Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Is there no limit to Obama's betrayal? AP reports U.S. is now offering Iran nuclear technology!

World Jewish Digest

In a stunning insight into the Obama administration's capitulationist policy toward Iran, the AP reported on Wednesday that the U.S. is offering Iran nuclear technology.
The AP has apparently obtained a confidential document relating to the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran. The document reveals that the U.S. and its partners in the talks "are ready to offer high-tech reactors and other state-of-the-art equipment to Tehran if it agrees to crimp programs that can make atomic arms."
The document is reportedly titled "Civil Nuclear Cooperation" and
promises to supply Iran with light-water nuclear reactors instead of its nearly completed heavy-water facility at Arak, which would produce enough plutonium for several bombs a year if completed as planned.
Along with this, the document proposes establishing "an international partnership" in order to rebuild Arak as a "peaceful" nuclear facility, providing aid for the "construction and effective operation" of the relevant technology.
It also offers to cooperate with Iran in the fields of nuclear safety, nuclear medicine, research, nuclear waste removal, and other peaceful applications.
Most disturbing, however, is that the proposal will explicitly leave Iran in "the leadership role as the project owner and manager."
The consequences of this are illustrated by the proposal for another nuclear site - at Fordo - which "will be used for isotope production instead of uranium enrichment." But as the AP notes "isotope production uses the same technology as enrichment and can be quickly re-engineered to enriching uranium."
The proposal seems to be the most shocking concession in a long list of concessions made by the Obama administration. It leaves the proverbial fox to guard the henhouse, and would allow Iran to remain on the cusp of a nuclear weapon. Most astounding of all, should Iran choose to rush to the bomb, it will have done so with American help."

Obama’s Cascade of Iran Concessions Continues

This morning the Wall Street Journal editorializes on the latest concessions in President Obama’s pursuit of his Lausanne legacy: (1) defunding the Lebanese civil-society initiative that was an alternative to Iran-sponsored Hezbollah; (2) removing the CFO of the A.Q. Khan nuclear-proliferation network from the sanctions list; (3) eliminating sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program; and (4) ending sanctions on 23 of 24 Iranian banks. These come on top of: (i) early elimination of all nuclear sanctions, (ii) waiving answers to outstanding International Atomic Energy Agency questions before signing a deal, (iii) a huge “signing bonus,” (iv) the lack of “anywhere, any time” inspections, (v) subjection of “snap back” sanctions to an unrealistic administrative process, (vi) failure to dismantle any centrifuges (which will simply be stored) or facilities (which will continue to operate), and (vii) the sunset provision that guarantees Iran nuclear capability at the end of the agreement. And these are not likely to be the last concessions.
Iran will likely want to run the negotiations past the June 30 “deadline,” if only to demonstrate again that an Obama “deadline” is the only date by which a new deadline must be set. If the president wishes to avoid the embarrassment of another ignored “deadline,” he will likely face a last-minute demand for a compensating concession. Moreover, in any negotiation in which one party knows the other is too invested in the deal to abandon it, the first party will frequently make a last-minute demand, secure in the knowledge that it is too late for the other party to reject it. The president has disclosed publicly that he believes there is no viable alternative to a deal, and the cost of that disclosure is likely to be another last-minute demand.
It is perhaps worth remembering in this connection that on September 22, 1938, Neville Chamberlain flew to Germany to meet with Hitler and conclude the Munich agreement, having already joined France in pressuring Czechoslovakia to hand over the Sudeten lands to Hitler. To his profound shock, Chamberlain found that Hitler had more last-minute demands, which were “proposals of a kind which I had not contemplated at all.” But a week later, Chamberlain essentially accepted them, and returned to cheering crowds happy for “peace in our time.” The rest is history, which may be repeating itself.
We do not know what the culminating Obama concession will be, only that it is not likely that we have seen it yet."

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

Summarizing Iran deal. Obama’s DIPLOMTIC JIHAD
1.    Obama’s framework pact is with the worst terrorist nation on earth “Death to America” and “destroying Israel is “non-negotiable”

c. Iran has consistently lied to UN, ignored their sanctions and decrees, hid their programs. Verification is impossible with them
3.    Israel asks that at least Iran be forced to accept Israel’s right to exist. Obama blows him off. Obama lied when he said there is a mullah fatwa vs nuclear weapons. He lied when he said Iran faith precluded use of nuclear weapons.
4.    Iran’s president called all this negotiation ‘diplomatic JIHAD”.
5.    Iran has 3 weeks to a bomb or LESS
6.       Iran Deal: Holocaust In 2026 -
"So the basic tradeoff achieved by Secretary of State John Kerry in the talks with Iran boils down to this: Iran has to watch its step for ten years. Then all bets are off. A year later, bombs away! "
7.    Wall Street Journal “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.
8.    The rest of the Middle East (non Iranian stooges) are OPPOSED to this diplomatic jihad.
9.     This will inevitably lead to war. It is a terrible deal.
10.   Why has Obama led us here  Obama is a pro radical, pro Islamic extremism, pro jihadist
11.  Further weakens America
13. Obama  and lackeys lies when say Netanyahu offers no alternatives
15. What about the Jews in congress backing Obama on this

Opposed to deal:

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S main pitch for the pending nuclear deal with Iranis that it would extend the “breakout time” necessary for Iran to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. In a recent interview with NPR, he said that the current breakout time is “about two to three months by our intelligence estimates.” By contrast, he claimed, the pending deal would shrink Iran’s nuclear program, so that if Iran later “decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to respond.”
Unfortunately, that claim is false, as can be demonstrated with basic science and math. By my calculations, Iran’s actual breakout time under the deal would be approximately three months — not over a year. Thus, the deal would be unlikely to improve the world’s ability to react to a sudden effort by Iran to build a bomb.
Breakout time is determined by three primary factors: the number and type of centrifuges; the enrichment of the starting material; and the amount of enriched uranium required for a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama seems to make rosy assumptions about all three.
Most important, in the event of an overt attempt by Iran to build a bomb, Mr. Obama’s argument assumes that Iran would employ only the 5,060 centrifuges that the deal would allow for uranium enrichment, not the roughly 14,000 additional centrifuges that Iran would be permitted to keep mainly for spare parts. Such an assumption is laughable. In a real-world breakout, Iran would race, not crawl, to the bomb.
These additional centrifuges would need to be connected, brought up to speed and equilibrated with the already operating ones. But at that point, Iran’s enrichment capacity could exceed three times what Mr. Obama assumes. This flaw could be addressed by amending the deal to require Iran to destroy or export the additional centrifuges, but Iran refuses.
Second, since the deal would permit Iran to keep only a small amount of enriched uranium in the gaseous form used in centrifuges, Mr. Obama assumes that a dash for the bomb would start mainly from unenriched uranium, thereby lengthening the breakout time. But the deal would appear to also permit Iran to keep large amounts of enriched uranium in solid form (as opposed to gas), which could be reconverted to gas within weeks, thus providing a substantial head-start to producing weapons-grade uranium.
Third, Mr. Obama’s argument assumes that Iran would require 59 pounds of weapons-grade uranium to make an atomic bomb. In reality, nuclear weapons can be made from much smaller amounts of uranium (as experts assume North Korea does in its rudimentary arsenal). A 1995 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council concluded that even a “low technical capability” nuclear weapon could produce an explosion with a force approaching that of the Hiroshima bomb — using just 29 pounds of weapons-grade uranium.
Based on such realistic assumptions, Iran’s breakout time under the pending deal actually would be around three months, while its current breakout time is a little under two months. Thus, the deal would increase the breakout time by just over a month, too little to matter. Mr. Obama’s main argument for the agreement — extending Iran’s breakout time — turns out to be effectively worthless.

Showering Iran with rewards for making illusory concessions poses grave risks. It would entrench the ruling mullahs, who could claim credit for Iran’s economic resurgence. The extra resources would also enable Iran to amplify the havoc it is fostering in neighboring countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

Worst of all, lifting sanctions would facilitate a huge expansion of Iran’s nuclear program. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, says that he wants 190,000 centrifuges eventually, or 10 times the current amount, as would appear to be permissible under the deal after just 10 years. Such enormous enrichment capacity would shrink the breakout time to mere days, so that Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb before we even knew it was trying — thus eliminating any hope of our taking preventive action.
Nothing in the pending deal is worth such risks. Unless President Obama can extract significantly greater concessions at the negotiating table, Congress should refuse to lift sanctions, thereby blocking implementation of a deal that would provide Iran billions of dollars to pursue nuclear weapons and regional hegemony.

No comments:

Post a Comment