Wednesday, May 2, 2018

The foolishness of the JCPOA is more apparent than ever

Despite the lame mockery of what Mossad has made available to the world by henchmen from the Most Equal Comrade's administration, the evidence is clear:

U.S. officials and congressional insiders view the disclosure Monday by Israel of Iran's ongoing efforts to develop a nuclear weapon as game over for the landmark nuclear deal, telling the Washington Free Beacon that new evidence of Iran's top secret nuclear workings makes it virtually impossible for President Donald Trump to remain in the agreement.
Senior Trump administration officials confirmed the findings as authentic and praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's for disclosing thousands of secret documents proving Iran lied about its past work on a nuclear warhead, telling the Free Beacon the revelation was a "powerful presentation" by Israel outlining why the Iran deal must be fixed or killed.
U.S. officials who reviewed the secret documents confirmed their authenticity and said that Israel has shared the information fully with the United States, most likely to help build the case for Trump to abandon the nuclear deal, rather than try to fix what the White House views as a series of insurmountable flaws.
A State Department official confirmed to the Free Beacon Monday evening that it is "aware of the information just released" by Israel and is "examining it carefully."
"The United States has reviewed many of the documents Israel has obtained relating to Iran’s nuclear weapons program," an official confirmed to the Free Beacon. "We assess that the documents that we have reviewed are authentic."
The State Department further confirmed that "new details in this information are consistent with a large body of evidence and intelligence the U.S. government has amassed over many years on Iran’s past clandestine nuclear weapons program," according to the official.
While the administration's analysis of the document cache is "ongoing," officials said they "agree with the Israelis that…. this information provides new and compelling details about Iran's past efforts to develop nuclear weapons deliverable by a Shahab-3 ballistic missile."
In addition, the new "information indicates plans for Iran’s nuclear weapons program included building five nuclear weapons," the official said. "It demonstrates once again that Iranian leaders have for years lied to the world and their own citizens when they claim Iran has never pursued nuclear weapons."
Now, about that lame mockery:

Former Obama administration national-security spokesman Tommy Vietor: “After years of bashing U.S. intelligence agencies for getting Iraq WMD wrong, Trump is now cooking up intel with the Israelis to push us closer to a conflict with Iran. A scandal hiding in plain sight.”
Former Obama administration deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes: “By reminding everyone of the well-known pre-Iran Deal history, Netanyahu inadvertently made the case for why the Iran Deal needs to stay in place. Without it, all the restrictions on Iran’s program and the inspections regime that verify compliance go away.”
As John Cooper observed . . . pick one, guys. Bibi Netanyahu’s presentation can’t be made-up nonsense AND undisputed facts that everyone already knew. And the fact that two former Obama officials are offering two contradictory counter-arguments simultaneously suggests that they’re throwing everything up against the wall and seeing what sticks.

Iran deal defenders seem to think that repeating the phrase “stringent and invasive verification procedures” over and over again somehow changes the fact that Iran has said it will never allow inspections of its military sites. If outside inspectors are allowed to examine sites A, B, and C, and not allowed to inspect sites X, Y and Z, where do you think a regime would be tempted to research and develop nuclear weapons? This is like saying to a search warrant, “officer, you can look anywhere in my house except my bedroom.”

This is why Iran’s long history of lying, revealed in depth and detail by the Israeli intelligence operation, matters. It further reconfirms that we are dealing with a regime that wanted nuclear weapons for a long time and tried to hide its efforts. It cannot be disputed that if they have the opportunity to cheat, they will cheat. Deal defenders insist that the inspectors will be able to find anything that should concern us. That’s a giant gamble, with literally nuclear consequences. Iran got everything it wanted in the deal, including an end to sanctions and $1.7 billion in pallets of cash, in exchange for a promise to not develop nuclear weapons for eleven years and a limited system of inspections to verify they’re keeping that promise.
Vietor also called Ben Shapiro “Baby Bannon Ben” which suggests he’s . . . either not informed or gleefully dishonest about the openly hostile relationship between Shapiro and Steve Bannon. 
Uh, yeah, a little behind the curve on the state of Shapiro - Bannon relations, aren't we, Tommy?

And this is rich, coming from the gang that orchestrated this:

In his January 2016 speechannouncing the lifting of sanctions, Obama claimed that as a “reciprocal humanitarian gesture” the United States would release a number of Iranian-born “civilians” who “were not charged with terrorism or any violent offenses.”
Far from mere “civilians,” the administration was releasing Iranian spies whom the Justice Department had tagged as threats to national security. Of the 14 civilians, one was a top Hezbollah operative named Ali Fayad, who had not only been indicted in U.S. courts for planning to kill U.S. government employees but whom agents believed reported to Putin as a key supplier of weapons to Syria and Iraq. Another was serving an eight-year sentence for “conspiring to supply Iran with satellite technology and hardware.” Another, Seyed Abolfazl Shahab Jamili, was charged with illegally conspiring to procure “thousands of parts with nuclear applications.” 
It gets even more shameful:


When the Iranians released American hostages in early 2016, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry claimed it was due to “the relationships forged and the diplomatic channels unlocked over the course of the nuclear talks.” In actuality, the Obama administration secretly airlifted more than $1.7 billion worth of cash as ransom to obtain the release of four Americans so as not to derail the Iranian deal. Because all of it was above-board and absolutely not a ransom payment, it was sent on wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs, and other currencies on an unmarked cargo plane.
History is not going to be kind to the folks who pushed for and inked this deal.

 
 
 


11 comments:

  1. The total lack of logic presented here is astonishing. Explain to me, please, how the suspicion that Iran will "cheat" on the agreement leads to a conclusion that we should remove the inspection regime that would uncover and likely prevent the cheating these commentators are certain will occur. Unless, of course, the end game is to involve US military in (once again) performing Bibi's bidding, which may get Bolton's nipples hard but is religiously-inspired madness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I dunno about the US but it's pretty clear Nettie wants war.

    ReplyDelete
  3. All I see is that Nettie has nukes and doesn't want his considerable enemies to have them. They have their prosperous empire of entitled exclusivity to spread and need room to do so. God said.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Dings, that's because Israel is a Western - as in sane, civilized country with no hegemonic designs - and its (not "his") enemies are monstrous.

    Rick, you remove the inspection regime as part of the overall process of tearing up the whole agreement and working vigorously to undermine Iran's government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say your description of the plan is accurate, but still remains stupid and dangerous. You endorse taking our eyes OFF the Iranian ball simply because the agreement has President Obama's name on it -- much like Trump!

      Delete
  5. If you were to say to me that there is a clear and undeniable history of motorists speeding along National Road, and I said "Well then, the best idea is to take down all the Speed Limit signs erected during the Pence/Holcomb administration and remove all radar and patrols", I can easily imagine your reaction. The analogy isn't perfect, but it is essentially relevant.

    The ONLY way this policy makes any sense is if war with Iran is the desired outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't endorse taking our eyes off the ball. I endorse looking for opportunities to topple the Iranian regime. The Iranian people loathe it. There was indeed an excellent opportunity to support a grassroots groundswell of opposition in 2009, but the US administration at the time, for whatever reasons, opted not to act on it.

    The JPCOA legitimizes the Iranian regime - which has continued to publicly call the US its main enemy even after the deal was inked, as well as test-fire lots of missiles, and humiliate a US naval crew.

    Bad and wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The so-called missed opportunity of 2009 is a fiction most openly expressed in an op-ed piece by VP NoCakesForGays and was debunked at the time of his claim (Dec 2017). Bolton's dream of a new Crusade was insane under W and remains so today.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Leon Panetta would beg to differ.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/leon-panetta-obama-should-have-helped-2009-iran-protesters-thats-what-the-u-s-is-all-about/

    In light of the current Iran protests, former secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told CNN that President Barack Obama should have supported the 2009 Green movement protesters in Iran.

    CNN's Jake Tapper asked Panetta about the 2009 protests in an interview Tuesday evening. "Do you think the Obama administration dropped the ball by not more aggressively standing with the protesters, whether on its own or in Congress with our European allies and others?"

    Panetta, who directed the CIA during the protests and later served as Obama's secretary of defense from 2011 to 2013, essentially said yes.

    "Well, I remember that — that movement. It was a much larger protest than what we’re having today," Panetta said. "It was based on the Green Party and what happened in the election then."

    "I do think that was an appropriate time for the United States to have sent a clearer message that we stand by those who try to represent the rights of people. That’s what the United States is all about. And it would have been important to have sent that message at the time," he concluded.

    The subtle nature of this rebuke should not obscure the fact that a key Obama staffer essentially attacked the former president — for being insufficiently American. "That's what the United States is all about," Panetta said.

    By the way, Mike Pence is fine with anybody getting cakes. He - and a majority of the Indiana state legislature in 2013 - just understood that the government had no business making Christian bakers conduct business in violation of their faith.

    ReplyDelete
  9. By the way, I'm not jumping on the Nobel-Prize-for-Squirrel-Hair train, either. Kim's abrupt reversal from a mortal-enemy stance seems to me to indicate a still-missing piece of the puzzle.

    ReplyDelete
  10. President Obama made three (3) separate statements of support for the protesters and condemnig the violence (2 more than the current administration). With all due respect to Panetta, what more does he (and you) think should have been done -- air strikes?!?

    And that was the REPUBLICAN majority that supported denying service to African Americans at the diner counter...oops, I mean, refusing service to gay couples.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete