Tag Archives: Iran

The Enormous Fraud of the Iran Deal Is Catching Up with Obama

After a recent surge in threatening behavior by Iran and reports that it may soon be given access to the U.S. financial system, the House Intelligence Committee opened an investigation into whether Obama officials misled Congress about the July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive plan of Action, or JCPOA). The “historic” deal, they said, would help bring Iran into the “community of nations” and lead to improved relations between Iran and the United States.

While this congressional investigation is a welcome development, it is too little and too late to reverse the Obama administration’s policy of offering any and all concessions — including over $100 billion in sanctions relief — to get a nuclear agreement with Iran. Most members of Congress thought the JCPOA was a bad deal; the majority of them voted against it last fall. But many now realize that this agreement is in fact an enormous fraud that is undermining Middle East and international security.

As I have explained here on National Review Online, in “Obama’s Iran Deal Is the Opposite of What He Promised the American People,” the negotiations that produced the JCPOA were an endless series of fallacies and deceptions. To get Iran to the negotiating table, the Obama administration foolishly agreed that the mullahs could continue to enrich uranium and develop advanced enrichment centrifuges. This means that the timeline for an Iranian nuclear weapon will shorten when the JCPOA is in effect, because Iran will all the while be improving its capability to produce nuclear fuel.

Obama officials made several misleading statements about the JCPOA last July that have come back to haunt them. These will be the focus of the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation.

One of the most controversial of these statements was President Obama’s and Secretary Kerry’s assertion that under this agreement, Iran agreed to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions barring missile tests for eight years. But there is no language barring missile tests in the JCPOA; this provision is buried in a U.N. Security Council resolution (Resolution 2231) that merely endorsed the JCPOA.

Obama officials later clarified that although the JCPOA does not bar Iranian missile tests, existing U.N. and U.S. missile sanctions would remain in place. But this isn’t exactly true, either. After the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Iran had taken certain steps to roll back its nuclear program (a certification the IAEA made in January this year), Resolution 2231 lifted previous Security Council missile sanctions and replaced them with much weaker language “calling” on Iran not to test missiles. According to diplomats cited by Reuters, this new formulation is not legally binding and cannot be enforced under Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter, which deals with sanctions and authorization of military force. The Obama administration made no mention of this in its briefings to Congress on the JCPOA.

For its part, Iran says it never agreed to missile restrictions in the JCPOA and claims its missile tests do not violate Security Council resolutions because they are not designed to carry nuclear warheads. This is absurd. Iran’s missile program is widely believed to be a delivery system for nuclear warheads. If Iran were telling the truth, it would be the only nation in history without a nuclear-weapons program that nonetheless developed missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers or more. Iran is not building long-range missiles to carry warheads full of dynamite or to fire monkeys into space.

Iran tested ballistic missiles last fall and last month. Written on the sides of some missiles recently launched were the words “Israel must be wiped off the earth.” Last week, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, responded to criticism of the missile tests by saying that Iran’s future is a world of missiles, not negotiations.

Congress is worried that the Obama administration, in an effort to make sure Obama’s “legacy” nuclear deal is not jeopardized, will refuse to take any significant action against Iran for its missile tests. Tellingly, the administration has studiously avoided saying that the missiles Tehran tested were capable of delivering nuclear weapons and that they violated any Security Council resolution. A joint letter sent last week to the U.N. Secretary General from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France said that Iran’s missiles tests were “inconsistent with” and “in defiance of” Resolution 2231 but did not refer to them as a violation.

Congress knows there was at least one secret side deal to the JCPOA that was not briefed to Congress as required by the Corker-Cardin Act. One side deal allowed Iran to inspect itself for evidence of past nuclear-weapons-related work; it was discovered when Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) questioned IAEA officials about the JCPOA during a meeting in Vienna last July. Another secret side deal appears to require the IAEA to dumb down its reports on Iran’s nuclear programand its compliance with the JCPOA.

Congressional investigators are also troubled that contrary to administration claims that the JCPOA has the strongest verification provisions in history, the IAEA is unable to visit military facilities because the Iranian parliament approved an alternative version of the deal last October that put these facilities off-limits. The Obama administration has not publicly responded to the Iranian parliament’s action.

One of Congress’s newest concerns about the JCPOA stems from reports that the Obama administration is considering giving Iran at least partial access to the U.S. financial system. As Ilan Berman wrote last week on NRO, the administration may be about to violate promises it made to Congress last summer that it would not give Iran access to U.S. financial institutions or allow it to engage in off-shore dollar transactions with U.S. banks. If so, this would represent another concession to Iran and a sign that Congress cannot trust anything Obama officials have said about the JCPOA.

The House Intelligence Committee will also review a growing list of other belligerent actions by Iran contradicting the Obama administration’s claim that the JCPOA will help bring Iran into the community of nations. On March 29, for instance, the U.S. Navy intercepted an Iranian ship in the Persian Gulf that was transporting 1,500 Kalashnikov assault rifles, 200 rocket-propelled grenade launchers and 21 .50-caliber machine guns that were probably en route to Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Washington Post reported Monday that there have been at least two similar seizures over the last two months.

In addition, since the nuclear deal was announced, Iran has increased its support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s regime, giving financial support and supplying Iranian and Hezbollah fighters. And last week, the U.S. indicted five Iranians for cyber attacks against U.S. banks, NASDAQ, and a New York dam.

Perhaps the most stunning indictment of Iran’s belligerent behavior since the JCPOA was announced was an unprecedented April 3, 2016, Wall Street Journal op-ed by United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the United States Yousef Al-Otaiba, in which he said:

Sadly, behind all the talk of change, the Iran we have long known — hostile, expansionist, violent — is alive and well, and as dangerous as ever.

Iran’s destabilizing behavior in the region must stop. Until it does, our hope for a new Iran should not cloud the reality that the old Iran is very much still with us — as dangerous and as disruptive as ever.

President Obama said at last week’s nuclear-security summit that Iran is following the “letter” but not the “spirit” of the JCPOA by complying with the terms of the deal but testing missiles, continuing to call for the destruction of Israel, and supporting terrorism. The House Intelligence Committee investigation indicates that Congress rejects this ludicrous statement and wants a full accounting of what the White House really agreed to in the JCPOA and whether the Obama administration deliberately misled lawmakers.

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation will not kill the JCPOA or lead to new sanctions against Iran. Its report might condemn Obama officials for misleading Congress, but these officials are certain to ignore the report. Nevertheless, this is an important investigation: If it exposes the JCPOA as a fraudulent agreement that has only exacerbated Iran’s destabilizing behavior, it will pave the way for a Republican president (if one is elected in November) to throw out the JCPOA entirely and begin the process of forging a better agreement with our European allies. The committee’s investigation also may give Americans a better understanding of what kind of legacy President Obama really earned from the JCPOA and his nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

The real meaning of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei’s missile warning

On March 30, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected Western pressure for Iran to stop testing ballistic missiles and a statement by a former Iranian president favoring negotiations instead of the missile program by warning in a speech: “People say that tomorrow’s world is a world of negotiations and not a world of missiles.”  Khamenei added, “If they say this thoughtlessly, it shows that they are thoughtless. However, if this is intentional, then this is treachery.”

Khamenei’s defiant comments came in the midst of growing international concerns about Iran’s missile program.  Iran tested two ballistic missiles last fall and several over the last month.  Written on the sides of two missiles recently tested by Iran reportedly were the words “Israel should be wiped from the pages of history.”  Iran is expected to soon launch a space-launch rocket that most experts believe will be a test to develop an ICBM capable of firing nuclear warheads against Europe and the United States.

Iran has the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East and is the only nation in history to develop missiles with ranges of 2,000 km or more without having a nuclear weapons capability.  Although Iran claims its missiles are not intended to carry nuclear warheads, most experts believe they are being developed as a nuclear weapons delivery system.  The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany said in a joint letter sent this week to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that Iran’s recent missile launches were “inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

This is why most observers expected a missile test moratorium to be part of the Iran nuclear deal.  At first this seemed to be the case when President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry said last July that under the deal Tehran would honor UN Security Council resolutions for eight years that bar ballistic missile tests.

However, it turned out this was not the case since language barring Iranian missile tests is not present in the actual text of the nuclear deal — it is buried in a July 2015 UN Security Council resolution which endorsed the deal.  This means Iran can conduct missile tests without violating the nuclear deal and causing the sanctions it lifted to be reimposed.

Khamenei’s recent comments echo earlier statements by Iranian officials who have said Iran never agreed to any restrictions on its missile program in the nuclear deal.  These comments also reflect increased Iranian belligerent behavior and rhetoric since the nuclear agreement was announced last July which goes against claims by Obama officials that the agreement would lead to an improvement in Iranian behavior and bring Iran into the community of nations.

Khamenei and the Iranian leadership do not want to join the community of nations – they want Iran to become a regional hegemon that will dominate the Middle East.  They agreed to a nuclear agreement that they know is a fraud since it allows Iran to conduct nuclear activities while it is in effect, such as uranium enrichment and development of advanced enrichment centrifuges, that will actually shorten the timeline to an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Khamenei’s claim that tomorrow’s world is a world of missiles really means he believes tomorrow’s world is a nuclear-armed Iran because transporting nuclear warheads is the only purpose of Iran’s growing ballistic missile arsenal.

Khamenei knows he will get away with pressing forward with Iran’s missile because the Obama administration is so desperate to protect the president’s legacy nuclear agreement that it will not support any meaningful action against Iran in response to the missile tests.

This means Iran’s ability to make nuclear fuel and develop a nuclear weapons delivery system will make great strides as a result of President Obama’s nuclear diplomacy.  This will be Barack Obama’s real foreign policy legacy.

It is urgent that next American president reverse this disastrous legacy by tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran on his first day in office and initiate a new strategy to halt all Iranian nuclear weapons-related activities, require Iran to fully account for its past nuclear weapons work, and stop Iran’s ballistic missile program.

French Navy Seizes Second Large Cache of Weapons off the Coast of Somalia This Month

On March 20, 2016, the French navy seized a ship in the north of the Indian Ocean carrying several hundred AK 47 assault rifles, machines guns, and anti-tank weapons. A French helicopter spotted the vessel that was unregistered, and it was soon intercepted by the FS Providence.

After the French seized the vessel, the crew of 10 were brought in for questioning. There has been no mention of any information given by the crew, but they have since been released.

The French Navy has yet to reveal any further information about the origin or final destination of the ship, but the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), the group of nations policing the Indian Ocean, stated the arms were meant for Somalia.

While the CMF reported the ship was destined for Somalia, a U.S. assessment believes the arms were in fact destined for Yemen, originating in Iran. The U.S. came to a similar conclusion after the Australians seized a arms cache from another ship earlier in the month. The Iranians have been accused of arming the Houthi rebels, which gives this assessment credence.

The CMF is made up of 31 nations that patrol vital shipping lanes from terrorism and piracy. Some of the notable nations involved are: the U.S., Australia, Canada, France, and the UK. The CMF’s mission in the Indian Ocean is the Combined Task Force (CTF) 150, which includes the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman.

Reuters reported in 2013 that the Somali terrorist organization Al Shabaab had been receiving weapon shipments from Yemen and Iran. The group receives weapons into the Puntland, the autonomous region of Northern Somalia, and further moves them south to their strongholds.

Al Shabaab is Al Qaeda’s Somalia branch, and the group has received support in the past from AQ’s Yemen branch, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Yemen and Somalia are close in proximity, so it is possible to send weapons or personnel through shipping vessels.

Iran does not have any immediate ties to Al Shabaab or any terrorist organization in Somalia could have motivation to arm Al Shabaab. Turkey, who has been supporting Syrian opposition forces against Iran’s ally Syria, just made a deal with the Somali government to increase its investment in the country. In order to counter Turkish interference in Syria, Iran may be willing to aid Al Shabaab in disrupting rebuilding efforts. That said the Turkish-Iranian relationship is highly complex with Iran has previously worked with Turkey on gold sales in order to cheat sanctions.

While it is a possibility Iran could be aiding Al Shabaab, they do not have enough interest in Somalia to actively aid the terrorist organization opposed to the Houthis in Yemen. The Houthis have been fighting the Yemeni government and a Saudi-led coalition of Gulf States since last March. The two groups were able to recently agree on a ceasefire that will take place on April 10. However, this could just be a time for the Houthi rebels to rearm. Iran has reportedly been aiding the rebels, although they deny any of these claims. Iran would surely like to see Saudi influence decrease in Yemen, and backing the Houthis will aid this mission.

While it is unlikely the ship originated in Iran, it is still important that the shipment of arms was stopped. With the CMF forces continually releasing those who pilot the vessels filled with arms, they are likely to continue their trade.

Another Obama Bomb Concession: Iran May Get Access to US Financial Markets

It seems that almost every month since the nuclear agreement with Iran, the “Obama Bomb” deal, was announced last summer there have been new revelations about how the agreement is weaker that Obama administration claimed and side deals that the administration failed to disclose to Congress and the American people.

For example, although President Obama and Secretary Kerry claimed in July 2015 that under the deal Iran would honor UN Security Council resolutions barring Iranian ballistic missiles tests for right years, it turned out that the text of the agreement said nothing about missile tests – this language was included in an annex to a Security Council resolution that endorsed the deal.  This means sanctions against Iran lifted by the nuclear deal can’t be reimposed due to Iranian missile tests conducted over the last month and last fall.

There also was a secret side deal allowing Iran to inspect itself for evidence of nuclear weapons-related work.

Last month, we learned the IAEA has dumbed-down its reports on Iran’s nuclear program because it claims the nuclear agreement removed certain mandates that were the basis for some of its previous inspections.  However, new IAEA Iran reports have few details on issues the agency is authorized to investigate which may indicate another side deal with Iran which has long opposed detailed IAEA reporting on its nuclear program.

The latest development is a possible new concession the Obama administration reportedly plans to make to Iran to give it access to U.S. financial markets.  According to the Associated Press “the Obama administration is leaving the door open to new sanctions relief for Iran, including possibly long-forbidden access to the U.S. financial market,” specifically granting “Iranian businesses the ability to conduct transactions in dollars within the United States or through offshore banks.”  Iran also would be permitted to “dollarize” payments.

Obama officials reportedly are considering opening U.S. financial markets to Iran because Tehran has been complaining that it did not receive enough sanctions relief from the nuclear deal.  Apparently $150 billion in sanctions relief and a reported $1.7 billion dollar payment by the United States was not enough.

If true, this move would violate assurances provided to Congress by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew last July that the nuclear deal would not allow Iran access to U.S. financial institutions or enter into financial arrangements with U.S. banks.

United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI) explained in a recent press release why this is such a dangerous move:

“Lifting this restriction would violate Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which designates the entire Iranian financial sector as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern. It also ignores recent notices of the international anti-money laundering and terror-finance watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which warn of Iran’s “failure to address the risk of terrorist financing and the serious threat this poses to the integrity of the international financial system.”

This move would also undercut the Administration’s actions last week to charge Iranians for engaging in cyber attacks against the U.S. financial sector and critical infrastructure, as well as sanctioning individuals and entities supporting Iran’s ballistic missile program and on-going terrorism campaign.”

Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer noted in a March 28, 2016 Wall Street Journal editorial that granting Iran access to U.S. financial markets goes against claims by Obama administration officials last summer that they would not make this concession in order to give the U.S. leverage over Iran after the nuclear deal was done.  Dubowitz and Schanzer ask, “Why throw away that leverage for no new concessions?”

The reason is that the Obama administration will do anything to protect the Obama Bomb nuclear deal with Iran because it regards this as a legacy agreement for Mr Obama.  Iran knows this and is certain to press for more U.S. concessions through the end of the Obama presidency.

It is crucial that Congress on a bipartisan basis begin to investigate and speak out against this new concession that will worsen the fraudulent nuclear deal with Iran.  The world’s leading state sponsor of terror should not have access to the U.S. financial system.

Turkey Feeling the Consequences of Aiding Jihadis

On Saturday, March 19, 2016, Istiklal Street, a busy shopping district in Istanbul, Turkey, came under attack after a suicide bomber detonated his explosives in the busy street. Three Israelis and an Iranian were killed in the blast, and another 36 were wounded. The Islamic State (IS) is suspected to be behind the attack. 

The attacker was identified as Mehmet Ozturk, a Turkish citizen born near the Syrian-Turkish border. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated his country is currently trying to figure out if this was a targeted attack against Israelis or just a coincidence. It looks highly plausible that the Israelis were specifically targeted when another 11 of the 36 wounded were also Israeli. Turkish police cameras also captured the bomber following the Israeli tourists for several kilometers from their hotel.  

This marks the second time this year that Istanbul has been targeted by IS. In early January, IS claimed responsibility for an attack that killed 10 near the famous Blue Mosque. The majority of the victims were German tourists. 

IS seems to be targeting tourists of specific countries in their attacks. Istanbul is packed with tourists from all over the world, but IS has been targeting tourists who belong to Western nations and those who fight against them. 

Earlier today, March 21, 2016, Turkish police arrested three IS supporters who were planning attacks in Istanbul. The three men arrested stated they were given instructions to attack heavily crowded areas in Istanbul, and they were more than likely going to target tourists from specific countries. 

Turkey has been experiencing a surge of violence over the course of this year. Aside from IS, Turkey has been targeted by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Kurdish Freedom Falcons (TAK), an offshoot of the PKK. Last week the TAK claimed responsibility for a bombing that killed 37. The TAK also launched an attack on Turkish military personnel in February that killed 28. 

Turkey’s current conflict with the PKK arose after Kurdish Preoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) was able to win 12 percent of the vote, surpassing the 10 percent necessary for a political party to enter Turkey’s parliament. This prevented the Justice Development Party (AKP) from holding a super majority within the government. The Kurds moving into some form of power within the Turkish government will prevent President Recep Teyyip Erdogan from consolidating power throughout the country.

Selahattin Demitras, Co-President of the HDP, held the AKP directly responsible for IS attack killing over 30 people from the Socialist Youth Associations Federation in Suruc. Demitras cited the ruling party’s apathy toward preventing IS attacks against Kurds in Syria and Turkey. Demitras believed the attack symbolized an effort by the AKP to break the will of the Kurdish people and intervene in the recent political developments throughout the country. 

Soon after Suruc, the PKK responded by attacking Turkish security forces. Since last July, Turkish security forces have continued to attack Kurdish positions inside and outside of Turkey, and the PKK have launched several attacks in Ankara and cities around the country. 

Aside from allowing IS to attack Kurdish positions, the Turkish government has also been found to aiding jihadist groups in Syria who oppose the Assad regime. The AKP has been cited as providing material support to Al Qaeda’s (AQ) branch in Syria, Al-Nusra Front. While AKP boosts up jihadis, they continue to strive towards weakening the Syrian Kurds, who have been the most effective group in Syria against IS. 

With Turkey battling the PKK and TAK in the South and now facing a growing threat from IS in the North, security forces will be stretched to their full extent. Turkish President Recep Teyyip Erdogan stated “We will never surrender to the agenda of terror. We will defeat the terrorist organizations and the powers behind them by looking after the unity of our nation,” but the current trend of violence points to the contrary. 

Turkey’s apahetic attitude towards fighting IS and their continued support of terrorist organizations has created the current instability within the country. Under Erdogan, Turkey has sought to move its own interests forward, but instead it is now facing troublesome consequences for its misguided behavior. The current violence in Turkey will only continue, and Turkey has only itself to blame.

More Indications of the Iran Nuclear Deal’s Dangerous Weakness

Recent news about the Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) are just the latest indication that this agreement is weaker and much more dangerous than its critics believed.

The new revelations concern how the JCPOA omits language to halt Iran’s ballistic-missile program and how the deal has forced the International Atomic Energy Agency to dumb-down its reports on Iran’s nuclear program.

Last week Iran tested an unspecified number of ballistic missiles.  Written on some of the missiles were the words “Israel must be wiped off the earth.” Although Iran’s missile program is considered by most experts to be an effort to develop a nuclear weapons delivery system, these missile tests and two others which took place last all did not violate the JCPOA because missiles were left out of the text.

Instead there is a vague provision calling on Iran not to test missiles in an annex to a July 2015 Security Council resolution which endorsed the JCPOA, Resolution 2231. This provision says: “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons” for eight years or until the IAEA makes a certification that Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful, whichever comes first.

Resolution 2231’s missile language is much weaker than language in six previous Security Council resolutions that it replaced.  Russia pointed this out earlier this week by arguing that Iran’s recent missile tests do not violate Resolution 2231 because this resolution only “calls” on Iran not to test rather than barring them. Russian ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin explained on March 13: “A ‘call’ is different from a ban so, legally, you cannot violate a call.  You can comply with a call or you can ignore the call, but you cannot violate a call.”

The Iranian foreign minister took a similar view in a speech this week at the Australian National University in which he explained how he hoodwinked Western diplomats in negotiating language in Resolution 2231 that permitted Iran to conduct missile tests:

It doesn’t call upon Iran not to test ballistic missiles, or ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads … it calls upon Iran not to test ballistic missiles that were ‘designed’ to be capable.

That word took me about seven months to negotiate, so everybody knew what it meant.

U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said this week that Iran’s missile tests “merit a Council response” and faulted Russia for blocking the Security Council from taking action. Don’t be fooled by Power’s statement. Her comment indicates the Obama administration wants to respond with a nonbinding Security Council presidential statement which requires unanimous support.  If the Obama administration was serious about taking action in the Council, it would table a resolution imposing new sanctions on Iran.

But this isn’t going to happen. The Obama administration will never back meaningful U.S. or UN missile sanctions against Iran because this could cause Tehran to withdraw from President Obama’s legacy nuclear deal.

There was even more disturbing news about the JCPOA last week when IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano explained why his recent reports on Iran’s compliance with the this agreement have been vague and contain little data: the JCPOA places limitations on what the IAEA is allowed to report.

Because of the JCPOA, 17 IAEA resolutions have been rescinded.  Many of them contained mandates for IAEA inspections of Iran’s nuclear program.  They have been replaced by a new mandate to only inspect Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA.  Moreover, since the IAEA voted in December to close the file on unresolved questions of nuclear weapons-related work by Iran, the IAEA will no longer be allowed to investigate these questions.

It also appears that even when the IAEA issues reports addressing issues on which it is allowed to report, the agency will provide less data and some issues will be excluded, including Iran’s efforts to develop advanced uranium centrifuges.

Olli Heinonen, a former senior IAEA official, said in a recent analysis “for years, Tehran has advocated for less-detailed IAEA safeguards reports, citing concerns ranging from confidentiality matters to IAEA inspection authorities under the comprehensive safeguards agreement.”  To convince Iran to agree to the JCPOA, Western states probably conceded this issue to Iran as part of another secret side deal that was withheld from the U.S. Congress.

So Iran will keep developing its nuclear weapons delivery system without violating the nuclear deal.  And if Iran does violate the deal, the IAEA will not tell us.

These are just the latest reasons why the next president must tear up the fraudulent nuclear agreement with Iran on his first day in office.

Did the Obama Administration Backtrack on the IAEA’s Dumbed-Down Iran Reporting?

Yesterday, I wrote in National Review that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports on Iran’s nuclear program have been dumbed down by the July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and will not give specifics on possible Iranian cheating on the deal. Some important aspects of Iran’s nuclear program will no longer be discussed in these reports.

Russia and China support the new scaled-back IAEA reports. Although Obama officials earlier this week said the U.S. also was satisfied with the reports, they reportedly backtracked yesterday when U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA Henry Ensher called on Amano to continue to “provide robust and detailed reporting on Iran’s implementation of its commitments.”

Amano told the Associated Press he won’t be pressured and that his Iran reporting will remain “factual, impartial and include the information which the agency considers necessary.”

The Obama administration reversal came after sharp criticism of the new dumbed-down IAEA reports in National Review, Town Hall, and the Washington Free Beacon.

Barbara Slavin, a strong supporter of the Obama administration and the Iran nuclear deal, defended the IAEA’s report in an al-Monitor article yesterday. However, she also cited criticism of the IAEA’s new reporting style by two arms-control experts and said “Experts acknowledge that the tone as well as the length of the reports has changed as the IAEA has moved from a position of questioning what amounted to a suspected criminal — the agency’s attitude toward Iran since undeclared nuclear facilities were discovered in 2002 — to monitoring what amounts to that country’s nuclear probation.”

Slavin’s comment is key to understanding what’s going on with the new IAEA reports: The IAEA will no longer investigate alleged “criminal” nuclear activities by Iran since it has been absolved of these activities. The U.S. and other nations voted in December to close the books on Iran’s past nuclear weapons related work. In January, 17 IAEA resolutions on Iran were terminated, many of which were the basis for inspections of its nuclear program. By taking these actions, IAEA members ended the IAEA’s mandate for comprehensive inspections of Iran’s nuclear program and investigating unresolved issues of past nuclear weapons-related work.

This does not explain why the IAEA’s new reports are so vague on its new inspection assignment to verify Iran’s compliance with the July 2015 nuclear deal. (The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.) I wrote in my March 9 National Review article that this was probably a Western concession to Iran which has long pressed for less-detailed IAEA reports.

We’ll see when the IAEA issues its next quarterly report whether Amano gives in to calls by the U.S. and European states to provide more detailed information on Iran’s nuclear program. I doubt this will happen because China and Russia support the new reports and Iran thinks they are too detailed. For the IAEA to resume issuing the type of comprehensive report it last published in November would require the IAEA Board of Governors to pass a resolution reinstating the agency’s previous inspection mandates. Since this would reverse key elements of the nuclear deal and probably would cause Iran to withdraw from the agreement, I see zero chance of that happening.

Given the constant deception and misinformation peddled by Obama officials on its nuclear diplomacy with Iran, I believe the calls by U.S. officials for the IAEA to be more forthcoming in its Iran reports were political ploys intended to deflect Republican criticism of the nuclear deal and not a sincere attempt to pressure Amano to change the reports. The Obama administration views the Iran deal as a major win for President Obama’s legacy. It does not plan to do anything that could jeopardize this win.

In Yet Another Secret Side Deal, Iran’s Nuclear Violations Won’t Be Publicly Disclosed

On Monday, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general Yukiya Amano explained what had up to this point been a mystery: namely, why its recent reports on Iran’s nuclear program have been so vague and contain such little data. As it turns out, under the Iran nuclear deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), there are now limitations on what the IAEA is allowed to report.

According to Amano, due to new U.N. Security Council and IAEA resolutions, the agency will only monitor and verify Iran’s compliance with its JCPOA commitments and will no longer provide broad reporting on its nuclear program. A December 15, 2015, IAEA Board of Governors resolution directed the organization to cease reporting on Iran’s compliance with its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations and past Security Council resolutions because the Board of Governors is no longer seized of this matter.

This also means that even though a December 2, 2015, IAEA report raised several serious unresolved questions about Iran’s nuclear weapons–related activities, the IAEA will no longer report on this issue because its Board of Governors closed the file on the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.

But it gets worse. Not only are the new IAEA reports much narrower in focus, they also omit important data on how Iran is complying with the nuclear deal itself.

Many experts were concerned at the vagueness of an IAEA report issued on January 16, 2016, which declared Iran had met the JCPOA’s “Implementation Day” requirements, allowing it to receive up to $150 billion in sanctions relief and other benefits. This was an atypical report for the IAEA which the Institute for Science and International Security said provided few details about the steps Iran took to comply with JCPOA requirements. For example, it lacked information on how much enriched uranium Iran allegedly sent to Russia, whether the IAEA monitored this transfer, and how much enriched uranium Iran may have kept in the country by converting it into uranium dioxide powder, a process that can be quickly reversed.

Experts were even more concerned by a February 26 report which left out important data needed to assess Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA such as the size of its enriched-uranium stockpile, how much uranium Iran is enriching, and details on its centrifuge research and development.

In a recent analysis for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Olli Heinonen, a former senior IAEA official, said the February IAEA report provides “surprisingly scant information on key issues.” According to Heinonen, “without detailed reporting, the international community cannot be sure that Iran is upholding its commitments under the nuclear deal.”

I am one of many critics who have argued that a legitimate nuclear deal with Iran would bar all uranium enrichment and centrifuge development. The fact that the JCPOA permits these activities to continue and also bars the IAEA from releasing public reports on them is very disturbing and will prevent the U.S Congress and outside experts from assessing the implications of these dangerous U.S. concessions to Tehran.

In his recent analysis, Heinonen offered an explanation for the missing data in the recent reports. “For years, Tehran has advocated for less-detailed IAEA safeguards reports, citing concerns ranging from confidentiality matters to IAEA inspection authorities under the comprehensive safeguards agreement.”

It seems clear the West conceded to Iran’s demand for vague IAEA reports during the nuclear talks in yet another secret side deal that the Obama administration failed to disclose to Congress. This is more evidence that the nuclear deal with Iran is a fraud. U.S. officials gave away everything to get this legacy agreement for President Obama that will not stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.

It also appears that by preventing the IAEA from publicly disclosing the full details of Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA, the Obama administration found a way to perpetuate the myth that this is a good agreement and keep Republicans from using reports of Iran’s cheating on the deal against Democrats in the 2016 presidential and congressional campaigns.

The only good news in this story may be that although the U.S., Russia, and China are satisfied with the IAEA’s reporting on Iran, at least two European nations believe the IAEA’s reporting is too superficial and plan to press Amano to provide “the necessary information” in his next quarterly report, according to the Associated Press.

The nuclear deal with Iran is one of the most important reasons to elect a Republican president this November who will tear up this disastrous agreement on his first day in office. Our next White House occupant must exercise the leadership to negotiate a legitimate nuclear deal that actually halts Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and requires Tehran to fully explain all unanswered questions about its past nuclear-weapons work.