Time to get rid of the terrorist regime of Iran

Rep. Ed Royce

 As the Obama Administration  pushes for a final agreement with  Iran, reports indicate that the deal could bring as much as $50 billion to the terrorist regime in Tehran in immediate relief, and another $100 billion could come over the next year. And U.S. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued in his statement as U.S. negotiators work toward a final Iran nuclear agreement which would provide Tehran with tens of billions in sanctions relief.  Earlier this week, a senior U.S. official said that Iran would not use billions in sanctions to back its nefarious activities. "It is our assessment that they are not going to spend the vast majority of the money on guns, most of it will go to butter," said the U.S. official.

Chairman Royce said: “Obama Administration officials have talked themselves into the delusion that the regime in Tehran will use a sanctions relief jackpot to help its people.  But Iran’s Supreme Leader isn’t looking to cut this deal because he cares about ordinary Iranians.  He’s making it so that he can consolidate power at home, dominate the region and gain acceptance of Iran’s nuclear program, paving the path to a nuclear weapon.  Helping Iranians doesn’t even make the list.  The ObamaAdministration’s fundamental misread of the Iranian regime is part of what makes this potential agreement so dangerous to our national security.”

At the same time Hillary Clinton the 2016 presidential candidates who in known for her historical appeasements with the Iranian Mullahs was asked about the Obama administration’s involvement in ongoing nuclear talks with Iran, she said: “I’m hoping it’s a strong, verifiable deal that will put the lid on Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Even if we are successful, however, Iran’s aggressiveness will not end.”

“Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing” on a range of foreign policy issues، particularly in the Middle East، Sen. Lindsey O.Graham (R-S.C.)، said of the president in a New York radio interview Sunday morning.

“These nuclear negotiations with Iran scare the heck out of me،” Graham said. “We’d be nuts to give the Iranians more money until they change their behavior. . . . At the end of the day، a nuclear deal with Iran has to be airtight because they lie and cheat،” he said، according to an account in The Hill.

Diplomats here enter the final hours of more than 18 months of negotiations that will either establish a new relationship between Iran and global powers، or collapse amid recriminations and threats to world peace.

All sides say they are very close to finalizing a comprehensive agreement that would place limits on Iran’s nuclear activities and prevent it from producing a nuclear weapon، in exchange for lifting international economic sanctions.

Differences have narrowed in recent days in both of the main areas of negotiations — the level of inspections and verification that Iran keeps its side of the bargain، and the pace and scope of sanctions relief Iran will get in exchange.

Separate from the negotiations، U.S. officials are working on how an accord would be rolled out to the public and to a skeptical Congress. Officials have said there will likely be no signing ceremony; instead، agreement on a   mutually agreed later date.

For the United States and its partners، lifting of a wide range of sanctions requires regulatory and political action in Europe، the United Nations and Washington — some of which is under the control of Congress.

 The United States and other countries believe Tehran once was working to develop an atomic weapon،, but any way, the world needs not to trust the Iranian Mullahs because they just want to get rid of the suffocating sanctions in order to earn billions to postpone the evident regime-collapse in Tehran. It's time to get rid of the terrorist regime in Iran instead of providing facilities for them to get rid of the  world sanctions.

Republicans: stop nuclear Negotiations with Iran

While the President of the Washington-based Strategic Policy Consulting Inc.and spokesperson for theNational Council of Resistance of Iran ( NCRI ), claims that the “Iranian regime did not answer to any of the IAEA’s questions regarding evidence nuclear bomb making activities.” Congressional Republicans are pressuring the Obama administration to take a firm line with Iran in the final stretch of the nuclear talks.
The Obama administration announced Tuesday that the negotiations would be extended for a week past the initial June 30 deadline.
Republicans say the extension is a sign the talks aren't going well and argue President Obama should consider walking away from the negotiating table before he gets forced into a "bad deal" that doesn't do enough to dismantle Iran's nuclear capabilities.
"The Administration’s deadlines and red lines with Iran are all moving in the wrong direction, and the backpedaling is a major threat to our security. Achieving a nuclear deal at all costs is not only short-sighted, it is dangerous," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said Wednesday.
Republicans say they fear the Obama administrationwill concede too much to Iran and are drawing their own red lines for what would be an acceptable agreement.
In particular, they are zeroing in on demands that Iran allow inspections "anytime, anywhere," including at military sites, and that the country come clean on any past nuclear weapons research. Republicans also say Iran should agree to phased-in sanctions relief.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called on the administration Tuesday in a Politicoop-ed to pause negotiations until international negotiators could agree on those and other "basic objectives."
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) also called for dismantlement of Iran's "vast nuclear program" and "complete transparency and accountability on any future sanctions relief to Iran."
Kirk has authored a bill with Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) that would require the White House to tell Congress whether any money from sanctions relief would go toward terrorism, nuclear weapons or to the bank accounts of Iranian officials.
Kirk said the deal would give back as much as $150 billion in frozen assets to Iran.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a 2016 presidential candidate, blasted reports that a senior administration official told reporters that the U.S. wouldn't insist upon access to Iranian military sites, because the U.S. would not allow for others to do the same.
“There is no place in this negotiation for moral equivalence," they said in a statement. "Iran must be held to different, more rigorous standards."
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) added, “It’s logical that any deal with a nuclear pariah and state sponsor of terrorism must require exceptional access for international inspectors.”
"Stop explaining Iran’s position, and certainly don’t do it by comparing Iran with the U.S. in any way, shape, or form. The standard needs to be ‘go anywhere, anytime’ — not go ‘some places, sometimes,’” he said.
If negotiators submit text of the deal to Congress before July 9, Congress will have 30 days to review the deal and vote on a resolution to disapprove it. If Congress rejects the deal, the White House would have 12 days to veto the resolution. Congress would then have 10 days to override the veto.
Two nuclear proliferation experts argued Tuesday that there was "just enough" overlap between international negotiators and Iran to meet core concerns and that press reports suggesting that Iran Supreme Leader Al Khamenei ruled out all military site inspections were wrong.
"It is unrealistic and unnecessary to have carte blanche access to Iran's military sites to verify Iran's compliance with this agreement. Iran, like any other country, has legitimate concerns about safeguarding sensitive military sites," argued Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy for the Arms Control Association, and ACA Executive Director Daryl G. Kimball.
President Obama on Tuesday said he would walk away from the Iran negotiations "if, in fact, it's a bad deal."
"If we can’t provide assurances that the pathways for Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon are closed, and if we can’t verify that, if the inspections regime — the verification regime is inadequate, then we’re not going to get a deal," he said at a press conference.
Some Republicans are calling for the administration to walk away from the talks.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a 2016 presidential candidate, blasted the pending deal and said the White House has "given into Iran's obfuscation and stalling tactics."
If the president were "serious about negotiating a deal that advances our security and protects our allies," he would walk away from the talks and impose new sanctions on Iran until "it comes to the table ready to negotiate seriously."
Rubio also said even if Congress could not override a presidential veto, a resolution of disapproval would set the stage for the next president to undo the deal — a suggestion that Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) made in a GOP letter to Iran earlier this year.
If the president "instead chooses to conclude a deal that ensure 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," Rubio said.
Iran isn’t the only threat facing us, but it’s a grave one. The White House needs to remember that this is one of the most serious issues of our time. It needs to remember that the consequences of a bad agreement may be to simply defer a decision on military action to the next President. And it needs to know that the Congress elected by the people is prepared to do anything it can to make Americans safer: whether that means working collaboratively with the President to advance the goal or whether it means working against a bad agreement that threatens our country and our allies.