Yesterday I cross posted an email from United with Israel [as of 12:10 PM the website was down. I pray the reason was an inundation of petition signing and not a hack] which sent out a link for petition signers against President Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal. You can find that link at SlantRight 2.0 (one of my blogs). I introduced that petition post by claiming the Obama press conference promoting the deal was all a lie. Today in an email from the Western Center for Journalism (WJ) I saw a subject title that certainly got my attention: “The 5 Biggest Obama Lies On His Iran Deal”. Here is the paragraph blurb that email that includes the link that addresses the five lies:
When Obama lies, he lies big and without equivocation. Here are the 5 biggest lies he just told in reference to his deal that puts Iran, the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism, on the path to obtaining nuclear weapons...
The WJ email link goes to the Lie One page created by America’s Conservative News. Beginning with that first page here are the Five Lies.
[Blog Editor Aside: In case United with Israel website is still down and desire to voice your displeasure about Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal; thanks to Dajjal here’s another place to make your voice known: Reject The Iran Nuke Deal!]
************************
The 5 Biggest Obama Lies On His Iran Deal
By Chris Carmouche (as noted ACN)
By Staff (as noted at 5 Lies Page)
July 17, 2015
America’s Conservative News
FALSE: According to this faux arms treaty, there is a potential window of up to 24 days from the time when a request is made to visit a suspicious location to the time when the visit may actually occur. Of course, such a window would give Iran more than enough time to conceal any violations of the deal. Also, an “independent commission” will be empowered to review all requests and the provisions of the faux treaty also allow Iran to contest the request and even reject it outright.
ABC News, hardly a bastion of conservative opinion confirmed that contention: “Any inspections at those sites would need to be approved by a joint commission composed of one member from each of the negotiating parties. The process for approving those inspections could take as many as 24 days, which critics will claim is enough time for Iran to cover up any non-compliance.”
Moreover, it would appear that only representatives from nations that are friendly to the rogue Iran Regime will be allowed to conduct these inspections. Gary Bauer with American Values reports; “[I]nternational inspectors must ‘come from nations that have diplomatic relations with Iran.’ That means there will be no American inspectors allowed into Iran. Why would we agree to that?”
Of course, Barack Obama isn’t the only one spinning tall-tales about the “inspection” provisions of the deal. Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA) says: “Iran’s nuclear program will be under lock, key and camera 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The eyes of the international community are on every centrifuge, every ounce of uranium, in all of Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
Really?
Bauer again: “Far from being under lock and key, we have to ask permission to inspect a site and then the Iranians have more than three weeks to scrub it. That’s not exactly the “anywhere, anytime” inspections that the administration was demanding in April.
FALSE: More than being false, this Obama fabrication is probably the most fanciful, as “snapping back” any sanctions is tantamount to closing the barn door after the horses have fled.
Under the terms of the deal, once it has been “verified” (and what constitutes “verified” is anyone’s guess) that Iran is dismantling its centrifuges and moth-balling its stockpiles of enriched uranium, the United States will release $100 billion in frozen assets.
ABC News reports: “Once it has been verified that Iran has committed to dismantling its centrifuges and diluting or selling its stockpile of enriched uranium, all economic sanctions will be lifted, effectively releasing over $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets.”
The question that sane people should be asking is; how does the United States go about recovering $100 billion dollars in released assets when -not if – Iran reneges on the deal in the foreseeable future?
Answer: It’s impossible.
Moreover, the United States is not the only nation that has sanctions against Iran. How would our political leaders ensure that other nations would follow suit if the United States decide to re-impose sanctions?
Answer: We can’t.
ForeignPolicy.com reports: “The phrase ‘snap back’ is vivid, and conveys precisely the sort of rapid, alert, and decisive action skeptical hawks have been demanding… But if sanctions really do ‘snap back’ as promised, it would be an unprecedented episode of economic diplomacy.”
An “unprecedented episode of economic diplomacy”? How about calling it an unprecedented act of prestidigitation. Even Barack Obama admitted, during the so-called negotiations, that global support for sanctions could fail if negotiations failed. In that vein, it would seem to make sense that some nations would be hesitant to reimpose sanctions.
But Iran may already have all it really wants. $100 billion may not seem like a lot of money but Iran’s economy is only $300-$400 billion, for them, $100 billion is a huge chuck of change.
And once the frozen assets are released, any imposition of sanctions may become meaningless as Iran may have already achieved its endgame, or at least achieved a major victory.
Jeffrey Goldberg with The Atlantic argues: “The U.S. could reimpose sanctions on Iran if Tehran cheats on the deal, but it would be reimposing these sanctions on what will be a much-richer country, one that could withstand such sanctions for quite a while.”
Snap back is a fantasy… a fool’s folly.
FALSE: Does Barack Obama believe that anyone, including his supporters, are fooled by such a juvenile and moronic statement?
The Daily Caller reports: “Experts, including some in the U.S. government, are already warning that, whether Iran’s nuclear capacity is restricted or not, today’s deal is unlikely to stop the ongoing race for nuclear capacity in the Middle East.”
NBC News, among others, are already reporting that other nations in the region, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are skeptical and will likely start to follow through on plans to acquire nuclear weapons.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton states: “We have given Iran the path it has been seeking for almost 35 years. The other states in the region are not going to sit idly by, which is why in effect the nuclear arms race is already underway.”
Speaker of the House John Boehner agrees: “Instead of making the world less dangerous, this ‘deal’ will only embolden Iran — the world’s largest sponsor of terror — by helping stabilize and legitimize its regime as it spreads even more violence and instability in the region… Instead of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, this deal is likely to fuel a nuclear arms race around the world.”
But Obama’s opponents aren’t the only ones who are sounding the alarm. The media is chiming in as well and the consensus is that this deal is going to make the world a much more dangerous place.
CNBC says: “An Iran nuclear deal could mean a new arms race in the Middle East…”
Fox News reports: “The newly announced Iran nuclear deal and the negotiations leading up to it already are fueling an all-but-declared nuclear arms race in the Middle East, according to current and former government officials who say the situation also creates an opening for Russia to exert more influence in the region.”
Ron Dermer, writing for the Washington Post, states: “Because states throughout our region know that the deal paves Iran’s path to the bomb, a number of them will race to get nuclear weapons of their own. The most dangerous region on earth would get infinitely more dangerous. Nuclear terrorism and nuclear war would become far more likely. In fact, if someone wanted to eviscerate the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, this deal is definitely a great place to start.”
But nuclear weapons aren’t the only danger that may destabilize the region.
ABC News reports: “The final win for Iran is the gradual lifting of an international arms embargo. The accord states that Iran will be permitted to buy and sell conventional arms on the international market in five years; and in eight years they’ll be able to do the same with ballistic missiles. The embargo was a major sticking point throughout the talks, with Iran demanding it be lifted.”
Rather than stopping the spread of nuclear weapons in the region, Obama may have jump-started an arms race in the Middle East.
FALSE: When Barack Obama lies, he lies big and he lies with no equivocation; but we’ve come to expect whoppers from the man who told us that we could keep our doctor if we liked our doctor under ObamaCare.
This raw deal certainly doesn’t have the backing of our greatest ally in the region, Israel. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is apoplectic and is calling the deal a “mistake of historic proportions.”
Other nations in the Middle East don’t appear to be too happy either.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton: “We have given Iran the path it has been seeking for almost 35 years. The other states in the region are not going to sit idly by, which is why in effect the nuclear arms race is already underway.”
Many of our adversaries appear to like the deal.
Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani gloated:
“At the start of the negotiations, the other side would tell us that… Iran could have only 100 centrifuges… Today, the agreement is carried out under conditions that state that [Iran] will retain over 6,000 centrifuges, over 5,000 of which will be at Natanz and over 1,000 at Fordo. All centrifuges at Natanz will continue to enrich.
“They said, ‘The period of your restrictions will be 20 years, in addition to 25 years.’ Later they said ’20 years and 10 years.’ Then they said: ‘Last word – 20 years, and we will not capitulate any more.’ But in the final days of the negotiations, they went down to eight years.
“On the issue of sanctions, they would say, ‘Months must pass and you must earn trust so that later the sanctions can be gradually frozen – not lifted… Today I announce to the Iranian nation that under this agreement… all the sanctions – even the embargo on weapons, missiles, and proliferation – will be lifted.”
China and Russia might like the deal too, but it hardly has “the full backing of the international community.” It would be more apt to say that this deal has the full backing of the international community of America-haters.
FALSE: Really Mr. Obama? Says who…?
Perhaps Barack Obama knows something that those who have already started to read the agreement don’t know. Perhaps there are some secret provisions that have yet to see the light of day that support Mr. Obama’s absurd assertion.
But as things now stand, everyone else is saying something different.
Gary Bauer with American Values writes: “Under the agreement Obama announced yesterday, Iran will have at least 5,000 centrifuges spinning away. Pakistan needed fewer than half that number to develop its nuclear weapons.”
An ABC News report confirms Bauer’s assertion: “Iran’s 19,000 installed centrifuges will have to be cut to no more than 6,104 for the next 10 years.”
The terms of the deal beg some questions, foremost among them: How can we be certain that Iran is not using its advanced centrifuges to produce enriched uranium if those centrifuges are up and running?
Answer: We can’t, not under the present terms for inspections.
If we wish to have a facility inspected, we must ask permission. Inspections will be conducted by individuals designated by a joint commission of nations that have diplomatic relations with Iran. Iran will maintain the right to reject the request and even if a request is approved, it could take up to 24 days to actually inspect the facility, meaning that Iran has more than adequate time to scrub evidence of non-compliance from the facility.
Centrifuges will keep spinning and facilities will keep functioning because Barack Obama moved his red line multiple times throughout these so-called negotiations.
Why does a nation that has more oil than Marcus Licinius Crassus had coin need to develop its nuclear program for peaceful purposes? Why should a nation that has broken so many agreements in the past in regards to its nuclear program be trusted now?
Ron Dermer, writing in the Washington Post, raises the same point: “Iran has been deceiving the International Atomic Energy Agency for years and has consistently refused to come clean about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program — a commitment that Iran has once again been permitted to dodge before signing this agreement.”
Even Barack Obama once asked the same question, at least by implication.
Bauer again: “Two years ago, Obama said, ‘They don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful nuclear program.’ But this deal allows the Fordo facility to keep functioning.”
Lies, lies and more lies…
____________________________________________
Copyright © 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment