Tag Archives: Iran Deal

The Iran Nuclear Deal Just Keeps Getting Worse

The Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA) reached an important milestone on October 18, a day designated by the agreement as “Adoption Day.” Under the JCPOA, this date was when all parties to the nuclear deal were to signify they are prepared to implement the agreement (including lifting most sanctions against Iran) on “Implementation Day” — a future date when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will certify Iran’s compliance with requirements to cut back its nuclear program. Iranian officials believe Implementation Day will occur by the end of the year. Obama officials have said it will be in about six months.

Although Adoption Day was intended to be an indication that the Iran deal is progressing, it has been overshadowed by growing signs that Iran intends to ignore important aspects of the deal and that the Obama administration is planning to look the other way.

President Obama refused to follow the Constitution and allow the Senate to ratify the JCPOA as a treaty. This was not the case for Iran’s parliament. Although the agreement only required the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) to ratify the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (an agreement that in theory will give IAEA inspectors greater access to Iranian nuclear sites), Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gave parliament the opportunity to ratify the entire JCPOA. According to Obama officials and most press reports, the Iranian parliament passed a bill endorsing the nuclear deal on October 13.

These reports were wrong. The Majlis did not endorse the JCPOA. It approved its own amended version of the agreement that is drastically different, substantially limits Iran’s cooperation, and demands additional concessions.

The Iranian parliamentary bill that “approved” the JCPOA reportedly is 1,000 pages long and has not yet been fully translated into English. According to Amir Taheri, an Iranian-born veteran Western journalist, the bill contains these provisions:

  • The elimination of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
  • Forbids the inspection of any military site and the interviewing of any officers.
  • Calls for strengthening Iran’s defenses, especially by developing its missile arsenal.
  • Says the redesign of the Arak heavy-water reactor and its conversion to run on enriched uranium “are conditional to separate deals.” This refers to a JCPOA provision to alter the design and fueling of the Arak reactor so it produces less plutonium. This provision is significant because it implies either that other agreements need to be negotiated to carry out this part of the JCPOA or that undisclosed side deals concerning the Arak reactor exist.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) assessed in an October 13, 2015 report that the Iranian parliament ratified “a nonexistent document,” not the JCPOA, because it called for sanctions against Iran to be cancelled and not to be reimposed. By contrast, the nuclear deal calls for sanctions to be suspended and to snap back in the event of Iranian noncompliance.

MEMRI also reported text in the Iranian parliament bill calling on the government to handle the rapid expansion of the country’s centrifuge program so that within two years, Iran’s enriched-uranium output will reach 190,000 SWUs (separate work units). This would equal about 25 to 28 times the output of the 9,000 centrifuges Iran currently is operating and contradicts Tehran’s JCPOA commitment to only operate 5,060 centrifuges for 10 years.

According to press reports, Supreme Leader Khamenei issued a letter on October 21 “endorsing” the JCPOA that actually appears to endorse the Iranian parliament’s bill. In the letter, Khamenei demanded that the U.S. and the EU agree in writing that sanctions “are completely canceled” when Iran meets its obligations under the agreement. Khamenei also complained about “ambiguities” in the JCPOA and said any new sanctions against Iran would be a violation of the agreement.

#share#A recent Iranian long-range-missile test and statements by Iranian and U.S. officials that Iran’s missile program does not violate the JCPOA has sparked more controversy about the nuclear deal.

On October 22, Iran tested the Emad, a long-range missile with a range of about 800 miles. According to Iranian defense minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, the Emad is Iran’s first long-range missile that can be precision-guided until it reaches its target. What is the likely target for this missile? Hint: Iran’s western border is about 650 miles from Jerusalem.

A few days later, Iranian TV broadcast pictures of an underground tunnel storing medium- and long-range ballistic missiles. While the location was not provided, the broadcast said the facility is one of hundreds of underground missile bases scattered across the country.

On the surface, these developments look like Iranian noncompliance with the JCPOA, since they conflict with statements made by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that the nuclear agreement requires UN missile sanctions against Iran to remain in place for eight years.

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said on August 22 that Iran would not comply with the accord’s provisions on UN missile sanctions. According to the government-controlled Fars News Agency, Rouhani said: “We will purchase weapons from wherever we deem necessary and we are not waiting for anyone’s permission; if we deem necessary, we will sell our weapons and we will do this without paying attention to any resolution.”

However, on October 17, Iran modified its position when Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Zariz said the JCPOA has nothing to do with missile sanctions because it “made no mention of missiles.” While Zarif also conceded there are provisions concerning missile sanctions in a separate UN Security Council resolution (Resolution 2213 of July 20, 2015) that endorsed the nuclear deal, he claimed the missile tests had nothing to do with this resolution because it only barred missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Incredibly, as Andrew McCarthy explained at National Review on October 13, the Obama administration took a similar line. McCarthy said White House spokesman Josh Earnest believes the Iranian missile test was separate from the JCPOA because

(a) nuclear activities are somehow separate from activities involving ballistic missiles that can deliver nuclear weapons; (b) Security Resolution 2231 that implements the Iran deal is somehow separate from other Security Council resolutions that ban Iran’s ballistic missile activities even though Resolution 2231, too, bans Iran’s ballistic missile activities; and (c) Iran’s pattern of violating international law pertaining to ballistic missiles that can deliver nuclear weapons is somehow irrelevant to the administration’s level of confidence that it will adhere to its commitments regarding nuclear weapons development, notwithstanding that it has a history of flouting those commitments, too.

