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  
 

Iran deal at risk: Key senators demand secret annexes

The Washington Post, 22 July 2015

 In a written statement released by two prominent Republicans yesterday, we learned:
Congressman Mike Pompeo (KS-04) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) on Friday had a meeting in Vienna with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), during which the agency conveyed to the lawmakers that two side deals made between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will remain secret and will not be shared with other nations, with Congress, or with the public. One agreement covers the inspection of the Parchin military complex, and the second details how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.
A spokesperson for Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) — Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and co-sponsor of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act — this morning tells Right Turn, “Senators Corker and [Ben] Cardin sent a private letter to Secretary [John] Kerry requesting two additional documents associated with the Iran nuclear agreement that were left out of the materials required to be submitted to Congress per the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that the president signed into law.”
Under the terms of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the clock does not start running on Congress’s 60 days to review the deal until all the agreement “and all related materials and annexes” associated with the deal are turned over. A central purpose of the bill, as its co-sponsors often declared, was to ensure that Congress got the entire deal. Without the bill, the president — just as he is attempting to do now — would never be compelled to reveal what he had promised the Iranians. A summary of the bill stated, “The bill requires the president to submit to Congress the agreement and all related documents, including specifics on verification and compliance. This ensures Congress will get to see the entire deal and make an independent judgment on its merits.” On the floor of the Senate on May 11, Corker urged his colleagues to pass the bill, stating unambiguously that “it ensures transparency. The bill requires the president to submit to Congress the text and all details of any nuclear agreement with Iran, if one is reached.” The president signed off and now appears poised to ignore it.more

Iranian regime president unwittingly admitted the country have previously pursued nuclear weapons

A very interesting and eye opening revelation recently came over the transom from Tehran: In an interview to the state-run news agency IRNA, president Rouhani threatened that “if the other side breaches the deal, wewill go back to the old path, stronger than what they can imagine.”

We can set aside the belligerent tone here: Bluster and bullying have long been the Tehran regime’s stock-in-trade. But it’s worth spending a few minutes parsing Rouhani’s words. The “other side” is the collection of world powers, known as the P5+1, that are currently negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. (They’ve just extended the deadline by a week, to July 7.) The “deal” is a long-sought bargain that would allow the regime in Tehran to pursue peaceful nuclear technology while the world lifts economic sanctions on Iran.

But what, pray, is “the old path” along which the cleric-president is threatening to take his country? Since its secret nuclear plant in Natanz was revealed in 2002 by the dissident group NCRI, the Iranian regime has sworn, over and over again, that it has never pursued nuclear weapons.

The first interpretation for those naïve minded people is to believe the regime’s claim of peaceful nuclear work, then Rouhani’s threat makes no sense. The “old path” would simply be more “peaceful” nuclear research, allowing the sanctions to continue devastating the Iranian economy. That’s not so much a threat as a flagellant’s cry for help: “If you go back on your word, I’ll hurt myself.”

The second interpretation would be that Rouhani is merely bluffing: There’s no “old path,” and Tehran is simply trying to frighten the P5+1 into relenting on the remaining sticking points at the negotiating table in Vienna. (To his critics, President Barack Obama’s claim that the US will walk away from negotiations if it doesn’t get a good deal smacks of bluff, too.)

But the logical and rational mindset is that Rouhani has unwittingly revealed that Iran was indeed pursuing nukes. That would be a real threat, especially if he is also sincere in pursuing this path “stronger than what they can imagine.” Revealingly, even as it has suspended uranium enrichment activities while negotiating with the P5+1, Iran has refused to let the IAEA, the international nuclear watchdog, to investigate whether it has been pursuing nuclear-weapons development.

So, what’s Rouhani’s game—bluff or blackmail? The P5+1 negotiators will call that one off with their eyes wide open, hopefully by July 7.

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.

NCRI reveales accurate information about Iranian neuclear sites

The UN atomic watchdog confirmed its chief   headed last Wednesday to Tehran for talks on a stalled nuclear bomb probe, a key sticking point in talks between Iran and major powers.
The aim of International Atomic Energy Agency head Yukiya Amano’s talks on Thursday is to 'accelerate the resolution of all outstanding issues related to Iran’s nuclear program, including clarification of possible military dimensions', the IAEA said.
The IAEA keeps close tabs on Iran’s declared nuclear activities, making sure that all nuclear material is accounted for and that its facilities are being used for exclusively peaceful purposes.

At the same time , in an interview with INTV  , Alireza Jafarzadeh, President of the Washington-based Strategic Policy Consulting Inc. and spokesperson for the National Council of Resistance of Iran ( NCRI ), said: “Iranian regime did not answer to any of the IAEA’s questions regarding evidence nuclear bomb making activities.”

Q: What important aspects does the latest IAEA report handed over to the UN Security Council, specify?

Jafarzadeh: This report points out four important issues, which are all in criticizing tone. They also reveal the Iranian regime’s defiance to international obligations.
1- First of all the regime has increased its enriched uranium in the Natanz site, first revealed by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in 2002. It is holding 2.5 tons of enriched uranium, which if is enriched in high grade, is enough for two nuclear bombs.
2- By use of a chain centrifuge cascade in the training site of Natanz, they have enriched a noticeable amount of uranium up to 20%, which brings it closer to building a nuclear bomb.
3- A number of equipment and chemical substances that Tehran claimed were only used for a series of scientific experiments have been relocated and kept away from the eyes of IAEA agents. Tehran is not answering any questions in this regard, where these equipments are and what are they conducting? The sensitivity of this issue lies in the fact that these equipments are used for uranium rod precision to convert them into nuclear bomb material.
4- None of the IAEA’s questions regarding evidence that could have shown Tehran is involved in bomb-making activities have been answered. Also, numerous questions remain unanswered regarding sites in Natanz, Qom, and others, all described in full detail in IAEA’s recent report.

Q: Mr. Jafarzadeh, describe the importance of this report in the current situation and its effects on the Iranian regime in the international scene?

Jafarzadeh: All the facts stated in the IAEA report are against the Iranian regime’s obligations regarding the UNSC resolutions. In short, this report is one of the strongest IAEA reports so far regarding the Iranian regime’s nuclear program.
Well, this report is issued at a time that a strong draft resolution on the Iranian regime’s nuclear program is on the table in the UNSC and on the other hand, Tehran is trying to use other countries as mediators and also come up with new deceitful deals to swap low-enriched uranium for high-enriched uranium. All these efforts are intended to deprive the international community in taking a strong, unified stance against the Iranian regime.
Therefore, in this period of time, this resolution is acting as a sledgehammer on the mullahs, seriously isolating it internationally and degrades Tehran’s stance against the UNSC.
On the other hand, this proves the Iranian resistance stance that from the very beginning foresaw step by step the goals and ambitions of the mullahs and revealed them with accurate information