Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Iran nuke deal: “Everything Netanyahu warned about has turned out to be true”

Iran nuke deal: “Everything Netanyahu warned about has turned out to be true”

Obama admits: At end Iran deal, “breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero”

There is no Iran nuke “deal,” but whatever there is to the framework, even Obama now admits it paves Iran’s path to the bomb, albeit on a delayed fuse, as AP reports, Obama says Iran could cut nuke time to near zero in 13 years:

Defending an emerging nuclear deal, President Barack Obama said Iran would be kept a year away from obtaining a nuclear weapon for more than a decade, but conceded Tuesday that the buffer period could shrink to almost nothing after 13 or more years.

Obama, whose top priority at the moment is to sell the framework deal to critics, was pushing back on the charge that the deal fails to eliminate the risk because it allows Iran to keep enriching uranium. He told NPR News that Iran will be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms — not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material.

“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” Obama said.

It’s not at all clear that 13 years is the correct number, as opposed to 10. But regardless, the point is that at the end of this process Iran is ready to produce a bomb.

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Netanyahu: Nuke Deal ‘Paves Iran’s Path to the Bomb’:

Iraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress on Tuesday that a potential nuclear deal being negotiated by major powers including the United States “paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

Netanyahu, who vehemently opposes the Obama administration’s ongoing negotiations with Iran, said that world leaders must instead work to “stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.”

“It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb,” he said of the potential deal as he appeared at the Capitol in front of hundreds of American lawmakers. “It paves Iran’s path to the bomb. ”

“For over a year we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal,” he added. “Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We are better off without it.”

Jon Stewart’s mockery aside, Bibi was right to warn about Iran. In supporting the “deal,” the Obama administration is now arguing Iran currently is just two months from a nuclear breakout:

US energy secretary Ernest Moniz, who negotiated the technical side of the deal, said Netanyahu’s assessment was wrong.

“We certainly have a very, very different view of the facts,” Moniz said on CBS News. “Certainly today, the breakout time [for Iran to acquire a weapon] is about two months. This will immediately get us over a year. It will get us there with almost instantaneous recognition of any attempt to evade the deal, and it will give us plenty of time to respond diplomatically or otherwise.”

The 10-year time frame under which Iran now gets a bomb, Netanyahu argued, was just a “blink of the eye” for a nation:

https://twitter.com/TerriGreenUSA/status/572797126113026048

Listen to how Obama reacted to Netanyahu’s speech, and compare it to what Obama now admits as quoted at the top of this post:

Bibi was right.

https://twitter.com/Jewtastic/status/585398230160027648

UPDATE: Netanyahu even more correct than initially thought, French fact sheet differs from US on Iran’s centrifuge use, R&D

A French government fact sheet on the Iran framework deal, which has not been made public by Paris but which has been seen by The Times of Israel, provides for Iran to gradually introduce the use of advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium after 12 years, in contrast to the US official parameters, which make no such specific provision

The use of the more advanced IR-2 and IR-4 centrifuges, as permitted according to the French fact sheet, would enable Iran to more rapidly accumulate the highly enriched uranium needed to build nuclear weapons, accelerating its breakout time to the bomb.

The French fact sheet also specifies that Iran will be allowed to continue R&D work on the advanced IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, the last of which can enrich uranium at 20-times the speed of Iran’s current IR-1 centrifuges, whereas the American parameters are less specific.

Differences between the texts issued by Paris and Washington also extend to the question of inspection and supervision of Iran’s activities, with the French document indicating that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be able to visit any suspect site in Iran — so-called “anywhere, anytime” access — whereas the US document is less far-reaching.

The two documents also differ in their terminology as regards the scale and timing of sanctions relief as the deal takes effect.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Does ANYBODY believe anything that Barracula says?

That’s a serious question. One which some of our lurking trolls should step up and answer honestly (yeah, I know…).

The point being, there is nothing about this “deal”…framework…thingy that does not have CAVE written all over it.

It is simply impossible that we let it stand.

    legacyrepublican in reply to Ragspierre. | April 7, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    Oh, I believed Ohamas when he said he was going to fundamentally going to change America.

    IrateNate in reply to Ragspierre. | April 9, 2015 at 7:40 pm

    Sorry, but ‘barracuda’ doesn’t seem to fit. A barracuda is a predator, while Obama better fits the mold of a bottom feeder. I tend to lean towards ‘black drum’ but without the racial overtones, of course.

I don’t understand, the agreement itself is a 10 year agreement, why would anyone think it would have any effect after 10 years?

If it is not re-negotiated in a decade, and is allowed to expire, then of course Iran will be able to get closer to having a weapon. However, I suspect that if they do not get a new agreement, they will have the sanction regime re-imposed upon them.

Were you folks anticipating that this agreement be some kind of “in perpetuity” thing or something?

    Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 7, 2015 at 11:25 am

    assoNY, putting aside your temporal deflection, why don’t you answer my question (above)?

    What about this clusterfluck has Obama said that you believe?

    Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | April 7, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    Both Obama and sKerry have referenced the “fatwa” against nuklar weapons.

    Do you believe any such fatwa exists? Can you cite it?

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 7, 2015 at 2:33 pm

      re: The case of the vanishing fatwa:

      Iranian diplomats have claimed such a fatwa exists:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/27/did-irans-supreme-leader-issue-a-fatwa-against-the-development-of-nuclear-weapons/

      Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, said the Iranian government was the best source for information. But she added: “Many Iranian officials have spoken of the fatwa publicly, and their comments are publicly available. There are various descriptions of it in the public domain. And importantly, the Iranians have also referenced the fatwa in our negotiations.”

      Indeed, the Iranian government’s slick new Web site on its nuclear program, http://www.nuclearenergy.ir, includes an entire section on the nuclear fatwa.

      This is supposed to have been issued in 2003, and trace back to a supposed fatwa by Ayatollah Kohomeini, the first Supreme Leader, about chemical weapons.

      Now Iran actually admitted producing them. There are lies about that, too. And there’s all kinds of back and forth about that, like maybe it only means weaponize:

      http://www.lobelog.com/wapo-fact-checker-fails-on-iran-nuclear-fatwa/

      See also:

      http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/16/when-the-ayatollah-said-no-to-nukes/

      Iran argues that it has rejected nuclear weapons as incompatible with Islam and cites a fatwa of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as proof. American and European officials remain skeptical, however, that the issue is really governed by Shiite Islamic principles.

      Indeed, Obama and Kerry didn’t take it at face value, saying that IF that is what they believe, they should prove it. Obama and company seem to accept the fatwa, but not that Iran would automatically abide by it.

      The above article has someone in Iran claiming that Khomeini, the first Supreme Leader issued a fatwa, but it wasn’t a fatwa, he just told them in 1984 not to get started on this without citing a reason.

      If pressed the Iranian maybe would say, like they say about the one supposedly issued by Khomeini, that it was oral, and any decision by the Supreme Leader is a fatwa.

    IrateNate in reply to anoNY. | April 9, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    It seems you are making the naive assumption that Iran would actually adhere to any terms of an agreement. Nothing we do, short of totally destroying their facilities through military action, will prevent their continued quest for nuclear weapons. There are no unicorns or rainbows here, just lies and deceit.

From the article –

Jon Stewart’s mockery aside, Bibi was right to warn about Iran. In supporting the “deal,” the Obama administration is now arguing Iran currently is just two months from a nuclear breakout:

US energy secretary Ernest Moniz, who negotiated the technical side of the deal, said Netanyahu’s assessment was wrong.

“We certainly have a very, very different view of the facts,” Moniz said on CBS News. “Certainly today, the breakout time [for Iran to acquire a weapon] is about two months. This will immediately get us over a year. It will get us there with almost instantaneous recognition of any attempt to evade the deal, and it will give us plenty of time to respond diplomatically or otherwise.”

This is a lie. If this were true – “Certainly today, the breakout time [for Iran to acquire a weapon] is about two months.”, there are no conditions under which Iran would be willing to negotiate ANYTHING.

Why should they?

Two months.

WHY SHOULD THEY?

DCP

    Henry Hawkins in reply to DCP. | April 7, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    Absolutely a lie. Israel cannot and would not let the clock tick down to two months. It’s bullshit.

    The Obama administration will lie to its own people about anything.

mumzieistired | April 7, 2015 at 11:06 am

Iran will get the nukes, but it won’t happen on Obama’s watch – probably…

And that’s the goal.

    MattMusson in reply to mumzieistired. | April 7, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    Time to prepare for nuclear war in the middle east. Even an exchange between Iran and Saudi Arabia would totally disrupt world oil supplies.

    We MUST build the keystone pipeline for national security reasons because – war is coming.

Six years in office: Obama’s behind the curve learning curve correlates exponentially
with the world’s accelerating arm’s race.

What’s Obama’s foreign policy? It is called “Effetism” and it is characterized by a lack of resolve and a fully ‘torqued’ tone-deaf obstinacy.

I know that Kissinger suggests in his book “World Order” that we should try to diplomatically interface with Iran but after many years nothing has changed. Except that Iran is now closer to its goal of world domination by the Islamic Revolution. They have broken trust with the world.

We must put boots down on the neck of the serpent Iran:
We must confiscate all centrifuges and nuclear materials.
All Americans and Pastor Saeed Abedini must be released immediately. If not, America shows up at their door.
The Ayatollah must look for a new job where he can abuse himself.

Iranian theocracy doesn’t ‘play’ by diplomatic rules. It actually plays by Frank Underwood rules.
Iranian Pooh-Bahs understand sanctions and might. And, that Obama is “flexible” like a limp rag.

So the world is sitting back & watching the Three Stooges negotiate its future:
BarkyValjar + Kerry the Fool + a nuclear physicist who can’t even navigate his own hair.

And Chuck Schumer might turn out to be the voice of reason: wonders never cease.

buckeyeminuteman | April 7, 2015 at 1:22 pm

What do Romney and Netanyahu have in common? They both turned out to be right…

LukeHandCool | April 7, 2015 at 1:44 pm

What are the chances Obama could be wrong and Bibi Netanyahu and Scott Walker right?

Henry Hawkins | April 7, 2015 at 3:12 pm

I want Bibi to coach the Carolina Panthers.

I think Obama hopes to blame Bush, Jeb.

[quote]Obama … told NPR News that Iran will be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms — not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material.[/quote]

Assuming that’s 300 kg of 80% enriched U-235, that’s more than enough to build four Little Boy bombs. The US ended WWII with three bombs — one was used for testing, and the other two (one of which was Little Boy) were dropped on a country far larger than Israel. If Iran has 300 kg now, there’s nothing stopping them from building bombs now. Removal of sanctions will only make building them — let’s appropriately call them Obama Bombs — easier and faster.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend