Nonproliferation Expert: Iran Nuclear Deal ‘Will Be a Historic Blunder,’ ‘Strategic Mistake’


VIDEO: mrcTV excerpt of Ambassador Robert Joseph’s Testimony


CNSNews.com reports on the House Subcommittee Hearing: Iran’s Enduring Ballistic Missile Threat on June 10, 2015. CNSNews excerpts a short minute (of two hours of testimony) of Ambassador Robert Joseph’s thoughts on the Obama Administration’s Nuke deal with Iran. Most of the testimony denotes a huge concern with the path Obama is pursuing to make the deal with Iran.

Here is the roughly two hours of the House Subcommittee hearing as long as the House.gov video is available:

VIDEO: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/63454647

Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

JRH 6/11/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Nonproliferation Expert: Iran Nuclear Deal ‘Will Be a Historic Blunder,’ ‘Strategic Mistake’

By Patrick Goodenough

June 11, 2015 | 4:14 AM EDT

CNSNews.com

(CNSNews.com) – The emerging nuclear agreement with Iran would be a “historic blunder” that eclipses other foreign policy debacles in recent decades, a former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security told lawmakers on Wednesday.

“In my view, if there is an agreement along the lines that has been described by the White House and by the Iranian leadership, I believe it will represent perhaps the single greatest strategic mistake in the national security area in the past 35-plus years of my career,” said Ambassador Robert Joseph.

“And this includes some real blunders,” he continued, citing the Carter administration’s botched attempt to rescue U.S. hostages in Iran in 1980; the 1994 “Agreed Framework” nuclear deal with North Korea; the Obama administration’s attempted Russian “reset” in 2009; and the 2013 Syrian chemical weapons “red line debacle.”

Joseph, a nonproliferation expert who held numerous Department of Defense posts and was undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from 2005-2007, is senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy. He was testifying at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.

He told the panel that a “bad” agreement between Iran and the P5+1 group – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany – due to be finalized by June 30, “will result in a less stable and more dangerous world.”

“There’s no doubt that some will describe the agreement as historic,” Joseph said. “You can expect that from the White House. You can expect that from the New York Times. And it will be historic; it will be a historic blunder.”

The hearing was focused on Iran’s ballistic missiles program, an issue which the P5+1 agreed to keep off the agenda at the nuclear talks.

Joseph said this sent a bad signal to other would-be proliferators.

“Because missiles are excluded at Iran’s insistence, the message to other rogue states will be that we are not serious about imposing costs for missile proliferation,” he said. “This could be a further incentive for those states seeking weapons of mass destruction to acquire ballistic missiles as a means of delivery.”

Joseph recommended to Congress that if a nuclear deal is reached with Iran, “vote on it, and reject it if it’s a bad agreement.”

“I think the metrics are clear. Just ask yourself: Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability? Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way? Is the agreement verifiable? Is there a phased relief from sanctions and are there guaranteed ‘snapback’ provisions? And I think for each of these questions, the answer is clearly no.”

Also taking part in the hearing, Prof. David Cooper of the U.S. Naval War College – testifying in his personal capacity – raised concerns about what Iran’s missile activity said about its intentions.

He observed that there is a close correlation between nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

“At this moment Iran is the only country in the world that says it has no nuclear weapons ambitions, and yet has fielded an intermediate-range ballistic missile,” he said.

Another witness, former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn told the panel that Iranian missiles already “cover most all of the Middle East, and the next generation will include ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles] capable of attacking the American homeland.”

Subcommittee chairman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) called the decision to limit the talks with Iran to “just the nuclear profile,” and to exclude other activities such as Iran’s ballistic missile program, was “perhaps the biggest failure of these negotiations.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said the problem with excluding missiles from the talks was that “ballistic missiles are the most reliable way to deliver nuclear warheads.”

“Ballistic missiles are not a separate and secondary issue, but part and parcel of Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure,” he said. “That’s why Congress has targeted Iran’s missile program with sanctions right alongside its nuclear program.”

