OBAMA'S MUNICH MOMENT
Yesterday when the news of the Iran nuclear deal was announced, I announced that I was now officially scared to death.
Why? Because I keep up on current events.
But having now read the parts of the agreement in the public arena I want to specify the reasons why I am afraid and why everyone should be afraid. There is no space to give all the reasons, but I will give some high points, in ascending order of terror inspiring. And, to help you assess how the media is covering up these issues to protect the Obama administration, I will provide a question that the media should, but won’t ask.
1. 1. The agreement has not been made with the Supreme Leader of Iran. Iran is an Islamic State, and the civil state apparatus is under the thumb of the Supreme Leader, currently Sheikh Sayyed Ali Khamenei. He is called Supreme Leader because he is Supreme. We in the West are accustomed to dealing with a Post- Westphalian concept of the state and like to think of the separation of church and state. But Iran is a theocracy. Ali Khamenei speaks for God/Allah. So, unless we can find a way to make a binding treaty with God/Allah (and we know from Jesus’ 40 days in the wilderness how God frowns on those trying to make deals with Him) this “deal is not binding on the other side.
Proposed Question You Will Never Hear: “Mr. Kerry/Obama: Has Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei indicated he will be bound by this agreement? If not, how do you plan to ensure that it is enforceable?
2. Future behaviour is best predicted from past behaviour. Iran is presently a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and has violated its provisions repeatedly and comprehensively. This is the reason Iran has been subject to sanctions by the UN. Also, Iran is bound by UN sanctions which it has violated repeatedly and comprehensively. There is zero reason to hope they will now comply with this new agreement.
Proposed Question You Will Never Hear: “Mr. Kerry/Obama: Why are the sanctions being lifted prior to verifying the state of prior Iranian violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?”
3. 2. We have been told that there will be “immediate anywhere anytime” verification, but that is effectively a falsehood. Here is the verification mechanism:
· A Joint Commission (JC) to adjudicate disputes will be formed.
· The JC will consist of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, Germany, the European Union AND IRAN!!!!!
· Requests for access to specific Iranian nuclear sites will not come from a party to the agreement. Rather, they must make a request to the IAEA and the IAEA may (not “shall”) request.
· If the IAEA determines that Iran denies a request, a clock begins to run which gives the two sides (Iran and IAEA) 14 days to negotiate a resolution.
· If a resolution cannot be reached, the JC will have 7 days to advise the IAEA how to proceed (Iran being a member of the JC do not forget).
· Iran will have 3 days to comply with the JC advice. Thus, 14+7+3=24 days after an Iranian non-compliance is the time frame Iran has to clean up any suspicious site.
· If Iran fails to comply with the JC’s advice via the IAEA then the Security Council gets the referral.
· Apart from the fact that the times allow delay, the process is corrupted because the violator will have a vote in the JC as will its allies in Russia and China.
Proposed Question You Will Never Hear: “Mr. Kerry/Obama: If the Joint Commission has to provide advice to the IAEA in the event of an Iranian violation, how is the vote taken…by consensus, by majority, by supermajority or will the Big Five each have a veto?”
4. 3. Once the agreement is passed by the parties, the UN sanctions will be lifted and approximately $145-150 billion dollars of embargoed funds will be transferred to Iran. Now, in addressing the issue as to whether sanctions will be re-imposed in the event of Iranian violation, the voters will include Iran, China, Russia, Germany, France and the European Union. Obviously Iran will vote against, but look at the others. China needs Iran’s oil. Russia, suffering economic contraction due to sanctions, needs money. Russia has lots of weapon and nuclear technology to sell. Iran will have a pot of gold worth $140-150 billion and they want weapons and nuclear technology. German companies have already been caught selling nuclear technology to Iran in violation of the existing sanctions and France generally sells to whoever can buy. And, of course, Germany and France are the top players in the EU. Is there any chance that ANY of these countries will jeopardize their access to these funds by voting to reinstate sanctions?
Proposed Question You Will Never Hear: “Mr. Kerry/Obama: If countries with a financial stake in the elimination of sanctions have a vote on whether they are re-imposed, why doesn’t a country such as Israel, whose survival is at stake, also have a vote?”
5. 4. As part of their training in negotiation and negotiating skills, our Model United Nations team learns about “red-lines”. These are “no-go” areas beyond which no concessions can be made. Agreements must be made within the “red-lines”. Even our Model UN group is more skilled in negotiation than the US team given that they abandoned every position they said they had to the point that there were, in fact, no red-lines. Examples:
· Stated Red Line: The stated reason for the negotiations was to ensure that Iran would never attain nuclear weapons. Result: The agreement itself concedes they can have them within 10 years…if Iran actually complies with the agreement…legitimately.
· Stated Red Line: Any agreement would include no notice, any place anytime, 24/7 inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities. Result: See Item 3 above
· Stated Red Line: There would be no lifting of the existing arms embargo against Iran. Result: Lifted
· Stated Red Line: There would be no lifting of the embargo on Iran acquiring ballistic missiles. Result: Lifted
Proposed Question You Will Never Hear: “Mr. Kerry/Obama: Given that under the existing sanctions Iran was unable to produce a nuclear weapon why have you conceded them that PLUS the ability to acquire ballistic weapons?”
6. As further evidence that the US was desperate to get a deal, apart from all the concessions they made there is one that is the equivalent of Iran saying “You want a deal, US? Bend over.” The US is obligated to provide technical assistance to Iran in the development of its domestic nuclear programme and to provide assistance to them in defending against internet attacks. Thus the US (and anyone else) will not be able to use programmes such as Stuxnet to defend against the Iranian nuclear programme.
Proposed Question You Will Never Hear: “Mr. Kerry/Obama: Was it as good for you as it was for them?”
7. 5. Forget the world of spin. The countries of the region know the truth and they are petrified at the fact that Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon has been legitimated. The US president and his compliant media can spin this all they want, and repeat that this will prevent Iran getting a weapon now. Forget Israel, who will be the first target of the Iranian nuke. Think about Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is also in the Iranian cross-hairs (they are already fighting in Yemen, in case you haven’t noticed). Saudi Arabia put the world on notice in April of this year that if a deal such as this one came into being, they would be embarking on their own nuclear weapons programme. Saudi has money and, again, Russia, China, Germany, France, North Korea, Pakistan and God knows who else have the technology to sell.
Interestingly, Egypt is now rumoured to be investigating the possibility of a nuclear programme, possibly funded by their Saudi allies. Meanwhile, Syria will be looking for help from their Iranian patrons.
Accordingly, rather than making the world safer, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have ignited a nuclear arms race in the most volatile area of the world.
Proposed Question You Will Never Hear: “Mr. Kerry/Obama: Will the US also be assisting all sides in their development of nuclear weapons or only Iran?”
All the media covering this agreement simply repeat the Administration talking points which state bald conclusions that this will bring stability…”peace in our time” if you will. On the radio this morning, on my way to work, I heard Vicki Davila (La FM radio) discussing how important it was, in so unstable a part of the world, to get the cooperation of all the countries there, meaning, I guess, Iran. But this is the fantasy world that so many in the media and their audience, are living. These countries, and their leaders, are not interested in cooperation…they are interested in conquest and, often, conversion. We cannot be dealing with them on the same level we deal with western countries because they do not think the same way. Iran’s leadership are a hardline Shiite Islamic clergy.
This agreement has given the matches to the pyromaniacs and I am scared to death especially for the world that awaits my daughter.