Trump Nixes Iran Nuke Deal


VIDEO: Trump Announces U.S. Withdrawal From Iran Nuclear Deal

 

Posted by Washington Free Beacon

Published on May 8, 2018

 

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© May 9, 2018

 

Yesterday President Trump did a magnificent thing. He ended former President Obama’s (the next Benedict Arnold at worst or Aaron Burr at best) so-called Iran Nuke Deal that only delayed a nuclear armed Iran. Obama’s lie: the deal prevented a nuclear armed Iran.

 

Traitors: Benedict Arnold, Aaron Burr & Obama

 

President Trump’s election mandate from my perspective is to unravel all the damning acts Obama’s designs to fundamentally transform America into a State supremacist Socialist nation where the People are told how to think rather than the People telling the government how to act.

 

Stopping to put trust in Iran’s criminal Islamofascist Shi’ite ruling elite is not only a great thing for American National Interests, but also for the people of Western Nations that have benefitted from actual free elections deciding their national path.

 

ONE THING to keep in mind: The Iran Nuke Deal was NOT a treaty ratified by the Senate. Obama chose to circumvent the Constitution (as he had done so many times) and sign an agreement with Iran as an Executive Order. An EO is easily undone by the next President’s EO action. Thank you President Trump.

 

Below are a series of articles about President Donald Trump’s decision with a few titles that may be of interest.

 

JRH 5/9/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Promise Kept — Trump Nukes Iran Deal

Yet another pillar of Barack Obama’s horrible legacy crumbles at Trump’s hands.

 

By National Security Desk

May 9, 2018

The Patriot Post

 

Trump Caption: I Undid his (BHO) deal & Legacy. Patriot Post

 

Keeping his promise, President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that the United States will withdraw from the “horrible” Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and reinstate sanctions that were suspended as part of the deal. “We will not allow American cities to be threatened with destruction. We will not allow a regime that chants ‘Death to America’ to gain access to the most deadly weapons on earth,” Trump declared. “Today’s action sends a critical message: The United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises I keep them.”

 

Despite attempts by the Europeans to dissuade Trump, despite John Kerry’s smoke-filled-backroom efforts to save the deal, and despite Iran warning that it would be “a historic mistake” to withdraw, the president reiterated what he has said all along: “We cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement.” Trump reportedly remains open to improving the deal, and he will now have economic leverage to persuade Iran and the Europeans to do just that.

 

Barack Obama, who paid the Iranians $1.7 billion in ransom cash loaded on pallets as well as hundreds of billions more in sanctions relief, predictably criticized the decision to withdraw — which is tantamount to an endorsement in our book. “Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies,” Obama admonished, adding that it’s “a serious mistake.” But the biggest mistake was made by Obama and his feckless secretary of state, Kerry, caving in to one Iranian demand after another and agreeing to the deal. As we said at the time, “You want it bad, you’ll get it bad.”

 

Obama was so desperate for a foreign policy “victory” that getting a deal was more important than the content of the deal. Having agreed to a deal that he knew would never pass the Senate as a treaty, the minute the ink was dry Obama instead ran to the United Nations, which passed a Security Council Resolution establishing the deal’s terms. But only laws passed by the U.S. Congress, or treaties approved by the Senate, are binding on the actions of the United States. And as “constitutional scholar” Obama and long-time Senator Kerry undoubtedly knew, any deal that really was in the United States’ best interest would have been able to pass muster in the Senate and gain the two-thirds votes needed to ratify a treaty.

 

Obama and his various minions told us time after time that the deal would moderate Iran’s behavior and help bring it back into the community of nations, but a quick survey of recent events shows the spectacular deception of that claim.

 

Iran is fighting a proxy war in Syria to keep Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime in power, and it probably has more troops on the ground than any group other than the Syrian Army. It continues flying military equipment into Syria via Iraq, attracting the occasional Israeli airstrike (including one just last night) and risking major escalation of the fighting there. Its proxies in Yemen have fired Iranian-made weapons at U.S. Navy ships in the Red Sea, as well as used one of Iran’s signature weapons, the explosive boat, to hit and severely damage a Saudi warship. Its ballistic missile activity has continued unabated, despite UN Security Council Resolution 2231’s prohibitions on such activity. In addition to missile testing, Iran has actually fired ballistic missiles at targets in Syria, and its Yemeni proxies have fired Iranian-made missiles into Saudi Arabia.

 

Needless to say, we don’t see much moderating in Iran’s behavior. Worse, Obama helped fund Iran’s increased terror sponsorship.

 

In the coming days and weeks we expect the various actors that supported the deal — Democrats, the Leftmedia, the Europeans, the Iranians — will all make the most of the opportunity to paint President Trump as a bumptious and warmongering rube. The Europeans will follow Obama’s cue and decry the undiplomatic behavior of withdrawing from a gentlemen’s agreement. The Iranians will shout about the untrustworthy nature of the United States. We even expect Rep. Maxine Waters will ascribe racism to President Trump’s decision, claiming it is an act of spite against his African-American predecessor.

 

But all the wailing and teeth-gnashing among various Europeans, Iranians, Democrats (and even some short-sighted Republicans) will merely serve to demonstrate the double injury Obama inflicted when he accepted the deal. The first injury was the deal itself. The second, as we said at the time, was that some future president would have to withdraw and harm our standing with friends and foes alike.

 

That day has now come, and our standing with our European allies may indeed suffer temporarily. Iran may try to create even more mischief around the Middle East. Oil markets and the U.S. and world economies may feel some pain as Iran’s oil market is squeezed.

 

But the undeniable fact is that the existing nuclear agreement merely kicked the can down the road for a decade, ensuring that Iran would emerge with a full, UN-approved nuclear fuel cycle that would enable very rapid nuclear breakout in the future. Dealing with this problem now, even if painful, is vastly better than dealing with it later, when it may not only be painful but also deadly. Withdrawing from the nuclear deal is a first step in the right direction.

 

On a final note, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un should take note that Trump isn’t messing around. Perhaps he already has, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo returns home today from Pyongyang with three released American hostages.

++++++++++++++++++

Donald Trump Ends the Obama Mirage

The Iran nuclear deal, 2015-2018

 

By Matthew Continetti
May 8, 2018 3:03 pm

Washington Free Beacon

 

President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aka the Iran nuclear deal, on the afternoon of May 8. The deal, announced to such fanfare in July 2015, did not live to see its third birthday. And for that, I am grateful.

 

Why? Because the president said not only that America will be leaving the accord. He declared that the period of waxing Iranian influence in the Middle East is at an end. The deal financed several years of Iranian expansion through Shiite proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. By reimposing sanctions, President Trump will weaken an already ailing Iranian economy. The Iranian currency, the rial, has plummeted in recent weeks. Inflation is rampant. The financial system is corrupted, dysfunctional. Strikes are proliferating, and often turn into displays against the government. This is a situation the United States should seek not to mitigate but to exacerbate.

 

Removing ourselves from the deal puts Iran on the defensive. Its people and government are divided and uncertain how to respond. Its leverage is minimal. Iranian citizens have seen their leaders use the money from the deal not to improve the economic lot of the average person but to fund the military, IRGC, and other instruments of foreign adventurism. Implicit in the deal was recognition of the Islamic regime as a legitimate member of the so-called “international community.” President Trump has rescinded that recognition and the standing that came with it. The issue is no longer Iranian compliance with an agreement that contained loopholes through which you could launch a Fateh-110 heavy missile. The issue is whether Iran chooses to become a responsible player or not, whether it curbs its imperial designs, cuts off its militias, abandons terrorism, opens its public square, and ceases its threats to and harassment of the United States and her allies. That choice is not Donald Trump’s to make. It is the Iranian regime’s.

 

Trump has made his choice. Like he did with the Supreme Court, the Paris Climate Accord, and the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, Trump kept a promise made many times throughout the campaign. In truth, anyone who has listened to Trump over the last several years should not be surprised by his decision. From the beginning, he understood that any deal which gives the weaker party benefits up front in exchange for minimal temporary concessions is not a deal worth taking. And since he does not accept the worldview that inspired the deal, there is no reason for Trump to remain in it.

 

The worldview Trump opposes privileges therapy and dialogue over realism and hard decisions. It imagines that the Iranian theocracy is a reliable or trustworthy hedge against Sunni power and will liberalize gradually as the arc of justice progresses. These are the ideas that motivated the presidency of Barack Obama. The Iran deal was the signature achievement of Obama’s second term, and it is now gone. In truth, though, Obama’s legacy was disappearing long before Trump made his announcement. Obama’s legacy, like much of his self-presentation, was a mirage, a pleasing and attractive image that, upon closer inspection, loses coherence.

 

Because he governed so extensively through executive order and administrative fiat, because he was so contemptuous of criticism and had a “my way or the highway” approach to negotiations with Republicans (though not with Iranians), the longevity of Obama’s agenda depended heavily on his party winning a third consecutive term in the White House. As Tom Cotton warned the Iranians years ago, an agreement entered into by a president and not submitted to the Senate as a treaty can be abrogated by the next man who holds the office. Hillary Clinton’s failure doomed the Iran deal and the reputations it had established. It was Barack Obama and John Kerry who allowed Donald Trump to exit the deal by rejecting longstanding procedure. Perhaps it was knowledge of this fact that inspired Kerry in his desperate attempt to preserve the agreement.

 

Trump has spent much of his time in office reversing Obama policies that were made outside of, or in opposition to, America’s constitutional framework. He has had the hardest time repealing Obamacare, for the very reason that the Affordable Care Act was passed by the Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. That is a lesson for any president: To have a long-lasting influence on American life, work within the system bequeathed to us by the Founders.

 

Because Republicans widely shared a negative attitude toward the Iran deal, many people assume that President Trump is doing what any other GOP president would do. But I am not sure. Another Republican president who had come up through the political system, or been enmeshed in the foreign policy establishment, or held elite opinion in esteem may well have given in to pressure to remain in the Paris accord, keep the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, and stay, at least partly, in the JCPOA. Trump’s outsider status and independence give him the freedom not only to flout political correctness but to repudiate the international and domestic consensus in ways his supporters love.

 

It took a small boy to say the emperor had no clothes. And it took Donald Trump to say that Barack Obama’s foreign policy legacy was a superficial and dangerous mirage.

 

Matthew Continetti is the Editor in Chief of the Washington Free Beacon. He can be reached at comments@freebeacon.com.

+++++++++++++++++++

Defying world, Trump says US withdrawing from Iran nuclear deal

Citing Israeli intelligence, president slams ‘defective’ pact, promises ‘highest level of economic sanction’ on Tehran

 

By ERIC CORTELLESSA

8 May 2018, 9:46 pm

Times of Israel

 

US President Donald Trump announces his decision on the Iran nuclear deal in the Diplomatic Reception Room at the White House in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2018. (AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEB)

 

WASHINGTON — President Trump announced the US was withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, following through on a campaign promise and defying European allies who implored him to maintain an agreement that international agencies have said Tehran is honoring.

