The level of self-delusion to which the US Administration is submitting itself in order to justify the Iran deal would be highly comical if it were not so breath-takingly dangerous. It has reached a state where the US is contradicting the IAEA – itself not exactly world champion in monitoring Iran’s nuclear program in the past.
Here are just a few recent headlines and articles on the reality and the delusion:
The United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency reported Thursday that while Iran has largely been complying with agreements on curtailing its nuclear program, it has built an extension to its military facility at Parchin.
A segment of the confidential report seen by the Reuters news agency says the Islamic Republic’s activity at the site since February 2012 has likely undermined the IAEA’s ability to “conduct effective verification.”
“Since [our] previous report [in May], at a particular location at the Parchin site, the agency has continued to observe, through satellite imagery, the presence of vehicles, equipment, and probable construction materials. In addition, a small extension to an existing building appears to have [been] constructed,” the report was quoted by Reuters as saying.
However the State Department spokesman John Kirby assures us, “Don’t worry. The Parchin facility has no nuclear dimensions”:
State Department spokesman John Kirby‘s response to a media question about building at Parchin not only echoed Najafi’s response, but put the rabbit in the hat. Nukes? What nukes?
Here are the question and answer from the briefing:
QUESTION: There was just one element I wanted to ask you about. I think the report – without getting too much into the details, I mean, it confirmed broad compliance. But there was some mention of the Parchin base again and about construction or other activity that was going on there. Independent of the report, is that something the United States has noted and is also concerned about?
MR KIRBY: Well, I’d say, without getting into the specifics here – as I said, we’re not going to do that – I think it’s important to remember that when you’re talking about a site like Parchin, you’re talking about a conventional military site, not a nuclear site. So there wouldn’t be any IAEA or other restrictions on new construction at that site were they to occur. (emphasis added)
In other words, Kirby, representing the official position of the State Department, has declared that Parchin is simply a regular military site and, despite earlier reports by the IAEA and believed by many analysts, there is no and was no PMD activity there at all.
Not to worry.
Watch Kirby in action:
Interestingly, the IAEA has denied that Iran will be allowed to self-inspect its own nuclear program:
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday downplayed media reports suggesting that as part of the West’s nuclear deal with Iran, the Islamic republic will be allowed to carry out its own nuclear inspections.
“I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. These statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work,” IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said.
Amano’s statement follows an AP report alleging that the draft version of a side agreement states that Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to monitor the Parchin facility, a site located 12 miles southeast of Tehran where it is suspected Iran has pursued nuclear arms development.
Amano insisted Thursday the final version of the arrangement was “technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. It does not compromise our safeguards standards in any way.”
The State Department downplayed concerns over the draft arrangement with the IAEA as well.
“We’re confident in the agency’s technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran’s former program,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said.
Hmm. If the State Department is “confident” about the decision then I think we all need to start worrying.
What should concern us as much as Iran’s nukes is Iran’s missile capability and its expansion in clear violation of a UN embargo:.
Reuters reported that Iran, in clear violation of a U.N. arms embargo, has “unveiled a new surface-to-surface missile it said could strike targets with pin-point accuracy within a range of 500 kilometers (310 miles).” The news agency noted that “Iran has said it will not follow parts of the nuclear deal that restrict its military capabilities.”
“We will buy, sell and develop any weapons we need and we will not ask for permission or abide by any resolution for that,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in a speech at the unveiling ceremony broadcast live on state television. He added that Iranian military might should be seen “as a precondition for peace.”
Despite this defiant announcement a recent news item reveals that the S-300 missile deal between Iran and Russia has not been successful – so far at any rate:
A senior Iranian official said his country and Russia have not been successful in finalizing a widely contested sale of advanced S-300 missile systems due to a disagreement over the sale price, Israel’s NRG reported on Thursday citing the Turkish Anadolu news agency.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, a Russian news agency reported that the deal hit a snag over a different issue.
According to a report in Russia’s state-run TASS news agency, the two countries are unable to agree on how to proceed regarding a lawsuit filed by Iran over Russia’s failure to deliver on an earlier 2007 contract to deliver the systems.
Last week, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov announced that the deal had been concluded, telling news outlets that the details of the deal, other than a number of “technical issues,” had been agreed upon. “This transaction has been closed,” Bogdanov said. “We have reached an understanding on the matter with our Iranian partners.”
Earlier in the month, a senior official in the Russian Foreign Ministry said his country would “certainly” deliver the S-300 missile system to Iran some time in the coming year. Responding to a question about whether Iran would receive four S-300 systems instead of three, as was stipulated in the original 2007 contract between the parties, the Russian official responded, “We will act exactly according to what is written in the contract.”
I would bet that this missile deal will eventually go through because both sides need it. Or rather, they both desperately want it. Russia needs the money and Iran wants the missiles.
I just wonder if Israel would consider the missiles en route as a target-rich environment.
And as a small reminder of the Administration’s constant insistence that this deal will remove the threat of war, here in the words of Iran’s leader himself, are Iran’s intentions:
Nima Gholam Ali Pour in the Gatestone Institute writes that the Iran Deal will do precisely the opposite – it will trigger a major war in the Middle East.
The content of the Iran nuclear agreement creates the perfect conditions for a major war in the Middle East — one that could spread and start a major regional conflict.
Despite what President Obama likes to say, it is not true that the agreement “permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” or “cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb”. The agreement means that the U.S. has accepted that after 15 years, or sooner, Iran may build as many bombs as it likes.
Iran is not a country busy trying to preserve its own sovereignty. Iran, instead, undermines other countries’ sovereignty. In the case of Israel’s, the regime in Iran is threatening the nation’s entire existence. Even more astonishing is that the president of the United States gets peevish — and threatens American Jews — when Israel’s prime minister reminds the public of that.
Iran’s regime is, contrary to rumors, extremely pragmatic: it sees that no matter what it does, its survival is not threatened even slightly. Iran’s regime sees — as does everyone else – that even the worst transgressions are, on the contrary, rewarded.
If this agreement were about peace, why do the Iranians need more weapons? If Iran wants peace, why don’t they scrap their missile program and stop supporting terrorist organizations that want to destroy Israel? If Iran wants peace, why does it want weapons that can reach other continents? Which country is threatening Iran’s sovereignty today that makes Iran want more advanced weapons?
If anyone has ICBMs and says “Death to America”, what do you think he will do with those ICBMs?
There are those who compare the Iran deal to the Munich Agreement of 1938. The Iran deal is much worse. Hitler duped Chamberlain and presented himself as a man of peace. No one has duped President Obama. The mullahs openly say “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and have backed up their words with actions.
Why would an American president do this? Does he not know at whom the Iranians will point their ICBMs?
I think we know the answer to these questions by now.
As former Vice-President Dick Cheney says, the Obama has surrendered American power:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz Cheney, say President Obama has “dangerously surrendered” U.S. global leadership during his time in office.
In an adapted excerpt published by The Wall Street Journal from their upcoming book, “Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America,” the two write that until Obama became president, Republican and Democratic presidents understood the “indispensable nature of American power.”
In my opinion, that was Obama’s intention from the beginning: to weaken America and the West, Israel being a part of this. Now it remains to be seen whether the American people will allow their Congress to go along with this subversion.