Featured Post

Castro and the Nazis: Makes Perfect Sense

As we come up on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we see newly declassified German intelligence documents reporting that Fi...

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

The Great Con: The Iran Deal

We live in a time of government by con men, women, and those of flexible and reassignable gender. In the last few days this bitter truth has become even more obvious than it was after Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Syrian Red Lines, Obamacare, gay wedding cakes, and Rebel flags.

In these past few dark days, we have seen two enormous cons run on the world by our "leaders." These cons will have direct and negative impact upon the lives of tens-of-millions of people around the world. One, of course, is the Greek Deal which avoids all the issues of how Greece and the world's fiscal and monetary policy have fallen into the abyss, and merely perpetuates the EU's Three Card Monte game. In the end, of course, Greece must default, walk away from the euro, and let the market set the true value of its currency and economy. Nothing else will work, but that's not the way, at least for now.

The Greek Con, however, fades into Junior Varsity status, into high school amateur theatrics, when compared to The Greatest of The Cons announced, appropriately, enough just in time for Bastille Day--commemorating another of history's Great Cons, the French Revolution. I speak, of course, of  the Iran Deal. I have written before about the negotiations with Iran (herehere, and here), and nothing stated then seems to have proven wrong.

I have read the entire Deal. You can, too, right here. It proves a grim and enfuriating read. Go ahead, you'll see.

The Deal is a fiasco for the West.

Having negotiated a lot of stuff during my time at State, I note, simply put, nothing this complex and convoluted is enforceable in the real world. Which means, therefore, that it is not meant to be enforced.

Let me start with a minor technicality. It is not clear the Deal is a treaty. I can almost guarantee that the Obama misadministration will go back and forth on that. Sort of akin to Obamacare: was it a penalty or a tax? When convenient, e.g., for public opinion's sake, the Obamistas will call it a treaty; when not, e.g., Senate ratification, they will call it a Joint Plan of Action or some other name implying Congress has no legal and binding role. In a way, that does not matter; Congress will have little to nothing it can do about this Deal. The UN Security Council will rubber-stamp it, and once all the other countries start freeing Iran's frozen assets, lifting sanctions, and making deals . . . game over. The U.S. Congress can rant all it wants.

Even all that, however, does not comprise the biggest problem. Assuming Iran complies with everything in this convoluted hash of a document--and Iran does not comply with international agreements--even then, Iran gets the bomb--assuming it doesn't have it already. Yes, that is correct, Iran gets the bomb no matter what; a little later perhaps if it fully complies with the Deal, but Iran gets the bomb--not to mention ICBM capabilities, and gets years of NPT violations swept under the rug, gets a pardon for its sponsorship of terror, doesn't have to give up its stated objective of destroying Israel, and . . . any wonder the Iranians celebrate? Some, however, might find convincing the graphic below put out by the White House yesterday. It, after all, is an intellectually powerful document; hard to refute its tight logic . . . well, maybe, for a not very bright six-year-old, raised as a vegan, maybe, just maybe.


Wow! Is that convincing or what?





















Yes, my friends, despite the powerful imagery presented above, under the most optimistic of all circumstances, thanks to The Great Deal, the Iran of crazed Ayatollahs gets the bomb--and does it all real nice and legal and respectful. No fuss. No mess.

Iran will get perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen assets released to it, and will use those funds to build up its economy and military, and sponsor terrorism--then after a few years the deal expires anyway, and Iran can build its bomb quite openly. Iran being Iran, of course, it will not comply with the deal and will get the bomb much sooner than that. The Deal's inspection provisions are a joke. The process for dealing with any detected violation is so obtuse, complex, and drawn out that we will never see an effective condemnation. Forget about "snap back" sanctions. With its new  billions in unfrozen assets, Iran will build lobbying interests in key countries. Once, for example, Iran orders 200 Airbus planes, ten thousand Mercedes trucks, ten thousand Komatsu bulldozers, one hundred thousand Apple laptops, etc., who will argue for cracking down on some "minor and irrelevant" violation of The Great Deal? From what powerful sectors will those calls come? The Iranians know that the West will not do anything. The West has gone into retreat mode.

