Obama's Foolish Nuclear Legacy (Ezekiel 17)

Obama Seeks to Fortify Iran Nuclear Deal

By
Carol E. Lee in Lima, Peru and
Jay Solomon in Washington
Updated Nov. 20, 2016 10:03 p.m. ET

The Obama administration is considering new measures in its final months in office to strengthen the landmark nuclear agreement with Iran, senior U.S. officials said, with President-elect Donald Trump’s first appointments foreshadowing an increasingly rocky road for the controversial deal.

Action under consideration to buttress the pact includes steps to provide licenses for more American businesses to enter the Iranian market and the lifting of additional U.S. sanctions.

The effort to shore up the agreement was under way before the election and is not aimed at boxing in Mr. Trump, who opposes the deal, the officials said. Officials also acknowledged the proposals are unlikely to make the nuclear agreement more difficult to undo.

Mr. Trump’s first two picks for his national security team—retired Army Gen. Mike Flynn as national security adviser and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) as Central Intelligence Agency director—are hard-liners on Iran who have voiced opposition to the nuclear deal.

Trump transition team officials didn’t respond to questions about their plans for the agreement or the current administration’s efforts to shore it up.

During the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump talked at times of ratcheting up sanctions on Iran, but also said U.S. companies shouldn’t be at a disadvantage in entering the Iranian market. “All of these countries are going to do business with Iran,” Mr. Trump said at a campaign event in September 2015. “They’re going to make lots of money and lots of other things with Iran...And we’re going to get nothing.”

Within the Obama administration, officials say they recognize that there is little they can do from a policy perspective if the incoming administration is determined to scuttle the accord. But they plan to make a forceful case to the president-elect’s team of the grim consequences they believe the U.S. would face if it ended up being blamed for the agreement’s failure.

Under the deal, reached in July 2015, Tehran agreed to scale back its nuclear capabilities in return for the lifting of most international sanctions.

“Our bet is when they look at this and analyze what the implications would be for tearing up the deal, they won’t do it,” a senior administration official said. “But as for what they’ll actually do? Who knows?”

Another senior U.S. official argued “it’s very hard to tear up the deal” because U.S. allies and partners, including Russia and China, are committed to it. But, the official said, the “most important thing we can do is show that it’s working.”

Administration officials said they haven’t yet begun conversations on the Iran deal with the officials Mr. Trump has deployed across the government to facilitate his transition into office. They also are unsure whether those Trump officials are the ones they need to persuade.

The picture they plan to articulate for Mr. Trump’s team is stark: If the agreement falls apart, and the U.S. is blamed for its collapse, Iran would resume its nuclear program more aggressively. In that case, the U.S. risks alienating Europe, as well as China and Russia, and limiting its ability to use sanctions again to contain Iran. Military action against Tehran’s nuclear facilities, these officials argue, could be the only alternative.

Administration officials do not believe Mr. Trump would overtly pull out of the deal. Their concern is more that it would fall apart due to attempts by the incoming administration to renegotiate pieces of it, expanding sanctions against Iran unrelated to its nuclear program, or neglect.

Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert at the Wilson Center, a think tank in Washington, said the Iran deal is “uniquely vulnerable” and requires constant attention because it is not a treaty and has faced significant opposition in the U.S. and Iran.

“Over time, without that kind of willful and purposeful effort, it’s hard to maintain,” Mr. Miller said. “It needs to be constantly attended to, defended and rationalized. Does this new administration have that kind of will? That’s an open question.”

Mr. Trump’s nominee to head the CIA, Mr. Pompeo, was among the most aggressive U.S. lawmakers in trying to overturn the nuclear agreement. He has said the terms of the deal don’t do enough to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and that the U.S. is essentially subsidizing Tehran’s military operations in Syria and Iraq by unfreezing billions of dollars of its oil revenues. He has proposed legislation for new sanctions on Iran and measures to limit the White House’s ability to implement the deal.

“I look forward to rolling back this disastrous deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism,” Mr. Pompeo wrote in a tweet last week, shortly before his nomination for the CIA post.

Gen. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s pick for national security adviser, has described Iran in writings and interviews as the world’s primary source of international terrorism. And he’s accused the Obama administration of suppressing intelligence linking the Iranian government to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The White House has denied this charge.

In his 2016 book, “The Field of Fight,” the retired general described correspondence between the al Qaeda leader and Iran found in his compound following his death in 2011. “One letter to bin Laden reveals that al Qaeda was working on chemical and biological weapons in Iran,” he wrote.

Messrs. Flynn and Pompeo also have called for a much more aggressive U.S. drive to confront Tehran in the region and to cut off its support for Middle East militant groups.

Iranian officials have publicly accused the Obama administration of not doing enough to promote investment in Iran as part of the nuclear deal.

In response, Secretary of State John Kerry has met with European bankers to encourage them to go back into the Iranian market. The Treasury also issued new investment guidelines for Iran that were seen as easing Iran’s ability to gain access to U.S. dollars.

“The deal is under a lot of stress moving forward,” said Elizabeth Rosenberg, a former Treasury Department official who worked on the Iran deal who is now at the Center for a New American Security, a left-leaning think tank. “The greatest danger comes from the United States.”

She said perhaps Mr. Obama’s strongest check against the deal’s opponents is Congress, where many lawmakers are wary of overturning it outright.

Yet many lawmakers also want to ramp up sanctions on Iran over its ballistic missile program and support for terrorism. The White House has threatened to veto one of the bills in Congress. It is unclear that Mr. Trump would do the same and has voiced conflicting statements on the utility of new sanctions.

“We’re all reading the tea leaves here,” the senior administration official said, adding that the perception among Administration officials of Mr. Trump is “he’s not a warmonger.”

Even if the incoming administration doesn’t technically or legally undo the deal, there is the risk that Iran will view new sanctions, or even tougher rhetoric, as a reason to back out on its own.

Mr. Miller said any major move by the Obama administration to try to keep Mr. Trump from implementing his own policy on the Iran deal would be akin to waving “a red flag” in front of the next administration and could fuel tensions between Messrs. Obama and Trump.

Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a leading opponent of the Iran deal, said any unilateral action on the part of the Obama administration would only raise the political pressure on the Trump administration to move quickly to reverse the accord.

“The perception that Obama jammed Congress and the American people with a unilateral Iran nuclear deal is what has undermined the deal’s legitimacy in the first place,” Mr. Dubowitz said.

The Obama administration has praised Tehran for abiding by the nuclear agreement. And Mr. Kerry has maintained a belief that Iran could emerge as a partner for the U.S. in stabilizing the Mideast.

Still, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, raised concerns this month about Iran’s commitment to abiding by the nuclear accord.

The IAEA announced that Iran had twice breached its commitment to keep its production of heavy water, a key material for nuclear weapons development, under a cap of 130 metric tons.

The first time, the Obama administration stepped in to purchase the excess heavy water from Iran. The IAEA said Iran was now seeking another international buyer to help it remain in compliance.

Mr. Pompeo and other Republican leaders have stressed that the U.S. under a President Trump will no longer aid Iran, but will, instead, vigorously enforce the terms of the deal.

“Many Members of Congress continue to believe the U.S. should not bear the burden of Iran’s ongoing failure to meet its…obligation,” Mr. Pompeo wrote Mr. Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz earlier this month.

Write to Carol E. Lee at carol.lee@wsj.com and Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com

Trying to Recover From Obama's Misdeeds

Righting the Wrongs of U.S.-Iran Policy

November 19, 2016

By Heshmat Alavi

The world begins to digest the major development of business tycoon Donald Trump defeating former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Among the many questions regarding this unexpected election result is the new administration’s approach vis-à-vis Iran. Considering the Iran nuclear deal, viewed by President Barack Obama as his foreign policy crown jewel, there are inarguable mistakes that need urgent remedies. Iran considered the Obama presidency as a golden era. It is now on the shoulders of Donald Trump and the new Republican-controlled Congress to patch various wounds inflicted by eight years of mistaken Iran appeasement policy.

Iran nuclear deal

The Obama Doctrine, if you will, was based on extending a hand to America’s historical rivals. This stirred serious anger among traditional U.S. allies, especially in the Middle East, and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. However, Obama managed to push forward his initiative at the expense of others. This policy envisioned Iran becoming a more responsible partner of the international community as a result of the nuclear deal, a premise now revealed as a wish-fulfillment daydream. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently reported that Iran has again exceeded the permitted level of heavy water, raising eyebrows across the board. This is the result of a weak stance adopted by the Obama administration after the nuclear deal.

Iran is also taking advantage of the opportunity to continue its gross human rights violations, enormous support for terrorist groups not only across the Middle East but even in the U.S. and Europe as well, and persisting in inflaming wars in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. The incoming administration in Washington has the opportunity to weigh a more serious approach against Tehran. Such a policy must force Iran to quickly wind down its nuclear efforts and bring an end to horrendous human rights violations and daily execution of its opponents.

Tehran’s terrorism and foreign intervention

The Obama administration took a turn for the worst from day one, pledging to pull out all American troops from Iraq. This signaled a major American policy shift in the Middle East, raising concerns for U.S. allies and providing a much-sought opportunity for the mullahs in Tehran. Obama’s White House argued Iran would play a constructive role in stabilizing the entire region, beginning with Iraq. Unfortunately, what the world witnessed has been anything but.

Obama turned his back to Iran’s meddling in Iraq in favor of pursuing the JCPOA at all costs -- viewed as an unofficial pact paving the way for Tehran’s political/military infiltration of Baghdad and fueling the rise of Daesh (ISIS).

The situation calls for a Trump White House to work closely with the new Congress in adopting a firm Middle East policy by recognizing the root of all such crises. Iran must be brought to comprehend that a new administration in Washington means an end to an enormously profitable political period.

Atrocious human rights record

Choosing not to support the 2009 uprising movement in Iran, Obama made it crystal clear to all his intention to pursue a policy of close engagement with Tehran. This emboldened the mullahs to take full advantage of such a change in attitude from Washington by significantly intensifying their domestic crackdown. Despite claiming to be a moderate, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has presided over 2,500 executions during his tenure. Scores more are on death row and Iran’s jails are packed with inmates like never before. While smiling to the outside world and claiming to seek reforms, Rouhani has remained completely loyal to the establishment by supporting a continuing policy of oppression, torture, and executions.

Congress rightfully introduced the Iran Human Rights Legislation and a new administration must build upon this initiative. Donald Trump has the opportunity to show his support for the Iranian nation and their thirst for freedom, democracy, and other values cherished also by the American people.

Conclusion

President Barack Obama made a strategic mistake in adopting a mistaken and already failed Iran appeasement policy. Iran continues to quietly cheat on the nuclear accord, inflame wars across the Middle East, and clamp down on human rights inside its own borders. This must end, and the wrongs of the Obama era must be made right. Donald Trump has the opportunity to create a completely new perspective on Iran. The Iranian people are begging for the new administration to support their struggle for freedom.

Obama failed to extend his hand to the Iranian people. Donald Trump should not. His White House and the new Republican Congress should work closely to adopt a firm Iran policy worthy of the values America stands for.

What Iranian Nuclear Deal? (Daniel 8:4)

U.S., Iran clash over Tehran's testing of limit in nuclear deal

Thu Nov 17, 2016 | 1:14 PM EST

By Francois Murphy | VIENNA

The United States and Iran on Thursday clashed openly at the U.N. atomic watchdog for the first time since they signed a landmark nuclear deal last year, differing over Tehran's repeated testing of one of the deal's less strictly defined limits.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is policing the deal, said Iran's overstepping of the limit on its stock of a sensitive material for the second time this year risked undermining countries' support for the agreement.

The victory of Donald Trump - a vocal critic of the deal - in the U.S. presidential election also raised the question of whether his country would continue to support the accord, which restricts Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

"Iran must strictly adhere to all commitments and technical measures for their duration," U.S. ambassador to the IAEA Laura Holgate said in a statement to the agency's quarterly Board of Governors meeting.

The dispute centers on the part of the deal between Tehran and six major powers that limits Iran's stock of heavy water, a material used as a moderator in reactors like the unfinished one it has at Arak that has been put out of use.

In contrast to strict limits elsewhere in the deal on materials including enriched uranium, the text says Iran should not have more heavy water than it needs, adding that those needs are estimated to be 130 tonnes. Western countries see it as a hard limit, and Iran argues it is not.

"We note with concern Iran's accumulation of heavy water in excess of the limit set forth in the JCPOA of 130 metric tonnes," Holgate said, using the abbreviation for the deal's full name, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The IAEA said Iran was preparing to ship some heavy water out of the country to come back under the 130-tonne limit, but Holgate said Iran would not be in compliance until it had been delivered to a foreign buyer as the deal requires.

"Simply notifying states that this heavy water is for sale without removing it from Iran does not fulfill this JCPOA commitment," she said.

Iran said the issue was not that clear-cut.

"Where is (the) limit?" Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, told reporters on the sidelines of the board meeting, adding that the country was preparing to export more than the 5 tonnes of heavy water it originally informed the IAEA of.

"The JCPOA is very clear," he added. "It says that the needs of Iran are estimated (to be) 130 tonnes. Who is the native English speaker to tell me what estimated means?"

(Reporting by Francois Murphy; Editing by Richard Balmforth)

What? The Iran Deal Is Not Legally Binding!

 
State Department: Iran Never Signed Nuclear Deal, Which Isn’t ‘Legally Binding’
Nov. 30, 2015

This story broke last week, just as millions of Americans were tuning out of the news cycle for Thanksgiving. Given the seriousness of the subject matter, it deserves a re-up. National Review reports:

President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review. “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter. Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

Oh. Joel Gehrke notes that Iran’s president — much like our own — strongly discouraged his country’s legislature from voting on the agreement at all, arguing that parliamentary approval would “create an obligation” and impose an “unnecessary legal restriction” on the regime. Rouhani warned that passage would force him to sign the document, which he’d avoided doing. A vote was held anyway; the deal was approved, 161-59. It apparently remains unsigned. (The United States Congress never formally weighed in on the terrible deal because Senate Democrats repeatedly obstructed any vote, in order to shield President Obama from the political humiliation of explicitly overruling strong bipartisan opposition). The vote in Tehran was purely symbolic, of course. The ‘Supreme Leader’ runs the show in that country, and he allowed his so-called Guardian Council to sign off on the accord, guaranteeing its adoption. But according to our State Department, that “adoption” wasn’t technically binding under international law. The agreement represents “political commitments” secured by negotiators, we’re told, “and is not a signed document.” Question: If this pact isn’t binding or even signed, wouldn’t the resulting flexibility cut both ways? Couldn’t the next American president simply tear up the empty signature page of the deal upon entering office and be rid of it? Maybe so, legally speaking. But Allahpundit lays out the grim reality that the die has already been cast:

We’re lifting $100 billion in sanctions in exchange for a legally binding promise of … nothing. The flip side of that, I guess, is that the deal’s not binding on us either; if the next president or even Obama himself wants to reimpose sanctions on a whim, that’s fair game. The problem with that logic, though, is that no one believes our European partners, who crave renewed access to Iran’s markets (and vice versa), will reinstate sanctions unless Iran cheats flagrantly and egregiously on the deal, to the point where it would humiliate the EU internationally to look the other way. One of Iran’s core goals in all this, re-opening its trade relationship with Europe, will be achieved whether or not the deal is binding. And once achieved, it’ll be nearly irreversible…there’s a difference between a country voting to implement an agreement voluntarily and making a binding promise to another country that they’ll implement it by signing a statement to that effect. In theory, the latter gives the treaty partner some legal recourse — international sanctions, most likely — that the former doesn’t. Like I said above, though, international sanctions are already almost certainly off the table, in which case what is Iran’s formal promise via signature really worth? Especially when — wait for it — everyone expects them to cheat regardless.

And there are many, many reasons to expect Iran to continue to cheat. It’s what they do. The trick for Iran was to convince America and Europe to pump tens of billions back into its struggling economy, in exchange for handing Western leaders a “historic document” to wave around as a triumph of war-avoiding diplomacy, or whatever. The terrorist-financing regime knows full well that it can obfuscate and cheat at the margins for 10 to 15 years, supplying their enablers with various excuses to kick the can on re-imposing sanctions, then break out as an internationally-blessed nuclearized state just as soon as the deal’s restrictions automatically expire. The agreement leaves Iran’s illegal nuclear program almost completely intact, only “paused” (we know how that’s gone so far). It also does not guarantee intrusive “snap” inspections at all suspected nuclear sites, erecting a lengthy appeal period in which Iran can at least partially cover its tracks as the international bureaucratic process churns along. Furthermore, Iranian officials have flatly stated that certain military sites are not subject to any inspections, period. Iran is furnished with the billions it craves and a legitimized nuclear program, Europe gets a lucrative new trading partner, and Obama gets a “legacy-enhancer” among the left-wing academic and cultural elite, even as it’s opposed by a sizable majority of the country he leads. This president’s alleged triumph is appropriately embodied by an aspirational, unsigned document that contains many words that sound wonderful in theory, but appear dangerously naive in practice. It ultimately weakens America and strengthens a sworn enemy. Alas, the seemingly-significant admission showcased in the headline of this post is dismissed as a silly technicality by the Obama White House — which apparently sealed a controversial deal with Iran with the diplomatic equivalent of a handshake. Smart power. Meanwhile, Iran’s emboldened leaders would like to remind the world that they remain fully committed loathers of the United States:

A video reportedly produced by the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and posted to social media Tuesday blames the United States and its allies for the Paris terror attacks. The video, posted to a Facebook page affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and first reported by the Middle East Media Research Institute, explains that the U.S. created the Islamic State to advance its own agenda…The narrator further alleges that the U.S. trained moderate Syrian rebels to “join” the Islamic State in the Middle East and purposefully dropped weapons into the hands of IS terrorists there. He also suggests that IS has been benefiting “financially” from Western media reports. The video also includes footage of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivering congressional testimony about the rise of the Taliban in 2009 during which she stated, “Let’s remember here, the people we are fighting today, we funded.” “Of course, no one should be surprised by U.S. support for ISIS, as this was not unprecedented and American politicians had already admitted having supported al Qaeda,” the narrator says in the video. The video concludes with the narrator appearing to question al Qaeda’s involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
The regime released another anti-American propaganda video in September, featuring images of flag-draped coffins and a warning that Tehran would “humiliate” the US military in a potential conflict. In addition to these PR provocations, Iran has test-fired an illegal long-range missile, “convicted” a Washington Post journalist, detained yet another American citizen, and intensified its cyber warfare against the US government. Obama defenders and Iran apologists will downplay these moves as gestures designed to reassure domestic hardliners that the regime hasn’t gone soft against the West. It’s all just internal political posturing, they intone knowingly, and it’s still preferable to an unchecked nuclear advance. If only the nuclear accord came close to achieving the goals laid out by supporters at the outset of negotiations. It does not. And at the risk of betraying a lack of sophistication, perhaps the regime’s “death to America” words and actions are exactly what they appear to be: Manifestations of abiding enmity harbored by a cabal of religious fanatics who’ve viewed America as the Great Satan ever since they violently seized control of their country several decades ago.