Iran Deal -- Red Flags

                                                                                                                   Investers.com cartoons

It is hard to believe that when faced with the obvious problems of the Iran “deal,” the most powerful country in the world just gives in.

Here is a top 10 of Iran agreement red flags:

10.“Death to America”

Apparently it is out of fashion to take literally the words of world leaders, the same leaders with whom you are negotiating about nuclear weapons, words they keep repeating, shouting and loudly encouraging others to believe, the words of rulers for whom “death to America” is a goal, an agenda. If someone states clearly and repeatedly that he hates you and wants to kill you, why would you help him to more firepower?

9.  Destroying Israel is “Non-negotiable”

The familiar talk of wiping Israel off the map has continued, even escalated, during discussion of Iran’s nuclear program.  And if we doubt the literal nature of these words, or imagine that they are simply bluster, we need only notice the way Iran’s actions are consistent with these threats:

8. Iran arms Hezbollah.

7. Iran arms West Bank terror groups and pays terrorists’ salaries.

6. Iran arms Hamas and builds terror tunnels.

5. At the same time, Iran backs militias in Yemen, in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in Syria.

4. Iran has not been required to stop any of its terrorist activities.

3. Whatever else Iran’s leaders say, they say clearly that they intend to become the one dominant, ruling, and Islamist power in the Middle East.

2. The deal isn’t really a deal, anyway. If the intention had been to stop Iran’s nuclear program, it is a failure. There’s nothing in the agreement that does this. In fact, even if the intention had been to slow down the program, it is a failure, for it doesn’t do this, either, as there is no guarantee of inspections.

1. Iran is already the biggest sponsor of terror in the world, making it the most dangerous place in the world for nuclear weapons.

Looks like the negotiators ignored the red flags and raised a white one.

Letting the Iranian Ayatollahs Slide

“When the Supreme Leader of Iran is continuing, in the middle of these negotiations…to make statements like 'death to America,' how is that not problematic for you? …why are you just willing to let that, let it slide, basically, and you are holding the prime minister of Israel to comments that he made and has since changed?”

In her non-direct answer to Matt Lee’s question, State Department spokesperson, Jen Psaki seemed to enact the very problem the AP reporter had just identified:

“…our relationship with Israel is abiding; it’s strong; it’s a security relationship; it’s one that we’re committed to. Do we have disagreements on some issues, like how we should proceed with preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon? Yes. Have we – can we – do we believe that it isn’t possible to just forget what the prime minister says when it’s conflicting with past precedent and past policy for some time? Yes…”

Lee tried to get Psaki to talk about the contrast between reaction to the words of an ally talking, during a heated, democratic election, about his country’s situation vs non-reaction to words like “death to America” spoken by leaders of the country currently negotiating--with the US--for nuclear weapons. But Psaki continued in the same vein:

“…even if there is a deal, it doesn’t mean we let slide or forget, whether it’s the comments or more important the actions – state sponsor of terrorism, their human rights record…But we also feel that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is not only in our interests, it’s in the interests of the international community…”

The implication here seems to be that negotiating with Iran about their nuclear weapons program is disconnected from considering or responding to their leaders’ words and actions. This seems to leave us simply ignoring the plain meaning of their words.  

By contrast, although Netanyahu clarified, or changed, his last minute campaign statement, the Israeli leader’s words apparently are always relevant.  Except when they are not, as in: we don’t accept his clarification.

   

A day after the election, Netanyahu reiterated that he continues to hold the same views as those he has expressed since his speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009.  There, he voiced his support for a demilitarized Palestinian state next door to the Jewish state, whereas in the last moments of the campaign, in what seems to have been a ploy to get votes away from some of the smaller parties, he contradicted this position. 

Politicians’ electioneering aside, journalist Matt Lee raises an important question. 

How is it that even while they are directly calling for the destruction of the US, Iranian leaders are not to be criticized or taken at their word, yet any statement by the freely elected prime minster of Israel, a close American ally, is under continual, negative scrutiny?

At the same time, Netanyahu’s consistent and persistent warnings about Iran’s nuclear program may be in the process of being ignored.  The upcoming “deal” has been described by an Israeli official as an “incomprehensibly” bad agreement that leaves thousands of centrifuges in place and puts no restraints on Iranian backed terrorism.

What Kind of Deal with Iran?

Three days after the Supreme Leader of Iran called Israel a “rabid dog” and said that Israelis are “not human,” a deal was signed that makes the President of Iran very happy:

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday the deal reached with six world powers in Geneva ‘recognized Iran's nuclear rights’ by allowing it to continue to enrich uranium and that Tehran's enrichment activities would proceed similar to before… The president also said the success of the talks so far was due to the "guidelines offered" by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In the USA, John Kerry said “We will stand by Israel 100%.”

But in Israel, Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon denounced the agreement as an ‘excellent deal for Iran and a dangerous one for the world, neutralizing the sanctions instead of the centrifuges. The agreement does not dismantle even a single centrifuge or reactor, but is a critical blow to sanctions.’

Back in the USA, analysis of the actual text of the "interim agreement" confirms that the deal does not ask Iran to give up anything significant and yet provides it with more money to continue whatever their leaders want to continue doing – like funding Assad and Hezbollah and building the nuclear program.

It wasn’t an open mic that caught the Ayatollah’s words -- he was voicing official state policy (and speaking before cheering crowds chanting "death to America; death to Israel"). 

When state sponsored genocidal rhetoric is no big deal – we have a bad deal.

For Whom Is Iran Building Weapons?

On CNN, Jack Tapper sets up an interview with Israeli spokesman Mark Regev designed to focus on Israel’s relationship with America. But Regev keeps the focus on Iran’s relationship with nuclear weapons, and leaves a very dramatic impression on “the average viewer at home” (Tapper’s term).

Regev’s points:

1. This “deal” seems a lot like the deal with North Korea and we know how well that worked out.

2. The idea that fewer sanctions will result in Iran discontinuing its building of nuclear weapons is based on the “falsehood” that Iran is somehow going to be motivated by fewer sanctions, small steps taken by the West, when Iran has not yet dismantled a “single centrifuge.”

3. The big one: Iran is building “intercontinental missiles,” says Mark Regev.  “They’re not building them for us; they already have missiles that can reach Israel. They’re building them for you, for targets in America and Western Europe.”

Here's the interview: