New Fact Sheet Issued by Iran's Parliament: Drastic Revisions of Lausanne Statement Required

If anyone still believes that sufficient common ground was achieved in Lausanne, justifying the declaration of a framework understanding between Iran and the P5+1, he (I'm talking about you, John Kerry) should have a look at the "fact sheet" released today by the Iranian parliament. As reported by Fars News:

"The Iranian parliament's Nuclear Committee on Wednesday released a factsheet to declare the revisions needed to be made in the Lausanne statement that was issued by Tehran and the world powers as a framework understanding at the end of their nuclear talks in Switzerland earlier this month.

The factsheet which was presented by Head of the Nuclear Committee Ebrahim Karkhaneyee on Wednesday stresses the necessity for respecting the redlines and guidelines specified by Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, making Iran's decisions and undertakings reversible to enable the country to resume its nuclear operations in case of the other side's non-commitment to its undertakings, and immediate termination of all sanctions in a single step and on the first day of the implementation of the final agreement.

The factsheet also necessitates commitment of both sides to their undertakings based on the Geneva agreement, a fair and reasonable balance between the gives and takes, taking good care not to impair the country's security and military boundaries and national interests, providing 190,000 SWUs (Separative Work Units) of nuclear fuel enrichment capability needed by Iran to produce fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant immediately after the end of contract with Russia, safeguarding the nuclear achievements, actual operation of all nuclear facilities of Iran not in words, but in action, continued Research and Development (R&D) works and scientific and technological progress in Iran and immediate application of R&D findings in the country's industrial-scale uranium enrichment cycle.

The factsheet urges operation of 10,000 centrifuge machines at Natanz and Fordo, a maximum 5-year-long duration for the deal and for Iran's nuclear limitations, replacement of the current centrifuges with the latest generation of home-made centrifuge machines at the end of the five-year period."

Or stated otherwise, there never was a framework understanding, and if the Lausanne statement relected any commonality whatsoever between the sides, it is now null and void.

Was the Iranian parliament responding to the bipartisan compromise reached by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding Senator Bob Corker's bill? Possibly. In any event, there is simply no way that Iran and the P5+1 are going to reach a final agreement by the end of June.

Farred Zakaria, "Is Iran rational?": Which Other Country Hangs Homosexuals?

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Is Iran rational?," Obama cheerleader Fareed Zakaria admits that Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei might reject the cost/benefit balance deriving
from the so-called Lausanne "understanding," yet, at the same time, he makes the argument that Iran's quest for an atomic bomb is "rational." Zakaria writes:

"Look at a map of the Middle East. Shiite Iran is surrounded by hostile Sunni states. Across the Persian Gulf sits Saudi Arabia, its fanatically anti-Shiite and well-armed archenemy . (Last year, Saudi Arabia was the largest weapons importer on the planet.) In Iraq and Syria, Iran faces large Sunni insurgencies dedicated to slaughtering the Shiites. Add to this the nuclear dimension. Iran has several nuclear-armed neighbors — Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Israel.

Plus, Iran has faced active opposition from the world’s superpower for more than three decades."

. . . .

[G]iven these realities, is it so bizarre that Iran has behaved as it has? Or that it has sought to build a nuclear industry that could give it a pathway to a nuclear weapon? Would a secular, hyperrational country facing this same array of threats have acted differently?"

Or in other words, Zakaria is acknowledging what the Obama administration refuses to say: Tehran's heart is set upon an atomic bomb.

But now do a search of Zakaria's opinion piece and look for the word "homosexual." You won't find it. The significance? Allow me to answer this question with another question: A "rational" nation requires nuclear weapons so that it can continue to hang homosexuals . . . and stone to death women accused of adultery, and brutally persecute Baha'is, Christians, Kurds and Sunnis, and hang poets for "waging war on God"?

Sorry, Fareed. Your friend Obama might love this argument, but I don't buy it.

Ben Rhodes Contradicts Obama on Iranian Nuclear "Deal": Who Is Lying?

In a CNN interview yesterday, Jake Tapper asked US deputy national security adviser for strategic communication Ben Rhodes about the P5+1's "deal" with Iran, which was announced last week:

Tapper: So, the Israelis have put out this list of things that they think should be in the final deal with Iran, including allowing inspectors to go anywhere, anytime. That seems perfectly reasonable, no?

Rhodes: Well, Jake, first of all, under this deal, you will have anywhere, anytime 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has. You will also have access to . . .

Tapper: What about the military facilities?

Rhodes: So what we'll have under this deal, Jake, is the strongest inspection regime that any country faces in the world. And what that means is, if we see a site that we need to inspect on a military facility, we can get access to that site and inspect it. So, if it's a suspicious site that we believe is related to its nuclear efforts, we can get access and inspect that site through the I.A.E.A.

But compare Rhodes's explanation with what President Obama told Thomas Friedman on Saturday concerning future inspection of Iranian nuclear facilities:

"Obviously, a request will have to be made. Iran could object, but what we have done is to try to design a mechanism whereby once those objections are heard, that it is not a final veto that Iran has, but in fact some sort of international mechanism will be in place that makes a fair assessment as to whether there should be an inspection, and if they determine it should be, that’s the tiebreaker, not Iran saying, 'No, you can’t come here.' So over all, what we’re seeing is not just the additional protocols that I.A.E.A. has imposed on countries that are suspected of in the past having had problematic nuclear programs, we’re going even beyond that, and Iran will be subject to the kinds of inspections and verification mechanisms that have never been put in place before."

Or in other words, Obama acknowledged that "anywhere, anytime 24/7 access" to Iranian nuclear facilities will not exist. Rather, inspections which Iran refuses to approve will be subject to adjudication.

Who is going to adjudicate disputes between the US and Iran concerning inspection of suspected nuclear facilities? The United Nations? By the time any such adjudication is finished, Iran will be in possession of an atomic bomb, thus rendering any such procedure nugatory.

And what does Iran say about such inspections under the so-called "deal"? The Iranians are claiming that their agreement to inspections is voluntary and temporary "for the sake of transparency and confidence building." Iran certainly has not agreed to "anywhere, anytime 24/7 access."

In short, as I observed on Saturday, there was no "historic understanding" in Lausanne.