[VIDEO] House Foreign Affairs Chair: Russia And Iran ‘Already Violating’ Nuclear Deal

(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. must call both Russia and Iran to account for “already violating” the nuclear agreement, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said Thursday. He was responding to a reported trip to Moscow by Iran’s Qods force commander, who is subject to U.N. travel sanctions.

“[Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani] is the chief commander for Iranian foreign forces outside of Iran who carry out their assassinations and carry out their attacks,” Royce told CNN.

“And the fact that he would violate the sanctions prior to it being lifted upon him, by jumping the gun – this gives us the opportunity to call the Russians to account, and the Iranians to account, for already violating this agreement,” he said. “And we should do so.”

As a P5+1 partner, Russia – a U.N. Security Council permanent member -- is supposed to help enforce the nuclear agreement which the six powers negotiated with Tehran.

Following reports that Soleimani traveled to Moscow last month and met with President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, Iran deal critics are asking: If Russia gets away with hosting him, what does that say about its likely response to any future Iranian cheating on the nuclear agreement?

Although the Obama administration agreed as part of the nuclear deal that U.N. sanctions against Soleimani and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force will be lifted, it says that will only happen in “phase two” of the agreement’s implementation – in about eight years’ time.

Any travel abroad by him ahead of that point would be in violation of the U.N. travel ban, under which all member states are required to deny him entry.

In a letter to President Obama, Royce has requested “a determination of whether the travel of Soleimani took place, its purpose, and whether it was in violation of United Nations sanctions.”

“Since the Iran agreement was signed, senior administration officials have testified that there would be no relaxing of sanctions against Iran for terrorist activity,” he wrote. “The reported free travel of Qassem Soleimani and the continuing arming of Iranian proxies throughout the Middle East is a direct challenge to that commitment.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby told a press briefing Thursday that Secretary of State John Kerry in a phone conversation with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov “raised concerns about the travel to Moscow by IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani.”

Later in the briefing, however, Kirby revised his wording, saying he could not independently confirm that the visit had indeed taken place, but that Kerry “has seen the reports of the travel and expressed his concerns [to Lavrov] about those reports.”

Fox News first reported on the alleged visit last week, citing unnamed Western intelligence sources.

Then Reuters reported that an “Iranian official, who declined to be identified,” confirmed that the trip had taken place, saying Soleimani had discussed “regional and bilateral issues and the delivery to Iran of S-300 surface-to-air missiles and other weapons.”

Russian state news agency RIA Novosti, however, quoted a Kremlin spokesman as denying the claim (although the report’s wording left open the possibility that the denial was specifically in relation to a Soleimani-Putin meeting, rather than about whether the visit took place at all.)

Soleimani’s name appears on a list of Iranian individuals and entities in line for sanctions relief, annexed to the nuclear agreement.

Hours after the deal was announced in Vienna on July 14, a senior administration official, briefing reporters on background, was asked about Soleimani’s inclusion.

“IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani will not be delisted at the United Nations at phase one; he will be delisted at the U.N. at phase two when the underlying designation authority terminates,” the official said.

That would only occur “after eight years into the deal, so sanctions are not being lifted early on Qassem Soleimani,” the official said.

Since then, Kerry has stressed that U.S. sanctions – as opposed to U.N. ones – against Soleimani will “never” be lifted.

Soleimani is accused of directing Shi’ite militias that carried out deadly attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq during the war there. According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman nominee Gen. Joseph Dunford, he was responsible for the deaths of at least 500 U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading.....

5 THINGS AMERICA HAS LOST IN CUBA

Today the Obama administration raised the American flag above the U.S. embassy in Cuba. It is unclear what, if anything, the U.S. has won in exchange for normalizing relations with the Castro regime–one of the world’s most  oppressive tyrannies. It is clearer what we have lost.

1. We lost the struggle with Castro. The U.S. won the Cold War, but lost the battle against Fidel Castro, who sided with the Soviet Union and who has opposed the U.S. in Latin America and around the world. The ailing dictator will die knowing that he won, and America lost.

2. We lost an opportunity to free Cubans. Isolating Cuba failed because other countries retained links to the regime. But ties with the U.S. were always a bargaining chip to be offered in exchange for progress on human rights and democracy. Now that leverage is almost gone.

3. We lost an important deterrent against future enemies. From Russia to Iran, our enemies–who are often Cuba’s allies–tell each other America is too cowardly to fight for long. We confirmed that in Havana: every foe knows all they have to do is resist us for long enough.

4. We lost our self-respect. It is beyond stomach-churning to hear Secretary of State John Kerry say he feels “very much at home” in a place thousands cannot leave. It is beyond offensive to hear him talk about “GPS” in a country where people cannot even use the Internet.

5. We lost our place as leaders of the free world. Obama has helped consolidate the Cuban dictatorship–just as he is doing in Iran. We did not even invite Cuban dissidents to the ceremony, even as Kerry claimed “Cuba’s future is for Cubans to shape.” A shameful day.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

As John Kerry Celebrates Embassy Opening, Cuban Dissidents Are Barred From Attending

The American flag was raised next to the U.S. embassy in Havana for the first time in 54 years Friday, but Cuban dissidents who have influenced U.S.-Cuban relations for decades were barred from the event.

Secretary of State John Kerry justified the exclusion by telling Telemundo the symbolic opening was a “government-to-government moment, with very limited space.”

The State Department conceded the ceremony was not limited to government officials, extending invitations to select private individuals.

Notably, James Williams, president of the prominent anti-embargo lobbying group Engage Cuba, and Zane Kerby, president and CEO of the trade association American Society of Travel Agents, were both invited to the flag-raising ceremony.

“It truly shows the administration’s priorities when there’s space at the flag-raising ceremony for business interests and anti-embargo lobbyists, yet there’s no space for Cuban dissidents. Who in fact are we really supporting with this new policy?” said Ana Quintana, an analyst specializing in Latin America policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Kerry said he would meet with dissidents during a reception at the chief of mission’s residence following the embassy ceremony, after it was demanded he explain how normalized relations will improve human rights standards.

“I look forward to meeting whoever I meet and listening to them and having, you know, whatever views come at me,” Kerry said.

John Suarez, the international secretary at the Cuban Democratic Directorate, said under President Barack Obama’s diplomatic policies with Cuba, human rights have “deteriorated.”

Since Obama announced the U.S.’s plan to normalize relations with Havana in December, Suarez said violence against activists has escalated, nearly 4,000 politically motivated arrests have occurred as a result of dissident demonstrations, and “Cubans continue to be killed for trying to leave the island.”

“The current U.S. policy on Cuba will strengthen and legitimize the dictatorship and is undercutting Cuban democracies,” he said.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who is the son of Cuban exiles, called the State Department’s decision to exclude dissidents in the ceremony a “slap in the face” and said it marked the event as “little more than a propaganda rally for the Castro regime.”

Kerry highlighted opponents’ concerns during the ceremony, calling for a “genuine democracy” in Cuba that includes free elections, freedom of religion and speech, and human rights improvements.

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona joined Kerry’s delegation in Havana, splitting from the majority in his party to laud the embassy opening.

“The United States will be able to do much more to protect and serve U.S. citizens in Cuba and encourage a better future for the Cuban people with an American flag flying over our embassy in Havana,” he said in a statement.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading....

Fidel Castro to US: you owe us millions

Havana (AFP) - Fidel Castro marked his 89th birthday Thursday by insisting the United States owes Cuba "many millions of dollars" because of the half-century-old American trade embargo.

                                                              Related Stories

1. Kerry's date with history in old HavanaAFP
2. Cuba marks Castro uprising anniversary with call for US embargo end AFP
3. Dissidents fear being left in cold by US-Cuba thaw AFP
4. NPC Urges Kerry to Focus on Press Freedom in Cuba PR Newswire
5. Bolivia ready for new go at relations with US: president AFP

Castro spoke out in an essay published in local media a day before US Secretary of State John Kerry makes a historic visit to Cuba to reopen the US embassy as part of the countries' restoration of diplomatic relations.

The trade embargo that the United States slapped on communist Cuba in 1962, three years after Castro seized power by ousting a US-backed regime, remains in effect despite the thawing.

President Barack Obama wants Congress to lift it, although US officials say this will take time and is not an automatic part of the restoration of ties as it requires congressional action.

Many Republicans, who control both chambers of the legislature, oppose the idea, insisting Cuba has to improve its human rights record and make other democratic reforms.

Castro wrote: "Cuba is owed compensation equivalent to damages, which total many millions of dollars, as our country has stated with irrefutable arguments and data in all of its speeches at the United Nations."

He did not go into detail on precisely how much money he reckons Washington owes Havana. The Americans are also claiming compensation for US-owned property, such as real estate, that was confiscated when Castro took power.

Castro made no mention either of Kerry's visit to reopen the embassy, a step that comes eight months after Obama and Castro's successor and brother Raul announced plans to restore relations. It officially took effect July 20.

Fidel Castro ceded power to his brother in 2006, stepping down because of poor health.

Over the years, Fidel Castro has been a frequent contributor of essays to the communist party newspaper Granma and other media. Thursday's was his first piece since May 8.

"Writing is a way to be useful, if you keep in mind that we poor humans must be more and better educated in the face of the incredible ignorance that surrounds us all, except for researchers who use science to seek a satisfactory answer," Castro wrote.

Castro's 89th birthday is being celebrated with a wide array of events.

In town to take part is Bolivia's populist President Evo Morales, who often refers to Castro as his "wise grandfather."

Via: Yahoo News

Continue 

[COMMENTARY] Contentions Hillary Clinton’s Slow-Motion Implosion

“It is very likely,” Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed when asked by a CBS reporter if he believed the Russians and the Chinese were reading his emails. “I certainly write things with that awareness.” The Democratic Party’s elder statesman and former presidential nominee might have known that he was twisting the knife. While it was perhaps unintentional, his comments reflect an accurate assessment bubbling up from the liberal subconscious that Hillary Clinton has been irreparably damaged by the revelations regarding her scandalous conduct as Kerry’s predecessor at Foggy Bottom.

Hillary Clinton could have surrendered her “homebrew” email server, on which she conducted the affairs of state in violation of both State Department and White House guidelines, to a third party at any time. Indeed, that was the request of the Republican members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. If she were so inclined, she could have rid herself of the suspicion that she had something to hide. Clinton might not have found exculpation in a third party investigation of the system that once held over 30,000 deleted emails that Clinton assured Americans were of no interest to them, she would have at least created the impression that she had belatedly embraced transparency. Instead, she dug in, closed ranks, and bristled with indignation at anyone who dared question her integrity. In the process, Clinton repeatedly misled the publicand the press on matters both substantial and paltry.

Hillary Clinton could have done many things to mitigate the damage wrought to her political image by the steady stream of information about her behavior at State. Instead, in deference to the sense of entitlement her enablers have cultivated over a quarter-century, she did nothing. Now, Clinton will be forced to surrender her server to the FBI. What’s more, the email communications that were contained on a thumb drive in the care of her attorney, a man without the requisite security clearances who wasdeemed post hoc by the State Department to suddenly be occupying a secure information facility, must also hand over to the Feds what is in his possession.

This final shoe dropped after two inspectors general alleged that, not only did Clinton’s unsecure email server contain sensitive information that was marked as such at the time in which it was received, but some of that information was classified “Top Secret.” Among the communications Hillary Clinton received on her server included references to coded information and imagery obtained via secure methods. Carelessly allowing this material to be sent over an unclassified and unprotected email system is a violation of federal law. Full stop.

But Hillary Clinton’s privilege does not die easy. Reporters have developed a tic that compels them to assert that Hillary Clinton personally is not the subject of any federal investigation. Only her potentially unlawful conduct has captured the attention of investigators.

“There are several investigations into her conduct, not into her, but into her use of personal email and a personal server,” McClatchy reporter Anita Kumar told MSNBCon Wednesday. She was merely echoing a statement in her employer’s report, which averred, “Clinton, herself, is not a target.”

This is an oft-repeated refrain. The Department of Justice to which this investigation had been referred last month has repeatedly asserted, “Clinton herself is not the target of the investigation.” This transparent effort to preserve Hillary Clinton’s rapidly decaying political prospects has roiled even FBI sources.

“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” a source within the FBI told New York Post reporters last week. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.”

“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”

Maybe. Just maybe.

The rhetorical gymnastics required of reporters and public officials who contend that Clinton is herself not a target of an investigation is simply a marvel. It’s also supremely insulting. The contention that only Clinton’s behavior and not her gilded personage is of interest to criminal investigators is a familiar dodge. It’s of a kind with open borders immigration activists who solemnly scold the public with the contention that “people can never be illegal” and then go about high-fiving one another as if they’ve deftly scored some stylistic points. No, people are not illegal, but their behavior sometimes is. No, Hillary Clinton is not the subject of an investigation, but her reckless disregard for America’s state secrets most certainly is. Only in the minds of Clinton’s increasingly desperate defenders is this a distinction with a perceptible difference.

It seems likely now that the swirling controversy around Clinton’s conduct will dog her for the remainder of her presidential campaign. There will be no exculpation for her behavior – merely a slow drip of information regarding her conduct and the jeopardy in which it put American national security. Clinton’s claim to be a competent commander-in-chief is forever tarnished. Even if someone close to her were to fall on their sword, it is too late to avoid the impression that this attempt at damage control was not done at the behest of a Machiavellian political figure failing in the effort to revive her ailing career.

Judging from the tone of the commentary surrounding Clinton’s downfall, it seems as though political observers that they cannot believe what they are witnessing. How could it be possible that a colossus like Clinton who seemed destined to occupy the Oval Office could be undone by such a careless misstep? But in the same way that a mosquito bite can fell the strongest man if left uncared for, what was once a minor scrape for Clinton has grown gangrenous. On Wednesday, a poll of New Hampshire Democrats showed that the eccentric socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has finally eclipsed Clinton. She now faces the prospect of a wounding primary and a competitive general election. If Democrats are forced to choose between advancing the liberal project and Hillary Clinton’s reputation, they will choose the latter. That horrible choice was once mere hypothetical. This morning, it is all too real.

Via: Commentary

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Hillary has to run ads because she has NO tangible accomplishments – WaPo’s Tumulty

The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty commented on the remarkable lack of tangible accomplishments for Hillary as U.S. Senator and as the Secretary of State this morning on MSNBC.

“Hillary Clinton, assuming she gets the nomination as we do, is likely to be running against a governor or a senator or someone who can point to a lot of very tangible accomplishments in their career, and Hillary Clinton, from her time in the senate, there really were no landmark pieces of legislation with her name on them,” she said.

“As secretary of state, she was largely involved in strengthening relationships with people around the world, but again, there will be not a singular accomplishment like, say, this Iranian arms deal was for John Kerry. When she tried to reform the health system, she failed. When she ran for president, she failed. So, again, the extraordinary part of it is that a woman who has been part of all our lives for this long still feels she has to introduce herself.”

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....

Iran Publishes Book On How To Outwit U.S. And Destroy Israel

While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime and force through a nuclear agreement, Iran’s religious leader has another issue on his mind: The destruction of Israel.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover credits Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”

A friend sent me a copy from Iran, the only place the book is currently available, though an Arabic translation is promised soon.

Obama administration officials likely hope that no American even hears about it.

Khamenei makes his position clear from the start: Israel has no right to exist as a state.

He uses three words. One is “nabudi” which means “annihilation.” The other is “imha” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval” meaning “effacement.”

Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on “well-established Islamic principles.”

One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims.

Khomeinists are not alone in this belief.

Dozens of maps circulate in the Muslim world showing the extent of Muslim territories lost to the Infidel that must be recovered.

These include large parts of Russia and Europe, almost a third of China, the whole of India and parts of The Philippines and Thailand.

However, according to Khamenei, Israel, which he labels as “adou” and “doshman,” meaning “enemy” and “foe,” is a special case for three reasons.

The first is that it is a loyal “ally of the American Great Satan” and a key element in its “evil scheme” to dominate “the heartland of the Ummah.”

The second reason is that Israel has waged war on Muslims on a number of occasions, thus becoming “a hostile infidel,” or “kaffir al-harbi.”

Finally, Israel is a special case because it occupies Jerusalem, which Khamenei describes as “Islam’s third Holy City.”