The Great Con guarantees war, a big war in the near future. The Israelis and the Sunni Arabs, Iran's most immediate foes, got cut out of the negotiations, their vital security interests ignored, and will not take the result quietly. I wrote some time ago that given Obama's calamitous Middle East policy we would see Israelis and Saudis coming together in a bid to stop Iran. That is happening. I will go further. Do not be shocked if Israel and Saudi Arabia end up backing ISIS against Iran. They rightly see Iran, not ISIS, as the biggest threat to the region and the world. Let's also not forget, dear friends, that Israel is a potent nuclear power, right now, not 30 months from now, not ten years from now, but right now, today. Please keep in mind that Israel is not a country predisposed to suicide, even for the White House. In addition, of course, expect the oil rich Sunni Arabs to go for their own bomb--probably purchased from Pakistan or some other willing vendor. The Non-Proliferarion regime of the past many decades is dead. A new and very dangerous nuclear age looms.

All of this confusion of games within games will produce war. It bears repeating: We will have war, and it will be horrendous.

As I was finishing this piece, I found Israeli Ambassador Dermer's speech on the Iran deal. It is worth reading. He points out, for example, that Iran's insistence on ICBM technology and capability is not so much a threat to Israel as it is to Europe and America. Iran does not need ICBMs to hit Israel. In particular, I was struck by the following portion of his address,
And when Israel and the Arab states are on the same page - which happens about once a century – pay attention. 
Ask yourself why Israel and its neighbors are so opposed to this deal. 
After all, we have the most to gain by peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear issue. 
We have the most to gain by a deal which truly blocks Iran’s path to the bomb. 
The reason why we oppose this deal is because it doesn’t resolve anything, because it doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb. 
It makes Iran’s illegal nuclear program legal. 
It provides billions in sanctions relief for Iran to fuel the fires of war that it is spreading across the Middle East. 
And it rolls out the red carpet for Iran to become a military nuclear power – a power that would threaten Israel with annihilation and threaten the peace and security of the entire world.

36 comments:

  1. Everybody knew the negotiations were going to end with a deal. This administration can't play poker in the slightest. "We're not going to put boots on the ground." "We're going to finish this nuclear deal before I leave office." When we telegraph exactly how infinite our fealty is to our enemies, we get deals like this.

    Yeah... Iran gets to keep enriching and calling for the destruction of Israel.
    Bush and Bill Clinton both rejected precisely these terms, but Obama seems to find them palatable perhaps because he cares more for "change" than he does about the results of such *change*.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are more charitable than I am. I do not think he is indifferent to the results of his "change" I think he cares quite deeply.

      He clearly thinks the world would be a happier place without a strong USA. As the Diplomad says, war is coming. My only hope is that we can avoid a total launch and the end of civilization (and probably mankind).

      Thworg

      Delete
  2. "I will go even further. Do not be shocked if Israel and Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni states, end up backing ISIS against Iran."
    ___________

    Actually, that's already very plain, very apparent. All one need do to see it in action is to have some familiarity with what's been ongoing since the Saudis "arranged that little coalition" consisting initially of the Egyptians and the Emiratis (since expanded by ... at last reckoning, some seven African nations sending ground troops) and joining in the fun in Yemen.

    Even a somewhat more than cursory look at what's the "target-set" for the Coalition shows all the bombing [air] sites to be the Houthis and ... drumroll ...

    Avoiding AQAP. Totally.
    ___________

    For those of the seven or so Diplomad readers who may think they have a clue to my identity I'll maybe, be bolstering the clue by reiterating something I placed on this blog awhile back.

    'I figure the Benghazi annex came under attack by elements formed primarily by AQIM and AQAP under the aegis of Ansar-al-Sharia.'

    ***

    ReplyDelete
  3. "We live in a time of government by con men, women, and those of flexible and reassignable gender."

    Yet another expression-home run...Replete with coffee spewing from my laugh-hole.

    Roy

    ReplyDelete
  4. And like all cons, that old expression about cons and marks applies:

    "If you're sitting at a table with a big con going on and you don't know who the mark is, you're the mark."

    ReplyDelete
  5. And, of course, we all know how well the deal worked to prevent North Korea from getting the bomb (1994).......

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why bother with building an ICBM? Once sanctions are lifted, simply load the nuclear warhead onto a ship or a civilian aircraft, call it general cargo and list it as such on the manifest.

    Once the warhead has been legally transported to the target, it can be detonated. The advantage of a ship or an aircraft that has landed is that the detonation will be a ground burst that will result in a lot of radioactive fallout (air bursts generalte much less fallout - approaching zero).

    But of course, the Muslim crew would not commit suicide like that, would they? Oh, wait ...

    Phil B

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack is much more damaging.

      Position the attacking ship 100 miles offshor, fire the missle 200 miles high, say over Chicago. Detonate. No physical destruction reaches the ground, but the electric system, communications, and transortation are fried.

      http://silverbearcafe.com/private/07.09/onesecondafter.html
      EMP Attack: A Primer and Suggestions for Preparedness
      === ===
      Consider a nuclear explosion 200 miles up. It emits a powerful wave of radiation which causes a huge electrical wave. You won't feel much, but it will fry all the electrical systems and digital electronics that we depend on to run everything.
      === ===

      Delete
  7. So to sum it all up: we're hosed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Food for thought...

    18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I will say it again, Joe Biden is the brains of the outfit, the others are really dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm old enough to have been taught duck and cover in grade school. But I've never been so frightened about world events. My only consolation is that I am no spring chicken. But I fear for my grandsons.

    ReplyDelete
  11. paul_vincent_zecchinoJuly 15, 2015 at 10:55 PM

    Be prepared to defend the things you value and the people you love.


    Seek God while he may yet be found.



    The Left is hate. Revenge is its pastime. Genocide is its legacy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Do not be shocked if Israel and Saudi Arabia end up backing ISIS against Iran. "

    If you lay down with Satan, you become Satan.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I remember Blair: WMDs in Iraq, missiles could hit British territory in 45 minutes .... All lies, as it turned out.

    Why should I assume differently this time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://warontherocks.com/2015/07/memorializing-the-tunisia-attack-victims-and-camerons-phony-war-against-the-islamic-state/

      ***

      Delete
    2. http://warontherocks.com/2015/07/the-case-for-dumping-the-iran-deal/

      ***

      Delete
    3. April 22, 1999 at 12:00 AM EDT

      PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR: "I am absolutely delighted to be the first serving British Prime Minister to visit Chicago."

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international-jan-june99-blair_doctrine4-23/

      ***

      Delete
    4. Oh I see; Blair, a Labor (read left or Democrat equivalent) Prime Minister of Britain was a liar on issues relating to dangerous weapons, which causes you to believe that the later Democrat President Obama isn't a liar on the same subject. The stupidity is breathtaking.

      Delete
    5. ;) MOT Brett, O'course pliinking dem varmints always was your speciallity... signed, brother Bart "Let's Roll"

      Delete
    6. You seem to have missed the point Brett. The (slightly) leftist Blair lied, and the (slightly) rightist W. People who want an aggressive war invent pretexts. The fact that O is doubtless lying is no reason to assume that the warmongers are telling the truth. Why should I believe the warmongers this time?

      Delete
    7. Now the ground is shifted; Obama is a liar, but you will support the liar now, because of the actions of other people who you say were liars in the past, who you also characterise as warmongers. No offence intended, Dearieme but you need to take a moment to collect and try to order your thoughts. You are twisting equivalence into some sort of gordian knot where the only thing that emerges is that you believe and disbelieve people for the same reason, which of course means that you are just a provocateur trying to justify a blindly dogmatic position based on your political preference.

      Delete
    8. dearieme?

      It would appear you've concluded it was Simply Bush 43 & Blair who colluded to get us "into this mess" ... which, simply is either a misunderstanding or worse, willful blindness.

      The History is all out there for practically, anyone who chooses to, without choosing *preferred villains* right off the bat ... or, for those not familiar with US colloquialisms, pre-determined bad people.

      While I would agree it true our Bush II and *your* Blair[?] may well have set an unwise course, the seeds had already been planted.

      See for example here;

      http://theweek.com/articles/555970/why-liberals-tell-themselves-comforting-fables-about-iraq-war

      (I'm Not insinuating dearieme you're a liberal in the US sense ... just seems to me you've not got that *particular appreciation* of the shit Bush I received from his very own "supporters" - GHW I'm certain will be the epitome of "What-Might-Of-Beens" should the World As It Is Nowadays make it to the next phase.)

      9/11 unfortunately far far exceeded even Bin Laden's hopes - for us US citizens we now are only coming to grips with what the set-up of the Department of Homeland Security means.

      No longer do our Leaders day say, "Our Nation" and for damn sure no more of that, "Our Republic" shit ... oh that's so so passé as if we Americans need instruction from the White-Flag-Factory-French ... Nope, these days our Leaders (and Media) say, "The Homeland" which has a somewhat more than vaguely North Korean feel to it.

      But getting back dearieme to what you're implying, "It woz Blain wot dunnit!" ... Nope.

      The stage was set when GHW - WWII vet, Ambassador, CIA Chief, Vice-President (and throughout a student of the ME) had a basic understanding of what would surely happen were The Balance of Power in the ME be upended.

      Blair was a bit-player.

      http://20committee.com/2015/05/22/americas-top-five-mistakes-in-iraq/

      ***

      Delete
  14. Obama is the plate-spinning guy on the old Ed Sullivan Show. That this blivit got signed by the 5 +1 is evidence of two things; Obama's entertainment and tap dancing skills and the deep desire on the part of the other participants for Peace. That combination of b******t and wishful thinking puts the load on the next President, therein to ensue a period when a lot of American blood will flow into the sand. The Muslim heads of state understand force and have no respect for law and negotiating with the West.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Insightful... and depressing. I have not been so scared since the early 80's Cold War when I feared for the mistake that would launch WWIII and kill my family. Back then I just hoped to be at the epicenter so we would go quickly. Between the coming economic collapse and crazies with the bomb... well, I'm just trying not to think about it so I can enjoy life.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Insightful... and depressing. I have not been so scared since the early 80's Cold War when I feared for the mistake that would launch WWIII and kill my family. Back then I just hoped to be at the epicenter so we would go quickly. Between the coming economic collapse and crazies with the bomb... well, I'm just trying not to think about it so I can enjoy life.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Iran already has the bomb.

    This kabuki dance is only to provide cover. They will declare. Sanctions will have already been lifted. Everything normalized in place. Nothing left to discuss. Outside attack preempted.

    Only one strategy left. Flood Iran with small arms. Hope the 13 ethnicities who hate each other overthrow the government.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Iranians speak Farsi. Obama speaks farce.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Y'all just hate this because he's Black!" Michael Adams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The halfrican is half white.

      I don't hate him, I despise him (and his "crack" team of negotiators) for his appeasement to a much inferior opponnent, and abandonment of the only democratic former ally in the region.

      Delete
  20. Then again, can you really prevent a determined state from obtaining 1940's technology?

    My biggest issue with the O is that he talks loudly and carries no stick (cf., needing Putin to extricate him from the red lines he drew for Bashir al-Assad); and is at the same time making sure the US military is safe for wymyn and queers rather than dangerous to our enemies.

    Then again, what is so un-American about kicking our allies in the rear to make nice with an up-and-coming tyranny? Ask Taiwan!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bush refused to deal with Iranian proliferation. Obama has turned the problem over to Israel and the Saudis to handle.

    They will not be as circumspect or as "proportionate" as the American hegemon has been.

    The bad news is that nuclear fire will come to the Middle East. The less bad news is that America will be many thousands of miles away but not immune.

    Ground burst thermonuclear weapons used against buried and hardened sites create a hellish amount of fallout. Background radiation will increase noticeably in the Northern hemisphere and background levels of strontium 90 and other radioisotopes in our food will exceed levels seen during the Cold War testing programs. Levels will be much, much higher than seen following Chernobyl and Fukushima.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so... many... nukes... lit off... just for fun.. in the arms race.
      heck.. there was a tourism bump for las vegas to "see the light show".
      Iran would have to do a lot of nuking...

      Thanks Obama, we get to find out!

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. Allow me to correct myself on global fallout. As of 1962, weapons states combined had set off 511 megatons in the air or on the surface. Life time doses for newborns (the worst case) only increased 5% over background to the bone (Sr-89/90) and 1.9% to whole body.

      An Iran/Israel exchange couldn't exceed 20 megaton so no worries!

      Delete
  22. I believe Obama views Iran as a friend, not a foe, so he is happy to empower Iran. However, the end result of his policies may be another Sunni-Shia standoff -- similar to Saddam vs Iran before the Iraq War -- but with WMDs on steroids.

    ReplyDelete