From allowing Iran to keep enriching uranium to abandoning “anywhere, anytime” inspections of Tehran’s nuclear facilities, the Obama administration has crossed many of its own red lines in the nuclear deal that will lift tough economic sanctions on America’s longtime adversary. In December 2013, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said one of the requirements of a good deal with Iran would be to “help Iran dismantle its nuclear program.” He said it was “the whole point” of the sanctions. But the actual deal? It doesn’t require Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. Iran gets to keep some of its uranium-enriching centrifuges and other aspects of its infrastructure. In November 2013, Mr. Kerry said Iran has “no right to enrich” uranium. The actual deal? Iran gets to continue enriching uranium, although it must get rid of two-thirds of its centrifuges and can’t enrich the material to weapons grade. President Obama said he wanted inspections “anywhere, anytime” of Iran’s nuclear facilities to ensure Tehran is adhering to terms of the deal. But the actual agreement? Iran gets 24 days’ notice of inspections of suspicious sites. A secret side deal allows Tehran’s own inspectors to check a military site where work on nuclear weapons was thought to have been carried out. “To be conservative, I’d say at least a dozen red lines have been crossed,” said Michael Rubin, a security specialist at the American Enterprise Institute. “John Kerry is about as credible as Baghdad Bob and probably no more interested in the predominance of American security.” The president and his advisers defend the deal as the best possible and say it will prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that the agreement “will be a significant constraint on Iran’s nuclear program.” “This is reducing their uranium stockpile by 98 percent, unplugging thousands of centrifuges, essentially gutting the core of their plutonium heavy water reactor and agreeing with the [International Atomic Energy Agency’s] request for information and access that’s required to complete their report about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program,” Mr. Earnest said. In Vienna, Iranian officials warned the U.N. agency Tuesday not to bow to pressure from Congress to detail its investigation into Tehran’s past nuclear work, saying Iran will not accept any leaks of their discussions. Iranian Ambassador Reza Najafi said accusations that Iran ever worked on nuclear weapons were baseless. “The IAEA should at the same time exercise utmost vigilance to ensure full protection of all confidential information coming to its knowledge,” Mr. Najafi told reporters. “We won’t accept any kind of leakage of classified information by anyone.” The resistance from Iran prompted Rep. Mike Pompeo, Kansas Republican and a prominent critic of the deal, to renew his call for the administration to release any secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran. “From refusing to let the United States see the secret side agreements, to failing to explain if the IAEA will be allowed to inspect its Parchin military site, Iran is already acting as a bully — dodging questions and telling lies to hide its bad behavior,” Mr. Pompeo said. “Every member of Congress must at least demand that the administration provide us with this entire agreement before we have to vote on this critically important matter of national security.” Words vs. deal Critics in Congress and elsewhere point to the administration’s own words to outline how the deal falls short of what the U.S. hoped to achieve. The Foreign Policy Initiative, a right-leaning think tank in Washington, has highlighted at least 20 areas of the agreement where the administration’s rhetoric doesn’t jibe with the text of the accord. For example, in 2013, Mr. Obama said he envisioned a deal that was so restrictive of Iran’s nuclear program “that they, as a practical matter, do not have breakout capacity” to build atomic weapons. The agreement, however, contains many provisions that expire after a decade or 15 years, making it impossible to claim that it permanently blocks Iran’s path to nuclear weapons. The president told NPR in an interview this month, “Essentially we’re purchasing, for 13, 14, 15 years, assurances that the breakout is at least a year.” The easing of sanctions is another issue. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress this summer that “we should under no circumstances relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.” But under the nuclear agreement, sanctions on conventional arms are to be lifted in five years and missile sanctions in eight years. James Phillips, a senior research fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at The Heritage Foundation, also criticized “crazy” provisions in the agreement that will protect Iran from certain “snapback” sanctions on deals that Tehran signs between the lifting of sanctions and any violation of the nuclear accord.
Words vs Deal….indeed! Obama’s words mean absolutely nothing. Remember the “red line” he drew with Syria, and then “Baby” Assad shrugged his shoulders and stepped over that line…and Obama did nothing? Remember that? So, this is hardly surprising. But, it’s VERY dangerous. The President is supposed to America FIRST. Obama puts America LAST. And, instead of making our enemies fear us like he’s supposed to, Obama cozies up to them and caters to them. Just look at how Obama and Sec. John Kerry are just bending over and grabbing their ankles with Iran…and Russia…and Cuba…and China…and on and on. We all know that Obama is an agenda-driven, extreme liberal, socialist that would like to transform America into a western European socialist state. That’s not news, nor is it even moot. BUT, his desire to weaken the United States, and openly put our country’s national security at risk is a brazen violation of his oath of office. Not only is he a national embarrassment, he’s our country’s greatest national security threat.