He intimates that one of his “most cherished wishes” is to one day pray in Jerusalem.

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading....

Blind, stubborn ideology, gross incompetence caused capitulation to Iranian totalitarian theocracy

It looks as if the president and his secretary of state are on a mission to praise, protect and defend their enemies, to despise and punish their allies, and to diminish America

Almost two years of “negotiations,“the final “deal"appears as a total surrender of the Obama government to all the demands of the Ayatollahs who boasted that all their red lines have been met. The deal will put them on the path to become a nuclear power, not as a pariah but legitimized by the US and Europe;they will continue to enrich uranium and to develop their ICBM program; the lifting of the sanctions will give them 150 billion dollars to improve their economy and their military capabilities which include, of course, strengthening Hizbollah, Hamas, and other purveyors of terror in the troubled Middle-East.

The bazaar merchants have trounced the feeble and naïve negotiators led by the team Obama-Kerry. You would think they have defeated America militarily and are now dictating their terms, as the allies in Versailles with Germany or McArthur in Japan. Years ago, Obama asked the Iranian mullahs to “unclench their fists ” and normalize relations with America. They didn’t but he did; he opened his hands, he raised his hands and said “Don’t shoot ! We give you what you want.”

The flaws in the preliminaries:

Some observers think that the original sin was not to limit the negotiators to US vs Iran but to include what is called P5+1 with Russia and China a sort of fifth column siding with Iran.

This was, indeed, a flaw, but a deliberate one, not a mistake.I think the Obama team knew in advance that they wanted a deal at any price, and intentionally enlarged the forum so that they could use the “other partners” as excuses for the multiple concessions they knew they had to make . How many times we heard Kerry say, apologetically, that “we are not alone;we had no choice if we wanted to keep our partners…”

Another flaw was pointed out by James Jeffrey , former ambassador to Iraq, who said after the “Interim agreement:” Those who studied the art of negotiating found two big mistakes that should be avoided :never show that you are desperate to obtain a deal and never take off the table a credible threat of use of military force if the talks collapse.” The shrewd Iranians knew that Obama was desperate for a deal and swore off the use of force, and they ratched up their demands.

Rather than set a time limit, the negotiations continued on and off indefinitely. The give-and-take which is the essence of any negotiation, was a one-way activity: we gave and they took, slowly but surely, extension after extension, concession after concession, red line after red line crossed. That is a huge flaw, for what is in discussion here? Obama started with bombastic declarations, often repeated, that “we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon…I don’t mean to only contain ...” It was a very simple proposition:  First Iran should dismantle her nuclear paraphernalia, (as did Qaddafi of Libya after America attacked Iraq), and then discuss the modalities and the compensations. But Iran never said it would dismantle the nuclear facilities, above and underground—known and secret—in Natanz, Fordow, Parchin and other places. So they negotiated the “time line,” when and how it will be permitted to acquire the bomb.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] DEMOCRAT TO KERRY: WILL YOU FOLLOW THE LAW IF CONGRESS OVERRIDES OBAMA VETO ON IRAN DEAL? UH…

Well this is interesting. Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman asks Kerry directly that if Congress overrides a veto on the Iran deal and sanctions are reimplemented, will he follow the law even if he thinks it’s stupid policy? Kerry says he’ll have to consult with Obama on that one.

How can his answer not include ‘well we will obviously follow the law…’? It’s not a hard question to answer.

Geez. Kerry can’t even admit before Congress that he will obviously follow the law. No, he’s got to go consult his lawless president.

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....

[COMMENTARY] Startling 'secret clauses' with US/Iran deal

Andrew HarnikAs the White House campaign to persuade Congress about the wisdom of its Iran nuclear deal moves into its second week, important components of the complex agreement are emerging that will be shrouded from the public and in some cases from the U.S. government itself.

The existence of these secret clauses and interpretations could undermine the public's trust in the Barack Obama administration's presentations about the nuclear pact. Already Republicans and other critics of the deal have seized on the side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency as a weakness in the deal closed last week in Vienna.

The controversy began on Wednesday when Secretary of State John Kerry told House lawmakers behind closed doors that he neither possessed nor had read a copy of two secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran, according to Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee who was inside the session. Congress hasn't seen those side agreements either.

"Kerry told me directly that he has not read the secret side deals," Pompeo told us in an interview. "He told us the State Department does not have possession of these documents."

In other cases, secret understandings were provided to legislators. Congress on Monday was given a set of non-public interpretations of the Iran deal, according to House and Senate staffers who have seen the documents. These were part of 18 documents the White House provided to Congress as required under legislation passed this spring that gives Congress 60 days to review the Iran deal.

Of the 18 documents, six are classified or confidential, the staffers told us. These include secret letters of understanding between the U.S. and France, Germany and the U.K. that spell out some of the more ambiguous parts of the agreement, and classified explanations of the Iran deal's provisions that commit other countries to provide Iran with research and development assistance on its nuclear program. There is also a draft of the U.S. statement to be made public on the day the Iran agreement formally goes into effect.

Those are the secret understandings Congress and the administration have put on paper. But in the case of the side agreements with the IAEA, Congress and the executive branch may not have all the facts. In Wednesday's closed session, Kerry sparred with Pompeo, who last weekend traveled with Republican Senator Tom Cotton to Vienna last weekend to meet with IAEA officials. Those agency representatives told the lawmakers the that two secret side deals covered how the IAEA would be able to inspect the Parchin military complex and how the IAEA and Iran would resolve concerns about the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program.

The briefing for lawmakers was classified, but the Kerry- Pompeo exchange was not. Pompeo pressed Kerry on the details of the side agreements between the IAEA and Iran. Kerry acknowledged he didn't know all of the specifics.

A statement distributed by the State Department on Wednesday disputed the characterization that the agreements between Iran and the IAEA were "secret." Instead, it described them as "technical arrangements" and said U.S. experts were "comfortable with the contents," which the State Department would brief to Congress if asked.

"It is standard practice for the IAEA and member states to treat bilateral documents as 'safeguards confidential,' " the State Department statement said. "This is a principal the United States has championed throughout the IAEA's existence to protect both proprietary and proliferation sensitive information. We must be able to ensure that information given to the IAEA does not leak out and become a how to guide for producing nuclear materials that can be used in nuclear weapons, and that countries know their patented or proprietary information won't be stolen because they are released in IAEA documents."

But while these agreements may be standard operating procedure in the case of other IAEA nuclear inspections, with Iran it's potentially more serious. On Thursday, during an open session before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Senator James Risch said his understanding was that one of the IAEA-Iran side agreements would allow Iran to take its own environmental samples at Parchin. Speaking around the specifics, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, chairman of the committee, compared this arrangement to the NFL allowing athletes suspected of taking steroids to mail in their own urine samples.

Kerry and others have told Congress that the agreement about Parchin and the understandings about IAEA inspections in general are largely technical and do not weaken a strong agreement. Needless to say, Pompeo disagrees. "Kerry gave no indications they are seeking these documents and there is no indication he is the least bit worried he doesn't have access to this. The Ayatollah knows what's in the deal but we don't," he told us, referring to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

For the Obama administration, not having copies of the side agreements between Iran and the IAEA is convenient. The law requires it to give Congress all the documents it possesses and only those documents. If the side agreements are outside the reach of Kerry, they are outside the reach of Congress and the American people.

On the other hand, that fact undermines Obama's argument that the overall deal can be verified and is transparent. Already Iranian leaders have publicly spoken about the Iran deal in terms vastly different from their American counterparts. The existence of secret understandings of that deal will only exacerbate this tension over time.

Eli Lake is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about politics and foreign affairs.

Josh Rogin is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about national security and foreign affairs.

Via: The Monitor

Continue Reading....

[VDIEO] Kerry Repeats Claim – Evidently Wrong – About UN Resolution Language on Iran Missiles, Arms Embargo

CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration’s assertion that a key U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution predicates the lifting of arms and ballistic missile restrictions on Iran to Tehran’s willingness simply to come to the negotiating table, is evidently wrong.

Security Council resolution 1929 of 2010 does not say the restrictions will be lifted if Iran merely enters negotiations, as Secretary of State John Kerry and others have stated repeatedly since the nuclear deal was finalized on July 14.

Instead, paragraph 37 of the resolution says the measures will be lifted after Iran “suspends all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities,” to allow for negotiations; and after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has certified that Iran has fully complied with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions passed earlier, as well as with IAEA requirements relating to its nuclear activities.

Iran has neither suspended “all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities,” nor has the IAEA determined that Iran has complied with all of the relevant obligations and requirements. On the contrary, the IAEA has stated in numerous reports that Iran is contravening its obligations to suspend uranium enrichment and other activities.

Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was announced, the administration has come under fire over the fact that it provides for a lifting of the conventional arms embargo and missile trade restrictions.

The two areas – conventional arms and ballistic missiles – are not directly linked to the nuclear program (even though they were included in earlier Security Council resolutions relating to the nuclear issue). This prompted critics to ask why the U.S. allowed Iran to insert them into the nuclear talks, even as it acceded to Iran’s refusal to include other non-nuclear issues on the agenda, such as the imprisonment of U.S. citizens in Iran.

Pushing back, the administration has characterized the issue as a diplomatic victory on its part, saying that P5+1 partners Russia and China wanted those sanctions lifted immediately, but that the U.S. and European allies stood firm, and succeeded in winning a five-year delay for a lifting of the arms embargo, and an eight-year delay in the case of the missile sanctions.

And in making the argument, Kerry in particular has pointed repeatedly to resolution 1929.

Most recently, he did so at an event at the Council of Foreign Relations on Friday.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Iran: A BAD DEAL

Via: You Tube

In Heated Senate Hearing Kerry Portrayed as ‘Naïve,’ ‘Fleeced’ by the Iranians

(CNSNews.com) – U.S. senators opposed to the Iran nuclear agreement told Secretary of State John Kerry Thursday he had been “fleeced” and “bamboozled” by the Iranians.

Several said that while Iran was once isolated as an international “pariah” now the administration asserts that should Congress reject the deal, then it is the U.S. that will be the pariah.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), author of the legislation that provides for congressional review of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), set the tone in his opening remarks.

“From my perspective, Mr. Secretary, I’m sorry, not unlike a hotel guest who leaves only with a hotel bathrobe on his back, I believe you’ve been fleeced,” he told Kerry. “In the process of being fleeced, what you’ve really done here is you have turned Iran from being a pariah to now Congress being a pariah.”

Corker was referring to a recent spate of administration warnings that if Congress votes to reject the JCPOA, that will leave the U.S. internationally isolated, and could lead to war.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said the administration’s “mantra” has changed from “no deal is better than a bad deal” to “you have to accept this or else it’s war.”

“We have gone from the position where we started, when we had Iran isolated, and they were viewed on the world stage as pariah,” he said. “If we don’t go along with this, we’re told, the other negotiators are going to go along with this, and the United States will be isolated on this issue, and we will be the pariah on the international stage.”

“All I can say is after reviewing this, even in a cursory fashion, anyone who believes this is a good deal really joins the ranks of the most naïve people on the face of the Earth,” Risch told Kerry.

Kerry pushed back, quoting from media articles quoting former Israeli Shin Bet intelligence agent chief Ami Ayalon as calling the JCPOA a useful measure to curb the Iranian threat.

“I don’t think he’s naïve,” declared Kerry, who appeared together with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.

(The Times of Israel reported that Ayalon’s evaluation “runs counter to near unanimous criticism of the deal among mainstream Israeli officials, who fear it will fail to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” It noted that Ayalon later become a lawmaker in the opposition Labor Party, whose current leader opposes the Iran deal.)

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) defended Kerry. If the U.S. had been “fleeced,” she said, then so too had other countries – “almost everybody in the world.”

She listed other countries involved in the negotiations – or members of the U.N. Security Council which on Monday passed a resolution endorsing the JCPOA – asking Kerry each time whether those countries supported the deal. They had, he replied.

“If you were bamboozled,” Boxer told Kerry, “the world has been bamboozled – that’s ridiculous. And it’s unfair and it’s wrong.”

“You can disagree, for sure, with aspects of this agreement,” she chided her colleagues. “but I think we need to stay away from that kind of rhetoric.”

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading...