Tag Archives: Nuclear Negotiations

All Praise To Barack Obama For Stiffing The War Party—- Peace Is Finally Being Given A Chance, by David Stockman

From David Stockman, at davidstockmanscontracorner.com:

I have rarely found anything President Obama has done to be praiseworthy, and believe his domestic policies of Keynesian borrow and spend and incessant statist intervention in capitalist enterprise to be especially deplorable. But finally he has stood up to the War Party——and that could mark a decisive turning point in rolling back Washington’s destructive interventionism and imperial pretensions in the Middle East and, indeed, around the world.

The Iranian nuclear agreement is a decisive refutation of the War Party’s hoary claim that Iran is hell-bent upon obtaining nuclear weapons. This deafening but untruthful narrative was long ago debunked by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs). These authoritative findings were issued by the nation’s 16 top intelligence agencies in November 2007, and they held that what had possibly been a small-scale Iranian weapons research effort was abandoned in 2003 and never restarted. That NIE verdict has been reiterated several times since then.

Not surprisingly, it was also these NIE findings that stopped cold in its tracks George Bush’s plan to bomb the alleged Iranian nuclear sites in late 2007. In his memoirs the Great Decider admitted that it would have been hard to explain to the American public why he was launching another war to eliminate an alleged Iranian WMD threat when his own intelligence agencies had just concluded it did not even exist!

Indeed, it was the same crowd of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Feith et.al. which had falsified the WMD claims against Saddam Hussein that had been beating the war drums so loudly about the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program.

And, as it has turned out, they had resorted to the same kind of falsified intelligence which the first time around had generated the infamous “curveball” pictures of biological weapons labs that were actually pasturized milk plants. This time it was a bunch of falsified drawings and plans mysteriously found on a laptop computer that had been turned over by a Iranian dissident group called the MEK, which, ironically, had long been allied with Saddam Hussein and had been on the State Department terrorist list from 1997 to 2012.

So it needs to be shouted from the rafters at the outset that all the arm-waving and screeching against this deal by the GOP war-mongers and the Israeli lobby is grounded in a Big Lie. The whole Iran-is-after-the-bomb narrative is just WMD 2.0.

Indeed, the War Party has been so shrill and unrelenting in promulgating this trumped-up story that the other side of the equation is hardly known to the American public. Namely, that the overwhelming weight of the evidence over more than three decades—–including information obtained by the IAEA during the course of extensive investigations—-is that Iran’s primary aim has been to obtain enrichment capacity for its civilian reactors.

In fact, when an incipient weapons research program was shutdown in 2003, the Ayatollah Khamenei took a decisive step to remove all doubt inside the Iranian government. He issued a fatwa (ban) against the possession of nuclear weapons by the Islamic Republic.

This anti-WMD edict was in keeping with a similar fatwa against biological and chemical weapons issued by his predecessor, the Ayatollah Khomeini, in the midst of Iran’s war with Iraq in the 1980s. At the time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces—-some of them barely armed teenage boys—- with the spotting help of CIA tracking satellites and the concurrence of Washington.

Thus, the real history demonstrates an Iranian posture that is wholly contrary to the War Party’s endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for nukes. However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy which rules Iran does not consist of demented war mongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam’s WMDs.

At the end of the day, the War Party’s narrative is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

So in the context of all of that history we now have a solemn international agreement that’s designed to insure that the nuclear weapons program that the CIA has never found and that the Iranians say they never had and that their Supreme Leader has forbidden—does, in fact, never happen.

That’s not only a very good thing; it also an overwhelmingly sure thing by the light of any rational analysis.

To continue reading: Peace Is Finally Being Given A Chance

The GOP’s Iran Dilemma, by Patrick J. Buchanan

From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:

From first reactions, it appears that Hill Republicans will be near unanimous in voting a resolution of rejection of the Iran nuclear deal.

They will then vote to override President Obama’s veto of their resolution. And if the GOP fails there, Gov. Scott Walker says his first act as president would be to kill the deal.

But before the party commits to abrogating the Iran deal in 2017, the GOP should consider whether it would be committing suicide in 2016.

For even if Congress votes to deny Obama authority to lift U.S. sanctions on Iran, the U.S. will vote to lift sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. And Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, all parties to the deal, will also lift sanctions.

A Congressional vote to kill the Iran deal would thus leave the U.S. isolated, its government humiliated, unable to comply with the pledges its own secretary of state negotiated. Would Americans cheer the GOP for leaving the United States with egg all over its face?

And if Congress refuses to honor the agreement, but Iran complies with all its terms, who among our friends and allies would stand with an obdurate America then?

Israel would applaud, the Saudis perhaps, but who else?

To continue reading: The GOP’s Iran Dilemma

He Said That? 4/10/15

From Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, referring to the recently negotiated nuclear framework:

Everything done so far neither guarantees an agreement in principle nor its contents, nor does it guarantee that the negotiations will continue to the end.

The whole problem comes now that the details should be discussed, because the other side is stubborn, difficult to deal with, breaks promises and is a backstabber.

The Wall Street Journal, “Ayatollah Blasts Accord Terms, 4/10/15

Other than the “other side’s” minor flaws, though, everything is peachy. Actually, it’s not, because there is a gap a mile wide between the verification the US-led side envisions and what the Iranians are prepared to accept. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei apparently doesn’t trust Obama and Kerry very much. They probably told him that if he liked his nuclear program, he could keep his nuclear program.

Iran nuke agreement full of holes, by Amir Taheri

In yesterday’s post, “All Praise To The Iranian Nuclear Framework—–It Finally Exposes The War Party’s Big Lie, by David Stockman,” I invited readers to submit links to substantive arguments against the framework negotiated with Iran. Reader neilmdunn submitted five links, which can be accessed via his comment to the post, and I’m posting the article that I thought was most on point. From Amir Taheri at nypost.com:

What we actually have in writing about the areas of agreement between Iran and the US-led P5+1 group of nations is full of holes. Worse, it is already being described differently in English and in Persian — a matter that will surely complicate the task of writing a final, binding draft by June 30.

Even the statement we have was merely released in the name of EU foreign-policy czarina Federica Mogherini and Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif. It’s not signed, because almost no one had the authority to sign anything at this stage.

Many of the agreements plainly benefit Iran:

Iran will continue its full nuclear program, keeping open all its sites — including Fordo, Isfahan, Natanz and Arak, the closure of which had been a key demand of the United States and its allies for the past decade or so.

The heavy-water nuclear plant at Arak will be finished, despite Washington’s once-strong objections.

Iran can upgrade its installations at Fordo but will focus the site on producing isotopes for medical and agricultural use. (Of course, Iran can switch the site back to producing weapons materiel whenever it chooses.)

Once the final draft is approved by the UN Security Council, all sanctions imposed against Iran would be lifted. In the meantime, the P5+1 agree not to impose any new sanctions on Iran over the nuclear issue.

Once the UN Security Council has passed a resolution canceling all its previous resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue, a timetable would be established for the mutual implementation of the accords by Iran and other powers.

Thus, the prospective deal would legalize much of what Iran has already done in violation of its past treaty commitments, and free the Iranians of the sanctions imposed because of those violations.

What would Iran promise to do in return?

Maintain its uranium enrichment at the current level for 10 years — after which it will no longer have to observe any limits. It can maintain 6,000 centrifuges in full operation, far more than Washington had once demanded.

“Neutralize” the uranium it has already enriched to above 6 percent — to either convert it to fuel rods or exchange it for uranium fuel from abroad. The United States dropped its demand that the 6,000-plus pounds of stocks be transferred out of Iran.

Join the Additional Protocols of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — granting International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors much greater rights to go wherever they choose.

