Friday, April 03, 2015
Caroline Glick: The diplomatic track to war
Everyone recognizes that the situation is only going to get worse. With each passing week, Iran’s power and brazenness will only increase.Melanie Phillips: Slippery face-saver, but Iran wins
Everyone understands this. And this week they learned that with Washington heading the committee welcoming Iran’s regional hegemony and nuclear capabilities, no outside power will stand up to Iran’s rise. The future of every state in the region hangs in the balance. And so, it can be expected that everyone is now working out a means to preempt and prevent a greater disaster.
These preemptive actions will no doubt include three categories of operations: striking Hezbollah’s missile arsenal; striking the Iranian Navy to limit its ability to project its force in the Bab al-Mandab; and conducting limited military operations to destroy a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear installations.
Friday is the eve of Passover. Thirteen years ago, Palestinian terrorists brought home the message of the Exodus when they blew up the Seder at Netanya’s Park Hotel, killing 30, wounding 140, and forcing Israel into war. The message of the Passover Haggada is that there are no shortcuts to freedom. To gain and keep it, you have to be willing to fight for it.
That war was caused by Israel’s embrace of the notion that you can bring peace through concessions that empower an enemy sworn to your destruction. The price of that delusion was thousands of lives lost and families destroyed.
Iran is far more powerful than the PLO. But the Americans apparently believe they are immune from the consequences of their leaders’ policies. This is not the case for Israel or for our neighbors. We lack the luxury of ignoring the fact that Obama’s disastrous diplomacy has brought war upon us. Deal or no deal, we are again about to be forced to pay a price to maintain our freedom.
In 2003, similar hopes of a “Grand Bargain” with Iran which would disarm Hezbollah likewise turned to ashes. The west made two bad mistakes which it is still making today.David Horovitz: Defeatist Obama’s deal with the devil
First, it pinned its hopes on Iran’s reformist-seeming presidents – but the only person who matters is the implacable Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.
Second, it failed to grasp the central role of deception in Iranian diplomacy through the Islamic principle of taqiyya, or mandated lying in the defense of Islam. Any agreement with Iran over its nuclear program is therefore worth nothing at all.
The west thinks that it can swallow Iran.
In fact – with Obama’s free pass empowering it to extend its influence over Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and Yemen – Iran is instead swallowing the West.
Of course, it may already be too late to stop the Iranian bomb. Credible reports suggest Iran has outsourced its development to Syria and North Korea. But then, the deal being negotiated was never about stopping Iran getting the bomb. It was all about stopping America and Israel from stopping Iran from getting the bomb.
Obama and Iran have now got more breathing space to achieve precisely that.
Extolling the virtues of his deal with Iran on Thursday, President Barack Obama made a false and extremely nasty assertion: “It’s no secret,” he claimed, incorrectly, “that the Israeli prime minister and I don’t agree about whether the United States should move forward with a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue.”
It is indeed no secret that Obama and Netanyahu don’t agree on how to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. It is emphatically not the case, however, that Israel’s prime minister opposes “a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue.” It is emphatically not the case, despite Obama’s insinuation, that Israel’s leader regards military intervention as the only means to thwart Iran.
Netanyahu has not been saying no to diplomacy. His endlessly stated contention is not that war is the only alternative to the deal so delightedly hailed by Obama as “the most effective way to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.” Rather, in Netanyahu’s insistent opinion, what is needed is simply a different, far more potent deal.
As Netanyahu made plain in anguished, infuriated tones on Wednesday, in the final hours before the Lausanne agreement was struck, what was required was not no deal at all, but rather “a better deal,” one “which would significantly roll back Iran’s nuclear infrastructure” and “link the eventual lifting of the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program to a change in Iran’s behavior.” A deal to ensure that Iran “stop its aggression in the region, stop its terrorism throughout the world, and stop its threats to annihilate Israel.” That, said Netanyahu, is “the deal that the world powers must insist upon.”
Dore Gold: The Flawed Underpinnings of the New Nuclear Understandings with Iran
The underlying flaw in the new nuclear understandings between the P5+1 and Iran is the fact that it leaves Iran’s vast nuclear infrastructure intact. Indeed, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif boasted, after the understandings were announced, that Iran did not have to close down a single nuclear facility, it will continue to engage in uranium enrichment, and it can engage in research and development (meaning it can develop new generations of centrifuges that operate at 10 or 20 times the speed of the first-generation centrifuges that have been installed in uranium enrichment plants like Natanz and Fordow). And while Iran holds on to this nuclear complex, Western sanctions on the Iranian economy will be removed and Tehran will be awash with cash to support its expansionism into Middle Eastern countries, its missile programs which are not covered by the agreement, and its global backing of terrorism. For these reasons the agreement looks like a grave error of historic proportions.Joel Pollak: Iran Deal: Munich II
Careful diplomacy would have had to assume that Iran will violate the new understandings and at the end of the day will not comply with its terms. That is what the historical record unquestionably demonstrates. Tehran concealed its enrichment facilities that it was obligated to declare under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran did not provide full access to suspected sites that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sought to inspect. The famous Parchin weapons site was tampered with; asphalt was poured over large areas to make ground samples difficult to obtain, should Iran be forced to open the area in the future. By leaving the Iranian nuclear infrastructure intact, should Iran follow the path of its North Korean ally and evict the inspectors of its nuclear sites, Tehran would be able to reconstitute a full-scale nuclear program in short order and make a straight dash to nuclear bombs.
The P5+1 powers have, as expected, reached a “framework agreement” on a nuclear deal with Iran. And, as suspected, the agreement allows Iran to retain its enrichment facility at an underground bunker. It also allows Iran to maintain a small amount of enriched uranium, and will offer the regime sanctions relief as soon as it can show it is keeping its end of the bargain. As to information about possible military dimensions of Iran’s program, there is nothing but an agreement to talk further.Edwin Black: Oil is Still Fueling Iran’s Atomic Ambitions
The deal is a near-complete capitulation by President Barack Obama. It has one redeeming feature: Iran has agreed to dismantle the heavy water nuclear reactor at Arak. Secretary of State John Kerry obtained a few other concessions, and the administration’s apologists are pointing to the fact that there are several pages of details as if that makes the whole process worthwhile. Obama taunted his critics, saying that a deal was surely better than war, which he suggested was the only alternative.
But the question at stake is not whether there will be war with Iran. There already is. Iran’s Houthi proxies ousted a government in Yemen that had provided the most important foundation for Obama’s policy of attacking Al Qaeda terrorists who threaten the United States. The Iranians are also propping up Bashar al-Assad in Syria, whom the Obama administration is at least theoretically committed to deposing. And though it is fighting ISIS in Iraq, Iran is taking over what the U.S. once defended.
While the world’s diplomats are focused on the two key fuels, uranium and plutonium, one ancient fuel drives this entire process. That ancient fuel is oil.Iran Nuke Deal Heralds Lower Oil Prices
Petrodollars have been financing Iran’s nuclear program for almost two decades. So, while the International Atomic Energy Agency is struggling to embed its monitors deep inside Iran’s infrastructure, the average person can help slow the centrifuges simply by reducing their household’s demand for oil.
Even though Iranian oil has been proscribed by international sanctions, all oil is fungible. When oil consumption is measurably reduced in America and elsewhere, it very quickly lowers the value of the global supply. That cheapens the value of Iran’s oil, the financial furnace of its nuclear program.
Iran needs oil to sell at approximately $143 per barrel to maintain its social, governmental, and military programs. But the global glut, combined with the recession and some conservation, have driven recent prices into the high $40s and $50s per barrel. This means that even if sanctions are relaxed and the stealth market expands, Iran will still be hurting at the pump and in the bank. (h/t Elder of Lobby)
American and Iranian diplomats have agreed to end sanctions on the world’s largest Shi’ite Muslim country, causing oil prices to tumble as markets feared more crude will be added to global supplies.WaPo Editorial: President Obama has Retreated From Previous Positions on Iranian Nukes
Bad news for Saudi Arabia, but good new for Iran which will soon be able to sell oil to eager buyers, especially in Europe. The Wall Street Journal reports that U.S. benchmark … fell as low as $1.83, or 3.6%, to $48.27 a barrel, while the international Brent contact, which had been down about $2, was recently down $2.89, or 5%, at $54.21 a barrel.”
Analysts were initially skeptical diplomats would reach an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program, but once the announcement was made Thursday oil prices tumbled.
“There was skepticism that a real deal could have been reached, but when those headlines came out that they made substantial progress, the market started to sell off,” Phil Flynn with brokerage Price Futures Group told the WSJ.
Noting that President Barack Obama’s stated goals for an acceptable nuclear deal with Iran in 2012 would see Tehran “‘[…] end their nuclear program’ and ‘abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place,'” an unsigned staff editorial published today in The Washington Post laments that the president has retreated “a long way” from these positions.Obama details ‘historic’ nuke deal with Iran, Jerusalem slams ‘dangerous capitulation’
The “key parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.
The editorial also observes that the sanctions relief that would follow an agreement would allow Iran “to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region.”
In addition to emphasizing Obama’s retreat on demands of three years ago, the editorial also questions whether the outlines of the deal announced today would even accomplish the more limited goal that the president now cites as his benchmark of success.
In Jerusalem, officials slammed the framework as “a capitulation to Iranian dictates.” The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it “a bad framework that will lead to a bad and dangerous agreement. If finalized, it would make the world “far more dangerous.”Iran Accuses U.S. of Lying About New Nuke Agreement
The agreement constitutes “international legitimization of Iran’s nuclear program” whose “only purpose is to build nuclear weapons.”
Obama, whose remarks were broadcast live in Iranian state TV, vowed that “there will be no daylight, there is no daylight” between the US and Israel on security, and said the US would continue to stand with Israel in the face of Iran’s destabilizing policies and threats.
Today “we have achieved the framework” for a long-term deal, a framework “that would cut off every path” that Iran could take to the bomb, including the toughest inspections “ever negotiated,” he said.
He said the terms of the deal, first, closed off Iran’s plutonium route to the bomb. The core of the Arak reactor will be dismantled, he said.
Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework.Lausanne Dispatch: Questions about Sanctions Relief Cast Doubt on Parameters for Nuke Deal
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.
Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.
Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.
Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry—and release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions—Zarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies.
“The solutions are good for all, as they stand,” he tweeted. “There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on.”
In the understanding reached on Thursday between the P5+1 global powers and Iran in Lausanne, Switzerland, there appears to be a discrepancy in the language on the sequencing of sanctions relief between the European Union/Iran join statement and a factsheet released by the Obama administration on the parameters of the understanding.No deal yet on timing of sanctions relief for Iran: France
The EU/Iran statement says that the “EU will terminate the implementation of all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions and the US will cease the application of all nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions, simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation by Iran of its key nuclear commitments”. The administration’s factsheet, on the other hand, reads that “the U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.”.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has taken to Twitter to emphasize that there will in fact immediate lifting of sanctions. “The solutions are good for all, as they stand. There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on,” one of his Tweets reads. Zarif continued, “Iran/5+1 Statement: “US will cease the application of ALL nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.” Is this gradual?” The Iranian Foreign Minister added, “Iran/P5+1 Statement: ‘The EU will TERMINATE the implementation of ALL nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions’. How about this?”
France’s foreign minister warned Friday that the tricky issue of when crippling sanctions on Iran would be lifted following a framework deal over its nuclear program was “not yet solved.”France Says it Wanted a Better Deal
“The Iranians want sanctions to be lifted immediately,” Laurent Fabius told Europe 1 radio station.
“We say to them: we will ease the sanctions as you respect what you have agreed to and if you don’t live up to your commitments, of course we can return to the situation we had before.
“On this point, there is not yet a deal,” said Fabius.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who represented France in the nuclear talks between Iran and world powers, revealed on Friday that his nation had rejected an original version of the deal reached the day before for not being "solid enough."This Is Not a Deal
In an interview with Europe 1 radio cited by Fox News, Fabius said he had tried to hold out for stronger terms, but when the Iranian delegation threatened to leave the talks he was forced to capitulate.
