Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama Running Cover For Iran Missile Test Violations

Obama Running Cover For Iran Missile Test Violations

President Obama is ignoring another Iranian provocation and further endangering the US and our allies,

President Obama’s willful blindness toward Iran’s continued development of illicit weaponry is putting Americans and our allies in ever greater danger.  Obama’s superficial detente with Iran ignores its deceits, dissimulations, and resolve to obtain a nuclear capability.

In the latest instance, Obama is downplaying Iran’s November ballistic missile testU.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 provides, “Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology.”  The November launch tested the long-range, nuclear-capable Ghadr-110 missile and was a clear violation of Resolution 1929.

Nevertheless, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power merely called for “conducting a serious review of the reported incident.”

This is only the latest instance of Obama withholding, distorting or ignoring information that might threaten his Iran policy.  Previously, Obama abandoned his promise that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) would have “anytime, anywhere” inspections, agreeing instead to a drawn-out and inadequate system of notices and appeals.

Caving on inspections exacerbated Obama’s earlier failure to require Iran to completely disclose its preexisting nuclear program to the International Atomic Energy Agency (“IAEA”).

Free of pressure from the United States, Iran has little incentive to cooperate with IAEA investigators.  What the IAEA has learned is disconcerting – earlier this month it reported that Iran maintained an active nuclear weapons program until 2009, far longer than previously believed.  Alongside that new information, though, the IAEA also noted that Iran still has not answered key questions.

Even Iran’s modest obligations under the JCPOA are not binding.  Last month the State Department wrote to Rep. Mike Pompeo that the JCPOA is not a binding agreement, as Iran never signed.  Instead, the JCPOA merely reflects political commitments and depends on “extensive verification measures” and “Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose – and ramp up – our sanctions.”

But precisely because Iran’s adherence to JCPOA, UN and IAEA proscriptions depends on its perception of the US’s willingness to re-impose sanctions, the only means of assuring Iranian compliance is to vocally and powerfully respond to any violations.

There was always a risk that President Obama would opt to ignore Iranian violations that might further call into question the wisdom of his Iran policy, and that is precisely what has come to pass.  Whether it is due to his misguided quest for rapprochement with Iran at all costs or unwillingness to concede his own mistakes, there is virtually no possibility that Obama will take action against Iran.

The repercussions are potentially disastrous.  Iran will proceed with progressively more aggressive ballistic missile tests until either satisfied with the results or prevented from doing so.  Iran will restart or continue an illicit nuclear weapons program impenetrable under the JCPOA’s feeble inspections regime, or merely wait out the JCPOA’s laughable 10-15 year sunset clause.

The United States cannot possibly ensure that Iran complies with even the JCPOA’s paltry requirements if it is unwilling even to acknowledge and denounce Iranian violations.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The Iran deal has become a tautology of the left

The President has negotiated a deal with Iran to prevent them from doing anything bad.

Anything Iran does is therefore good, and must not be breaking the deal.

There is a third thought that goes along with this: Anything anybody says to the contrary is obviously a lie that is intended on making Iran do bad things (which they obviously don’t want to do, because of the deal).

The conduct of the Obami WRT Iran is simple treason.

Now, THERES you a tautology…!!!

Since Iran never SIGNED the agreement, they cannot be in violation of it.

    Milhouse in reply to MattMusson. | December 10, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    No, but they’re in violation of 1929(2010), which is still in force until the IAEA submits its report. They can say that’s a technicality, that it’s only a matter of timing, but as a matter of law it’s still a breach.

New World Order: implementation on schedule.

So the sanctions program is automatically “snapping back”, right? Isn’t that what we were told would happen if the Iranians violated the “agreement?”

    Milhouse in reply to Paul. | December 10, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    No. You really are mixing up a lot of things.

    1. Iran has not violated the recent agreement. Not even slightly. It has violated one of the sanctions which the agreement says are to be lifted, but haven’t been lifted yet. Resolution 2231(2015) says the sanctions, including 1929(2010), will be lifted as soon as the IAEA submits its report, but that hasn’t happened yet.

    2. Nobody ever told you that the sanctions would automatically snap back if Iran violated this agreement (which it hasn’t done). What you were told, and what is absolutely true, and you would know if you’d bothered to read Resolution 2231(2015), is that it provides that if any party to the agreement (including the USA) complains to the UN that Iran is not fulfilling its obligations, then the sanctions automatically all come back 30 days later, unless the UNSC passes a resolution to stop them.

    Right now that’s irrelevant, because the sanctions never went away, so there’s no need to bring them back. Once they do go away (when the IAEA submits its report), an Iranian violation would not start the 30-day clock. The clock is started not by a violation but by a complaint.

    This is a good thing, because if it were triggered by a violation there’d have to be some sort of mechanism for determining whether there really had been one, and Iran’s friends could make sure the determination would be that there hadn’t. But it’s not started by a violation, it’s started by a complaint. All the US president has to do is write to the Secretary General complaining that Iran had violated the agreement, and the clock starts. The complaint doesn’t even have to be true. 30 days later the sanctions all snap back, unless the UNSC stops it, and that is something the USA can veto.

    But as I said all of that is irrelevant since the sanctions are still in place, which is exactly what this article is about. Once the sanctions go away Iran will be within its rights to test a ballistic missile.

      “Nobody ever told you that the sanctions would automatically snap back if Iran violated this agreement (which it hasn’t done).”

      B U L L S H I T

      http://www.npr.org/2015/07/20/424571368/if-iran-violates-nuke-deal-a-look-at-how-sanctions-would-snap-back

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTBkgrOSZLU

        Milhouse in reply to Paul. | December 11, 2015 at 1:55 pm

        Did you bother to read the article you linked to? It says exactly what I wrote. The 30-day clock is started by an allegation being brought to the UN. Not by an actual violation. A violation that nobody complains about doesn’t start the clock; a false complaint does. This is all explicitly stated in the UNSC resolution, which is all that matters, because it’s the only thing that is binding international law. If you’d bothered to read it you’d know.

          You’ve got to be kidding, right?

          Oh wow, there is no magic violation sensing device that automatically senses a violation and automatically invokes snap-back provisions? Wow, somebody has to trigger the process? Gee, I NEVER knew that to be the case. Thanks for pointing that out to me!

          And way to avoid the whole “nobody ever said snap back” topic. Did you watch the video?

          You are so incessantly full of shit, and yourself, sometimes. Two line snark comments don’t need your diatribe responses. Come off it.

      PhillyGuy in reply to Milhouse. | December 10, 2015 at 3:03 pm

      There is absolutely no agreement. That is a fallacy. What the Iranian parliament approved is not similar to the JCPOA. The US and others are pretending that there is one.

        Milhouse in reply to PhillyGuy. | December 11, 2015 at 2:10 pm

        Why does it matter what the Iranian parliament voted on? Congress didn’t vote on it either. The agreement is between the various governments, not between their legislatures. And the obligations it imposes on Iran are included in a binding UNSC resolution. (The obligations it imposes on the USA and the other western countries are not in the resolution, so they’re completely optional.)

      The Ayatollah Milhouse.

Fundamental ist Transformation

In the latest instance, Obama is downplaying Iran’s November ballistic missile test. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 provides, “Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology.” The November launch tested the long-range, nuclear-capable Ghadr-110 missile and was a clear violation of Resolution 1929.

Note that Resolution 2231(2015) says that the prohibitions in Resolution 1929 (2010) will be terminated as soon as the IAEA submits its report. So really Iran is merely jumping the gun.

Last month the State Department wrote to Rep. Mike Pompeo that the JCPOA is not a binding agreement, as Iran never signed. Instead, the JCPOA merely reflects political commitments

JCPOA would not be binding anyway. It’s certainly not binding on the USA, since it’s just a private agreement that Mr 0bama made, and the USA is not a party to it. But UNSC Resolution 2231 (2015) is binding international law. It doesn’t place any obligations on the USA, but it does on Iran. And 1929 (2010) is still binding until that IAEA report comes in, so Iran is certainly, if only technically, in breach of international law.

    PhillyGuy in reply to Milhouse. | December 10, 2015 at 3:10 pm

    As per the report on December 2, it certainly looks like they will release funds to Iran on Dec 15th. This is a joke of a deal. A sham.

      A gift to Iran on M’s birthday, I presume. (Or at least one of the days that the multiple sects claims, as I understand)

      I wonder if there’s any relation between this and the ad that just showed up on Craig’s List (Middle East)
      “Wanted: Plutonium pits from disassembled Russian nukes. Will pay top dollar, but need to wait until after Dec. 15 for check to clear.” (/sarcasm for the humor-impaired)

Don’t worry Dean Obama has just placed them all on probation, not just probation,but double secret probation

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend