web analytics
February 14, 2016 / 5 Adar I, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Iran deal’

The ‘Iran Deal’ Was Not Signed by Iran or Anyone Else

Saturday, September 19th, 2015

The Nuclear Iran Deal that is at the epicenter of a Congressional battle and the focus of so much attention for months is not actually any deal at all, as not one of the parties, including any representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has signed the Agreement.

This morning, Sept. 18, Cong. Mike Pompeo (R-KS-04) sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. In that letter Pompeo informed the Secretary that while reviewing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Nuclear Iran Deal), he noted that there are no signatures on the so-called final Agreement.

Without signatures, there can be no legally binding contract.

There apparently is no “Iran Deal.”

Pompeo asked Kerry to provide a copy of the JCPOA with signatures and signing authority, so that members of Congress and the rest of the American people know that the parties to the agreement have “confirm[ed] each country’s commitment to the agreement” and that “makes clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement.”

International affairs scholar and Iran expert Michael Ledeen pointed out more than two months ago that Iran’s Ayatollah Khameini would not allow his country to sign the JCPOA. Ledeen’s point then, and today, is that the desperation exhibited by the Obama administration made clear to the Iranian leader that “there is no reason for him to approve a hated deal with the devil. It’s much better to keep talking until all the sanctions are gone, and Iran’s ‘right’ to pursue its nuclear projects is fully recognized.”

It appears that Ledeen’s prediction was dead-on. If there is no signed agreement, even the feeble conditions placed on Iran by Team Kerry’s negotiators are unenforceable.

When asked what then, is the current status of the JCPOA, assuming the administration did not just, oh, forget to distribute to Congress the signed version, Ledeen told the JewishPress.com: “It’s a verbal agreement. It means the diplomats meeting in Vienna thought it was a good agreement, but that is all. It is not enforceable.”

Ledeen said he could not think of any other major international agreement, certainly not any of the portentous nature of the Iran Deal, where lawmakers moved forward to begin implementation without having a signed agreement in place.

“Anyone who has read in the media that the ‘Iran Deal’ was signed has to now know they were lied to, it has not happened.”

So what next?

Congress could, conceivably, pass a law forbidding the lifting of sanctions. That’s been tried, you say? True, but will the same members of Congress who support the deal, the same ones who never read significant portions of the deal, and who had those portions explained to them by people who themselves never read the deal are willing to once again vote against or even bar a vote on a stay on the lifting of sanctions when they know there is nothing preventing Tehran from violating any of the purportedly agreed-to conditions? Will they really?

Cong. Pompeo’s letter to Secretary Kerry follows:

Dear Secretary Kerry:


I have reviewed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 and Islamic Republic of Iran – or at least the parts of the agreement that were provided to Congress by the administration.  As you know, pursuant to H. Res. 411, the House of Representatives considers the documents transmitted on July 19, 2015 incomplete in light of the fact that the secret side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran were not provided to Congress.  I look forward to seeing the entire agreement – including the two secret side deals that are part of the JCPOA – so that Congress may continue to evaluate the JCPOA and, depending on the outcome of the vote under the relevant provisions of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, potentially end the current and continuing prohibition of the lifting of sanctions on Iran.

During that review, I found that the copies provided to Congress of the JCPOA are not signed by any of the P5+1 members nor by Iran.  Having never seen an international agreement of this magnitude not signed by the parties or an agent of the parties, I assume this is simply an oversight or an administrative error.  That is, Congress must not have the final version of the agreement that would necessarily be signed.  I request that you provide us with copies of a final, executed copy of the JCPOA.  In the event that the JCPOA has not yet been signed by the parties, please inform us (a) when signatures will be placed on the agreement, (b) what parties will be signing, and (c) which person you anticipate will sign on behalf of each of those parties, including on behalf of the United States.

I am confident that you intended for the JCPOA to be signed by each of the P5+1 participants.  I can find no international agreement of this “historic” nature that was not signed by the parties.  Each of the past five major nuclear agreements to which the U.S. is a party – SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II and the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – were signed by representatives of each nation that was party to the agreement.  This is not a mere formality.  Those signatures represent the commitment of the signatory and the country on whose behalf he or she is signing.