France wants a strong deal "to prevent other countries in the Gulf such as Saudi Arabia from embarking on nuclear proliferation," Fabius said.
Speaking about the framework deal that was reached in Lausanne, Switzerland on Thursday, the foreign minister called it a "very important" step, but said "the end of the road is the end of June," by which time a final deal is to be reached.
Fabius's comments come after the Wall Street Journal released an in-depth report Thursday night, citing numerous current and former US representatives in the negotiations, and showing how US President Barack Obama's administration gradually gave up on its goals during the course of the talks from September 2013.
Today in Lausanne, Switzerland, officials from the United States, Iran, and other world powers delivered big news about the negotiations aimed at halting Iran’s quest for a nuclear bomb. But they didn’t announce a deal. In fact, they didn’t even announce an agreement. Rather, they revealed, according to the New York Times, a “specific and comprehensive general understanding about the next steps in limiting Tehran’s nuclear program.” There’s a lot of padding in that description for a reason: the P5+1 powers are far off from anything resembling a nuclear deal with Tehran.Experts: Iran Will be '3 Weeks from a Nuclear Weapon'
What we now have is confirmation that negotiations will continue. There’s good reason to believe that this is what both sides were after above all else. For Tehran it means continued sanctions relief, and for the Obama administration it means its diplomacy cannot yet be judged a failure.
Going by social and professional media responses, the administration has achieved its goal in spades. Today’s announcement is largely being seen as cause for optimism. This is foremost a measure of how low Americans have set the bar for diplomatic progress in the Obama age. Today’s “understanding” is actually verification—on paper—of long-rumored American capitulations on Iran’s nuclear program.
Responding to the Iran nuclear deal sealed Thursday, one expert has revealed that the nuclear centrifuge research allowed by the deal likely will allow the Islamic regime to reach a point where it can make a dash for the nuclear bomb within three weeks.Robert Malley, Once Too Anti-Israel for Obama, Negotiating with Iran
Joe Cirincione, head of the American anti-nuclear proliferation group The Ploughshares Fund, told New Scientist that Iran currently has 8,000 kilograms of uranium enriched to the point where they can be used as nuclear fuel.
The centrifuges Iran has declared would be able to further enrich that quantity into a nuclear bomb within two to three months at present, he says.
But with the deal, during which Iran will be allowed to continue enriching at a reduced rate and conduct research that could let it improve its centrifuge technology, that breakout time will drop considerably.
Once, Robert Malley was too radical for the Obama campaign, or for the White House. The Middle East scholar, widely seen as anti-Israel, reportedly met with the terrorist group Hamas and encouraged the United States to do the same.WaPo on Iranian Lobby-Linked NSC Director: Nothing To See Here!
Then, in February, President Barack Obama appointed Malley as a senior director at the National Security Council. Today, Malley is advising Secretary of State John Kerry in Lausanne, Switzerland as he negotiates with Iran over a nuclear deal.
A photograph released by Agence France-Presse shows Malley with his back to the camera, looking serious as Kerry enjoys a laugh with British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond.
Throughout the talks, Israel–which is not involved–has expressed concerned that international negotiators are leaving it open to threats from Iran.
The fact that Malley is at the table, in the only delegation that might consider Israel’s welfare, will not be reassuring to Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
The Washington Post has taken to investigating a Breitbart report that established President Obama’s National Security Director for Iran, Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, was previously an employee at the alleged pro-Iranian regime lobbying group NIAC (National Iranian American Council).Netanyahu to Obama: Iran deal threatens Israel’s survival
Nowrouzzadeh was listed in a White House brief as being one of a select group of officials who took part in a Tuesday night meeting with President Obama on the ongoing Iran nuclear negotiations. It is believed that this was the first time the White House revealed her position as National Security Council Director for Iran.
The Washington Post spoke with a White House “senior administration official,” who told the D.C. paper that the 31-year-old had worked for the Defense Department and the State Department before moving to the National Security Council.
It remains unclear what qualifies the young National Security Council Director for such an esteemed position, but for the fact that she supposedly has received four awards during her short stint in government service. The Post reports: “She’s received awards from Defense, State, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI, we were told.”
A nuclear deal with Iran based on the political framework reached in Switzerland between Tehran and the P5+1 group earlier Thursday “threatens the survival of the state of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told US President Barack Obama during a phone call to discuss the accord.Israeli cabinet unanimously opposed to Iran framework nuclear deal
In further comments Friday, Netanyahu said any final agreement must “include a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.”
Obama phoned Netanyahu hours after the framework was struck. Netanyahu has been strongly opposed to the emerging deal, arguing that it does not have the necessary safeguards and will pave the way to a nuclear Iran.
“A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel. Just two days ago, Iran said that “the destruction of Israel is nonnegotiable,” and in these fateful days Iran is accelerating the arming of its terror proxies to attack Israel. This deal would legitimize Iran’s nuclear program, bolster Iran’s economy, and increase Iran’s aggression and terror throughout the Middle East and beyond,” Netanyahu told Obama during the call.
Israel's security cabinet is united in its opposition to the framework deal reached between world powers and Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said in a statement issued following a special meeting said on Friday.Steinitz: Parameters of Iranian nuclear agreement ‘detached from reality’
Netanyahu, who earlier spoke by phone with US President Barack Obama, saying that he was "vehemently opposed" to the agreement, was shortly expected to deliver a statement.
Obama called Netanyahu within hours of the deal being struck, saying it represented significant progress toward a lasting solution that cuts off Iran's path to a nuclear weapon.
The smiles that accompanied the announcement on Thursday of parameters for an Iranian nuclear agreement in Lausanne between the world powers and Iran are detached from reality, Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said in Jerusalem’s initial reaction to the development.Air Force Chief hints Israel could launch a surprise attack on Iran
The reality, Steinitz said, is that Tehran refused to make any concession on the nuclear issue and continues to threaten Israel and all other countries in the Middle East.
Even before the press conference in Lausanne where the announcement was made, the Prime Minister’s Office posted the following message on Twitter: “Any deal must significantly roll back Iran’s nuclear capabilities and stop its terrorism and aggression.”
The tweet was posted above a map with arrows leading from Tehran to Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq under the headline, “Iran’s aggression during the nuclear negotiations.”
Government officials made clear that Israel will continue publicly fighting against the deal, emphasizing Iran’s aggressive behavior throughout the Middle East even at a time when it does not yet have nuclear capabilities.
As the world powers are working out a nuclear deal with Iran, some in Israel are hinting at a different approach.Israel Should 'Seriously Consider' Striking Iran, Expert Says
Israeli Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel said Wednesday at a conference at the Ben-Gurion House in Tel Aviv that "from a purely military standpoint, there is a very large advantage [in a preemptive strike], because it achieves the goal, assuming that you have the capability."
Eshel noted that "there are those who argue that because the enemy now has greater capability to strike the Israeli home front than [it did] in the past, the question is more relevant than ever."
"Unlike that attack [referring to Operation Focus], Israel is [now] seen as strong. Our military actions require international legitimization. Would an action like this -- a surprise -- would it get that legitimization? I think that's a major change. We were weak then. Now we're in a different place."
Israel should "seriously consider" a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in the aftermath of the "framework deal" announced between Tehran and western powers Thursday, a leader defense and security expert said.Menachem Begin To Joe Biden: I Am Not A Jew With Trembling Knees
Speaking to Arutz Sheva Friday, Professor Efraim Inbar, who heads the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, said the deal had realized Israel's worst fears by leaving Iran's nuclear program essentially intact.
The Islamic Republic's nuclear program has been granted "legitimacy" by the agreement, which still allowed it to continue enriching uranium and to maintain a reactor capable of producing enriched plutonium, he said. "And that's what worries Israel, that they (Iran) will be able within a short time frame to reach a nuclear bomb."
"I hold the view that the only way to stop Iran in its journey to a nuclear bomb is through military means," Inbar maintained, suggesting that "Israel needs to seriously consider striking a number of important nuclear facilities" to head off the threat.
While the Obama Administration continues their pressure on Israel, for at least Vice President Joe Biden, it would not be the first time that there has been personal animosity with an Israeli leader. The reality is that while some of the names change, this conflict is about Israel’s refusal to surrender to a Palestinian Arab enemy who seeks to destroy them. The United States is wrong to pressure Israel – yet, this too shall pass.German FM: Israel should take closer look at framework Iran deal
History often repeats itself.
On June 22 1982, Joe Biden was a Senator from Delaware and confronted then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin during his Senate Foreign Relations committee testimony, threatening to cut off aid to Israel. Begin forcefully responded, “Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.”
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Friday Israel's government, which has said a framework agreement on Iran's nuclear program will endanger Israeli security, should take a closer look at the deal.American Jewish umbrella group skeptical over nuclear deal
Steinmeier said it was too early to celebrate the framework deal, reached on Thursday in Switzerland, because there was much work to do before a final agreement was signed.
"We ask the Israeli government to look more closely at the agreement," Steinmeier, who was speaking through an interpreter, told a news conference after talks with his French and Polish counterparts.
"Its main points are intended to guarantee that security in the Middle East... will improve, and not get worse," he told reporters in the Polish city of Wroclaw.
The American Jewish umbrella group, Jewish Federations of North America, said Thursday that the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers “leaves vital issues woefully unresolved.In wake of Iran framework deal, Saudis put on a brave face
“The agreement provides scant detail on how the phased sanction relief will be implemented. It contains insufficient clarity on how Iranian adherence to the agreement will be verified. And it is ambiguous on what penalties will be imposed if Iran fails to fulfill its commitments,” according to a statement from the organization, which represents the Jewish communal federations across North America.
“The [Obama] Administration has repeatedly reaffirmed that ‘it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.’ Even during the current negotiations, the White House has often said, ‘a bad deal is worse than no deal,'” the statement notes.
True, Arab leaders were always less vociferous than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the potential threat from Iran’s nuclear program. But followers of the Arab media could have easily missed the historic framework agreement reached between Iran and the superpowers on Thursday altogether.Boehner demands Congress approval for Iran deal
“The Saudis are in a state of shock,” said Uzi Rabi, head of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University and an expert on the Persian Gulf. “They understand that this deal is a game-changer in favor of Iran, and are deeply concerned, but they’re not in the habit of crying over spilled milk.”
Saudi Arabia was putting on a brave face in its news coverage of the deal. “The agreement will prevent a nuclear Iran; Obama to reassure Gulf leaders in Camp David summit,” read the headline of Saudi-owned daily Asharq al-Awsat Friday. It quoted the telephone conversation between US President Barack Obama and King Salman on Thursday, in which the latter hoped for “a binding final agreement that will strengthen security and stability in the region and the world.”
Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner did not hide his criticism of the Iran framework deal announced on Thursday and accused U.S. President Barack Obama's administration of seeing fit to hastily lift sanctions while ignoring Congress.Krauthammer: 'Not A Chance In The World' Sanctions Will Return If Iranians Cheat
"The parameters for a final deal represent an alarming departure from the White House's initial goals. My longtime concerns about the parameters of this potential agreement remain, but my immediate concern is the administration signaling it will provide near-term sanctions relief. Congress must be allowed to fully review the details of any agreement before any sanctions are lifted," Boehner said Thursday.
Boehner recalled a recent tour of the Middle East in March, and cited Iran's negative influence on the region.
"After visiting with our partners on the ground in the Middle East this week, my concerns about Iran's efforts to foment unrest, brutal violence and terror have only grown. It would be naïve to suggest the Iranian regime will not continue to use its nuclear program, and any economic relief, to further destabilize the region," he said.
KRAUTHAMMER: They were completely unclear about what the requirements are. It is possible that when they sign the agreement in June, there will be a huge relief of sanctions. And when Obama speaks about snapping them back, if the Iranians are cheating, there is not chance in the world that the Chinese, the Russians or even the Europeans are going to snap on sanctions again. We would be acting alone, we’d be completely isolated.Sen. Mark Kirk likens Iran deal to Nazi appeasement, warns of nuclear conflict
So, number one, they are going to get their economy back and that’s all they really wanted. But the second, the most astonishing thing is that in return, they are not closing a single nuclear facility. Their entire nuclear infrastructure is intact. The soundbite you showed of the president, and that was in December, no more than a year and a half ago, he talked about you don’t need the Fordow facility, they are keeping it, it’s not going to close. They don’t need the Iraq reactor. They are gonna keep it. It will be “updated.” And lastly, they don’t need the advanced centrifuges, they are going to be developing new ones in the Fordow reactor. So, they are going to have the entire infrastructure in place either for a breakout after the agreement expires or when they have enough sanctions relief and they want to cheat and to breakout on their own.
Sen. Mark Kirk blasted the nuclear deal with Iran on Thursday, saying the Obama administration’s diplomacy was worse than Britain’s attempts to appease Nazi Germany and predicting Israel would soon be pulled into a war with Iran.2016 Contenders Perry, Huckabee and Fiorina Criticize Obama's Deal With Iran
The Illinois Republican trashed a deal struck by global powers with Tehran, concluding in a phone interview “that Neville Chamberlain got a lot of more out of Hitler than Wendy Sherman got out of Iran,” a reference to a top State Department negotiator on the deal.
But Kirk wasn’t done, forecasting that lifting any more sanctions on Iran “dooms the Middle East to yet another war,” one that Israel will have to clean up, perhaps in a nuclear fashion.
Hillary Clinton is pictured. | AP Photo
“We should be a reviewing presence to see how this unfolds,” Kirk said of Congress’ role, adding: “Which we all know is going to end with a mushroom cloud somewhere near Tehran.”
Kirk’s office called to clarify that Kirk was referring to a nuclear test in Iran.
Asked if he could find anything to like in the deal, Kirk responded: “No.”
In an op-ed for Fox News, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina echoed Gov. Perry’s and Gov. Huckabee’s concerns. She said the deal the U.S. negotiated with Iran threatens American security.Hillary Clinton Backs Iran Nuke Deal
“U.S. officials know that Iran has had a long-term plan to gain a nuclear weapon and destabilize the region through its support of terrorist organizations. And it is known that President Rouhani has never agreed to full and unfettered United Nations inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities,” the potential 2016 presidential candidate wrote.
She went on to say the Iranian government constantly violated sanctions placed on Iran by the United Nations.
“We know that they have flat-out lied about every nuclear facility they have built over the last three decades,” added Fiorina. “This is not the behavior of a potential ally or of a partner. These are the actions of a country trying to bluff its way into persuading the United Nations, the United States, and its allies to allow it the freedom to develop a nuclear weapon for military purposes.”
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has come out in support of Thursday’s deal with Iran, but she also hedged her bets a bit, saying, “the devil is always in the details.”Joyful Iranians dance into night after nuclear deal
Her full statement reads as follows:
The understanding that the major world powers have reached with Iran is an important step toward a comprehensive agreement that would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and strengthen the security of the United States, Israel, and the region.
President Obama and Secretary Kerry have been persistent and determined in pursuit of this goal building on a decade of bipartisan pressure and diplomacy. Getting the rest of the way to a final deal by June won’t be easy, but it is absolutely crucial.
The devil is always in the details in this kind of negotiation.
Hundreds of Iranians took to the streets in Tehran early Friday to celebrate a breakthrough in talks with the West that may end the country’s 12-year-long nuclear crisis.Iranian hardliners criticize nuclear deal
The capital’s longest street, Val-e-Asr Avenue, was lined with cars as drivers sounded their horns in approval of a framework deal intended to lead to a comprehensive agreement with world powers in June.
“Whatever the final result of the negotiations, we are winners,” 30-year-old Behrang Alavi said on Val-e-Asr at around 1:00 am as the noise reverberated around him.
“Now we will be able to live normally like the rest of the world,” he said, as people flashed V-signs for victory and danced while waving white handkerchiefs in a traditional Iranian celebration.
Iran’s hard-liners on Friday criticized a tentative nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers — saying the deal was a bargain for the West and a disaster for Iran. Meanwhile supporters of the deal compared Iran’s conservative opposition to the Israeli government — which remains heavily critical of the agreement.First Friday Prayers after Deal: “Death to America”
Hossein Shariatmadari, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and editor of the hard-line Kayhan daily, told the semi-official Fars news agency on Friday that Iran exchanged its “ready-to-race horse with a broken bridle.”
Another conservative analyst, Mahdi Mohammad, referred to the Fordo underground uranium enrichment facility and told the news outlet that under the deal, “A disaster happened in Fordo.”
Well, Mohammad Javad Zarif might know how to charm politicians like Secretary of State John Kerry and his diplomatic team but, increasingly, it seems as if President Obama’s notion of a historic change in Iranian behavior was, well, a bit premature.MEMRI: Board Director Of Hizbullah-Affiliated Daily On Joint Statement By Iran, World Powers: 'The West Has Capitulated!'
Every Friday afternoon in Iran, in Tehran and every major provincial capital and town, a senior cleric will give a sermon which outlines the themes and beliefs of the regime. Think of it as a religiously-oriented weekly State of the Union address.
Two weeks ago, chants of “Death to America” against the backdrop of a sermon by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei made headlines, although some journalists tried to put a positive spin on the event. Well, fast forward two weeks. As Iran is 8.5 hours ahead of the East Coast of the United States, Friday afternoon has come and passed in Tehran, so what happened after yesterday’s game-changer?
Crowds chanted “Death to America” and “Death to the al-Sa’ud” according to the Iranian press, not just in one city but across the country. Indeed, here it says that finally, the “Death to America” mantra is being realized.
John Kerry, call your office.
Several hours after the joint statement by Iran and the world powers in Lausanne, Switzerland on the Iran nuclear deal framework, Ibrahim Al-Amin, the board chairman of the pro-Hizbullah Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, published an article in the daily titled "A New World: The West Has Capitulated!" In it, he wrote that in every conflict there is a winner and a loser, and that in this case it is the West, led by the U.S., that has been defeated. He said that what happened is a great achievement, for it is not just Western recognition of Iran's right to nuclear energy, but Western recognition that every nation is entitled to attain its rights – which will lead to greater rebellion against Western and American hegemony in the coming years. He concluded his article by saying that in his speech following the joint statement, President Obama implicitly acknowledged that the U.S. had had no other choice, and that Iran's enemies heard Obama saying, 'I am at your service, Khamenei."Why Are Iranians Taking Selfies With Their TVs?
The Islamic Republic of Iran News Network, whose political and international coverage is strictly controlled by government authorities, took the unusual step of showing Obama’s speech live and uncensored. In his speech, Obama asserted that the basis for agreement was “not based on trust,” but rather on “unprecedented verification” of Iranian nuclear facilities by outside inspectors.Military Families Level $200 MILLION Lawsuit On Iran, And They Just Might Win
In response to seeing the leader of Iran’s greatest geopolitical foes on state television, young internet-savvy Iranians responded in the only way they knew: by taking “selfies with Obama.”
This photograph is captioned “Obama himself wants to take a selfie with me”:
The same user also uploaded a photograph kissing the broadcasted face of Secretary of State John Kerry.
Another man, unable to restrain himself, wound up pinching the president’s cheek.
Iran orchestrated an attack against U.S. soldiers during the Iraq war, and now the families of three victims are suing the Iranian government for $200 million.
Agents from Iran-supported organizations launched a raid on U.S. headquarters in Karbala in 2007. Assailants passed a checkpoint manned by Iraqi police by pretending to be American security agents — driving black SUVs, brandishing American weapons and speaking perfect English, reports The Associated Press.
Four soldiers were taken captive and later shot while handcuffed in pairs. One victim’s family isn’t involved in the suit.
“Lt. Jacob Fritz, Specialist Johnathan Chism and Private First Class Shawn Falter were taken prisoner and then murdered in January 2007 by Iranian-backed Hezbollah agents and the Khazali network, an Iraqi militant group also funded and trained by Iran,” writes Associated Press reporter Richard Lardner.
Commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) even created a replica of the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center to train attackers inside Iran’s borders, discovered by a U.S. spy satellite.
