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

Tweet

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 . . .

David Albright, "What Iran’s hostile reaction to the Parchin issue means for the nuclear deal": Democrats, Don't Read This Opinion Piece!

Tweet

Are you a House or Senate Democrat planning to support Obama's nuclear deal with Iran? If so, the president has personally asked me to inform that you are forbidden from reading a new Washington Post opinion piece entitled "What Iran’s hostile reaction to the Parchin issue means for the nuclear deal," by David Albright, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security. Why? Simple! You will not be able to conscientiously support the president's deal if you do read it, or stated more succinctly, what you don't know can't hurt you!

Observing that his organization is neutral concerning Obama's agreement, Albright begins:

"Chico Marx said: 'Who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?' Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said over the weekend that my organization, the Institute for Science and International Security, was spreading lies when we published satellite imagery that showed renewed, concerning activity at the Parchin military site near Tehran. This site is linked by Western intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to past work on nuclear weapons. But like Chico, instead of acknowledging the concern, the Iranians chose to deny the visible evidence in commercial satellite imagery. Iran’s comments would be mirthful if the topic were not so serious.

. . . .

All we did was publish satellite imagery showing this activity and restate the obvious concern."

Noting concern over IAEA access to Parchin and reports that Iran is now engaged in sanitizing this site to prevent the discovery of past nuclear activity, Albright continues:

"This concern is further heightened because Iran has demanded to do this sampling itself instead of letting the IAEA do it. Such an arrangement is unprecedented and risky, and will be even more so if Iran continues to sanitize the site. In the cases of the Iranian Kalaye Electric site and the North Korean plutonium separation plant at Yongbyon, the success of sampling that showed undeclared activities depended on samples being taken at non-obvious locations identified during previous IAEA visits inside buildings. The IAEA will not be able to visit Parchin until after the samples are taken, and it remains doubtful that the inspectors will be able to take additional samples."

This is what the 29 scientists, who wrote the recent letter supporting Obama's deal, declared to be "a technically sound, stringent and innovative deal that will provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons"? Yeah, right.

Regarding Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif's claims that the current activities at Parchin amount to "road work," Albright writes:

"[H]is words appear to reflect Iranian government intransigence on its past nuclear weapons program. Its action is an assault on the integrity and prospects of the nuclear deal."

Albright's conclusion:

"The United States and Congress should clearly and publicly confirm, and Congress should support with legislation, that if Iran does not address the IAEA’s concerns about the past military dimensions of its nuclear programs, U.S. sanctions will not be lifted. To do otherwise is to make a mockery of the nuclear deal."

And also have Obama veto this new legislation?

Once again, Congressional Democrats, Obama asks that you do not read this opinion piece, which calls into question the very underpinnings of his deal with Iran. If you do read it, he might also subject you to the very same threats and anti-Semitic insults issued by the White House against Senator Schumer. You have been warned!

Parchin: Further Evidence of Obama's Hogwash Nuclear Deal With Iran

Tweet

At the risk of being pronounced a racist by Colbert King, I would refer you to the latest evidence that Obama's nuclear deal with Iran is a colossal fraud. As reported by Iran's Fars News Agency yesterday, Tehran has no intention whatsoever of allowing foreign inspectors to visit its Parchin military site:

"On Monday, Vice-Chairman of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Mansour Haqiqatpour reiterated Tehran's strong opposition to the inspection of Parchin military center for the third time.

'Despite Iran's goodwill measures, the IAEA has unfortunately once again requested visiting the Parchin military site,' Haqiqatpour lamented.

'In recent years, Iran has provided the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with several times of access to the Parchin military site, and the agency's inspectors have visited it and found it completely clean of any evidence of nuclear activity,' the lawmaker stressed.

In response to the recent remarks of IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano about the necessity of more access to Parchin non-nuclear military center, Haqiqatpour emphasized, 'The Islamic Republic has explicitly announced its positions in this regard frequently, and I do believe that the country would not allow access to the military site, given the strong opposition shown by the Supreme Leader.'

Senior Iranian officials had regularly announced that inspection of the country's military sites are one of its redlines."

Parchin has been used in recent years to test nuclear bomb detonation technology.

It has been suggested that Kerry and friends reached a compromise with Iran whereby Iran would provide soil samples from Parchin for testing.

Obscene.

David Brooks, "The Revolution Lives!": The "Framework" Is Crumbling!