McCarthy noted Earnest said the Iranian missile test may have violated other UN Security Council resolutions. Another State Department spokesman said the U.S. will raise this issue with the UN Security Council.

I agree with McCarthy but I would add that this controversy is a product of the Obama administration’s irresponsible decision to separate Iran’s missile program from the nuclear talks. A nuclear-weapons program is assumed to have three legs: nuclear-fuel production, warhead development, and a delivery system. No serious expert believes Iran’s missile program is defensive and not intended to carry nuclear weapons. Moreover, the IAEA reported in 2010 and 2011 that it had information suggesting that Iran was developing nuclear missile warheads.

#share#Finally, there are new concerns that the IAEA’s investigation of possible past nuclear weapons-related work by Iran is a sham.

This investigation into what is formally known as the “possible military dimensions” (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program is crucial to establishing a baseline to verify the JCPOA. I wrote several National Review articles over the last few months, including here and here, on how the Obama administration originally claimed the PMD issue would be addressed in the JCPOA but later dropped this issue due to Iranian objections. I also wrote that U.S. diplomats probably arranged to sidestep the PMD issue and hide it from Congress by asking IAEA officials to take this issue up in secret side deals between Iran and the IAEA.

The IAEA is investigating PMD issues in eleven areas that suggest covert Iranian nuclear weapons activities. These include nuclear-detonator development, work to manufacture a device for the core of a nuclear weapon, research to determine how to mount a nuclear payload into a missile delivery system, and covert efforts to procure uranium and nuclear technology.

Most of the controversy over this issue to date has concerned the secret side deals that allowed Iranians to collect soil samples and swipes as part of the IAEA investigation. Per this arrangement, Iranians collected samples at Iran’s Parchin military base during the weekend of September 18 without the presence of IAEA personnel. Iranians reportedly were to collect samples at other facilities as part of the PMD investigation.

The use of Iranians to collect environmental samples led to charges by critics of the nuclear deal that Iran was inspecting itself and that the PMD investigation would be a whitewash. Such concerns have intensified in recent weeks because of the speed with which the IAEA is moving to resolve these complex issues that have been pending for a decade. Probably to force the conclusion of this investigation, Supreme Leader Khamenei stated in his letter today that Iran will delay reconfiguring the Arak heavy-water reactor and sending enriched uranium out of the country until the IAEA’s PMD file is closed.

The IAEA issued a statement on October 15 that Iran had provided sufficient cooperation for it to issue a report by a December 15, 2015, deadline with its final assessment on outstanding PMD issues. In light of Iran’s continuing insistence that it never pursued nuclear weapons and the rushed investigation, the IAEA’s report may only conclude it found no evidence of Iranian weapons-related work instead of stating that these concerns have been disproved.

Such an inconclusive PMD report presumably would have been unacceptable even for the Obama administration as recently as six months ago. However, in an October 17 column, Associated Press reporter George Jahnquoted unnamed diplomats who said the U.S. is prepared to accept a vaguer IAEA report on this issue than it would normally demand because seeking further clarity from Iran would jeopardize the larger agreement.

Further alarming JCPOA critics, Obama officials are now playing down the importance of the IAEA PMD investigation and have said that the nuclear deal and sanctions relief will go forward regardless of its outcome. An October 19, 2015, Wall Street Journal article noted that Kerry and other U.S. officials had previously said sanctions would not be lifted unless Iran substantively cooperated with the PMD investigation.

Meanwhile, as the JCPOA moves forward, Iranian behavior has grown worse in other ways. Iran reportedly has sent hundreds of troops and Hezbollah fighters to Syria over the past few weeks to prop up the Assad regime. On October 11, an Iranian court convicted Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian of espionage. Iran continues to imprison three other innocent Americans.

So with Obama officials claiming this week that the JCPOA’s Adoption Day indicated progress and the willingness of all parties to implement the agreement, the truth is that Iran is already violating it and has an entirely different view of the deal from what Obama’s officials have claimed. I am sure Obama’s officials are aware of this, but they are so desperate for the JCPOA to succeed that they are ignoring these violations and finding ways to explain them away, including by contradicting earlier claims that missile sanctions and the PMD issue were part of the nuclear deal.

The amended version of the JCPOA passed by the Iranian parliament is a crucial part of this puzzle. At least one organization in Washington is working to translate this document. Congress must demand the U.S. Intelligence Community translate it ASAP and post online so Congress can consider further action on the nuclear deal.

Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said in March 2010 that “we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it. . . . ” This comment is ironic given how Congress is now learning what was really agreed to in the JCPOA after it survived a congressional review last month as well as a January 2014 comment by National Security staffer Ben Rhodes that the Obama administration viewed the Iran deal as its second term Obamacare.

The deceptions used to pass Obamacare did severe damage to America’s health-care system and caused costs to skyrocket. The deceptions used to sell the nuclear deal with Iran may do far more damage to American interests by providing cover that Iran likely will use to try to become a regional hegemon while continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Iran missile test, IS convoy attacked, Turkish bomb blasts, Syrian rebel training…

Iran tests long-range missile in defiance of UN resolution

This past Sunday, Iran announced that it had successfully test-fired a long-range ballistic missile.  While no information was given in regards to its range or operational capabilities, Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan claimed that it is the first locally developed missile that can be controlled until it reaches its target.  While the terms of the P5+1 nuclear deal do not bar Iran from developing such weapons, UN Security Council resolution 2231 forbids them from doing so.  The White House has stated that it is analyzing the information collected from the test and will refer the matter to the Security Council if a violation is found.

Seeking to increase their strategic deterrence capability, Iran will very likely continue to develop and test missiles that have the potential to reach Israel.  Although the military advances trumpeted by the IRGC cannot be independently verified, it is worth remembering that they claim to have developed a missile with a range of 1,250 miles, which covers Israel and US military installations in the region.

Iraqi Air Force attacks IS convoy believed to have al-Baghdadi present

In the latest of a series of attempts to capture and/or kill IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Iraqi Air Force is claiming an attack on a convoy headed to Kerabla, a border town in Western Iraq’s Anbar province, where he was believed to be traveling.  The airstrike reportedly killed eight IS commanders, with IS denying that al-Baghdadi was harmed in any way. An anonymous US official in Baghdad also stated there was no indication that the Islamic State’s Caliph was hurt.

Prior to this operation, it had been reported that al-Baghdadi was seriously injured in an US airstrike in March 18, where he was allegedly incapacitated due to spinal damage. The Islamic State has stressed that even if al-Baghdadi is captured or killed, the fight will go on.

Turkey conducting investigation as Islamic State blamed for Ankara blasts

The double bombing on Saturday that claimed over 85 victims at a Turk-Kurdish peace really in Ankara bears a strong resemblance to previous Islamic State attacks.  Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has named the jihadis the primary suspects. However, some analysts believe there is little incentive for IS to conduct this attack, as Turkey’s vast borders with Syria are the main entry point for the foreign fighters the IS needs to replenish its jihadi ranks.

Instead, suspicion falls upon Turkish president Erdogan and his Islamist AK party which stands to benefit the most.  By promising swift retribution, Erdogan hopes to lock in more voters for the upcoming run-off Parliament elections, while targeting his primary opposition, the union of anti-Islamist and Kurdish parties that blocked the AKP’s efforts at parliamentary majority in the most recent election.

Obama administration blames Congress for Syrian rebel training failure

The perceived failure of the Syrian rebel training program, which ultimately inserted 60 fighters into Syria at a cost of $ 590 million, was on stark display during President Obama’s interview on 60 Minutes. Seeking to put as much distance between himself and the project as possible, Obama said that from the start he didn’t think it would work.  Defense Undersecretary for Policy Christine Wormuth also cast blame at Congress, saying that the way they wrote the bill only authorized the recruitment effort to go towards those who wanted to fight IS exclusively.  Missing from Wormuth’s statement is the fact that this program is the administration’s policy, and thus the training program’s authorization reflected that.

On the ground, Kurdish rebel group YPG has announced an alliance with Sunni Arab groups located near the IS stronghold and de facto capital of Raqqa.  The US was quick to announce weapons delivery to the Arab forces.  In the past, YPG has been successful in countering IS advances in northern Syria, but will not receive weapons directly owing to Turkish concerns over Kurdish groups too close to their border.

Other stories we’re following:

Russian intervention divides Gulf alliance against Assad

US begins removing Patriot missiles from Turkey

IS seen growing in Afghanistan, draws closer to Kabul

IS believed to have captured US missiles in Iraq

Nusra Front calls for revenge attacks in Russia

Turkey warns US and Russia it will not accept Kurdish militias near its borders

IS kills top Iranian commander on Syria

Al-Qaeda training camps raided by US and Afghan forces

Boko Haram suspected of twin suicide bombings in Cameroon

Uganda announces troop exit from South Sudan

For the first time, China arrests hackers after US request

US Northern Command: North Korea capable of striking US with long-range missile

Navy third fleet seeks to ensure freedom of navigation in South China Sea

Does the Nuclear Deal With Iran Violate U.S. Law?

According to a blockbuster report on Fox News last night by James Rosen, the nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) violates U.S. law by reopening a legal loophole that will allow subsidiaries of U.S. companies to do business with Iran.

This loophole was closed by the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012.  Rosen discovered that this loophole will be reopened by a provision buried in an annex to the Iran deal (Annex II, section 5.1.2) which says that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the agreement, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

Rosen contends the JCPOA’s annex II language violates U.S. law in two ways.

First, under the ITRA, the prohibition barring foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms from doing business with Iran cannot be lifted unless the president certifies that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s state sponsor of terrorism list and that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.

Second, several executive orders and laws signed by Mr. Obama state that despite the JCPOA, all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.

This includes the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (also known as the Corker-Cardin Act), signed by President Obama on May 22, 2015, which requires that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief” afforded to Iran under the terms of the nuclear deal may only be “taken consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action.”  According to Rosen, “The continued presence of Iran on the State Department’s terror list means that “existing statutory requirements” that were set forth in ITRA, in 2012, have not been met for Iran to receive the sanctions relief spelled out in the JCPOA.”

This is not the first time experts have claimed the JCPOA violates U.S. law.

National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy has written that the Corker-Cardin congressional review process violated the Constitution’s requirements that treaties be ratified by 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate.  Although the president refuses to admit the JCPOA is a treaty, McCarthy believes it is and wrote that Corker-Cardin’s provisions that allowed Congress to reject the JCPOA by passing a veto-proof and filibuster-proof resolution of disapproval turned the Constitution on its head.

McCarthy and many Republican members of Congress also maintain that President Obama did not meet the terms of Corker-Cardin because he failed to provide all documents associated with the JCPOA to Congress for a congressional review, including all side deals.  This became a major point of contention during the congressional review after Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) were told by IAEA officials about secret side deals to the JCPOA between Iran and the IAEA that would not be shared with Congress.  A few days later, the Obama administration informed Congress in classified briefings that the side deals would allow Iranians to collect samples as part of IAEA investigation of past Iranian nuclear weapons work.

Because of the secret side deals dispute, the House passed a resolution declaring that the failure of President Obama to provide all secret side deal documents to Congress violated Corker-Cardin.  Several House members hope to bring legal action against Mr. Obama over this issue.

My colleague Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer and Iran expert, contended in an August 11, 2015 article in The Hill, that the JCPOA violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution because it is contrary to America’s legal obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).  Lopez argued that the NPT is the law of the land because it is a treaty ratified by the United States.  She also noted that the NPT obligates its nuclear-weapon State Parties “…not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.”

On the other hand, according to Lopez, the JCPOA, a presidential executive agreement, violates the NPT and the Constitution because it “explicitly obligates the U.S. to both “assist” and “encourage” (not to mention “defend”) the Iranian regime’s nuclear weapons program.”  Lopez cited Prof. Louis Rene Beres, Emeritus Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University, who told her that the contradiction between the NPT and the JCPOA “represents a conspicuous violation of U.S. law.”

Concerns that President Obama was playing fast and loose with U.S. law on the Iran deal coupled with concerns that the deal will not stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and would give Iran over $100 billion in sanctions relief that Tehran is certain to spend on terrorism is why only 21% of Americans supported the agreement when Congress voted on it last month.  The legal problems with the agreement described above have further undermined its credibility.

Rosen’s report on how the JCPOA will close a loophole allowing subsidiaries of American companies to do business with Iran may be the agreement’s the most serious flaw because it appears to clearly violate U.S. laws and executive orders.  Although Rosen’s discovery will not kill the JCPOA during Mr Obama’s presidency, he quoted Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) who said this about the significance of this issue:

“Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”

The debate over President Obama’s dangerous nuclear deal with Iran is not over.  Growing evidence that Iran does not plan to comply with the agreement and the likelihood of more stories like Rosen’s on what was really agreed to in the deal will increase the likelihood that if a Republican wins the 2016 presidential election, he or she will tear up this terrible agreement on his or her first day in office.

Iran Deal’s Premise Is Wrong — They Likely Have a Bomb

President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is not just a bad deal. It is the worst deal possible — because there is a good chance Iran already has a bomb.

The deal assumes Iran has no nuclear weapons, despite having a nuclear program for 65 years and crashing on a bomb for 25 years. Other states developed the bomb in three to 12 years, based on open source estimates:

The first atomic bombs — two different designs, took the U.S. three years (1942-45).

The USSR tested its first A-bomb in six years (1943-49).

The United Kingdom took 12 years (1940-52), slowed by politics and a bad economy.

France took four years (1956-60).

China took nine years (1955-64).

India took five years (1967-72).

South Africa took 10 to 12 years (1967-1977/79).

Pakistan tested for political reasons in 1998, but developed A-bombs much earlier (1972-1984) in 12 years.

North Korea tested in 2006, but developed an arsenal of bombs and missiles much earlier (1984-1992/94) in eight to 10 years.

That Iran should be so slow to develop the bomb strains credulity, especially since Russia and North Korea are helping them.

When Iranian dissidents exposed Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program in 2002, then-Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky declared: “Iran does have nuclear weapons. These are non- strategic nuclear weapons. … As for the danger of Iran’s attack on the United States, the danger is zero.”

Baluyevsky’s knowledge about Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program, when that program was newly revealed to the West, has never been explained.

Although the International Atomic Energy Agency did not say so, its 2011 report not only proves that Iran has a nuclear weapons program — it is a “smoking gun” that Iran already has the bomb. Prior to 2003, Iran had all the knowledge and components needed to build the bomb.

More than 12 years ago, Iran:

Cast uranium hemispheres for a nuclear implosion weapon and verified the design with non-fissile explosive testing in a containment chamber. (During its World War II Manhattan Project, the U.S. was 16 months from the bomb at this stage.)

Developed and tested exploding bridgewire detonators, necessary to an implosion nuclear weapon. (The Manhattan Project was six months from the bomb at this stage.)

Manufactured neutron initiators used to start a fission chain-reaction in a nuclear weapon.

Drafted 14 different workable designs for a nuclear weapon to fit inside the re-entry vehicle for the high-explosive (HE) warhead of Iran’s Shahab-III medium-range missile. (Designing a nuclear weapon is a lot harder than changing the shape of a re-entry vehicle. Obviously, Iran sought to disguise the warhead as the HE warhead of the Shahab-III.)

Developed fusing systems for a nuclear missile warhead to perform a ground-burst or high-altitude burst above 3,000 meters. (The Congressional EMP Commission found that in 2002 Iran performed five fusing tests of the Shahab-III at high-altitudes — explicable only as practicing nuclear EMP attacks.)

Doesn’t Iran need a full-yield explosive test to prove its nuclear weapon? No, component testing is sufficient. The U.S. never tested the Hiroshima uranium bomb — Hiroshima was the test. (The 1945 test at Alamogordo was of a plutonium bomb used on Nagasaki.) North Korea, Pakistan and South Africa clandestinely developed nuclear weapons without testing, or years prior to testing. The U.S. has not tested since 1992.

Originally posted on Roll Call.

Highlights from Stop Iran Rally

On September 9, 2015, an historic Stop Iran Rally drew thousands of American patriots to the West Lawn of the US Capitol to hear dozens of eminent speakers condemn the nuclear deal between the Obama administration and Iran. The Center for Security Policy was one of the co-sponsors for the rally, and CSP President and CEO Frank Gaffney was a featured speaker.

The following video is a compilation of the day’s highlights produced by the United West.

Kasich and Bush’s Position on Iran Deal Could Cost Them the GOP Nomination

All of the GOP presidential candidates did well on the disastrous nuclear agreement with Iran except for Jeb Bush, Rand Paul and John Kasich.  Bush and Kasich were especially awful.

Seven of the 15 candidates – Walker, Cruz, Christie, Huckabee, Rubio, Graham and Pataki – said they would kill the deal.  Cruz and Walker said they would tear it up on their first day as president.  Rubio and Huckabee also seemed prepared to do this.

Two candidates – Fiorina and Santorum – would make tough demands to Iran that would effectively kill the deal.

Donald Trump said he would try to renegotiate the agreement with demands that would almost certainly kill it. Bobby Jindal wants Congress to kill the deal.  Dr. Ben Carson did not say how he would treat the deal.

But Bush, Paul and Kasich said they would abide by the nuclear agreement with Iran.

I disagree with but understand Senator Paul’s position.  His father Ron Paul supports the Iran deal (I debated Ron Paul on the Iran deal on Newsmax TV’s Hard Line with Ed Berliner on July 14).  Senator Paul seems to share some of his father’s isolationist and non-interventionist views which probably made it difficult for him to vote against the Iran deal.  Paul said it would be absurd to tear up the Iran agreement immediately without knowing if Iran had complied, comments that indicate he does not understand how bad this agreement is.

I expected better from Jeb Bush and John Kasich since they don’t have Paul’s isolationist and non-interventionist baggage.

Bush said “It’s not a strategy to tear up an agreement” and stressed the U.S. instead needs a strategy to confront Iran and provide more weapons to Israel.  These comments tracked with Bush’s earlier statements that he would need to check with America’s allies before abrogating the nuclear agreement.

Sorry, Governor Bush.  Tearing up the Iran deal on the first day of the next president’s term of office would be a strategy and an act of leadership since it would repudiate a dangerous and illegitimate agreement with an American enemy that was imposed on our country by President Obama with zero support from congressional Republicans.

Kasich made comments similar to Bush, saying that Senator Cruz’s pledge to tear up the Iran agreement was “playing to the crowd” and that America needed to act with its allies on Iran.  While Kasich said he would rip up the deal if Iran was caught cheating and would “slap the sanctions back on,” most of his comments sounded like they were drawn from White House talking points on the Iran deal.

Cruz ripped Kasich for these remarks, noting that the U.S. will not know if and when Iran cheats.  Cruz added “And most astonishingly, this agreement trusts the Iranians to inspect themselves. That makes no sense whatsoever.”

Rubio, Walker and Huckabee also had strong rejoinders to Bush and Kasich’s positions on the Iran nuclear deal.  I especially liked Huckabee’s comment that “Iranians treat it [the Iran deal] like it’s toilet paper, and we must simply make it very clear that the next president, one of us on this stage, will absolutely not honor that agreement, and will destroy it and will be tough with Iran, because otherwise, we put every person in this world in a very dangerous place.”

Bush and Kasich’s remarks on the Iran deal were extremely disappointing and suggest they are more interested in appealing to the mainstream media and the foreign policy establishment rather than Republican voters.  Their comments also indicated they do not understand how dangerous the Iran nuclear agreement is and raise questions about who is advising them on foreign policy.  This is especially puzzling concerning Bush who has such a large foreign policy team that his campaign is turning people away.  Is Bush being advised by Republicans who worked for his father and brother but went wobbly on the Iran deal like Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft?

The Iran deal is a fundamental issue for many Republican voters.  Only 21% of Americans support this agreement that will shorten the timeline to an Iranian nuclear bomb, has weak verification provisions, allow Iranians to collect samples on nuclear weapons-related work, and lifts sanctions on Iranian terrorists.

There’s a reason Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson are doing so well in the race for the Republican presidential nomination: Republicans are angry with the Obama administration and Washington insiders.  They want real change.  I predict that if Bush and Kasich (I discount Paul as a real contender) insist on siding with Democrats, Washington insiders and the foreign policy establishment on crucial national security issues like the nuclear deal with Iran, they will not win the Republican presidential nomination.

Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs for the Center for Security Policy. He followed the Iranian nuclear issue for the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee during his 25-year government career. Follow him on Twitter @fredfleitz

Migrant crisis, Burundi attack, North Korea, Iran deal lobby…

Migrant crisis undermines Long Time EU Border Agreement

Germany’s decision to reimpose border controls, has created a domino effect with other E.U countries doing the same as the crisis worsens.  The 1995 Schengen agreement had guaranteed passport and visa-free travel as well as no border checks within the EU, but with hundreds of thousands of mostly Syrian migrants at the gates, one of the main pillars of Europe’s political and economic union is crumbling.

Playing into Germany’s decision is the security threat posed by the migrants.  Lebanese Education Minister Elias Bousaab recently told British Prime Minister David Cameron during the latter’s visit to refugee camps in the Levant that ‘2 out of a 100 migrants’ may be Islamic State infiltrators.  Lebanon, a small country with a population of a little over 5 million, has taken in close to a million Syrians. Lebanon has been a prominent IS target, giving Mr. Boussab additional credibility.

Burundi’s democratic process under fire

Attacks against the regime of President Pierre Nkurunziza continue in the capital of Bujumbura, as General Prime Niyongabo, chief of the armed forces, survived an assassination attempt.  At this time, no one has claimed responsibility, but renegade generals who staged a failed coup in May are suspected.  To his credit, Nkurunziza was quick to call for unity instead of retaliation, as he had previously done.  The failed attack against his top general underscores his fragile hold on power, as the opposition may be seeking to rally disaffected military officers to their cause.

Back to nuclear business as usual for North Korea  

The hermit kingdom is once again playing its nuclear card for attention, as reports indicate that Pyongyang is preparing a ‘satellite launch,’ which may be cover for a long-range ballistic missile test.  While no timeline has been given, it is by no means a coincidence that the DPRK has announced that its nuclear plant in Yongbyon, north of the capital, is fully operational.  This plant contains an uranium enrichment facility from which the North Koreans extracted fuel for their nuclear arsenal.  South Korea has already called for its northern counterpart to refrain from launching the missiles, but there’s no reason to believe Kim Jong-Un would heed calls for restraint.

Iran lobby in Washington underwritten by mysterious Persian-American family

Few celebrated the Iran deal conclusion in Congress more than the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a lobbying group that was able to successfully overcome strong opposition. But just how did they manage it?  A report in The Daily Beast shines a light on an obscure Iranian expat family, the Namazis.  Patriarch Muhammad Bagher Namazi, a former governor of Khuzestan province under the Shah, heads a multi-national business interest that has made multiple deals with the Iranian regime, adeptly navigating the regime’s convoluted and corrupt economy dominated by Ayatollah Khameinei, the Revolutionary Guard, and multiple former Iranian presidents.  Profits from these deals may have given the Namazis the means to fund NIAC, an organization that many regard as the regime’s “Iran lobby”.

Other stories we’re following:

As Iran deal is debated in Congress, rest of the world lines up to do business in Tehran

Russia sending advanced weaponry to Syria

Iran directly responsible for American deaths in Iraq war

Violence in Turkey could revert to Kurd-Turkey war

Algerian intelligence chief fired

IS use of chemical weapons suspected

IAEA Chief to visit Tehran

Khameinei’s business dealings win big in Iran deal

Al-Shabaab beheads two accused of spying

Moscow calls for talks with US over Syria

West dismissed Russian offer for Assad to resign in 2012

Can the Nuclear Deal With Iran Be Fixed?

President Obama’s main arguments in defense of the controversial nuclear agreement with Iran have been that the only alternative to the agreement is war and that the idea of a better deal is a fantasy.  We believe both of these arguments are false.

First, we dismiss the president’s stark dichotomy of this deal versus war as a false choice.  No deal would be far better than this dangerous pact which will bolster Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, provide billions of dollars in sanctions relief that Iran will likely use to fund terrorism, and will allow Iran to collect its own samples for the IAEA to disprove allegations of past nuclear weapons work.

A better alternative would be a bona fide good deal that fully addresses the threat from Iran’s nuclear program and addresses its history of cheating on nuclear treaty obligations with an airtight inspections process to ensure compliance.  Such a deal would need to meet all of the below requirements.

1. Actually close off all pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon.  This is the fatal flaw of the Iran deal.  Contrary to the Obama administration’s claims, the nuclear deal does not come close to addressing this requirement since Iran will continue to enrich uranium during the deal and will be allowed to test and develop advanced uranium enrichment centrifuges.  Iran also will be allowed to complete construction of a heavy-water reactor that still will produce plutonium even after it is redesigned.  These provisions will allow Iran to continue to make advances in its efforts to produce nuclear fuel.  As a result, Iran will develop an industrial-scale nuclear program while this deal is in effect and the timeline to an Iranian nuclear weapon will fall throughout the agreement.

A credible nuclear agreement with Iran is impossible unless all uranium enrichment ceases and centrifuge equipment is dismantled.  Construction of Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor must be halted permanently.  We agree with Senator Robert Menendez who believes that to close off all Iranian pathways to a nuclear bomb, there must also be a ban on centrifuge R&D for the duration of any nuclear agreement with Tehran.

2. Sanctions must be lifted gradually in response to Iranian compliance with a nuclear agreement and be tied to an improvement in its behavior.  The current deal lifts almost all sanctions late this year or early next year if Iran complies with several easy to meet requirements.  This is the wrong approach: once EU and UN sanctions are lifted, they will never “snap back” in the event of Iranian noncompliance.  Gradual sanctions relief must be conditioned on Iranian compliance with the nuclear pact and a pledge by Tehran that it will not spend sanctions relief funds on terrorism and or destabilizing the Middle East.  Sanctions relief would be suspended if Iran does not fully comply with these requirements.

3. No lifting of sanctions against Iranian terrorist organizations and individuals.  We find it incomprehensible that the nuclear agreement lifts UN sanctions against notorious Iranian terrorists and terrorist organizations such as the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) Air Force, the IRGC Air Force Al-Ghadir Missile Command, and the IRGC Qods Force,  IRGC commander Qassm Suleimani who provided weapons responsible for killing hundreds of U.S. troops during the war in Iraq, and Ahmad Vahidi, a former defense minister and IRGC commander, participated in the 1994 bombing attack on the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people.  These sanctions have nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program.  The United States should not be a party to an agreement that lifts sanctions on Iranian terrorists.

4. A truly robust and intrusive verification regime that does not allow Iran to inspect itself.  Under the nuclear agreement, 24/7 monitoring will only be conducted of declared nuclear sites, locations where Iran will not be engaged in covert nuclear weapons activities.  For undeclared sites, there is a convoluted 24-day appeals process to arrange IAEA inspections.  This is far short of the anyplace, anytime inspections promised by the Obama White House during the nuclear talks.  Former IAEA Deputy Director General for Safeguards Olli Heinonen has said 24 days would be more than enough time to remove evidence of many nuclear weapons-related activities.  We believe Iran will refuse to allow the IAEA access to sites where it cannot conceal evidence of nuclear weapons work or will conduct such work in another country, probably North Korea.

Making this inspection scheme worse, under secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran, Iranians will collect evidence of possible past nuclear weapons related work at the Parchin military base and other locations.  This is an unacceptable arrangement that raises serious questions about whether the agreement will establish a baseline of Iran’s nuclear weapons related activities for verification purposes and a terrible precedent for future nonproliferation and arms control accords.

5. Drop offer of advanced nuclear technology and assistance from the West to protect its nuclear program.  The nuclear agreement commits Western states to provide advanced nuclear technology to Iran, including light-water reactor and fusion technology.  Western states also have pledged to help Iran protect its nuclear program from sabotage.  The United States and its allies should not provide technology that Iran could use to shorten the timeline to a nuclear weapon or help it defend its nuclear program from future efforts by the U.S. intelligence to or milt disable this program if the United States determines it is being used to develop or produce nuclear weapons.

6. Add restrictions on Iran’s growing ballistic missile program.  Although experts believe Iran is developing its ballistic missile program as a delivery system to carry nuclear warheads against the United States, Europe and Israel, there are no provisions in the agreement calling on Iran to curtail its missile program or join international agreements to limit missile proliferation.  A credible nuclear agreement with Iran must require Tehran significantly to curtail its missile program and become a member in good standing of the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation.

The rest of our requirements for a good nuclear agreement with Iran are drawn from proposals recently made by Senator Robert Menendez.

7. Immediate ratification by Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure we have a permanent international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites.  Although an Additional Protocol agreement between Iran and the IAEA is crucial to providing the IAEA with greater access to suspect nuclear sites, Iran has only agreed to provisionally implement this agreement and will seek ratification of it by the Iranian Parliament in eight years or when the IAEA has declared all nuclear activities in Iran are peaceful.  This makes no sense since Iran will not make a binding commitment to the protocol until it will no longer matter.

8. The full resolution of the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s program.  A credible nuclear agreement must require Iran to answer the IAEA’s outstanding questions about possible past and ongoing nuclear weapons work to establish a baseline for verification.  We categorically reject assertions by President Obama and Secretary Kerry that it is not necessary for the IAEA to resolve these issues because “we have perfect knowledge” of Iran’s nuclear program and that “we know what they did.”  We instead call for Iran to provide a full accounting of its nuclear weapons-related work because of the poor track record of U.S. intelligence in monitoring and detecting WMD programs in Iraq, Iran, North Korea and other states.

9. Extend the duration of the agreement.  We agree with Senator Menendez that one of the single most concerning elements of the deal is its 10-15 year sunset of restrictions on Iran’s program, with off-ramps starting after year eight.  The Obama administration promised an agreement of significant duration but failed to deliver.  Iran should have to comply with a nuclear agreement for as long as they deceived the world, at least 20 years.

10. A clear agreement on penalties for Iranian non-compliance.  Language on implementing sanctions for Iranian violations under paragraph 37 of the agreement is vague and provides an exemption for contracts with Iranian entities entered into before the implementation of new sanctions.  A better formulation is needed to spell out how new sanctions against Iran will be implemented that does not include this exemption.

The Obama administration and its defenders contend the nuclear agreement with Iran is the best that could be negotiated.  We disagree.  This agreement does not reflect hardnosed American diplomacy, but rather the determination of a president so desperate to reach a deal that he agreed to almost any compromise to get one.  We believe a future American negotiating team acting under the directions of a new president determined to strike a strong agreement that halts the threat from the Iranian nuclear program can achieve a more sound accord with Tehran that satisfies our security requirements.

Some ‘Victory’ — Two-Thirds of the Senate and the Public Oppose Obama’s Iran Deal

News media were beside themselves with glee on Wednesday applauding President Obama for a great diplomatic victory after Senator Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.) became the 34th senator to come out in favor of the nuclear deal with Iran. She handed the president a veto-proof margin against a Senate resolution disapproving of the agreement.

The American people oppose the agreement by a 2–1 margin. Meanwhile, President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and their supporters were doing victory laps yesterday because it has won the support of one third of one house of Congress.

There are two reasons why this absurd situation is possible.

First, the president refused to submit the Iran deal as a treaty for the Senate ratify or vote down. The reason was obvious: Ratification would have required a two-thirds vote, and Mr. Obama has failed to persuade the American people that this agreement is in the national-security interests of the United States. A recent poll found that a majority, 64 percent, believe that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have misled the public about the agreement. I assume that this majority grew because of the controversy over secret side deals that allow Iran to inspect itself and that will not be shown to the U.S. Congress.

Second, Congress passed the Corker-Cardin bill, which enables it to pass a resolution of disapproval barring the president from waiving sanctions imposed by Congress against Iran. However, this law, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, allows a resolution of disapproval to be filibustered and vetoed. This means that a minority of Congress can stop Congress from disapproving the Iran deal.

My friend Andrew McCarthy wrote at National Review last April that Corker-Cardin “is worth less than nothing” because it set up a deeply flawed process that turned the Constitution on its head. Agreements of this importance are supposed to be submitted as treaties and ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate.

I regularly come across opponents of the Iran deal who agree with McCarthy and intensely hate Corker-Cardin. I think it is clear now that this bill was a mistake on the part of Senate and House leaders, since it enables the president to create the false impression that the Iran deal has the approval of the U.S. Congress. It doesn’t, obviously. Mr. Obama’s ramming through the Iran deal using this approach will have significant implications for America’s global reputation and the Democratic party.

First, it is no secret to nations around the world that most Americans hate the Iran deal. America’s enemies and allies alike see a president planning to implement a deeply unpopular agreement that they know will be torn up on January 20, 2017, if a Republican wins the White House next year. As a result, in addition to his other foreign-policy blunders, Mr. Obama’s mishandling of the Iran nuclear issue at home will further undermine America’s reputation for being a reliable ally and negotiating partner.

Second, while this week many mainstream media outlets ran stories claiming that opponents of the Iran deal “lost” because they did not persuade more Democrats to oppose it, those reports are misleading. The Iran deal is far more unpopular in the United States than it was when the summer began. Large rallies against the deal have been held across the United States. (I spoke to a huge rally of angry opponents of the Iran deal on September 1 in New York City, outside Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s office.) Groups supportive of the Iran agreement were active over the summer, but many were led by far-left outfits such as MoveOn.org and engaged in reprehensible attacks on the deal’s opponents, calling them traitors and singling out Jewish members of Congress to question their loyalty to the United States.

As a result, popular opposition to the Iran deal rose throughout the summer even as the president scraped up enough support in the Senate to sustain a veto. This is not a good situation for the Democratic party. Last week, Democratic pollster Pat Caddell told WND radio:

I do not understand at this point how Democratic senators and congressmen can say they are going to vote for something which the vast majority of Americans oppose, including a goodly percentage of their party. . . . The American people see a Democratic party [that] puts what the president wants over the interests of the nation. . . . This attempt to drag the Democratic party into becoming, instead of the voice of the common people, the voice of entitled elites is unacceptable to me and many Democrats.

I know from sources in Congress that the White House and Democratic congressional leaders put almost unprecedented pressure on Democratic members to support the Iran deal. Some Democrats were told they have no future in Congress if they did not support the deal. I am sure that many Democratic members extracted huge concessions in exchange for their support.

Eventually there will be a day of reckoning for Democratic lawmakers who sided against the majority of the American people on the Iran nuclear agreement. When the Democratic officeholders who voted for it are up for reelection, President Obama and the far-left groups currently supporting the deal will be of no help defending them. Large numbers of Democratic legislators could be defeated for supporting the Iran deal if, as I believe likely, Iran violates the pact before the next congressional elections.

While the Obama administration is today celebrating its achievement of having convinced a small number of senators to support the Iran nuclear agreement, it has also created a major issue for Republicans to use against incumbent Democrats in the future. Democratic lawmakers should recognize that and change their position on the deeply flawed Iran deal.

This is a pivotal moment for the Republican party, especially the Republican presidential candidates. Republicans have to hold accountable Democrats who voted for the Iran deal by hammering home the theme that Democratic members of Congress are helping President Obama ram through a dangerous and deeply flawed diplomatic agreement that most Americans oppose.

But more important, Republicans need a plan to deal with the extensive damage President Obama has done to U.S. national security, not just concerning the Iranian nuclear program. To protect American liberty and security, we need to restore America as a decisive superpower with a foreign policy the world respects and the American people support. That will be the most important task for the next president, and we need to hear from the Republican presidential candidates detailed proposals for how they plan to accomplish it.