Monday, November 25, 2013
Democrats oppose Iran deal too
Dershowitz: Iran Deal 'Cataclysmic Error of Gigantic Proportions'
Sunday, 24 Nov 2013 05:30 PM
"I think it could turn out to be a cataclysmic error of gigantic proportions," Dershowitz said of the deal, which he described as "naive."
"It could also turn out to be successful, to be the beginning of a negotiated resolution," Dershowitz told Newsmax on Sunday. "But I think the likelihood of it being the former is considerably greater."
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
Dershowitz said he thought the administration of President Barack Obama did a poor job of negotiating the deal.
"I think it's thoughtful and intelligent Americans vs. naive Americans," he said.
The deal, announced late Saturday night in the United States, makes it more likely Iran will develop a nuclear bomb, likely creating the need for a future military strike by Israel or the United States, Dershowitz said.
It also increases the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia obtaining nuclear weapons as well, he said.
The Harvard Law School professor thinks there is at best a 10 percent chance that the administration can change attitudes among Iran's Islamist leadership.
"But when you weigh that against the 30 or 40 percent chance that they're dead wrong – nuclear bomb wrong – then it's a very bad assessment of risk and benefits," he told Newsmax.
"This is first-year negotiating theory, and this administration gets a D-minus with grade inflation," Dershowitz said. "You don't let up on sanctions that are working."
Other countries, such as China, are taking the deal as a green light to do business with Iran, he said. All the nuclear experts, Iran experts and congressional experts he has spoken with oppose the deal, he said.
Israel has spoken out against the deal, and Saudi Arabia is known to be wary of Iran. But it is a mistake to think of it as a dispute between Israel and Saudi Arabia on one hand and the United States on the other, Dershowitz said. "This is a highly disputed and contested issue within the United States."
Dershowitz counts himself among the skeptics.
"I think it's a bad deal for America and a bad deal for the West," he said. "The risks to world peace are far greater than the potential benefits to world peace."
American negotiators used the wrong model, Dershowitz said. They used the model of Syria where the administration "accidentally backed into a good result instead of the North Korea model, which is much more parallel.
"North Korea does not pose a direct threat to the United States. Iran does," Dershowitz said. "You think that we'd learn from our mistakes in North Korea."
Dershowitz said that if Iran fails to comply, he hopes Congress ratchets up the sanctions once the six months are complete. But he isn't sure that will be possible since China and other nations will be doing business with them by then.
"I think we have hurt our sanction regime irretrievably by this measure," he said.
Congress should take preemptive action by passing authorization in advance to allow the president to increase sanctions and deploy the military option in the event Iran crosses a red line, Dershowitz said. That way, the president doesn't have to go to Congress after red lines are crossed.
"I think that would send a powerful message to Iran that the military option is still on the table," he said.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton suggested the White House struck the deal out of fear that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear facilities as it did those of Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007.
Dershowitz said that since Israel was not consulted on the agreement, it isn't bound by it and is within its rights to defend itself.
Israel "has the absolute right to prevent a country that has threatened its destruction from developing nuclear weapons," he said. "That's a right in law, it's a right in morality, and it's a right in diplomacy."
Schumer released the following statement on the deal regarding Iran's nuclear program:
"I am disappointed by the terms of the agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations because it does not seem proportional. Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions.
Latest: Krauthammer’s New Book Hits No. 1 NY Times Bestseller List
"It was strong sanctions, not the goodness of the hearts of the Iranian leaders, that brought Iran to the table, and any reduction relieves the psychological pressure of future sanctions and gives them hope that they will be able to gain nuclear weapon capability while further sanctions are reduced. A fairer agreement would have coupled a reduction in sanctions with a proportionate reduction in Iranian nuclear capability.
"The goal of the administration is to eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear weapons-making capability by the end of the final negations; it is still my hope they can achieve that goal.
"As for additional sanctions, this disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December. I intend to discuss that possibility with my colleagues
Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Eliot Engel both of New York joined numerous Republicans in criticizing the deal on Sunday.
Engel expressed doubt on Sunday the plan will succeed without continued sanctions.
"I don't think you make them bargain in good faith by going squishy," Engel, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee told CNN's "State of the Union."
"I think we could have played good cop, bad cop, and Congress really believes sanctions should happen," Engel said. "That's what brought Iran to the table in the first place."
Schumer said in a statement that he was disappointed in the interim deal reached in Geneva regarding Iran’s nuclear program, saying "it does not seem proportional" because "Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions."
Sen. Bob Menendez, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also criticized what he perceived as a more one-sided deal that benefits Iran.
But the New Jersey Democrat also said that he expected any further sanctions legislation would adjust for the six-month window in the interim agreement, allowing for negotiators to work on a permanent deal.
“I expect that the forthcoming sanctions legislation to be considered by the Senate will provide for a six month window to reach a final agreement before imposing new sanctions on Iran, but will at the same time be immediately available should the talks falter or Iran fail to implement or breach the interim agreement,” Menendez said in a statement.
On Thursday, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that he planned to move a sanctions measure when the Senate returns from a two-week Thanksgiving break on Dec. 9. Reid was noticeably quiet on Sunday in what some observers interpreted as resistance to the deal.
Many Republicans were even harsher in their opposition.
The six-month deal not only will enable Iran to continue to move ahead with its nuclear-development program, it also will leave the United States with less leverage because of the easing of economic sanctions, Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss said on ABC's "This Week."
"Nothing in this deal requires the destruction of any centrifuges," said Chambliss, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "They're going to be able to replace centrifuges that become inoperable. I just don't see this movement in the direction of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon at all."
The deal regarding the sanctions lets Iran "out of the trap," he said.
"Right now, the sanctions are working," Chambliss said. "The economy of Iran is heading south. Unemployment is skyrocketing. Instead of easing them, now is the time to tighten those sanctions, and let's get a long-term deal. We've got all the leverage in the negotiations, and we've let them out of the trap."
Republican Rep. Ed Royce of California, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the deal meant Tehran would be able to keep key elements of its nuclear weapons-making capability while the U.S. would begin dismantling sanctions built up over years.
Saying that Iran is "spiking the football" over an interim deal to ease sanctions over its nuclear enrichment program, Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said he is crafting legislation to hold administration's and international community's feet the fire over next six months to ensure interim deal is not the norm.
The Obama administration is "long on announcements, but very short on follow-through," Corker said on "Fox News Sunday." But he said that while he'd like to a diplomatic solution, Congress must weigh in.
"America has not learned its lesson from 1994 when North Korea fooled the world. I am skeptical that this agreement will end differently," said California Republican Howard "Buck" McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill, called Iran's concessions under the deal "cosmetic" partly because Tehran could continue to test long-range ballistic missiles.
"I will continue working with my colleagues to craft bipartisan legislation that will impose tough new economic sanctions if Iran undermines this interim accord or if the dismantlement of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is not underway by the end of this six-month period," Kirk said.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said that by "allowing the Iranian regime to retain a sizable nuclear infrastructure, this agreement makes a nuclear Iran more likely. There is now an even more urgent need for Congress to increase sanctions until Iran completely abandons its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/democrats-republicans-iran-oppose/2013/11/24/id/538355#ixzz2lfl08WpB
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Obama's Iran deal-historic disaster
Netanyahu: Geneva Agreement "a Historic Mistake"
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli Cabinet on Sunday: "What was achieved last night in Geneva is not an historic agreement; it is an historic mistake. Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world. For the first time, the world's leading powers have agreed to uranium enrichment in Iran while ignoring the UN Security Council decisions that they themselves led."
"Sanctions that required many years to put in place contain the best chance for a peaceful solution. These sanctions have been given up in exchange for cosmetic Iranian concessions that can be cancelled in weeks. This agreement and what it means endanger many countries including, of course, Israel. Israel is not bound by this agreement. The Iranian regime is committed to the destruction of Israel and Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. As Prime Minister of Israel, I would like to make it clear: Israel will not allow Iran to develop a military nuclear capability." (Prime Minister's
Greatest Danger Is that Interim Agreement Will Become Permanent - Ron Ben-Yishai
If the interim agreement with Iran turns into a permanent agreement, as Israeli officials fear, it's a bad and even dangerous agreement. The Iranians are still unwilling to completely halt the construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak, which will allow the production of plutonium in about two-three years.
The Iranians are committed to stop enriching uranium to a 20% level and convert what they have into fuel rods or uranium oxide. Another commitment is not to increase the amount of 3.5% to 5% enriched uranium which they possess. These restrictions are in fact almost meaningless. With nearly 18,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, they can enrich uranium to any level they want within a short period of time. At the moment they already have more than eight tons of uranium enriched to 3.5-5%, enough for four to five atom bombs.
The Iranians are only committing, sometime in six months, to answer questions presented by the IAEA on the efforts it has made and is still making to develop the explosive device and warhead. During this time, they can complete the development of the nuclear weapon. (Ynet News)
The Hidden Cost of the Iranian Nuclear Deal - Michael Doran
I see the Iranian nuclear deal as a deceptively pleasant way station on the road that is the American retreat from the Middle East. By contrast, President Obama believes that six months from now, this process will culminate in a final, sustainable agreement.
On the nuclear question specifically, I don't see this as stage one. In my view, there will never be a final agreement. What the administration just initiated was, rather, a long and expensive process by which the West pays Iran to refrain from going nuclear. We are, in essence, paying Ayatollah Khamenei to negotiate with us. We just bought six months.
What was the price? We shredded the six UN Security Council resolutions that ordered the Islamic Republic to abandon all enrichment and reprocessing activities. And we started building a global economic lobby dedicated to eroding the sanctions that we generated through a decade of very hard diplomatic work. But the price that troubles me most is the free hand that the U.S. is now giving to Iran throughout the region. And Iran will now have more money to channel to proxies such as Hizbullah.
Six months from now, when the interim agreement expires, another payment to Ayatollah Khamenei will come due. If Obama doesn't pony up, he will have to admit then that he cut a bad deal now. The writer, a senior fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, served as a U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense and a senior director at the National Security Council. (Brookings Institution)
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal told me, "There's no confidence in the Obama administration doing the right thing with Iran." Alwaleed believes that Iran will pocket whatever sanctions relief it gets without committing to ending its nuclear program.
I asked him if he thought the Arab states would actually back an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. "Publicly, they would be against it," he said. "Privately, they would love it." "The Sunnis will love it....The Sunni Muslim is very much anti-Shiite, and very much anti-, anti-, anti-Iran."
You're sure they loathe Iran more than they loathe Israel, I asked? "Look, Iran is a huge threat, historically speaking....The Persian empire was always against the Muslim Arab empire, especially against the Sunnis. The threat is from Persia, not from Israel." (Bloomberg)
The interim agreement includes several Iranian commitments that, if verifiably implemented, would extend Iran's nuclear breakout time from about a month to about two months.
It places more constraints on Iran's nuclear program than the deal that the Obama administration reportedly was prepared to sign two weeks ago. The Senate's threat to pass additional sanctions, France's objections to the initial deal, and Israel's fierce resistance to the terms of the proposed agreement seem to have played a role in providing U.S. negotiators with leverage to extract a better deal from Iran. Mr. Dubowitz is executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mr. Kittrie is a law professor at Arizona State University and a senior fellow at the foundation. (Wall Street Journal)
Observations:
Why the Iranian Nuclear Deal Is Dangerous - Eli Lake (Daily Beast)
- The agreement signed in Geneva says Iran and six world powers will negotiate a comprehensive solution over the next six months that "would involve a mutually defined enrichment program with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the program."
- The offer represents a significant softening of earlier demands from the United States and even the Obama administration. During his first term, Obama offered Iran a deal that would have required Iran to import enriched nuclear fuel, but not allow Iran to make that fuel in facilities its government controlled.
See also Israeli Experts Suggest a Glass Half Full - Mitch Ginsburg (Times of Israel)
- Dr. Ephraim Asculai, a veteran of both the IAEA and the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, noted Sunday that the Iran accord "does not do anything to change that [breakout] time, except perhaps in a very minor way." He said the agreed-upon limitations of the interim agreement add only "a few days" onto the regime's clock, should it decide to sprint toward a bomb.
- The former head of IDF military intelligence and current director of the Institute for National Security Studies, Amos Yadlin, told Army Radio that the value of the agreement, which he termed "neither the dream agreement nor the destruction of the Third Temple," would only be evident in six months' time. "The fall of this regime before it gets the bomb should be our objective," he said.
Gen. Hayden: Iran Deal 'Worst of All Possible Outcomes'
Sunday, 24 Nov 2013 11:21 AM
More ways to share...
Former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden on Sunday criticized the Obama administration's deal with Iran saying it will only delay, not derail the country's nuclear program.
Hayden told CNN's "State of the Union" that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry "hit the pause button, rather than delete button."
"Practically the worst of all possible outcomes, because now what you have here is a nuclear capable state," Hayden said.
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
"I think frankly that is Iran's bottom line, so what we're negotiating on is how much time we're putting between their nuclear capability and a nuclear weapon, a nuclear reality," Hayden said.
"And my fear is, this interim agreement, which doesn't roll back much of anything at all, becomes a permanent agreement," Hayden said.
The six-month agreement between the U.S. and other nations requires Iran to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for some relief on sanctions.
Hayden said the agreement contradicts the U.S. alignment with Sunnis Muslim and Israelis in the region, and that it will take "an awful lot of hand holding" to convince our allies this is the correct course of action.
Former Secretary of State John Negroponte also appeared on CNN and said that the U.S. should not consider lifting sanctions until after all of the demands to roll back the nuclear program have been met.
"I think what worries a number of people is that we might get salami-sliced and that the Iranians will engage in dilatory tactics and then seek some more momentary relief from sanctions," Negroponte said.
Hayden told CNN's "State of the Union" that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry "hit the pause button, rather than delete button."
"Practically the worst of all possible outcomes, because now what you have here is a nuclear capable state," Hayden said.
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
"I think frankly that is Iran's bottom line, so what we're negotiating on is how much time we're putting between their nuclear capability and a nuclear weapon, a nuclear reality," Hayden said.
"And my fear is, this interim agreement, which doesn't roll back much of anything at all, becomes a permanent agreement," Hayden said.
The six-month agreement between the U.S. and other nations requires Iran to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for some relief on sanctions.
Hayden said the agreement contradicts the U.S. alignment with Sunnis Muslim and Israelis in the region, and that it will take "an awful lot of hand holding" to convince our allies this is the correct course of action.
Former Secretary of State John Negroponte also appeared on CNN and said that the U.S. should not consider lifting sanctions until after all of the demands to roll back the nuclear program have been met.
"I think what worries a number of people is that we might get salami-sliced and that the Iranians will engage in dilatory tactics and then seek some more momentary relief from sanctions," Negroponte said.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