Obama's so-called "framework understanding" with Iran is crumbling. On Thursday, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei declared that "sanctions should be lifted completely, on the very day of the deal," and inspection of Iranian military bases would not be tolerated as part of any final agreement. Regarding Khamenei's refusal to allow inspection of military bases, a lead New York Times article entitled "Iranian Leader Says Sanctions Must Lift When Deal Is Signed" by Thomas Erdbrink and David E. Sanger, today states:

"While Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have said the inspection requirements they have negotiated would be among the most intrusive in history, they have not said whether they would extend to military sites. Several of the sites the United States is most concerned about in Iran are on military bases, including Fordo. Inspectors have visited the site regularly, and the atomic energy agency has, periodically, been allowed onto other military bases."

Well, I sent an email to David Sanger and asked:

"Why do you choose not to make reference to Iran's Parchin military base? As you know, the IAEA has been seeking access to Parchin since 2005, but has been refused entry."

Iran is suspected of testing atomic bomb components at Parchin over the past several years, and I await Sanger's reply.

And now, David Brooks has stepped into the fray. In a Times op-ed entitled "The Revolution Lives!, Brooks begins by observing, "President Obama’s deal with Iran is really a giant gamble on the nature of the Iranian regime." Observing that "the West wants a deal more than Khamenei does" and "[t]hat imbalance explains why Western negotiators had to give away so many of their original demands," Brooks concludes:

"If Iran still has revolutionary intent, then no amount of treaty subtlety will enforce this deal. Iran will begin subtly subverting any agreement. It will continue to work on its advanced nuclear technology even during the agreement. It will inevitably use nuclear weaponry, or even the threat of eventual nuclear weaponry, to advance its apocalyptic interests. Every other regional power will prepare for the worst, and we’ll get a pseudo-nuclear-arms race in a region of disintegrating nation-states.

. . . .

At some point, there has to be a scintilla of evidence that Iran wants to change. Khamenei’s speech offers none. Negotiating an arms treaty with Brezhnev and Gorbachev was one thing. But with this guy? Good luck with that."

"Negotiating" with Khamenei. In fact, Obama's "fire sale" tactics with Khamenei, pursuant to which everything effectively is being given away, only targets one objective: the creation of a legacy for a president consumed by narcissism.

[See also: "Farred Zakaria, "Is Iran rational?": Which Other Country Hangs Homosexuals?"]

New York Times Editorial, "Israel’s Unworkable Demands on Iran": The Times Forgets, "No Deal Is Better Than a Bad Deal"

Who cares if "Iran's foreign minister and nuclear chief both told a closed-door session of the parliament on Tuesday that the country would inject UF6 gas into the latest generation of its centrifuge machines as soon as a final nuclear deal goes into effect by Tehran and the six world powers"? It's more important for The New York Times to safeguard Obama from Netanyahu's opposition to the president's legacy-generating nuclear framework "deal" with Iran, and in an editorial entitled "Israel’s Unworkable Demands on Iran," The New York Times  comes out swinging, albeit in punch-drunk fashion. The editorial begins by informing us:

"There are important details to be worked out before a final agreement is expected to be concluded by June 30. Even so, the framework is surprisingly comprehensive and offers the best potential for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

The "framework is surprisingly comprehensive"? According to whose "fact sheet"? That prepared by the US, Iran or France? Inspection, sanctions and disposition of Iranian stocks of enriched uranium are all in dispute. Worse still, the "framework" - according to all parties - does not seek to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Rather, the "framework" would allow Iran to begin building its nuclear arsenal within 15 years, and this time frame will certainly be negotiated downward by Iran when it again meets with the P5+1 to forge a final agreement. None other than Obama has acknowledged that pursuant to the current framework, "in Year 13, 14, 15, they [would] have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

The editorial continues:

"Israel has demanded that Iran allow inspections 'anywhere, anytime' by international monitors, ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country and disclose past nuclear-related activities that might involve military uses."

My goodness, how unreasonable those pesky Israelis are proving themselves! Can you imagine anyone demanding "anywhere, anytime" inspections from those wholesome, trusty Iranians, who have repeatedly proven that they have nothing to hide . . . other than, for example, the Fordow nuclear development facility that was built into a mountain. (Of course, if you seek to conduct nuclear research for medical purposes, the research facility should always be built into a bomb-proof mountain.) But wait! Didn't US deputy national security adviser for strategic communication Ben Rhodes just inform us that there would be anywhere, anytime 24/7 inspections - something which is hotly disputed by Iran?

The Times goes on to say:

"While the deal does not grant international monitors the right to go anywhere, anytime, it does impose a tough inspection regime and establishes a commission to resolve disputes if Iran blocks access to a suspected site."

Ah yes, a "commission." Excuse me, friends, but are we talking about a UN "commission"? And how much time would it take for an Iran-friendly UN commission to adjudicate an IAEA request to inspect a suspicious site? Until today, the IAEA has been denied access to the Parchin military base.

The Times would have us know that Netanyahu's "new demands are unrealistic and, if pursued, would not mean a better deal but no deal at all." But as we have been repeatedly told by the Obama administration, "No deal is better than a bad deal."

This is a bad "deal."

Washington Post Editorial, "A reward for Iran’s noncompliance": "Father, Forgive Them, For They Know Not What They Do"

"Natanz/Netanya," Oil on canvas 130 x 190 cm © Ardyn Halter

Do you remember what I stated about Parchin, the secret Iranian military base outside of Tehran? On February 26, I wrote (my emphasis in red):

"Yesterday, in an editorial entitled "An Emerging Nuclear Deal With Iran," The New York Times claimed that "Iran’s major nuclear installations are already monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency and watched by the United States." Iran, however, is refusing access to the Parchin military base outside Tehran. I informed Andrew Rosenthal of The Times of this "error" by email, but he didn't bother responding.

Today, Robert Einhorn, serves up more nonsense in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Deterring an Iranian Nuclear Breakout," also intended to persuade us to accept Obama's pending deal with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei. Einhorn, who, according the op-ed, is "a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution" and "served on the U.S. delegation to the Iran nuclear negotiations from 2009 to 2013," writes:

"Fortunately, even if an agreement cannot eliminate Iran’s capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, it can prevent Iran from exercising that capability. It can do so by deterring Iran’s leaders from making the decision to break out of the agreement and produce nuclear weapons. To deter such a decision, a deal should meet three requirements.

First, it should have rigorous monitoring measures to convince Iran that any attempt to violate and break out of the agreement at either declared or covert sites would be detected very quickly. This would require intrusive verification provisions that go beyond the measures contained in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s additional protocol, including frequent access to centrifuge production facilities, detailed reporting of nuclear-related procurement and robust inspection procedures."

Ah, yes, "the rigorous monitoring measures." However, as reported by the IAEA last Thursday, the agency "remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile." And meanwhile, Iran continues to bar the IAEA from inspecting the Parchin military base outside of Iran."

Well, it seems that somebody has woken up to the problem involving Parchin. In an editorial entitled "A reward for Iran’s noncompliance," The Washington Post writes:

"Twice, in 2007 and in 2013, Iran agreed with the IAEA on a “work plan” to clear up the military research issues. In both instances, it then stonewalled inspectors, refusing to answer questions or permit access to sites. After the agency sought access in 2011 to a military complex called Parchin, where warhead detonation tests may have been carried out, satellite surveillance revealed that Iran had demolished buildings and excavated ground in an apparent cover-up operation.

. . . .

An appropriate response to this blatant violation of agreements would be to insist that Iran complete the IAEA work plan before any long-term accord is signed or any further sanctions lifted. Inspectors need their questions answered so that they will be able to determine later whether Iran has violated the controls on its nuclear research expected to be part of a deal. Furthermore, it is vital to establish that Tehran will deliver on its commitments and that it will be held accountable if it does not."

Obama, however, has dedicated his second term as president to making Iran a "successful regional power." It doesn't bother him that Iranian-backed Houthi rebels are now overrunning Yemen, despite his declaration in September 2014, "This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years."

For those of you who are brave enough to risk losing your breakfast, have a look at a Vox article entitled "These Obama administration quotes about Yemen are almost too cringe-worthy to read" by Zack Beauchamp. An example of the quotes listed by Beauchamp:

"The truth is, you can dwell on Yemen, or you can recognize that we're one agreement away from a game-changing, legacy-setting nuclear accord on Iran that tackles what everyone agrees is the biggest threat to the region."

— A senior State Department official to Politico's Michael Crowley, March 26.

Yes, it's time for Congress to intervene. Obama and his obsequious cronies have all been infected with a lethal strain of narcissistic dementia.