Obama Prepares To Take The Fall (Eze 17)

Blame It On Obama: US President Wants To Be Held Responsible If Iran Poses Nuclear Threat In Future

By Sounak Mukhopadhyay
on May 21 2015 2:06 PM EDT

U.S. President Barack Obama dismissed media reports that Saudi Arabia would opt for nuclear power if Iran did so. He said that there was no indication that other Persian Gulf nations wanted to pursue their own nuclear programs.

Obama said that a probable reason behind Gulf nations not opting for nuclear power is that U.S. protection was a “far greater deterrent” than their own nuclear capacity. The U.S. president added that Saudi Arabia among other Gulf nations appeared satisfied. The Saudis seem convinced that a deal between the U.S. and Iran would prevent Iran from posing a nuclear threat to the region, he added.

Obama said that he had a personal interest in finalizing a nuclear agreement with Iran. “Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing,” Obama told the Atlantic. “ a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this.”

Obama also talked about the loss of Ramadi, Iraq, to fighters from the Islamic State group. He dismissed the notion that the U.S. military was losing against Islamic State group forces. He admitted, however, that the U.S.-led coalition had suffered a “tactical setback” in Ramadi.

The president said Ramadi had been vulnerable for a very long time. He blamed the situation there on a lack of U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces. He added that improvements in training were not happening fast enough in the Sunni parts of Iraq.

Obama said there was an important lesson to learn from U.S. involvement in Iraq. According to Obama, Iraqi people are either not capable or not willing to reach the “political accommodations” needed for governing the country. Obama added that Americans would not be able to fight for Iraq’s security if Iraqis were not willing to do it for themselves. The Atlantic interview conducted Tuesday was released Thursday.

Some U.S. officials have tried to portray that the defeat in Ramadi as not very important because the city has been partially held by the Islamic State group for the past 18 months. However, Financial Times reported that Ramadi had left “a hole” in the confidence of the United States. Amman, Jordan, publisher Kirk Sowell wondered what difference 300 U.S. trainers could make to a “hollow” Iraqi division.

 

Obama Can’t Stop Prophecy: The Iranian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8)

Obama’s Wrong: The Iran Nuclear Program Is Full-Steam Ahead


Contrary to the president’s State of the Union assurances, Iran has exploited loopholes to keep progress on its nuclear program very much un-halted.

By John Tabin
January 22, 2015

“Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran,” President Obama said in Tuesday’s State of the Union address, “where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.”

This was, in fact, false. For the last year, even as negotiations have continued, the Iranians have exploited loopholes in the interim agreement to keep progress on their nuclear program very much un-halted. Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium has expanded; the interim deal limits enrichment by purity—they can only get about 60 percent of the way to weapons-grade purity without violating the deal—but it doesn’t limit by volume. Construction has continued on the heavy water plant in Arak, which could function as a factory for plutonium bombs; the interim agreement only prohibits firing the reactor itself. And work continues on Iran’s ballistic missile program, which the interim agreement doesn’t even attempt to curb.

Sanctions on Iran Impending? Not Yet

But leave that aside. The president was merely indulging his habit of touting accomplishments that aren’t actually accomplishments. What he said a few sentences later was even more problematic:
But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails—alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress. The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom.

A casual listener might assume that Congress is considering sanctions that would kick in as soon as they’re passed. But that’s simply not the case: The bill advocated by Senators Mark Kirk and Robert Menendez triggers sanctions only if negotiators miss the June 30 deadline the administration set for securing an agreement.

The notion that the Iranians would be pushed to walk away from the negotiating table by the threat of sanctions that would bite if the Iranians walked away from the negotiating table is incoherent. So why is Obama so adamantly opposed to sanctions legislation that has fairly broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill?

There is an intelligible reason that Obama might oppose Kirk-Menendez, although it wouldn’t make for a good line in a speech: Obama may want to let talks drag on further, or to sign a deal with Iran that Congress wouldn’t like.

Kirk-Menendez establishes a series of criteria (significantly watered down from the version of the bill that former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid killed in the last Congress) that Iran must meet in a nuclear agreement to avoid sanctions. It makes sense to oppose Kirk-Menendez if the Obama administration wants to either extend the interim agreement again or sign a deal that wouldn’t necessarily check Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Or Perhaps Obama Fantasizes He Can Reset the Middle East

It may be, his protestations that he “keep[s] all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran” notwithstanding, that Obama sees diplomacy with Iran as inherently desirable not simply as a means toward nonproliferation but as a path toward a broader rapprochement with Tehran.

Punishing sanctions are what induced Iran to negotiate in the first place, and the threat that they’ll return is the best hope for a deal that might end the Iranian nuclear weapons program without war.

This would explain why Bashar al-Assad, Tehran’s proxy in Damascus, wasn’t mentioned in last night’s speech, and why U.S. planes operating in Syrian territory have left the dictator’s forces alone. And it would explain the letter President Obama sent to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei last year (at least the fourth such letter he’s sent) touting the shared interest Washington and Tehran have in fighting the Islamic State. Obama may imagine that he is the president who is going to break through the Islamic Republic’s anti-Americanism and realign the Middle East.

This is, of course, an insane fantasy (and to be fair, systematic thinking about where Obama’s instincts lead him may give him too much credit). The government in Yemen, Washington’s partner in fighting al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was just overrun by rebels backed by Iran. A closer Middle Eastern ally faces constant threats from Iranian proxies in the Levant—though unlike the Yemenis, the Israelis are pretty good about taking care of themselves.

And Tehran’s use of violence as an instrument of statecraft isn’t limited to the region; the Islamic Republic’s special brand of power-projection has extended to Europe and South America (where investigating Iranian terrorism can be dangerous), and has come close to touching the United States.

This regime isn’t ever going to fit comfortably into an international order that serves American interests. It certainly shouldn’t be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Punishing sanctions are what induced Iran to negotiate in the first place, and the threat that they’ll return is the best hope for a deal that might end the Iranian nuclear weapons program without war.

There’s a good chance that the House and Senate both have the votes to not only pass the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill but to override Obama’s veto. They should do so immediately.

John Tabin is a writer in Washington, DC. Follow him on Twitter.

Iran Cheated On Nuclear Deal: Should We Be Surprised?

Stephen Hayes: Iran cheated on the interim nuclear deal

By Jon Greenberg on Wednesday, December 31st, 2014 at 10:58 a.m.

International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and Iranian technicians stop a uranium enrichment process at the Natanz facility, Jan. 20, 2014 (AP)

As the pundits look ahead to 2015, they know that time is running out for the United States to reach a permanent deal with Iran over its nuclear program.

The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — along with Germany, have until mid March to come to terms on a deal with the Islamic republic. If all goes the way the United States hopes, a signed agreement will keep Iran out of the nuclear weapons club.

For now, the two sides are operating under an interim agreement, which rolls back Iran’s stock of enriched uranium and freezes the country’s capability to produce nuclear materials that could be used to make a nuclear bomb. In exchange, Iran can sell its oil more freely and gain access to millions of dollars in frozen assets.

On Fox News Sunday Dec. 28, 2014, Stephen Hayes of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine spoke skeptically about what lies ahead. Hayes believes a final deal is likely, but he doubts the Obama administration will drive a hard bargain.

“They want the deal for the sake of having the deal,” Hayes said. “We basically caught — we’ve caught Iran cheating on the interim deal and rather than saying, ‘Look, we’re done, you’ve proven that you’re not an effective partner, that we can’t trust you,’ they say, ‘We’ll give you more time because we’re going to get to a deal.’ ”

We decided to check whether Iran was caught cheating on the interim agreement.

Hayes told us he had two violations in mind. The one most tightly tied to Iran’s nuclear program had to do with Iran’s work with a new model of centrifuge. Centrifuges are key to enriching uranium and enriched uranium is key to making a bomb. The other violation had to do with Iran selling more oil than it is allowed.

In our research, we found a third possible violation involving Iran buying parts for its heavy water reactor in Arak.

What we discovered is that while Iran isn’t squeaky clean, no point is definitively in violation of the interim agreement. Importantly, the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported no violations with the Joint Plan of Action.

We’ll deal with each potential violation in turn.

Work with a new model of centrifuge

One of the pillars of the interim agreement, the Joint Plan of Action, was to freeze Iran’s centrifuge facilities. It could keep the tens of thousands of centrifuges it has and could repair any that were broken, but it couldn’t expand its capacity. As part of the agreement, Iran could continue some limited research and development work.

A problem emerged in November when the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that in the “R&D area,” Iran “has been intermittently feeding natural UF6 (uranium fluoride) into the IR-5 centrifuge.” Agency inspectors said that no enriched uranium emerged because the Iranians recombined everything back together at the end of the run.

This set off red flags because, until then, the Iranians had not fed uranium fluoride into that particular centrifuge.

“Iran was caught red-handed engaged in centrifuge activities,” Hayes said. “When confronted by the State Department, Iran stopped feeding the IR-5.”

Hayes relied on an assessment from the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based group that aims to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. In November, the institute initially said, “The feeding of the IR-5 centrifuge is an apparent violation of that commitment to freeze centrifuge R&D activities.”

Hayes told us that he took an “apparent violation” to be the equivalent of cheating.

But David Albright, the institute’s president, said that after a closer look, it wasn’t that cut and dried.
“It’s hard to say definitively one way or the other on the question of a clear violation,” Albright told PunditFact.

Albright and his group’s latest assessment is that the Joint Plan of Action didn’t specifically allow the Iranians to feed the uranium into the IR-5 centrifuge. But it’s not clear if that constitutes a violation.
Albright said that an administration official told him that the action was “inconsistent with the United States’ understanding of the Joint Plan of Action.” That could be a diplomatic way of saying there had been a violation, or it might mean that the original agreement was unclear, a lawyer told Albright.
What is clear: The Americans asked Iran to stop, and Iran did.

Adam Mount, a nuclear security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said as far as anyone can tell, the interim agreement has achieved what it set out to do.

“There is no publicly available evidence that Iran has violated the terms of the Joint Plan of Action,” Mount said. “Progress on the Iranian nuclear program is frozen and in some of the most important areas, it has been rolled back.”

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a group that hopes to see a final nuclear agreement with Iran, said it would have been better if Iran hadn’t fed the uranium into the IR-5 centrifuge.

“Was it useful or helpful?” Kimball asked. “No. Was it specifically prohibited by the Joint Plan of Action? Also no. There is a big difference between the Iranians have been caught cheating, and a dispute about the one centrifuge.”

In sum, the weight of the evidence says that it would have been better if Iran had not fired up that IR-5 centrifuge, but doing so didn’t rise to the level of violating the interim agreement.

Iran sold too much oil
Hayes’ second contention is that Iran sold more oil than allowed as part of the interim agreement.
“Iran violated the terms of the Joint Plan of Action by exporting more crude than the agreement allowed, specifically to China, India, Japan and South Korea,” Hayes told us. For evidence, Hayes pointed us to a Reuters article that reported that in the first nine months of 2014, sales to those countries had risen nearly 20 percent from the year before, to about 1.14 million barrels per day.
But again, things aren’t so cut and dried.

The Joint Plan of Action says that the five Security Council countries and Germany would stop trying to reduce the amount of oil that Iran could sell. It also says that countries can continue to buy “their current average amounts of crude oil.”

There are no specific caps, however, and no clear explanation of what would constitute a violation.
We spoke to Mark Dubowitz, who is executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a group that monitors enforcement of sanctions against Iran. Dubowitz said he believes both Iran and the countries that bought its oil skirted the deal. But ultimately, Dubowitz said we can’t know for sure whether Iran’s oil sales violate the terms of the agreement because we lack access to a critical piece. Behind the public summary of the Joint Plan of Action is a much more detailed implementation agreement. Only people with a certain level of security clearance can see it.
“We don’t know what that says,” Dubowitz said. “Iran’s sales might be a violation. Or they might not.”
Also, several of the countries that are buying Iran’s oil, such as India, Japan and South Korea, didn’t sign the interim agreement and thus wouldn’t be bound by it. And lastly, while the United States has set limits on the amount of oil Iran can sell, those are not written into the Joint Plan of Action.
Buying parts for a heavy water reactor

Some analysts we reached thought Hayes might have been thinking of another potential problem with Iran. According to some reports, it has continued to buy parts that could be used in its heavy water reactor, which is another means to produce fuel for a nuclear bomb.
However, even if those reports are accurate, the activity falls outside the interim agreement.
Matthew Kroenig is a professor of international relations at Georgetown University. Kroenig would not call these purchases a violation of the Joint Plan of Action. On the other hand, Kroenig said that shouldn’t make anyone feel any better.

“It is in violation of U.N. sanctions prohibiting Iranian procurement of sensitive nuclear technology,” Kroenig said. “It also might reveal something about how sincere Iran is about shutting down or converting the reactor as part of a final deal.”

Our ruling

Hayes said Iran had been caught cheating on the interim deal to rein in Iran’s nuclear program, called the Joint Plan of Action.

First, the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported no violations with the Joint Plan of Action. That said, there are some actions by Iran that certainly cut near the boundaries of the terms of the agreement.

Iran has worked with a new kind of centrifuge that, while perhaps not a formal violation, does seem to contradict the United States’ understanding of the deal, an expert told us. When confronted on the matter, Iran stopped its work.

Also, there is some question about the amount of oil Iran is exporting. But an expert said we just don’t have enough information to determine whether that constitutes a violation of the agreement or not.

Hayes said we caught Iran cheating. You can say some allege that, and you can say there’s some
evidence that might suggest that. But we found no hand in the cookie jar. As such, we rate this claim Mostly False.