A signature also serves to make clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement.  In short, just as with any legal instrument, signing matters.

This is particularly important with respect to JCPOA.  Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has made clear that he does not believe that JCPOA is legally binding on his nation, saying, “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government.  It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it.  Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”

Given the many benefits that will accrue to the ayatollahs, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and other unsavory elements of the Iranian regime, I believe that Iran should, at the very least, bind itself to the few requirements placed on it under the JCPOA by signing the agreement.  I also believe that the United States and its P5+1 partners on the JCPOA should execute the agreement on behalf of their countries.  I look forward to your response.

We all do.

New Shudders: Guess What Else Team Kerry Gave Away?

Thursday, September 17th, 2015

For the majority of Americans who have already figured out that the Nuclear Iran Deal negotiated by U.S. President Barack Obama’s team led by Secretary of State John Kerry is a win for the mullahs intent on acquiring nuclear weapons capacity, there’s more nightmare-generating bad news.

Kerry has admitted to various American lawmakers that both Russia and China, as well as Europe will be shielded from any “snapback” in renewed sanctions should Iran be found red-handed violating the few prohibitions contained in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The Secretary of State also disclosed that under the deal he and his team deftly negotiated, the testing of ballistic missiles (those nasty vehicles which can be used to deliver nuclear weapons) is perfectly okay.

Why doesn’t the JCPOA cover testing of ballistic missiles, you ask? It is because there is already a United Nations Security Council Resolution which tells them they “should not” test such missiles. Should. Please.

Not to pick a sore point, but the beloved Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (so much better than his predecessor Ahmadinejad – this one smiles!) is already on the record dismissing any limitations on Iran’s missile program, including those in the new U.N Resolution.

All of these revelations were discovered by the Washington Free Beacon‘s Adam Kredo, who obtained documents and information from various lawmakers, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Kerry admitted to Rubio (R., Fla.) that “the United States will work with foreign companies who financially engage Iran to shield them from penalties in the aftermath of Iran violating the agreement,” Kredo wrote.

In an on-the-record statement, Kerry admitted that the Obama administration had confidentially guaranteed the U.S. “would not retroactively sanction companies” doing business with Iran. The U.S. also offered to work with any such companies to help bring them into compliance with any new (snapback) sanctions.

“For companies that have contracts that would otherwise continue after snapback, we have a consistent past practice of working with companies to wind down their contracts,” Kredo quotes from Kerry’s written statement.

All those red lines and “biting” sanctions the Obama campaign crowed about during the last election have turned out to be smiley faces and air kisses now that there are no more elections for him.

When Liberals Learn the Actual Details of the Iran Deal

Wednesday, September 16th, 2015

Obama Now Ready to Meet with Netanyahu

Friday, September 11th, 2015

President Barack Obama’s victory in the battle with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Republicans over the nuclear deal with Iran has given him his security blanket for a face-to-face meeting.

President Obama told rabbis in his annual pre-Rosh HaShanah phone call that he plans to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu next month, when the U.N. General Assembly convenes after a summer recess.

Obama said:

Our consultations have already begun with Israeli military and intelligence officials.

My hope is to have a long discussion with Mr. Netanyahu about these issues when he comes to the United Nations during the General Assembly of the United Nations, or immediately after that.

Obama avoided the Prime Minister earlier this year when he addressed Congress, two weeks before Israel’s general elections, which he said precluded a meeting that could be exploited for political purposes.

Now that Netanyahu, if not the United States itself, appears to be the loser in the fight over the nuclear agreement, Obama has not problem meeting him, if no other reason than to gloat.

However, Arab American leader James Zogby wrote an interesting analysis last week in The Huffington Post that shows that although Prime Minister Netanyahu lost the fight to reject the Ian deal, he actually was the winner in the long-term, particularly concerning the Palestinian Authority.

President Obama told the rabbis:

Israel’s long-term security does depend on somehow resolving the Palestinian issue. We’re going to have to work on these issues, and they’re going to be messy and challenging in the years to come.” There’s going to have to be some soul searching in Israel and the American Jewish community because they’re tough questions.

Zogby explained that President Obama will be careful before he pushes his luck with Jewish Democratic Congressmen who supported the P5+1 agreement with Iran.

He wrote:

By throwing what amounted to a political and diplomatic tantrum, the Israeli side succeeded in making itself the center of attention for the Administration and Congress. In the last few months, there were more meetings held, more hours spent, and more effort expended on reassuring Israel and its supporters of America’s ‘unbreakable, unshakable’ commitment, than in any period in our history….

Senators and members of Congress will also now be inclined to make clear their support for Israel. Many Democrats who announced their intention to support the president made sure that their statements declared undying support for Israel. The myth that ‘AIPAC will beat you if you don’t toe the line’ continues to hold strong, and so it can be expected that many members, despite their resentment of AIPAC and Netanyahu’s pressure, will spend excessive time and energy between now and next November playing “make up” by proving their support for Israel.

However, Zogby said that in the longer-term, “The emergence and rapid growth of liberal pro-Israel Jewish groups like J Street and Americans for Peace Now, or non-Zionist Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, or the expansion of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement on college campuses are all evidence “of a shift in American policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

He can credit President Obama with having successful weakened the influence of AIPAC by bolstering the prestige of the left-wing groups, but he doesn’t realize that they have gone so far out in left field that they are leaving “mainstream Jewish” support out of the ball park.

Even if they nevertheless one day are viewed as representing American Jews, probably by including 3-4 million people who simply call themselves Jews, it will be too late because the Palestinian Authority by then will have succeeded in making demands that prove that a new Arab country within Israel’s present borders would mean the end of Israel.

House Passes Resolution Obliging Obama to Follow the Law

Friday, September 11th, 2015

Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced, and the House passed, a Resolution intending to require President Barack Obama to follow his obligations under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (Corker-Cardin).

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), both of whom served in the U.S. military, sponsored House Resolution 411. The Resolution was introduced and then approved by a vote of 243-186 on Thursday, Sept. 10, the same date on which the U.S. Senate filibustered the Iran Deal to prevent the House from pushing forward a disapproval vote and requiring members to publicly vote on the deal.

The Resolution points out that despite the President’s obligation under Corker-Cardin “to transmit the agreement, including any side agreements” to “the appropriate congressional committees and leadership,” and the term “agreement” is exhaustively defined as including any

agreement related to the nuclear pro- gram of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related there- to, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.

Because the President has not provided Congress with the documentation regarding the secret side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the President has failed to comply with Corker-Cardin.

And because Corker-Cardin has been breached by the President, the 60 day Congressional review period, the Resolution states, has not yet begun to run.

“Despite the reckless efforts by President Obama and Senate Democrats to force the implementation of the terribly flawed Iran nuclear agreement, I am proud of my colleagues in the House for getting it right and passing this important resolution today,” said Pompeo.

“This resolution is crucial to reining in the president and forcing him to live up to his obligation under Corker-Cardin, which he himself signed into law just a few months ago. The lack of access to the roadmap makes it impossible for a member of Congress to support this agreement; therefore, the president must show Congress the agreement in its entirety. A bad deal with Iran is not worth risking the safety of Kansans and the American people. I will continue to work hard and do everything in my power to stop this agreement.”

Following the passage of the Resolution, another opponent of the Nuclear Iran Deal, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), said “President Obama broke the very law he signed by failing to provide Congress with the Iran-IAEA side agreements. Withholding these documents from the American people and their elected representatives completely discredits the transparent review process the Administration was legally obligated to provide. In light of this vote, I believe the House should pursue legal action against the Administration for its blatant disregard for the law.”

Cardin to Introduce New Legislation to Strengthen Insupportable Iran Deal

Friday, September 4th, 2015

Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the all-important Senate Foreign Relations Committee waited until the 13th hour, but on Friday, Sept. 4 he announced his opposition to the Nuclear Iran Deal in an op-ed in the Washington Post.

Cardin went through the many reasons why he (finally!) decided he cannot support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. He also announced that he is introducing new legislation that addresses significant concerns raised by nearly all members of Congress in announcing their positions, both for and against the deal.

Whether those many elected representatives who announced their support for the deal, but hedged their support by voicing their deep concerns about its many limitations and about the trustworthiness of Iran will support this legislation is something their constituents will be closely watching. And then heads will swivel towards Iran to see whether that country will use Cardin’s legislation, should it get any traction, as (yet another) excuse to claim the U.S. is in breach of the deal and walk away.