Again, Iran’s violations of the regular NPT protocols had brought it, according to President Obama’s remarks Thursday, within months of becoming a nuclear-weapons power. Does the IAEA even have enough inspectors to enforce the Additional Protocols in a nation of 76 million?

The United States, as a nation, has every reason to be unhappy about the outcome of the preliminary talks:

The outlined deal, by Obama’s best hope, would leave Iran within a year of going nuclear — and eventually end even that limit.

Yet the Obama administration may be happy that it has achieved some of its tactical aims.

First, the final agreement won’t take the form of a treaty, and so needn’t be submitted to the Senate.

Second, Obama is on his way to a framework that will tie the hands of his successors for at least 10 years. A future president who tries to revisit the Iranian nuclear project would run into a big hurdle in the shape of the UN Security Council, where Russia, a supporter of Iran, has veto power.

The accord announced Thursday in Lausanne has more holes than Swiss cheese. It is certain to whet Iran’s nuclear appetite while provoking a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and, perhaps, beyond.

This is an agreement between two factions. The American faction, led by Obama, wanted to make any future change in US policy on Iran difficult if not impossible. It plainly hopes that, by supporting Iran as a regional power, it can persuade Tehran to moderate its adventurist policies.

In Iran, the Rafsanjani faction (which includes Zarif and President Hassan Rouhani) hopes that, by claiming a major diplomatic victory, it can further weaken more radical factions, win control of parliament next year and, perhaps, even capture the big prize: the office of Iran’s “supreme leader” — now held by Ali Khamenei, 75.

Just as Obama has been prepared to sacrifice US national interests in the service of his more narrow goals, his Iranian partners are prepared to put much of Iran’s industrial, energy and security policies under international tutelage for a decade.

All that said, the statement released Thursday states outright that it is of no legal value. It must be taken as a statement of intent, presumably with a pinch of salt.

And between the cup and the lip there is many a slip.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/02/iran-nuke-agreement-full-of-holes/

For the Associated Press summary of the framework, see “Text of Agreement with Iran on its Nuclear Program, from The Associated Press,” SLL, 4/3/15.

Another Possibility, by Robert Gore

Things are seldom what they seem;

Skim milk masquerades as cream

W.S. Gilbert

One of the oldest tricks in negotiating is to make the other side think that you regard some point as terribly important when in fact it is not, fight over it tooth and nail, give ground grudgingly, and by so doing win major concessions on points that are actually far more important. It appears that the Iranian negotiations have yielded an agreement that, if implemented and fully complied with by the Iranians, will essentially eviscerate their nuclear program. Iran has cut its centrifuges by two-thirds, and the centrifuges it will use are legacy, several generations behind state of the art. It has agreed not to enrich uranium beyond 3.67 percent, far below the 90 percent necessary for a bomb. A heavy water reactor at Arak will be reconfigured so that it cannot produce plutonium (the Iranians have never had the capability to reprocess such plutonium into bomb cores). The once-secret Fordow uranium enrichment site will be converted into a research center. International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors will have virtually full-time, soup-to-nuts access, from uranium mining to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and will monitor imports into the country of materials and components that could have potential nuclear applications.

It is telling that a list released by the Israeli government of the improvements it seeks on the deal amounts to tweaks, but does not fundamentally upend the deal. The Iranians could conceivably give ground on some of those items, especially if they become, as seems likely, Republican talking points. While various politicians, media talking heads, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will continue to question Iranian trustworthiness and whether they will live up to a final agreement, if one is reached, the framework cannot be dismissed. Keeping in mind the above caveats about implementation and compliance, this deal, as Patrick Buchanan noted, “Appears to do what Obama says it does: close off every known avenue to an Iranian bomb” (“Will Bob Corker Save the GOP?” 4/7/15, buchanan.org).

It is the very lopsidedness of the deal that should set off alarm bells. Not so much that the Iranians may one day evade its terms and develop nuclear bombs. Even if they did, their arsenal would be minuscule compared to those of five of the six nations that will also sign off on the agreement, and Israel has its bombs as well. Iran would be looking at not even mutually assured destruction should it use its nuclear weapons, only its own assured destruction.

Nevertheless, two facets of the Iranian negotiations don’t add up. First, why was Iran so insistent on keeping its nuclear program? The ready answer, of course, is that it wanted to keep it as a foundation to later develop nuclear weapons. That cannot be dismissed entirely, but they have not pursued such work for at least a decade, and if the outside world were to discover such an effort, Iran would run the very real risk of massive bombing and possibly full-on war. There are those who ascribe an apocalyptic death wish to Iranian leaders, but that has not been the way they have behaved to date. The Iranians say that their nuclear program has been a source of national pride, and that is why they have been adamant about keeping it in some form, and they do have, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the right to engage in peaceful nuclear research.

Why then, did they agree to dial back their nuclear program to such a rudimentary level that there is no way they can discover anything that has not already been discovered by other countries’ much more advanced programs? Is this to be make-work for Iranian nuclear personnel? Does a nation with the world’s fourth largest oil reserves need to develop nuclear power? Why cling so tenaciously to this program that will, once the agreement is implemented, serve so little constructive purpose for the Iranians?

What if Iran already has a bomb, or bombs? Military expert Richard Maybury has suggested that several countries may have nuclear weapons that we don’t know about. There are gaps in records tracking the Soviet Union’s bombs when it dissolved. Some of those bombs may have become available on the black market, where they would have undoubtedly commanded sky-high prices. North Korea or Pakistan, both nuclear powers, might sell bombs at the right price, especially if that price including substantial “commissions” to key officials.

At first blush it may appear farfetched, but even Russia or China could sell bombs to Iran. They are chafing at the US’s unipolar view of the world. Iran would use the bomb under only extreme circumstances, and the Russians or Chinese would undoubtedly extract assurances that an Iranian bomb, if detonated, would blow up in London, Washington, or New York, not Moscow or Beijing. The threat would be clear: a detonation in Russia or China would mean the complete destruction of Iran.

Those who dismisses the Iranian agreement with the argument that Iran will eventually breach it should ponder this question: why would Iran go to all the trouble and expense of secretly developing a nuclear bomb, risking detection and war, if they could simply buy bombs, and, better yet, keep them secret? It would be naive to assert that a black market in nuclear arms is impossible. If Iran were a buyer, the detection risk would be minimal: bombs could be put in ostensibly commercial aircraft, flown from Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, or Karachi to Tehran, from which they would be transported to and hidden away in some remote, deeply fortified bunker. The Iranians might not have much, if any, launch capability, but they could surely smuggle bombs into the US or Europe for either nuclear blackmail or outright detonation.

This gets us back to the old negotiating trick. Iran’s nuclear program, if it was ever important to them, may be much less so now, which is why they have essentially given it away. If Iran already has bombs, they will do everything they must in order to reach an agreement, which by their lights will be irrelevant except for the concessions on sanctions they extract. Easing sanctions will aid their economy, giving the government more wherewithal to, among other things, buy bombs. Signing and then complying in every particular with the agreement will reduce suspicions, give Iran new legitimacy, and probably stop hostile Middle Eastern nations, most importantly Saudi Arabia, from acquiring their own bombs. Meanwhile, Iran will have a nuclear arsenal that only the nation or nations that sold to them will know about. Its leaders will also have the satisfaction of outfoxing the western powers, and discrediting the bellicose rhetoric of despised Israeli and American politicians.

Suspicions have been raised about Obama’s motives for vigorously pursuing this deal (see “He Said That? 4/3/15,” SLL). If one wants to believe the worst about Obama, that would be not that he’s trying to pave the way for Iran to build bombs, but rather that he knows Iran already has bombs, and he’s helping them cover their tracks. That is thrown out as a possibility only, the truth or falsity of which we may never know. However, if you believe that Obama wants to destroy America and is sympathetic to the Islamic cause, especially the Shiite cause, this alternative interpretation fits those beliefs. From Obama’s standpoint, if the agreement eventually goes through and Iran complies with its terms, there will be—just before the 2016 elections—the benefit of embarrassing all those Republicans who spoke so forcefully against it before they even saw its terms. One thing we do know about Obama’s motivations—domestic political considerations are almost always paramount.

FOR THE REMNANT

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

All Praise To The Iranian Nuclear Framework—–It Finally Exposes The War Party’s Big Lie, by David Stockman

SLL has been searching for a refutation of the negotiated framework with Iran that says more than that Iran is evil and untrustworthy, and makes off point analogies to Munich. Anyone who is aware of a good analysis critical of the actual terms of the framework, that refrains from the kind of bombast prevelant before anyone even knew the framework’s terms, please leave a link in the comments and SLL will post it. Here’s David Stockman with an extensive and favorable analysis of the framework, from davidstockmanscontracorner.com:

The Iranian framework agreement is an astonishingly good deal, and has the potential to become a historic game-changer. As Robert Parry astutely observed, its about much more than sheaving the threat that Iran will get the bomb:

“The April 2 framework agreement with Iran represents more than just a diplomatic deal to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. It marks a crossroad that offers a possible path for the American Republic to regain its footing and turn away from endless war.”

The saliency of that observation lies in the fact that there is virtually nothing in the substance of the deal for the War Party to attack. So what they are doing is desperately hurtling the Iranian axis-of-evil narrative at the agreement, claiming that the regime is so untrustworthy, diabolical and existentially dangerous that no product of mere diplomacy is valid. The Iranians are by axiom hell-bent on evil and no mere “scrap of paper” will stop them.

But therein dwells the game-changing opportunity. To defeat the deal, the War Party will have to defend its three-decade long campaign of exaggerations, distortions and bellicose animosity toward the Iranian state. But that is impossible because the axis-of-evil narrative was never remotely true. Indeed, if the truth be told the War Party has never been required to defend its spurious propaganda thanks in large part to a lazy, gullible mainstream press that has been as negligent on the Iranian evil meme as they were on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.

As will be demonstrated below, the evil Iran narrative rests on repetition and political bombast, not historical fact. Iran was turned into a pariah state not owing to its own deeds and actions, but because it served the domestic political needs of the War Party. That is, Bibi Netanyahu’s Israeli branch used it to win elections by mobilizing the right-wing and religious extremists against a purported external peril; and Washington’s neo-cons used it to rescue the Pentagon’s war machine and the military industrial complex after the cold war ended its reason for being.

So while the whole axis-of-evil narrative is bogus, the War Party is repairing to it in flat-out hysterical tones because it has nowhere else to go. Indeed, it did not take long for a shrill demagogue like GOP Senator Mark Kirk to play the Hitler card:

“I would say that Neville Chamberlain got a lot more out of Hitler than Wendy Sherman got out of Iran.”

No, Senator, what Hitler got out of Munich was the annexation of the Sudetenland which was 85% German; had been part of various German-speaking predecessor states from the Middle Ages until Versailles; and voted by referendum overwhelmingly to return to the fatherland. Whether the greater foolishness occurred in Paris in 1919, when the Sudetenland was handed to the Czech politicians as war spoils, or in Munich in 1938, when Chamberlain badly misjudged his interlocutor, is a topic which will keep the historians busy debating for centuries.

But Munich has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand because Iran is not remotely comparable to Nazi Germany. In fact, Iran is a nearly bankrupt country that has no capability whatsoever to threaten the security and safety of the citizens of Spokane WA, Peoria IL or anywhere else in the US of A.

Its $350 billion GDP is the size of Indiana’s and its 68,000 man military is only slightly larger than the national guard of Texas. It is a land of severe mountains and daunting swamps that are not all that conducive to rapid economic progress and advanced industrialization. It has no blue water navy, no missiles with more than a few hundred miles of range, and, most significantly, has had no nuclear weapons program for more than a decade.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/all-praise-to-the-iranian-nuclear-framework-it-finally-exposes-the-war-partys-big-lie/?utm_source=wysija&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Mailing+List+PM+Monday

To continue reading: All Praise To The Iranian Nuclear Framework

He Said That? 4/3/15

President Barack Obama, hailing a “historic understanding”—the nuclear framework negotiated between Iran and the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China:

I am convinced that if this framework leads to a final, comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies, and our world safer. This has been a long time coming.

The Wall Street Journal, “Iran Agrees to Outline of Deal,” 4/3/15.

For a deal to be reached, not one, but two major trust issues need to be resolved. There is skepticism that Iran will comply with a deal, and won’t secretly develop nuclear weaponry. That issue can only be resolved after a deal is reached, if it happens. However, before it does, there is the other trust issue: can Barack Obama be trusted? Call it blowback from the Affordable Care Act, but neither Republicans in Congress nor a substantial portion of the American people believe him. He lied, repeatedly, to get that legislation passed, made no effort to work with Republicans, who voted unanimously against it, and teamed with congressional Democrats and resorted to dubious legislative legerdemain to get the law to his desk. Millions of Americans discovered, contrary to Obama and Democrats’ assurances, that they were not be able to keep their insurance plans and doctors, and that they were paying much more for inferior plans.

The Iranian agreement may be a work of statesmanship, but it is going to be a tough sell to the American people, and Obama has made his job immeasurably tougher by having no reservoir of credibility to draw on. It’s not just Obamacare and other lies, but his overall modus operandi. He’s autocratic, ruling by executive order on important issues, bypassing Congress, and thereby skirting the Constitution. Although he may not need Congressional approval for the agreement, Congress can make things very difficult for him. Pro-negotiations commentators have disparaged Benjamin Netanyahu’s congressional appearance, Senator Tom Cotton’s letter to Iranian leaders, and proposed legislation that would require congressional approval of the agreement (which Obama has threatened to veto). If a meritorious agreement fails to go through, the Republicans, Netanyahu, and the Israeli lobby may deserve some of the blame, but not all of it. Republicans can hardly be blamed, after six years of lies and presidential imperiousness, if their response to Obama’s: “Trust me on this one” is a decisive: “No way.” What goes around comes around. Obama may have already doomed his opportunity to thaw the frosty US-Iran relationship, peacefully stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and give himself a signature accomplishment at the end of his administration that would belatedly justify his Nobel Peace Prize.

Text of agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, from The Associated Press

Here is the tentative agreement negotiated between the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China with Iran:

The United States, Iran and five other world powers announced a deal Thursday outlining limits on Iran’s nuclear program so it cannot lead to atomic weapons. Negotiators now have to take that deal and shape it into a final accord by June 30. The agreement says that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

___

Below are the key parameters of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program that were decided in Lausanne, Switzerland. These elements form the foundation upon which the final text of the JCPOA will be written between now and June 30, and reflect the significant progress that has been made in discussions between the P5+1, the European Union, and Iran. Important implementation details are still subject to negotiation, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We will work to conclude the JCPOA based on these parameters over the coming months.

ENRICHMENT

—Iran has agreed to reduce by approximately two-thirds its installed centrifuges. Iran will go from having about 19,000 installed today to 6,104 installed under the deal, with only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years. All 6,104 centrifuges will be IR-1s, Iran’s first-generation centrifuge.

—Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for at least 15 years.

—Iran has agreed to reduce its current stockpile of about 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to 300 kg of 3.67 percent LEU for 15 years.

—All excess centrifuges and enrichment infrastructure will be placed in IAEA monitored storage and will be used only as replacements for operating centrifuges and equipment.

—Iran has agreed to not build any new facilities for the purpose of enriching uranium for 15 years.

—Iran’s breakout timeline — the time that it would take for Iran to acquire enough fissile material for one weapon — is currently assessed to be two to three months. That timeline will be extended to at least one year, for a duration of at least 10 years, under this framework.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/233eba228913428d81e7a465a77daca6/text-agreement-iran-its-nuclear-program

To continue reading: Text of agreement

The War Party Is Lying About Iran—-Even “Dubya” Admitted They Don’t Have A Nuclear Weapons Program, by Ray McGovern

From Ray McGovern, at davidstockmanscontracorner.com:

The Iranians may be a bit paranoid but, as the saying goes, this does not mean some folks are not out to get them. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his knee-jerk followers in Washington clearly are out to get them – and they know it.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the surreal set of negotiations in Switzerland premised not on evidence, but rather on an assumption of Iran’s putative “ambition” to become a nuclear weapons state – like Israel, which maintains a secret and sophisticated nuclear weapons arsenal estimated at about 200 weapons. The supposed threat is that Iran might build one.

Israel and the U.S. know from their intelligence services that Iran has no active nuclear weapons program, but they are not about to let truth get in the way of their concerted effort to marginalize Iran. And so they fantasize before the world about an Iranian nuclear weapons program that must be stopped at all costs – including war.

Among the most surprising aspects of this is the fact that most U.S. allies are so willing to go along with the charade and Washington’s catch-all solution – sanctions – as some U.S. and Israeli hardliners open call for a sustained bombing campaign of Iranian nuclear sites that could inflict a massive loss of human life and result in an environmental catastrophe.

On March 26, arch-neocon John Bolton, George W. Bush’s Ambassador to the United Nations, graced the pages of the New York Times with his most recent appeal for an attack on Iran. Bolton went a bit too far, though, in citing the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of November 2007, agreed to unanimously by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Perhaps he reasoned that, since the “mainstream media” rarely mentions that NIE, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” he could get away with distorting its key findings, which were:

“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. … We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. …

“Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”

An equally important fact ignored by the mainstream media is that the key judgments of that NIE have been revalidated by the intelligence community every year since. But reality is hardly a problem for Bolton. As the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, Bolton made quite a name for himself by insisting that it was the proper function of a policy maker like him – not intelligence analysts – to interpret the evidence from intelligence.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-war-party-is-lying-about-iran-even-dubya-admitted-they-dont-have-a-nuclear-weapons-program/

To continue reading: The War Party Is Lying About Iran

He Said That? 4/1/15

From Tom Cotton, Republican Senator from Arkansas and author of a letter to Iran’s rulers that was signed by 47 other Republican senators, referring to a decision to extend negotiations for another day:

The decision to extend the nuclear negotiations in the face of Iranian intransigence and duplicity proves once again that Iran is calling the shots.

The Wall Street Journal, “Both Sides Scramble for Iran Pact,” 4/1/15

Senator Cotton has clearly made up his mind about both the Iranians and the negotiations. The Iranian leadership is evil, and anything that comes out of the negotiations will inevitably be in their interests, but not ours. Cotton apparently has no understanding of the concept of negotiations. We don’t always get to negotiate with angels, and if we did, there probably wouldn’t be any need for negotiations. In a negotiation, both sides have to give up something to get something. In these negotiations, Iran wants an easing and eventual end of sanctions, and some latitude for a nuclear program for what it avers will be peaceful purposes ( a right it has as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty). The US, France, Great Britain, Germany, China, and Russia want to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weaponry. Obviously the negotiations present multiple complexities and ambiguities among the different parties, and they have been difficult, contentious,  and time-consuming. That’s not to say they might not ultimately be worthwhile, but Senator Cotton is determined to undermine them before they have a chance to reach fruition.

Perhaps Cotton’s stance can in part be excused by his age; he’s only 37 years old. Or perhaps he’s just one of those morons who is never going to see any viewpoint but his own. What is harder to fathom is why the Republican party has let this rookie speak for the entire party. Are there no older, wiser, Republicans counseling to wait until the negotiations play out before the party pronounces judgment on either Iran or the prospective agreement?