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.

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)

The Irany Of The Nuclear Framework (Daniel 8:3)

The Folly of Applying Cold-War Lessons to Nuclear Talks with Iran

April 24, 2015

Pursuing a changed relationship with the United States, Mikhail Gorbachev eventually made the major concession of allowing inspectors into Soviet nuclear facilities. Iran, Michael Mandelbaum writes, is quite a different case:

As the result of Gorbachev’s policies, the Soviet-American rivalry was ebbing. Because the Soviet government sought better relations with the United States, it cooperated with the inspectors. The Iranian government cannot be counted on to adopt a similar attitude: while it is seeking relief from internationally-imposed economic sanctions, unlike Gorbachev it does not want to improve its relationship to the United States. Unlike Gorbachev, it shows no sign of reconsidering, let alone discontinuing, the policies that have put it at odds with America.

During the cold war, American arms-control policy was linked to Soviet foreign policy. When that policy waxed aggressive, it became politically impossible to gain the necessary political support in the United States for an arms-control accord. . . . The Obama approach to the Iranian nuclear program has had, if anything, the opposite effect. As the negotiations have proceeded, the Iranian regime has expanded rather than pulled back from the initiatives that threaten the security of countries aligned with the United States. . . . Iran also continues to proclaim its intention to destroy Israel, a project that an Iranian nuclear arsenal would make horrifically feasible. By the terms of the agreement that have been revealed thus far, Iran will get relief from economic sanctions without having to modify any of these policies. . . .

Even if the talks do produce an accord that all parties sign, with the resulting removal of economic sanctions and with the theoretical option to re-impose them being almost certainly unworkable in practice, the mullahs will have no incentive other than the threat of bombardment to exercise nuclear restraint. . . . Asserting [as many do] that the United States should not stop the Iranian program by force because that will only buy time is like saying that medical care is pointless because everyone ultimately dies.

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.”

What The Iran Framework Really Means (Eze 17)

The Iran nuclear deal, translated into plain English

Updated by Max Fisher on April 2, 2015, 3:41 p.m. ET @Max_Fisher max@vox.com
International negotiators assembled in Switzerland have announced the broad terms of the Iranian nuclear deal. Here they are, based on what we know, translated into plain English.

Important : the deal is not yet finalized, and it is not particularly detailed. Thursday’s announcement is only for the basic framework. Negotiators will continue to meet over the coming months to develop a complete, detailed agreement based on these terms. The deadline is June 30, but negotiations could collapse before then. However, this is a major step toward reaching a full agreement and thus potentially ending the world’s yearslong standoff with Iran over its nuclear program.

What follows is each of the items mentioned in the deal, along with a simple translation into plain English and a brief description of why it matters:

Centrifuges

Term: Iran will be allowed about 6,000 centrifuges: 5,000 at its Natanz facility and 1,000 at Fordow. It can only use first-generation IR-1 centrifuges, and has to give up other models.

Plain English: Centrifuges are pieces of equipment you use to enrich uranium, a natural ore, into nuclear fuel. If you enrich uranium long enough in centrifuges, it can be used to make a nuclear bomb. Iran currently has about 20,000 centrifuges, so it will have to give most of them up. It will also be allowed to use only its very old, first-generation centrifuges.

Why it matters: This means Iran will have a much smaller nuclear program, in terms of its ability to create nuclear fuel or, potentially, nuclear material for a bomb. It will also be restricted to its oldest, slowest, least capable centrifuges. The US had earlier hinted it might allow 6,500 centrifuges, so this is a favorable outcome for the US.

Uranium enrichment

Term: Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium to only to 3.67 percent.

Plain English: Iran will be allowed to turn raw uranium into the kind of fuel that can be used for a nuclear power plant. But nothing more.

Why it matters: Iran can have nuclear fuel, and it can make nuclear fuel, but it has to stop way, way short of making or having anything that could be used for a nuclear bomb (about 90 percent enriched).

Stockpile

Term: Iran will be required to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium from 10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms.

Plain English: Iran has to give up a stunning 97 percent of its nuclear stockpile.

Why it matters: This is very favorable for the US, but it punts on a really important question: how will Iran get rid of this stockpile? The US and Iran had disagreed sharply over how to do it. It looks like they still haven’t found an answer.

Sanctions relief

Term: The US and European Union will suspend sanctions after IAEA inspectors confirm that Iran has completed its requirements under the deal. United Nations Security Council sanctions will be lifted once Iran completes all actions addressing nuclear concerns. US sanctions related to non-nuclear matters, such as Iran’s state-sponsored terrorism, will remain in place. Sanctions will snap back on Iranian violation.

Plain English: The US, Europe, and UN Security Council will remove their sanctions after Iran fulfills its end of the deal. But it is still very unclear how exactly that gets determined, when that happens, or whether it means the sanctions are lifted all at once, or over time. If Iran breaks its end, the sanctions will all come back (in theory).

Why it matters: Sanctions relief was a huge fight: Iran wanted all the sanctions off right away, the US and others wanted to remove them gradually. Some are reading this as Iran getting its demand, but it’s just not clear at this point. It is true that once European or United Nations sanctions come off, it will be difficult to re-impose them — even if Iran does cheat.

Nuclear facilities


Term: Iran will be allowed to use its nuclear facility at Natanz for enrichment. It can also use its facility at Fordow for research as a nuclear physics lab, but no fissile material will be allowed there.

Plain English: Iran will be allowed to keep using its once-secret “hardened facilities” — big structures with heavy blast walls to protect from attack — at sites known as Natanz and Fordow. Iran can keep using the one at Natanz to make nuclear fuel. It can keep using the facility at Fordow for what sounds like fairly limited nuclear research.

Why it matters: Iran really wanted to keep access to these facilities, partly as a matter of national pride. International inspectors will have access, so they won’t really function as covert nuclear facilities anymore. And the stuff Iran gets to do with them is pretty limited.

Plutonium plant at Arak

Term: Iran will be required to rebuild its plutonium plant at Arak such that it will only make energy-grade plutonium, and will ship out its spent plutonium. It is barred from heavy-water reactor use.

Plain English: Iran had built a facility at Arak for making and storing potentially weapons-grade plutonium. Now, it will repurpose the facility to only make nuclear fuel.

Why it matters: You can make a nuclear bomb with one of two fuels: uranium or plutonium. Theother parts of the deal limit and restrict what Iran can do with uranium. This part of the deal removes weapons-grade plutonium from the equation and only allows fuel-grade plutonium for powering a power plant.

Inspections

Term: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors will have access to Iran’s nuclear sites, the uranium mines and mills, centrifuge plants, and supply chains. It will monitor dual-use technologies. It can access “suspicious sites.”

Plain English: Inspectors will be regularly checking out all of the known places that Iran would use for any kind of nuclear work, and even many things related to nuclear work. It can also investigate anything suspicious that pops up.

Why it matters: Inspectors, by gaining access to not just the core nuclear sites but also secondary things like uranium mills and centrifuge plants, will be in a really good position to make sure Iran isn’t cheating on a deal or trying to build another secret facility somewhere. If Iran does try to cheat, the world will be much more likely to know.