The Maryland Senator said that he considered two questions as paramount while studying and consulting about the JCPOA. First, is the deal more or less likely to lead to Iran becoming a state with nuclear weapons, and second, would rejection of the deal be more or less likely to lead to Iran becoming a state with nuclear weapons.

IT’S DEAL THEN WAR, NOT DEAL OR WAR

First, the reasons Cardin gave for opposing the deal: once sanctions are lifted, it will be much harder, if even possible, to reimpose them. And so if Iran decides to cheat and develop nuclear weapons despite the conditions imposed by the deal, the rest of the world will be left with no option except for the military one.

Had the earlier opponents of the deal forcefully made use of that analysis, perhaps the debate would have begun with the obvious principle that “with the deal comes war,” rather than “either the deal or war.” Why Cardin waited until the 13th hour to roll it out is a question worth asking.

Cardin also mentioned the overarching concern voiced by nearly all opponents of the deal, which is that after 15 years Iran is left virtually free to produce nuclear weapons and with a very short breakout time. In other words, the deal would provide Iran, a rogue terrorist supporting country, with international legitimacy for its “industrial-scale nuclear program.”

The 24 day delay in inspections for Iranian sites where nuclear activity is suspected gave Cardin great pause, as did the side agreement which gives the International Atomic Energy Agency sole access to information about Iran’s possible military dimensions (PMDs) of its earlier nuclear weapons program.

ICBMs ARE FOR US, NOT ISRAEL

In addition, Cardin said he cannot support the lifting of the arms embargo and intercontinental ballistic missile sanctions.

Why any argument against the deal did not begin with a discussion of Iran’s demand to be permitted access to ICBMs is hard to fathom, but few chose to mention this as a primary point.  And, as both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer pointed out, Iran does not need intercontinental missiles to reach Israel, those ICBMs will have American and European addresses coded in.

“Our European partners understand that they cannot effectively act without the United States,” Cardin writes just before explaining his new legislation – which he promises will be bipartisan and include both opponents and supporters of the JCPOA. Whether Cardin means the European lifting of sanctions is meaningless unless the U.S. also lifts those sanctions, or that policing of the deal is unrealistic without the U.S. or something else altogether, is unknown.

British MP Accuses UK of Supporting Iran ‘at Expense of Allies’

Friday, September 4th, 2015

By Alexander Apfel

A British Member of Parliament has accused Britain of supporting an “aggressive” Iranian regime “at the expense of our long-term allies in the region” following the British reopening of its embassy in Tehran.

Conservative MP Guto Bebb told Tazpit that UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond’s hopes for Iran as a reformable regime are “misguided” and also warned that the agreement will spawn a nuclear arms race.

The Aberconwy MP, who called for a parliamentary debate in June to discuss the Iranian nuclear deal then under discussion, added that the latitude given to the Iranian government would have been unacceptable to the UK government a year ago.

Bebb stated that he advocated the continuation of sanctions which he said were proving to be effective measures against Iranian aggression.

Rejecting Philip Hammond’s parliamentary remarks that the deal represented a victory for diplomacy and assurances to Prime Minister Netanyahu in July that it removes the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, Bebb told Tazpit that he is amazed “that the Foreign Secretary seems to consider this a success story; his predecessor Liam Fox considers this to be completely unacceptable.”

He predicted that the deal will likely result in a nuclear arms race in the region beginning with Saudi Arabia. Recounting meetings with representatives of British allies in the region, Bebb claimed that they had all expressed concern for any deal which provides Iran with too much flexibility.

While expressing his concern for Israel’s security, Bebb insisted that fears of a nuclear arms race were not restricted to Israel and that the debate he called “was not an issue for Israel alone.”

Addressing Israel, the MP told Tazpit that it is important to “understand the difference between a peaceful and democratic state that is trying to live within its own borders and Iran that will use its nuclear capacity to dominate the Middle East.”

In July 2014, the British Conservative Friends of Israel, of which Bebb is a member, issued a statement decrying the economic sanctions relief which, they said will serve to embolden terror groups funded by Iran.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/british-mp-accuses-uk-of-supporting-iran-at-expense-of-allies/2015/09/04/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: