Nuclear Deals: Same Song, Second Verse; A Political Opportunity? (Guest Post)

 
OK, Republican presidential candidate (whom I hope will be conservative rather than a RINO), here is a gift that just may get you elected.

Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, on April 2, announced in a White House Rose Garden ceremony, that an agreement with Iran concerning its nuclear capability had been reached. Of the deal, Obama said:

I’m convinced that if this framework leads to a final comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies and our world safer.

Safer? Obama admitted that Iran will end up with the bomb in the end. And Iran gets to keep all of its ballistic missiles. Iran has, despite ongoing talks designed to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, been constantly improving its ballistic missile capabilities.

The expanded range of Iran’s ballistic missile program as indicated by the satellite imagery makes clear that its nuclear weapons program is not merely a threat to Israel, or to Israel and Europe. It is a direct threat to the United States, as well.

Regarding verification, Obama said:

This deal is not based on trust. It’s based on unprecedented verification.

That issue has already fallen by the wayside. Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Mohammad Javad Zarif said that Iran would not allow online cameras into any of its nuclear sites.

The deal specifies that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency will have access to Iran’s centrifuges, supply chain, uranium mines, and any suspicious sites. But how this will all happen is still unclear. David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector, now president of the Institute for Science and International Security, says that the verification and inspection arrangements are critical. One of the critical things in any verification arrangements is that inspectors can go anywhere in Iran. It’s not clear that they could go to any military site in Iran.

Iran, in the past, has barred inspectors from entering nuclear sites. Yet Obama has said that inspectors will have “unprecedented access” to all sites.

Regarding war (confined if we’re lucky to the Middle East), Obama said:

When you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question – do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world’s major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?

Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, refers to America as “The Great Satan.” and says that America is its number 1 enemy. Iran now controls four Middle East capitals – Baghdad, Iraq, Damascus, Syria, Beirut, Lebanon, and Sanna, Yemen – and the list is growing. Iran is the primary sponsor of world-wide terrorism.

No war in the Middle East? Yeah, right! Obama appeases Iran as he dismantles our military. And a nuclear Iran will surely attack the U.S.

Thomas Sowell said it best when he characterized the deal as “The Iran ‘Agreement’ Charade.”

To say that Obama is naïve would be an understatement, but his naïveté is not original. Bubba Clinton did exactly the same thing twenty years ago.

This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. [the deal requires them to] freeze [their] existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities. [the agreement] does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Bubba Clinton said those word about North Korea on on October 18, 1994. He was announcing that his administration had reached agreement on a nuclear framework with North Korea.

North Korea, only twelve years later, exploded a nuclear bomb. Today, Pyongyang has 14-16 nuclear bombs, and could have as many as 100 nuclear weapons by 2020. Research from the US-Korea Institute warns North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs are developing rapidly. The capability was announced by David Albright. Yes, that’s the same man that was mentioned above.

Albright’s report says that North Korea has the capability to mount miniaturized warheads on both its short-range Nodong missile (which can cover South Korea and most of the Northeast Asian theater) and its Taepodong-2 missile, which has the potential to be used as an ICBM that can cover Japan and Alaska and Hawaii. And North Korea is winning the battle for acceptance as a nuclear state, as a number of regional countries (Russia, China, and the ASEAN states) seem content to conduct normal political and economic relations with North Korea.

It’s interesting to note that North Korea agreed to allow inspections of all seven of its declared nuclear facilities, but refused to allow an inspection team to inspect a plutonium reprocessing plant at Yongbyon. And that on June 13, 1994, North Korea announced its withdrawal from the IAEA. And that on October 21, 1994, the United States and North Korea conclude four months of negotiations by adopting an “Agreed Framework” in Geneva. To resolve U.S. concerns about Pyongyang’s plutonium-producing reactors and the Yongbyon reprocessing facility, the agreement called for North Korea to freeze and eventually eliminate its nuclear facilities, a process that required dismantling three nuclear reactors, two of which were still under construction. North Korea also agreed to allow 8,000 spent nuclear reactor fuel elements to be removed to a third country.

In 2002, CIA uncovered North Korea’s secret uranium enrichment program. Is this what we can expect from the Obama deal with Iran?

It seems that Bubba appeased North Korea in 1994. And Obama is currently appeasing Iran. OK, Republican presidential candidate. History is repeating itself, and the Democrat track record on nuclear arms deals ain’t so good. Point this out – loudly!

Cross-posted at Well Said, my very conservative web site.