 

In a highly anticipated address from the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room, Trump cast the landmark agreement forged under predecessor Barack Obama as “defective” and unable to rein in Iranian behavior or halt the Islamic Republic’s quest to develop nuclear weapons.

 

“I’m announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal,” he said, adding that his administration “will be instituting the highest level of economic sanction.”

 

Trump said the 2015 agreement, which included Germany, France, Russia, China and Britain, was a “horrible one-sided deal that should never ever have been made.”

 

His remarks came ahead of his self-imposed May 12 deadline to walk away from the deal; that date is when the president would be required to renew waivers on sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program as required under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the deal is formally called.

 

Trump emphasized that sanctions would also apply to other nations that did business with Iran, meaning that the United States could very well apply sanctions on its closest European allies. “America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail,” Trump said.

 

However, officials said European companies would have several months to pull out of the Iranian market.

 

Trump said that his explosive move would signal “the United States no longer makes empty threats” on the world stage. “When I make promises, I keep them,” he said.

 

Responding to the move, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has lobbied against the deal, said he offered his full support for Trump’s “bold move.”

 

In Iran, President Hassan Rouhani said Tehran would remain in the deal, but his country could resume nuclear activity if need be.

 

European signatories vowed to stick by the agreement.

 

In January, Trump waived sanctions for the third time in his presidency, but said he wouldn’t take that action again unless Congress and European allies amended the pact.

 

US President Donald Trump signs a document reinstating sanctions against Iran after announcing the US withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear deal, in the Diplomatic Reception Room at the White House in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2018. (AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEB)

 

Since then, international negotiators have unsuccessfully sought to make changes to the deal — and Tehran has refused to accept any alterations to its terms.

 

One official briefed on the decision said Trump would move to reimpose all sanctions on Iran that had been lifted under the 2015 deal, not just the ones facing an immediate deadline.

 

As administration officials briefed congressional leaders about Trump’s plans Tuesday, they emphasized that just as with a major Asia trade deal and the Paris climate pact that Trump has abandoned, he remains open to renegotiating a better deal, one person briefed on the talks said.

 

The Iran agreement, struck in 2015 by the United States, other world powers, and Iran, lifted most US and international sanctions against the country. In return, Iran agreed to restrictions on its nuclear program making it impossible to produce a bomb, along with rigorous inspections.

 

Over the last several weeks, leaders from France, Britain, and Germany have all lobbied the president not to abscond from the accord, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu campaigned assiduously to discredit the deal.

 

Last week, he gave a PowerPoint presentation detailing a trove of documents the Mossad scooped that outline Iran’s covert attempts at developing a nuclear arsenal. Trump cited the trove and said the documents proved he was “100 percent right” in his skepticism and antipathy to the deal.

 

Trump has long cast the JCPOA as “worst deal ever negotiated” and a symbol of American weakness.

 

Trump signaled hours before his announcement an intention to undo the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy achievement.

 

Responding to recent reports that former secretary of state John Kerry recently met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to try and salvage the deal, Trump tweeted: “John Kerry can’t get over the fact that he had his chance and blew it! Stay away from negotiations John, you are hurting your country!”

 

Hours before the announcement, European countries met to underline their support for the agreement. Senior officials from Britain, France, and Germany met in Brussels with Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs, Abbas Araghchi.

 

If the deal collapses, Iran would be free to resume prohibited enrichment activities, while businesses and banks doing business with Iran would have to scramble to extricate themselves or run afoul of the US American officials, who were dusting off plans for how to sell a pullout to the public and explain its complex financial ramifications.

 

In Iran, many were deeply concerned about how Trump’s decision could affect the already struggling economy.

 

In Tehran earlier Tuesday, President Hassan Rouhani sought to calm nerves, smiling as he appeared at a petroleum expo. He didn’t name Trump directly, but emphasized that Iran continued to seek “engagement with the world.”

 

“It is possible that we will face some problems for two or three months, but we will pass through this,” Rouhani said.

 

From left, US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, US Secretary of State John Kerry, and US Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, second from right, at a hotel in Vienna, Austria, Saturday, June 27, 2015. (Carlos Barria/Pool via AP)

 

Members of the Obama administration who helped solidify the international agreement told reporters before Trump’s announcement that the consequences of blowing up the deal could be cataclysmic.

 

“Iran could start on its way back to getting a nuclear weapon,” said Wendy Sherman, a former State Department official in the Obama administration who was the chief US negotiator of the agreement. “It raises risk of conflict in the Middle East. It could potentially put our forces at risk everywhere. It also puts Americans being held in Iran more at risk. It will weaken our alliances with Europe, and for that matter Russia and China, who are important to the North Korea negotiation. This is a crisis that Trump is precipitating himself.”

 

In his speech, Trump said “a constructive deal could easily been struck at the time, but it wasn’t.” The ensuing deal was “a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and all citizens of the United States.”

 

As he has in the past, he cast the deal’s sunset provisions, which allow certain restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program to expire over time, as unacceptable. He said Tuesday, however, that they led Iran to “the nuclear brink” and that, “If I allowed this deal to stand, there would soon be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”

 

He further portrayed the accord as one that would lead to Iran crossing the nuclear threshold, not one that would prevent that.

 

“It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement,” he said. “The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen.”

 

He also said that Iran would ultimately want to re-negotate another deal that fully meets Trump’s demands — something Iran itself has said it would not do. “The fact is they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal,” Trump said.

 

Anthony Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state in the Obama administration, warned this move will give hardliners in Iran an excuse to restart their pursuit of nuclear weapons, but without a united international coalition to oppose them, or inspectors on the ground to expose them.” He said that meant, “we would get to the point where we would have to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon or get into a conflict.”

 

He also surmised that if Iran and Europe decide to stick with the deal, despite Trump’s refusal to renew the sanction waivers, that will “at some point force the administration to sanction our closest allies to stop them from doing business with Iran.”

 

“So we’re on a collision course in two directions,” he added.

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

+++++++++++++++++++

Posts of possible interest:

 

 

 

__________________________

Trump Nixes Iran Nuke Deal

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© May 9, 2018

__________________________

Promise Kept — Trump Nukes Iran Deal

 

Copyright © 2018 The Patriot Post.

 

Support The Patriot Post

_______________

Donald Trump Ends the Obama Mirage

 

©2018 All Rights Reserved 

 

About Washington Free Beacon

______________________

Defying world, Trump says US withdrawing from Iran nuclear deal

 

The Times of Israel homepage

 

National Security Experts Exhort JCPOA Abrogation


John R. Houk

© September 23, 2017

 

The Center for Security Policy (CSP) released an open letter that was also sent to President Trump pertaining to Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). For clarity’s sake, the JCPOA was not a treaty confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the Constitution stipulates for binding international agreements. Rather Obama chose to by-pass the Senate and made largely Classified undisclosed agreement components (AIM – 9/8/16 and Fox News 2/7/17) with Iran allegedly to prevent militarization of nuclear power for – GET THIS – only ten years.

 

Obama’s JCPOA is a classic 21st century version of pre-WWII agreements between Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Germany’s Fuehrer Adolf Hitler in 1938. Chamberlain declared he negotiated a successful peace for our time. That peace was delusional as Hitler was permitted to carve up Czechoslovakia in the name of peace which emboldened Hitler to invade Poland which began WWII.

 

Bolton’s alternative to the JCPOA is not a renegotiation with Iran, rather it’s a strategic alternative to check Iranian expansionism and nuclear militarization.

 

Trump has been falling for the lie Iran has been complying to the JCPOA and thus has recertified that idiotic agreement contrary to the campaign promises. I pray the President listens to the signatories of this letter.

 

JRH 9/23/17

Please Support NCCR

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

45 National Security Experts Urge President Trump to Withdraw From Nuclear Deal with Iran Using the Bolton Plan

 

Email sent by Center for Security Policy

Email Contact Maya Carlin

Email Sent 9/21/2017 11:13 AM

PDF Version

 

(Washington, D.C.):  Today 45 national security experts, many of whom held senior positions in the nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation and intelligence fields, sent a letter to President Trump urging him to withdraw the United States from the deeply flawed 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran (the JCPOA) using a comprehensive plan drafted by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

 

The signatories believe President Trump was exactly right during the campaign when he said the JCPOA is one of the worst agreements ever negotiated.  They believe this agreement is dangerous because it allows Iran to continue its pursuit of nuclear weapons while the deal is in effect, has extremely weak verification provisions, and ignores Iran’s increasingly destabilizing behavior.  Because of the enormous risks the JCPOA poses to American and international security and the impossibility of convincing Iran to amend the agreement, the signers believe the only option is for the United States to withdraw and initiate a new, more comprehensive approach that addresses all of the threats posed by Iran – including its missile program and sponsorship of terrorism – with a broad alliance that includes Israel and America’s Gulf State allies.

 

The signatories endorse Ambassador Bolton’s plan to implement this approach by withdrawing from the JCPOA in coordination with America’s allies.  The signers believe the Bolton plan is the best way to reverse the damage done by the reckless concessions that Obama officials made to Iran to negotiate the JCPOA and to prevent the Iranian nuclear program from spinning out of control as North Korea’s nuclear effort has.

 

Some of the eminent individuals who signed the letter include:

 

  • Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.), Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

 

  • Ambassador Henry F. “Hank” Cooper, Former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space and SDI Director

 

  • Manfred Eimer, Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

 

  • Douglas J. Feith, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

 

  • William R. Graham, Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

 

  • Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security

 

  • Ambassador C. Paul Robinson, former President and Director of Sandia National Laboratories

 

  • Admiral James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Commander-in Chief, Pacific Fleet

 

The full text of the letter is below.

 

September 21, 2017

 

The Honorable Donald J. Trump

President of the United States

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC

 

Dear President Trump:

 

We are writing to you as national security experts, many who worked in the nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation and intelligence fields, to express our strong opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) and to ask that you withdraw the United States from this dangerous agreement as soon as possible.

 

We also call on your administration to declare to Congress next month that Iran has not been complying with this agreement and that it is not in the national security interests of the United States.

 

We strongly supported your statements during the 2016 presidential campaign that the JCPOA was one of the worst international agreements ever negotiated and as president that you would either withdraw from or renegotiate this deal.  Your campaign statements accurately reflected that the JCPOA is a fraud since it allows Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program while the agreement is in effect by permitting it to enrich uranium, operate and develop advanced uranium centrifuges and operate a heavy-water reactor.  Such limited restrictions as the deal actually imposes on Iran’s enrichment program will expire in eight years.  In addition, the JCPOA’s inspection provisions are wholly inadequate.

 

We also note that a joint July 11, 2017 letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from Senators Cruz, Rubio, Cotton and Perdue outlined significant violations of the JCPOA by Iran, the most important of which is Iran’s refusal to permit IAEA inspections of military facilities.

 

In addition, although the JCPOA did not require Iran to halt its belligerent and destabilizing behavior, President Obama and Secretary Kerry repeatedly claimed it would lead to an improvement.  This has not happened.  To the contrary, after the JCPOA, Iran’s behavior has significantly worsened.  Tehran stepped up its ballistic missile program and missile launches.  There was a 90% increase in Iran’s 2016-2017 military budget.  Iran has increased its support to terrorist groups and sent troops into Syria.  Harassment of shipping in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea also increased, including missiles fired at U.S. and Gulf state ships by the Houthi rebels, an Iranian proxy in Yemen.

 

Moreover, in light of major advances in North Korea’s nuclear program, we are very concerned that North Korea and Iran are actively sharing nuclear weapons technology and that Iran is providing funding for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.  CIA Director Mike Pompeo suggested this possibility during a September 11 Fox News interview.

 

We are unconvinced by doom-and-gloom predictions of the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA.  The sky did not fall when you withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord.  Claims that Iran will step up its nuclear program or engage in more belligerent behavior must be considered against the backdrop of what Iran is allowed to do under the JCPOA and its actual conduct since this “political understanding” was announced.

 

Some Iran deal advocates argue that the United States should remain in the JCPOA and instead try to amend it to fix its flaws over several years.  A few contend you could decertify the agreement to Congress, but remain in the deal and then try to amend it.  Since Iran has made it clear it will not agree to changes to the JCPOA, we believe these proposals are unrealistic.  Continuing to legitimate the agreement is not conducive to its renegotiation.  The day will never come when the mullahs agree to amend the sweetheart deal they got in the JCPOA.

 

Ambassador John Bolton has drawn up a plan to implement a far more effective, comprehensive and multilateral approach to address the threat from Iran.  This approach includes strict new sanctions to bar permanently the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran.  He also calls for new sanctions in response to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and efforts to destabilize the Middle East, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

 

Unlike the JCPOA, which was negotiated with no input from America’s allies in the Middle East, Ambassador Bolton outlines a multilateral campaign to forge a new comprehensive approach to the threat from Iran that includes the Gulf States and Israel to assure that their security interests are taken into account.

 

We agree with Ambassador John Bolton that strong international sanctions, a tough negotiating strategy and a decisive American president who will not engage in appeasement is the best approach to rein in Iran’s belligerent behavior and induce it to joining negotiations on a better agreement.

 

As national security experts who understand the urgency of addressing the growing threat from Iran, we urge you to implement the Bolton plan, withdraw from the dangerous Iran nuclear deal and not certify Iranian compliance to Congress next month.  It is time to move beyond President Obama’s appeasement of Iran and to begin work on a comprehensive new approach that fully addresses the menace that the Iranian regime increasingly poses to American and international security.

 

ATTACHMENT: “Abrogating The Iran Deal: The Way Forward” By Ambassador John Bolton [Blog Editor: The “ATTACHMENT” at the end of the signatures in this CSP email. But if you are impatient, here is the National Review version by John Bolton]

 

Sincerely,

 

Winston Lewis Amselem

U.S. Foreign Service Officer, Minister-Counselor (Ret.)

 

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.)

Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

 

Ambassador Henry F. Cooper

Former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space and SDI Director

 

Stephen Coughlin

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence analyst

 

Jack David

Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction and Negotiations Policy

 

Paula A. DeSutter

Former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance

 

Joseph E. diGenova

Former U.S. Attorney District of Columbia

 

Jessie Jane Duff

Gunnery Sergeant USMC (Ret.)

Senior Fellow London Center for Policy Research

 

Dr. Manfred Eimer

Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

 

Fritz Ermarth

Retired CIA officer.  Former chairman of the National Intelligence Council

 

Douglas J. Feith

Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

 

Frederick Fleitz

Former CIA analyst and Professional Staff Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

 

Kevin D. Freeman, National Security Investment Counsel Institute

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting)

 

Daniel J. Gallington

Former General Counsel, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Member, U.S. Delegation to the Nuclear & Space Talks

 

D. Scott George

Brigadier General, USAF (Ret.). President/CEO, IN-Cyber Vision, Inc.

 

Dr. William R. Graham

Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Science Advisor to the President; NASA Administrator and Chairman of the General Advisory Committee (GAC) on Arms Control and Disarmament

 

Larry K. Grundhauser

Brigadier General, USAF Retired

 

Philip Haney

Department of Homeland Security founding staff member and former U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer

 

George William Heiser II

Former Director for Arms Control, Reagan National Security Council Staff

 

Richard T. Higgins

Former Director for Strategic Planning, Trump National Security Council

 

Peter Huessy

President, GeoStrategic Analysis, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for International Energy Security

 

Ambassador Eric M. Javits

Former US Permanent Representative and Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament and to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

 

Ambassador Robert G. Joseph

Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; Assistant to the President on Arms Control and Nonproliferation; and Chairman of the ABM Treaty Standing Consultative Commission

 

Morton A. Klein

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President

 

Dr. Charles M. Kupperman

Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan; former Executive Director, General Advisory Committee to the President on Arms Control and Disarmament

 

Herbert I. London

President, London Center for Policy Research

 

Robert L. Luaces

Foreign Service Officer (Ret.). Former Director, State Department Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs

 

Admiral James A. Lyons

U.S. Navy (Ret.).  Former Commander-in Chief, Pacific Fleet

 

Lt. Gen Thomas McInerney, US Air Force (Ret.)

Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force and Director of the Defense Performance Review

 

Vice Admiral Robert R. Monroe, U.S. Navy (Ret.).  Former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency

 

Daniel Pollak

Co-Director of Government Relations, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)

 

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

Executive Director, Task Force on National and Homeland Security; Senior Staff on the Congressional EMP Commission, Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA

 

George Rasley

Editor of ConservativeHQ and consultant

 

Major General Edward M. Reeder

U.S. Army (Ret.)

 

Ambassador C. Paul Robinson

Former President and Director of Sandia National Laboratories.  Head of the Nuclear Weapons and National Security programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Chief Negotiator and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.S./Soviet Union Nuclear Testing Talks

 

Nina Rosenwald

Founder and President, Gatestone Institute

 

Mark Schneider

Senior analyst, National Institute for Public Policy.  Former Senior Director for Forces Policy and Principal Director for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense.  Former Senior Foreign Service Officer.

 

Tony Shaffer, LTC (ret)

Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and Operations, London Center for Policy Research.  Former CIA-trained senior intelligence operative

 

Sarah Stern

Founder and President, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)

 

Kenneth R. Timmerman

President and CEO, Foundation for Democracy in Iran

 

Victoria Toensing

Former Chief Counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee

 

Adam Turner

General Counsel and Legislative Affairs Director, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)

 

J. Michael Waller

Founding Editorial Board Member, NATO Defence Strategic Communications

 

David Wurmser

Former Senior Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney

 

 

 

ABROGATING THE IRAN DEAL: THE WAY FORWARD

By Ambassador John Bolton

 

I. Background:

 

The Trump Administration is required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with the July 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — JCPOA), and that this agreement is in the national-security interest of the United States.1 While a comprehensive Iranian policy review is currently underway, America’s Iran policy should not be frozen. The JCPOA is a threat to U.S. national-security interests, growing more serious by the day. If the President decides to abrogate the JCPOA, a comprehensive plan must be developed and executed to build domestic and international support for the new policy.

 

Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, the President must certify every 90 days that:

 

(i)  Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement, including all related technical or additional agreements;

 

(ii)  Iran has not committed a material breach with respect to the agreement or, if Iran has committed a material breach, Iran has cured the material breach;

 

(iii)  Iran has not taken any action, including covert activities, that could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program; and

 

(iv)  Suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the agreement is –

 

(I)  appropriate and proportionate to the specific and verifiable measures taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program; and

 

(II) vital to the national-security interests of the United States.

 

U.S. leadership here is critical, especially through a diplomatic and public education effort to explain a decision not to certify and to abrogate the JCPOA. Like any global campaign, it must be persuasive, thorough, and accurate. Opponents, particularly those who participated in drafting and implementing the JCPOA, will argue strongly against such a decision, contending that it is reckless, ill-advised, and will have negative economic and security consequences.

 

Accordingly, we must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel. The JCPOA’s vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran’s direction; Iran’s significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that the JCPOA is not in the national-security interests of the United States. We can bolster the case for abrogation by providing new, declassified information on Iran’s unacceptable behavior around the world.

 

But as with prior Presidential decisions, such as withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty, a new “reality” will be created. We will need to assure the international community that the U.S. decision will in fact enhance international peace and security, unlike the JCPOA, the provisions of which shield Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. The Administration should announce that it is abrogating the JCPOA due to significant Iranian violations, Iran’s unacceptable international conduct more broadly, and because the JCPOA threatens American national-security interests.

 

The Administration’s explanation in a “white paper” should stress the many dangerous concessions made to reach this deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in effect. Utterly inadequate verification and enforcement mechanisms and Iran’s refusal to allow inspections of military sites also provide important reasons for the Administration’s decision.

 

Even the previous Administration knew the JCPOA was so disadvantageous to the United States that it feared to submit the agreement for Senate ratification. Moreover, key American allies in the Middle East directly affected by this agreement, especially Israel and the Gulf states, did not have their legitimate interests adequately taken into account. The explanation must also demonstrate the linkage between Iran and North Korea.

 

We must also highlight Iran’s unacceptable behavior, such as its role as the world’s central banker for international terrorism, including its directions and control over Hezbollah and its actions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The reasons Ronald Reagan named Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 remain fully applicable today.

 

II. Campaign Plan Components

 

There are four basic elements to the development and implementation of the campaign plan to decertify and abrogate the Iran nuclear deal:

 

  1. Early, quiet consultations with key players such as the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, to tell them we are going to abrogate the deal based on outright violations and other unacceptable Iranian behavior, and seek their input.

 

  1. Prepare the documented strategic case for withdrawal through a detailed white paper (including declassified intelligence as appropriate) explaining why the deal is harmful to U.S. national interests, how Iran has violated it, and why Iran’s behavior more broadly has only worsened since the deal was agreed.

 

  1. A greatly expanded diplomatic campaign should immediately follow the announcement, especially in Europe and the Middle East, and we should ensure continued emphasis on the Iran threat as a top diplomatic and strategic priority.

 

  1. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts to build domestic and foreign support.

 

III. Execution Concepts and Tactics

 

  1. Early, quiet consultations with key players

 

It is critical that a worldwide effort be initiated to inform our allies, partners, and others about Iran’s unacceptable behavior. While this effort could well leak to the press, it is nonetheless critical that we inform and consult with our allies and partners at the earliest possible moment, and, where appropriate, build into our effort their concerns and suggestions.

 

This quiet effort will articulate the nature and details of the violations and the type of relationship the U.S. foresees in the future, thereby laying the foundation for imposing new sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear and missile technology or dual use technology to Iran. With Israel and selected others, we will discuss military options. With others in the Gulf region, we can also discuss means to address their concerns from Iran’s menacing behavior.

 

The advance consultations could begin with private calls by the President, followed by more extensive discussions in capitals by senior Administration envoys. Promptly elaborating a comprehensive tactical diplomatic plan should be a high priority.

 

  1. Prepare the documented strategic case

 

The White House, coordinating all other relevant Federal agencies, must forcefully articulate the strong case regarding U.S. national-security interests. The effort should produce a “white paper” that will be the starting point for the diplomatic and domestic discussion of the Administration decision to abrogate the JCPOA, and why Iran must be denied access to nuclear technology indefinitely. The white paper should be an unclassified, written statement of the Administration’s case, prepared faultlessly, with scrupulous attention to accuracy and candor. It should not be limited to the inadequacies of the JCPOA as written, or Iran’s violations, but cover the entire range of Iran’s continuing unacceptable international behavior.

 

Although the white paper will not be issued until the announcement of the decision to abrogate the JCPOA, initiating work on drafting the document is the highest priority, and its completion will dictate the timing of the abrogation announcement.

 

A thorough review and declassification strategy, including both U.S. and foreign intelligence in our possession should be initiated to ensure that the public has as much information as possible about Iranian behavior that is currently classified, consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods. We should be prepared to “name names” and expose the underbelly of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard business activities and how they are central to the efforts that undermine American and allied national interests. In particular, we should consider declassifying information related to activities such as the Iran-North Korea partnership, and how they undermine fundamental interests of our allies and partners.

 

  1. Greatly expanded diplomatic campaign post-announcement

 

The Administration, through the NSC process, should develop a tactical plan that uses all available diplomatic tools to build support for our decision, including what actions we recommend other countries to take. But America must provide the leadership. It will take substantial time and effort and will require a “full court press” by U.S. embassies worldwide and officials in Washington to drive the process forward. We should ensure that U.S. officials fully understand the decision, and its finality, to help ensure the most positive impact with their interlocutors.

 

Our embassies worldwide should demarche their host governments with talking points (tailored as may be necessary) and data to explain and justify abrogating JCPOA. We will need parallel efforts at the United Nations and other appropriate multilateral organizations. Our embassies should not limit themselves to delivering the demarche, however, but should undertake extensive public diplomacy as well.

 

After explaining and justifying the decision to abrogate the deal, the next objective should be to recreate a new counter-proliferation coalition to replace the one squandered by the previous Administration, including our European allies, Israel, and the Gulf states. In that regard, we should solicit suggestions for imposing new sanctions on Iran and other measures in response to its nuclear and ballistic-missile programs, sponsorship of terrorism, and generally belligerent behavior, including its meddling in Iraq and Syria.

 

Russia and China obviously warrant careful attention in the post-announcement campaign. They could be informed just prior to the public announcement as a courtesy, but should not be part of the pre-announcement diplomatic effort described above. We should welcome their full engagement to eliminate these threats, but we will move ahead with or without them.

 

Iran is not likely to seek further negotiations once the JCPOA is abrogated, but the Administration may wish to consider rhetorically leaving that possibility open in order to demonstrate Iran’s actual underlying intention to develop deliverable nuclear weapons, an intention that has never flagged.

 

In preparation for the diplomatic campaign, the NSC interagency process should review U.S. foreign-assistance programs as they might assist our efforts. The DNI should prepare a comprehensive, worldwide list of companies and activities that aid Iran’s terrorist activities.

 

  1. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts

 

The Administration should have a Capitol Hill plan to inform members of Congress already concerned about Iran, and develop momentum for imposing broad sanctions against Iran, far more comprehensive than the pinprick sanctions favored under prior Administrations. Strong congressional support will be critical. We should be prepared to link Iranian behavior around the world, including its relationship with North Korea, and its terrorist activities. And we should demonstrate the linkage between Iranian behavior and missile proliferation as part of the overall effort that justifies a national-security determination that U.S. interests would not be furthered with the JCPOA.

 

Unilateral U.S. sanctions should be imposed outside the framework of Security Council Resolution 2231 so that Iran’s defenders cannot water them down; multilateral sanctions from others who support us can follow quickly.

 

The Administration should also encourage discussions in Congress and in public debate for further steps that might be taken to go beyond the abrogation decision. These further steps, advanced for discussion purposes and to stimulate debate, should collectively demonstrate our resolve to limit Iran’s malicious activities and global adventurism. Some would relate directly to Iran; others would protect our allies and partners more broadly from the nuclear proliferation and terrorist threats, such as providing F-35s to Israel or THAAD resources to Japan. Other actions could include:

 

  • End all landing and docking rights for all Iranian aircraft and ships at key allied ports;

 

  • End all visas for Iranians, including so called “scholarly,” student, sports, or other exchanges;

 

  • Demand payment with a set deadline on outstanding U.S. federal-court judgments against Iran for terrorism, including 9/11;

 

  • Announce U.S. support for the democratic Iranian opposition;
    • Expedite delivery of bunker-buster bombs;

 

  • Announce U.S. support for Kurdish national aspirations, including Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Syria;

 

  • Provide assistance to Balochis, Khuzestan Arabs, Kurds, and others — also to internal resistance among labor unions, students, and women’s groups;

 

  • Actively organize opposition to Iranian political objectives in the U.N.

 

IV. Conclusion

 

This effort should be the Administration’s highest diplomatic priority, commanding all necessary time, attention, and resources. We can no longer wait to eliminate the threat posed by Iran. The Administration’s justification of its decision will demonstrate to the world that we understand the threat to our civilization; we must act and encourage others to meet their responsibilities as well.

 

  1. Although this paper will refer to “the JCPOA,” the abrogation decision should also encompass the July 14, 2015, statement by the Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany, attached as Annex B to Security Council Resolution 2231. The JCPOA is attached as Annex A to Resolution 2231.

 

[CLICK HERE FOR PDF COPY OF THIS RELEASE]

______________

National Security Experts Exhort JCPOA Abrogation

John R. Houk

© September 23, 2017

______________

45 National Security Experts Urge President Trump to Withdraw From Nuclear Deal with Iran Using the Bolton Plan

 

About The Center for Security Policy

 

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org

 

House Lawmakers to Nix Obama Admin-Backed Sale of U.S. Planes to Iran


bho-rouhani-famous-last-words-toon

Dear God in Heaven, did Obama actually believe he could sell planes to Iran and Congress would do nothing about it? Is it really too late to impeach him for treason?

 

JRH 11/16/16

Please Support NCCR

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

House Lawmakers to Nix Obama Admin-Backed Sale of U.S. Planes to Iran

Iran angling to rebuild war fleet with American planes

 

By Adam Kredo

November 16, 2016 5:00 am

Washington Free Beacon

 

Lawmakers in the House are expected to overwhelmingly pass new legislation on Wednesday that would prohibit the Obama administration from facilitating the sale of U.S. aircraft to Iran, according to senior congressional sources who told the Washington Free Beacon that Iran is likely to use American-made planes to rebuild its aging air force.

 

The legislation is viewed as an early test for the incoming Trump administration, which has broadly opposed last year’s comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran and intimated that it would be more confrontational with the Islamic Republic.

 

Senior congressional sources told the Free Beacon that House leaders scheduled the vote on this bill immediately following the election to signal that lawmakers are frustrated with the Obama administration’s ongoing diplomacy with Tehran.

 

If approved, the new bill would bar the Obama administration from granting legal exemptions to corporations such as Boeing, which is working to finalize a multi-billion dollar landmark deal with Iran. The Obama administration has already vowed to veto the legislation.

 

“The American people gave us a mandate to fight radical Islamic terrorism. Preventing aircraft sales to the world’s leading terror state is a pretty good start,” said one senior GOP aide familiar with the legislation. “Clearly this is a top priority for House Republicans—we are making this the first bill we put on the floor after the election. The Boeing-Iran sale is a great opportunity for President-elect Trump to claim an early national security win.”

 

Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), a vocal critic of the nuclear deal and Iran’s continued military buildup, told the Free Beacon that Republican House lawmakers will easily pass the legislation.

 

“It’s no secret I’ve been a vocal critic of the Iran deal—it was a horrible idea at the time and it has proven even worse as we’ve learned about secret side deals and more unilateral concessions to the Mullahs,” Roskam said. “But even those who supported the [nuclear deal] should support this bill. Nothing in the Iran deal obligates the U.S. to allow American banks to finance the Islamic Republic’s efforts to rebuilt its air fleet.”

 

The Obama administration said in a statement late Monday that the legislation would interfere with the United States’ ability to uphold its end of the nuclear deal, which includes guarantees that Iran would be able to access the U.S. marketplace for commercial aircraft.

 

“The bill would undermine the ability of the United States to meet our JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] commitments by effectively prohibiting the United States from licensing the sale of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran for exclusively civil end uses, as we committed to do in the JCPOA, and seeking to deter companies from pursuing permissible business with Iran,” the White House said in a statement.

 

Critics of the administration’s position have pointed to evidence that Iran has a history of converting civilian planes for use in its air force and military.

 

The Free Beacon in October disclosed several instances in which U.S.-made airplanes purchased by Iran in the 1970s had been used by Iran’s military.

 

Roskam told the Free Beacon at the time that there was reason to expect Iran would make similar use of any new planes it purchased from Boeing, which did not respond to a request for comment on the new legislation.

 

“We should not be surprised to see Iran’s latest military demonstrations feature Boeing 747s,” Roskam said. “It is incredibly irresponsible for any American company to sell products to the Islamic Republic that can easily be used for military purposes.”

 

“This is not hypothetical,” Roskam said. “We know the military has requisitioned Boeing planes from Iran Air in the past. Boeing is literally enhancing the military capabilities of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.”

_________________

Adam Kredo   Email Adam Full Bio

 

Adam Kredo is senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Formerly an award-winning political reporter for the Washington Jewish Week, where he frequently broke national news, Kredo’s work has been featured in outlets such as the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and Politico, among others. He lives in Maryland with his comic books. His Twitter handle is @Kredo0. His email address is kredo@freebeacon.com.

 

©2016 All Rights Reserved

 

About Washington Free Beacon

 

“How stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”

—Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address, January 11, 1989

 

The Washington Free Beacon is a privately owned, for-profit online newspaper that began publication on February 7, 2012. Dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day, the Free Beacon produces in-depth investigative reporting on a wide range of issues, including public policy, government affairs, international security, and media. Whether it’s exposing cronyism, finding out just who is shaping our domestic and foreign policy and why, or highlighting the threats to American security and peace in a dangerous world, the Free Beacon is committed to serving the public interest by reporting news and information that is not being fully covered by other news organizations.

 

The Beacon’s chairman is Michael Goldfarb. Its editor in chief is Matthew Continetti. Sonny Bunch is the executive editor. Bill Gertz is senior editor.

 

Our Masthead

 

Letters to the Editor

 

If you would like to contact our editors and writers please READ THE REST

 

%d bloggers like this: