Congress Should Reject Iran Deal

The following is an article posted by Kim R. Holmes in the Trend website on August 22, 2015.

You’ve heard the argument. If Congress turns down the Iran nuclear deal, Tehran will rush to get a nuclear bomb within two to three months. Our only alternative then is war.
But what about Congress voting “no” and adjusting the terms of the agreement?
Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, recently made such a proposal. He argues that congressional disapproval would provide time to correct some of the agreement’s flaws. Most experts believe that it would take until spring 2016 at the earliest for Iran to comply with the terms of the agreement. Since none of the U.S. sanctions will be suspended by then, there would still be time for the U.S. to take remedial measures to strengthen the deal.
Among these could be reaching understandings with the European partners “on the appropriate penalties to be imposed for a broad spectrum of Iranian violations.” Other actions could include a clearer declaratory policy that military force will not be taken off the table and ramping up tougher sanctions against Tehran’s terrorist and other non-nuclear activities that destabilize the region.
Satloff’s alternative is a noble effort to save an obviously weak deal. It recognizes a major flaw in the agreement: that the terms of re-imposing “snapback” sanctions are so onerous that they will likely never be enforced. It also points to a negotiating principle that the Obama administration has tried to obscure: strong sanctions are what forced whatever concessions Iran made. Keeping or strengthening sanctions enhances America’s bargaining leverage. Even if Congress disapproves the deal, that leverage will remain.
This last point is key. We should remember that no sanctions relief kicks in from anybody—including the United Nations and the Europeans—until the IAEA certifies that Iran has complied with its initial commitments under the agreement. If Tehran responds to a congressional “no” vote by thumbing its nose at everybody, it will only be back where it started, which is not where it wants to be. In fact, it could face even stronger sanctions (or worse) from the U.S. if it should hit the accelerator on its nuclear program.
Satloff’s idea is a good start. Unfortunately, it doesn’t go far enough. The only way to get Iran to give up its nuclear program short of war is to force it to decide between retaining its nuclear weapons potential and having sanctions completely lifted. Neither Satloff’s option nor Obama’s deal forces that choice....more

After the Nuclear Agreement, a Ticking Clock

By Alireza Jafarzadeh
At the White House recently, President Barack Obama hailed the just-announced nuclear agreement with Iran as “the best deal.” A closer look at the details of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, however, provides little cause for celebration.
First and foremost, the agreement does not actually prevent Tehran from having a nuclear weapons capability. To the contrary, it guarantees the regime several potential paths for building the bomb in the future. That’s because the JCPOA preserves and legitimizes Iran’s basic nuclear infrastructure — including an industrialized uranium enrichment program — with some restrictions that phase out in as little as a decade.
The deal also allows the regime to conduct research and development on advanced centrifuges. This gives Iran the opportunity to master its technology and be in a position to create a small covert facility with only a few hundred advanced centrifuges, sufficient to produce enough fissile material for a bomb.
Contrary to the White House talking points, the agreement does not in fact provide “anytime, anywhere access” to suspect nuclear sites, including military sites. Instead it provides “managed access” to sites, which....more  
 

Is the U.S. Air Force Ready to Attack Iran’s Nuclear Sites?

U.S. and Mullah's negotiators have been scrambling in Vienna to concoct an accord that will stay Tehran nuclear ambitions for at least a decade. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has spent the same amount of time plotting how to derail such an effort if it can’t be done at the negotiating table.

The U.S. has made it clear that it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon to threaten its other neighbors in and around the Persian Gulf. If the atomic talks break down—and U.S. intelligence decides Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear-armed state—look for the Air Force’s Massive Ordnance Penetration to get the assignment to try to destroy that capability.

 The Obama Administration and its five negotiating allies—Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia—are engaged as much in psychological gamesmanship as potential pyrotechnics. The U.S. has leaked just enough information about the MOP to let the Iranian Mullahs know that the Americans believe its use could set back Iranian efforts to develop a nuclear weapon for years.

But the nation’s military leaders have made clear that a single strike with one or (more likely) more Massive Ordnance Perpetrators may not halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “Obviously anything like that can be reconstituted,” Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said July 1. “And so a military strike of that kind is a setback, but it doesn’t prevent the reconstitution over time.” It’s a hammer that might have to be used repeatedly if Iran refuses to back down and continues to work on its nuclear program. “The military option isn’t use once and set aside,” Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added. “It remains in place.”

While no one will say so, Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow–buried up to 80 meters beneath a mountain near the Shiite city of Qom, at a former missile base controlled by Iran’s unpredictable Revolutionary Guards–is at the top of that target list. Iran has been conducting much of its suspected nuclear-weapons work for years in underground labs and research facilities thought to be able to survive attacks by earlier generations of U.S. military bunker-busters.

“In October 2014, the Air Force successfully completed one weapon drop from the B-2 aircraft on a representative target,” the Pentagon’s top weapons-tester reported earlier this year. “The test, conducted at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, demonstrated weapon behavior after planned enhancements were incorporated.” Several additional tests have been carried out in recent months, Pentagonofficials say.

Nearly a decade ago, the Pentagon concluded that dropping its one-ton bombs on buried targets was like using a peashooter against an elephant. “Our past test experience has shown that 2,000-pound perpetrators carrying 500 pounds of high explosive are relatively ineffective against tunnels, even when skipped directly into the tunnel entrance,” a 2004 report said. “Instead, several thousand pounds of high explosives coupled to the tunnel are needed to blow down blast doors and propagate a lethal air blast throughout a typical tunnel complex.”

In late 2009, the Air Force quietly circulated a solicitation seeking a “Quick Reaction Capability” to “defeat a specific set of Hard and/or Deeply Buried Targets.” The weapon, the service said, would “maximize effects against Hard and/or Deeply Buried Targets (HDBTs), while minimizing time over target.” The Air Force said it needed the weapon to meet “Urgent Operational Needs requirements”—generally a plea from a battlefield commander who doesn’t think he has the weapons he needs to accomplish a mission assigned to him.

After several upgrades, the US Air Force has let it been known that there’s an operational stockpile of the world’s most powerful non-nuclear bombs at Whitman Air Force Base, Missouri. They’re not far from the B-2 bombers, ready to carry them 7,000 miles to Iran. That much is certain. If the Iranian Mullahs did not comply with what they have accepted in the Nuclear deal and make it collapse, Obama will be obliged to order   the deployment of the Big bomb to take out their illicit nuclear activity.  

Those who are concerned about nuclear bomb

By Iran Reporter

June, 4, 2015

The United States and Five world powers are approaching the final stretch in marathon talks with Iran aimed at restricting the Ayatollahs nuclear programs in exchange for sanctions relief. The sides are aiming to have a deal by June 30. But with less than four weeks to go, some negotiators have said the talks might go beyond that date. Any deal would cap nearly a decade of international efforts to restrict Iranian nuclear programs that could be turned toward making weapons. Tehran denies any interest in atomic arms, but nobody can trust them. The talks in Vienna on Thursday involve senior officials from Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany and follow a day of experts' meetings.

Western powers fear that Iran harbors ambitions to build an atomic bomb and years of talks have centered on eradicating the alleged threat.

But, the final solution for a non-nuclear Iran ,a  Non-Nuclear Democratic Iran

Is in Maryam Rajavi's points of views

By Toppling Fundamentalism & Terrorism & the Mullahs' Caliphate

Maryam Rajavi will explain about the solution in The Great Annual Iranian Gathering – June 2014 in Paris

The Great Gathering of the Iranian Resistance in Paris – June 13, 2015

Those who are concerned about nuclear bomb in Iran and in the Middle East Are invited to this   Great Gathering in Paris – June 13.