Netanyahu calls Iran nuclear agreement a "bad mistake of historic proportions"

[bigbadjohn45]

Netanyahu calls Iran nuclear agreement a "bad mistake of historic proportions"
Published July 14, 2015
FoxNews.com

July 14, 2015: Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference with Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders at the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem. (Ahikam Seri/Pool Photo via AP)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that a nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers, led by the United States, was "a bad mistake of historic proportions."

Netanyahu gave his thoughts on the agreement prior to the start of a meeting with Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders in Jerusalem and vowed to continue efforts to block Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

"Iran is going to receive a sure path to nuclear weapons. Many of the restrictions that were supposed to prevent it from getting there will be lifted," Netanyahu said. "Iran will get a jackpot, a cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars, which will enable it to continue to pursue its aggression and terror in the region and in the world."

"One cannot prevent an agreement when the negotiators are willing to make more and more concessions to those who, even during the talks, keep chanting: 'Death to America,"' Netanyahu added. "We knew very well that the desire to sign an agreement was stronger than anything, and therefore we did not commit to preventing an agreement. We did commit to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and this commitment still stands."

Culture and sports minister Miri Regev, a former military spokeswoman, said the deal gave Tehran a "license to kill." Regev also described the pact as "bad for the free world (and) bad for humanity." She called for further lobbying against the deal and said that the U.S. Congress could still block it.

Meanwhile, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely tweeted her displeasure with the deal, calling it "a capitulation of historic proportions by the West to the Iran-led axis of evil." She added Israel "will employ all diplomatic means to prevent confirmation of the agreement."


Netanyahu's coalition partners angrily criticized Wednesday's agreement. Education Minister Naftali Bennett, who heads the hawkish Jewish Home party, said July 14 will be remembered a "dark day for the free world." Cabinet Minister Miri Regev said the agreement gave Iran a "license to kill."

The cascade of criticism crossed party lines, reflecting the widespread opposition to the deal in Israel.

"This is a regime based in deceit, and now they are going to do what they did for the last 20 years, which is trying to get themselves nuclear weapons behind the back of the world," Yair Lapid, the head of the opposition Yesh Atid Party, told The Associated Press. "Now they are going to do it with the help of the international community."

In the past, Israel has threatened to carry out a military strike against Iran's nuclear installations. But that option appeared to fade as the U.S.-led group of powers engaged in diplomacy with Iran.

Israel's first course of action looks to be an intense lobbying effort in the U.S. Congress to oppose the deal. Netanyahu spoke against the emerging deal before a joint session of Congress in March. Yet despite strong support among Republicans in Congress, there is little that can be done now.

The Senate can weigh in on the agreement but can't kill it, because Obama doesn't need congressional approval for a multinational deal that is not designated a treaty.

Lawmakers have 60 days to review the agreement, during which Obama can't ease penalties on Iran. Only if lawmakers were to build a veto-proof majority behind new legislation enacting new sanctions or preventing Obama from suspending existing ones, the administration would be prevented from living up to the accord.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

 

[TeKEraider]

The leaders of the U.S., Germany, France, England, China and Russia disagree with him.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BBJ, I realize our gay friendly pacifists believe this deal is good for the U.S. but the truth is it is not good for our nation and Israel.

From the Fox News report:

While some members of Congress had urged comprehensive inspections of Iran's nuclear sites, the deal in hand gives Iran much leverage over that process. The agreement requires international inspectors to ask Iran's permission first, after which Iran has 14 days to decide whether to grant it. If not, the same group of nations that struck the deal would have another 10 days to make their decision about what to do next. While the international group may have final say, the set-up essentially gives Iran 24 days to drag out the process, though officials say this is not enough time to hide all evidence of illicit conduct.

Although I'm a "hawk," I admit that any type of attack on Iran should be the last resort, however if you read what was agreed upon the inspection part does not make sense. If Iran is true to its word that it is in compliance with not producing material or a weapon of WMD then why is it that the treaty requires international inspectors to ask Iran's permission first in which Iran has 14 days to decide whether to grant it or not? That follows with another 10 days to decide what to do next which is an astounding 24 days for Iran to get its house in order. I don't agree with officials who say this is not enough time to hide all evidence of illicit conduct. I'm not buying it and neither should anyone with common sense.

Of course our libs will say that I'm against the deal because I'm a "hawk" and despise Obama but the truth is the inspection premise is badly flawed and therefore there should have been no deal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/14/iran-world-powers-agree-to-nuclear-deal/

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BBJ, I will let the picture speak for itself.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Mark Levin opened his show tonight saying that Barack Obama has planted the seeds for World War III and sealed the fate of the next generation. Levin pointed out that he believes the next big war will now be in the Middle East and it will be horrific, especially with other countries arming up with nukes to protect themselves from Islamo-Nazi regime in Iran who constantly chants ‘death to Israel’, ‘death to America’. And Levin says they mean it (click web address below).

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-barack-obama-has-planted-the-seeds-for-world-war-iii/

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

We must protect our national security, stand up for the safety and security of America, and reject the Iran deal.

(click web address below for short video clip on Sen. Cruz's view of the Iran deal)

https://video-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/h...=818034d4520f2b76f539283b114d5548&oe=55A5F03F

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Don’t Try Trusting Iran

After years of broken promises, missed deadlines, and ready concessions, President Obama got what he wants: a deal with Iran. He doesn’t care that it is a dangerous, unenforceable deal, but Congress presumably does, and needs to do all it can to stop it.

The agreement’s details are troubling: It will be significantly weakened within ten years, Iran gets to retain significant nuclear infrastructure without any good justification, etc. But the real problem is its fundamental structure.

President Obama compared today’s deal to past agreements with another adversary, the Soviet Union. But the agreements bear almost no resemblance to each other. First, of course, the Soviet treaties were, well, treaties — approved by two-thirds of the Senate. Second, Reagan entered into them when he judged, correctly, that the U.S. campaign of military, economic, and moral pressure had brought about a fundamental change of attitude in the Soviet regime. Finally, the treaties involved reductions in and limits on arms from both sides. If the Soviets stopped complying, we could too.

This deal works differently: We give money to an unreconstructed Iranian regime in return for its promise to limit its nuclear program. But if it doesn’t limit its nuclear work, we can’t take the money back. The U.S. and other countries will be handing Iran more than $100 billion in freed-up assets and eliminating all sanctions long before we have much evidence of compliance. For instance, the money will likely arrive in Iran’s hands before the deadline for the country to disclose its past nuclear work, deadlines it has simply ignored in the past.

Without leverage, all we’ve got is trust — trust in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The president claims the deal is based on verification, not trust. But without leverage, all we’ve got is trust — trust in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

If the U.S. can persuade the other Western parties that Iran has broken the rules at some point, sanctions can be automatically re-imposed — but only U.N. Security Council sanctions, and their re-imposition will dissolve the deal. Further, violations can only be uncovered via a tortuous process of controlled inspections, not the “anytime, anywhere” regime the Obama administration had promised. And a serious sanctions regime cannot be rebuilt quickly or automatically, so there is no way, under this deal, to punish Iran seriously and quickly. If it wants to cheat, or exit the deal altogether, the costs are, at worst, low.

Ten years from now, even that weak enforcement mechanism will expire. Five years from now, an embargo on conventional arms exports to Iran — imposed for reasons unrelated to nuclear non-compliance — will expire; in eight years, an embargo on ballistic-missile technology expires. We wouldn’t bet that Iran’s regional rivals will wait until then to begin arming themselves in response. And immediately, the deal will strengthen Iran’s proxies, as Bashar Assad has boasted. The limited purview of these talks — ignore all of Iran’s other odious behavior in exchange for a weak nuclear deal — ensures that we are about to offer legitimacy and succor to an evil, dangerous actor.

The Obama administration risibly maintains that the only alternative to the agreement would be war. The alternative would have been tightening the screws on Iran until it came to the table willing to sign a reasonable deal and forswear its terrorist activities across the globe. Other powers may be itching to undo the sanctions regime now, but the Bush and Obama administrations had managed to get them on board, pushing Iran close to economic collapse in 2013 — before President Obama let the mullahs off the hook with an interim deal.

Unfortunately, once this deal is in place, there are indeed few good options. A number of Republican presidential hopefuls have said they would terminate U.S. participation in the deal on entering office, but it’s not clear how much this would accomplish. While it would extricate us from this sham, it would barely weaken an Iran restored to good standing in the international community.

That is why Congress needs to do its best to block the deal. Under the imperfect legislation Congress passed, it has 60 days to muster a veto-proof majority against the agreement. That is a very tall order, and effectively reverses the usual process of approving treaties, but it is not an impossible one. Details — there are annexes in addition to the public text of the deal – will continue to leak out, and we doubt they will flatter the White House negotiators.

Israel’s government will vocally oppose the deal; our Sunni Arab allies will lobby against it behind the scenes (when they are not busy checking out Pakistan’s nuclear inventory). To go against their president, Democrats will need to be persuaded that failing to stop the deal endangers our national security, the stability of the Middle East, and the safety of Israel. Thankfully, there are signs a number of them already understand this.

Fundamentally, the president believes in this agreement because he thinks extending our hand to an implacably anti-Western regime with the blood of more than a thousand American servicemen on its own hands will turn it into a reputable regional power, even a partner.

This is folly. The president clearly considers it the capstone of his foreign policy, and, unfortunately, he’s right.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421185/dont-try-trusting-iran-editors

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz released a statement sharing his thoughts on the recent Iran deal, and according to him — and anyone else who has an IQ higher than a dead rat — it’s bad news for us and Israel.

Here’s what he had to say.

“Today, the international community led by the United States has agreed to not only legitimize and perpetuate the Iranian nuclear program, but also to further arm and enrich the brutal theocratic regime that has oppressed the Iranian people for more than thirty years – a regime that is wrongfully holding United States citizens captive, that is sponsoring radical Islamic terrorism across the globe, and that regularly promotes the destruction of both Israel and America throughout its streets.

“Despite these facts, it seems President Obama would concede almost anything to get any deal – even a terrible deal – from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Under the terms of this deal, Iran will retain all of its centrifuges, one-third of which will continue to spin. Rather than the most intrusive inspections regime in history that we were promised, IAEA inspectors must petition the mullahs to visit sensitive sites, and wait for two weeks for their permission. In a final, shocking concession, the United States will support lifting of the United Nations arms embargos that restrict the Iranian ballistic missile program and arms trafficking. And in return, billions of dollars of economic relief will flow to Tehran.

“Yet, in his remarks this morning, the President glossed over the truth about Iran’s world-leading state-sponsorship of terrorism that is violently destabilizing the region, and would grow more deadly should the Iranians get a nuclear bomb. He failed to mention American citizens, Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati and Jason Rezaian, who continue to languish in Iranian prisons or Robert Levinson, who is still unaccounted for. For them, today is no ‘opportunity to move in a new direction’ as the President claimed. We owe it to our fellow Americans to elevate, not ignore, their plight, to demand their swift and unconditional release by the implacably hostile regime that holds them.

“Even by the low standards of the Joint Plan of Action, this is a staggeringly bad deal. It is a fundamental betrayal of the security of the United States and of our closest allies, first and foremost Israel.

“But thankfully, it is not a done deal. We still have an opportunity to tell the truth about what Prime Minister Netanyahu called today a ‘bad mistake of historic proportion.’

