Thursday, April 2, 2015

Why Obama’s Iran “deal” must be defeated

Netanyahu's take: smiles in Lausanne are detached from wretched reality in which Iran refuses to make any concessions on the nuclear issue and continues to threaten Israel and all other countries in the Middle East,” said Israeli Minister Yuval Steinitz. “We will continue with our efforts to explain and persuade the world in hopes of preventing a bad (final) agreement,” he added.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement on Thursday that he hoped world powers would try to “significantly roll back Iran’s nuclear capabilities.” “One cannot understand that when forces supported by Iran continue to conquer more ground in Yemen, in Lausanne they are closing their eyes to this aggression,” said Netanyahu. “But we are not closing our eyes and we will continue to act against every threat in every generation, certainly in this generation,” he added.


Why Obama’s Iran “deal” must be defeated
1.       Iran has consistently lied about its nuclear program [1]
2.       This deal does nothing to stop Iran’s terrorist activities[2]
3.       Iran is the worst nation on earth[3]
4.       Can’t trust Kerry with Iran [4]
5.       Obama was obsessed with making this deal, no matter what the cost[5]  Chamberlain was naive with Hitler. Obama is doing this purposefully.
6.       The deal is terrible [6]
7.       It was Obama’s plan to facilitate Iran being “successful regional power” from the outset and weaken Israel[7]
8.       Our traditional Middle East allies are furious and have given up on USA[8]
9.       Evidence seems abundant Obama is playing for the other team[9]
10.   Obama has lied consistently about a. nonexistent fatwa by Mullahs against nuclear weapons b. whether they meant what they said about destroying Israel based on faith and 8 other Obama lies about it [10]
11.   Iran has consistently violated past agreements, ignored UN mandates[11]
12.   How do we negotiate with a rogue nation, who, while we negotiate chant ‘death to America’ and blow up mock US aircraft carrier?
13. Obama consistently fought tough sanctions from the get-go
14. And we are rewarding Iran financially
15. Enforcement will be a impossible (12)\
16. Iran is already bragging about our concessions
17. A day later and Iran says Obama LYING about the deal.
18. President Rouhani called this all "diplomatic Jihad.
19. Wall Street Journal today "The truth, contrary to the President, is that the critics of his Iran framework do not want war. But they also don’t want a phony peace to lead to a nuclear Middle East that leads to a far more horrific war a decade from now. "
Obama's many lies about Iran deal.
Observation:On Wednesday, Iran rejected most of the concessions it reportedly agreed to undertake. Top Iranian leaders are describing the framework as a ‘lie’ and announced that international nuclear inspectors will not be permitted to enter any of its contested military sites.
1. Iran can be successful regional power in compliance with our norms of behavior
2. 99.9% Muslims want want we want
3. Iran can be counted on to abide by agreements
4. Inspectors can verify compliance
5. This deal will guarantee Iran won't get bomb
6. My sanctions hampered their efforts
7. They have fawta vs use nuclear bomb
8. Their faith precludes use of nuclear bomb
9. I will protect Israel
10. We and Iran agree on the terms of the deal

Obama lies by omission. Neglects to state
1. His top aids :Kerry, Valarie Jarett, Susan Rice have deep ties to Iran
2. Iran's ongoing spread of terrorism on 5 continents
3. Iran's ongoing talk of destroying Israel and USA
4. Iran's ICBM and submarine programs
5. His extensive, long enduring Islamic support and fraternizing with terrorists
6, Sending secret envoy before 2008 election promising mullahs they'd like his presidency
7. Scoffed at Israel's demand that Israel's right to exist be prerequisite
Details below
Why is he lying about this? He wants help Iran. because he is pro Islmic Jihad

+Kerry has a long history of embracing the worst of humanity (Viet Cong, Sandanitas

In the climate of this
"John Bolton: Americans Must Do Anything to Kill Iran Deal"
"Charles krauthammer-iranian-ayatollahs-chants-death-to-america-but-obama-attacks-israel-"
Terrorism expert summarizes this: “Steve Emerson Terrorism expert
“we have an administration that's in bed with these radical Islamic groups
"Former CIA Obama has switched sides"
Mark levin-obama-anti-semitism-reeks-from your-administration"



20.Opposed to deal:

U.S. Jewish Leaders Urge "Safeguards" to Ensure Iran's Compliance
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called Thursday for "safeguards" to ensure Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal, highlighting Iran's "past record" of "obfuscation and evasion." The Jewish leaders said they "strongly believe that Congress must have an active role and be given the opportunity to review any potential final agreement. We also urge the administration to work with Congress in agreeing on and preparing for immediate implementation of legislation which would impose new and severe sanctions in the event that a detailed accord cannot be reached or that Iran violates the terms of any accord."
    "Both the United States and Israel, and their leaders, are committed to a peaceful solution of the Iranian nuclear issue. However, any solution must provide long-term assurance that Iran will not be able to acquire a nuclear weapons capability."  (Times of Israel)

1. The Tricks Obama Is Trying to Play with the Iran Announcement

If you look at what happened today between the U.S. and Iran through the lens of domestic American politics, Barack Obama has made a very clever play here—because what might be called “the agreement of the framework of the possibility of a potential deal” gives him new leverage in his ongoing battle with the Senate to limit its ability to play a role in the most critical foreign-policy matter of the decade.
The “framework” codifies the Obama administration’s cave-ins but casts them as thrilling reductions in Iran’s capacities rather than what they are—a pie-in-the-sky effort to use inspections as the means by which the West can “manage” the speed with which Iran becomes a nuclear power.
Obama’s tone of triumph this afternoon was mixed with sharp reminders that the deal is actually not yet done—and that is entirely the point of this exercise from a domestic standpoint. the triumph signals his troops and apologists that the time has come for them to stand with him, praise the deal sheet and pretend it’s a deal, declare it historic, and generally act as though the world has been delivered from a dreadful confrontation by Obama and Kerry.
But since the deal is not yet done, it could still be derailed. And that is where Obama’s truly Machiavellian play here comes in: He may have found a way to put the Senate in a box and keep Democrats from melting away from him on Iran and voting not only for legislation he doesn’t want but also to override the veto he has promised.
The Senate has two provisions at the ready with which it could go ahead any time. One, called Kirk-Menendez, imposes new sanctions on Iran. Obama promised a veto of this bill should it pass, and after today, one ought to presume that it’s dead.
The other, Corker-Menendez, requires the administration to submit any deal to the Senate within 60 days of its signing. This is a key provision because, of course, what the Iranians want—and what they said today they got—was the lifting of all sanctions. The president, in his statement, vowed to lift the “nuclear” sanctions (there are others involving human rights) if the Iranians comply by the terms of the deal.
Existing sanctions legislation features waivers the president can arguably use to do that. But those sanctions were put into place specifically to make it incredibly painful for Iran to retain any nuclear-weapons capability—not as a means of acceding to Iran’s retention of a nuclear capability.
For this reason, and for the reason that the president is essentially negotiating an arms-control treaty with Iran, the Senate should approve any final deal. Obama disagrees and claims this is merely a nuclear-agreement, not a treaty, and therefore Congress has no role.
That’s a very nervy argument. It is not only disrespectful of the Senate but it misrepresents the nature of what’s being negotiated. And that’s why it’s an argument it appeared the president would lose—that senators would not only vote for Corker-Menendez but would override his veto of it.
Which is why the deal-that’s-not-yet-a-deal works in his favor. Talks are now to continue until the end of June. Obama can and will argue to Democrats that they owe it to him, to their base, and to their governing ideology to give him all the room he needs to get to June 30.
Of course, if the legislation does not pass by June 30 and Obama signs a final deal, the game is up; the Senate can’t retroactively insist in July he bring it to them for a vote.
Will there be a deal by June 30? Maybe, maybe not; maybe they’ll finish, maybe they won’t; maybe the Iranians will say they didn’t agree to this or that and blow up the whole thing; who knows. Probably the total collapse, after all this, would bring the Kirk-Menendez sanctions back to life. Which is why there will never be a total collapse—because these talks can simply go on….

2.Thought he could paint critics into "wanting war corner" as alternative to the deal

Seth Mandel
"The purpose of Obama declaring a victory of sorts and calling out Netanyahu today, then, was to send the following message: Critics of this framework must, by process of elimination, want war. It’s why Obama felt so confident smearing Netanyahu as being against a “peaceful” resolution. Because the narrative the administration will hammer home now is that there is only one peaceful resolution on offer.
If it was intended to prevent criticism, it didn’t work. The Times of Israel reports that Jerusalem is already reacting:
In Jerusalem, officials slammed the framework as “a capitulation to Iranian dictates.” The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it “a bad framework that will lead to a bad and dangerous agreement. If finalized, it would make the world “far more dangerous.”
The agreement constitutes “international legitimization of Iran’s nuclear program” whose “only purpose is to build nuclear weapons.”
That shouldn’t be surprising. Just because these are the terms the administration could get doesn’t mean it’s not a bad deal. If our allies in the region are on the same page, it also means the Saudis will be unconvinced and are likely to continue exploring their own route to nuclear capability, with the Egyptians not far behind. If Obama thinks this is a victory, it’s easy to see why our allies don’t agree."

