Um, I may be totally off base here, but I don't think that this is what we and the mullahs agreed to:
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei restated his country's red lines for a nuclear deal Tuesday in a dramatic intervention during a meeting with President Hassan Rouhani and top officials.
Banking and other economic sanctions imposed by the U.N. and the United States must be lifted "immediately" if a nuclear deal is signed, he said, according to a transcript posted on his official website.
Khamenei also said Iran would not allow inspections at military sites or "unconventional inspections" of other facilities, in remarks that follow demands from Britain and France that such access is a non-negotiable part of a verified deal.
Khamenei also voiced distrust of U.N. inspectors who are expected to monitor Iran's nuclear activities and threw doubt on the duration of the framework agreement struck with world powers on April 2nd.
"Unlike the insistence from the Americans, we do not accept long-term limitations of ten, twelve years, and we told them how many years (of) limitations we are ready to accept," said Khamenei, who has the final word for Iran on whether a deal is acceptable. [emphasis added]
I direct you back to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob "Jester" Corker's comments from yesterday:
"It appears the administration may be considering negotiating a way more than just the nuclear-related sanctions, but trying to tie others to it, so those would be three that would be very concerning."
Those were issues that have been "nonnegotiable" up until two to three months ago, said Corker, and already, there have been "multiple red lines" that have been crossed....
Corker said many troubling compromises have come during the negotiations.
"Iran was not going to produce plutonium," the senator said. "Now it is, but in a more limited way. It was going to be a twenty-year deal. Now it's ten. We were going to dismantle their program. Now we're going to manage their proliferation." [emphasis added]
And now the mullahs are reneging on the ten-year deal, just like the twenty-year deal and dismantling their nuclear program before that. It's the hallmark of these ludicrous "negotiations" going back twelve years: We started with an ultimatum - Iran must give up their nukes - that we weren't willing to back up militarily, and all the "tough diplomacy" since has been an endlessly plummeting cycle of concessions, preliminary agreements, Iranian reneging, more concessions, more preliminary agreements, more Iranian reneging, etc., etc., etc. to the point now where we have for all intents and purposes agreed to the original Iranian position, which has never budged by so much as a Planck length.
An outrageous reality that Alan Kuperman pantsed for all the world to see in, of all places, the pages of the New York Times:
Most important, in the event of an overt attempt by Iran to build....bomb[s], Mr. Obama’s argument assumes that Iran would employ only the 5,060 centrifuges that the deal would allow for uranium enrichment, not the roughly 14,000 additional centrifuges that Iran would be permitted to keep mainly for spare parts. Such an assumption is laughable. In a real-world breakout, Iran would race, not crawl, to....bomb[s]…
Second, since the deal would permit Iran to keep only a small amount of enriched uranium in the gaseous form used in centrifuges, Mr. Obama assumes that a dash for....bomb[s] would start mainly from unenriched uranium, thereby lengthening the breakout time. But the deal would appear to also permit Iran to keep large amounts of enriched uranium in solid form (as opposed to gas), which could be reconverted to gas within weeks, thus providing a substantial head-start to producing weapons-grade uranium.
Third, Mr. Obama’s argument assumes that Iran would require fifty-nine pounds of weapons-grade uranium to make [each] atomic bomb. In reality, nuclear weapons can be made from much smaller amounts of uranium (as experts assume North Korea does in its rudimentary arsenal). A 1995 study by the Natural Resources Defense Council concluded that even a “low technical capability” nuclear weapon could produce an explosion with a force approaching that of the Hiroshima bomb — using just twenty-nine pounds of weapons-grade uranium. [emphases added]
Just the sort of nuke....
....that terrorists would be most likely to deploy.
And in the meantime, the mullahs wouldn't be abiding by any "deal" anyway - how could we ever know if they were if they won't allow any on-site inspections for verification purposes, which clearly indicates that they have no intention of doing so? - and that means miniaturized nuclear warheads to put atop the ICBMs they've already tested. Of which they would only need one to destroy the United States for good.
This is a scenario so likely by now that it approaches certainty. The only question is when, because we have thrown away any chance of answering "if" in our favor.
Why are we sticking our collective head....take your pick: in the noose, on the chopping block, in the lion's mouth? Allahpundit provides a "simply devastating" summation:
An Iranian diplomat told Reuters the truth a few days ago: “There will be a deal, Americans need it more than we do.” If by “Americans” he means “the White House,” then yeah, that’s accurate. Obama prefers a catastrophic policy failure that gives him a political victory to a catastrophic political failure that would leave us with a better policy. [emphasis added]
And when that catastrophic policy failure can and will result in the deaths of upward of 90% of the American population....well, is that not the definition of treason?
UPDATE: Obama now has the U.S. military advisors he sent to Iraq sharing a barracks with Iran's Shiite proxies that were shooting at them and blowing them up just a few years ago, and doubtless will be again. Just thought you ought to know.
No comments:
Post a Comment