“Congress will have 60 days to review it, and the American people will have 60 days to tell their elected representatives just what they think of it. I urge all my fellow citizens to speak out and let their elected leaders know that even if President Obama won’t see it, we know the leaders of the Islamic Republic who lead crowds in chants of ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’ are not our partners in peace, and must not be put on the path to a nuclear bomb.”

Maybe this Ted Cruz guy is just a crazy, extremist right winger who hates Muslims or something.

I mean, come on, what could possibly go wrong with allowing a country that’s sponsored terrorist activity to have a nuclear program?

You know…when it’s said sort of like that, I guess this really is a pretty bad idea.

Hope you could sense the sarcasm, as it was practically dripping off of every word.

Allowing Iran to have a nuclear program is like leaving your delinquent teenage son, with a criminal record, home alone with $5,000 and two kegs of beer and taking him at his word he won’t throw a party and trash the house.

Then again, stupid is as stupid does, and Obama certainly proves that’s true, doesn’t he?

http://www.youngcons.com/ted-cruz-responds-to-iran-deal-says-its-very-very-bad-for-us-and-israel/

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Mark Levin was on Hannity tonight discussing the Iran deal, pointing out that just a few years ago the Obama administration was very worried about Iran’s work with intercontinental ballistic missiles in conjunction with their nuclear program. But, as Levin continues to point out, halting the intercontinental ballistic missile program was not even part of this nuclear deal, meaning if Iran gets nukes, they can put one on an ICBM and hit us.

That’s why Levin says America is in incredible danger because of this Iran deal.

He also slaps useless Republicans for giving Obama what he wanted, the ability to make this deal with only 1/3rd of Congress on his side.

(click web address below)

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin...-incredible-danger-because-of-this-iran-deal/

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Sen. Ted Cruz addresses Obama's press conference on Iran deal and calls for defunding of Planned Parenthood (click web address below).

http://video.foxnews.com/v/43570576...hood/?playlist_id=2694949842001#sp=show-clips

 

[mtsportsfan]

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Albert Einstein

This quote becomes so much more true. I pray for our children and grandchildren.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

mtsportsfan, I appreciate your concern for our children and grandchildren. Your post is a pleasant departure from the usual secular liberal/libertarian naivety that we often get on this forum. Looking forward to reading more of your posts. God bless.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Iran Deal Even Worse Than Feared

When you write a column, as did I two weeks ago, headlined "The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history," you don't expect to revisit the issue. We had hit bottom. Or so I thought.

Then on Tuesday the final terms of the Iranian nuclear deal were published. I was wrong.

Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?

When asked at his Wednesday news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the four American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.

Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means nonnuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?

Because Iran, joined by Russia — our "reset" partner — sprang the demand at the last minute, calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they would cave. They did. And have convinced themselves that they scored a victory by delaying the lifting by five to eight years.

(Ostensibly. The language is murky. The interval could be considerably shorter.)

Obama claimed in his news conference that it really doesn't matter because we can always intercept Iranian arms shipments to, say, Hezbollah.

But wait. Obama has insisted throughout that we are pursuing this Iranian diplomacy to avoid the use of force, yet now blithely discards a previous diplomatic achievement — the arms embargo — by suggesting, no matter, we can just shoot our way to interdiction.

Moreover, the most serious issue is not Iranian exports but Iranian imports — of sophisticated Russian and Chinese weapons. These are untouchable. We are not going to attack Russian and Chinese transports.

The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf.

Imagine how Iran's acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half-century.

The other major shock in the final deal is what happened to our insistence on "anytime, anywhere" inspections.

Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee — on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors' request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...deal-worst-in-american-diplomatic-history.htm

 

[MTLynn]

This is a well worn narrative. Small country agrees to terms. Small country "violates" terms, shortly thereafter, leading to a UN invasion (spearheaded, of course, by the good old US of A) and the sheeple are overjoyed.

SSDD. History repeats itself over and over.