Posts

A Flawed Deal: How the Iran Deal Threatens Britain’s Security

This latest policy paper by Centre for the New Middle East at the Henry Jackson Society, A Flawed Deal: An Assessment Of The Iranian Nuclear Agreement, undertakes one of the most comprehensive and exhaustive assessments of the Iran agreement to date. The centre’s study reveals the key nuclear and non-nuclear flaws of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Arguing that concessions to Iran have long-lasting and damaging security ramifications, the paper concludes that JCPOA will ultimately fail in its aim of ensuring Iran does not become a nuclear breakout power.

The agreement signed by Iran and the P5+1 powers in July 2015 was described by President Barack Obama as an “historic deal” that prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Despite many inadequate aspects of the deal that have been exposed during its scrutiny in Congress, the White House has continued to defend the agreement. The British government has fully supported the Obama administration in this position and unlike in the U.S., there has been no serious debate of the JCPOA by parliamentarians in the UK.

While the deal is as yet unimplemented and the Iranian regime remains deeply hostile to the West and British national interests, the British government has already rushed to renew diplomatic relations with Iran, reopening Britain’s embassy in Tehran, and sponsoring business ties in preparation for the lifting of sanctions. Nevertheless, the regime in Iran remains unreformed and we are yet to see practical progress on curtailing Iran’s extensive nuclear infrastructure.

The briefing paper identifies four key flaws with JCPOA:

  • Provisions for inspections of nuclear sites restrict immediate access to Iran’s military facilities by international weapons inspectors.
  • Should the terms of JCPOA be violated by Iran, the re-implementation of sanctions would not be immediate but rather a protracted diplomatic process.
  • The temporary nature of JCPOA does little to prevent Iran from rebooting its quest for nuclear capabilities once the deal expires in ten years.
  • The lifting of the international arms embargo against Iran will embolden the regime, advancing Tehran’s ability to arm terror proxies and allies in the region such as Assad.

Tom Wilson, Resident Associate Fellow at HJS and author of the briefing paper, commented:

“The Iran agreement clearly fails to meet the international community’s primary objective of guaranteeing that Iran won’t be able move toward producing nuclear weapons. Ultimately, this agreement legitimises Iran’s formerly illegal nuclear programme, leaving Iran as a threshold nuclear power. It’s incredibly worrying that this deal hasn’t been properly scrutinized here in Britain.

The British government appears to have gone along with Obama’s plan unquestioningly and now we are to reopen our embassy in Tehran at a time when the regime remains deeply hostile to British interests and has done nothing to earn our trust.”

A Flawed Deal: An Assessment Of The Iranian Nuclear Agreement is available to download here

Obama Defends Iran Deal by Attacking Opponents

Instead of the issues, there is a shrill war of words against good faith opponents.

In a recent speech at American University, President Obama attempted to sell his Iran nuclear agreement to a skeptical American public, which according to all reliable polls opposes the deal overwhelmingly.  By making his pitch in a speech instead of a press conference, he avoided having to answer questions, clarify past inconsistent statements, and discuss the distortions that have been used to justify the deal.  Rather than allay concerns that are causing worry even among Congressional Democrats, he instead heaped scorn on Republicans, attacked his critics, derided Binyamin Netanyahu, and minimized the threat to Israel.  His speech was as self-congratulatory as it was detached from geopolitical reality.

And for once, liberal Jewish organizations disagreed with him publicly.

Mr. Obama attempted to woo Jewish groups into supporting the deal before his speech, but instead met with stiff resistance.  Although known more for lobbying than open confrontation, AIPAC strongly opposed the deal and urged Congress to reject it.  The Anti-Defamation League likewise objected, announcing in a public statement that:  “We are deeply disappointed by the terms of the final deal with Iran … which seem to fall far short of the President’s objective of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.”  Underlying these statements is the realization that the deal will facilitate Iran’s nuclear program and encourage a regional arms race.

The concerns of the liberal Jewish establishment were perhaps best summed up in an August 5th op-ed by David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, which stated among many other things the following:

By abandoning the earlier negotiating posture of dismantling sanctions in exchange for Iranian dismantlement of its nuclear infrastructure, and instead replacing it with what is essentially a temporary freeze on its program, the P5+1 has indeed validated Iran’s future status as a nuclear threshold state, a point that President Obama himself acknowledged in a media interview.

Given the nature of the Iranian regime and its defining ideology, AJC cannot accept this prospect. It is too ominous, too precedent-setting, and too likely to trigger a response from Iran’s understandably anxious neighbors who may seek nuclear-weapons capacity themselves, as well as, more immediately and still more certainly, advanced conventional arms, adding an entirely new level of menace to the most volatile and arms-laden region in the world. Surely, this cannot be in America’s long-term security interests.

After fully articulating his organization’s fears and concerns in the piece, Harris wrote that “AJC opposes the deal and calls on Members of Congress to do the same.”

Irrespective of his past assurances that no deal would be preferable to a bad deal, he is attempting to force a very bad deal on the US and its allies.

Though the ADL and AJC were deferential in acknowledging the efforts of President Obama, John Kerry and their European partners in negotiating with Iran, they nevertheless concluded that the deal is bad for the United States and Israel.  This view echoes a growing concern that it accomplishes none of the goals used to justify negotiations in the first place, and the nagging realization that Iran will fulfill its nuclear ambitions even if it does comply.

Based on its history, Iran is unlikely to comply in the absence of effective monitoring procedures; and without truly verifiable compliance, it will likely continue enriching uranium clandestinely and may well have enough reserves to produce weapons before the deal expires.  Some intelligence experts believe that Iran already possesses a sufficient stockpile.

It is significant that Jewish criticism of the deal is not coming solely from conservative groups like the Zionist Organization of (ZOA), Americans for a Safe Israel and the Republican Jewish Coalition.  Liberal establishment organizations finally seem to grasp that Obama’s Mideast policies have promoted the growth of Islamic extremism and have threatened Israel’s safety and security.  They also understand that the deal will lead to nuclear proliferation in the region.  Accordingly, American Jews who had always supported the President and downplayed his hostility for Israel are now calling on Congress to reject the deal.

Senator Chuck Schumer, whom many predicted would support the deal to preserve his chance of being named the next Democratic Senate leader, announced that he would vote against it.  Though early reports predicted that Schumer would vote for the deal, he may have been swayed by the thousands of letters sent by alarmed constituents urging him to vote no.  As a consequence, he is being pilloried by the political left and the White House and has been the target of anti-Semitic slurs.

The President’s allies are responding to criticism by attacking those who oppose the deal, casting aspersions on their motivations, invoking classical anti-Semitic canards of undue Jewish influence and dual loyalty, characterizing Jewish dissent as unpatriotic, and accusing Israel of orchestrating the opposition.

Liberal criticism of the deal is usually couched in expressions of thanks to Obama and Kerry for their efforts – despite their clear animus for Netanyahu and mocking dismissal of Israel’s existential concerns.  Still, it cannot be disputed that many liberals now recognize that Obama’s stated goal of preventing Iran from going nuclear is inconsistent with the final agreement, which legitimizes and enables its nuclear program.  Irrespective of his past assurances that no deal would be preferable to a bad deal, he is attempting to force a very bad deal on the US and its allies.

Many Americans are concerned that the deal does not require Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure, submit to “anytime, anywhere” inspections, fully disclose all of its nuclear activities or cease subsidizing terrorism – former red-lines that American negotiators ultimately conceded.  They are also bothered that Obama agreed to lift ballistic and conventional weapons bans – against the advice of military advisers – and that Iran can beat monitoring efforts by evasion, misdirection or simply failing to disclose its covert nuclear facilities.  This is especially problematic in light of the existence of secret side agreements (which neither Kerry nor Obama disclosed to Congress) affecting the ability to monitor compliance by, among other things, allowing Iran to provide its own soil samples to inspectors.

A growing number of Jewish Democrats are also troubled that the deal places trust in an Islamist regime that remains unrepentantly anti-American and antisemitic, brazenly states that it will not honor agreements with infidel nations, and repeatedly threatens to destroy Israel and exterminate her people.  Contrary to the naïve claims of its supporters, the deal will only destabilize an already volatile region, provide Iran with funds to continue financing terrorism and regional unrest, and motivate the Sunni states to acquire their own nuclear arsenals.

Rather than assuage any of these concerns, Obama used his speech to belittle and disparage all who question the deal and to compare his Republican critics in Congress to Iranian hardliners.  Though he’s elevated combative, divisive politics to a high art since his first days in office, this comment troubled many Democrats for its insulting tone and moral vacuity.

The ease with which Obama compares good faith opponents to fanatical religious extremists is all the more disturbing in light of his seemingly compulsive aversion to offending Islamist sensibilities and his failure to condemn the pernicious doctrines used to justify terrorism.

The President’s war of words will probably grow shriller as the Congressional vote in September draws closer, especially if more Democrats reject the deal in advance.  He will continue to attack those who disagree with him, malign Netanyahu for speaking truth to power, and bully Israel by threatening her with isolation.  He will not be moved even if most liberal Jews end up opposing the deal.  They have acted as his apologists for more than six years; and if they no longer support him, he may simply lump them together with those assertive Jews who have always been critical of his policies and question their loyalty.

On the surface, President Obama remains unmoved by the domestic and international consequences of his ill-conceived foreign policy.  But if, as many believe, his real intent is to reduce American global influence, legitimize Islamist regimes, and treat Iran as the dominant power in the Mideast, he may be following a knowing strategy that accepts, and perhaps welcomes, the regional and global risks.

Mr. Obama’s agreement with Iran has been compared to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany.  The comparison may be inapt, however, because Chamberlain hoped that ceding territory would satisfy Hitler and prevent war.  The deal with Iran, in contrast, will give the mullahs a nuclear muscle that they have repeatedly vowed to flex.  Whereas Hitler lied in Munich about the prospect of peace in exchange for land, Iran has affirmatively promised terrorism, war and genocide when it gets what it wants.

Though Congress may not be able to trust the President’s hollow assurances, history suggests that it can certainly take the Iranians at their word.

Iran ‘not satisfied’ with nuke deal, wants more concessions

Obama and Kerry will no doubt jump to give him what he wants, but if they do, the opposition to the deal will grow even stronger than it already is.

“Iranian hardliner: The supreme leader opposes the nuclear deal,” by Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press, August 15, 2015:

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is opposed to a landmark nuclear deal reached with world powers, a prominent hard-liner claimed Saturday.

Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the daily newspaper Kayhan and a representative of Khamenei, made the comments in an editorial Saturday.

It marked the first time someone publicly has claimed where Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, stands on the deal.

Khamenei has not publicly approved or disapproved the deal. However, he repeatedly has offered words of support for his country’s nuclear negotiators. Moderates also believe the deal would have never been reached without Khamenei’s private approval.

Iran’s parliament and the Supreme National Security Council will consider the agreement in the coming days. The deal calls for limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions.

Shariatmadari said in the editorial that many parts of the deal threaten Iran’s independence, security and “the sacred system of the Islamic republic of Iran” and that it would be “disastrous” if Tehran implements the accord. He did not specify which parts of the deal he thought were problematic.

He also referred to a speech by Khamenei last month during which the ayatollah said, “Whether this text is approved or disapproved, no one will be allowed to harm the main principles of the (ruling) Islamic system.”

The editorial noted: “Using the phrase ‘whether this text is approved or disapproved’ shows his lack of trust in the text of the deal. If His Excellency had a positive view, he would have not insisted on the need for the text to be scrutinized through legal channels … It leaves no doubt that His Excellency is not satisfied with the text.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Iran Deal Leads to War. There Is a Better Way.

“Tens of thousands” of Muslims in Southeast Asia support the Islamic State

Islamic State takes Libyan port city

Pat Buchanan Sides with Obama against Israel

Pat Buchanan has for years been such a virulent opponent of Israel that he has frequently been accused of anti-Semitism, and this column condemning Benjamin Netanyahu for supposedly interfering in America’s internal affairs by opposing the Iran deal is not going to erase that impression. The paleocon Right hates Israel with such abiding passion that it is increasingly self-contradictory: for a small government advocate like Buchanan defending Barack Obama and tacitly supporting a deal that threatens not just Israel, but the U.S. as well, manifests a moral myopia of catastrophic immensity.

But it’s no surprise. I’ve noted before how the paleocons over at Buchanan’s American Conservative have embraced the hard Left’s invention of “Islamophobia” and even come out in favor of submitting to violent intimidation and kowtowing to the foes of the freedom of speech. If they’re the opposite end of the political spectrum from the hard Left, the ends are meeting.

And now Pat Buchanan pretends that Barack Obama, who has shown himself again and again to have the attitude and assumptions and sensibilities of a Marxist internationalist, is an old-school President like Truman or Ike who only makes deals with other nations with America’s best interests at heart. That’s some serious hatred of Israel, to make Pat Buchanan pick up the pom-poms for a far-Left statist. But lines are being redrawn all over the place these days.

“How to Seal the Iran Deal,” by Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative, August 7, 2015:

In his desperation to sink the Iran nuclear deal, Bibi Netanyahu is taking a hellish gamble.

Israel depends upon the United States for $3 billion a year in military aid and diplomatic cover in forums where she is often treated like a pariah state. Israel has also been the beneficiary of almost all the U.S. vetoes in the Security Council. America is indispensable to Israel. The reverse is not true.

Yet, without telling the White House, Bibi had his U.S. ambassador arrange for him to address a joint session of Congress in March—to rip up the president’s Iran nuclear deal before it was even completed.

The day the deal was signed, using what the Washington Post calls “stark apocalyptic language,” Bibi accused John Kerry of giving the mullahs a “sure path to a nuclear weapon” and a “cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars … to pursue its aggression and terror.”

Bibi has since inspired and led the campaign to get Congress to kill the deal, the altarpiece of the Obama presidency. Israel Ambassador Ron Dermer, a former Republican operative now cast in the role of “Citizen Genet,” has intensively lobbied the Hill to get Congress to pass a resolution of rejection.

If that resolution passes, as it appears it will, Obama will veto it. Then Israel, the Israeli lobby AIPAC, and all its allies and auxiliaries in the think tanks and on op-ed pages will conduct a full-court press to have Congress override the Obama veto and kill his nuclear deal.

Has Bibi, have the Israelis, considered what would happen should they succeed? Certainly, there would be rejoicing in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and Bibi would be crowned King of Capitol Hill. But they will have humiliated an American president by crushing him by two-to-one in his own legislature. Such a defeat could break the Obama presidency and force the resignation of John Kerry, who would have become a laughing stock in international forums.

The message would go out to the world. In any clash between the United States and Israel over U.S. policy in the Middle East, bet on Bibi. Bet on Israel. America is Israel’s poodle now.

With the Gulf nations having joined Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia in backing the deal, Israel is isolated in its opposition. And, two weeks ago, Kerry warned that if Congress rejects the deal, “Israel could end up being more isolated and more blamed.”

Hardly an outrageous remark. Yet, Israel’s ex-ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren fairly dripped condescension and contempt in his retort: “The threat of the secretary of state who, in the past, warned that Israel was in danger of being an apartheid state, cannot deter us from fulfilling our national duty to oppose this dangerous deal.”

But this is not Israel’s deal. It is our deal, and our decision. And Israel is massively interfering in our internal affairs to scuttle a deal the president believes is in the vital interests of the United States. When the U.S. and Israel disagree over U.S. policy in the Mideast, who decides for America? Them or us?

Why does Barack Obama take this? Why does John Kerry take this?…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State takes Libyan port city

Shocker: Biden calls Chattanooga jihadist a “jihadist”

Iran: Decision Time For Democrats

The British media traditionally refers to the month of August as ‘silly season’, but apart from the blanket coverage of the sad fate of Cecil the lion, this silly season has been notable for being remarkably un-silly. Received wisdom has it that with Parliament away there are no political stories for the media to report on. But nothing could be further from the truth this year.

The migrant crisis in the Mediterranean and stretching to Calais shows no sign of letting up just because MPs are in their constituencies or on their holidays. And nor are the stories of the continuously emerging awfulness of the Iran deal slowing just because Parliament is not in session. The fact – not very surprising – is that politics goes on all the time as usual, whether Parliament is in session or not.

It must be hoped, however, that the break does some good to our political class. Standing back from the day-to-day running of Westminster can provide an opportunity to survey the real political landscape rather than getting bogged down in the procedural issues which take up so much of any politician’s day. Watching the ongoing political fight in Washington is a reminder of this.

At the time of writing a number of very significant leading Democrats look like they are going to come out against their own President’s deal with Iran. In doing so it is perfectly possible that they are performing career hara-kiri. It seems inevitable that whether Congress votes against the deal or not the President, and those around him, are unlikely to forgive or do much to support the future of those who have voted against them. Chicago politics can work just as easily in Washington.

But the Democrats in particular who choose to vote against the deal are doing so for an extraordinary and admirable reason: they are willing to put their concern for the future of their country and the future of the world ahead of concerns over the future of their careers. It is not too cynical to say that this order of priorities is not always present in politics. But this is an important moment. Even if the President gets his way with the deal, the rebellion of a large enough number of members of his own party could still succeed in signalling just what a mistake America and her allies are making.

New stories have emerged this week of the Iranian regime’s genocidal rhetoric against America and her allies. Perhaps people are so used to this that it has become background noise. But this background noise is going on whilst in the foreground the same regime is getting the biggest financial, diplomatic and military boost it could possibly ever have. If you stand back from everything else that is going on this is the big story. What would be silly would be not to recognise that.


mendozahjs

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

It is 70 years since the detonation of an atomic bomb at Hiroshima introduced the world to a terrifying new form of warfare in the form of nuclear weapons. Since that time much effort has been expended by nations seeking to obtain this technology, with Iran being but the latest example. Concurrently, equal attempts have been made to ensure further proliferation does not occur.

In recent weeks, I have spent a fair bit of time defending Britain’s own nuclear arsenal in the face of assaults from those who would wish to see us give up our independent nuclear deterrent when the time comes shortly to replace our ageing Trident capability. While no reasonable person could be against the idea of controlled multilateral disarmament – and great strides have been made in this direction since the peaking of nuclear arsenals in the 1980s – unilateral disarmament is quite a different prospect. It would strip the UK of the ultimate deterrent at a time of increasing, rather than decreasing, global instability, with any number of major threats on the horizon. Which British Prime Minister could credibly give up our nuclear weapons at a time when Mr Putin menaces Europe’s and NATO’s eastern borders, and the Middle East is at its most uncertain point in a century, for example?

I rather fear that the goal of ‘Global Zero’ – the push to physically eliminate nuclear weapons or to put them beyond possible use – is also doomed to failure. While noble in intent, the obvious flaw in this approach is that you cannot uninvent technology that has been invented and that as a consequence, the temptation to cheat and keep a small stockpile is just too great. Would we really trust Russia and China to give up all their weapons if we did, let alone Pakistan and North Korea?

Unfortunate as it may be, nuclear weapons are here to stay. The challenge remains to regulate their numbers, avoid their use and prevent dangerous states like Iran from acquiring them.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

30 Second Video: Kerry – Iran ‘Atomic Bromance’ Explained

Is John Kerry ‘related’ to Mohammed Zrif?

HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH OF THIS IRAN-KERRY INSANITY YET?

Either Kerry is the biggest buffoon who just had an Iranian “information operation” spun on his head or he is so partial to Iran that he wants them to exert regional dominance in the Middle East, thus clearly threatening Israel.

What will it take for Americans to realize that we MUST dump this Iran nuke deal, get the Iranians back to the negotiating table and require complete dismantling of their key nuke facilities.

Washington, D.C. At today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding the Obama Administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) highlighted the importance of U.S. sanctions as a viable alternative to President Obama’s deal and outlined how, if the deal is implemented, Iran will be in a much stronger position when the deal expires.

“When people vote on this deal in a few weeks, you’re going to live with this for the rest of your life,” Rubio said during the hearing. “In 10 years, in 12 years, when Iran has a nuclear weapon and we can’t target them, people are going to remember this vote that’s coming up and this deal as what laid the groundwork for it, and I keep hearing this notion that there is no other alternative and no other way forward, but I disagree.

“I believe U.S. sanctions are the most important part of all the sanctions,” Rubio continued. “I believe that these banks in Europe, German banks, whatever banks may be, if they were forced to choose between having access to the American economy and access to the Iranian economy, that’s not going to be a hard choice for them.”

A video of Rubio’s remarks and the full exchanges is available here.

Transcript of Senator Rubio’s.

Senator Marco Rubio: “The choice right before us was two things.

“On the one hand was to continue with what we thought was the strategy which is international sanctions that had an impact on Iran’s economy. They continued to make progress in their enrichment capabilities and so forth, but it was a combination of international sanctions and the threat of credible military force, which no one wants to talk about, but that was on the table, and the President has said that, in fact, if it came down to it, the U.S. would do that, if it were necessary.

“Versus what we have now, which is a deal that basically argues, well what this will do is that if they comply with it, it will slow them down, and in 10 years if they want to break out, it buys us 10 years of time, and it avoids, assuming everybody complies with everything.

“Here’s my problem with that analysis. My problem with it is that in 8 to 10 years, which sounds like a long time to all of us here, it’s nothing. Ten years goes very quickly, and that’s if we’re optimistic. In 10 years, Iran will be in a much stronger position. In fact, I think in 10 years they’ll be immune from international pressure compared to where they are today, and here’s why.

“First of all, they are going to use this sanctions relief and the billions of dollars that it frees up, and I know everyone wants to believe they’re going to invest it in hospitals and roads and social services in order to win their next election. I promise you, they’re going to win they’re next election. I don’t think they’re worried about that as much as they are about their need for example, to get to modernize their enrichment capability into a 21st century industrial system.

“It actually falls right in line with the mandate that the Supreme Leader, I believe, gave to the negotiators, which is, ‘Don’t agree to anything that’s irreversible. Go as far as you need to go to get the sanctions removed, but don’t agree to anything that’s irreversible.’

“So they’ll have less centrifuges, but they’ll be better ones and they’ll be modernized, and they’ll retain that infrastructure, which is the hardest part of any nuclear program, is the infrastructure, the hardware that it takes to do this.

“But here’s what else they’re going to do, they’re going to continue to build their conventional capabilities. We don’t think about that enough, but Iran in 10 years will have conventional capabilities, maybe less, that could potentially drive us out of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz because the price of being there will be too high, I mean they can buy Chinese asymmetrical capabilities that allow them to kill ships, add to these fast swift boats things that they’ve been able to come up with that can threaten an aircraft carrier. They’re going to continue to build long range rockets. Why are you building a long range rocket, an ICBM? Are you going to put a man on the moon? No. They’re building it for purposes of targeting the continental United States. And they look at North Korea and say, ‘Yeah the North Koreans have a long range rocket.’ We don’t know where it is going to hit yet because they aren’t very good yet at guidance, but it will hit somewhere, like the West Coast of the United States. That alone has made North Korea immune.

“And they’re going to continue to build up their surrogates in the region, which I would argue already, even now before the sanctions relief has given Iran tremendous leverage over U.S. policy. As an example: Iran has laid out some pretty clear red lines. They are going to hold back Shi’ite militias in Iraq from attacking American troops or going after Americans. They’ll agree to hold them back if, we don’t cross certain red lines they have made very clear.

“What are their red lines? For starters they don’t want to see any U.S. combat troops in Iraq, and if we make any move toward any sort of permanent presence in Iraq in the future, we are going to get attacked by Shi’ite militias at their orders. They don’t want to see us take any concrete steps to remove Assad from power. If they see us moving toward getting Assad out of power, we’re going to get hit by surrogate groups in the region, including Hezbollah and their Shi’ite militia. If we take steps to help put in place an Iraqi government that actually unifies that country and isn’t a puppet of Iran, not to mention one that might actually be hostile toward Iran’s ambitions in the region, they’re going to attack us.

“So they already have leverage over our policy. Now extrapolate that 8 to 10 years from now, when their conventional forces are higher, when these groups are better armed, when Hizballah in a couple of years doesn’t just have rockets, they have guided rockets, guided missiles that don’t just hit somewhere in Israel, they hit exactly what they want to hit.

“So imagine a world in 10 years, where Iran decides, or 8 years, or 12 years, where they just decide, ‘You know what, we’re building a nuclear weapon because we believe Israel has one or because we think someone else is going to threaten us.’

“What can the world do then? Well then reimposing sanctions really won’t be an option at that point because all these companies that are deeply invested in that economy just won’t let their nations or their governments do anything about it. We’ve already seen that in the case of the Europeans.

“But what will the price be of actually going after their systems? It’ll be worse than the price of going after North Korea now. Do we have a credible military option today to target the North Koreans’ program? We do not. We do not because we know that the price of going after the North Korean program through a credible military option, the price of that is Tokyo, the price of that is Seoul, the price of that is Hawaii, they’ll hit us back.

“Well imagine Iran where the price of going after the Iranian program in 10 years if they decide to break out will be Washington, D.C. or New York City, not to mention Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and any number of places in the region that are our allies.

“So my argument is that, in fact, what I think we’ve done here is walk right into the situation they wanted to lay out, they didn’t want a nuclear weapon next week anyway. But we have created a system where in 8 to 10 years they will be, they will have the capability to quickly become, walk into the nuclear weapons club, not sneak in, walk in to the nuclear weapons club with a world class industrial enrichment capability, a much more powerful conventional weapons force capable of actually asymmetrically driving our navy from the region or further out and quite frankly immune from any sort of credible military action because if we attack them the price is going to be a nuclear devastating strike, potentially even on the continental United States.

“So my point is that when people vote on this deal in a few weeks, you’re going to live with this for the rest of your life. In 10 years, in 12 years, when Iran has a nuclear weapon and we can’t target them, people are going to remember this vote that’s coming up and this deal as what laid the groundwork for it, and I keep hearing this notion that there is no other alternative and no other way forward, but I disagree.

“I believe U.S. sanctions are the most important part of all the sanctions. I believe that these banks in Europe, German banks, whatever banks may be, if they were forced to choose between having access to the American economy and access to the Iranian economy, that’s not going to be a hard choice for them.”

Obama Takes the Presidency to a New Low

Recently, President Obama approved what is possibly the worst international deal in United States history.  That agreement gives Iran an unchallenged pathway to produce nuclear weapons.  For years, the islamic regime has blocked United Nations inspectors from conducting impromptu inspections.  Of course, the whole planet is well aware of the tremendous level of state sponsored terrorism the Iranian nation has thrown it’s financial muscle behind.

Yet the president, who was elected to govern on behalf of “We the People” has in fact, bumbled on behalf of every enemy this nation has in the world.   For example, while both China and Russia are embarking enormous military buildups, the Obama administration is overseeing the largest military build-down in U.S. history.  Considering the political conditions around the world at the moment, these are not the times for the faint of heart or a weak military.  In fact, our national security and sovereignty are both at stake.

Whether it is the porous borders, where illegal immigrants are strolling in like they own the place or are committing legions of crimes against Americans and their property, it is occurring with the approval of President Obama, his fellow democrats and rino republicans.  President Obama is also bringing in over sixty thousand American, Christian, Black people and Jewish hating muslims, while refusing to allow Christian refugees from the middle east entry into the United States.  To add insult to injury, the rogue federal is not even allowing local officials, or the sovereign citizens of any town they move the islamic refugees to where they are being housed.

With all of the major problems facing our nation and other countries around the world, it is mind boggling how president Obama is so fixated on forcing African nations to adopt and legalize unnatural sexual practices.

It was refreshing to read in CNS NEWS about how Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta told U.S. President Obama to back off of his mission to promote homosexuality and lesbianism in his country.  He plainly stated that “Kenyans had more pressing concerns to deal with including health, education, and insuring inclusivity of women,” He added “maybe once, like you have overcome some of these challenges, we can begin to look at new ones.”  “But as for now, the fact remains that this [homosexuality] issue is not really an issue that is on the foremost mind of Kenyans, and that is the fact.”

I find it rather insane and pathetic, that Obama is more fixated on forcing African nations into spreading a lifestyle that according to the Centers for Disease Control is more dangerous than cigarette smoking.  He prefers promoting unnatural lifestyles than help them to adopt free market principles, improved farming techniques, and a closer walk with the one who blessed America.

What the White House Occupier does not seem to recognize, (or most likely ignores) is that promoting unnatural lifestyles does not lead to the path of personal improvement, national economic growth, better medical care, victory over the threatening islamic nations, tribes and groups who have vowed to destroy all who won’t bow to allah, etc.

Speaking of equality Obama style.  He has without fail, sought to destroy America through his putrid philosophy of unnatural lifestyles, big government healthcare, and redistribution of wealth from the productive to the idle, muslim resettlements in America and much more.  Oh and I cannot forget his mentally destructive droning on about he and all blacks in America are victims of racism.

I marvel at how with a straight face, Obama cab travel to (some believe his native homeland) and as president of what was the greatest nation in the history of humankind complain of being treated differently because of his race.  I have to ask, to which race is he referring,? Because he is both, black and white, and president for goodness sakes.

President Obama has been a textbook case on how not to govern, parent, or lead in any capacity.  Obama has consistently governed from behind or in other ways to negatively impact our republic, such as only forcing polices upon society that result in negative outcomes.  Thus our republic turned mob-ruled democracy is more vulnerable economically, morally, ethically, spiritually, militarily, educationally, etc. than at any time throughout our nation’s history.

I find it ironic how Mr. Obama and the first lady like to describe /America as a racist nation, but yet they and many like them are openly bigoted and discriminatory against everything that is good about the United States and even God who shed his grace upon her.

For you who are so inclined, it is 2 Chronicles 7:14 time.

Senator Marco Rubio: Joint Chiefs Chairman Undercuts Obama’s Main Argument for Iran Nuke Deal

Washington, D.C. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement regarding Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey’s comments today before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the American people do not face a choice between a flawed Iran deal and war with Iran, as President Obama and his administration have insisted:

“President Obama’s entire premise for his deeply flawed deal with Iran was destroyed today by a simple question and an honest response.

“President Obama has been trying to scare the American people into believing that we must accept his terribly negotiated deal with Iran, or resign ourselves to war with Iran. Under questioning by Senator Joni Ernst today, General Martin Dempsey unequivocally dismissed that argument, and with it President Obama’s entire justification for this terrible compromise of America’s national security.

“With each passing day, President Obama’s case for this agreement with Iran crumbles bit by bit. In just the past week alone, Secretary John Kerry has failed miserably in trying to defend this deal before members of Congress and the American people as each day brings new disturbing details about the scope and breadth of this administration’s concessions to the mullahs in Iran. We’ve learned about secret side deals the Iranians entered into with International Atomic Energy Agency. We’ve learned that Iran will be allowed to submit its own samples to prove it’s not cheating, which defies all common sense. We’ve learned that the president allowed Iran to continue developing ballistic missiles capable of reaching our shores, and administration officials have even indicated that they are not certain whether President Obama would abide by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act and maintain sanctions on Iran if Congress rejects this deal.”

Earlier today, Rubio participated in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding the nuclear deal with Iran where he challenged the president’s proposition that the United States would be isolated if Congress rejects this flawed deal.

“Why I find this all absurd is this idea that somehow the U.S. must now do this, because the world would be really upset at us,” Rubio said during the hearing. “The last time I checked this country saved the rest of the world on at least two occasions in the last century. I don’t remember the last time the world saved America.”

A video of Rubio’s remarks and his exchanges with witnesses is available here:

30 Second Video: HAMAS Loves Iran Nuke Deal — Thanks Obama!

In this 30 Second video we explain the upside-down foreign policy world of President Obama, and how he is now creating friends between those who have been vicious enemies.

Who could have imagined that one of the leaders of the Sunni HAMAS would ever say anything positive about Shi’a Iran?

Well, all you (Obama) have to do is give your enemy (Iran) nuclear weapons to kill their greatest enemy (Israel) and WA’LA, the “Hatfields & McCoys” now spend Thanksgiving together.

30 SECONDS: Huckabee — The Holocaust — The Iran Deal

Join us on 30 SECONDS. In this episide of 30 SECONDS I provide an interesting insight into former Governor Mike Huckabee’s “ovens” controversy.

CNN/ORC Poll: Majority Urge Congress to Reject Iran Nuke Deal

graphic gun control iran nukesA CNN/ORC poll released today sent an important message to President Obama and Secretary Kerry: the majority of the respondents said Congress should reject the Iran nuclear pact, The poll found:

On the President’s biggest accomplishment since then — the nuclear agreement reached between the U.S., its allies and Iran — most say they would like to see Congress reject it. Overall, 52% say Congress should reject the deal, 44% say it should be approved.

READ THE POLL RESULTS

Some opposition to the deal may be fueled by skepticism. A CNN/ORC poll in late June, conducted as the deal was being worked out, found that nearly two-thirds of adults thought it was unlikely the negotiations would result in an agreement that would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The new poll finds a sharp partisan gap on whether Congress should approve the deal, with 66% of Republicans and 55% of independents saying Congress ought to reject it and 61% of Democrats saying it should be approved. Younger adults, who tend to lean more Democratic, are more apt to favor the deal: 53% of those age 18-34 say approve it, while 56% of those age 35 or older say reject it. There is also an education divide on the deal, with 53% of college graduates saying the deal should be approved, while just 37% of those with a high school degree or less formal education saying they think it should be approved.

Looks like Kerry and Obama have failed to make the case for Congress to approve the Iran nuke deal. This CNN/ORC poll represents a big swing from April when the framework for the JCPOA was announced. If this trend continues with the INARA hearings resuming after the August recess those 13 Democrat swing votes in Senate and 30+ in the House will be in a quandary. That would make it difficult for New York Senator Chuck Schumer ,the incoming Senate minority leader, to deliver votes to support Obama on this issue. This poll result throws in doubt the LA Jewish Journal poll of American Jews released last Thursday.

This should bolster Israeli PM Netanyahu, the vast majority of Israelis and the GOP majorities in Congress that the JCPOC is a “very bad deal”. The message is if you can’t verify then you can’t trust.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama Knows Iran will Use its Nukes on Israel

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of President Obama in Ethiopia. Source: ABC.com.

Ex-U.S. Embassy Hostage and Friend of Gov. Scott Walker Influenced Rejection of Obama’s Iran Nuclear Pact

Yesterday, on The Lisa Benson Show, I gave as an example of hope about defeating the Obama Iran nuclear executive order, the Sunday talk show comment by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who threw his hat in the ring last Monday when he declared for the Republican nomination race for President. Asked on Walker: I’d toss Iran deal on Day 1 Sunday talk show about his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, today up for a vote at the UN Security Council, said he would toss it on his first day in office, if elected President. Further, he said,

“It’s a bad deal for us, it’s a bad deal for Israel, it’s a bad deal for the world,“It’s not just the starting gun, it will accelerate the nuclear arms race,” he added. “And it is empowering Iran to do what they’re going to do.”

Last Monday during his announcement he referenced Kevin Hermening in the audience. Hermening was one of the 52 U.S. Hostages taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 during the Islamic Revolution. Hermening, a Marine guard at the time of the Embassy takeover, spent 43 days in solitary confinement. Hermening now 56 years old had befriended Walker back in the 1990s. It is through that relationship Governor Walker became well acquainted with the brutality and untrustworthiness of the Islamic regime. That relationship with Hermening enabled him to to size up the Iran nuclear deal , touted by President Obama and Democratic allies, was bad for the U.S., Israel and other allies in the Middle East. The Embassy hostages had pressed claims for compensation in federal court despite the opposition from our State Department and won. However those claims have never been honored by Tehran.

The least the Obama Administration could do is retain a portion of sanctioned funds in U.S. possession to pay the claims of the 1979 Embassy Hostages like Hermening, Gov. Walker’s friend.

image
Walker: I’d toss Iran deal on Day 1

“It will accelerate the nuclear arms race,” he said.

Preview by Yahoo

The AP reported on Governor Walker’s long relationship with Kevin Herminger,  Walker’s Iran view shaped by friendship with ex-US hostage

image
Walker’s Iran view shaped by friendship with ex-US hosta…

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has a reason for aggressively opposing the nuclear deal with Iran — and it’s personal.
Preview by Yahoo

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has a reason for aggressively opposing the nuclear deal with Iran — and it’s personal.

Neither his foreign policy adviser nor a member of his inner circle has shaped the Republican presidential candidate’s position. Walker’s deep distrust for Iran instead comes from his long friendship with one of the Americans held hostage for 444 days more than three decades ago.

Kevin Hermening was a 20-year-old Marine sergeant stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 when militant Iran students overran the building and captured him and 51 others. Thirty-five years after his release, Hermening has become the face of Walker’s foreign policy, as the two-term governor works to build credibility on a high-stakes issue heading into the 2016 presidential contest.

[…]

As foreign policy emerges as a leading issue in the 2016 election, Walker plans to keep featuring Hermening in the campaign — a role Hermening gladly accepts.

“I don’t think the governor needed to be in the cell with me in order to understand that that’s not how you treat people, and that you shouldn’t reward people with that behavior,” Hermening said, as he described opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran in an interview with The Associated Press.

He said months of coverage of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran have stirred up emotions for him and his fellow captives, and he criticized the deal as too soft on Iran and lacking much-needed reimbursement for the 52 hostages and their families.

Politics brought Walker and Hermening together a quarter century ago.

It was either 1990 or 1991 —Hermening can’t remember which year — when a fresh-out-of-college Walker helped his unsuccessful campaign for a seat in Wisconsin’s state assembly. Their roles soon reversed. As Walker began his political ascent, Hermening stayed involved in local party politics while running a financial planning firm.

Though he calls the governor a friend, the pair only see each other once a year — if that — at party functions.

Those 444 days Hermening was held captive are still deeply personal to the 56-year-old from Wausau, Wisconsin. He’s upbeat now about even the worst parts of the experience. Even the 43 days he spent in solitary confinement “paled in comparison” to the experiences of some of the other hostages, still wrestling with their memories of their time in captivity, he said. At least one took his own life.

Before Walker’s national rise, Hermening most often shared his tale of captivity with church groups and high school history classes.

His audience may grow dramatically. Walker’s staff is still working out the details of Hermening’s involvement in the campaign, including whether he’ll be paid. But he is expected to be regularly featured.

Regardless of his role, Hermening’s story has clearly impressed Walker.

Conclusion

It is from such personal relationships that Gov. Walker has became  aware of how dangerous the Iran nuclear deal is America, Israel and the world. That likley influenced his recognition of combating the threat of radical Islamic extremism as an important policy issue  in the 2016 Election race, should he get the nod to become his party’s standard bearer. That threat was all too real to Governor Walker and all Americans by the dastardly Islamic terror attack that took the lives of five valiant Marines and a Navy petty officer at a Chattanooga Naval/Marine Recruiting Center by a 24 year old ISIS-inspired Naturalized Palestinian American citizen, gunned down by a Police SWAT team.

image
Walker’s Iran view shaped by friendship with ex-US hosta…ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has a reason for aggressively opposing the nuclear deal with Iran — and it’s personal.
Preview by Yahoo

Iran: A Bad Deal

Over the years that the P5+1 negotiations with Iran were going on, the US government often attempted to quell the concerns of its citizens by claiming that it recognised that no deal was better than a bad deal. This week they went back on that logic, signing up to a bad deal.

Britain, of course, is equally culpable. The UK government has also signed up to the Vienna agreement. But it is America’s signature and the current US administration’s push to make a deal – any deal – that was the driving force behind this agreement and the US administration which must take responsibility for this terrible deal.

It is a remarkable fact that it was the American government which was the one pushing this deal from the outset. In fact throughout the negotiations it was clear – and clear to the Iranian partners to the negotiations – that America seemed to want a deal more than Iran did. This is striking not least because when Iran came to the negotiating table, it did so from a position of weakness. The American-led sanctions against Iran were hurting the regime. On the streets, the Iranian people were beginning to become bolder in their opposition to the regime which had caused such sanctions to be imposed upon them. But throughout the negotiations it has not been Iran which has looked like the country desperate to make the deal. The country that looked desperate to make the deal was the United States.

How else can one explain the inclusion in the final agreement signed this week of details which were not on the table at the outset? This deal does not only give the Iranians what they wanted in regards to the lifting of sanctions which were hurting their economy. It also lifts the long-imposed sanctions on Iran buying and selling conventional arms. There are, of course, very good reasons for those sanctions. The Iranian government is noteworthy for the use to which it puts conventional weaponry. For it does not only use such weapons to bolster its terrorist proxies including Hezbollah; it uses them on its populations at home whenever they dare to express significant dissatisfaction with the way in which they are ruled.

And the agreement signed this week does not only lift sanctions which affect the Iranian people. They lift sanctions – including on Iran’s acquisitions of missile technology – which have the capacity to affect everybody. There is a presumption – erroneous but prevalent – that Iranian aggression is principally a problem for Israel and that this problem is in some ways containable. Let us ignore for a moment what Iran might be aiming to do with the $150 billion cash bonanza it will be acquiring straight away. Let us pretend that none of it will go to any of its terror proxies. Why then is Iran seeking inter-continental ballistic missile technology? It does not need such missiles to reach Israel.

The US administration is currently spinning that without this deal there would be no way of holding Iran back from developing a nuclear bomb. This is wholly incorrect. What this deal does is legitimise an illegitimate regime, giving it almost everything it wants and trusting that regime will never go back on its word in relation to what it wants next. There is no question that this isn’t a good deal for Iran. But it is a terrible deal for the rest of the world.


mendozahjs

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

This week, I would like to highlight the work of our university campus programme, Student Rights, in analysing the hostile reaction of some students opposed to the UK government’s anti-radicalisation Prevent programme in its new report:  Preventing Prevent? Challenges to Counter-Radicalisation Policy On Campus.

That there remains a problem of extremism on campuses is obvious. Student Rights logged 132 extremist events in 2012, 145 in 2013, and 123 in 2014. The speakers featured suggested that there was a Western war against Islam, supported individuals convicted of terrorism offences, expressed intolerance of non-believers and/or minorities, and espoused religious law as a method of socio-political governance. The report also highlights how a number of those convicted of terrorist offences have passed through Britain’s higher education institutions.

Despite this evidence, student activists have claimed Prevent is a racist policy, that lecturers spy on students, that vulnerable people will be stigmatised, and that the expression of controversial ideas will be suppressed unless the programme is opposed.

Part of the reason for this widespread disdain is the malign influence exercised by the narrative of extremist groups targeted by the policy, with over 40 student union leaders signing an open letter attacking Prevent organised by the pro-terrorist group CAGE on 11 July for example.

But part stems from the ignorance of students about the reasons Prevent is required and what the programme’s goals are. This reflects a failure of government and university authorities in articulating these adequately.

The way forward is therefore clear. In order to generate better buy-in for its policies in this area, government needs to be loud and proud about the need for them and that civil society actors who seek to challenge extremist influence on our campuses are supported.

However, government needs partners on campus to assist with message articulation and it is here that campus authorities must do more. University administrations and even student unions have responsibilities for the health and welfare of those of their charges vulnerable to radicalisation. They need to be reminded of these with carrots – or sticks if necessary – and encouraged to play their part in ensuring that our campuses remain places of enlightenment and exploration, rather than of ignorance and fear.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

U.S. will Help Iran Stop Israeli Threats to its Nuclear Program

“The United States and other world powers will help to teach Iran how to thwart and detect threats to its nuclear program” — and where could those threats come from except from Israel and possibly the Saudis?

This agreement is an unfolding disaster, and it is almost certainly going to get even worse once it is fully implemented.

“U.S. Will Teach Iran to Thwart Nuke Threats,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, July 14, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

The United States and other world powers will help to teach Iran how to thwart and detect threats to its nuclear program, according to the parameters of a deal reached Tuesday to rein in Iran’s contested nuclear program.

Under the terms of a deal that provides Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief, Iran and global powers will cooperate to help teach Iran how to manage its nuclear infrastructure, which will largely remain in tact under the deal.

Senior Iranian officials, including the country’s president, celebrated the deal as a victory for the country. Iran’s state controlled media quoted President Hassan Rouhani as saying that the deal will “remove all sanctions while maintaining [Tehran’s] nuclear program and nuclear progress.”

In what is being viewed as a new development, European countries and potentially the United States agreed to “cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices,” according to a copy of the agreement furnished by both the Russians and Iranians.

This will include “training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems,” according to the text.

Additional “training and workshops” would work to “strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems,” the text states.

The language was viewed as disturbing by analysts and experts who said such cooperation could help protect Iran against efforts by the Israelis or other countries to sabotage the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in the future.

“The United States and its partners have just become the international protectors of the Iranian nuclear program. Instead of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, we’re now legally obligated to help the Iranians build it up and protect it,” said one Western source present in Vienna and who is apprised of the details of the deal.

In addition to teaching Iran how to protect its nuclear infrastructure, world powers pledge in the agreement to help Iran construct next-generation centrifuges—the machines that enrich uranium—at its once-secret nuclear site in Fordow, where Iran has been suspected of housing a weapons program.

Fordow is an underground and fortified military site that is largely immune from air strikes by those seeking to eradicate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

While Iran will not be permitted to enrich nuclear material with these centrifuges, the know-how gained from operating these advanced centrifuges could help it advance clandestine nuclear weapons work, experts say.

The Obama administration had once vowed that Iran would have to fully dismantle its centrifuge program. However, this demand was walked back as the Iranians demanded greater concessions over the past months.

“Now the international community will be actively sponsoring the development of Iranian nuclear technology,” Omri Ceren, an analyst from the Israel Project (TIP), wrote in an email to reporters. “And since the work will be overseen by a great power, it will be off-limits to the kind of sabotage that has kept the Iranian nuclear program in check until now.”

Meanwhile, Iranian President Rouhani celebrated the deal in a speech that detailed how the country received everything it was looking for from the United States.

This includes the full rollback on sanctions on Iran’s financial, energy, and banking sectors, as well as others, and the suspension of international resolutions banning the sale of arms to Tehran.

Iran will also move forward with work on its advanced centrifuges and also “continue its nuclear research and development,” according to Rouhani’s comments. “All our goals materialized under the deal,” Rouhani said, according to Fars….

Rouhani went on to say that Iran “will scrutinize implementation of the agreement” to ensure that the United States and other world powers uphold their end of the bargain.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Iran Deal, Explained

Netanyahu: “Can you imagine giving a drug dealer 24 days’ notice before you inspect the premises?”

Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” holds knife to tourist’s neck at Rome’s Colosseum

With Odds ‘Rigged’ Against Them, Skeptical U.S. Lawmakers Hope Americans Turn Against Iran Deal

Iran: Deal or No Deal!

Ha…chalk another win up for the Iranians who are making John Kerry and his negotiating team look like novice riders in the Camel Triple Crown! This fiasco is so serious that all Americans should be up in arms and walk away from any deal with this evil, lying nation.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, commented on the extension of nuclear negotiations with Iran:

Once again, the Obama Administration has given into Iran’s obfuscation and stalling tactics. In April, the President announced to the world that the United States had reached ‘a historic understanding with Iran.’ Now, as the Iranian leadership attempts to walk back the key provisions of that deal, we’re told a few more days are required to negotiate a deal that was supposedly concluded months ago. The events of recent weeks have shown that it is clearer than ever that Iran is not serious about resolving longstanding concerns regarding its illicit nuclear program. Another week of negotiations at this point is just another week for further U.S. concessions. Tehran knows this. Our allies and partners in the Middle East see this because they’ve experienced it before.

“The major points of this agreement are already clear, though there may in the coming days be additional American concessions. We already know that this deal is not in the interests of the United States. It will not keep Americans safer. It will only embolden the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism as it expands its influence and sows instability across the Middle East. It will provide billions of dollars to a regime that brutalizes its citizens and acts like a criminal gang by kidnapping American citizens and effectively holding them for ransom. If the President were serious about negotiating a deal that advances our security and protects our allies, such as Israel, he would walk away from the table and impose new sanctions on Iran until the regime comes to the table ready to negotiate seriously. If he instead chooses to conclude a deal that ensures that Iran will be a nuclear threshold state, I am confident that a majority of both houses of Congress will join me in opposing it, which will lay the foundation for our next President to undo this disaster.

On today’s show The United West team explains that there is one thing missing from the American negotiating side.

Tune in to find out what, or who is missing and how the States of New Jersey or New York play a role in successful U.S. negotiations.