Op-ed: Has Iran agreed to ‘anywhere, anytime’ inspections, an end to R&D on faster centrifuges, and the dismantling of its key nuclear sites? No, no, and no
Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani on Tuesday unsurprisingly hailed the nuclear agreement struck with US-led world powers, and derided the “failed” efforts of the “warmongering Zionists.” His delight, Iran’s delight, is readily understandable.
The agreement legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program, allows it to retain core nuclear facilities, permits it to continue research in areas that will dramatically speed its breakout to the bomb should it choose to flout the deal, but also enables it to wait out those restrictions and proceed to become a nuclear threshold state with full international legitimacy. Here’s how.
1. Was the Iranian regime required, as a condition for this deal, to disclose the previous military dimensions of its nuclear program — to come clean on its violations — in order both to ensure effective inspections of all relevant facilities and to shatter the Iranian-dispelled myth that it has never breached its non-proliferation obligations? No. (This failure, arguably the original sin of the Western negotiating approach, is expertly detailed here by Emily B. Landau.) Rather than exposing Iran’s violations, the new deal solemnly asserts that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has failed to honor “remains the cornerstone” of ongoing efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The deal provides for a mechanism “to address past and present issues of concern relating to its nuclear programme,” but Iran has managed to dodge such efforts for years, and the deal inspires little hope of change in that area, blithely anticipating “closing the issue” in the next few months.
President Hassan Rouhani making a statement following announcement of the Iran nuclear deal, Tuesday, July 14, 2015 in Tehran. (Press TV via AP video)
President Hassan Rouhani making a statement following announcement of the Iran nuclear deal, Tuesday, July 14, 2015 in Tehran. (Press TV via AP video)
2. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt all uranium enrichment, including thousands of centrifuges spinning at its main Natanz enrichment facility? No. The deal specifically legitimizes enrichment under certain eroding limitations.
3. Has the Iranian regime been required to shut down and dismantle its Arak heavy water reactor and plutonium production plant? No. It will convert, not dismantle the facility, under a highly complex process. Even if it honors this clause, its commitment to “no additional heavy water reactors or accumulation of heavy water in Iran” will expire after 15 years.
4. Has the Iranian regime been required to shut down and dismantle the underground uranium enrichment facility it built secretly at Fordow? No. (Convert, not dismantle.)
5. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt its ongoing missile development? No.
A satellite image shown on Israel’s Channel 2 news, January 21, 2015, said to show a new long-range Iranian missile on a launch pad outside Tehran. (Channel 2 screenshot)
A satellite image shown on Israel’s Channel 2 news, January 21, 2015, said to show a new long-range Iranian missile on a launch pad outside Tehran. (Channel 2 screenshot)
6. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt research and development of the faster centrifuges that will enable it to break out to the bomb far more rapidly than is currently the case? No. The deal specifically legitimizes ongoing R&D under certain eroding limitations. It specifically provides, for instance, that Iran will commence testing of the fast “IR-8 on single centrifuge machines and its intermediate cascades” as soon as the deal goes into effect, and will “commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years.”
7. Has the Iranian regime been required to submit to “anywhere, anytime” inspections of any and all facilities suspected of engaging in rogue nuclear-related activity? No. Instead, the deal describes at considerable length a very protracted process of advance warning and “consultation” to resolve concerns.
8. Has the international community established procedures setting out how it will respond to different classes of Iranian violations, to ensure that the international community can act with sufficient speed and efficiency to thwart a breakout to the bomb? No.
9. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt its arming, financing and training of the Hezbollah terrorist army in south Lebanon? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)
10. Has the Iranian regime been required to surrender for trial the members of its leadership placed on an Interpol watch list for their alleged involvement in the bombing, by a Hezbollah suicide bomber, of the AMIA Jewish community center offices in Buenos Aires in 1994 that resulted in the deaths of 85 people? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)
11. Has the Iranian regime undertaken to close its 80 estimated “cultural centers” in South America from which it allegedly fosters terrorist networks? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)
Iranian protesters burn an Israeli flag during a demonstration to mark al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day in Tehran on July 10, 2015. (AFP/ATTA KENARE)
Iranian protesters burn an Israeli flag during a demonstration to mark al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day in Tehran on July 10, 2015. (AFP/ATTA KENARE)
12. Has the Iranian leadership agreed to stop inciting hatred among its people against Israel and the United States and to stop its relentless calls for the annihilation of Israel? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)
13. Has the Iranian regime agreed to halt executions, currently running at an average of some three a day, the highest rate for 20 years? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)
14. Does the nuclear deal shatter the painstakingly constructed sanctions regime that forced Iran to the negotiating table? Yes.
15. Will the deal usher in a new era of global commercial interaction with Iran, reviving the Iranian economy and releasing financial resources that Iran will use to bolster its military forces and terrorist networks? Yes.
16. Does the nuclear deal further cement Iran’s repressive and ideologically rapacious regime in power? Yes.
No wonder Iran and its allies are celebrating. Nobody else should be
The UN will treat it as a treaty. Only a Republican president can help, IF 75% of Jewish Americans don’t continue to support the Marxist Democrats,like Obama and Hillary. What will they do?
Schumer only qualification he deserves is AH
I met him when campaigning the first time when he was aspiring for the senate seat.
He impress me so much, I did not vote for him. Not the first or the second or ever have I voted for him and never will.
Three times I have written to him. The first time was asking for help for a fellow Jew who had his family locked up in a communist country and would not let them exit. Their children were denied an education by the communist government. Twice I asked and not even an answer.
The other two times it was about Israel and Jewish concerns. He sent a form letter they send to everyone and only, because he was running for reelection. Next time I’ll campaign against him. No other senator or member of the government hires private planes for his travels as much as he does. How can he call himself a Jew?
Everyone against Israel but, we have the hidden card.
Hashem! will protect Israel and our people.
Bibi does not have bemoles. He must grow a pair.
Since the nuclear dimension of the deal is convoluted and abstruse, let us distill the part of this agreement that is easily understandable: Obama proposes to give $150 billion to a terrorist regime that has murdered Americans and pledges to murder more.
In a just world, BO would be impeached immediately and incarcerated in a high security facility for the criminally insane. Unfortunately, there is nothing just about this world.
And in observing the ecstatic liberal reaction to this historical capitulation, it quickly becomes apparent that leftists cannot distinguish between “peace” and “surrender”.
Schumer’s running in 2016 so he’ll ardently oppose it…until 2017!
Here they are:
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Truly a Who’s Who Of Jews In Name Only.
There are now only eleven because Frank Lautenberg died, although he remains as intellectually alert as the rest of them.
@ babushka:
All these senators are bending so much they are showing their arses. They will do what Obama tells them. I wonder
how Shummer the senator from NY will vote. He is such snake. Just wants to appear in the news but has no bite.
Its not a treaty, its a joint memorandum of understanding. All it needs to enter into force is the approval of the anti-Israel UN. Which will be forthcoming.
Israel like it or not, has been presented with a fait-accompli.
There are twelve “Jewish” senators, each of whom practices the voodoo religion of liberalism.
Does anyone realize Federica Mogherini, the EU Foreign Secretary smiling benignly, is a communist; and her father is a communist? Of course, we know Barack’s father was a Marxist, not that he’s one! Lastly, whatever happened to the 2/3 vote of the Senate for a treaty? Gone with the wind like Robert E. Lee? Remember when a treaty was a treaty?
The final insult: The ten or so Jewish American senators will vote against the treaty, depending on their election district. In a pinch, they’ll vote for it to comply with Barack’s dictates if he needs the votes. They lean Marxist, too, rather than towards Herzl’s Hope.
The US-Iranian nuclear development agreement does in fact threaten Israel’s interests. And it also seals Israel’s understanding that US President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry should be treated as at best disinterested in Israel’s interests and at worst are openly hostile to those interests. So the question is what to do about it that can serve Israel’s interests.
One way is to work diligently to line up a sufficient plurality of US Senate votes to render non-acceptance of Obama’s and Kerry’s handiwork impeachment-proof. But the outcome of such a strategy is at best questionable, not least because the accord probably is little more than an executive understanding and not a signed pact between sovereign states.
Another way is for Israel to take covert action designed to overthrow the present ayatollist regime that runs Iran. The outcome of that action is also questionable.
A third way is for Israel to solidify its control over the 62 per cent of Yesha which Area C comprises by reassigning
that territory to Israeli civil rather than Israeli military administration, and by removing it completely from any possible discussions with the Fatah movement that presently controls the major Arab-populated cities of Yesha.
The Obama administration will see that as a slap in their policy face, which is essentially true. But in any case, Israel’s permanent survival depends on controlling all lands west of the Jordan River, the Dead Sea, and the Arava Valley southward to the Dead Sea. That prerequisite in the long run is as important as keeping nuclear weapons out of control of totally hostile governments in the Middle East. In any case, I think a growing number of members of the US Congress could be convinced to support Israeli development and permanent control of such territories. All things considered, this would be an ideal time for Israel to assert its independence from such an obviously foolish and probably hostile government, and start taking steps to turn the administered territories into integral parts of the Jewish State.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI