- Police Beat
- The Forecaster
How many of you have read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran nuclear deal?
I have to tell you, it was a struggle to take seriously anything beyond the preface, the preamble and general provisions, given that it starts off by stating that the agreement is based upon “mutual respect.”
This is a serious document, with devastating consequences for the entire world.
First, I encourage you to read the 159-page document. One of the more jaw-dropping elements is that it reads as if it were written solely by Iranian authors. The language, the tone, the provisions, everything about it lays out is what this agreement, the United States and the European Union will do for Iran. There is no hint that anyone from an administration representing the U.S. (or the E.U.) was even present. It represents total surrender upon the part of the U.S. to Iranian demands.
For instance, regarding the lifting of sanctions, state and local U.S. law is trumped with the words, “If a law at the state or local level in the United States is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this (agreement) … the United States will take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities, with a view to achieving such implementation. The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions under this (agreement) and to refrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy.”
It goes on, “the United States will make best efforts in good faith to sustain this (agreement) and to prevent interference with the (realization) of the full benefit by Iran of the lifting of sanctions. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions specified that it has ceased, applying under this (agreement). … The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this (agreement) in whole or in part.”
This is truly stunning language.
As David Frum pointed out in a July 14 article in The Atlantic, this agreement will look even more one-sided in 2016 than it does today, and whoever the next leader of the Democratic party may be, he or she will have to “defend and justify” not only the language, but “the aid about to flow to every Iranian-backed terrorist and thug regime in the region and the world.”
Conventional weapon arms control is nullified, to Russia’s delight (they can’t wait to sell ballistic missiles to the Islamic Republic), and Iran’s Central Bank is open for business, with assets unfrozen and visa bans lifted on presumably dangerous people, including “persons, entities and bodies related to proliferation-sensitive nuclear-, arms- and ballistic missile-related activities, and entities and individuals listed by the UN Security Council.”
Yet nowhere in this lengthy document is there a provision for the release of American hostages currently held in Iran, one of whom, Saeed Abedini, is held solely because he is a Christian.
Trade is also thrown wide open. This tidbit is a favorite of mine: There is to be “cessation of inspection, seizure and disposal by EU Member States of cargoes to and from Iran in their territories with regard to items which are no longer prohibited.” Because we can trust Iran to only ship cargo which is not prohibited.
I’ll just leave you with Bill Clinton’s words, spoken in one of his press conferences in October 1994: “ I’d like to say just a word about the framework with North Korea that Ambassador Gallucci signed this morning. This is a good deal for the United States. North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”
Twenty years later, in October 2014, The New York Times told us, “The top American military commander in South Korea, Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, said that he believed North Korea had most likely completed its years-long quest to shrink a nuclear weapon to a size that could fit atop a ballistic missile.”
Iran, like North Korea, cannot be trusted. This is a bad deal, and the world has just become a much more dangerous place.