Iran "Deal": West's Surrender Triggering War - Guy Millière

by Guy Millière

Russia and China have also agreed to build nuclear plants for Iran. And North Korea has also been supplying Iran with technology, a "minor detail" hidden from the UN by U.S. President Barack Obama. And the U.S. thinks that if Iran is caught cheating, sanctions can be re-imposed?
Other countries in the region have already started scheduling delivery for their nuclear weapons. They have made it clear they will not sit idly by while Iran goes nuclear.
Iran has already bragged that it will sell "enriched uranium" on the open market, and will be "hopefully making some money" from it, said Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

No agreement was signed between Iran and the P5+1 group[1] on April 2; no agreement will be signed on June 30.

The text defining the "framework" of some agreement to be signed in June was immediately challenged by Iran. Western leaders speak and act as if they have no idea what Iran is saying or doing.

Western leaders wanted something akin to an agreement. They got something akin to an agreement.

Iran's leaders seem to have spotted pretty soon that Western leaders would willingly concede everything -- and possibly more -- to get any "agreement"; so that is what Western leaders got.

Western leaders not only failed to reach an agreement; they capitulated. The reason for the talks was to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. When, according to Western reports, they saw that Iran would not agree to stop, they "flipped" and instead became complicit.

All signs indicate that the West is planning to give a lawless, expansionist, terrorist regime nuclear weapons capability -- as a reward for violating international treaties again and again. What message are other rogue nations to take from that?

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif hugs French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius at the close of nuclear talks in Geneva, Nov. 23, 2014. (Image source: ISNA)

Not only have Western leaders given the Iranian regime the opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons; they have let Iran initiate and sanctify a nuclear arms race to destabilize an already volatile region. They have also given Iran the opportunity to get billions of dollars to accelerate its nuclear weapons programs – and they are negotiating to lift all sanctions either early or late so that Iran can get still more.

They also allowed Iran to keep four American hostages: Jason Rezaian, Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati and Robert Levinson, who has not been heard from for years and may be dead. The State Department has said that "their freedom should not be linked to negotiations," so their release was not even discussed. Their immediate release was the first matter that should have been discussed.

What Western leaders have deliberately ignored is the nature of the Iranian regime: Totalitarian regimes never abide by the agreements they sign. Islamists often refer to Muhammad's treaty of Hudaybiyyah. In 628, Muhammad agreed to a 10-year truce with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. Two years later, when Muslim forces had gathered strength, Muhammad broke the treaty and marched into Mecca.[2] Since then, in Islam, no treaty can be made for more than ten years, and even then, it is not a treaty, it is a truce -- to be broken again if Islam's side is strong.

This spring, while negotiations were held in Lausanne, Ali Khamenei, the "supreme leader" of Iran, led huge crowds, shouting "Death to America." Every year, he promises a "world free of infidels" as well as the Messianic return of the "Twelfth Imam," the Mahdi, a descendant of Muhammad who will guide martyrs during a "final battle".

Western leaders act as if all important decisions in Iran are made by its President, Hassan Rouhani. They know perfectly well, however, that nothing happens in Iran without the approval of Ali Khamenei, and no one else. Perhaps Western leaders are hoping that Rouhani will unseat Khamenei, a succession scarcely conceivable. The Iranian leadership is not accountable to its people.

Moreover, based on Rouhani's account of how he duped the West in previous negotiations, it is doubtful if Rouhani unseating Khamenei would be any more desirable for the West. Since Rouhani was elected President in June 2013, the number of executions carried out by the regime has soared compared to the number under his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Reportedly, 753 persons were executed in 2014, a 10% increase over 2013. Just 291 of these cases (39%) were announced officially. "The aim of these executions is not to fight crime, but to spread fear among the population," according to Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, director of Iran Human Rights.

To paraphrase Natan Sharansky,[3] if a government does not treat its own people well, it is not likely to treat anyone else any better.

Iran is clearly interested in all oil producing regions. It has taken over four Arab capitals -- Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and Sana'a -- while the U.S. has fled from three countries: Iraq, Libya and Yemen. Iran now surrounds all the oilfields of the Middle East.

Iran is also trying to take over the Middle East's major sea lanes -- the Strait of Hormuz, the choke point of the Persian Gulf, and the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait at the mouth of the Suez Canal. If Iran succeeds, it will be able to control most of the oil trade in the Middle East.

Iran also continues to repeat its threats of genocide against Israel. In late March, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of Iran's Basij paramilitary force, announced that "the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable."

Hamas is still on the terrorist list maintained by the State Department but was removed from the list of the European Union in December 2014. No Western leader seems to know that Iran has been helping Hamas to build over 100 new tunnels and replenish its weapon stockpiles.

Although many of the terms of the "framework" are, we are told, known only to the negotiators, what we do know so far about what Iran wanted and got includes:

• Retaining its enriched uranium stockpile, not having to ship it abroad.
• Keeping thousands (at least 6000) centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium, and modernizing its Arak plutonium reactor.
• Continuing its operations at the Fordow plant, under a mountain, in bunkers designed to withstand aerial attacks.
• A massive lifting of sanctions. It wants still more, "immediately."
• Continuing to develop its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program

Iran's ICBM program was not even mentioned during discussions.

Also not included in discussions was Iran's ongoing funding of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, was just removed by the U.S. State Department from its list of terrorist threats; and Iran was removed from its list of states that sponsor terrorism.

The "armed wing" of Hezbollah is still on the European Union's list of terrorist organizations, but Hezbollah's "political wing" is not. Iran can tell European leaders that the Iranian regime supports the political wing of Hezbollah, but not its military branch. There is no doubt that European leaders, pressured by companies eager to do business in Iran, will pretend they received a satisfying answer.

On April 12, Russia lifted its ban on the delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Russia and China have also agreed to build nuclear power plants for Iran. And North Korea has also been supplying Iran with technology, "including components for a long-range nuclear missile," a "minor detail" hidden from the UN by U.S. President Barack Obama. And the U.S. thinks that if Iran is caught cheating, sanctions can be re-imposed?

Iran says it will accept only scheduled visits by IAEA inspectors, and it can endlessly contest any findings. The IAEA in the past never found anything anyway. All the illegal nuclear facilities that Iran wanted to hide were discovered by Iranian dissidents, and American and Israeli intelligence agencies -- not by the IAEA.

Senator Mark Kirk has said that Neville Chamberlain got a lot more out of Adolf Hitler at the Munich Conference. British commentators noted that the difference between Chamberlain and those who negotiated with Iran is that Chamberlain had never encountered that kind of duplicity before, and was the head of a weakened, and largely disarmed, Britain.

Iran supports Shiite militias fighting ISIS in Iraq, where the Shiite militias behave as wildly as ISIS.

Saudi Arabia's King Salman and other Arab leaders have realized that they are facing a clear and present danger. At the Arab League summit on March 29, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi announced the creation of a joint Arab military force. The positions of Iranian-backed Houthi militias in Yemen are being bombarded, but the Houthis do not retreat. Other countries in the region have already started scheduling delivery for their nuclear weapons. They have made it clear that they will not sit idly by while Iran goes nuclear. Iran has already bragged that it will sell "enriched uranium" on the open market, and will be "hopefully making some money" from it, said Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Benjamin Netanyahu knows that Israel faces an equally obvious danger. He said that "the agreement" would be a "threat to the survival of Israel." Yesterday, on April 15, speaking at the state ceremony commemorating "Yom Hashoah" (the day of remembrance of the Holocaust), he stated, "The danger is there for all to see... and yet the blindness is vast. Even if we are forced to stand alone, we will not falter. ... We will not allow the State of Israel to become a passing phase in the history of our people."

The U.S. President who cut off military supplies to Israel during the Gaza war, who has interfered in the Israeli elections to an unprecedented degree, and who wants to force Israel to return to indefensible borders, said he would "defend" Israel. It is not at all certain that Netanyahu can trust him.

Iran's Defense Minister, Hossein Dehghan, hailed the framework as a step towards "establishing stability and security in the region." Israel's Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said: "This is a direct result of the legitimacy that Iran obtained from the emerging deal."

On the evening of April 3, Western leaders were smiling. Mohammad Javad Zarif, was smiling too. He was the only one who had good reason to.

---

[1] The U.S, the U.K., Russia, France and China, plus Germany.
[2] William J. Boykin, Harry Edward Soyster, Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, Center for Security Policy, 2010.
[3] Natan Sharansky, The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, PublicAffairs, 2006


Guy Millière

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5571/iran-deal-war

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Influential National Security Professionals Warn That Iran ‘Framework Agreement’ Imperils the Common Defense - CSP

by CSP

We respectfully call on Congress to take decisive action to denounce the “framework agreement,” insist on a congressional vote on this accord, and pass new sanctions against Iran requiring it to comply with all existing nuclear-related UN Security Council resolutions. 

Washington, DC—  In the wake of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s vote Tuesday to subject any nuclear deal with Iran to congressional review, 33 former senior military officers, government officials and other national security professionals urged that the so-called “framework agreement,” and whatever accord might ensue from it, be rejected by the Congress.

In particular, the signatories warned about the terms laid out in U.S. depictions of the framework’s guidelines – to say nothing of those to which the Iranians actually agree.

We believe the purported framework agreement can only be the basis for a bad nuclear deal with Iran – one that will: allow it to continue its nuclear weapons program; be incapable of verifying covert and weapons-related activities; and offer Iran unwarranted and effectively irreversible sanctions relief.  Any agreement with Iran based on such a defective foundation will ensure the realization of Iran’s longstanding nuclear ambitions, further destabilize the Middle East and seriously undermine Western efforts to prevent further nuclear proliferation.

Among the signatories of the letter are:
Hon. Pete Hoekstra, Former Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Admiral James A. Lyons, USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.), Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Hon. Paula DeSutter, former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance Lt. General Bennett L. Lewis, U.S. Army (Ret.), Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Jack David, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy and a signatory to the letter, stated:

“Congress has rightly become alarmed about the nature, contents and implications of what is deceptively described as a ‘framework agreement’ with Iran.  Competent national security professionals, like the signatories of this letter, recognize a harsh reality:  The present approach will allow nuclear weapons to be acquired by what is arguably the most dangerous regime on the planet – one that is sworn to destroy the United States and wipe its ally, Israel, off the map.  The potential for disaster are so enormous that the legislative branch must act decisively to prevent the bad deal now in prospect.”

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the U.S. House and Senate

April 16, 2015

Dear Speaker Boehner, Senator McConnell, Senator Reid, and Representative Pelosi:
We are writing to express our serious concerns about the new “framework agreement”
concerning Iran’s nuclear weapons program that was unveiled last week. As you know,
it has been presented as an agreed guideline for a comprehensive agreement to address
that threat. After carefully reviewing the American, Iranian and European Union
treatments of this initiative, however, it is clear that there are myriad and fundamental
disagreements about the nature – let alone the practical effects – of those guidelines.

As a result, in our judgment as national security professionals, any agreement likely to
result from follow-on negotiations will likely undermine American national security and
regional interests by legitimizing Iran’s nuclear weapons program and allowing it to
advance, even while an agreement is in effect.

We have four principal objections to the nuclear “framework”:

1. Uranium enrichment. All parties agree that Iran will be allowed to operate
thousands of uranium centrifuges and to develop more advanced centrifuges while a
nuclear agreement is in effect. Given the significant nuclear proliferation danger of
enrichment, we believe the United States must return to its previous position on this
issue, which the Obama administration abandoned in 2012: any nuclear agreement with
Iran must bar uranium enrichment and require that all Iranian centrifuges be
disassembled. We also believe all of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile must be
physically removed from Iran.

2. Plutonium. According to the Obama administration, Iran will remove and replace
the core of the Arak heavy-water reactor now under construction so that it will not
produce weapons-grade plutonium. Iran disputes this, however, and has said this
reactor will be “modernized.”

Not only is it impossible to operate a heavy-water reactor without producing plutonium,
even allowing Iran to operate such a reactor so it produces less plutonium would pose an
unacceptable proliferation risk since it will increase Iran’s expertise in this technology.
Iran began construction of this reactor in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.
The United States must return to its previous position that work on this reactor be
halted permanently.

3. Verification. We believe the verification provisions in the framework as outlined by
U.S. officials will be far too weak to ensure Iran has halted covert nuclear weaponization
activities. Notwithstanding public statements by senior Obama administration
representatives, it falls far short of an “anytime, anywhere” inspection regime.

In fact, most of the verification provisions described by U.S. officials concern Iran’s
declared civilian program. Provisions to investigate possible weaponization work and
covert nuclear sites have major loopholes. For example, Iran reportedly has rejected
snap inspections and will be allowed to contest allegations of covert nuclear activities in
a dispute-resolution process, possibly for months. This will give Tehran time to do what
it has done repeatedly in the past: sanitize suspect nuclear sites.

Although U.S. officials have claimed the IAEA will have greater access to possible covert
nuclear sites because Iran has agreed to comply with the IAEA additional protocol (an
agreement Iran signed in 2003, but has never actually implemented), we note that an
EU/Iran joint statement on the framework says Iran has only agreed to “provisional”
cooperation with this agreement.

4. Sanctions. We are very concerned about the significant disagreements that clearly
exist between the parties about how and when nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be
lifted. Obama administration officials claim sanctions will be lifted in phases, based on
Iranian compliance with a final agreement. They contend that all U.S., EU and UN
sanctions will be lifted only after the IAEA certifies Iranian compliance with key
elements of a final agreement. Even then, these officials insist that such sanctions will
only be suspended, not terminated, and will “snap back” if Iran fails to comply with its
obligations under the agreement.

Iranian officials dispute the Obama administration’s account of how sanctions will be
lifted and have declared that sanctions will be immediately terminated, not suspended,
after a final agreement is signed.

Even if Iran accepted the U.S. view on how sanctions will be lifted, we still find the
Obama administration’s approach to this issue to be unacceptable. We believe the
requirements for lifting sanctions are insufficiently rigorous and, therefore, too easy for
Iran to meet. For example, it seems unlikely that Tehran will be required to explain past
weapons-related activities in order to achieve sanctions relief.

Most importantly, although the Obama administration claims sanctions will be
“snapped back” if Iran reneges on its agreement obligations, we believe it is very
unlikely that EU or UN sanctions will ever be re-imposed once they are lifted. We also
are concerned that the Obama administration’s history of ignoring Iranian cheating on
prior nuclear commitments makes it unlikely it will block the lifting of sanctions in the
event of predictable, further Iranian violations in the future.

In short, given such realities, we believe the purported framework agreement can only
be the basis for a bad nuclear deal with Iran – one that will: allow it to continue its
nuclear weapons program; be incapable of verifying covert and weapons-related
activities; and offer Iran unwarranted and effectively irreversible sanctions relief. Any
agreement with Iran based on such a defective foundation will ensure the realization of
Iran’s longstanding nuclear ambitions, further destabilize the Middle East and seriously
undermine Western efforts to prevent further nuclear proliferation.

We respectfully call on Congress to take decisive action to denounce the “framework
agreement,” insist on a congressional vote on this accord, and pass new sanctions
against Iran requiring it to comply with all existing nuclear-related UN Security Council
resolutions. We believe it is imperative for America’s co-equal legislative branch of
government to make clear to the world that the status quo – meaning no nuclear deal
with Iran – is considerably better than this very bad deal and what will flow from it.

Sincerely,

Hon. Pete Hoekstra
Former Chairman, House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence
Hon. Paula DeSutter
Former Assistant Secretary of State for
Verification, Compliance, and
Implementation
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Policy
(Acting)
Jack David
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense
Admiral James A. Lyons,
U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific
Fleet
Lieutenant General William G. Boykin,
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Former Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence
Lieutenant General Bennett L. Lewis
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense
Major General Edward M. Browne
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Major General Richard M. Cooke
U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
Major General John R. D. Cleland
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Major General Thomas F. Cole
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Major General Don Infants
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Major General J. D. Lynch
U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
Major General George R. Robertson
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Major General H. Douglas Robertson
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Brigadier General Dale F. Anders
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Brigadier General Francis A. Hughes
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Rear Admiral James W. Austin
U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Lawrence Burkhardt
U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert H. Gormley
U. S. Navy (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Grady L. Jackson
U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Rear Admiral E.S. McGinley II
U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Albert J. Monger
U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Brigadier General Darryl Powell, MD
U.S. Army (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Hugh P. Scott, MD
U.S. Navy Medical Corps (Ret.)
Andrew Bostom
Author, Iran's Final Solution for Israel:
The Legacy of Jihad and Shi'ite Islamic
Jew-Hatred in Iran.
Elaine Donnelly
President,
Center for Military Readiness
Sarah Stern
President
Endowment for Middle East Truth
Kenneth Timmerman
President, Foundation for Democracy in
Iran
David Wurmser
Former Senior Adviser to Vice President
Cheney and founder, Delphi Global
Analysis Group
Yleem Poblete
Former staff director, House Foreign
Affairs Committee, and President,
Poblete Analysis Group
Daniel Pollak
Co-Director, Government Relations
Zionist Organization of America
Mark Groombridge
Former senior State Department advisor
Clare M. Lopez
Former CIA Officer and Vice President,
Center for Security Policy
Frederick Fleitz
Former CIA Officer and former
Professional Staff Member, House
Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence


CSP

Source: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/04/16/influential-national-security-professionals-warn-that-iran-framework-agreement-imperils-the-common-defense/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Iranian Parliament Releases "Factsheet" for Revision of Lausanne Statement - Fars News Agency

by Fars News Agency

The factsheet -- stresses the necessity for respecting the redlines and guidelines specified by -- Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, making Iran's decisions and undertakings reversible to enable the country to resume its nuclear operations in case of the other side's non-commitment to its undertakings, and immediate termination of all sanctions in a single step and on the first day of the implementation of the final agreement.

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Iranian parliament's Nuclear Committee on Wednesday released a factsheet to declare the revisions needed to be made in the Lausanne statement that was issued by Tehran and the world powers as a framework understanding at the end of their nuclear talks in Switzerland earlier this month.

 

The factsheet which was presented by Head of the Nuclear Committee Ebrahim Karkhaneyee on Wednesday stresses the necessity for respecting the redlines and guidelines specified by Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, making Iran's decisions and undertakings reversible to enable the country to resume its nuclear operations in case of the other side's non-commitment to its undertakings, and immediate termination of all sanctions in a single step and on the first day of the implementation of the final agreement.

The factsheet also necessitates commitment of both sides to their undertakings based on the Geneva agreement, a fair and reasonable balance between the gives and takes, taking good care not to impair the country's security and military boundaries and national interests, providing 190,000 SWUs (Separative Work Units) of nuclear fuel enrichment capability needed by Iran to produce fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant immediately after the end of contract with Russia, safeguarding the nuclear achievements, actual operation of all nuclear facilities of Iran not in words, but in action, continued Research and Development (R&D) works and scientific and technological progress in Iran and immediate application of R&D findings in the country's industrial-scale uranium enrichment cycle.

The factsheet urges operation of 10,000 centrifuge machines at Natanz and Fordo, a maximum 5-year-long duration for the deal and for Iran's nuclear limitations, replacement of the current centrifuges with the latest generation of home-made centrifuge machines at the end of the five-year period.

Enrichment Program:

The period for the Join Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) should be limited to five years, in which about 10,000 active centrifuges operating at Natanz and Fordo now will continue nuclear fuel production by enriching uranium  below the 5% grade.

The UF6 enriched reserves which are under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should be kept at Fordo nuclear plant and will be turned into nuclear fuel complex based on the existing capabilities.

During the five-year period, the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue to keep the excess centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo or will gradually dismantle them, and at the end of the 5-year period, it will replace all the existing centrifuges, including the active or inactive ones, with the new generation of (IR-N) centrifuge machines with the help of the new spaces and infrastructures which will have been already prepared and will use them without any limitation.

Justification:

Based on the Geneva agreement, the period for the final step should merely include a single period which has been considered as to be five years in the present factsheet. But in the Lausanne statement, different periods of 10, 20, 25 years and higher have been considered.

Given the Geneva agreement, the amount of enrichment should be specified based on the country's practical needs and the number of 10,000 centrifuges has also been specified on this basis.

The 5-year period in this factsheet has been has been specified with respect to the date when Iran's nuclear fuel contract with Russia for the Bushehr nuclear power plant will end; hence, the rules and limitations for the components of the enrichment cycle should be set in such a way that the Islamic Republic of Iran will be able to supply the fuel needed for the power plant after the end of the contract with Russia.

Operation of 10,000 centrifuges and developing and having a 10-ton enriched uranium stockpile will enable the Islamic Republic of Iran to supply the fuel needed for the Bushehr power plant in the year when the fuel supply contract with Russia (28-30 tons) ends.

Fordo installations:

Fordo nuclear facility will remain an enrichment and nuclear Research and Development (R&D) center. 4 enrichment cascades with 656 centrifuges will continue operation and production of fuel for purity levels lower than 5% by maintaining the current chain arrangements.

If the country would need 20%-degree (enriched) uranium, the nuclear fuel production line for purity levels lower than 5% will be altered to enrich uranium to the 20%-grade after connecting the centrifuge cascades to each other again.

Justification:

Based on the above, Fordo will remain an actual and active center, and the Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain its capability to reverse its decision and restore the 20%-grade enrichment.

Research and Development (R&D):

In a bid to use R&D findings in the country's industrial-scale enrichment chain, R&D should be planned in a way that the necessary possibilities and infrastructures will be provided for replacing the first generation of centrifuges with the latest generation of centrifuge machines (IR-N) when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action comes to an end after 5 years.

The R&D program should undergo no limitation before it comes into use for industrial-scale operation.

Justification:

Accordingly, the advanced centrifuges will enter the chain of nuclear fuel production without any restriction at the end of the 5-year deal.

Arak Heavy Water Reactor:

Given the Group 5+1 countries' mere concern about the plutonium existing in the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) of the Arak 40-MW heavy water reactor, the fuel used by the reactor will be sent abroad.

The G5+1 states will be committed to cooperate and take the necessary measures for relevant international licensing and permissions.

Justification:

Given the SNF export abroad, the insistence of the G5+1, specially the US, on redesigning the said reactor is merely a pretext and doesn’t have any scientific rationale.

What is more important than the heavy water nature of Arak reactor is the core of the reactor which is due to be taken out and then be redesigned and renovated. Such a move is irreversible in nature, and thus means crossing the specified redlines.

Supervision and Inspection:

Supervision and inspections of the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program should be carried out within the framework of the the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards agreements.

Justification:

Once done, the principle stated by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution - that security and military sanctities and boundaries shouldn’t be violated and that the inspections should be carried out at conventional levels similar to all other countries - will be respected and materialized. Given the Islamic Republic of Iran's opposition to the world arrogance, endorsing and implementing the Additional Protocol will provide the world arrogance (a term normally used for the US and its western allies) with legal grounds to stage their preplanned plots against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Sanctions:

Concurrently with the start of the JCPOA, all the US and EU sanctions will be terminated and Iran will start fulfilling its undertakings based on the verification of the IAEA.

The UN Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran will be annulled and all nuclear-related sanctions will be terminated and the Islamic Republic of Iran's case will be normalized.

The G5+1 countries, the EU and the UNSC will avoid imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.

Justification:

By terminating all sanctions in a single step right at the start of the implementation of the final comprehensive agreement, the Supreme Leader's statement that termination of sanctions is part of the agreement and not its result will be materialized.

Based on the Geneva agreement, after the implementation of the JCPOA, all UNSC, US and EU sanctions should be terminated and no new (UNSC) resolution would be needed in this regard; Hence, terminating the UNSC sanctions will close the case and no new resolution which would pave the ground for new plots will be issued.

International cooperation:

The Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear cooperation with the world states, including the G5+1 members, in areas of building nuclear power plants, research reactors, nuclear fuel production, nuclear safety medicine and nuclear agriculture, etc. will be possible and will improve. Based on the JCPOA, Iran will be provided with access to the global market, trade and finance and technical know-how and energy.

Reversibility:

In case of the two sides' non-commitment to their undertakings, there will be a possibility for reversing all measures.

Justification:

Based on the aforementioned proposal, the Islamic Republic of Iran will be provided with reversible measures at the lowest level of damage and, therefore, the G5+1's commitment to its undertakings will be in fair balance (with those of Iran).

Duration of the JCPOA:

After the end of the five-year period and the JCPOA exercise, all restrictions will be lifted and based on the Geneva agreement, the case with the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program will be similar to that of the other NPT member states.

The Iranian Parliament factsheet for a revision to the Lausanne agreement came after the US released a factsheet different from the joint statement issued by Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and head of the G5+1 in nuclear talks with Iran, at the end of the latest round of Iran-world powers nuclear talks in Switzerland on April 2, known as the Lausanne statement.

The US factsheet that was released only a few hours after the Lausanne framework understanding caused fury in Iran, encouraging many to raise deep doubt about the results of the talks and US accountability and trustworthiness.

In only a few weeks, a bipartisan bill was also presented to the Congress for vote that would give the US legislature oversight of a final deal, a move seen by many across the globe, including both Iran and the US, as furthering impediments to the endorsement of a final deal between Iran and the sextet.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator Bob Corker, who wrote the bill, said the White House had agreed to go along with the bill only after it was clear there was strong Democratic support. The legislation was passed unanimously by the committee and is expected to pass the full Senate and then the House of Representatives.

"That change occurred only when they saw how many senators were going to vote for this," Corker said.

Bipartisan support for the bill had grown in recent weeks to near the 67 votes needed to override any presidential veto. But senators from Obama's Democratic Party did succeed in adding amendments to water down the bill, making it more palatable to the White House.

Fars News Agency

Source: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940126001122

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Thinking the Unthinkable: Are we Looking at Nuclear Treason? - James Lewis

by James Lewis

Bottom line: Bill Clinton surrendered to North Korean nukes, and Barack Obama surrendered to Iranian nukes. Those facts are utterly damning.

Nuclear treason is nothing new. It happened in the 1940s when U.S. Communist Party members smuggled Manhattan Project secrets to Stalin’s Soviet Union, allowing him to explode his first bomb in 1949, just four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It happened again when Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, working at a Dutch nuclear facility, passed on the bomb secrets to Pakistan. Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile is now reported to be vulnerable to a jihadist attack.

Since Harry Truman most American presidents have done their damndest to stop nuclear proliferation, especially to unstable rogues. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963, the most dangerous moment in the nuclear age (so far), was all about Russia’s attempt to plant nuclear-capable missiles in Cuba. Just this week Obama dismissed the 1963 Cuban Missile Crisis by saying that “I’m not interested in having battles that frankly started before I was born… The Cold War’s been over for a long time.”

It seems that history only started with the Birth of the One. A more direct confession of delusional narcissism is hard to find.

Putin hasn’t forgotten the Cold War, as Ukraine and Crimea are finding out the hard way. Nobody has forgotten history except the Leader of the Free World.

Bottom line: Bill Clinton surrendered to North Korean nukes, and Barack Obama surrendered to Iranian nukes. Those facts are utterly damning. If ever one of those weapons is exploded in anger, you can bet that historians will publish those facts to an outraged world.

Instead of actually stopping nuclear threats, both Clinton and Obama staged “Peace in Our Time” kabuki plays -- in collusion with our corrupt know-nothing media -- to make voters think they were doing something. Both Bill and Barry put their personal egos ahead of stopping weapons of mass destruction.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson wondered this week if Obama’s understanding of the world is a sort of “romantic” adolescent fantasy.

“The president has an adolescent, romantic view of professed revolutionary societies and anti-Western poseurs -- and of his own ability uniquely to reach out and win them over.”

That’s a nice way of saying it. Professor Hanson will remember that two of the major proponents of European Romanticism were Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Richard Wagner. Rousseau pioneered the leftist delusional world that all your liberal friends still secretly believe in, and inspired its first bloody explosion in the Revolutionary Terror in France followed by the Napoleonic Wars.

As for Richard Wagner, in his racial theorizing and hatred for Jews, and in his celebration of the Nordic gods, Wagner was in a direct line of development to Adolf Hitler, who was also a “romantic.” All those people were deeply delusional, and yes, they had a kind of otherworldly enthusiasm for a perfect world of Noble Savages and racial purity. 
Romanticism as a cultural movement is not the same as romance and love. Romanticism is Europe’s mass lunacy that led to the radical Left and the Nazis. All the hero-worshipping images of the Nazis and the Soviets come from European Romanticism.

The bottom line for any politician with great power is: Is he delusional or not? Stalin was diagnosed as paranoid by Russian psychologist Vladimir Bekhterev, who was promptly poisoned after saying so. Hitler was a delusional narcissist who was ultimately defeated by his own overconfidence in his prophetic powers. The Kim dynasty in North Korea constantly kills or starves hundreds of thousands of people to stay in power. Mentally disturbed leaders are not rare. They’re a dime a dozen.

So I come back to my first question, whether we are looking at nuclear treason today. Remember, nuclear treason is nothing new. It’s happened twice that we know about, and probably more often since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The people who smuggled Manhattan Project secrets to Josef Stalin were also romantics, believing in their own good intentions.

We now have a leader who takes his responsibility to protect the world from inconceivable danger very lightly indeed. If the Cuban Missile Crisis happened before 1963 it’s ancient history. Obama believes his own inner voice with superhuman certainty, much more than he believes our most senior military and political leaders.

No one can change Obama’s mind once’s it’s made up.

No doubt millions of liberals think Obama is very “romantic.”

The rest of us wonder how delusional he really is.  

James Lewis

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/thinking_the_unthinkable_are_we_looking_at_nuclear_treason.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Fundamentally Flawed: AIDA NGO Network’s Gaza Analysis - NGO Monitor

by NGO Monitor

-- the analysis is fundamentally flawed in many dimensions, and, contrary to the stated aims, the recommendations would embolden Hamas, destabilize security in the South of Israel, and lead to greater conflict.

On April 13, 2015, a coalition of over 40 NGOs¹ under the umbrella of the Association of International Development Agencies (AIDA) and “other regional coordination networks” published a “briefing paper” titled “ Charting a New Course: Overcoming the stalemate in Gaza .” It appears that Oxfam International took the lead on this publication. The NGO signatories to the report receive massive funding from European governments, enabling such initiatives. They also maintain close coordination and partnerships with government officials and diplomats.

According to the NGO authors, “This paper outlines an achievable course of action that, if implemented, could make significant progress in addressing the root causes of the recurrent conflict and towards the realization of a just, durable peace that would benefit Israelis and Palestinians alike” (pg. 3).

However, the analysis is fundamentally flawed in many dimensions, and, contrary to the stated aims, the recommendations would embolden Hamas, destabilize security in the South of Israel, and lead to greater conflict. Without seriously addressing weapons smuggling (such as the incident at Kerem Shalom on the day AIDA’s report was published), tunnel rebuilding, and Hamas’ commandeering of aid, the demand for an “end to the Israeli blockade” of Gaza, is counterproductive and dangerous.

These problems are compounded by fundamental flaws in the report, including faulty “research,” false premises, irresponsible and misleading use of international legal language omissions of binding law, and an undercurrent of promoting BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) against Israel.

Fundamentally Flawed Premises

1. The NGOs claim Israel is engaged in an “illegal blockade” (5) of Gaza, even though significant reconstruction materials have been entering via a work-around mechanism (see below). They also repeat the allegation that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment; it is imposed in violation of IHL and, according to the UN, may entail the commission of war crimes” (8).

Contrary to the NGO claims of being “illegal,” under international law, a blockade is a legal form of naval warfare used to prevent the smuggling of weapons and other assistance to an enemy force. The NGOs are therefore incorrectly using the term “blockade” or deliberately distorting its meaning.

Similarly, the NGOs misuse the legal term “collective punishment.” Restrictions on the flow of goods in a war environment does not constitute “ collective punishment” under international law. 

“Collective punishment” refers to the imposition of criminal penalties and does not refer to the legal act of retorsion (e.g. sanctions, blockades). In fact, pursuant to Article 23 of the Geneva Convention (which sets standards for the provision of limited humanitarian aid), Israel has no obligation to provide any goods, even minimal humanitarian supplies, if it is “satisfied” that such goods will be diverted or supply of such goods will aid Hamas in its war effort.

In addition, the NGOs ignore the extensive international law prohibiting direct and indirect support to terrorist organizations. The NGOs are essentially demanding, therefore, that Israel and other countries deliberately violate international law in order to meet their policy requirements.

The NGOs also claim that “The implementation of the blockade is in breach of Israel’s obligations to provide for the well-being of the Palestinian population” (8). However, these supposed “obligations” vis-a-vis Gaza are based on the false premise that the territory remains occupied, despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement (removal of all military and civilian presence, and turning over of sovereignty to the Palestinians). Nevertheless, Israeli policies toward Gaza exceed any legal requirements that would be placed on the country if the territory was considered occupied under international law. NGOs promote this specious claim then for political purposes to continue to assign responsibility and blame to Israel over the situation in Gaza.

2. According to the NGO narrative, which permeates “Charting a New Course,” Israel bears sole responsibility for Palestinian civilians in Gaza, and all humanitarian difficulties in Gaza are the result of Israeli policies. Terrorist activities by Palestinians and security rights of Israelis are conspicuously excluded from the narrative. Israel’s real security concerns are minimized as a pretext to promote a narrative of Israeli cruelty. Similarly, Egypt’s role and activities along the Rafah border, including the razing of more than 1,500 homes, is nearly erased.

A keyword search of the publication clearly shows how the NGOs selectively present the narrative of Gaza:

Israel	97
Hamas	15
Egypt (which also maintains closed borders with Gaza)	3
Palestinian Authority (nominal ruling power in Gaza)	3
Rocket/s	3
Terror, terrorism, terrorist	2
Tunnels	0
Missile	0
Mortar	0
Iran (major supplier of weapons and resources to Hamas)	0

In downplaying the role of Hamas in perpetuating the conflict and ignoring its massive, systematic human rights violations and status as a banned terrorist entity, the NGOs include a short section on “Engaging All Parties,” in which they complain that “restricted contact [with Hamas] can undermine humanitarian access and implementation of humanitarian programmes” (22). In this regard, the NGOs assert that “Reconstruction and recovery must not be held hostage to political developments” (23) – as if Hamas control of Gaza, rebuilding of attack tunnels, and commandeering of humanitarian aid are simply “political” challenges, not fundamental threats to the reconstruction of Gaza and the prevention of further hostilities.

The NGOs also “cherry-pick” sources that support their narrative. For instance, they cite to Israeli political NGO Gisha’s account that “Israeli security experts have also warned that the restrictions on goods entering Gaza, in particular construction materials, are harmful to Israeli security, due to the economic paralysis that the blockade has created.” While a former senior military official has made such proclamations, other security experts disagree. AIDA, its constituent NGO members, and Gisha clearly lack the expertise and knowledge to properly weigh between competing approaches to Israeli security.

3. Another major element of the biased NGO narrative is that Israel undeniably committed “violations of international law” during the 2014 Gaza conflict. As such, according to the publication, there is a need for an arms embargo against Israel because “Conduct by both sides during OPE and prior conflicts demonstrates that there is a serious risk that such arms transfers could in the future be used in commission of breaches of IHL and that any transfers would therefore be in violation of the ATT” (23-24).

However, the publication provides no evidence whatsoever to support this premise. Instead, AIDA presents unfounded and unverified allegations by Amnesty International and B’Tselem, NGOs that, like the authors of the report lack credibility and fact-finding capacity and methodology, and share the same anti-Israel biases, as well as a quote from “Avner Gvaryahu of Breaking the Silence [who] observed that ‘[t]he same red line that was crossed during Israeli Operation Cast Lead has become the starting line for OPE’” (12). Similar NGO allegations were repeated in the discredited Goldstone report (2009).

4. In parallel to the narrative of Israeli guilt, the AIDA NGO report highlights a narrative of Palestinian victimization. The authors argue that “reconstruction and recovery have barely begun, and people in Gaza remain in dire straits” (3), while, as noted, blaming and not Hamas or other Palestinian groups for this situation. This aspect was pronounced in the press statement accompanying the report , where NGO officials emphasized that “there has been little rebuilding” and “reconstruction cannot happen without funds.” According to the press release, “not a single one of the 19,000 destroyed homes has been rebuilt.”

However, as noted by the Elder of Ziyon blog, the reality is far more complex. According to the Shelter Cluster Palestine, an umbrella of UN organizations and NGOs (run by Norwegian Refugee Council, one of the signatories of the AIDA report), as of March 2015, “58,930 housing units received cash for repairs (Minor Damage)” and “11,800 housing units received a first cash payment for repairs (Minor, Major and Severe damage).” “Permanent construction of new houses,” which has not started, “can take several months and would include several stages such as design proposal, building permit approval, mobilisation of contractors and funds, construction and handover of the final build.” In addition, “As of 15 March, over 73,000 individuals requiring ABC materials for shelter repairs have been cleared to purchase materials under the GRM. Of these, over 59,000 homeowners have procured full or partial quantities of their allocated construction material to date.”

Furthermore, the statistic of “19,000 destroyed homes,” which has been a feature of press and social media output by Oxfam and other NGOs involved in the publication, is not accurate. It is an aggregation of the more nuanced “12,400 housing units completely destroyed and 6,600 severely damaged” listed in the publication (7). As with many other NGO initiatives, accuracy is sacrificed for sensationalism in public statements.

Misleading and Distorted Use of International Legal Language

In addition to the examples provided above regarding the blockade and alleged Israeli violations of the laws of armed conflict, AIDA misquotes and misrepresents principles of international law.

• For instance, AIDA claims that, according to the UN Arms Trade Treaty, “the prohibition of arms transfers where the supplier has knowledge that the arms will be used to commit ‘attacks on civilian objects or civilians’” (pg. 13). The quote to the Treaty is inaccurate. The actual, official language prohibits “any transfer of conventional arms…if [the State] has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party” (Article 6, not 7 as listed by AIDA, emphasis added). The essential word “directed,” referring to intentional targeting of civilian objects, and not collateral damage, was removed in AIDA’s version. (In fact, this was one of the central charges retracted by Judge Richard Goldstone from the UN report bearing his name.) It appears that AIDA is repeating a mistake first made by Oxfam International in an August 2014 press release .
• Israel is criticized “for controlling the import of cement and other items that they label as ‘dual use’” (17) – that is items that could be used to produce weapons and other military objects in Gaza – beyond the list of materials prohibited by the Wassenaar Arrangement, an international body “on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies.” According to AIDA, “they should therefore be allowed into Gaza without restriction” (24). However, Israel is not a member of the agreement and is, therefore, not bound by its terms. Even if it were, the Wassenaar criteria, contrary to the NGO claims, explain that “Dual-use goods and technologies to be controlled are those which are major or key elements for the indigenous development, production, use or enhancement of military capabilities,” and the Arrangement allows for “the relevant threshold parameters should be developed on a case-by case basis.” Hamas’ extensive construction of tunnels and rockets using materials such as cement and steel bars shows that Israel’s restrictions on importing such items into Gaza are quite reasonable.

Moreover, as noted by Gisha directors Sari Bashi and Eitan Diamond at a November 2014 ICRC-sponsored conference at Hebrew University on humanitarian aid, there is no shortage of cement in Gaza. Rather, much of it is diverted and appropriated by Hamas for rebuilding the organization’s infrastructure, driving up prices for average Gazans. Yet, addressing Hamas’ blatant violations is not a priority in this AIDA publication.

• The NGOs demand that “Israel must lift the blockade and open all crossings into and out of Gaza, allowing for the unimpeded entry and exit of goods” (25) and “Israel should ensure the unhindered access of aid workers (regardless of their nationality) between the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and Gaza” (24). There is no basis in international law for these demands, in particular if “unimpeded entry” or “unhindered access” would entail security risks.

BDS Agenda

An undercurrent in the AIDA publication is advancing BDS against Israel. In addition to the aforementioned arms embargo, the NGOs push for sanctions such as “conditioning improved economic and other relations” with Israel and changing the EU-Israel Association Agreement (21). There is also a repeated emphasis on ending the “culture of impunity,” which is NGO code for International Criminal Court (ICC) trials of Israeli officials.

The BDS agenda is further seen in concerns that “there is no system of checks and balances to ensure that companies that violate international law in the OPT do not financially benefit from the reconstruction of Gaza.” According to the publication, this stands in opposition to the “principle… of no-profit for violators of international law” (19). There are a number of major problems with these statements:

• The reference to “companies that violate international law” supposes that companies, through their business activities in the West Bank, can “violate international law.” NGOs, including signatories to the AIDA publication, are active in promoting this erroneous claim.
• In general, corporations, as opposed to states, are not bound by IHL. European courts have repeatedly found that non-discriminatory business practices over the 1949 armistice line, even if they are undertaken in conjunction with Israel or Israelis, are not illegal.
• This “principle” undermines the NGOs’ entire argument concerning reconstruction and ending the blockade. Regarding Gaza, Hamas and Hamas-affiliated companies are the primary violators of international law and human rights. Yet, Hamas would be the number one beneficiary and profiteer if the recommendations of the report were implemented. Indeed, under their own logic, as facilitators of economic activity benefiting Hamas, the NGOs would be guilty of aiding and assisting violations of international law – the very standard they set in the report.
• AIDA also ignores the NGOs whose actions, however well-intentioned, support violations of international law.

Further reflecting the main political narrative of the report, as discussed above, the recommendation that “States should comply with their third state responsibilities not to aid or assist rights violations with respect to companies that contribute to such violations” is the final recommendation under the “Principled assistance, reconstruction and recovery” section in the body of the report (on page 25), but is presented first in the “Summary” on page 4.

Finally, West Bank-related BDS appears in the call that “Donors should institute a collective, transparent public reporting mechanism for tracking destruction of their aid and should issue immediate formal demands for compensation of projects funded by their tax payers” (23). Inasmuch as this refers to Gaza, Hamas, which exploits civilian and humanitarian objects for its military operations, is the likely address for compensation. However, as seen in previous AIDA statements, this is mostly an irrelevant West Bank concern. Calls for compensation from Israel are particularly misplaced when the destroyed projects were erected by government and non-governmental entities without permits from the Israeli Civil Administration, in violation of international norms and with the knowledge that they may face demolition.

¹ The NGO signatories include: ActionAid, Alianza por la Solidaridad, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Asamblea de Cooperación por la Paz (ACPP), CARE International, The Carter Center, CCFD-Terre Solidaire, CCP Japan, Christian Aid, Church of Sweden, Cooperazione per lo Sviluppodei Paesi Emergenti (COSPE), Council for Arab-British Understanding, DanChurchAid (DCA), Diakonia, GVC, Handicap International, Heinrich Böll Foundation, HelpAge International, Horyzon - Swiss Youth Development Organization, Japan International Volunteer Center (JVC), KinderUSA, The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation, The Lutheran World Federation, Médecins du Monde France, Médecins du Monde Switzerland, Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP – UK), Medico international, Medico international schweiz, Medicos del Mundo MDM-Spain, Mennonite Central Committee, Norwegian Church Aid (NCA), Norwegian People‟s Aid (NPA), Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), Overseas, Oxfam, Première Urgence – Aide Médicale Internationale, Quaker Council for European Affairs, Rebuilding Alliance, Save the Children, Secours Catholique - Caritas France, Secours Islamique France, Swedish Development Partner (SOIR), The Swedish Organisation for Individual Relief (IM), Terre des Hommes Foundation, Terre des Hommes Italy, United Civilians for Peace (Netherlands).



NGO Monitor

Source: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/fundamentally_flawed_aida_ngo_network_s_gaza_analysis

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.