Follow by Email

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Did Obama Agree That Iran Would Be Responsible for Policing Parchin?



We have now learned that Obama's deal with Iran allows the mullahs to police their own activities at the Parchin military base. As reported yesterday by the Associated Press in an article entitled "UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site" by George Jahn:

"Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

. . . .

The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

. . . .

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country."

The response of the US State Department to this "remarkable" arrangement? State Department Spokesman John Kirby declared:

"We're confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program, issues that, in some cases, date back more than a decade."

Meanwhile, one of the 29 scientists who signed a letter backing the agreement with Iran, wrote to me that he is "trying to find out more about this," but "a primary reason for supporting the agreement is the verification of Iran’s behavior in the future, not the IAEA’s investigation of Iran’s behavior prior to 2003, about which the details are not public but about which our intelligence people already know a lot." The verification of Iran's future behavior? The scientist did not comment on Iran's demands "that international nuclear inspectors would only be permitted into the country once they receive approval from the Islamic Republic’s Intelligence Ministry" and that "International nuclear inspectors will only be permitted into the country after offering proofs of suspicious activity at the sites to be inspected."

So which is worse: Hillary's prevarication concerning her email server, Kerry's evasiveness concerning Parchin, or the willingness of "Progressive" American Jews to turn a blind eye to the threat of another Holocaust? It all makes you want to vomit . . .

2 comments:

  1. best surrealism in a headline:

    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192972/iran-will-hire-iran-to-inspect-nuclear-facilities-in-iran-that-iran-denies-having

    As to JG's your question "which is worse?" ?

    The worst is showcasing the insanity of America's presidential election 'process' to the rest of the world, a process in which this Iran deal is being used as a political wedge, a wedge infused with anti-Semitism, to whip Democrats into obeisance to their 'lameduckleader'.

    Those of us with PTS are in the “I guess I just needed a minute,” phase. My 'minute' is now in week 7...

    k

    ReplyDelete
  2. better explanation of my obeisance theory:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/obama-s-nuclear-deal-tests-lawmakers-loyalty-20150819

    "..."Policy positions were not driving partisanship, but rather partisanship was driving policy positions." ..."

    ReplyDelete