Friday, August 21, 2015

A little more detail of what's wrong with the Iran agreement

Been searching around for some more details about this deal.  Funny how something so important is getting the silent treatment from so many...

This source pinpoints the problem as far as I'm concerned

Earlier this year President Obama signed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which says Congress must receive all documents related to the deal, including any “entered into or made between Iran and any other parties.” That has to mean the IAEA.

Secretary of State John Kerry has said he hasn’t read the side deal, though his negotiating deputy Wendy Sherman told MSNBC that she “saw the pieces of paper” but couldn’t keep them. IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano has told Members of the U.S. Congress that he’s bound by secrecy and can’t show them the side deals

In other words, if Congress doesn't reject this with a veto proof majority, they will be accepting a deal that contradicts what they passed earlier so that they can review the deal.  This is going to give it an aura of acceptability which it does not deserve.

Of course, this is a great opportunity to shed some light on a shady deal, but don't expect too many people to screaming about it from the rooftops because nobody seems to give a shit.

Cruz has said something.  Where are the rest?  They should be pounding on this until the vote comes in the Congress.


Why the side deals are important

This from National Review, which I cited yesterday, and now quote:

the belief of many experts that it is crucial to conclusively resolve the possible military dimensions issue to establish a baseline for verifying the Iran nuclear agreement. Former Department of Energy official William Tobey explained this in a July 15 Wall Street Journal when he wrote “for inspections to be meaningful, Iran would have to completely and correctly declare all its relevant nuclear activities and procurement, past and present.

 ...resolving questions about Iran’s past nuclear weapons work and nuclear activity at Parchin were moved to secret side deals between Iran and the IAEA because U.S. negotiators were unable to resolve these issues during the nuclear talks.

efforts by the Obama administration to write off the past “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program

But those that claim that the inspections are meaningful need to know these details at Parchin in order for the inspections to be as meaningful as they claim.  In other words, Obama is comfortable with meaningless inspections.  Why?  To create a sense of false security?


One more point.  The AP story cannot be proven or disproven as to details because we cannot see the documents.  These documents were required by law and could answer the question definitively, so how the hell do the supporters of the deal know if the AP story is true or false?  They are taking Amano's word for it even though that contradicts what the law that was passed requires, and this law was signed by Obama himself.  Why doesn't he enforce it himself then, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

No comments: