How bad is this deal?

By 46 Comments 3,469 views

running rings

 

Worse than you thought. A lot worse. Let’s highlight the lows.

1. No anywhere, anytime inspections? But you promised!

Ben Rhodes, way back in what- April 6?

Rhodes also claimed the new arrangements ensure “anytime, anywhere” inspections of any and every Iranian facility — contradicting complaints by Israel that no such provision is guaranteed.

Asked directly if the IAEA would have anytime, anywhere access, Rhodes said, “Yes, if we see something that we want to inspect.”

“In the first place we will have anytime, anywhere access the nuclear facilities,” he said, referring to “the whole supply chain.”

Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz:

Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz on Iran nuke inspections: “We expect to have anywhere, anytime access.” -April 20 ’15

Now? Erin Burnett, July 14:

“‘We never sought anytime/anywhere inspections,’ President Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes tells me.”

(Ibid)

2. The anywhere anytime inspections will require 24 days notice and are only allowed on “declared sites.”

3. As we have noted here already, Obama and Kerry apparently allowed Iran to keep the American hostages as part of the deal. At least Obama got a traitor last time.

4. Those “snap back” provisions are a joke:

The much-touted “snapback” provision in the Iran nuclear deal that will restore sanctions in the event of Iranian noncompliance involves a convoluted process that will last around 65 days and, after jumping a series of hurdles, may result in sanctions being reimposed – “unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise.”

That phrase in the final agreement text – “unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise” – is not explained or qualified in any way, raising the possibility that, despite assertions to the contrary, Iran’s longstanding ally and trading partner Russia, or indeed China, could ultimately block the move.

Furthermore, another as-yet little discussed element of the final Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the fact that, even were sanctions reinstated, they would not retroactively affect business contracts that Iran has already signed by that point, unless those contracts are themselves in violation of the JCPOA or Security Council resolutions.

5. And to top it off? No Americans will be allowed on the inspection teams. The conversation between Wolf Blitzer and Susan Rice:

Blitzer: “No Americans- I want to be precise on this. Sorry for interrupting. No Americans will on the ground in Iran inspecting?”

Rice: “No Americans will be of the IAEA inspection teams.”

That’s perfect. Can’t wait for the fine print.

Then again, what could one expect from a President who traded five high value prisoners for one deserter? And Ben Rhodes is a flaming liar.

Let’s see- Iranians gave up essentially nothing. Now they will have the money to buy uranium from Russia which owns 20% of the US uranium stocks thanks to Hillary.

They wanted a deal really bad. That’s exactly what we got. Obama’s proud as a peacock about it.

 

Can it get any better?

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

46 Responses to “How bad is this deal?”

  1. 1

    Nanny G

    The Saudis just announced that they HAVE a nuclear weapon.
    Not that they are going to get one.
    They already have one.
    So, the arms race is on.
    There’s a political cartoon that takes off on the last scene of Planet of the Apes (1st one).
    He’s on the beach with his woman and that horse when they see the remains of the Statue of Liberty.
    He says, (in effect) that happened because someone allowed Muslims in Iran to get the bomb.

  2. 3

    Greg

    How much worse is the alternative, which is no deal at all? No deal at all will have consequences that could be a lot more serious than inspection teams without an American on them and a requirement that Iran be notified 24 hours days in advance of a surprise inspection. I think this is a case where getting something is far better than getting nothing. Some of that “something” is actually very significant.

    Here’s a link to the full text of the agreement, as of July 14, 2015.

  3. 5

    another vet

    Iran sticking to their end of the bargain and upholding it through inspections should be relatively easy. Just look at Iraq. The UN said Saddam got rid of all of his WMD because they didn’t find any. Ditto for the Iraqi Survey Group after the invasion. Both just happened to miss the 5,000 plus that the troops found. Oversights on their parts no doubt.

  4. 6

    Pete

    @Greg:

    It is 24 DAYS advanced notice, Greg, not hours. And only on “declared” nuclear sites, not on the ones the lying, terrorist supporting Iranians run as undeclared nuclear sites.

    Not having this agreement would have left the sanctions in place. Now, even if we do find proof that the Iranians are breaking the ridiculously stupid agreement, sanctions cannot be resumed…mediation must occur first.

    No agreement would be FAR better than this traitorous, PC, pro-terrorist piece of paper.

  5. 7

    Greg

    @Pete, #6:

    Twenty-four days. I stand corrected.

    No agreement would be FAR better than this traitorous, PC, pro-terrorist piece of paper.

    How is no agreement better? Sanctions don’t seem to have had much effect Iran’s nuclear program. There’s no reason to think they suddenly will. So what is the alternate approach that accomplishes more? Baring the option of airstrikes leading straight to war, to me it looks like a choice between delaying their program for as long as possible or not delaying it at all.

  6. 8

    James Raider

    author

    @Pete: #6

    Not having this agreement would have left the sanctions in place.

    Unfortunately, Obama has quietly lifted the sanctions for some time and with his trending, would have them removed altogether within a year.

    Question: Who, behind Obama, does this advantage? For example, Is Goldman shorting oil big time? . . . etc.

  7. 9

    Larry Weisenthal

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/16/us-iran-nuclear-rice-exclusive-idUSKCN0PP2V920150716

    It’s consistent with the statements in April that, if there is reason to suspect a violation, inspections will be immediate.

    The alternative is to elect a conservative who like Ronald Reagan, who not only did nothing to curtail Iran’s march to Middle Eastern hegemony, but sold them weapons to assist in that march. Or another like George W. Bush, who single handedly made Iran the greatest power in the region, by eliminating Iran’s greatest enemy, turning over governance of Iraq to Iran’s allies, and utterly destroying the credibility of any future US military invasion of Iran as a threat to Iran.

    Iran was months away from breakout nuclear capability two years ago. The negotiations froze them in their tracks and now they are going to have to get rid of 97% of their enriched uranium and their nuclear ambitions will be frozen for 10 years. This gives the USA ten years to rebuild its military credibility in the region.

    US citizens are war weary and won’t support another major land war, which is the only alternative to a negotiated deal (and a bad alternative, at that). Maybe in 10 years, we’ll have recovered. And just maybe, Iran, with a well educated citizenry and the makings of a 21st century economy, will look at Vietnam and North Korea and decide that its better to be a peaceful capitalist dictatorship than a war-seeking, impoverished dictatorship.

    I logged onto this website because I wanted to make a statement to the effect that I’m sick and tired of global Islamic terrorism (now hitting Tennessee, of all places). There’s no military solution to this. We need to stop worrying about imaginary government privacy threats to our emails and mobile phones; we need to stop being an interventionist military presence everywhere in greater Islamistan; we need better port security; rebuilding of our domestic infrastructure (last weekend I drove over an Ohio River bridge between Louisville KY and New Albany IN on I-71 which must have been built in the 19th century and which looked in danger of rust through and collapse at any moment and our natural gas lines are time bombs ready to go off at any time and so on).

    Good grief; we win WWII and this convinces us that every problem in the world can be solved by General Patton.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  8. 10

    Pete

    @Greg:

    This capitulation in no way delays the Iranian effort to build an atomic bomb, and the lifting of the sanctions – which are extremely difficult to restart with the mediation requirement in the agreement – makes it easier for the Iranians to gain nuclear weapons. The left has learned NOTHING from a similarly worthless agreement given to North Korea, put into place by another democrat.

  9. 11

    Pete

    @Larry Weisenthal:

    The deal gives the illusion that Iran will not develop a bomb within the so-called freeze period. And as far as the requirement that Iran give up 97% of its nuclear elements, how will that be verified? The worthless words of Iranians? “Here is 97% of our uranium…HONEST!”

    The belief that the US military will be rebuilt in 10 years ignores the effect of the national debt over that time period, and the never ending leftist desire to cut military spending in favor of useless entitlement waste. It also ignores the unfortunately successful efforts Obama has made to change the warrior culture of the military into that of a bunch of camo wearing PC daycare workers.

  10. 12

    retire05

    @Larry Weisenthal:

    I logged onto this website because I wanted to make a statement to the effect that I’m sick and tired of global Islamic terrorism (now hitting Tennessee, of all places). There’s no military solution to this.

    So what is your solution? Just let the entire Middle East load up on nuclear weapons because that damn sure is in the future. Just trust the Iranians that have been trying to war against the U.S. since Jimmy Carter? And while you blame two Republican presidents for the failure of Obama to negotiate a real deal with Iran, you ignore the Peanut Farmer who started this whole mess when he refused to back the Shah.

    Never mind that you voted for a man that can’t even say the words “Islamic terrorism.” No, no, not terrorism; workplace violence.

    we need better port security; rebuilding of our domestic infrastructure (last weekend I drove over an Ohio River bridge between Louisville KY and New Albany IN on I-71 which must have been built in the 19th century and which looked in danger of rust through and collapse at any moment and our natural gas lines are time bombs ready to go off at any time and so on).

    Then take your pick, hotshot. Either we cut all the welfare programs that you progressives have such a love affair with, and we build new infrastructure, or we do with what we have and continue generational welfare. The taxpayers of the nation can’t afford both.

  11. 13

    Greg

    @retire05, #12:

    So what is your solution? Just let the entire Middle East load up on nuclear weapons because that damn sure is in the future. Just trust the Iranians that have been trying to war against the U.S. since Jimmy Carter?

    So what do republicans propose to do to prevent that? This is the same question I keep asking, but get no response to. What is their better alternative to the agreement that they want to kill, and what do they expect it will accomplish?

    Reuters presents an analysis of the inspection provisions of the current agreement that sound like anything but capitulation. The republican alternative? It’s hard to compare the negotiated agreement with something that doesn’t appear to exist. Are we supposed to not notice?

  12. 15

    Bill

    @Greg:

    So what do republicans propose to do to prevent that? This is the same question I keep asking, but get no response to.

    Yeah, I responded on one of the other discussions but you can’t face the truth of it.

  13. 17

    Aqua

    @Greg:

    So what do republicans propose to do to prevent that?

    Well, sanctions got them to the table. But the sanctions were pretty weak. Waivers were given away with little or no problem.
    Increase them, enhance them, do away with the waivers. And any country that does business with Iran should know there will be a penalty in the way they do business with us.
    One of the problems I see is there are no “snap-back” sanctions. It all has to go through arbitration. Not very “snap-backy” if you ask me. If Iran violates part of the deal, the sanctions should be swift, severe, and unilateral. As it stands now, the final decision on the “snap-back” sanctions will rest with the UN Security Council. I think we all know Russia and / or China will have no qualms about vetoing any such “snap-back.”

  14. 18

    john

    all the European countries like the deal China and Russia which is right next door to Iran like the deal
    Who doesn’t well the government of Israel and the Sunnis
    Well let’s see who are the Sunnis they are the most fanatical of all muslims ISIS doesn’t like the deal Al Qaeda doesn’t like the deal

  15. 20

    Bill

    @john:

    all the European countries like the deal China and Russia which is right next door to Iran like the deal

    Hmmm… France didn’t like it. They thought we were being pu$$ies and getting played. The FRENCH!!!

    Gee, what do China and Russia like more than communism; THAT’S IT!!! Turmoil that keeps the US embroiled in disputes and distracted while they conquer territory!!

    Also, remember the UN resolutions to force Hussein to comply with inspections? Remember who opposed that? Russia. China. Germany. France. What if they had been unified with us; could war have been avoided? WHY were they supporting Iraq? THAT’S RIGHT!!! They did a brisk business with Iraq and the leadership of the UN was getting rich off of Oil For Food bribes!!

    Note, john: the rest of the world does not always look out for the best interests of the US or Israel. Care to list how many of those nations have anti-Semitic histories, not to mention presents?

    Yeah, john…. good points. Sheesh.

  16. 21

    Larry Weisenthal

    Current take on the situation, from the moderate Israeli point of view:

    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.666581/.premium-1.666581

    Quote: >>In the fierce transcontinental contest over who depicts the Iran nuclear deal in more cataclysmic terms, the Republican Party seems to be winning. True, Israel had some formidable contenders, including Miri Regev’s “Iran got a license to kill,” Naftali Bennett’s “one of the darkest days in world history” and of course Benjamin Netanyahu on Iran’s wish to “take over the world.” But these ominous warnings are no match for Lindsey Graham’s “death sentence for Israel,” Dick Cheney’s “nukes just got closer” and Glenn Beck’s prediction that the deal would cause another Holocaust “perhaps bigger than the last.” Munich, it seems, was child’s play. <<

  17. 22

    Greg

    @Bill, #15:

    I seem to have missed it. I assume you know how to share a link to the post. You right-click on the post number in question, and then paste the copied link address into your comment.

  18. 23

    Greg

    @Aqua, #17:

    Well, sanctions got them to the table. But the sanctions were pretty weak. Waivers were given away with little or no problem.

    Sanctions did finally get them to the table, but didn’t seem to do much to roll back or slow their uranium enrichment program. The centrifuges have probably been running while the talking continues. The current agreement would include a reduction in enriched uranium stockpiles, which should be measurable by monitoring what is transferred outside the country.

    I read somewhere that it’s uncertain if the Fordo enrichment site would be vulnerable to bombing. We may have to send Frodo to toss a ring into their reactor.

  19. 24

    Tom

    @Aqua:

    One of the problems I see is there are no “snap-back” sanctions. It all has to go through arbitration. Not very “snap-backy” if you ask me. If Iran violates part of the deal, the sanctions should be swift, severe, and unilateral. As it stands now, the final decision on the “snap-back” sanctions will rest with the UN Security Council. I think we all know Russia and / or China will have no qualms about vetoing any such “snap-back.”

    You actually have it backwards.
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/middleeast/snapback-is-easy-way-to-reimpose-iran-penalties.html?referrer=

    Instead, the snapback mechanism allows any of the six world powers that negotiated the deal to flag what it considers a violation. They would submit their concerns to a dispute resolution panel. If those concerns remained unresolved, the sanctions would automatically resume after 30 days, or “snap back.”

    According to the draft Security Council resolution, this means that the previous penalties “shall apply in the same manner as they applied before.”
    Preventing a resumption of sanctions would require a vote by the Security Council. That in turn can be vetoed by those who would want the sanctions resumed, presumably the United States and its Western allies.

    The snapback provision allows the United States, as one of Iran’s toughest critics on the Council, to use the veto power to its advantage. “It’s reversing the power of the veto,” one Council diplomat said. “The ones that will likely veto are the ones likely to push for the snapback.”

  20. 25

    john

    ISIS and Al Qaeda don’t like the deal Neither do ANY of the most radical islamists in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. The radical Sunnis are the ones who kill most Americans

  21. 31

    Bill

    @Greg: Yeah, you didn’t waste your time reading it the first time, either. Neither did you waste you time thinking about if a community organizer, professional campaigner, left wing instigator, friend of domestic terrorists would make a suitable President.

    Perhaps you SHOULD pay attention.

  22. 32

    Greg

    @Bill, #31:

    If there were such a post, you would provide the link to prove your point. Just as republicans would provide evidence supporting their countless allegations of Obama administration wrongdoing, if any existed.

  23. 34

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    like a choice between delaying their program for as long as possible or not delaying it at all.

    So we chose to just surrender, remove sanctions, no inspections, no compliance requirements, no limits on length of mediations. In other words, Obama accomplished exactly what he intended to, complete surrender on the issue. He’s a disgrace.

  24. 35

    Redteam

    @john:

    oh and the good DrJ he doesn’t like the deal

    The deal? THE DEAL? What ‘deal’ are we talking? There was no ‘deal’ there was only an unconditional surrender on the part of the US.

  25. 36

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    I’d rather not waste my time looking for a post that doesn’t exist.

    It does exist, I just went and re-read it and it is just as Bill says.

  26. 37

    Bill

    @Redteam: I’m sick of repeating post, reposting links, explaining the simple, obvious point over and over and over for a liberal that just wants to ignore facts and live in their own reality.

  27. 38

    Aqua

    @Tom:

    You actually have it backwards.

    You’re right. I guess I was looking at the last phrase in that part of the deal that reads:

    unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise

    I haven’t heard that part addressed yet and there doesn’t appear to be any further explanation. Also, the snap-back sanctions would not be retroactive and would not affect any contracts signed prior to the snap-back.
    That could probably be fixed without having to block the deal. I don’t believe Iran will honor the deal, but there is really no way of knowing that unless there is a deal to honor.

  28. 39

    Aqua

    @Greg:

    I read somewhere that it’s uncertain if the Fordo enrichment site would be vulnerable to bombing. We may have to send Frodo to toss a ring into their reactor.

    Operation Frodo. It does have a certain ring to it. I’ve heard rumors, and that’s all they are, that we may have a new generation of bunker buster.

  29. 41

    Redteam

    @Aqua: .

    I don’t believe Iran will honor the deal, but there is really no way of knowing that unless there is a deal to honor.

    No way of knowing? Past performance is the best indicator and Iran has NEVER lived up to any deal. Why would they start now when there is every incentive to NOT abide by it. The more they violate the ‘non-agreement’ the more they profit. Obama gave away the store and the key to it.

  30. 42

    Tom

    @Aqua:

    That could probably be fixed without having to block the deal. I don’t believe Iran will honor the deal, but there is really no way of knowing that unless there is a deal to honor.

    Very true. I would add I have no issue with people taking a magnifying glass to the deal. No deal is perfect and obviously, it should be vetted very seriously. What i find strange is that in the many expressions of horror regarding the deal on the Right (which, let’s be honest, are mostly just reflexive Obamaphobia, neocon warmongering, or both), one cannot find the laying out of a detailed, plausible, workable better alternative. This is very telling. Doing nothing is obviously not an alternative. “Being tougher” in the negotiations means nothing if one can’t precisely explain how “being tougher” would yield better results. Ratcheting up the sanctions to push Iran further toward concessions sounds plausible enough, but actually doesn’t mean a whole lot without an acknowledgment that the sanctions work because they are international, and we cannot force Russia and China and the EU to impose the sanctions we want – more likely is that Russia and China will push for relaxing sanctions (and almost certainly the sanctions will crumble if Congress manages to squash the deal). Bombing Iran is at best a temporary solution which will have all sorts of awful consequences, known and unknown. Invading and indefinitely occupying Iran, a county 3.75 times the size of Iraq, with 2.5 times the population, and a rugged mountainous terrain – do I even have to explain why this isn’t a better solution? It’s a shame no one on the Right cares to share the magic bullet solve-all-our-problems alternative to the Iran deal. Maybe they’re afraid Hillary will steal it before the election.

  31. 43

    Redteam

    @Tom: You’re rambling and babbling.

    one cannot find the laying out of a detailed, plausible, workable better alternative.

    Had the US won even ONE point, it would be a better alternative. The US got NOT one single thing that they went into it to get. Not a single concession. They keep what they had, we can’t look at or verify one single thing and we give them untold billions of dollars and all the free trade with no sanctions. Just what single point to you think the US came out ahead on Tom. Oh, now I’ve figured it out. The Objective was to make Obama look like the biggest fool around and you think he succeeded. Oh, ok. Now I see……..

  32. 44

    Nanny G

    Western media incorrectly reported that the majilis (Iran’s Parliament) approved the actual text of the JCPOA.
    Not true.
    http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/bombshell-west-falsely-claims-iran-parliament-approved-jcpoa/2015/10/14/
    Obama has been played.

    The Iranian parliament has rejected the formal, legal text of President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal, negotiated in July by the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China and the Tehran regime.

    Instead, the majilis approved their own version of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), creating a situation where the Iranian government simply hasn’t signed on to the accord that Obama and Democratic Senators obligated the United States to uphold.

    The Middle East Media Research Center (MEMRI), a regional watchdog organization, has confirmed that Iran did not pass the deal agreed upon in July. They instead voted to pass the amended version by a vote of 161-59.

    Iranian lawmakers tried to unilaterally amend the deal to strip the United States’ ability to “snapback” sanctions should the Tehran regime cheat the agreement. They also replaced the language to ensure that the deal will “cancel” sanctions forever, instead of “suspending” them.

    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8796.htm

    Odd that this isn’t BIG NEWS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *