Iranian horn making no concessions (Dan 8:4)

 

Iran Never to Allow Interviews with Nuclear Scientists
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Iran will never allow foreigners to interview its nuclear scientists, an Iranian lawmaker reiterated.
Speaking to Tasnim, Mohammad Saleh Jokar also noted that Tehran has twice rejected US bids to include interviews with Iranian scientists in a possible final nuclear deal.
Americans had drawn up a list of 23 Iranian people they wanted to interview about the country’s nuclear program, but after Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei’s outright rejection of any interviews with the Iranian scientists, Washington proposed a list with 15 names, he stated.
“That list of 15 individuals was also rejected. We will never accede to the Americans’ excessive demands and will never let our (nuclear) scientists be interviewed,” added Jokar, a member of the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission.
Back on April 9, Ayatollah Khamenei had categorically rejected foreign access to the country’s “security and defensive” sectors under the pretext of nuclear monitoring.
Later on May 20, the Leader ruled out any request for interviews with Iranian nuclear scientists, describing it as an instance of “interrogation”.
“I would not let foreigners come (here) and talk to the Iranian nation’s dear scientists…, who have expanded this wide knowledge to this stage,” Imam Khamenei stressed.
Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany) are in talks to hammer out a lasting accord that would end more than a decade of impasse over Tehran’s peaceful nuclear program.

Khamenei Refuses To Concede To Babylon

  

Ayatollah Khamenei Rejects Future Inspections
June 1, 2015 by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks live on television after casting his ballot in the Iranian presidential election in TehranThe Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader and theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in domestic and foreign policy issues of Iran, delivered a commencement speech recently to the graduates of the Imam Hussein Military University in Tehran.

He drew on the topic of nuclear negotiations between the six world powers (known as the P5+1; the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China), primarily lashing out at the United States and its demands.

On the other hand, the Obama administration has pitched and sold us a nuclear deal using a different narrative arguing that Iran’s nuclear sites, which are suspected to have military dimensions, will be thoroughly and frequently inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.

This is Obama’s own narrative, or at least what he has chosen to sell to the public.

On the other hand, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei clearly pointed out in his recent speech that “[r]egarding inspections, we have said that we will not let foreigners inspect any military center.”

So, Iran’s paramount leader, a person whose approval is needed for a final nuclear deal, is clearly announcing to President Obama and the world that he will not allowed anyone to enter the Islamic Republic and inspect his country’s military sites.

The crucial question is where are President Obama’s comments on this critical statement of Iran’s Supreme Leader? Rationally speaking, Obama is supposed to address these statements from Iran’s top leader, which contradict his promises and the narrative of the nuclear deal.

But, President Obama is silent.

It appears that from President Obama’s perspective, what Iran’s paramount leader is clearly articulating is not really crucial. For President Obama, the nuclear deal is already a done agreement. In other words, he will accept the demands of the Iranian leaders, and he will have his name on the nuclear deal.

When it comes to the American people, President Obama will pitch a different story than what the reality and terms of the deal truly are. He will not draw on the fact that Iran’s Supreme Leaders is not going to allow IAEA inspectors to investigate and monitor Iran’s nuclear activities.

He will tell the American people that everything with regards to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions, and Iran’s behavior are resolved.

He will argue that Iran’s nuclear threat has been eliminated, thanks to his efforts. He will argue that Iran is going to comply with all the terms of the deal. And after that, Obama will claim Iran deserves to have the sanctions lifted against it.

In another statement, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated on his official website that “[t]hey say the right to interview nuclear scientists must be given….This means interrogation. I will not let foreigners come and talk to scientists and dear children of the nation who have developed this science up to this level.”

President Obama has chosen to be silent about this crucial matter as well.

The Supreme Leader has also reasserted the Islamic Republic’s interventionist policies in the region, reconfirmed Iran’s unwillingness to change its behavior and instigate chaos in the Middle East and other Arab countries.

The Ayatollah stated, “I have some news that enemies in cooperation with some stupid officials in the region intend to bring proxy wars close to the borders of Iran,” and he added, “They should know that if they cause mischief, Iran’s reaction will be very harsh.”

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Quds Force, which operate on the behest of the Supreme Leader, continue to arm Shiite militia groups in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. They continue to sponsor terrorism and express their clear anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda.

President Obama has chosen to ignore these critical developments. The White House has decided to ignore what Ayatollah Khamenei is stating, and it has chosen to view the nuclear deal as a done deal.

Nevertheless, President Obama did make one comment when he was recently interviewed, defending the Islamic Republic. In his interview, he projected the Islamic Republic as a rational actor. Referring to Iran’s Supreme Leader, he pointed out that the “fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival… and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations.”

So, now instead of criticizing the ayatollah, President Obama is defending him as a rational political figure. Yet, President Obama did have some criticism to express. Not for Iran, but for Israel. instead of criticizing the Supreme Leader or addressing the ayatollah’s comments regarding IAEA inspections, President Obama has chosen to criticize Israel, and primarily Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He pointed out that Netanyahu’s message regarding Arab voters was “contrary to the very language of the Israeli Declaration of Independence” and warned of “foreign policy consequences.”

“I want Israel, in the same way that I want the United States, to embody … what I believe are human or universal values that have led to progress over a millennium….The same values that led to the end of Jim Crow and slavery. The same values that led to Nelson Mandela being freed and a multiracial democracy emerging in South Africa.”

While President Obama seems proficient at preaching and criticizing Israel’s prime minister, Netanyahu and Israel’s values, he has chosen to totally be silent about the anti-Semitic statements issued recently by Ayatollah Khamenei and the Ayatollah’s remarks regarding foreign inspections. These are the real issues that President Obama needs to address.

By Signing Responsibility Falls Into GOPs Lap (Eze 17)

  
Obama Signs Congress Review of Iran Nuclear Deal Bill Into Law
NBC News

President Barack Obama signed into law on Friday legislation giving lawmakers a chance to review any nuclear deal the White House seeks to hammer out with Iran.

The U.S. and five other world powers have crafted a delicate framework with Iran to keep it from developing nuclear weapons. The nuclear deal with Iran is a key part of the president’s foreign policy legacy, a fact he underscored during an interview this week with The Atlantic.

The law gives Congress at least a month to review the details of an agreement. During the review, the president would be prevented from lifting congressionally imposed sanctions on Iran.

“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” the president said in The Atlantic interview with took place on Tuesday and was published on Thursday. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”

The president’s signing of the legislation into law comes a week after Obama met with leaders of Gulf nations at Camp David. During the summit, the president stressed to leaders from such countries as Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. ally, that a nuclear deal with Iran is the best way to help shore up security in the region.

“Here at Camp David, we agreed that a comprehensive, verifiable solution that fully addresses the region’s and international concerns about Iran’s nuclear problem is in the security interests of the international community, including our (Gulf nation) partners,” Obama said during a press conference last week.

— Halimah Abdullah

House GOP Slows Down Iran Deal (Ezekiel 17)

U.S. House passes Iran nuclear review legislation

WASHINGTON | By Patricia Zengerle

Reuters/Gary Cameron

The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to pass legislation giving Congress the right to review, and possibly reject, an international nuclear agreement with Iran.
The 400-25 vote sends the legislation to the White House, where administration officials have said President Barack Obama will sign it into law.
The Iran Nuclear Review Act of 2015 passed the Senate last week after lawmakers reached a compromise removing some of its toughest provisions, and Obama dropped his threat to veto the measure as a threat to continuing negotiations between the United States and other world powers and Iran.
The bill gives Congress 30 days to review a final nuclear deal after international negotiators reach such an agreement, and during that time bars Obama from temporarily waiving any U.S. sanctions on Iran that were passed by Congress.
The Republican House Speaker, John Boehner, said the legislation was the only way Congress would be able to stop a bad deal, saying that Americans, and U.S. allies, are worried that Obama’s White House “will do anything to get one.”
Some conservative Republican lawmakers had objected to the bill, originally authored by Republican Senator Bob Corker, saying it did not impose strict enough conditions on Iran in a possible nuclear agreement.
To appease those conservatives in the House, the chamber’s leaders arranged a vote on a measure that would tighten U.S. sanctions against the Shi’ite Muslim group Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was founded with Iranian help in the 1980s to fight Israel in Lebanon. It has grown into a powerful political and military force and is fighting alongside President Bashar al-Assad’s army in Syria’s civil war.
That sanctions measure passed by 423-0. “Passing the Iran and Hezbollah bills today is a one-two punch against terrorist-backing Iran’s nuclear weapons drive,” said U.S. Representative Ed Royce, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.
The sanctions bill has not yet been taken up in the Senate so would not be sent to Obama’s desk for his signature.
The House voted on the measures as Obama hosted a Gulf Cooperation Council summit on Thursday at which he sought to reassure Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies of Washington’s commitment to their security despite their deep concerns about efforts to broker a nuclear deal with Tehran.
(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Eric Beech, Doina Chiacu and Jonathan Oatis)

GOP Stops Obama And Kerry (Ezekiel 17)

Senate approves Iran nuclear bill

Erin Kelly, USA TODAY 4:49 p.m. EDT May 7, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted 98-1 Thursday to approve bipartisan legislation that would require President Obama to let Congress review – and possibly reject – any final nuclear deal with Iran.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., an outspoken opponent of the administration’s efforts, voted against the bill.

“The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act offers the best chance for our constituents, through the Congress they elect, to weigh in on the White House’s negotiations with Iran,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said before the vote to end debate on the bill. “And make no mistake, they need to have that opportunity.”

The bill still must be approved by the House, where Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he will urge its passage.

“This important bipartisan legislation will ensure that Congress has a role in reviewing any potential agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Boehner said after the Senate vote. “Our goal is to stop a bad agreement that could pave the way to a nuclear-armed Iran, set off a regional nuclear arms race, and strengthen and legitimize the government of Iran – which threatens Israel and other allies in the region, as well as supports terrorism throughout the Middle East.”

Negotiations on the deal between Iran, the USA and five other nations are scheduled to continue in Austria next week. Diplomats are trying to reach a final agreement by June 30 on a deal aimed at stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.
The legislation would prevent Obama from lifting congressionally mandated sanctions against Iran for at least 30 days to give lawmakers a chance to weigh in on the deal.

Senators – especially Republicans – remain skeptical that Iran will live up to any deal to restrict its nuclear capabilities. McConnell made it clear that he doesn’t like the interim agreement that has been reached.

“Rather than meaningfully roll back Tehran’s enrichment capability and dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, the interim agreement would actually permit Iran to become a ‘nuclear threshold’ state poised right at the edge of obtaining a nuclear weapon,” McConnell said.

He added that “a bad agreement seems far more likely to eventually lead to the kind of military conflict everyone wants to avoid than no agreement at all.”

Secretary of State John Kerry, who is leading the team of U.S. negotiators, told Israeli TV last weekend that the U.S. “will not sign a deal that does not close off Iran’s pathways to a bomb.”

Obama initially opposed any legislation that could derail a deal. However, he later said he would support the Senate bill after it became clear that it had bipartisan support. The compromise legislation from Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., was unanimously approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 14.

The White House has warned that it could withdraw its support of the bill if the legislation is changed significantly.

The bill stalled last week when Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, a presidential candidate, and Cotton tried to force a vote on amendments to require Iran to publicly support Israel’s right to exist and end its nuclear program entirely as part of any final deal. Democrats and some Republicans objected to the amendments, saying they were designed to derail a deal. McConnell moved Tuesday to end the stalemate by setting a vote on Thursday to end debate on the bill. That vote was followed by final passage.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said “poison pill” amendments aimed at preventing an agreement would only hurt efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

“What we must do is not turn this bill into an instrument…to pave the path to war,” he said.

Follow @ErinVKelly on Twitter

Cruz Is Finally Right About Something (Rev 15:2)

 

Ted Cruz On Iran Nuclear Negotiations: ‘This Deal Makes War A Certainty’

Posted: 05/05/2015 6:01 pm EDT Updated: 05/06/2015 6:59 pm EDT

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on Tuesday that if the nuclear deal with Iran being negotiated by the U.S. and five other countries is approved, the result will be war.
“This deal makes war a certainty,” promised Cruz, a Republican contender for president in the 2016 election.

Cruz has repeatedly insisted that Congress require any nuclear deal with Iran to include recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The Obama administration has held firm to the position that the negotiations should be narrowly focused on Iran’s nuclear program.

The effort to tie the nuclear deal to Iran’s recognition of Israel is currently pending as an amendment, authored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), to a bill aimed at granting Congress oversight of the final nuclear agreement. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Thursday pulled an unusual procedural move to force a vote on this amendment.

Democrats and a handful of Republicans committed to preserving bipartisan support of the bill have balked at voting on the amendment, describing it as a “poison pill” that would ensure a presidential veto if included in the legislation.

Democrats are afraid to vote, Cruz told reporters in the Capitol. “They are terrified of casting a vote on whether the legislation would require Iran to recognize Israel’s rights to exist as a Jewish state, and rather than have to go on record and make clear the Democratic senators’ opposition to supporting Israel, they’re blocking every amendment on the Iran deal instead,” he said. “This should be a matter that brings us together in unity, because a nuclear Iran represents the single greatest national security threat to America. Unfortunately, far too many Senate Dems are playing politics with this rather than focusing on the grave national security threats we face.”

Cruz’s comments came as Republican members indicated that the Iran oversight bill was likely to come to a vote on Thursday — without the controversial amendment on Iran recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.

In the days following Cotton’s attempt to force a vote on the Israel amendment, Democrats called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to end debate and schedule a vote on the legislation in its current form.

While Democrats and their Republican allies could likely defeat the amendment, Democratic lawmakers have expressed frustration with being put in the position of publicly voting against pro-Israel legislation in order to preserve the Iran oversight bill.

On Tuesday, The Huffington Post asked Cruz to elaborate on what recognition of Israel had to do with eliminating Iran’s nuclear program. “In the midst of these negotiations, a senior Iranian general said the annihilation of Israel was, quote, non-negotiable. One cannot negotiate with theocratic zealots who are explicit in their desire to murder you,” Cruz said. “There is no common ground or middle ground on whether or not you are murdered. In the midst of these negotiations, Ayatollah Khamenei is leading the masses in chanting death to America.”

If negotiations were impossible, does Cruz see any alternative other than war?

“This deal makes war a certainty,” he said. “Because what President Obama is doing, if this goes forward, is unraveling the international consensus in favor of sanctions. That means the next president who enters the White House in January of 2017 is likely to encounter a world with Iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons where sanctions will have been taken off the table by Barack Obama, because they cannot be placed back with our allies in any reasonable period of time to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which means in all likelihood the next president will face a binary choice: Either allow Iran to have nuclear weapons or use military force to prevent it.

“That’s the consequence of this Obama-Iran deal, is it makes military conflict a certainty,” Cruz said.

Khamenei To Get More Concessions From The US (Dan 8:3)

Khamenei says U.S. military threats against Iran endanger nuclear talks

ANKARA | By Parisa Hafezi
(Reuters) – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday U.S. military threats made in the last few days may scupper nuclear talks as Tehran and six major world powers try to meet a June 30 deadline for a final deal.
Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, said two U.S. officials have threatened Iran with military action if the talks fail. He gave no further details on the threats.
“Holding nuclear talks (with major powers) under shadow of threat is unacceptable for Iran … Our nation will not accept it … Military threats will not help the talks,” he said in a speech to a gathering of teachers broadcast live on state TV.
“In the past days, two U.S. officials have threatened to take military action against Iran if Iran refuses to accept this or that nuclear condition. What does negotiation mean under the shadow of threat,” he said to chants from the crowd of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.
“I am against holding (nuclear) talks under the shadow of threat.”
Khamenei repeated his cautious support for the nuclear talks but said that the country’s “red lines” should be respected by the Iranian negotiators.
“Our negotiators should continue the talks with respect to our red lines… But they should not accept any imposition, humiliation and threat,” he said.
Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and rejects allegations from Western countries and their allies that it wants the capability to produce atomic weapons. It says all sanctions are illegal.
Iran and the six world powers, which struck a tentative nuclear agreement on April 2 in Lausanne, Switzerland, wrapped up nearly a week of talks in New York on Tuesday.
However, Western diplomats told Reuters that Iran and the powers were struggling to overcome deep divisions on two major sticking points: reimposing U.N. sanctions if the Iranians violate the agreement and how Tehran can buy atomic technology.
The two sides still disagree on other big issues including how quickly international sanctions would be lifted under a final deal.
Khamenei has demanded all sanctions be lifted at the same time as any deal is concluded. The U.S. and its European allies in the talks have made it clear that sanctions against Iran would be removed gradually.
The U.S. and EU sanctions have choked off nearly 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian oil exports since early 2012, reducing its oil exports by 60 percent to about a million barrels a day.
“We want the sanctions to be removed, but it does not mean that if they are not lifted, we cannot manage the country,” Khamenei said.
“Of course it will be easier to run the country if the sanctions are lifted.”
The negotiations between Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union will resume in Vienna next week to pave the way for the final deal.
(Editing by Louise Ireland)

Rubio is wrong: war IS guaranteed (Dan 8)

Bad Nuke Deal With Iran ‘Almost Guarantees War,’ Rubio Warns

Ken McIntyre / @KenMac55 / May 01, 2015

The Senate must review whatever deal the Obama administration strikes with Iran to delay its gaining a nuclear weapon, Sen. Marco Rubio said this morning, arguing that “a bad deal almost guarantees war.”

The Florida Republican said Israel won’t accept an agreement that doesn’t recognize its right to exist, and shouldn’t have to, provoking applause.

“The argument the White House uses [to garner Democrats’ support] is that if you are not in favor of this agreement, you are in favor of war,” Rubio said. “I would argue a bad deal almost guarantees war because Israel is not going to abide by any deal that they believe puts … their existence in danger.”

Rubio, who announced April 13 that he is running for president, said other Middle East nations including Saudi Arabia will want their own nuclear weapon if they see Iran’s getting one as only a matter of time.

The Senate must review whatever deal the Obama administration strikes with Iran to delay its gaining a nuclear weapon, Sen. Marco Rubio said this morning, arguing that “a bad deal almost guarantees war.”

The Florida Republican said Israel won’t accept an agreement that doesn’t recognize its right to exist, and shouldn’t have to, provoking applause.

“The argument the White House uses [to garner Democrats’ support] is that if you are not in favor of this agreement, you are in favor of war,” Rubio said. “I would argue a bad deal almost guarantees war because Israel is not going to abide by any deal that they believe puts … their existence in danger.”

Rubio, who announced April 13 that he is running for president, said other Middle East nations including Saudi Arabia will want their own nuclear weapon if they see Iran’s getting one as only a matter of time.

Attention Coffee Drinkers, meet the Morning Bell, your new best friend.

A snap to consume the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary, and original reporting that respects your time…and your intelligence. Sorry, donuts.

He also said the final deal “has to mirror the fact sheet” the administration put out when a framework was struck with the Iranians. It is “incredibly worrisome,” he said, that the White House rejects that idea.

Asked whether there is any chance Iran won’t cheat on a final deal, Rubio quickly replied: “No.”
The greatest obstacle to a legitimate deal, he said, is that Iran is controlled by “radical Shia clerics who believe that it is morally acceptable to lie” and “accept the benefits of any deal but don’t necessarily feel bound by any of its restrictions.”

Iran’s “play,” Rubio said, is to win the lifting of billions of dollars worth of international sanctions, stall inspections, increase its ability to attack the West through proxies such as Hezbollah, strengthen its military capability and stabilize internally.

Then, he predicted, banking on the West’s “very short attention span,” Iran will announce within eight years or so that it has been forced by the actions of its enemies to build a nuclear weapon.

By that time, Rubio said, European nations will not want to upend business deals by re-imposing sanctions and the U.S. at home and abroad will be more vulnerable to attack by a stronger Iran.

GOP Threatens Iran Nuclear Deal (Ezekiel 17)

Congressional review of Iran nuclear deal is threatened by GOP amendments

Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton

Sen. Tom Cotton, right, brought two amendments on the Iran nuclear review bill to the floor. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, left, may have to shut down debate or withdraw the legislation for now. (Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call)

By PAUL RICHTER AND LISA MASCARO

Laws and Legislation Middle East Iran Politics and Government Israel Republican Party U.S. Senate
A bipartisan bill for Congress to review any nuclear agreement with Iran faced new danger Thursday as Republican senators sought to force votes on controversial amendments that leaders had hoped to avoid.

Senate Republican and Democratic leaders have worked all week to shield the bill from politically sensitive changes that are likely to drive away some Democratic supporters and sink its chances for passage.

Presidential campaign politics have complicated the process. One such amendment, from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a presidential candidate, would require Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist, something all senators would like to see, but that Iran is unlikely to do. The issue was not on the table during more than 10 years of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

But Republican senators pressed hard for their proposals, arguing that the legislation needed to be tough enough to protect U.S. and Israeli security.

Negotiators from the United States and five other world powers are seeking to complete a comprehensive deal with Tehran by June 30 that would lift sanctions on Iran if it accepts restrictions and inspections designed to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The Senate debate was interrupted Thursday as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), in an unusual move, brought two amendments to the floor — including the amendment on Israel — over the wishes of lawmakers who have managed the deliberations.

Cotton said the proposals were not “poison pills,” as critics claim, but “vitamin pills” that will strengthen the legislation.

The clash raised the possibility that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would need to shut down debate or withdraw the legislation for a few days, if not indefinitely.

“We’re all balled up,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Senate Republican.

He said that he hoped the legislation could move ahead but that “it’s going to take a while for everybody to cool down.”

The bill, sponsored by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), sets a procedure for Congress to review any nuclear agreement with Iran over a period of at least 30 days, and then vote on whether to lift economic sanctions that Congress has imposed on Iran.

The White House, which had previously threatened to veto legislation that would insert the Senate into the nuclear deal, backed down and agreed to support the proposed bill, which passed unanimously in the committee. President Obama has warned that he will veto the measure if it is revised in ways he believes could threaten the delicate negotiations.

Republican senators have proposed 67 amendments, including some politically sensitive ones that Democrats have been reluctant to vote against.

One Republican amendment, from Cotton, Rubio and fellow presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) would require the United States to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and to move the U.S. Embassy there from Tel Aviv. Washington considers Tel Aviv the capital under long-standing policy.

Democrats, who fear that such amendments are meant to sink the bill, are reluctant to allow votes on them unless GOP leaders agree that some Republicans will also vote against them. Otherwise, they worry that “no” votes could be used against them in future campaigns.

But negotiations have not yielded a deal on how to approach sensitive amendments. And the debate has put McConnell in an increasingly awkward position. He is wary of resisting fellow Republicans after promising “robust” deliberations over the legislation.

McConnell faces tough choices. He could call for a vote on the legislation without allowing further changes. That would probably allow the bill to advance, but it could anger colleagues who would be denied the chance to amend the bill.

It would also put McConnell in the politically uncomfortable position of relying on Democrats, rather than on fellow Republicans, to move legislation that the White House accepts on a national security priority.

He could also try to negotiate a deal to put forth fewer amendments.

If the Corker bill fails, other legislation would likely be proposed, but chances for passage would be dim. And it is not clear that tougher bills could attract enough Democratic support to override a presidential veto.

Some top Republican lawmakers, as well as diplomats from U.S. allies, have said privately that despite the unfolding drama over the bill, they doubt Congress will be able to stop or radically reshape the deal with Iran.

GOP Presents Bill To Block Iran Deal (Eze 17)

US Senate to Debate Bill to Allow Review of Iran Nuclear Deal

April 27, 2015 11:13 AM
Associated Press
The U.S. Senate begins debate this week on a bill empowering Congress to review and potentially reject any Iran nuclear deal.

President Barack Obama grudgingly backed the bill when Democrats joined Republicans in demanding a say on any final agreement, but even with widespread support in the Senate, proponents must first win a battle with some colleagues determined to change the legislation in ways that could cost them the Democratic support needed for passage.

The high-profile debate comes as negotiators from the U.S. and five other nations are rushing to finalize an agreement by the end of June requiring Iran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart plan to meet Monday for the first time since they laid out the framework for a nuclear deal earlier this month. The State Department said Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are to meet in New York where the two are attending a conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

The bill before the Senate would block Obama from waiving congressional sanctions for at least 30 days while lawmakers weigh in. If 60 senators vote to disapprove of the deal, Obama would lose his waiver power altogether.

The president is betting that won’t happen. Even if Congress disapproves, Obama will almost certainly respond with a veto, which could prove hard to override.

The bill’s backers are trying to keep lawmakers focused on how it would give Congress a say on a critical national security issue. They say the measure is not meant to be about how Iran increasingly is wielding influence in the Middle East, its support of terrorist groups or human rights violations.

Some senators are proposing amendments to pressure Iran to end its support of extremist groups, stop threatening to destroy Israel and recognize its right to exist, and release U.S. citizens held in Iran.

Such amendments could scuttle an eventual deal and be difficult for Democrats to support.

If there is a final deal with Iran, Obama can use his executive authority to ease some sanctions on his own and work with the European Union and the United Nations to lift others.

GOP Trying To Block Nuclear Deal (Eze 17)

 GOP: Stop Iran From Getting Nuclear Weapons

04/21/2015 6:00 am PST

Mark Truppner, MML Reporter 

 

In this week’s Republican address, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois spoke of the ongoing need to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Kirk was Tuesday’s KVML “Newsmaker of the Day”. Here are his words:

“Hello, I’m Senator Mark Kirk, I’m honored to represent the people of Illinois in the Senate.

I’m here today to talk about my work to ensure that the next generation of Americans never has to hear about a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf.

Iran is the world’s biggest state sponsor of terror.

Iran’s Aytatollah’s are now trying to build their own nuclear weapons.

Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to annihilate Jewish families across the state of Israel.

Four years ago I authored a bipartisan Iran sanctions Legislation that passed the Senate by a vote of 100-0.

These sanctions forced Iran back to the negotiating table.

They were so effective that they dropped the value of Iran’s currency by ¾.

This was probably the entire reason why the Iranians even showed up at the negotiations.

Lately, Iran has tried to backtrack on the promises they made to President Obama.

Iran now wants sanctions immediately lifted which would fund Iran’s terror subsidiaries with billions.

Secretary Kerry recently testified before the Senate and said it would only take two more months for Iran to build a bomb.

We must use strong economic pressure on Iran to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.
Stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is the greatest challenge to peace in our time.

After the Holocaust we promised ‘never again.’

We must keep terrorists from hurting our allies and our nation.

Thank you for listening and God Bless the United States of America.”

The “Newsmaker of the Day” is heard every weekday morning on AM 1450 KVML at 6:45, 7:45 and 8:45 AM.

Graham Is Correct: Iran Deal Won’t Happen (Eze 17)

Lindsey Graham: there’s a ‘snowball’s chance in hell’ for congressional OK of Iran nuke deal

BY Adam Edelman

A prominent Senate Republican said Sunday there’s not a “snowball’s chance in hell” that President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal would get congressional approval.

“It is so weak in a time we need to be strong,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a possible 2016 contender, said on Fox News Sunday of the draft agreement between the U.S., Iran and other world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program.

“I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell this framework will get approved by Congress after review,” he added. “I don’t think any Republican or Democrat is going to allow that to become final.”

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, on the other hand, maintained that he was “withholding judgment” on the draft agreement until he receives more information.

Asked about his position Sunday, Schumer said: “I’m in the process of being briefed. It’s a very difficult situation. It’s a situation that requires a lot of care and I’m withholding judgment until I learn both sides very carefully.

“There are a whole lot of things we don’t know yet. When do sanctions go into effect? How rigid is the inspections regime? What will be done on the military bases? So I think it’s premature to give an answer one way or the other right now,” he said.

International negotiators have been working to reach a deal that would prevent Iran from being able to develop nuclear weapons. In exchange, Tehran would get relief from economic sanctions that are crippling its economy.

Congress has pushed for weeks for the ability to approve any final deal reached with Iran and last week, President Obama assured lawmakers that he would sign a bill that would give legislators a chance to block an international agreement to rein in Iran’s nuclear program.

But, in another sign any final deal faces an uphill battle, a senior commander in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said Sunday that inspectors would be barred from military sites under any nuclear agreement with world powers — setting up a possible standoff.

Gen. Hossein Salami, the Guard’s deputy leader, told Iranian state television that allowing foreign inspection of military sites would be tantamount to “selling out,” raising the stakes as talks between Iran and the six-nation group are to resume April 22 in Vienna.

“We will respond with hot lead (bullets) to those who speak of it,” Salami said. “Iran will not become a paradise for spies. We will not roll out the red carpet for the enemy.”

In addition, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told military commanders Sunday that U.S. negotiators had created the “myth” of nuclear weapons to portray Iran as a threat, hardening his rhetoric before nuclear negotiations resume this week.

“They created the myth of nuclear weapons so they could say the Islamic Republic is a source of threat,” Khamenei, the highest authority in Iran, said in a televised address to a hall of several hundred military commanders. “The source of threat is America itself, with its unrestrained, destabilizing interventions.”

With News Wire Services

Chasm In Nuclear Deal Widens (Ezekiel 17)

Iran-U.S. differences over nuclear deal widen

Oren Dorell, USA TODAY

Two weeks after world powers and Iran announced a framework agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program, widening gaps between the two sides are emerging.

As negotiators prepare to start working on a final agreement in Vienna next Wednesday, the United States and Iran are at odds on key issues that form the basis of the deal unveiled April 2 in Switzerland.

Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is one of the facilities that would be covered by a comprehensive agreement Iran is negotiating with world powers. Negotiations restart next week.

They include when economic sanctions on Iran will be lifted, the number of machines Iran can keep to process uranium and length of the final agreement.

The six world powers — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — and Iran have set a deadline of June 30 for a comprehensive deal that would curb Iran’s nuclear program and ensure it is for peaceful uses, as Iran claims. In return, sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy would be lifted.

That will not be an easy task, given the sizable differences that must be resolved.

“There is a difficult path ahead of us towards the final deal,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in the northern Iranian city of Rasht, Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported Thursday. But there seems to be an international “will” to conclude a deal, he said.

Tuesday, The U.S. Senate agreed on a bipartisan bill that would give it the final say on any deal, adding a further complication to the negotiations. The White House said President Obama would sign that bill, which would require a two-thirds vote to kill a final agreement.

During a press conference on Friday, President Obama said he thought that Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., reached a “reasonable compromise.”

The president said he had two concerns. One was to make sure congressional actions did not derail chances for the best deal possible, and that Secretary of State John Kerry would not be “hobbled” by lawmakers’ actions. He said he believes the process will not be tripped up in this way, “so that checked off one box.”

The second concern arose from suggestions that a president as a rule of thumb must get approval from Congress to negotiate political agreements.

“That is not the case,” Obama said. “This is not a formal treaty being envisioned. And the President of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, traditionally has been able to enter into political agreements that are binding with other countries without congressional approval.”

The president said that if neither senator makes any additional provisions or amendments, he will sign it.

Many U.S. lawmakers are skeptical of negotiations with Iran because they don’t trust it to abide by the terms of any agreement it signs. Likewise, Iranian politicians in Tehran accuse the U.S. Congress of trying to sabotage an agreement and say Iran’s actions to satisfy a deal should be reversible if world powers fail to live up to their obligations.

Based on recent comments from U.S. and Iranian leaders, as well as fact sheets on the interim deal issued separately by the United States and Iran, glaring differences appear. The main ones:

•Sanctions: The fact sheet issued by Iran’s parliament Wednesday said that when the comprehensive deal begins, “all the U.S. and (European Union) sanctions will be terminated, and Iran will start fulfilling” its obligations under the deal. The White House said sanctions would be suspended in phases as Iran meets the terms of the deal and its actions are verified by United Nations inspectors.

•Centrifuges: Iran’s fact sheet said Iran should keep operating about 10,000 centrifuges used to process uranium fuel. The White House said the framework agreement calls for Iran to scale back to 5,060 operating centrifuges to make it more difficult to produce fuel for a nuclear bomb.

•Fordow: Iran’s fact sheet said a bunkered facility under a mountain in Fordow would continue uranium enrichment and research and development activities to prepare for more advanced machines in five years. The White House said Fordow would be converted to R&D that does not involve uranium enrichment.

•Inspections: The White House said U.N. inspectors would have access to “all of Iran’s nuclear facilities,” including undeclared sites. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei flatly rejected inspections of military sites.

•Duration: Iran’s parliament called for a five-year limit on the nation’s nuclear program. The White House said some aspects of the deal would last 10 years, and others would last 25 years.

Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a skeptic of an emerging deal, expressed worries that Obama will make new concessions to Iran to reach an agreement. “President Obama wants a deal and will back ‘creative negotiations,’ in his own words, to bridge remaining gaps on these issues,” he said.

Kelsey Davenport, director of non-proliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, which supports a deal with Iran, said the Iranian fact sheet was produced by a hard-line opposition in response to the planned U.S. Senate review of the agreement and does not reflect the position of Iran’s negotiators or Khamenei.

“These are tough decisions for the negotiators to make,” she said, “because each side needs to be sure they can sell a final agreement back home.”

GOP May Not Be Able To Block Iran Nuclear Deal (Ezekiel 17)

Senate’s Iran Nuclear Bill Misses the Point

By Michaela Dodge, Steven Groves and James Phillips

Two days ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) unanimously passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, a bill that attempts to bolster the congressional role in the Obama Administration’s negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. While the effort is well intentioned, the bill sets up Congress to allow the Administration to act as if it had congressional approval while a substantive oversight of the agreement is lacking. The bill paves a path to lifting sanctions and congressional approval of what has emerged as a flawed and dubious deal with a notoriously untrustworthy regime.

The bill allows the Obama Administration’s future agreement with the Iranian leaders to go forward unless it is disapproved by enactment of a new law. To halt a bad agreement then, Congress would need to pass a joint resolution disapproving the agreement, which the President could then veto, as a result of which it would not become law unless two-thirds of both Houses of Congress vote to override the veto. Thus, in essence, under the SFRC bill, the Obama agreement with Iran will automatically go forward unless two-thirds of Congress disapproves of it. In contrast, in the normal treaty process, a President cannot make a treaty unless two-thirds of the Senate votes to approve the treaty.

The President knows that he would not be able to achieve Senate ratification of a nuclear deal with Iran, which is why he is choosing to pursue a deal as a sole executive agreement and not as a treaty. The SFRC bill gives the Administration a vehicle to gain congressional sanction that it neither sought nor was able to obtain in the first place through the standard treaty process.

 The Administration’s Bad Deal

The Obama Administration’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action makes clear that the United States will be left with a risky deal that will not halt Iran’s nuclear weapons efforts, but only slow the pace of its advance temporarily, while allowing Iran to stage a nuclear breakout from a much-improved position after restrictions on uranium enrichment expire in 10 years to 15 years.

Iran is allowed to maintain more than 6,000 operational centrifuges for 10 years, after which it will be free to build a much bigger program that will greatly shorten the time it needs for a nuclear breakout. Despite six U.N. Security Council Resolutions that called for a halt in its enrichment efforts, the Administration has essentially accepted Iran’s self-proclaimed “right” to enrich uranium. Since the global market provides more than enough enriched-uranium fuel for civilian nuclear reactors at much lower prices than Iran can produce it, Iran’s claim that its enrichment efforts are due to necessity is suspicious at best.

Iran is not required to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure or clarify previous questions regarding military dimensions of its nuclear program. Particularly worrisome is the continued operations of its illicit nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz, as well as the heavy water reactor at Arak that has been described as a plutonium bomb factory. All of these facilities, which were built covertly by Iran in violation of its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments, would now be legitimized by the agreement.

The Administration undermined its own bargaining leverage by prematurely relaxing sanctions on Iran to reach the 2013 interim agreement. Once sanctions are lifted under this latest deal, they will be very hard to re-impose, given the U.N.’s history of coming in a day late and a dollar short in crisis situations. Other members of the U.N. Security Council, Russia in particular, cannot be counted on to fully cooperate on re-imposing sanctions in a timely and effective manner. Just this week, Moscow announced that it intends to sell its advanced S-300 air-defense system to Tehran, despite successive U.S. Administrations’ efforts to prevent the sale.

U.S. allies, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain have expressed alarm at the prospect for a deal that only temporarily slows down, and does not stop, Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. They fear that a nuclear deal will lead to a rapprochement between Iran and the United States that will come at their expense.

 Conclusion

The well-intentioned legislation has negative consequences because it diverts attention from what should be the goals of an acceptable nuclear agreement:

• A permanent halt in Iran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium production;
• A robust and long-term verification program with extensive real-time monitoring of all nuclear facilities; snap inspections on an “anytime, anywhere” basis; and full Iranian cooperation in interviewing scientists and other personnel involved in all aspects of the nuclear program;
• Iranian admission and detailed accounting for all past research and development of the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and full cooperation with the investigations of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which Tehran has stonewalled repeatedly;
• A gradual and phased lifting of sanctions linked to Iranian fulfillment of its obligations to retain leverage over Iran to ensure compliance;
• A clear and rapid process for re-imposing all sanctions if Iran is caught cheating; and
• The final outcome must strengthen long-term nuclear nonproliferation efforts, rather than encourage other nations to demand the same nonproliferation concessions as Iran.

The emerging nuclear deal with Iran is likely to lead nervous countries in the region to seek their own nuclear weapons, fueling a cascade of nuclear proliferation that will undermine U.S. security interests in the volatile Middle East and provide Iran with even more resources to fund its many terrorist activities around the world.

The SFRC bill gives the President an easier path to obtaining the very congressional imprimatur that he would probably be unable to obtain through the traditional treaty process. The bill has become a distraction. Congress and the Administration should be focusing on the serious flaws of the Iranian deal rather than on procedural and congressional prerogative issues.

—Michaela Dodge is Senior Policy Analyst for Defense and Strategic Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation. Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, of the Davis Institute. James Phillips is Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Allison Center.

GOP Delays Iran Deal Encouraging Nuclear Iran (Ezekiel 17)

 

 Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and PETER BAKER

APRIL 14, 2015

WASHINGTON — The White House relented on Tuesday and said President Obama would sign a compromise bill giving Congress a voice on the proposed nuclear accord with Iran as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in rare unanimous agreement, moved the legislation to the full Senate for a vote.

An unusual alliance of Republican opponents of the nuclear deal and some of Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters demanded a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. White House officials insisted they extracted crucial last-minute concessions. Republicans — and many Democrats — said the president simply got overrun.

“We’re involved here. We have to be involved here,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before the committee’s vote on Tuesday. “Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime.”

The essence of the legislation is that Congress will have a chance to vote on whatever deal emerges with Iran — if one is reached by June 30 — but in a way that would be extremely difficult for Mr. Obama to lose, allowing Secretary of State John Kerry to tell his Iranian counterpart that the risk that an agreement would be upended on Capitol Hill is limited.

As Congress considers any accord on a very short timetable, it would essentially be able to vote on an eventual end to sanctions, and then later take up the issue depending on whether Iran has met its own obligations. But if it rejected the agreement, Mr. Obama could veto that legislation — and it would take only 34 senators to sustain the veto, meaning that Mr. Obama could lose upward of a dozen Democratic senators and still prevail.

The bill would require that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it is completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions pending a 30-day congressional review, and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.

Why Mr. Obama gave in after fierce opposition was the last real dispute of what became a rout. Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said Mr. Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, but had decided that a new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made enough changes to make it acceptable.

“We’ve gone from a piece of legislation that the president would veto to a piece of legislation that’s undergone substantial revision such that it’s now in the form of a compromise that the president would be willing to sign,” Mr. Earnest said. “That would certainly be an improvement.”

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the committee’s chairman, had a far different interpretation. As late as 11:30 a.m., in a classified briefing at the Capitol, Mr. Kerry was urging senators to oppose the bill. The “change occurred when they saw how many senators were going to vote for this, and only when that occurred,” Mr. Corker said.

Mr. Cardin said that the “fundamental provisions” of the legislation had not changed.

But the compromise between him and Mr. Corker did shorten a review period of a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran’s ending support for terrorism.

The agreement almost certainly means Congress will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement.

The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation this month, and House Republican leaders have promised to pass it shortly after.

“Congress absolutely should have the opportunity to review this deal,” the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said Tuesday. “We shouldn’t just count on the administration, who appears to want a deal at any cost.”

White House officials blitzed Congress in the days after the framework of a nuclear deal was announced, making 130 phone calls to lawmakers, but quickly came to the conclusion that the legislation could not be blocked altogether.

Moreover, officials increasingly worried that an unresolved fight could torpedo the next phase of negotiations with Iran.

“Having this lingering uncertainty about whether we could deliver on our side of the deal was probably a deal killer,” said a senior administration official, who asked for anonymity to describe internal deliberations.

Under the compromise legislation, a 60-day review period of a final nuclear agreement in the original bill was in effect cut in half, to 30 days, starting with its submission to Congress. But tacked on to that review period potentially would be the maximum 12 days the president would have to decide whether to accept or veto a resolution of disapproval, should Congress take that vote.

The formal review period would also include a maximum of 10 days Congress would have to override the veto. For Republicans, that would mean the president could not lift sanctions for a maximum of 52 days after submitting a final accord to Congress, along with all classified material.

And if a final accord is not submitted to Congress by July 9, the review period will snap back to 60 days. That would prevent the administration from intentionally delaying the submission of the accord to the Capitol. Congress could not reopen the mechanics of a deal, and taking no action would be the equivalent of allowing it to move forward.

Mr. Corker also agreed to a significant change on the terrorism language.

Initially, the bill said the president had to certify every 90 days that Iran no longer was supporting terrorism against Americans. If he could not, economic sanctions would be reimposed.

Should the negotiations falter and yet another protracted war results the burden will once again shift to the Republican controlled Congress

Under the agreement, the president would still have to send periodic reports to Congress on Iran’s activities regarding ballistic missiles and terrorism, but those reports could not trigger another round of sanctions.

The measure still faces hurdles. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, fresh off the opening of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, dropped plans to push for an amendment to make any Iran deal dependent on the Islamic Republic’s recognition of the State of Israel, a diplomatic nonstarter.

“Not getting anything done plays right into the hands of the administration,” Mr. Rubio said.

Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, abandoned an amendment to make any Iran accord into a formal international treaty needing two-thirds of the Senate for its ratification, but he, too, said it could be revived before the full Senate.

Mr. Earnest said the president also wanted no more changes. “We’re asking for a commitment that people will pursue the process that’s contemplated in this bill,” he said.

Democrats had implored Mr. Obama to embrace the legislation.

“If the administration can’t persuade 34 senators of whatever party that this agreement is worth proceeding with, then it’s really a bad agreement,” Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said. “That’s the threshold.”

The Iran Deal: Just More Stall Tactics (Dan 8)

The Lausanne Iran nuclear “deal”: An exercise in spin and counter-spin

Iran’s counters US fact sheet on Lausanne deal

Hours after Washington published a “fact sheet” in Lausanne Thursday, April 2 – which enumerated “the parameters of the agreed framework” hammered out by the US world powers and Iran – Tehran countered with its own version the next day, after the lead Iranian negotiator Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, dismissed the American accounting as “spin.”

The Iranian version departs substantially from President Barack Obama’s assurance of “a deal that meets our core objections,” and statement,: “There is no way Iran can get around it to build a bomb or produce plutonium at its Arak plan…verification mechanisms built into the agreed framework will ensure that if Iran cheats, the world will know it.”

Tehran’s version had two objects: 1) To refute Obama’s presentation of the outcome of the Lausanne talks, and 2) To show the Iranian people how successful its negotiating team had been in defending its national interest.

debkafile reports that the battle of versions, fought just hours after both sides claimed victory in the diplomatic contest played out at Lausanne, makes it obvious that the gaps between the world powers and Iran are far wider than admitted. They could not even find a common definition of what if anything was achieved in the talks: “a framework deal” in US terms; or “a package of solutions leading up to a future Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action” – in Iranian parlance.

The gaps on such key issues as enrichment, sanctions, research and development, means of verifying compliance (described by Obama as intrusive”) could no longer be papered over after Tehran issued its version. It was a short document and here are its main points.

Iran’s version of the Lausanne deal Iran’s nuclear program including enrichment will continue.
None of Iran’s nuclear facilities or related activities will be stopped or shut down or suspended and activities will continue at Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan and Arak.

There is no confirmation of Obama’s claim that the Arak plant will not be allowed to produce plutonium. The Iranians say: The Arak heavy water research reactor will remain – enhanced and updated with re-modifications as a joint international project. In addition to decreasing the amount of plutonium production, the efficiency of the Arak reactor will be increased significantly.

After the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action, all the UN Security Council resolutions will be revoked, and all the multilateral economic and financial sanctions of the EU and the unilateral ones of the US (which are detailed) immediately removed.

After the preparatory phase and the start of Iran’s nuclear-related implementation work, all the sanctions will be automatically annulled on a single specified day. Furthermore, all P5-1 members are committed to restrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.

There is no word in the entire Iranian document on inspections of any kind, which counters the “verification mechanisms built into the agreed framework” referred to by President Obama.
Instead, the Iranian version says that violations “by any one party” will have “predetermined mechanisms of response.”

Sanctions were ruled out by the previous point.

The devil is in the equivocations

According to the US version, Iran’s preparatory work must include the de-tuning of Fordow and Arak, reducing the Natanz centrifuges down to 6,000, with 5,000 working, uranium stocks reduced from 10,000 kilos to 300 and the Additional Protocol activated.

Iran’s version:

Fordow will be converted into an advanced nuclear and physics center and keep more than 1,000 centrifuges – in line with the US perception except for the word “more.” But then Iran adds …and all relating infrastructure, out of which two centrifuge cascades will be in operation.

The Iranian version also agrees up to a point with the US assertion that 5,000 machines will continue enriching 3.67 percent grade uranium at Natanz. But this too is qualified: Additional machines will not be disabled but held ready to replace any that are damaged – contrary to the US version which places them under IAEA supervision or dismantled.

Iran will continue its research and development of advanced centrifuges and the initiation and completion phases of the process for IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges during the 10-year period of the Comprehensive Plan of Action.

It is claimed by Washington that the new deal binds Iran to stop developing or holding advanced centrifuges (that would speed up uranium enrichment many times over.)

Iran will implement the Additional Protocol on a voluntary and temporary basis for the sake of transparency and confidence-building.

A non-binding package

The Islamic Republic of Iran declares formally that the package contained in the solutions necessary to attaining the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action agreed with the P5+1 countries, China, Russia, France, the United States, England and Germany, “does not have legal binding” and will only provide a “conceptual guide for calibrating and assessing the Comprehensive Plan. On these grounds the drafting of this plan will begin in the near future.”

The Iranian document ends by saying: “It is far too early to tell if the compromises will survive the next final negotiating round, or review by Washington and Tehran. The timing of sanctions relief remains unresolved, for example, and already the two sides are describing it in different terms.”

Iran Enriches More Uranium As Talks Delayed

Iran’s leader supports nuclear talks extension

Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/AP

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke in a gathering of senior officials of Basij paramilitary force in Tehran, Iran, on Nov. 27.

By Thomas Erdbrink

New York Times Syndicate

November 27, 2014

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, expressed support Thursday for the extension of talks with Western powers on the country’s nuclear program.

“I do not disagree with the extension of the negotiations, as I have not disagreed with negotiations in the first place,” Khamenei said in a speech published on his personal website.

On Monday, hours before the deadline for the talks was to expire, negotiators in Vienna announced that the talks had been extended for another seven months.

Khamenei’s opinion is crucial because he will have the final say over any potential deal on Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes but the West suspects is a ruse to obscure a bomb-making effort.

His remarks are almost certain to mean that Iranian hard-liners opposed to the talks, who had stepped up their criticism in recent weeks, will have to moderate their stance, and assures that politicians will not question the extension.

Nonetheless, the Iranian leader attacked the United States, describing its polices as wavering and unclear.

“America is a chameleon, and every day makes new statements,” he said in comments that were to be delivered to an audience of paramilitary Basiji forces, according to his website, Khamenei.ir. “It also says different things in public and in private.”

Khamenei reiterated his support for the Iranian negotiators, who in the past he has called “children of the revolution.” “They have been firm, have not caved in and are seriously trying hard,” Khamenei said.

Khamenei said he was not worried about whether the negotiations would lead to a deal. “If there is no agreement, we will not lose,” Khamenei said.

While the Iranian economy has been battered by sanctions and, in recent months, a plunge in oil prices, he expressed confidence that Iran can withstand the pressures.

‘‘If the negotiations do not yield results, it is America that will be the loser, as they need these talks to solve their domestic problems,” he said.

The ayatollah also made reference to the riots this week in Ferguson, Mo. The unrest in response to a grand jury’s decision not to indict Darren Wilson, a white police officer, in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, shows “the gap between the American people and their administration.”

He also emphasized Iran’s view that it draws a distinction between the United States government and its people. “We do not have any issues with the U.S. nation or country,” he said. “In fact, our problem is with the U.S. government’s bullying and excessive demands.”

In particular, he was critical of U.S. support for Israel and issued a warning to leaders there. “They should know that whether a nuclear agreement is achieved or not,’’ he said, ‘‘Israel will be more insecure each day.”

US Vacuum To Be Filled By Iranian Horn (Daniel 8:3)

US delay on IS may have cemented Iran’s position in Iraq

Shiite Brothers

The Obama administration weakened its hand by delaying its response in Iraq

Irish Times

Iraq’s national security adviser Falah Fayadh was in Washington struggling to arrange delivery of US fighter jets to aid the country’s fight against a surging Sunni Arab insurgency when the shocking reports began flooding in.

Islamic State, then known as Isis or Isil, had swept through the country’s second- largest city, Mosul, and was hurtling toward Baghdad. It was June 10th.

Fayadh rushed back to the Iraqi capital as residents began making plans to flee Baghdad for the south of the country or go abroad. Bank officials feared runs on deposits.

Iraq’s Shia-led government pleaded with the US for help. But Washington’s reply was chilly. “They said they were studying the matter,” says Fayadh, “and hinted that they were not satisfied with the government.”

It would be two months before the US came to the aid of Baghdad by launching air strikes to support Iraqi forces defending the capital from Islamic State (IS) advances. Meanwhile, Washington’s arch-rival in the region, Iran, began sending weapons, ammunition, crucial intelligence and senior advisers within 48 hours of the Mosul crisis.

“From the first day, we sent a request to the Americans for training and weapons,” says Gen Qassem Atta, head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service. “The US excuse for not sending it [help] was to wait for the new government to be established. We had no choice . . . but to go to Iran. We had to defend ourselves.”

 Regional powers

Iran has for years had a powerful influence among the Shia and Kurdish political leaders that have dominated the country since the 2003 US-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime. But there have also been leaders in both communities who have always resisted Tehran’s attentions, or sought to balance them by cultivating partners such as Turkey or Jordan.

But in more than a dozen interviews, Iraqi and Iranian insiders say the Barack Obama administration’s decision – to wait and insist on the removal of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki before taking action – strengthened Iran’s position in Iraq. The US position, they argue, further enmeshed Iran in its neighbour’s vital affairs, deepened ties between the two countries’ security institutions and stifled attempts to wean the country from Tehran’s grasp.

Questions about the roles of Iran and the US – which announced the deployment of up to 1,500 extra troops last week – in Iraq come at a critical juncture in relations between Washington and Tehran. Officials from the two countries are struggling to forge a deal on the Iranian nuclear programme while coming to an understanding on their shared interest in fighting IS.

The US has dangled the option of more co-operation against the Islamist group in the event of a nuclear deal. But by giving Iran first crack at shaping Iraq’s security response to the IS threat, the Obama administration may have weakened its hand.

I

n the space of a few days Iran reformulated the ultimately failed Iraqi security infrastructure that took Washington nearly nine years and billions of dollars to build. Iran’s rapid response may greatly impact the future of Iraq and the nature of the war against IS, now encompassing Iraq, Syria and increasingly ensnaring Lebanon.

Critics argue this will favour Tehran and its allies by further cementing the role of Shia and pro-Iranian militias in the country’s security institutions.

“

The US didn’t move quickly enough to help Iraq while it [IS] was invading Mosul and left other countries to build up their influence,” says Nabeal Younes Mohamed, a political science professor and adviser to one of Iraq’s leading Sunni politicians. “Iran acted quickly to keep its influence.”

 US vacuum

US officials reject the idea that Iran filled a vacuum left by the US. A senior US official told reporters on Friday that Obama dispatched special forces to assess Iraqi security forces and surveillance drones within four days of the fall of Mosul and established joint operations centres in Baghdad and Erbil.

Separately Alistair Baskey, a spokesman for the National Security Council, says: “It is important not to overstate the extent to which Iran has influence on Iraq’s leaders.”

I

t may be too early to determine the ultimate ramifications of Iran’s role in the war against IS. But Baghdad’s dependence on Iranian firepower and personnel – including Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ elite Qods Force, Tehran’s overseas paramilitary unit – may limit future US policy leverage. It could also further complicate the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear programme and the situation in Syria, where the US is avoiding conflict with Bashar al-Assad’s Iranian-backed regime.

While Iran’s physical footprint in Iraq is likely to be similar to the hundreds or several thousand of advisers the US has authorised to deploy, its reactivation of Shia militias and its role in organising the so-called “popular surge” of volunteers gives Tehran a far more robust force on the ground.

One Iraqi official told Randa Slim, an analyst at the Middle East Institute who travels frequently to Baghdad, that Soleimani was “the commander of the Iraqi armed forces” during the first two weeks after the fall of Mosul. “During that time, while the US was hedging and wondering what to do, Soleimani rushed to the aid of Iraq,” she said.

Iran was initially taken aback by the scale and speed of the IS victory in Mosul, and several officials describe ongoing recriminations in Tehran about the failure of the country’s vast intelligence networks to predict its encroachment into northwest Iraq.

“Iran’s policies in the region are not attached to Soleimani but Iran now needs to cover up its failures,” says an Iranian reform-minded political analyst. “Soleimani carries out the policies which are set by [supreme leader] Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. ”

Iran welcomed the US overthrow of Saddam and the elevation of Shia and Kurdish allies in Iraq. But it has long worried about the threat of Sunni extremists on its borders, and fears IS could destabilise the country.

The phone calls to Baghdad and Erbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government, began on June 10th. “They said if you want, we are ready to help,” said Gen Atta, who is among senior Iraqi armed forces officers sceptical of Iran’s influence. “In the early days they even offered troops.”

White House deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken acknowledged in a recent speech that the Obama administration sought a new government in Baghdad before it began military operations against IS. Otherwise the US faced the prospect of being “perceived as the air force of Maliki, perpetuating his hold on power,” he says.

“The departure of Maliki was essential to winning broader support for the campaign. We could not expect Iraqi Kurds or Sunnis or the various neighbouring states to join forces to counter Isil [IS] with an Iraqi government pursuing a blatantly sectarian agenda.”

Despite misgivings about Maliki’s competence, Iranian officials dispatched Soleimani to Baghdad within two days of the crisis. He also paid an early visit to Masoud Barzani, president of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region and a vocal longtime sceptic of Iranian influence, who warmly thanked Tehran for its support.

“Barzani was always closer to the US and the West, but when the West abandoned him at the beginning of the crisis, of course he moved closer to Iran,” says Muthana Amin, a Kurdish member of parliament and member of the Kurdistan Islamic Union.

 Robust engagement

It was not until IS overran the city of Sinjar in August, killing and displacing thousands of minority Yazidis that US air strikes and a more robust engagement began.

Potentially, Soleimani’s most significant move was to help the Iraqi government mobilise Shia volunteers to defend the country and support its regular forces. In addition, Iran appears to have resurrected the Shia militias it had trained and which fought US forces after the toppling of Saddam.

“They sent advisers, people to guide, planners, trainers, training the trainers of the popular surge,” says Mowafak Rubayie, Iraq’s former national security adviser. “They helped in mobilising the Shia militias.”

Iranian commandos in battles in northern Iraq were careful to avoid clashes with the US, which would not only weaken Tehran’s position in Iraq but also in the nuclear talks. “There is a [war] field understanding between Iran and the US and that is because we must not hit each other by mistake when we are advancing in the field,” says Hossein Sheikholeslam, adviser to Iran’s parliament.

Iran’s most controversial proposal was to cede stretches of mostly Sunni Iraqi territory, such as western Anbar province, to IS, hardening the partition of the country into ethno-sectarian cantons as it had done in Syria. “Some in Iran and some of its friends [in Iraq] believed that this is a bit like Syria,” said the senior diplomat.

“The strategy is give up Anbar, keep control of what you have, strengthen it and regroup and fight back later.”

The strategy, which appears to be the Iraqi government’s game plan, has raised fears that it reflects Iran’s policy of focusing almost exclusively on the country’s Shia majority.

“Isis [IS] is going to have a long life and will not finish in one or two years because Sunni culture likes the group’s behaviour,” says Sheikholeslam. Many Iranians credit the regime with behaving more rationally in Iraq compared to Syria, where its insistence on keeping Assad in power has complicated its relations with its neighbours.

 Iran’s jeopardy

“In Iraq, Iran could not afford any adventurism because its own borders could be jeopardised,” said one Iranian analyst. Some argue the country’s losses in the region should not be underestimated.

“Iran was like a billionaire which has become a millionaire in Syria and in Iraq,” says one reform-minded political analyst in Tehran. “Iran cannot retreat from its support for Bashar [al-Assad] while its fight against Sunni extremists in Syria has expanded to Iraq and hence very close to Iran’s borders.”

Tehran’s early response to the IS incursion promises to shape Iraq’s national security framework for years. The Kurds’ once-promising attempt to wean themselves off the Islamic Republic’s influence by strengthening a partnership with Turkey appears in shambles.

The Shia militias had been mostly dormant since 2010 after Maliki launched a messy war to stamp out forces loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Sadr’s forces, now rebranded the Peace Brigades, and other Iranian-backed or trained Shia militias, have reassumed their robust role in Iraq’s public life.

The volunteer forces, which many Iraqi officials now want to incorporate into the security services, are potentially an even more fervent force propelling the type of Shia populism advocated by Iran’s leaders.

“I think in the long term Iran’s role is going to have a negative impact on the Iraqi people,” said Nabeal Younes. “We need help at this time, but it doesn’t mean we agree on such an influence.”

Haider al-Abadi, Iraq’s new prime minister, for years critical of Iran’s role in the country, has previously accused Tehran of turning Iraq into a battleground in its contest with the US. But hours after finally seating his government and attending a rare meeting with the influential Shia cleric Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Abadi headed to Tehran for one of his first foreign visits as premier.