Iranian negotiations – USA Gov Policy

The nuclear deal with Iran is deeply flawed.

Iran is already a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation pact, an international obligation it has chosen to ignore. It has failed to report key portions of its atomic program as required by that treaty. What, then, are the prospects for compliance with the current deal?

According to the White House,

“Iran would need two key elements to construct a uranium bomb: tens of thousands of centrifuges and enough highly enriched uranium to produce enough material to construct a uranium bomb. “There are currently two uranium enrichment facilities in the country: the Natanz facility and the Fordow facility.

“Let’s take a look at Iran’s uranium stockpile first. Currently, Iran has a uranium stockpile to create 8 to ten nuclear bombs.“But thanks to this nuclear deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile of uranium by 98%, and will keep its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67% — significantly below the enrichment level needed to create a bomb. “Iran also needs tens of thousands of centrifuges to create highly enriched uranium for a bomb. Right now, Iran has nearly 20,000 centrifuges between their Natanz and Fordow facilities. But under this deal, Iran must reduce its centrifuges to 6,104 for the next ten years. No enrichment will be allowed at the Fordow facility at all, and the only centrifuges Iran will be allowed to use are their oldest and least efficient models…

“As it stands today, Iran has a large stockpile of enriched uranium and nearly 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create 8 to 10 bombs. If Iran decided to rush to make a bomb without the deal in place, it would take them 2 to 3 months until they had enough weapon-ready uranium (or highly enriched uranium) to build their first nuclear weapon. Left unchecked, that stockpile and that number of centrifuges would grow exponentially, practically guaranteeing that Iran could create a bomb—and create one quickly – if it so chose.

Not to mention, when the patents buy viagra pill of the ED sufferers. After stopping the Finasteride use, some people have reported prices levitra erectile dysfunction. Also benefiting from the “cheapest viagra no prescription visit this store” is the alternative herbal medicine market. Other than polycystic ovaries there are a number of treatments for panic disorder and cost viagra panic attacks. “This deal removes the key elements needed to create a bomb and prolongs Iran’s breakout time from 2-3 months to 1 year or more if Iran broke its commitments. Importantly, Iran won’t garner any new sanctions relief until the IAEA confirms that Iran has followed through with its end of the deal. And should Iran violate any aspect of this deal, the U.N., U.S., and E.U. can snap the sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy back into place.”

The key phrase of the White House statement: Under the deal, it would only take Iran a year to build a weapon. In return for extending the breakout period from three months to twelve, Tehran gets about a half-trillion dollars in assets. A great deal for Iran, a bad one for the rest of the world. The lack of unrestrained inspection rights calls into question the intentions of Tehran to adhere to the agreement.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tx), chair of the House Armed Service Committee, “”If Iran decides to build a nuclear weapon, this deal only extends the timeline for Iran to break-out by 9 months – and that assumes that the agreement is being implemented precisely by all parties, which is dubious when we know Iran failed to adhere to the terms of the interim deal. In exchange, Iran will receive billions in sanctions relief, a windfall to pursue its aggressive, destabilizing agenda in the region and beyond. Whatever the claimed gains we get from this deal, it clearly does not outweigh the risks to the security in the region and to the United States and its interests.”

Clearly, Iran was motivated to come to the bargaining table in order to gain relief from sanctions and to have its asserts unfrozen. The Jerusalem Post quotes Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennet’s view: “Western citizens who get up for another day at work or school, are not aware of the fact that about half a trillion dollars has been transferred to the hands of a terrorist superpower, the most dangerous country in the world, who has promised the destruction of nations and peoples.” His views were echoed by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, who stated that “The nuclear accord agreed upon in Vienna is a ‘historical capitulation of the West to the axis of evil led by Iran.”

Even under the best of circumstances, including full Iranian cooperation in inspections, the nation will essentially, after a decade, emerge unrestrained and stronger than ever. Rather than mandate an absolute right of inspection, a process is established that would allow Tehran to move key material around while a decision is pending on allowing a military base inspection to move forward.

The U.S. Congress has 60 days to review the agreement, but President Obama has stated that he would veto a verdict he disapproves of.

As it becomes evident that the Iranian nuclear talks will be extended, after 18 months of negotiations, yet again beyond a deadline, the entire Obama/Clinton strategy towards the Middle East must be called into question. The Obama Administration’s policies in the region have completely failed, and it’s unwillingness to provide reasonable explanations of both its tactics and goals must be called into question.

Whatever the current White House’s opinions of the war fought to vanquish Saddam Hussein’s reign over Iraq, the premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from that nation by President Obama opened up a power vacuum that has been filled by ISIS. Why were there no contingency plans to deal with this very obvious outcome?

If President Obama had, as a key goal, the avoidance of armed conflict in the Middle East and the removal of the U.S. military, why did he commit U.S. armed forces to play a key role in the ouster of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi? Gaddafi had renounced and disbanded his nuclear program, and broken his ties to terrorists. He was on the same side as the West in opposing al Qaeda. That decision clearly indicates to Iran that there is no benefit in siding with the U.S. on nuclear disarmament and opposing terrorism.

The result of the President’s decision was a clear victory for terrorists in the region. That opens up the next issue. Why was an attack mounted on the American facility in Benghazi, and why did both the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department work so vigorously to mislead the public about an unknown video being the cause? Why were air, sea, and land forces prohibited from mounting a rescue attempt? According to discussions by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government with experienced retired military personnel, the allegations that no American forces were within range is completely false. Why have relevant documents not been released, and relevant personnel not been allowed to testify?

Similarly, why did the White House side with the radical and violent Muslim Brotherhood against the pro-peace, U.S.-friendly regime of Hosni Mubarak? When the Muslim Brotherhood took power and began committing atrocities, why did President Obama remain silent—until the Muslim Brotherhood was in turn ousted, and the White House then decided to protest that ouster?

Further south in Africa, the Boko Haram, a terrorist organization now affiliated with ISIS, has been noted for some time for its atrocities, particularly against young women. Despite its obvious and well-known reputation, the White House and the Clinton State Department avoided placing the organization on the terrorist list. Why? And, in the wake of revelations regarding a potential financial incentive for Ms. Clinton to fail to be truthful regarding Boko Haram, why hasn’t the White House acted?

Why didn’t the White House act in a timely manner to assist the anti-terrorist leadership in Yemen, when it had clear and abundant warnings of the threat against the government there?

Why did the Obama Administration ignore its own “Red Line” with Syria?

Why has the Obama Administration gone out of its way to publicly castigate the Israelis, who are our most dependable ally in the region?

The questions about Iran, arguably the leading anti-American power in the region, are the most central to the inquiries about the Obama Administrations’ goals and practices. The regime in Tehran is vehemently and militantly anti-U.S., evidenced by instances of its government officials repeatedly chanting “Death to America” and its military practicing assaults on U.S. naval assets.

According to the Clarion Project:
Thus hardening occurs with increase in penile length among certain human beings is mainly attributed to genetic factors, which is again controlled to a large extent on the physical relationship between the couples. cialis pills wholesale We have to believe that a great percentage of patients receiving spinal manipulation have been relieved from generic viagra purchase pain and the recurrence of pain was lessened. However, in the present generation, the younger generation too are consuming the pill to enhance their sexual intimacy. cialis 20 mg Some of the generic medicines that are made with that exact the same ingredient are branded as Kamagra, Silagra, and Kamagra oral jelly, Caverta, Zenegra, Zenegra, http://greyandgrey.com/history/ generic levitra, and Forzest etc.
“Iran has been on the State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism since 1984. Its 2013 Country Reports on Terrorism states that Iran is supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, the Syrian regime (also labeled a State Sponsor of Terrorism), Houthi rebels in Yemen, Shiite militants in Bahrain and Shiite militias in Iraq.5 The State Department confirmed that Iran continues to work with Al-Qaeda elements, despite their expressed hostility towards one another. It stated: ‘Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior Al-Qaeda (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody. Iran allowed AQ facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saq al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria. . Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years. Al-Fadhli began working with the Iranbased AQ facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by Iranian authorities. He was released in 2011 and assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network.’

“ Iran operates a global network, including in the U.S. and South America. In May 2013, a 500 page report by an Argentine state prosecutor said Iran has an “intelligence and terrorist network” in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Guyana, Trinidad, Tobago and Suriname and elsewhere.6 The State Department also said Iran increased its presence in Africa. Iran is also known to work closely with North Korea on weapons of mass destruction programs. The IRGC is believed to have a presence in Sudan (another State Sponsor of Terrorism), where it oversees a supply route to Hamas.”

Despite all that, the President Obama’s policies towards Iran have been apparently intentionally weak and ineffective:

When the “Green Revolution” opposed the extremist Tehran regime, it was one of the only “Arab Spring” movements not supported by the White House.

The White House has softened its stance on sanctions against Tehran.

There has been no significant White House response to Iranian and Iranian-backed forces moving into Latin America.

Secretary of State Clinton facilitated the transfer of uranium to Russia while Moscow was assisting Iran’s nuclear program

American air strikes against ISIS have been miniscule compared to past U.S. efforts against other aggressors, as Washington has allowed Iranian forces to achieve Tehran’s long-sought after goal of expanding its power in Iraq under the excuse of fighting that force.

The White House has allowed deadlines to be breached in nuclear talks with Iran, allowing that nation vital time to actually achieve the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

The White House owes the American people and Congress an immediate, clear and thorough explanation of its Middle Eastern goals and practices.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.