What Is Being Hidden Here?

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted a story about some recent comments by senior Iranian officials.

The article reports:

Senior Iranian officials are warning the Trump administration about disclosing secret deals related to the nuclear deal that have long been hidden from the public by the Obama administration, according to recent comments that prompted pushback from senior sources on Capitol Hill.

Does anyone else wonder why the details of this agreement are such a closely guarded secret? What ever happened to transparency in government? Iran may be a tyrannical dictatorship, but America is supposed to be a representative republic.

The article further reports:

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a senior Iranian lawmaker and head of country’s foreign policy committee, warned the Trump administration against making these documents public in recent remarks.

“If Trump wants to publish confidential documents exchanged between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, it will in fact constitute a violation of the agency’s obligations, because the agency has been committed not to make Iran’s confidential nuclear information and documents available to any country, including the U.S.,” Boroujerdi was quoted as saying in Iran’s state-run media.

Some of these documents surround side deals struck between Iran and the IAEA regarding the Islamic Republic’s ability to enrich uranium. They also include deals about how much information Iran must disclose to international inspectors about the country’s contested nuclear program.

As part of the nuclear deal, U.S. inspectors are not permitted to take part in the review of any Iranian sites.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), a vocal opponent of the Iran deal who has long been fighting for the full disclosure of the Iran deal documents, told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration hid these documents in order to mislead Americans about the true nature of the agreement.

“The administration is under no obligation to conceal information about secret side deals, nor should they feel obligated to protect the anonymity of individuals or institutions who misbehaved at the behest of the Obama administration,” Roskam said.

Included in these documents are details of multiple, secret payments to Iran that totaled close to $2 billion. The money is believed to have been part of an incentive package aimed at securing the release last year of several American hostages in Iran.

None of this information is technically classified, yet it remains hidden from the American public and a large portion of Congress.

This is a nuclear agreement that could potentially impact the future of not only the Middle East but also America. The American public has a right to know exactly what was agreed to by the Obama Administration.

 

The More We Know The Worse It Gets

On Tuesday Fred Fleitz posted an article at the Center for Security Policy website about new information concerning side agreements in the Iran nuclear treaty.

The article reports:

Veteran Associated Press IAEA reporter George Jahn made news yesterday by revealing a secret agreement to the July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran(the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA). This agreement says that in January 2027, Tehran will be allowed to replace the primitive 5,060 uranium centrifuges it is allowed to operate while the nuclear agreement is in effect with more-advanced designs, even though other restrictions on Iranian uranium enrichment remain in place for 15 years.

I believe this is a significant development because it represents another secret JCPOA side deal that the Obama administration illegally withheld from Congress.

This agreement means that in only eleven years, Iran will be permitted to substantially increase its capability to produce nuclear fuel faster and in larger amounts. Since Iran is permitted to conduct R&D on advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in place — and can expand this effort after eight and a half years — it probably will be able to quickly construct and install these advanced centrifuges.

Jahn reported that although this undisclosed, confidential agreement is “an integral part” of the JCPOA, Iran will not be permitted to accumulate more than 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium for 15 years. In light of recent reports that the Iranians are already cheating on the nuclear agreement, it is hard to believe that they will continue to abide by this restriction after they install more-advanced centrifuges .

The article explains the significance of this news:

As with the previous secret agreements, withholding this deal from Congress probably violated the Corker-Cardin Act, which required the administration to provide all JCPOA documents — including side deals — to Congress before it voted on the deal last September.

…Jahn did not reveal a previously unknown flaw of the JCPOA. He revealed something more disturbing: another instance of the Obama administration’s deceiving Congress and the American people as part of its effort to ram through Obama’s deeply unpopular nuclear agreement with Iran — an agreement that is a dangerous and growing fraud.

Jahn’s report is more evidence of this and another reason the next president must tear up this agreement on his or her first day in office.

Another reason Hillary Clinton should not ever be President–she won’t tear up the agreement.

A New Example Of Take The Money And Run

The Washington Free Beacon is reporting today that Iran is threatening to walk away from its nuclear deal with the West.

The article reports:

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”

“If our interests are not met under the nuclear deal, there will be no reason for us to continue,” Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, warned during remarks delivered to a group of Iranian officials in Tehran.

“If other parties decide, they could easily violate the deal,” Araqchi was quoted as saying by Iran’s state-controlled media. “However, they know this will come with costs.”

So, if I understand this correctly, the deal will only stay in place if it advances Iran’s interests. Please explain to me how we got into a deal with people with that attitude. It seems to me that a deal should advance the interests of all parties involved. I think we need new negotiators.

The article further reports:

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department had difficulty Monday explaining why the nuclear agreement limits public reporting by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, on potential deal violations by Iran.

Yukiya Amano, the IAEA’s chief, disclosed on Monday that his agency is no longer permitted to release details about Iran’s nuclear program and compliance with the deal. The limited public reporting is a byproduct of the nuclear agreement, according to Amano.

When asked about these comments again Tuesday, a State Department official told the Free Beacon that the IAEA’s reports would continue to provide a complete picture of Iran’s nuclear program, though it remains unclear if this information will be made publicly available.

On February 1st, military.com reported:

Iran said Monday it now has access to more than $100 billion worth of frozen overseas assets following the implementation of a landmark nuclear deal with world powers.

Government spokesman Mohammad Bagher Nobakht said much of the money had been piling up in banks in China, India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey since international sanctions were tightened in 2012 over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Iran’s semi-official ISNA news agency meanwhile quoted central bank official Nasser Hakimi as saying nine Iranian banks are now reconnected to SWIFT, a Belgian-based cooperative that handles wire transfers between financial institutions. No foreign banks operate in Iran, and ATMs in Iran are not yet linked to the global system.

The historic agreement brought about the lifting of international sanctions last month after the U.N. certified that Iran has met all its commitments to curbing its nuclear activities under last summer’s accord.

Now that Iran has the money and the sanctions are lifted, is the deal over?

Someone Needs To Explain The Logic Of This To Me

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon reported that America, China, France, Germany, and Russia have agreed to supply advanced equipment for the Arak nuclear reactor in Iran. The goal of the United States is to refit the reactor so that it can no longer produce weapons grade nuclear material.

The article reports:

Nuclear experts from the Department of Energy will be tasked with helping to accomplish this goal, according to Secretary Ernest Moniz.

“Under the [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action], one step that Iran must take is to redesign its Arak Heavy Water Research reactor, including removing its existing calandria and rendering it inoperable,” Moniz said in an Oct. 18 statement. “To support this effort, the Department of Energy’s nuclear experts will lead the U.S. effort to work with our P5+1 partners and Iran to modernize the Arak reactor, effectively eliminating a potential source of weapons-grade material.”

U.S. nuclear experts also will provide Iran with “technical advice” on nuclear issues, Moniz said.

“In addition to co-chairing the Arak Modernization Working Group, the Department of Energy’s technical experts will also continue to support President Obama, Secretary [John] Kerry, our P5+1 and EU partners, and the [International Atomic Energy Agency] through technical advice and expert consultations on nuclear matters,” he said.

This sounds great, but I think we are nuts. I can’t help but think that any new technology used to refit the plant will be carefully studied by the Iranians. Does anyone really believe that after we update the plant and leave the area, the plant won’t be quietly refitted by the Iranians for their purposes.

I am probably one of the world’s least scientific people. However, I can’t help believe that there are more than a few thorns included with the roses in this deal.

Unless The Republicans Develop A Backbone, America Is Poised To Become The Largest Sponsor Of Terrorism In The World

Yes, you read that right. If the economic sanctions on Iran are lifted, $100 billion will flow to Iran (according to npr). A large percentage of that money will go toward funding terrorism around the world. The Republicans had the power to stop this from happening, but got outmaneuvered by President Obama and his allies.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today about the Iran deal.

The article details the mistakes those opposed to the deal have made which will make it very difficult to undo the damage the nuclear deal will do:

On Thursday, Senate Democrats successfully filibustered a Republican attempt to pass a futile “resolution of disapproval” against the Iran deal. Republicans had already forfeited their power to suspend the Corker review process. They would have been justified in suspending it because Obama failed to comply with the statute’s fundamental condition — the mandate that he disclose the whole agreement to Congress, including embarrassing “side deals” the administration has withheld. (These undeniably include understandings between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency on the critical issue of inspections; they probably also include commitments by Obama to protect several nations from “snapback” sanctions when, inevitably, Iran violates the agreement.)

Under Corker, which not only rigged the vote in Obama’s favor but also gave Democrats the option to prevent the vote by filibuster, the failed resolution authorized Obama to relieve sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program. The mullahs will get their cool $100 billion and double down — no, quintuple down — on their promotion of jihadist terrorism.

Here’s the “I told you so” part: No sooner had the Democratic filibuster succeeded than did two well-regarded legal scholars take to the pages of The Atlantic to pronounce that Obama’s Iran deal is the law of the land. Yale’s Bruce Ackerman and New York University’s David Golove contend that the agreement cannot be unilaterally repudiated by a future Republican president, no matter how much GOP congressional leaders and 2016 hopefuls bloviate to the contrary.

