Updates from November, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Masoud Dalvand 10:39 pm on November 3, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , ,   

    Significance of nuclear revelations by the Iranian opposition, NCRI 

    The nuclear revelations by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, U.S. Representative Office highlights the continued nuclear weaponization work by the Iranian regime despite the Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.

    For further information please visit our website at http://www.ncrius.org

    Advertisements
     
  • Masoud Dalvand 7:18 pm on October 16, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   

    Fox interview with Maryam Rajavi on Trump new Iran policy 

    After President Donald Trump announced his new policy on Iran on 13 October 2017, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi welcomed this position and called for a free Iran. Watch part of the Fox report which contains Mrs. Rajavi’s position.
     
  • Masoud Dalvand 8:09 am on October 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , ,   

    Newt Gingrich Discussing new release by NCRI-US on Fox & Friends 

    Newt Gingrich Discussing new release by NCRIUS on Fox&Friends 11Oct2017

    Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared on Fox & Friends and discussed the new bombshell revelation by the Iranian opposition about the nuclear weapons program of Iran. The National Council of Resistance of Iran-U.S. Representative Office released a new book, “Iran’s Nuclear Core,” discussing how the Iranian regime has maintained its nuclear weapons program in at least 6 military sites that are not subject to the inspections of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Gingrich says that he has worked with this opposition movement since when he was the speaker and that this group has the best information about Iran because they have a vast network in Iran.
     
  • Masoud Dalvand 6:36 am on October 12, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , ,   

    Iran’s Nuclear Core: Uninspected Military Sites 

    Uninspected Military Sites-NCRI-US

    Iran’s Nuclear Core details how the nuclear weapons program is at the heart, and not in parallel, to the civil nuclear program of Iran. The program is run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) since the beginning, and the main nuclear sites and nuclear research facilities have been hidden from the eyes of the United Nations nuclear watchdog.

    The manuscript details the function of the civil program as a support and cover structure for the nuclear weapons program, which has over the years, changed names and modified structure, but was neither ceased, nor had its key experts changed.

    The main entities associated with the construction and development of the facilities and equipment are primarily associated with the IRGC, to maintain top secrecy.

    The nuclear weaponizations sites are primarily located in large military installations, equipped with large and extensive underground tunnels and facilities shielding the sites from inspections, as well as having the ability to quickly move things around if and when needed.

    Universities have provided valuable access to research facilities, cover to hide the real objective of the program, as well as means to obtain dual use technology or attacking experts.

    Some of the top nuclear experts who have played a crucial role to advance the program have senior ranks in the IRGC.

    Since the 1980s until now, the program has been operated under the direct control and supervision of the highest commanders of the IRGC.

    The book includes details of the uninspected sites, satellite imagery of the locations, details of the organization tasked with the weaponization of the nuclear program named, Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, known by its Farsi acronym SPND, as well as key experts of the program.

    For buying this book go to the below link:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1944942084/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=ncrius-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=1944942084&linkId=fac502484c42650824cea7d26fd4924c

     
  • Masoud Dalvand 7:34 am on October 6, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , ,   

    Zarif Nobel Peace Prize Nominee for Iran Deal while Export of terror abroad continues. 

    Javad Zarif have been mentioned as one of the main nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize because of his role with Federica Mogherini in the Iran Deal,

    We need to remember that his official title during the Iran Deal and still is the Foreign minister of the so called Islamic Republic of Iran, a regime that proudly considers itself as the first “Islamic State” in the world and Zarif is responsible for its foreign affairs including what Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are doing in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Bahrain, Sudan, Kenya, Argentina and… the list goes on.

    When it comes to the Iranian foreign policy, we all know that the IRGC have got a special force called the Quds forces,

    The Quds forces have for a long time been the main foreign policy makers in Iran, in many cases they appoint their staff in the Iranian embassies all over the world.

    According to an U.S. Department of State report about State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview in 2014 “Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.”

    State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview

    The Quds Force is the biggest state sponsored terrorist organization in the world with very close ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bashar Al Assad in Syria, Houthis in Yemen and they are somehow the founder of the sectarian Hashd Al Shabbi in Iraq.

    Qasem Souleimani the head of the Quds forces used to be called the man in shadow in the past but in the recent years or to be more precise since the nuclear negotiations started he have been much more in the media,

    When his first pictures in Iraq and Syria started to appear on social media even Iranian government media outlets were confused whether these pictures have been leaked out by mistake or was really published by the Quds force itself, but soon it became clear that the more the Nuclear negotiations were moving forward the more the Iranian interferences in Syria and Iraq became public and the dead tolls started to rise, so did the number of refugees fleeing the war to take refuge in Europe.

    In a teamwork, while Zarif was playing the public relations role for the Iranian regime and tried to look like the moderate smiling foreign minister, he was benefiting the interferences in Iraq and Syria and playing with it as the strongest card he has got in the foreign policy, especially for the implementation of the Iran Deal.

    It seems like the Nobel Peace Prize committee have forgot that Zarif is the head of the Foreign Policy in Iran and Iran’s Forging Policy is based on export of terror and fundamentalism to Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon
    2 2 Replies 18 18 Retweets 18 18 likes
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    The final outcome was that west somehow stopped the Iranian nuclear program for a while but what the Iran gained was to continue interfering in Syria and Iraq and that Obama and many other western countries turned a blind eye on the Iranian interferences in Syria,

    After the Chemical attack in August 2013 Barack Obama concluded that Bashar Al Assad carried out chemical weapons attacks but added that he had “not made a decision” about whether to conduct a military strike in Syria. This is while he had made it clear that a Chemical Attack would be a red line for the United States in Several Occasions.

    Notably Iran and the United States had already opened a secret diplomatic channel and held bilateral talks in Oman on the nuclear issue in March 2013 and Obama knew that a decision about a military strike on Syria will stop the nuclear negotiations with Iran.

    While some European countries are considering the “Iran Deal” as a successful international effort and want to use it as a sample for North Korea they have fully forgot that the same deal forced them to close their eyes by not stopping the Iranian interference in Syria

    Since the beginning of the Syrian Revolution in 2011, an estimated 400,000 Syrians have been killed, according to the United Nations, this is while both Assad and the Iranian Mullahs have proudly announced in many occasions that if it wasn’t for the Iranian interference in Syria, Bashar Al Assad had been overthrown in 2012.

    Mrs. Maryam Rajavi the leader of the Iranian Opposition (NCRI) stated in 2003 that the danger of the Iranian interference in the region is 1000 times more dangerous than the nuclear program.

     

    via Zarif #NobelPeacePrize Nominee for #IranDeal while Export of terror abroad continues. — iranarabspring

     
  • Masoud Dalvand 7:31 pm on October 5, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , ,   

    What Iran Needs Are Not Concessions But Sanctions 

    With concerns escalating, North Korea should not lead us to tone down our voice and provide further concessions to Pyongyang and Tehran. We should in fact do the opposite.

    More than two years after the flaws of a deal between the P5+1 and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program have become obvious, a chorus is busy insisting there is no other option. While the rendered pact, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has failed to rein in the Tehran regime, correct measures are available at hand.

    Some argue the JCPOA has successfully slowed Iran’s dangerous drive to obtain nuclear weapons. The Center for a New American Security held a forum titled, “Consequences of a Collapse of the Iran Nuclear Deal,” featuring “a plethora of prominent speakers advocating in favor of preserving the deal, including former senior Obama administration official, Colin Kahl, a chief proponent of the agreement,” according to The Washington Free Beacon.

    We Do Indeed Have Other Viable Options

    The highly controversial Parchin military complex, located southeast of Tehran, was “inspected” by Iran’s own “scientists” to provide samples to the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. That is tantamount to asking a murderer to deliver his DNA, in privacy without any supervision, as evidence to compare with that found at a crime scene where closed-circuit cameras recorded his presence at the time of the crime.

    JCPOA advocates say the deal isn’t perfect, yet also claim measures against Iran are ill-founded and can be counterproductive. This is not the case.

    “The administration could discourage global firms from doing business with Iran by leaving open its final position on the deal, and thus placing at risk their business with America,” as proposed in a recent Foreign Policy piece by James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Turkey.

    Yes, such measures would disappoint Tehran. Yet knowledge of this regime’s nature suggests such actions will not push Iran to the brink of abandoning the JCPOA ship, as they are benefiting from the present terms.

    And yes, the Iran nuclear deal is a multilateral agreement, as European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini reminded. Yet also as a reminder, in case of Iran violating the JCPOA terms, the United States can unilaterally launch the “snapback” process and have UN sanctions re-imposed on Iran. In such a scenario there is no need to garner support from Russia or China, both known for backing Tehran, as Security Council veto authority is irrelevant in this regard.

    Appeasement Is a Failed Approach

    With concerns over this issue escalating, the case of North Korea should not lead us to tone down our voice and provide further concessions to Pyongyang and Tehran. We should in fact do the opposite. This dossier should help us realize that appeasement—the same mentality embraced by the Obama administration in blueprinting the highly flawed JCPOA—has placed us where we are today with North Korea.

    Do we seek to trek down the same path with Iran, a state with dangerous influence across the already flashpoint Middle East? One such horrible example is Iran’s involvement in Syria. JCPOA advocates are also describing a “best-case scenario” of providing more concessions to North Korea to muster a “far-from-perfect” pact, similar to the Iran deal, in exchange for Pyongyang to freeze its nuclear development.

    Déjà vu. Haven’t we already experienced this with the Clinton administration’s “Agreed Framework” of 1994? Kim Jong Un recently tested his state’s sixth and most powerful nuclear device, claiming to be a hydrogen bomb. As another harsh reminder, rapprochement with North Korea led to the notorious 2010 sinking of the South Korean destroyer, the Cheonan. It is quite obvious by now that a Pyongyang submarine torpedoed the warship and left 46 sailors dead.

    Does another South Korea naval ship, or a city for that matter, have to be targeted for us to realize that rogue states such as Iran and North Korea will only consider engagement as a sign of the international community’s weakness and take full advantage of it? Or must a U.S. Navy ship in the Persian Gulf come into the crosshairs of Revolutionary Guards’ fast boats for the West to finally open its eyes?

    Some think Iran lacks the necessary will and understands all too well how such a move would spark drastic international measures against its interests. JCPOA advocates (read Iranian apologists) have also delegitimized any concern about Tehran’s intentions by claiming pact violations, such as breaching limits set on heavy water—the substance needed for plutonium-based nuclear bombs—as mere “bumps in the road.”

    This shows those making such arguments either lack the necessary knowledge of Iran’s belligerent nature in the past four decades, or simply fall into the category of Iran lobbyists. Fierce international sanctions left Iran no choice but to succumb to nuclear talks with knees bleeding. More non-nuclear sanctions are needed to make Tehran understand the international community means business.

    “Peace for our time” was the claim made by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his September 30, 1938 speech concerning the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler. Seventy million people paid the price of that strategic mistake with their lives. Let us finally learn our lesson of appeasement and put aside such an approach for good.

    via What Iran Needs Are Not Concessions But Sanctions — Iran Commentary

     
  • Masoud Dalvand 8:34 pm on October 4, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , ,   

    Trump prepares to wound Iran deal- and then save it 

    Trump

    As a candidate, President Donald Trump described the agreement as “catastrophic” and “the worst deal ever.” | Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images

    The president’s national security team finds a way for Trump to wound ‘the worst deal ever’ without killing it.

    Donald Trump’s national security team has unanimously recommended that he decertify the Iran nuclear deal — but that he stop short of pushing Congress to reimpose sanctions on Tehran that could unravel the agreement.

    Trump’s team plans to work with Congress and European allies to apply new pressure on the Iranian regime, according to a strategy developed in an Iran policy review led by national security adviser H.R. McMaster. But the strategy assumes the nuclear deal will remain intact for now.

    The deliberations ahead of an Oct. 15 deadline to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda, were described by a half-dozen sources inside and outside the administration who have participated in the internal debate.

    As a candidate, Trump described the agreement as “catastrophic” and “the worst deal ever.” But the strategy represents a nuanced approach to one of the most important foreign policy decisions of his early presidency. The goal is to allow the president to demonstrate contempt for the agreement and broadcast a new level of toughness toward the Iranian regime — without triggering the international chaos several of his advisers warn would follow from a total withdrawal from the 2015 deal.

    Administration officials cautioned that the strategy has not yet been finalized, and that it could change before the president makes an official announcement.

    But Secretary of Defense James Mattis hinted at the approach early Tuesday when he told a congressional panel that he believes the deal is in America’s interest and that Trump should “consider staying in.” Appearing alongside him, Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the agreement has “delayed the development of a nuclear capability by Iran.”

    Though their rhetoric was far more positive about the deal itself than Trump’s, it is consistent with a White House strategy of decertifying the agreement without pushing Congress to dissolve it through sanctions — and may preview an administration effort to signal to Congress and U.S. allies that Trump is not withdrawing from the deal.

    Iran has warned that if the U.S. reimposes sanctions, Tehran might restart its nuclear program. Some experts and former Obama officials say that could begin a spiral toward possible military confrontation.

    Congress requires the president to certify Iranian compliance with the deal every 90 days. International inspectors and Trump officials like Dunford say that Iran is meeting its technical obligations. But Trump must also declare whether the agreement remains “vital to the national security interests of the United States,” and he is unlikely to do so.

    Under the law, Congress would then have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions lifted by the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in return for limits on Iran’s nuclear program.

    Trump is expected to act as early as next week, though White House officials said an exact date has not been set. After he does, administration officials are expected to press Republican lawmakers not to reimpose nuclear sanctions, which would effectively unravel the agreement in the eyes of the Iranian government and many U.S. allies.

    In return, Trump officials, led by McMaster, plan to reassure congressional Republicans — virtually all of whom opposed the deal — with a pressure campaign against Iran.

    That campaign is at the heart of McMaster’s policy review, due Oct. 31, which has been conducted quietly as the debate over the nuclear deal has played out in public. The new policy is expected to target Iranian-backed militias and terrorist groups, including Lebanon-based Hezbollah, and the financial web that facilitates them.

    Of particular focus will be the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the administration will designate as a foreign terrorist organization, the first time the military wing of a regime will have earned the label.

    The IRGC is the country’s most powerful security organization but also controls large portions of the Iranian economy. The U.S. designated the IRGC’s elite Quds Force as a terrorist group in 2007, and the IRGC itself has been sanctioned for nuclear proliferation and for human-rights abuses. But the entire IRGC has never been designated a terrorist group.

    Critics of the deal are taking a wait-and-see approach to the new strategy. “Just going after the IRGC, while certainly having a lot of virtues, it’s not a complete strategy. … The IRGC has a very large presence in Syria. What are you going to do about that? You have to see how the pieces all fit together,” said Eric Edelman, who served as undersecretary of defense for policy in the George W. Bush administration.

    Trump has twice certified Iran’s compliance with the terms of the nuclear deal, first in April and then in July. But he bridled in July when advisers presented him with a binary choice of certifying or decertifying.

    During an Oval Office meeting with Tillerson, McMaster and former presidential advisers Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka, Trump unleashed a tirade in which he demanded more options and adamantly refused to recertify the deal. Tillerson and McMaster warned him that if he declined to do so, and Congress moved to reimpose sanctions, he would spend the rest of his term embroiled in a bitter debate over the merits of the agreement with allies and foes alike.

    The president ultimately bowed to his advisers, but only after what one senior administration official described as a “knock-down, drag-out fight” that lasted several hours.

    “If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal shortly after the Oval Office meeting. “I think they’ll be noncompliant” by the next deadline, he said.

    McMaster has worked for months to produce what White House officials consider a third option that avoids Trump’s previous frustration. Neither the White House nor the NSC responded to requests for comment.

    “One of the options [presented to the president] is to decertify, continue to waive the statutory sanctions, slap on new non-nuclear sanctions, roll out a new strategy, and then make the case to the Hill that this is not the time to reinstate the nuclear sanctions and there will be a broader strategy to strengthen the deal,” said an Iran policy expert familiar with the administration’s thinking on the issue.

    Mattis, McMaster and other administration officials privately complain that the Obama administration allowed the nuclear deal to distort its wider policy toward Tehran, and have told Trump it is possible to challenge Iran on other fronts without breaking the agreement.

    Inside the administration, the debate pitted Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who favored recertification, against others who subscribed to the views expressed by Mattis and McMaster. A smaller camp, including U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, pushed hard for decertification.

    In the end, the recommendation from the president’s national security team, which last met about a month ago to discuss the issue, was unanimous. Though Tillerson continues to favor recertification, according to two administration officials, one said that he disagrees with the president on so many issues that he has learned to “pick and choose his battles.” When it became clear that the rest of the president’s advisers were coalescing around a third option, he opted to sign on.

    The question is how congressional Republicans, particularly foreign policy hawks, will respond to the White House’s pleas. Administration officials have not yet begun making their case to GOP senators, many of whom campaigned against the Iran deal.

    They include Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who, in remarks Tuesday evening to the Council on Foreign Relations, was to push Congress to “begin the work of strengthening it and counteracting Iranian aggression, with the threat of sanctions and military action if necessary,” according to advance excerpts of his remarks.

    Originally published at: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/03/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-243427

     
  • Masoud Dalvand 7:59 am on September 19, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    ANALYSIS: Comprehending Trump’s new Iran policy 

    Trump has put Iran “on notice” over charges that Tehran violated a nuclear deal with the West by test-firing a ballistic missile. (Reuters)

    Iran Commentary

    There is a new understanding in Washington over how US President Donald Trump, set to deliver his first United Nations General Assembly speech tomorrow, can tackle the Iran challenge.

    It would be wrong to view the conglomerate of Iran-created crises through a single periscope focusing exclusively on the nuclear dilemma. Iran’s meddling in states across the Middle East, its support for terrorists groups including the likes of the Lebanese Hezbollah, the continuous pursuit of ballistic missiles and domestic human rights violationsare also serious concerns.

    The question is how to adopt a proper Iran policy approach to address all questions with equal importance. The plan has been described as a “21st century financial version of [John F.] Kennedy’s Cuba quarantine,” according to a copy leaked to the media. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, known to early on voice Washington’s possible policy of supporting regime change in Iran, shed light…

    View original post 975 more words

     
  • Masoud Dalvand 9:25 pm on August 31, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    Why and how to tighten the screws on Iran 

    Two years ago, nuclear negotiations concluded between Iran and the P5+1 group of nations, with the U.S. at its head. The resulting Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal, has accomplished little in the time since.Some may argue that the agreement succeeded in slowing Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. But the restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program are limited,
    as is the access that international inspectors have to the country’s illicit facilities.
    Meanwhile, in areas unrelated to the nuclear agreement itself, the Iranian regime’s behavior has only gotten worse over the past two years. Anti-Western rhetoric has been backed up by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has, among other nefarious activities in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, deliberately sought out close encounters with American warships, boasted of new Iranian military equipment, and declared readiness for war.
    These and other provocations justify the Trump White House’s efforts to enforce a harder line on Iran policy than had been established in the lead-up to JCPOA. That is why the president’s signature on H.R. 3364, titled “Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017,” presents a step in the right direction.
    Tehran officials, attempting to discourage the Trump administration from intensifying sanctions, have insisted such measures as violations of JCPOA, even though non-nuclear sanctions are unaffected by the terms of the deal. The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, and other officials, claim Iran is prepared to restart and escalate full-scale enrichment of nuclear materials. This assertion already implies that nuclear improvements never halted despite an Iranian facade of following the JCPOA’s restrictions.
    In June, the National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed details of the escalation of the Iranian missile program, proving the nuclear threat to be real. The opposition coalition identified more than 40 sites for missile development, manufacturing, and testing, all of which were under the control of the IRGC. What’s more, at least one of those sites was known to be collaborating with the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, known by its Farsi acronym SPND, the institution tasked with weaponization activities related to the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
    Such revelations clarified what should already be common knowledge: Iran’s nuclear activities cannot be isolated from other Iranian issues. Myopic focus on the nuclear issues distracts from the Tehran regime’s terrorism sponsorship, regional intervention, and human rights abuses.
    If the IRGC continues to acquire more wealth through its large-scale control of the de-sanctioned Iranian economy, combined with continued lack of access to the nuclear sites of SPND, Iran will undoubtedly deliver a nuclear weapon.
    To its credit, the US has taken steps toward addressing the underlying problem of the IRGC’s expanding control over Iranian affairs. Soon after taking office, President Trump urged the administration to review designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. With the new Iran sanctions bill now signed into law, the administration should expand all anti-terror sanctions to the whole of the IRGC, including its affiliate entities and associated financial and economic arms.
    This is a meaningful start to a new Iran policy that is comprehensive in its aims and in its enforcement. Toward that end, the US should work with the UN and EU to evict the IRCG from the combat zones in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. This will help protect the West and its allies, as well as empower the Iranian people, who are seeking regime change and are more than capable of bringing it about on their own, under the right circumstances.
    Those circumstances are very much attainable, without serious sacrifice from Western powers. But to achieve these conditions, different paths must be taken than the one that has been pursued throughout the implementation of the JCPOA.
    The Iranian regime must be more isolated and financially handicapped. It must also be subject to pressure not just over its nuclear program but also over a range of current and past crimes, including illicit missile testing, its escalation of regional and sectarian conflicts in the Middle East, and the 1988 massacre of political prisoners.
    The U.S. should single out all major human rights violators of the Iranian regime, including dozens involved in the horrific 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners. Many of the perpetrators of the crime currently hold key positions in the Iranian regime.
    These pressures will make a profound difference in the future of Iran. And if they succeed in diminishing the power and influence of the IRGC, they will bolster the Iranian people, their organized opposition, and the prospect of the emergence of a truly democratic Iranian government.
    Alireza Jafarzadeh, the deputy director of the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, is credited with exposing Iranian nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak in 2002, triggering International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. He is the author of “The Iran Threat” (Palgrave MacMillan: 2008). He can be reached at Jafarzadeh@ncrius.org .
    Originally published on the washingtonexaminer
     
  • Masoud Dalvand 4:49 pm on August 24, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    Why Trump Must Not Re-Certify The Obamabomb Deal 

    Why-Trump-Must-Not-Re-Certify-The-Obamabomb-Deal

    Why Trump Must Not Re-Certify The Obamabomb Deal

    Washington DC, Center for Security Policy, Aug. 23, 2017 – The Center for Security Policy today published an extraordinarily topical and timely Occasional Paper concerning one of the nation’s most pressing national security questions: Can the United States in good faith certify that Iran is complying with the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) when the next deadline is reached in October 2017 and, if so, should it?
    This analysis, entitled “Why President Trump Must Not Re-certify Iranian JCPOA Compliance,” was written by the Center’s Vice President for Research and Analysis, Clare Lopez. It lays out the factual basis for concluding that Mr. Trump neither can nor should provide such a certification since Tehran is explicitly and demonstrably in material breach of the JCPOA on multiple specific counts.
    This conclusion is particularly compelling given the unrelentingly jihadist nature of the Iranian regime, which codified in its 1989 constitution the Islamic Republic’s explicit dedication to global Islamic conquest. In addition, the mullah-led government in Tehran’s faithfully follows that totalitarian doctrine’s dictates to deceive non-Muslims – a reality evident in Iran’s long record of violations of the provisions of other international accords and treaties to which it is a signatory. Notably, Iran was caught in 2002 for having violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when its clandestine nuclear weapons program was revealed to the world for the first time.
    Since then, many more revelations about the Iranian nuclear weapons program have come to light. For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency itself has documented a long list of Possible Military Dimensions to the Iranian nuclear program that seems to confirm the validity of its assessment that Iran had an advanced nuclear weapons program – and possibly even nuclear warheads – by November 2011. Additionally, what amounts to a joint venture between Iran and North Korea with respect to nuclear weapon and ballistic missile development prompts grave concerns with regard to the sharing expertise on warhead miniaturization and Electromagnetic Pulse technology.
    In releasing Ms. Lopez’s paper, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney observed:
    Clare Lopez is a veteran of the CIA’s clandestine service with deep knowledge of the lengths to which the Iranian regime has gone to pursue its nuclear ambitions – and mislead the United States and others about the actual status of its weapons, missile and centrifuge development programs. Her insights into this behavior make clear that those programs are not just deeply problematic from a national security perspective. They amount to showstoppers with regard to any further presidential certifications, especially with respect to the JCPOA being consistent with the national security interests of the United States.

    Source: Why Trump Must Not Re-Certify The Obamabomb Deal

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: