Iran

ANDY BOSTOM: END THE BUSH FECKLESSNESS, DESTROY IRAN’S NUKE FACILITIES PRONTO…….

clapping orson

carpetbombing

End the Bush-Obama Fecklessness: Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Now

Why now is the time.

by ANDREW G. BOSTOM
November 10, 2014

The Obama administration and Iran’s rulers, spurred by the latter’s alleged “pragmatic” wing, appear to be rushing headlong towards a final agreement on November 24, 2014, which would validate Iran’s right to enrich uranium for putative non-military uses, and also provide the global jihad-promoting Shiite theocracy extensive relief from economic sanctions. This mutually desired outcome was strongly hinted at by both U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman during an October 23, 2014 speech, and the recent public statements of key Iranian regime advisors.

Indeed, reports surfaced this past week that President Obama himself has made direct, supplicating overtures to Iran’s head Shiite theocrat, Ayatollah Khamenei, linking U.S.-Iranian “cooperation” in fighting the Islamic State Sunni jihadists, to reaching a final nuclear agreement November 24, per the so-called “P5 +1” (= the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, i.e., the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany) negotiations process. At a post-midterm elections press conference, 11/5/14, Mr. Obama openly expressed his endorsement of the apparently forthcoming nuclear deal with Iran:

I think that we’ll be able to make a strong argument to Congress that this is the best way for us to avoid a nuclear Iran, that it will be more effective than any other alternatives we might take, including military action.

Pace Mr. Obama’s and his advisers’ “arguments”—a toxic brew of willful, dangerous delusion, ignorance, and cynicism—the diplomatic processes they are aggressively pursuing will inevitably yield an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Thus within two days of the U.S. President’s latest roseate pronouncement, a tocsin of looming calamity was sounded in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released Friday, 11/7/14.

More here.

Also this presser, from Omri Ceren at The Israel Project:

The most recent IAEA report leaked on Friday. Among other things, it declared that Iran was still denying the Agency access to sites where military-related atomic work is thought to have taken place. The footdragging is set to gut any post-deal verification regime: the IAEA needs to benchmark the full scope of Iran’s program now, so that everything can be built into an agreement which the IAEA will monitor later. All very straightfoward.

There seems to be some confusion though. People keep mixing up the current round of inspections (meant to catalog what Iran will be asked to give up) and inspections that will happen after a deal (meant to verify that Iran has given up whatever it promised). The confusion was noticeable up in last Friday’s State Department briefing. Veteran AP reporter Matt Lee kept asking about how Iran is stonewalling the current round of benchmarking investigations. State Dept spox Jen Psaki kept responding that the IAEA would certainly get to inspect whatever is put into an agreement.

The same thing happened again today. He kep asking about current inspections, she kept answering about future inspections:

Question: Alright, then let’s talk about the one prior to this, which found that the Iranians… had not been complying with the IAEA on looking into past, any possible military dimension of their nuclear program in the past… does that play any, does that have any impact or play any factor in the P5+1 negotiations that were going on until just an hour, a couple hours ago?

Jen Psaki: The IAEA will of course play a critical role, as they already have played in the monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program. They would continue to play that if there’s a deal or an agreement. Obviously there isn’t a deal or an agreement yet. An implementation of that and the monitoring mechanism of that will be pivotal to whether Iran is abiding by their agreement.

Question: Yea, but don’t you see what the problem is here? If the Iranians are not cooperating with the IAEA on monitoring of is previous, allegations of previous military dimensions,  how in the world can you trust them to be able to effectively and credibly monitor an agreement that you might come to in the future? I mean…

Jen Psaki: Well Matt, we had a similar conversation last Thursday or Friday.

Question: So does that mean that the negotiations now will take into account the fact that the Iranians haven’t been complying with the previous monitoring order, and will it — will you  demand that Iran does comply with that now as part of an agreement that you might reach?

Jen Psaki: Well Matt, they’ll be required to abide by any part of the agreement that is agreed to, but I’m not going to get ahead of that process.

The full transcript is pasted below, but this is just really very confused. “They’ll be required to abide by any part of the agreement that is agreed to” begs all the questions. The inspections right now are meant to determine what they have to agree to. We have a situation where we can’t be sure that 100% of the Iranian program is getting into the agreement. It could be 75%. It could be 50%. Without giving the IAEA access, there’s no way to know.

Just to give you a sense of the unknowns, check out this weekend’s Sunday Times piece with Olli Heinonen, a 27 years IAEA veteran and former Deputy Director over there. Iran could have more than 500% the advanced centrifuges we think they have (//www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/Middle_East/article1481544.ece). We don’t know. Insisting that the IAEA is going to inspect what we do know about is unlikely to assuage concerns.

————————

Question: By now, I presume, your experts have had a chance to look at the IAEA report from Friday.

Jen Psaki: Well, it wasn’t the formal release of the report, Matt, so we don’t have any additional comments on it. That’s standard how we handle these releases.

Question: Alright, then let’s talk about the one prior to this, which found that the Iranians, as we talked about on Friday, had not been complying with the IAEA on looking into past, any possible military dimension of their nuclear program in the past. Given the fact that they said that in the last report, not this one – they also say it in this one – does that play any, does that have any impact or play any factor in the P5+1 negotiations that were going on until just an hour, a couple hours ago?

Jen Psaki: The IAEA will of course play a critical role, as they already have played in the monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program. They would continue to play that if there’s a deal or an agreement. Obviously there isn’t a deal or an agreement yet. An implementation of that and the monitoring mechanism of that will be pivotal to whether Iran is abiding by their agreement.

Question: Yea, but don’t you see what the problem is here? If the Iranians are not cooperating with the IAEA on monitoring of is previous, allegations of previous military dimensions,  how in the world can you trust them to be able to effectively and credibly monitor an agreement that you might come to in the future? I mean…

Jen Psaki: Well Matt, we had a similar conversation last Thursday or Friday.

Question: I know, but I thought that, I was under the impression that today you would have been able or people would have looked at the report and you’d be able to speak to it.

Jen Psaki: Well it hasn’t been publicly released by the agency yet, so we don’t…

Question: Ok, but the last one says the same thing, the one, and that has been public for more than a month.

Jen Psaki: Well the point is, Matt, that the IAEA will continue to play an important role. Obviously abiding by any monitoring mechanism would be essential to Iran abiding by any agreement.

Question: Yea, but the point is that they haven’t been abiding by the monitoring system that’s been in place for quite some time now.

Jen Psaki: And we’re in the pivotal stages of a negotiation about a comprehensive agreement.

Question: So does that mean that the negotiations now will take into account the fact that the Iranians haven’t been complying with the previous monitoring order, and will it — will you  demand that Iran does comply with that now as part of an agreement that you might reach?

Jen Psaki: Well Matt, they’ll be required to abide by any part of the agreement that is agreed to, but I’m not going to get ahead of that process.

Question: Right, but Jen, they agreed and they’re not complying with it. So why should anyone think that they’re gonna, they’re gonna comply with it now?

Jen Psaki: Well we’re talking about a comprehensive agreement where there would be benefits to Iran if they agree and commit to it, there would be benefits to the United States. Obviously the monitoring component of that is a pivotal part of that.

Question: Will that include the military dimension?

Jen Psaki: Will that include the military dimension? There’s two and a half weeks left before we have a deadline on the agreement.

Question: No, but what I’m saying is would a verification include, you know, basically in this report the IAEA is saying that Iran is not giving us enough access – giving them enough access – to sites that would prove…

Jen Psaki: Being able to have access to adequately monitor would certainly be part of what would be required.

Question: So it, so them complying with the previous IAEA inspection demands is a part of these negotiations, correct?

Jen Psaki: Well Matt, obviously the history here and what they have or haven’t abided by is a part of the discussion. Beyond that I don’t have anything more for you on what will be a part of any agreement.

Question: Well, there is, just from this report – and I realize that you say it’s not final so you don’t want to comment on it – but there are some who look at this report and say Iran is in violation of the JPOA right now.

Jen Psaki: Based on what specifically?

Question: Because they have increased their stockpile of low-enriched uranium gas.

Jen Psaki: Well, we raised – I believe you’re referring to the IR-5 issue – we raised that issue with Iran as soon as the IAEA reported it, and it was resolved immediately. The Iranians have confirmed that they will not continue that activity as cited in the IAEA report, so it’s been resolved.

Question: OK, this is from? When was this resolved?

Jen Psaki: Over the course of the last few days I believe.

Question: One other one on this. I mean there’s some people who read the JPOA and who argue that the R&D activities that are permissible under the JPOA would allow for the introduction of gas into the IR-5.

Jen Psaki: Well, as you know, it’s a very technically complex agreement, and it provides a framework. But when there are questions that need to be raised, we raise them. This was an example of that.

Question: So can I just make sure I understand this correctly. So you, based on the report that you refuse to talk about ’cause it’s not final, you went to the Iranians and said ‘You’re in violation, fix this,’ and they did – is that correct?

Jen Psaki: This was an issue. When there are issues that need to be raised, we still raise them, Matt.

Question: Ok, but they were, you believe that they were in violation of the JPOA.

Jen Psaki: I didn’t convey that. I conveyed that as soon as the IAEA reported it, then we raised it, and it’s been fixed.

Question: But, right, ok, so they were in violation of the JPOA?

Jen Psaki: No, that’s not what I said.

Question: Well, then why did it need to be fixed then?

Jen Psaki:  Because we felt that it was a violation of what the IAEA requirements were.

Question: Why can you talk about this aspect of the report but not the other one that Matt has been [inaudible]?

Jen Psaki: Because this is a specific report. In general, as a policy, Arshad, we don’t comment on reports before their final has been released. When there are issues that are in the news that all of you report, we try to be as responsive as we can. Do we have any more on Iran?

2 Responses

  1. Obama has proven he is the Islamic Manchurian Candidate.

    You can be sure he will not act to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    That leaves Israel alone. (With most likely Saudi help.)

    The big wild card – what will Obama lead, US forces in the ME do when Israel does the job.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.