Free Markets, Free People

The Iran deal sucks

As if you likely haven’t figured that out yourself by now.  Why does it suck?  Well, here’s the promise:

Touring the Sunday morning talk shows, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz argued that the 24-day delay the deal provides is immaterial.

“We are very confident in our ability to detect the vestiges of any nuclear work beyond 24 days,” he said, and later explained, “When environmental samples are taken and nuclear activity has taken place, it is virtually impossible to clean up that place. You can paint the floors.  You can do what you want. We feel very confident that we would find evidence of nuclear activity.”


Yet, this assumes that the IAEA will be able to inspect Iran’s military sites. What if those sites are off limits?

Ah, the key question.  So … will there be sites that are off limits?

You bet.

Khamenei’s foreign policy adviser, Ali Akbar Velayati, was even more explicit. On July 25, he told al Jazeera’s Arabic service, “The access of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency or from any other body to Iran’s military centers is forbidden.” This was 11 days after the deal was struck.

Just days ago, according to Fars, the Iranian defense minister, Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan, announced, “Iran does not plan to issue permission for the IAEA to inspect every site.” He made clear that inspectors would never be permitted access to missile bases.

While some analysts and officials have dismissed such statements as the ranting of the hardest of hardliners (albeit the foreign and defense ministers and the supreme leader’s closest advisers), the Associated Press has reported that the IAEA has agreed to inspection procedures at the Parchin military site that would deny the agency physical access to the site, relying instead on photographs, videos, and samples collected by Iran. The IAEA disputes the AP story, but has not specified the procedures agreed to with Iran.

Former IAEA chief inspector Olli Heinonen writes, “If the reporting is accurate, these procedures appear to be risky, departing significantly from well-established and proven safeguards practices. At a broader level, if verification standards have been diluted for Parchin (or elsewhere) and limits imposed, the ramification is significant as it will affect the IAEA’s ability to draw definitive conclusions with the requisite level of assurances and without undue hampering of the verification process.”

My guess is the reporting is quite accurate, given the reaction of the Iranians.  They have no intentions of letting anyone into their military installations.  And certainly not representatives of the West.  Of course the administration denies that these two people speak for the regime, even if they are the foreign and defense ministers as mentioned above.

Oh, and what if the IAEA “sniffs” something in the atmosphere?  Then it is the IAEA’s word against Iran’s, given Iran won’t let them inspect the site.  Then what?

Again, you’re asked to suspend your reasoning, ignore facts and statements from high government officials in Iran and believe an administration that has done nothing but lie about just about everything since it has been in power.

Yeah, no sale here.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

21 Responses to The Iran deal sucks

  • The inspections regime established in Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991, mainly under the dictates of UNSC resolution 687, was far more rigorous and intrusive than this deal with Iran. In fact, Hans Blix was then the head of IAEA and he never found Saddam’s nuclear weapons program. It only came to light because a Iraqi defector ratted it out. But 687 wasn’t just more rigorous and intrusive, it was also a major compromise of Iraq’s sovereign authority, which it had agreed to in order to get the allied war effort to stop.

    But, last week, Barack claimed that we “waited too long” to do something about Iraq and that led to the 2003 Iraq War. But that war came about because Iraq was not complying with the 687 dictates as restated and amplified by 1441. We had done everything and more under a deal far more stringent.

  • “and samples collected by Iran”

    “Well Fred, these Parchin samples pretty much shows normal background levels, but….jeeze, if I didn’t know better, I’d swear this sand came from Horseshoe Bay Beach in Bermuda.”

  • The hardest hardliners in Tehran may not have liked Saddam Hussein, but they did learn from his “cat and mouse” activities with the IAEA … and Hans Blix.

  • Wul, yah. Barracula’s MAD deal sucks. It is is most sucky of all sucking deals in all of history.

    Matter of fact, it’s hard to find a “deal” anywhere in the “deal”. That’s how sucky it is!

    (Yet, funny thing…T-rump has said will make it work! Now, THAT sucks!)

    • After one reading, I was left believing that this was a deal between the IAEA and the Iranians, which in return for looking like a “deal,” the other partners at the negotiations would be able to make trade deals with the Iranians, except the “Great Satan.”
      The great “deal” looks like Obama was left holding his … in exchange for a Nobel to be negotiated at a future date.

    • Whut man! – it guarantees pees in our thyme, or something.

  • And….after they get the money and get the sanctions lifted…..does anyone else expect the Europeans to reinstate sanctions if the Iranians merely tell the world to piss off?

  • And, PS — Iran joyously announces they’ve found more high-quality uranium deposits.

    I suspect this is the ayatollahs’ way of having a little fun at OBarky’s expense. Rubbing his nose in their ascendency, as it were…

  • “I guarantee you that those four prisoners are back in our country before I ever take office.”

    “They will be back before I ever take office because they know that’s what has to happen … and if they don’t know, I am telling them right now.”

    There’s chutzpa and then there’s hubris.

    Depending on how well-remembered that “guarantee” is, that is one of the stupidest things anyone has ever said, strategically speaking.

    My first impression when I heard that “guarantee”? “How much would THAT cost us for him to make good? Because he just gave Iran a knife and put it to his own throat.”

    Mr. “Art of the deal” told our adversaries all they have to do is hang on to hostages until after he’s inaugurated, and he starts his administration looking like a weak chump.

    • What are the alternative candidates offer per Iran?

      • Well, not that it’s any kind of response to the T-rump stupidity for you to pose that question, but Cruz will tear it up immediately.

        Inexplicably, T-rump has said he’ll “make it work” while saying it was the worst deal in the history of deals.

        • Cruz supported and co-authored the legislation that allowed Obama to bypass the Constitutional requirement of a Senate vote.

          Anyway, ‘tearing it up’ is not a plan. The real problem is Obama burned our bridges with allies and made us weak in front of out adversaries to the point we can’t maintain sanctions.

          And by the way. I’m not a huge Trump supporter. He is a teaching moment that apparently some people can’t learn from.

      • It was strategically stupid because until he’s President, he doesn’t, as Stalin observed about the Pope, have any divisions with which to enforce anything.
        Why not promise all kinds of other things he’s not in any position to deliver – it’s exactly the same as if he had. Two chickens in every pot, a free house and million dollar retirement packages for all (we won’t go into the economics…), free rides to the moon.

        As a stalking horse I don’t mind the man, I’ll consider him a success if he whittles the clown crew down and keeps “low energy” Bush and “scamnasty” Rubio out of the election, along with the assorted SoCon loons.
        I expect Bush though and all Trump is going to do is pull the curtain open like Toto to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that behind the curtain the Democrats and the Republicans are standing together pulling the levers and turning the valves.

        • There is every reason to support the Trump candidacy. The polls show he is winning, will be the next president. No doubt he will be defeated by illegitimate means by the Outer Party, the fake opposition party, so the bigger his support, the better democracy and electoral politics is exposed as sham. The voices of the Cathedral from time to time say that if he wins, will not be allowed to govern, revealing that they regard legislature and executive as mere theater, a meaningless show performed while the important people take care of the important stuff.

          • Before the media think they can control the narrative after that happens, they should consider the possible outcome and recall where an untouchable unquestionable news media super star like Dan Rather and his TANG Fauxcumentation ended up.

          • Duh Donald’s views on market economics line up with those of Bernie Sanders.

            His views on campaign finance line up with Harry Reid and Nanny Pelosi.

            THOSE…and LOTS of others…are EXCELLENT reasons to NOT support T-rump.

            He’s just a BIG GOVERNMENT Collectivist running under a false flag.

  • If this “treaty” is by executive fiat, the next real president can simply ignore it.
    Of course that won’t get back the billions now funding enemies if the west…
    On the bright side, it will be a target-rich environment.