3. Obama wanted PR. There is no deal. They didn’t announce a deal. In fact, they didn’t even announce an agreement. Rather, they revealed, according to the New York Times, a “specific and comprehensive general understanding about the next steps in limiting Tehran’s nuclear program.” There’s a lot of padding in that description for a reason: the P5+1 powers are far off from anything resembling a nuclear deal with Tehran"

Today the Emergency Committee for Israel released the following statement on the framework agreement for the proposed nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran:

"The Emergency Committee for Israel expects that every member of Congress will do his duty and act to kill this proposed deal. The proposed deal is a litany of concessions to Iran, a terror-sponsoring regime committed to the destruction of Israel, to the death of Americans, and to the deception of the international community. The proposed deal would allow Iran to become a threshold nuclear weapons state and would grant its illicit nuclear weapons program international legitimacy. The proposed deal would leave Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure in place; it would allow Iran to continue enriching while keeping all of its nuclear facilities open and running; and it would provide full sanctions relief in exchange for inspections and limitations on enrichment that Iran could break at any time it chooses to do so.

"No amount of Obama Administration spin can make this proposed deal a deal worth having or worth ratifying. This proposed deal is unacceptable. No friend of Israel can support it. If Congress does its job this proposed deal will soon be forgotten, another White House press release happily buried on the ash heap of history."


CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, you could see what happened today by the jubilation in the face of the Iranian Foreign Minister when he announced what had been agreed to. The bottom line are two things. Iran is promised a total lifting of sanctions. That's U.N., E.U., United States, everywhere. We are not sure about the timing, but it could be as early as June, and that will super charge the Iranian economy, will strengthen the regime, will give it tens of billions of dollars with which not only to build its nuclear facilities, but to use for the proxy wars around the Middle East. That's number one. It gets its economy back. 

BRET BAIER, SPECIAL REPORT: Let me just interrupt you. The administration says it doesn't happen until it passes a threshold, in other words, they meet the requirements, then the sanctions get -- 

KRAUTHAMMER: They were completely unclear about what the requirements are. It is possible that when they sign the agreement in June, there will be a huge relief of sanctions. And when Obama speaks about snapping them back, if the Iranians are cheating, there is not chance in the world that the Chinese, the Russians or even the Europeans are going to snap on sanctions again. We would be acting alone, we would be completely isolated. 

So, number one, they are going to get their economy back and that's all they really wanted. But the second, the most astonishing thing is that in return, they are not closing a single nuclear facility. Their entire nuclear infrastructure is intact. The soundbite you showed of the president, and that was in December, no more than a year and a half ago, he talked about you don't need the Fordow facility, they are keeping it, it's not going to close. 

They don't need the Iraq reactor. They are gonna keep it. It will be "updated." And lastly, they don't need the advanced centrifuges, they are going to be developing new ones in the Fordow reactor. So, they are going to have the entire infrastructure in place either for a breakout after the agreement expires or when they have enough sanctions relief and they want to cheat and to breakout on their own.
AIPAC appreciates the hard work and the diplomatic efforts of the Administration to reach an agreement with Iran to end its nuclear weapons program. We have long supported a diplomatic path to achieve this objective. However, we have concerns that the new framework announced today by the P5+1 could result in a final agreement that will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state and encourage a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Iran’s long history of cheating on its international obligations and its leading role in sponsoring terrorism and violating human rights should disqualify it from possessing the infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program.  

The P5+1 appears to have stepped back from prior demands  backed by large majorities in Congress to dismantle significant elements of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure so that it has no path to a nuclear weapons capability. For example, Iran will be able to maintain its once secret underground facility at Fordow and continue research and development on advanced centrifuges. We note that the framework relies heavily on supervision by the IAEA, whose demands for access to suspect nuclear sites have been ignored by Tehran for well over a decade. 

Going forward, we believe that the proponents of this agreement must answer many questions, among them: (1) Will this time-limited agreement actually prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability? (2) How will sanctions be reinstated if Iran cheats on the agreement? (3) What will actually happen to the enriched uranium that the framework promises to neutralize? (4) Will all sanctions relief to Iran be delayed until it comes clean on its past weapons development activities? (5) How will Iran be prevented from perfecting its advanced centrifuges so that it cannot rapidly produce highly enriched uranium after 10 years?

Because these questions and concerns are central to the definition of what constitutes a good deal, we believe this framework and any subsequent agreement must come before Congress for review. We are encouraged that the two key sponsors of the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (S. 615) – Senators Corker and Menendez – have reaffirmed their commitment to mark up this legislation on April 14.

Some claim that the only alternatives to this framework are capitulation or military action. We reject that assertion. A clear alternative to a bad deal remains a good deal that is achieved by the application of increased economic and political pressure on Tehran to reach an agreement that transparently does not allow Iran a path to a nuclear weapons capability. That is the best way to ensure that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapons capability and to reinforce nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East"

No comments:

Post a Comment