Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Nuclear Deal Tag

Posted by David Gerstman on July 12, 2015 14 Comments
President Barack Obama has, at least since 2012, claimed that he has Israel's back regarding his engagement with Iran. But as the Iran nuke negotiations move closer to an agreement, with reports it could happen by tomorrow, it is clear that Obama's words are empty rhetoric. In May ahead of his talk at a Washington D.C. synagogue, Obama said it once again, telling Jeffrey Goldberg, "It’s because I think they recognize, having looked at my history and having seen the actions of my administration, that I’ve got Israel’s back..." Events of this past week gives lie to Obama's contention. No this deal won't make Israel safer. But let's check what Iranians are saying. Last week, for example, Iran's former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, someone often called a "moderate" and an ally of current president, Hassan Rouhani, threatened to "wipe Israel off the map."
In response to a question why the Zionist regime has done its best to prevent the path for reaching a nuclear agreement between Iran and the West, Ayatollah Rafsanjani said that even Tel Aviv knows well that Iran is not after acquiring nuclear weapons.

Posted by New Neo on July 09, 2015 20 Comments
As time goes on, and the Iran nuclear negotiations continue, it's hard to escape the thought that the Obama administration is becoming more and more desperate for a deal. Any deal. Here are recent developments: John Kerry, in his usual clear-as-mud manner, says that "We will not rush and we will not be rushed." On the other hand, negotiations “will not be open-ended.” What does that tell us about how close the parties are to an agreement? Nothing. He also said the agreement needs to “withstand the test of time,” and that “It’s a test for decades.”
ABC US News | World News

Posted by Mirabelle Ward on July 07, 2015 2 Comments
Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon reported that that the Obama administration is willing to do whatever it takes to prevent a veto override when Congress votes on the Iran deal. This morning, CNN hosted a veritable White House press conference about the subject. Former State Department Iran negotiator Hillary Mann Leverett and Obama shill and Haaretz contributor Peter Beinart were anchor Chris Cuomo's entire panel. One point that Beinart made that deserves examination is his assertion that “Iranian dissidents want this deal to go through,” on the theory that opening up Iran will lessen the regime’s human rights abuses. He’s made the same argument here, and we're likely to hear it again in the coming weeks. It's worth asking, then, whether the human rights situation in Iran stands to improve. To begin with, Beinart is being disingenuous when he says that dissidents support the deal. Eli Lake documented in 2013 that, while some support it, many others do not.

Posted by Amy Miller on July 07, 2015 8 Comments
Another day, another deadline busted. Officials attending nuclear policy talks in Vienna announced today that the deadline set by negotiators has been extended three days to July 10. This is the third time in a year that officials have blown past a deadline, but spokespeople from various parties blame this failure to agree on several "thorny" issues that appear to be hanging in the balance between total failure and...well, whatever level of "failure" will be represented by whatever terrible deal eventually emerges from this mess. Via the Wall Street Journal:
EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini told reporters the two sides weren’t formally extending the deadline but would effectively stop the clock on the talks. “The news is, we are continuing the negotiations in these hours. You might see some ministers leaving in the next hours and then ready to come back in the coming hours and days,” said Ms. Mogherini, who chairs the six-power group. “We are continuing to negotiate for the next couple of days. That does not mean we are extending our deadlines,” she said, adding that “we are interpreting” the July 7 end-date “in a flexible way.” Ms. Mogherini said the negotiations have hit the most difficult and sensitive final issues, but that sealing a nuclear agreement “is still possible.”

Posted by David Gerstman on July 06, 2015 8 Comments
Adam Kredo of the Free Beacon obtained an e-mail threatening Democratic legislators who have doubts about the nuclear deal with Iran that the administration is negotiating.
“Democrats in Congress are the only remaining obstacle to finalizing today’s historic deal,” Zack Malitz, campaign manager for CREDO, said in a statement emailed to reporters on July 2, along with a note that details of the email were not to be published until a deal was actually announced. “Every Democrat should go on the record right now in support of the deal, and pledge to defend it from attacks in Congress.” “Republicans will try to sabotage the deal and take us to war, but they can’t do it without Democratic votes,” Malitz wrote. “Progressives will hold accountable those Democrats who vote to help Republicans sabotage the deal and start a war.”
The Free Beacon cited a source who observed that this kind of political threat was consistent with the administration's mindset.
“This is exactly what you’d expect from the deal-at-any-cost lobby,” the source said. “The White House lied to Congress about what it would deliver and doesn’t have anything left than its raw political power.”
The Free Beacon report comes just after Bloomberg reported that an effort to promote a nuclear deal with Iran has been funded with millions since 2003.

Posted by David Gerstman on July 03, 2015 4 Comments
Two recent articles document the multiple American capitulations to Iran in pursuit of a nuclear deal. One is Friday's column by Charles Krauthammer, which showed the numerous retreats the administration has taken from ensuring that Iran will stick to an agreement. Another is by Lee Smith, who earlier this week covered a number of retreats the administration took in allowing Iran to maintain its nuclear infrastructure. The administration's goal seems not to be preventing Iran from making a nuclear weapon but to making a deal. Iranian TV is talking tough: Krauthammer summarizes how the administration backed down from inspections, Iran's having to account for its past illicit nuclear research, as well as its generous application of sanctions relief. The matter of past nuclear work is necessary (and it's something that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei refuses discuss) in order to know the full extent of Iran's nuclear program. Here's what happened:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on June 24, 2015 29 Comments
The arbitrary deadline to come to a nuclear agreement is less than a week away. Yet again, Iran's Supreme leader took to Twitter to make his demands -- demands not congruent with previous agreements. The New York Times reported Tuesday:
In a speech broadcast live on Iran state television, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, demanded that most sanctions be lifted before Tehran has dismantled part of its nuclear infrastructure and before international inspectors verify that the country is beginning to meet its commitments. He also ruled out any freeze on Iran’s sensitive nuclear enrichment for as long as a decade, as a preliminary understanding announced in April stipulates, and he repeated his refusal to allow inspections of Iranian military sites. American officials said they would not be baited into a public debate with the ayatollah, who has the final word on nuclear matters. But with Western foreign ministers already hinting that the negotiations may go past the June 30 deadline, both American and European officials have said in recent weeks that they are increasingly concerned about the possible effects of the ayatollah’s statements.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on June 22, 2015 17 Comments
IranTruth.org hopes to expose the dangers of the Obama administration's dealings with Iran. As part of the site launch, IranTruth released a new video chronicling the devolution of President Obama's Iran stance, beginning with Senator Obama's campaign promises:

Posted by Mirabelle Ward on June 08, 2015 7 Comments
Last week President Obama finally stated openly what everyone, including the Iranians, has known all along – that he is simply not willing to use military force to stop Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon. Those of us with common sense and reason also know that his negotiations with Iran might delay, but will not stop, that country from attaining a nuclear weapon. We know this both because Obama himself told us so in an interview with NPR, and because once a military option is clearly off the table, Iran has no incentive to make concessions in a negotiation and no reason to comply with a negotiated agreement. With no US-sponsored military solution, at least for the remainder of Obama’s term, and no diplomatic solution, there are still two things left that the US can do. First, we can refrain from criminalizing the actions of other states for whom military action against Iran would be considered both reasonable and necessary. Second, we can, at the very, very, least, refrain from funding Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb ourselves.

Posted by New Neo on May 24, 2015 16 Comments
If you were looking for a monument to supreme egotism, you would have to go far to beat Obama's statement in this interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:
“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” he said, referring to the apparently almost-finished nuclear agreement between Iran and a group of world powers led by the United States. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”
I rack my brain to think of another president in our history---or another statesman or even another prominent politician---who would think to say "trust me, because my ego is riding on this." What on earth does ego have to do with judgment? In the calculus of what are the most important considerations about any Iran deal, the most important would be "our profound national-security interests" and those of the entire world. That's what's riding on it, that's the reason to "lock it down" (odd phrase for negotiations). The state of Obama's personal reputation ought to be so low on the list of things to think about that it shouldn't even be on his radar screen at this point, much less ours. Obama says he's got a special personal interest in "locking this down." But an agreement on nuclear weapons with Iran is not merely a question of applying oneself. Obama may think there's no limits to his powers, but sizing up Iran and negotiating with a country which is essentially an aggressive, repressive, fanatical enemy isn't just a matter of trying hard enough and thinking you're the smartest guy in the room. Even if it were true that Obama wanted and even needed to negotiate a good deal for the US in order to protect his precious reputation, that doesn't mean he has a clue how to get there from here, or that it's even possible to do so.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on May 20, 2015 14 Comments
Leave it to the good ol' Ayatollah to tattle on U.S. officials. If Atatollah Khamenei's Twitter feed is any indicator, Iran is not too keen on the idea of nuclear inspections. Early this morning, Iran's Supreme Leader tweeted: The New York Times Ayatollah Khamenei, "ruled out inspections of Iranian military sites and interviews of Iranian nuclear scientists in any potential deal on its nuclear program," at a graduation speech Wednesday.

Posted by Amy Miller on May 14, 2015 11 Comments
A bill ensuring Congressional oversight on any proposed nuclear deal with Iran is headed to the President's desk. The bill passed through the House 400-25 after a hard-fought battle in the Senate earlier this month. It imposes a 30 day buffer preventing the President from waiving any congressional sanctions against Iran while Congress reviews the deal; additionally, if Congress disapproves of the deal, the President will be unable to waive certain congressionally-imposed sanctions. Opponents of the bill maintained that its provisions were not strong enough to provide an adequate buffer between the Obama Administration and a nuclear Iran; its supporters, however, argued that the bill would be the best chance for the American people to weigh in on the controversial impending nuclear deal. The legislation eventually passed the Senate 98-1, with only Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton objecting. President Obama is expected to sign the bill, giving Congress the power of initial rejection but ushering in a new round of contentious negotiations over the nuclear deal itself. The House vote came as Obama met with the leadership (though not necessarily the figureheads) of leading Persian Gulf states in a series of meetings "designed to narrow differences" over the impending nuclear deal:

Posted by Amy Miller on May 07, 2015 21 Comments
Today the Senate passed a bill that would give Congress the authority to review the emerging nuclear deal with Iran. The bill---and the vote---was controversial, with many Republicans arguing against final passage; those who opposed sending the bill to the House argued that it was not strong enough, and would not provide a big enough buffer between the Obama Administration, and a nuclear Iran. Fox News explains why Senate leadership pushed so hard for the passage of the bill:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the bill "offers the best chance for our constituents through the Congress they elect to weigh in on the White House negotiations with Iran." Added Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee: "No bill. No review." The legislation would bar Obama from waiving congressional sanctions for at least 30 days while lawmakers examine any final deal. The bill would stipulate that if senators disapprove of the deal, Obama would lose his current power to waive certain economic penalties Congress has imposed on Iran.
Accessibility by WAH