long enough to have Congress read the bill.
'Just pass the damn bill.'
'Just sign the damn agreement.'
What could go wrong?
Labels: Arak heavy water production plant, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Obamacare, P 5+1, plutonium
'Worse than Munich'
Bret Stephens writes that the P 5+1 deal with Iran sets a new standard for the
most given away for the least by the many and the strong.
Consider: Britain and France came to Munich
as military weaklings. The U.S. and its allies face Iran from a position
of overwhelming strength. Britain and France won time to rearm. The
U.S. and its allies have given Iran more time to stockpile uranium and
develop its nuclear infrastructure. Britain and France had overwhelming
domestic constituencies in favor of any deal that would avoid war. The
Obama
administration is defying broad bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress for the sake of a deal.
As
for the Vietnam parallels, the U.S. showed military resolve in the
run-up to the
Paris Accords
with a massive bombing and mining campaign of the North that
demonstrated presidential resolve and forced Hanoi to sign the deal. The
administration comes to Geneva fresh from worming its way out of its
own threat to use force to punish Syria's
Bashar Assad
for his use of chemical weapons against his own people.
The
Nixon
administration also exited Vietnam in the context of a durable
opening to Beijing that helped tilt the global balance of power against
Moscow. Now the U.S. is attempting a fleeting opening with Tehran at the
expense of a durable alliance of values with Israel and interests with
Saudi Arabia. "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" is the title of a
hilarious memoir by British author
Toby Young
—but it could equally be the history of Barack Obama's foreign
policy.
That's where the differences
end between Geneva and the previous accords. What they have in common is
that each deal was a betrayal of small countries—Czechoslovakia, South
Vietnam, Israel—that had relied on Western security guarantees. Each was
a victory for the dictatorships: "No matter the world wants it or not,"
Iranian President
Hasan Rouhani
said Sunday, "this path will, God willingly, continue to the peak
that has been considered by the martyred nuclear scientists." Each deal
increased the contempt of the dictatorships for the democracies: "If
ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella,"
Hitler is reported to have said of Chamberlain after Munich, "I'll kick
him downstairs and jump on his stomach."
And
each deal was a prelude to worse. After Munich came the conquest of
Czechoslovakia, the Nazi-Soviet pact and World War II. After Paris came
the fall of Saigon and Phnom Penh and the humiliating exit from the
embassy rooftop. After Geneva there will come a new, chaotic Mideast
reality in which the United States will lose leverage over enemies and
friends alike.
Read the whole thing. Sadly, he's spot on.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Czech Republic, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Israel, Neville Chamberlain, plutonium, Richard Nixon, uranium enrichment, Vietnam, World War II