______________

About Patrick Goodenough International Editor

 

Patrick covered government and politics in South Africa and the Middle East before joining CNSNews.com in 1999. Since then he has launched foreign bureaus for CNSNews.com in Jerusalem, London and the Pacific Rim. From October 2006 to July 2007, Patrick served as Managing Editor at the organization’s world headquarters in Alexandria, Va. Now back in the Pacific Rim, as International Editor he reports on politics, international relations, security, terrorism, ethics and religion, and oversees reporting by CNSNews.com’s roster of international stringers.

 

Copyright 1998-2015 CNSNews.com.

 

About CNSNews.com

 

CNSNews.com was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.

 

Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes “news.”

 

In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission.

 

CNSNews.com endeavors to READ THE REST

More Than A Threat


A surface-to-surface missile is launched during the Iranian Revolutionary Guards maneuver in an undisclosed location in Iran July 3.

Intro to ‘More Than A Threat

 

Justin Smith writes one of the best essays he has ever written. So kudos to Justin!

 

Justin writes about the Joint Plan of Action (JPA) which is the appellation of Obama’s delusion of peace with Iran over nukes and in which Obama is also offering billions of dollars in “Sanction Relief” to Iran. All the U.S. and the other negotiating Security Council members plus Germany get in return from Iran is an unverifiable PROMISE.

 

Read the preamble to the JPA and ask yourself if Iran will even come close to its part of the agreement.

 

Preamble

The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons. This comprehensive solution would build on these initial measures and result in a final step for a period to be agreed upon and the resolution of concerns. This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein. This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme. This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This comprehensive solution would involve a reciprocal, step-by-step process, and would produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions, as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme.

 

There would be additional steps in between the initial measures and the final step, including, among other things, addressing the UN Security Council resolutions, with a view toward bringing to a satisfactory conclusion the UN Security Council’s consideration of this matter. The E3+3 and Iran will be responsible for conclusion and implementation of mutual near-term measures and the comprehensive solution in good faith. A Joint Commission of E3/EU+3 and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of the near-term measures and address issues that may arise, with the IAEA responsible for verification of nuclear-related measures. The Joint Commission will work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern. (Copied from text version from The Guardian PDF posting of the JPA Agreement)

 

So who believes Iran will the kind of access this preamble insinuates? Just for clarity sake the “E3/EU +3” references these nations: USA, Russia, China/France, Germany and the UK.

 

No it is time to read Justin Smith’s brilliant essay.

 

JRH 12/1/13

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

More Than A Threat

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 11/30/2013 10:45 PM

J. O. Smith Facebook Notes

Posted: November 30, 2013 at 11:09pm

 

Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds.” -Hindu scripture from the ‘Bhagavad Gita’

In the aftermath of the November 24, 2013 interim deal to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which is called the Joint Plan of Action (JPA), Americans bear witness to an Iranian regime that has supported international terrorism, while waging war against the United States and Israel since 1979. We see Secretary of State John Kerry, with an anti-American bias in everything he approaches, purposefully and knowingly pave the way to ensure that Iran will soon acquire a nuclear weapon, while Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, two members of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s cabinet, long “to be in a situation in which the Americans listen to us the way they used to listen to us in the past”. And properly so, America heard Benjamin Netanyahu reiterate that “Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat”.

Vali Nasr, dean of John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, released one of the most naive and idiotic statements in regards to the deal between the U.S, Western powers and Iran. He suggested that Iran might now be helpful in brokering a postwar settlement in Afghanistan, between the U.S. and the Taliban.

Does anyone really believe Iran will ever stop attacking the U.S. and Israel and their interests across the globe, as long as the mullahs, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Islam… the mother of all totalitarianisms-theocracy… keep Iran in a stranglehold?

For 444 days the islamoNazis of Iran held Americans hostage after deposing the Shah, and the attacks against the U.S. continued into the present. Eighty-five percent of the improvised explosive devices used in Iraq in 2004 were furnished by Iran, according to Lt General Moshe Ya’alon, former Israeli Defense chief of staff. Thirty thousand Revolutionary Guard Corps and Quds Force were actively fighting coalition forces in Iraq; throughout the Afghanistan War, these same forces formed hunter-killer teams for the sole mission of killing U.S. soldiers, according to the 5th Special Forces command hierarchy.

And when will Iran’s proxy “holy warriors” of Hezbollah ever be brought to a day of reckoning for the murders of 283 U.S. Marines in Beirut, Lebanon on October 23, 1983? Marines on a “peace-keeping” mission. One must wonder over President Ronald Reagan’s decision not to mount a swift retaliation… the only real failure of his Presidency.

Now, it is surreal to see John Kerry as the chief negotiator striving to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions, when this is the same radical antiwar activist who never met an enemy of the United States that he didn’t like. Kerry should be criminally charged for not registering as an Iranian agent, because he advocated giving Iran nuclear fuel during the first presidential debate in 2004, as “a test” of Iran’s “true intentions”. And, this is seen as especially egregious, once one finds that Hassan Nemazee, top Kerry fund-raiser and alleged “agent” for Iran, stated in a 2004 deposition, that he “would not trust this regime (Iran) on the nuclear issue to have any intentions other than a weaponized program”.

Last week, Ruhollah Hossinian, a hardline lawmaker, stated, “It (JPA) practically tramples on Iran’s enrichment rights”. This is reminiscent of 2006, when the UN Security Council had set an August 31 deadline for Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment programs or face sanctions. On August 31, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, in a televised appearance, stated, “They should know that the Iranian nation will not let its rights be trampled on”. And by March 2007, Iran had added 3000 new centrifuges capable of manufacturing weapons grade uranium to its facilities at Natanz.

The ‘New York Times’ characterized the JPA agreement as “a chance to chart a new American course in the Middle East”, although its reality is virtually the exact same policies America has witnessed liberal Democrats employ for decades. In 1979, A.Q. Khan, a nuclear physicist, gave Pakistan nuclear weapons, under the careless watch of Zbigniew Brzezinski; Khan promptly proliferated this technology, first to North Korea and then to Iran, along with blueprints of a Chinese designed warhead. Madeleine Albright failed to halt Kim Jong Il’s nuclear weapons program during the Clinton administration, and now we see Obama and Kerry falling in line with the advocates of appeasement.

What does it mean to Iran’s mullahs that Obama and Kerry are unwilling to concede an Iranian “right” to enrich uranium? Absolutely nothing. The mullahs want nuclear weapons and a dominant position throughout the Middle East more than they desire peace and prosperity for their people, so no amount of sanctions will achieve a satisfactory result.

Utilizing numerous deceptions, such as tramp steamers off the U.S. and European coasts or physically crossing porous borders, it would not be too difficult for Iran to target 29 critical sites in America and the West, identified numerous times by successive Iranian presidents. Iran’s Shahab-4 missiles have a 2500 mile range and can carry biological, chemical or nuclear warheads. The destruction of these sites would seriously cripple Western power, killing millions of innocent people in the process.

How many times and in how many different ways do we have to hear Iran’s leaders state their intent to destroy “the Great Satan” – America and “the Little Satan” – Israel before we believe them and take their words to heart?

Make no mistake. President Hassan Rouhani is no different from his predecessors, Khatami and Ahmadinejad, and while he couches his statements in ambiguous and subtle nuances, ultimately he hopes to foist an Iranian Islamic nightmare on the world.

A few years after taking power, Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomenei said: “I say let Iran go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world”.

The JPA is merely another delaying tactic for Iran’s mullahs, who are just mere weeks away from seeing their goal come to fruition. And, despite all the best efforts of those like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who asserts “…strong sanctions…brought Iran to the table”, Iran will have nuclear weapons soon.

The world stands at a critical crossroads, and unfortunately the only real solution is a war to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and possibly remove a rogue regime from power, one that should have been targeted long before Iraq or Afghanistan. Rife with cohorts to the jihadists desiring negotiations, no matter the cost, the Obama administration will not answer this call, and Iran fully realizes this due to Obama’s “red-line” failure with Syria. The weight of this solution, unfairly and even more unfortunately, sits on the shoulders of Israel.

In the early 1930s, many viewed Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ as just rhetoric, although he clearly had laid out his program to exterminate the Jews. Sixty-one million deaths, including six million Jews, lay at the feet of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement plan, because, as so eloquently stated by Winston Churchill, the world lacked the “democratic courage, intellectual honesty, and willingness to act”. Let America and the world not make this same mistake again with Iran.
__________________________

© Justin O. Smith

Edited by John R. Houk