While the July 7th deadline has passed, the P5+1 negotiations with Iraq are continuing —they will probably be completed in a day or two. As I reported at Irantruth.org yesterday (and still believe)
Most likely is there will be a “sort of” agreement, where the parties announce they’ve resolved all outstanding issues but they still have to fill in some details.
This will enable the talks to meet the congressional deadline of July 9th. If a deal is announced by the 9th congress will get 30 days to analyze and vote on the pact. After the 9th they get 60 days.
With the “sort of” scenario the P5+1 and Iranians would move in parallel to implement various commitments, the Iranians would have to work with the IAEA on its unresolved concerns regarding Iran’s weapons program (PMDs). By the winter time the IAEA would provide a face-saving way for the parties to declare Iran is cooperating (just like they did with the yellowcake conversion). This scenario would be very attractive to the Obama administration because it puts off granting Iran sanctions relief until the IAEA makes some noises about the Iranians cooperating, and after congress votes. Obama will tell Congress that “of course PMDs will be resolved before any sanctions relief is granted” and after Congress votes the lawmakers will have no leverage to stop the administration from caving.
Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses? (1)
Meanwhile the Obama administration and the supporters of its sellout are laying the groundwork for another U.S. collapse, this time on inspections. The signs are all there::
They have changed their verbiage, indicating they are going to break their promise of the most robust inspection/verification regime in history. During his April 2 announcement of the “framework agreement” President Obama said:
“Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.”
On May 2, White House spox Josh Earnest doubled down on Obama’s statement made a month earlier:
“What President Obama has indicated must be part of any nuclear agreement… is the most intrusive set of inspections that have ever been imposed on a country’s nuclear program”
But on July 1st White House supporter and Director of the Arms Control Association Daryl Kimball spoke to Politico and began to make an excuse for those inspections not happening– Iran hasn’t been defeated in a war:
“this particular agreement will establish the most extensive, multilayered system of nuclear monitoring and verification for any country not defeated in a war”
Monday Jofi Joseph, a former nonproliferation official in the Obama White House (until it was discovered he was trashing Hillary Clinton on twitter) told the LA Times that the Iranians can’t be expected to submit to anytime/anywhere inspections giving the same reason as Kimball:
“What is forgotten is that Iraq was militarily defeated in a humiliating rout and had little choice but to accept [anytime/anywhere inspections]”
Since the beginning of the P5+1 negotiations began the Obama Administration promised Congress that Iran that Tehran would (and after April 2nd had already) accept anytime/anywhere inspections.
Many in Congress disagreed and urged the administration to boost American leverage by working with the Hill to pass time-triggered sanctions. The administration responded with two different media wars that included accusations including some by the president – describing lawmakers as warmongers beholden to donor [a nice way to make the charge of Jewish] money. Now it looks like Congress was right and the administration was
lying misstating the facts; Why would lawmakers now accept a weaker inspection regime than what the administration said it could secure. Actually its not all of congress its the Democrats needed to override a presidential veto and Obama and friends have already begun to warn them to accept any deal he comes up with.
The new Obama talking point is that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has advanced technology which will compensate for the Administration collapsing on inspections. On Monday, two different progressive vehicles, The NY Times and The Daily Beast published geeky articles about the IAEA’s latest toys but the toys weren’t the key part of each story. The NY Times piece had Energy Secretary Moniz explaining that the technology, “lowers the requirement for human inspectors going in” and Daryl Kimball telling the Daily Beast that the technology meant that the IAEA would be able to “detect [nuclear activities] without going directly into certain areas.”
The argument is a
lie misstatement and those scientists should be embarrassed they told falsehoods misstatements to protect Obama’s bad deal. In the same story the New York Times quoted Olli Heinonen, a 27-year veteran of the IAEA who used to run their inspections operation.
Mr. Heinonen, the onetime inspection chief, sounded a note of caution, saying it would be naïve to expect that the wave of technology could ensure Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal. In the past, he said, Tehran has often promised much but delivered little.
“Iran is not going to accept it easily,” he said, referring to the advanced surveillance. “We tried it for 10 years.”
Even if Tehran agrees to high-tech sleuthing, Mr. Heinonen added, that step will be “important but minor” compared with the intense monitoring that Western intelligence agencies must mount to see if Iran is racing ahead in covert facilities to build an atomic bomb.
The most fundamental problem by relying on technology is that the IAEA require physical environmental samples to confirm violations. They may be able to use futuristic lasers and satellites to detect that Iran is cheating. But to confirm the cheating they need environmental samples, and usually multiple rounds of samples. Without that level of proof which requires anytime access the agency simply wouldn’t be able to tell the international community that it was certain Iran is violation.
Since breakout time is supposedly going to be the metric the president is using to evaluate any deal, then the words of the Washington Institute must be considered:
Warning time could also be shortened if the IAEA is not allowed to fully exercise rigorous monitoring and verification procedures. These range from routine inspections to so-called “anytime, anyplace inspections” and full access to component manufacturing facilities, as well as efforts to follow the procurement of certain dual-use materials and equipment to confirm their end use.
And with out those anytime inspections the IAEA won’t know where to point those lasers and satellites so the can detect the activity. Unless of course they are to trust Iran to tell them where to look.
But this is what President Obama is trying to tell us, “we folded on our promise of unprecedented anytime/anywhere inspections” but that’s perfectly okay because the IAEA has cool toys. However unaffiliated scientists are telling us that technology cannot do the job without anytime/ anywhere inspections. Therefore the only thing that can be said about the administration’s propaganda is that it’s a prescription for a possible nuclear holocaust.