This conclusion will shape bipartisan conventional wisdom in Washington and the chattering class. And guess what? The progressive professors have a strong case because of the way the Corker law was written by GOP congressional leaders (in consultation with their Democratic counterparts and the White House). Corker’s law is quite plausibly interpreted as authorizing a full repeal of the sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program — meaning they could not be reinstated absent new legislation (which the Democrats and the “international community” would vigorously oppose). Certainly the odds are good that the federal courts would see it that way. (Did I mention that Senate Republicans have already confirmed over 300 Obama appointees to the bench?)

It is time for new Senate leadership. This Senate has allowed something to happen that is truly dangerous for America and for the rest of the world. I believe that what President Obama has agreed to in the Iran deal is treason and he should be impeached for it. Any Senator who voted in favor of the Iran deal should also be impeached for treason, and the Senators who allowed this to happen should be voted out of office for stupidity. The Iran lobby paid for this vote (rightwinggranny), and they will get their money’s worth (and more). The world will have to live with the consequences of lifting the sanctions–more terror, more refugees, more deaths, and eventually a nuclear Iran. Please remember this when you vote next November.

Is The President Required To Follow The Law?

Scott Johnson posted an article at Power Line today about an aspect of the Iran nuclear deal that has not been widely discussed. It seems that one of the provisions in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (the Corker-Cardin bill) that was signed by President Obama is that President Obama is required to transmit to Congress the agreement–“including all related materials and annexes.” He is required to do this “not later than five days after reaching the agreement.”

The article reminds us:

Obama has not done so. The administration has failed or refused to submit the IAEA side deal with Iran regarding the possible military dimensions of Iran’s research at the Parchin military facility to Congress.

Indeed, the administration claim not even to have seen the IAEA side deal. Rather, administration officials claim only to have been briefed by the IAEA on the terms of the side deal. They claim it is cloaked in secrecy that prevents its disclosure. The side deal is nevertheless an integral part of the JCPOA and its disclosure expressly required by the act.

So what happens now?

The article reports:

Rep. Mike Pompeo and attorney David Rivkin take note in a brief Washington Post column. They write:

 Congress must now confront the grave issues of constitutional law prompted by the president’s failure to comply with his obligations under the act. This is not the first time this administration has disregarded clear statutory requirements, encroaching in the process upon Congress’s legislative and budgetary prerogatives. The fact that this has happened again in the context of a national security agreement vital to the United States and its allies makes the situation all the more serious.

For Congress to vote on the merits of the agreement without the opportunity to review all of its aspects would both effectively sanction the president’s unconstitutional conduct and be a major policy mistake. Instead, both houses should vote to register their view that the president has not complied with his obligations under the act by not providing Congress with a copy of an agreement between the IAEA and Iran, and that, as a result, the president remains unable to lift statutory sanctions against Iran. Then, if the president ignores this legal limit on his authority, Congress can and should take its case to court.

There is another aspect to this. Democratic Senators do not want to go on the record in terms of voting for this agreement. The agreement is not popular with the American public, who understands that the agreement paves the way for Iran to go nuclear and will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. So why in the world is President Obama pushing this treaty? There are a lot of guesses, but no real answer. It would be a feather in his cap to negotiate an agreement with a country that has been at war with America since 1978. The problem is that after the agreement is signed, Iran will still be at war with America. There is no financial gain for America in this treaty–Iran gets more money to fund terrorism and kill American soldiers in Afghanistan. Iran is also allowed to flood the world markets with oil, possibly crippling American efforts at energy independence. There is no upside for America in this treaty–it is a President looking for what he considers a foreign policy accomplishment. He may well get his accomplishment, but it’s a safe bet that history will not look kindly on this treaty.

The Deal With Iran Just Keeps Getting Worse

The Associated Press is reporting today that Iran will be able to use its own experts to inspect a site suspected of developing nuclear arms. Evidently this is part of the secret agreement with the United Nations that parallels the Iran agreement with the United States, Germany, France, etc.

The article reports:

The investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the International Atomic Energy Agency is linked to a broader probe of allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear deal.

The Parchin deal is a separate, side agreement worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers that signed the Iran nuclear deal were not party to this agreement but were briefed on it by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

Why in the world would any sane person sign on to this agreement? It’s like asking an alcoholic to inspect his house for alcohol.

The article further reports:

But the agreement diverges from normal inspection procedures between the IAEA and a member country by essentially ceding the agency’s investigative authority to Iran. It allows Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence for activities that it has consistently denied – trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Evidence of that concession, as outlined in the document, is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents as they review the July 14 Iran nuclear deal and vote on a resolution of disapproval in early September. If the resolution passed and President Barack Obama vetoed it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose.

If the Senate cannot override a Presidential veto of this agreement, every Senator who voted for the agreement needs to be voted out of office as soon as possible. This is an unbelievably bad deal.

Documents We Had Not Even Considered

As the Senate prepares to vote on the Iran nuclear deal, there is more information that has come to light. Other than the two secret side agreements made between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it seems that there may be some pertinent information about Iran in the documents and computer drives taken when Osama bin Laden was killed.

Next week’s issue of The Weekly Standard includes an article by Stephen Hayes and William Kristol about the need to understand Iran’s past behavior in order to predict its future behavior.

The article states:

Here’s an important instance. We have been told by six current or former intelligence officials that the collection of documents captured in the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound includes explosive information on Iran’s relationship with al Qaeda over the past two decades, including details of Iran’s support for al Qaeda’s attacks on Americans. Some of these officials believe this information alone could derail the deal. We haven’t seen it. But the American people should see it all before Congress votes on the deal in September.

“There are letters about Iran’s role, influence, and acknowledgment of enabling al Qaeda operatives to pass through Iran as long as al Qaeda did their dirty work against the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, tells The Weekly Standard. “What Congress should demand is to see all the UBL [Osama bin Laden] documents related to Iran and all the documents related to intentions of AQ into the future—they are very telling.”

This really does nothing to convince me that American can do business with Iran. The leaders of Iran have made it clear since 1978 that their goal is to destroy Israel and America and re-establish a caliphate which they will rule. The have been very open about this goal. I don’t understand why President Obama is not listening.

The article concludes:

Highly credible senior intelligence officials who have seen the bin Laden documents say that the collection includes important information about al Qaeda and Iran. The White House has consistently blocked the release of that information. It will take concerted action by the leadership of Congress—in particular, Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Richard Burr along with Chairman Nunes—to wring this information out of the administration.

Not to demand these documents—not to insist on having access to them despite all the administration’s protestations and obfuscations, not to allow the American people to understand the whole truth about the Iranian regime with which the administration has negotiated this agreement—would be an abdication of responsibility on the part of Congress that history would judge harshly.   

Americans and their Senators and Representatives need to be informed about what Iran has been up to in the past and what it is planning for the future.

Is This Even Legal?

The National Review posted a story today about the nuclear deal with Iran. In the story, Fred Fleitz, the author, reports on two aspects of the deal with Iran that were not going to be made public (or available to Congress or other nations).

The article reports:

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) issued a press release yesterday on a startling discovery they made during a July 17 meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency officials in Vienna: There are two secret side deals to the nuclear agreement with Iran that will not be shared with other nations, with Congress, or with the U.S. public. One of these side deals concerns inspection of the Parchin military base, where Iran reportedly has conducted explosive testing related to nuclear-warhead development. The Iranian government has refused to allow the IAEA to visit this site. Over the last several years, Iran has taken steps to clean up evidence of weapons-related activity at Parchin. 

The other side deal relates to the possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran’s nuclear program. Evidently the PMD issue is not resolved. In 2013, Iran agreed to answer International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) questions about work in weapons-related areas, but has not actually answered the questions.

This is a copy of part of the press release issued by Senator Cotton and Congressman Pompeo:

According to the IAEA, the Iran agreement negotiators, including the Obama administration, agreed that the IAEA and Iran would forge separate arrangements to govern the inspection of the Parchin military complex — one of the most secretive military facilities in Iran — and how Iran would satisfy the IAEA’s outstanding questions regarding past weaponization work. Both arrangements will not be vetted by any organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA [Iran nuclear agreement]. This means that the secret arrangements have not been released for public scrutiny and have not been submitted to Congress as part of its legislatively mandated review of the Iran deal. 

Do we need any more reasons to reject this treaty?

 

 

Where Do We Go From Here?

The nuclear deal with Iran is awful. Just as the nuclear deal with North Korea paved the way for North Korea to get nuclear weapons, the nuclear deal with Iran will pave the way for Iran to get nuclear weapons. Because the agreement will go to the United Nations (where it will pass) before it goes to the United States Senate, there will be immense pressure on Senators to agree to the deal. That’s where we were yesterday, but this is today. The deal is getting even worse.

Breitbart.com, is reporting today that now that the deal is on its way to approval., Iran would like to rewrite it. This would be comical if it were not a serious matter.

The article reports:

On Saturday, the Fars News Agency reported that the Majlis threatened to reject the agreement’s provision on ballistic missiles, which call for an international embargo on missile technology to be extended for eight years–a significant, last-minute concession by the U.S.

Iran wants unrestricted ballsitic missile development and access to conventional arms dealers abroad.

“The parliament will reject any limitations on the country’s access to conventional weapons, specially ballistic missiles,” said Tehran MP Seyed Mehdi Hashemi.

In addition, the nuclear deal says that the Majlis will ratify the Additional Protocol (AP) to the Non-Proliferation Treaty–but it does not say when.

The AP is the key to long-term monitoring of Iranian nuclear research and development by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Without approval of the AP, Iran may hide key information about its nuclear activity, and may accelerate advanced centrifuge research immediately when the nuclear deal expires, among other hazards. (Even then, its commitments under the AP will be somewhat voluntary.)

Meanwhile, the economic sanctions will be lifted on Iran so that they can resume supporting terrorism around the world. We have been snookered.

This Does Not Sound Very Promising

Posted at the Gateway Pundit today (the quote is from the Israel National News):

With some lawmakers chanting “Death to the America,” Iran’s parliament voted Sunday to ban access to military sites, documents and scientists as part of a future deal with world powers over its contested nuclear program.

The bill, if approved into law, could complicate the ongoing talks in Vienna between Iran and the six-nation group — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — as they face a self-imposed June 30 deadline. The talks are focused on reaching a final accord that curbs Iran’s nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions.

Of 213 lawmakers present on Sunday, 199 voted in favor of the bill, which also demands the complete lifting of all sanctions against Iran as part of any final nuclear accord. The bill must be ratified by the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog, to become a law.

The terms stipulated in the bill allow for international inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, but forbid any inspections of military facilities.

Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani read the bill aloud in a session broadcast live on state radio. It states in part, “The International Atomic Energy Agency, within the framework of the safeguard agreement, is allowed to carry out conventional inspections of nuclear sites.”

However it concludes that “access to military, security and sensitive non-nuclear sites, as well as documents and scientists, is forbidden.”

This doesn’t sound like there is any danger of compromise from Iran.

Desperation Is Never A Good Thing In Negotiations

On Monday, the Center for Security Policy posted an article about the ongoing negotiations with Iran over Iran’s nuclear policy. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) released a report on June 11 on the status of the negotiations.

The article reports:

The deadlock stems from Tehran’s refusal to permit inspections of military facilities or answer questions about past nuclear-weapons-related work (known as “possible military dimensions” or PMD in U.N.-speak). With the clock ticking down on a June 30 deadline for a nuclear agreement, the refusal of Iranian leaders to budge on these issues has become a political problem for President Obama, who said in April that Iran has agreed to “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes has said the nuclear agreement will allow “anytime, anywhere inspections of any and every Iranian facility.”

Unfortunately, Iran has not been willing to agree to those inspections. In desperation, the Obama Administration has begun making concessions.

The article reports some of those concessions:

• The United States has proposed to close the International Atomic Energy Agency’s PMD dossier and forgo actual IAEA inspections of suspect Iranian nuclear facilities.

• Instead, the IAEA would conduct token inspections of a handful of nuclear sites — including two military sites — and question several senior Iranian military officials.

• Inspections of Iranian nuclear sites after the token inspections would be limited to declared facilities.

• Undeclared and suspect nuclear-weapons sites would be monitored through intelligence means.

MEMRI, a well-regarded think tank in Washington, D.C., sourced its report to statements cited in the Iranian press from Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister and head nuclear negotiator, and Hamid Baidinejad, another Iranian nuclear negotiator. Araghchi reportedly said the Iranian negotiating team agreed to the proposed U.S. concession, but the plan was subsequently rejected by Supreme Leader Khamenei and triggered harsh criticism of Iranian officials in the so-called pragmatic camp. Baidinejad claimed the Iranian negotiating team rejected the proposed U.S. concession but agreed to an American request to present it to Khamenei anyway, who rejected it outright.

Somewhere in this charade, we need to remember that Iran is neither our friend or an honest negotiator. Iranian weapons have been killing our soldiers in the Middle East since 2001. Why in the world should we believe that they are at all interested in bringing peace to the region? We need to increase the sanctions on Iran until they stop exporting terrorism around the world.

This Really Isn’t A Surprise

Reuters is reporting today that Britain has told a United Nations panel in charge of sanctions on Iran that there is an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms.

The article reports:

“The UK government informed the Panel on 20 April 2015 that it ‘is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran’s Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA) and Kalay Electric Company (KEC)’,” the Panel of Experts said in its annual report. The panel monitors Iran’s compliance with the U.N. sanctions regime.

KEC is under U.N. Security Council sanctions while TESA is under U.S. and European Union sanctions due to their suspected links to banned Iranian nuclear activities.

Iran, which is has been under sanctions for years, has a long history of illicit nuclear procurement using front companies and other methods of skirting sanctions.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. Iran is not an honest negotiator, and America needs to break off talks with them at least until the American prisoners they hold are released.

 

If You Are Concerned About The Nuclear Deal With Iran, Here Is Your Plan Of Action

Hugh Hewitt posted an article on his website today about the recent developments in the Iranian nuclear deal.

The article reports:

Now that Iran has announced (1) there is no deal unless sanctions are lifted on day one and (2) there will be no “anytime, anywhere” access to military facilities, Democrats up for re-election in 2016 and 2018 face a dilemma even if they are indifferent to national security. Both are deal killers (as should have been the continuation of support for the Iran-backed killer militias of the region and export of existing enriched uranium stockpiles and closing of Fordo.)

…Like the vote on the Iraq war, the vote on the Corker-Menendez will haunt senators for a decade or more to come.  Indeed it will haunt them in history.

The article then lists the Democrats facing re-election in 2016 and 2018 and the phone number to contact them.

The article then lists links to interview Hugh Hewitt has done in recent days regarding the Iranian nuclear deal. I strongly suggest that you follow the link above to the article and read more about the nuclear deal. To agree to this deal should be regarded as treason.

This Is Not The Time To Ignore The Ongoing Nuclear Negotiations With Iran

The Center for Security Policy posted an article yesterday about the ongoing negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program. The article listed the developments this week in the negotiations:

1. NYT says Obama plans to sidestep Congress on an Iran deal. An October 19th article in the New York Times stated that the Obama administration “will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress have a vote” on a final nuclear deal with Iran.

2. Do Iran’s recent steps to dilute some of its enriched uranium mean Tehran is serious about reaching a deal on its nuclear program? This question is based on a Monday Reuters report that a new IAEA report said Iran diluted 4,100 kg of 2% enriched uranium to the natural uranium level (0.7% uranium-235). The article at the Center for Security Policy points out that a September 2014 IAEA report specified this was a separate batch from Iran’s 12,464 kg of reactor-grade uranium (enriched to 3 to 5%). Iran can still make 7-8 nuclear weapons from its reactor-grade uranium stockpile if this uranium was further enriched to weapons-grade.

3. New U.S. Concessions. The Iranian news service Mehr reported this week that the Obama administration has offered to allow Iran to operate 4,000 uranium centrifuges. Iran is using centrifuges to enrich uranium to reactor-grade and could easily adapt them to enrich to weapons-grade. Iran has 19,000 centrifuges but only about 9,000 are currently operational.

If this report is true it is consistent with previous reports of U.S. offers allowing Iran to operate 1,500-4,500 centrifuges if it converted any uranium it enriched to uranium power. As I explained in an October 2 National Review Online article, these previous concessions would do little to stop or slow Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

4. Dennis Ross Thinks There Could be a Partial Nuclear Deal with Iran. Ross thinks a partial deal which “contains” Iran’s nuclear program and prevents Tehran from moving closer to a nuclear “breakout” capability – the ability to produce enough weapons-grade fuel for one nuclear weapon – would be a good outcome for the nuclear talks. Ross says this might also be achieved by a “muddling through” strategy under which Iran would agree to limit its nuclear program and the West would not impose additional sanctions. Under such a scenario, the nuclear talks would be suspended for a few months but bilateral talks with Tehran would continue….The current understandings with Iran allow Tehran to continue to enrich uranium and keep a huge stockpile of reactor-grade uranium which could be used to fuel 7-8 nuclear weapons if this uranium was enriched to weapons-grade. Iran also has been permitted during this year’s nuclear talks to install new centrifuge designs that may be four to 16 times more efficient. These are unacceptable concessions that Ross is proposing be made permanent under a partial deal with Iran or through a muddling through strategy.

America has not yet prevented a country that desires to obtain nuclear weapons from going nuclear. I suspect that we will not be able to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Unfortunately, the change in the balance of power in the Middle East that would result from Iran going nuclear is not a pleasant one.

 

 

Iran’s Nuclear Program Seems To Be Dealing With Itself

The Israel National News is reporting today that there has been an explosion at Iran‘s Parchin nuclear plant. The explosion has killed at least two people, among them an unnamed “nuclear expert”, according to Iranian media reports.

The article reports:

Iran has refused to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to access Parchin since 2005, and both opposition figures and others have accused the regime of using the site to house an illegal nuclear weapons program.

Last month, Israel‘s Internal Security Minister Yuval Steinitz said he had “reliable information” that Parchin was being used for secret tests of technology that could be used only for detonating a nuclear weapon.

The latest development comes as talks between Iran and world powers remain deadlocked over Iran’s illegal nuclear program, as a November 24 deadline for a permanent deal.

I regret the loss of life, but Iran’s nuclear program needs to be stopped. Allowing Iran to become a nuclear power will create a very unhealthy balance of power in the Middle East and put Israel in jeopardy. One does wonder whether this explosion was an accident.

 

Crime Really Doesn’t Pay

Today’s Washington Post posted a follow-up on the story of the theft in Mexico of a truckload of radioactive material used for the treatment of diseases. The truck has been found, and the radioactive material has been found.

The article reports:

The prospect that material that could be used in a radioactive dirty bomb had gone missing sparked an urgent two-day hunt that concluded when the material, cobalt-60, used in hospital radiotherapy machines, was found Wednesday afternoon along with the stolen Volkswagen truck. Mexican officials said no public health risk remained.

It is quite likely that the thieves had no idea what they were stealing. The article also reports that the material was removed from its protective casing, and it is quite likely that the thieves will die fairly quickly because of their exposure to the radiation. It will not be a pleasant death, and it actually seems as if their death will be a rather harsh penalty for stealing a truck.

This event brings up some interesting questions. Now that this story has been made public and it is known that the truck did not have a GPS tracking device and that it was relatively easy to hijack the truck, what happens next? Any fairly intelligent terrorist could easily duplicate the actions of these thieves (leaving the radioactive material in its casing, of course) and get it across America’s porous southern border. Not all the people coming into America across our southern border are South Americans looking for work (see rightwinggranny.com).

If America does not secure its southern border, we can expect a dirty bomb attack in one of our major cities based on things terrorists will be able to learn from this event. Let’s hope and pray that they are not paying attention.

Enhanced by Zemanta

You’ll Probably Read This In Your Daily Newspaper By Friday

Reza Kahlili is reporting tonight that 40 North Koreans were killed in the explosion of the Iranian nuclear plant. World Net Daily (WND) posted the story tonight. WND posted the original story of the explosion a day or so before any of the major news outlets posted it.

Keza Kahlili is the author of the award-winning book, “A Time to Betray.” He served in the CIA Directorate of Operations, as a spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and is a counterterrorism expert. He currently serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board to Congress and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI). He regularly appears in national and international media as an expert on Iran and counterterrorism in the Middle East.

The article  at WND reports:

The International Atomic Energy Agency has not visited the site since the explosions despite media rumors that it has, the source said. Because the regime’s Ministry of Defense covers the project at Fordow, officials of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization were allowed to visit it on Jan. 5.

In an unusual move, the IAEA issued a brief statement on Jan. 29: “We understand that Iran has denied that there has been an incident at Fordow. This is consistent with our observations.”

IAEA spokeswoman Gill Tudor emailed that response to reporters. However, when pushed by WND, Tudor could neither confirm nor deny the incident had taken place and did not say whether inspectors had visited the site after the explosions, despite some media reports that it had.

In a letter to the IAEA two days after the reported explosions, Iran said it plans to install thousands of its upgraded centrifuges at the Natanz facility. The source stated that this was as a direct result of the explosions at Fordow.

There have been no reports that I have seen as to the cause of the explosion. I would guess, though, that Israel has now realized that it is on its own in terms of solving the Iranian nuclear problem and has now taken some appropriate action.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Whoops!

Reza Kahlili (google him if you don’t know his story!) posted an article at World Net Daily today about an explosion deep within Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility.

The article reports:

The regime’s uranium enrichment process takes place at two known sites: the Natanz facility with more than 10,000 centrifuges and Fordow with more than 2,700. The regime currently has enough low-grade (3.5 percent) uranium stockpiled for six nuclear bombs if further enriched.

Israel has been working quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program, so it is quite possible they might have some connection to this explosion. In the past, Israel and America worked on the Stuxnet computer virus, but since President Obama bragged about being part of that program, I suspect there has been less cooperation between the two countries.

The article at World Net Daily (WND) concludes:

Sources in the Islamic regime previously have revealed exclusively to WND the existence of:

It’s going to be interesting to see if anyone takes credit for causing this explosion.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Need To Be Energy Independent

 

British map showing the Strait of Hormuz

Image via Wikipedia

Yahoo News posted a Reuters story yesterday about a recent statement by Parviz Sarvari, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee. Mr. Sarvari stated that the military was preparing for a military training exercise to practice closing the Straits of Hormuz. At least 40 percent of the oil traded in the world leaves the Gulf States through the Straits of Hormuz. United States warships patrol the area in order to protect shipping in that area. To close those Straits would create chaos in the world’s oil markets. 

The article reports:

Tension over the program has increased since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on November 8 that Tehran appears to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Iran has warned it will respond to any attack by hitting Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf and analysts say one way to retaliate would be to close the Strait of Hormuz.

When America has a weak president, the world is less safe. The current actions of Iran are further proof of that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Common Sense From The Wall Street Journal

IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria. Photogra...

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article entitled, “If Iran Gets the Bomb.” The article reviews some of the history of Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

The article reminds us of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released this week which stated that Iran seems to be on a structured path to building a nuclear weapon. The article reminds us of the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which claimed that Iran had ended its work on nuclear weapons on 2003, thus assuring that the Bush administration would take no action against Iran. I suspect that when historians review that report, they will wonder why Americans let party politics interfere with their national security.

The article points out:

The serious choice now before the Administration is between military strikes and more of the same. As the IAEA report makes painfully clear, more of the same means a nuclear Iran, possibly within a year.

The article then examines the consequences of various possible decisions. The writers point out that  “no war ever goes precisely as planned.” That applies to both boots-on-the-ground wars and aerial wars.

Iran’s going nuclear would trigger an arms race in the Middle East–the Saudis would want an atomic bomb, as would other countries. It is also a safe bet that a nuclear Iran would not hesitate to bully its neighbors. A nuclear Iran could seriously alter any stability in the Middle East that currently exists.

The article concludes:

Opponents of a pre-emptive strike say it would do no more than delay Iran’s programs by a few years. But something similar was said after Israel’s strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, without which the U.S. could never have stood up to Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait. In life as in politics, nothing is forever. But a strike that sets Iran’s nuclear programs back by several years at least offers the opportunity for Iran’s democratic forces to topple the regime without risking a wider conflagration.

No U.S. President could undertake a strike on Iran except as a last resort, and Mr. Obama can fairly say that he has given every resort short of war an honest try. At the same time, no U.S. President should leave his successor with the catastrophe that would be a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran on Mr. Obama’s watch would be fatal to more than his legacy.

Israel will not sit quietly and let Iran go nuclear. That fact needs to be considered as our government decides what America should do. There are only two rational solutions I have heard to Iran going nuclear–the first is to overthrow the current government and replace it with a secular democracy, the second is an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack by either America or Israel. Neither solution is guaranteed, but a solution is necessary.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is It Too Late To Deal With Iran’s Nuclear Program ?

Atomic bombing of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

Image via Wikipedia

There are mixed reports on how much progress Iran has made on their nuclear program. The Washington Post reported yesterday that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is going to release a report this week on the Iranian nuclear program. The preview of the report states that Iran has continued its work on developing a nuclear bomb despite claims that the program had been stopped. The thing to keep in mind here is that the IAEA has pretty much been wrong on all of its previous reports on the Iranian nuclear program.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times posted an article by Reza Kahlili on October 27, 2011, stating that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Reza Kahlila is a former member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard who actually worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

A few things to remember when dealing with Iran:

1. There is a concept in Islam called taqiyya. Loosely translated it means lying for the sake of Islam. The concept is particularly applied to the idea of lying to infidels.

2. A video smuggled out of Iran in March of this year (see rightwinggranny) explains that the basis for the Iranian foreign policy is the quest for a world-wide caliphate. That is a long-term goal, although Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes he is charged with causing the chaos that will usher in the reign of the 12th Imam.

3. Western cultures tend to look at events in terms of recent history. The Islamic mentality looks at events in the perspective of centuries. We plan for decades–they plan for centuries. There is an expression among Muslims in Afghanistan, “Americans have all the watches, but we have all the time.” We need to remember that.

I don’t know what the truth is, although I suspect Iran either has or is very close to having a nuclear weapon. We are coming to the point when the west has to make a decision as to whether it will allow Iran to become a nuclear nation. Aside from the obvious danger to Israel, Iran’s going nuclear will begin an arms race in the Middle East–not a place known for its peaceful tendencies.

Hold on to your seats!

Enhanced by Zemanta