For the purpose of full
disclosure, I am not a politician or foreign policy expert, although I might have
once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
I am just one of you, just maybe a slight bit more knowledgeable since I served
in an intelligence unit for five years, but maybe that is a good thing. It
seems that the more politicians and experts are involved in a subject, the less
positive the outcome.
Take for instance this new ‘deal’,
somberly referred to as the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, with Iran over their nuclear program. To be
sure, there are many who are applauding this as a foreign policy success story.
In fact, I have actually looked at the deal and I can honestly say that it is a
good deal.
Some of you might have just
fallen off your chair at that last comment, so I’ll give you a moment to get
your wits about you and perhaps get a cup of coffee or something stronger.
The idea that President Obama has
achieved something that the world once thought impossible, an end to the threat
of Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb, might seem a bit much for some to accept. I
caution however, that while that would be truly historic, and provide the
President with a much needed legacy, as the idiom goes: ‘the devil is in the
details’.
The deal assumes a radical
assumption that somehow Iran will act in good
faith, rather than an assumption of bad
faith. It goes against the known history of the past, in favor of a future
one, that at best, remains cloaked in uncertainty.
So what is ‘Good’ about this
deal? Well, quite frankly, if you are the Iranians, everything…… I haven’t seen
a deal this one-sided since the Dutch bought the island of Manhattan for $24.
Note: For those of you who are for this Iranian deal and will come
unglued about the above statement - Okay, yes, I know that’s a myth. I’m a native
New Yorker. I know that the Dutch actually traded iron kettles, axes, knives,
and cloth for the Island. I know that the Canarsee Tribe didn’t actually own
the island, so the Dutch got taken and then had to pay the Wappinger Tribe when
it was discovered that they actually owned the land….. sheesh, allow me at
least some literary sarcasm.
Getting back to the point, this
deal is truly one sided. Iran agrees to ‘shelve’ components of their program
from 8-15 years. Pardon me, but wasn’t Iran a signatory of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty? The fact that they have been working toward a nuclear
weapon, in violation of their agreement, kind of makes me believe they can’t be
completely trusted. So we are already starting off this agreement knowing that
the Iranians have a history of not following through on their agreements. With
this in mind, I can’t understand how we wouldn’t proceed under the ‘assume bad
faith’ doctrine.
So how did the feckless diplomats
handle this? Well, according to the administration we have 24/7 monitoring of
the Iranian facilities, the so-called ‘anytime, anywhere’ verification. This would
go a long way toward keeping the Iranians honest, but apparently 24/7 doesn’t
actually mean 24/7. You see, it applies only to the ‘known’ facilities. The
secret ones, which apparently fall under the category of ‘known secret’ and
those that may, as of yet, be ‘unknown’ have a different process:
If IAEA inspectors have concerns that Iran is developing nuclear
capabilities, at any non-declared sites, they may request access to
‘verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or
activities inconsistent with the agreement’, by informing Iran of the basis for
their concerns. Iran may admit the inspectors to such site or propose
alternatives to inspection that might satisfy the IAEA's concerns. If such
an agreement cannot be reached, a process running to a maximum of twenty-four
days is triggered. Under this process, Iran and the IAEA have 14 days to
resolve disagreements among themselves. If they fail to reach an agreement,
the Joint Commission (including all eight parties) would have one week in which
to consider the intelligence which initiated the IAEA request. A majority of
the Commission (at least five of the eight members) could then inform Iran of
the action that it would be required to take within three more days. The
majority rule provision (the United States and its European allies: Britain,
France, Germany and the EU, could insist on access or any other steps and that
Iran, Russia or China could not veto them. If Iran did not comply with the
decision within three days, sanctions would be automatically re-imposed under
the snapback provision.
As a result of the above, the breakout time, the time in which it
would be possible for Iran to make enough material for a single nuclear weapon,
should Iran abandon the agreement, will allegedly increase from two to three
months to one year; this would be in place for ten years.
Seriously? Think about this for a
moment. We are entering an agreement with a country that has a history of not
following their agreements. We can conduct 24/7 verification of all their
‘known’ facilities, but if we actually find
out about a secret one, then we have this rube goldberg-esque process to get them to comply.
Yeah, nothing can possibly go wrong with that scenario.
So what is ‘Bad’? Well, if the
above didn’t give you the warm fuzzies, consider this. No one is addressing the
fact that this agreement does nothing to curtail the Iranians from actually
getting the bomb, it just slows it down. To me that sounds a bit sketchy. It
would be like negotiating with the school bully, who is threating to kill you,
for a fifteen year reprieve.
On top of that, the agreement
calls for lifting sanctions and returning upward of one hundred and fifty billion
dollars to the Iranian government. Who, if you weren’t already aware of this,
is the biggest sponsor of state supported terrorism, a fact that was never even
discussed within the framework of the agreement. So I guess they curtail their overt nuclear program, but can continue
their reign of terror without any problems along with a healthy dose of new
financing. Now where do you think the bulk of this money will go? I’m not a
betting man, but I would think that a large chunk will go toward sowing the
seeds of terrorism through its surrogates: Hezbollah
and Hamas, as well as through its own
Qods Force, which has been actively
involved in Iraq, where an estimated 1,100 US troops were killed by groups
trained and equipped by the Qods, not to mention Syria, the rest of the Middle
East, Afghanistan and parts of Africa. The administration even concedes this
point.
Now to the ‘Ugly’ part. The
government of Iran is a habitual liar. That’s not a baseless slander, but
simple fact. The country possesses nearly ten percent of global oil reserves as
well as eighteen percent of natural gas reserves. Their claim that their
nuclear program was for peaceful
purposes has always been a charade. Evidence has clearly shown that, despite
their claims to the contrary, they have pursued technology to weaponize nuclear
energy.
In fact, the IAEA inspectors are
on record as saying that they (Iranians) have routinely stonewalled the inspectors and that it is entirely possible that
Iran has an undisclosed clandestine
nuclear weapons program in place. The lifting of sanctions will open Iran
up to a host of countries and their companies, including some of our allies who agreed to this deal; many of
whom were already dealing with Iran in violation of existing United Nations
sanctions.
United Nations monitors recently
issued a report that expressed frustration about the failure of United Nations
member states, including those negotiating this deal, to report back to the UN
about new incidents of Iran violating Security Council sanctions against its
nuclear program, even though some have unfolded in plain sight. I guess
reporting U.N. violations was not deemed important to risk sensitive
negotiations, during which the Iranians were promising not to violate the
provisions of the agreement.
One example in the report cited
the failure of member states to report the highly publicized presence of
Iranian General Qassem Suleimani, the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps’ elite Qods Force, in Iraq. His Iraq visit was a violation of the U.N.’s imposed
travel ban on key Iranian officials. Not that he cares much about restrictions,
as he moves freely about the region, including a lot of time spent directing
the fight against ISIS in Syria.
If you don’t know anything about
the Qods Force, I suggest reading my novel: Bishop’s Gate.
One thing I am curious about is,
once the sanctions are lifted and those countries and companies get their
fingers into Iran legally, how many will be willing to vote to snapback
sanctions? One thing I do know is that once you open Pandora’s Box, what you
unleash will not willingly go back inside.
The administration claims that
"tough, new requirements will keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon".
No it won’t. It might prolong it
slightly, but they will obtain it. The world is playing checkers while the
Iranian’s are playing chess. They are happy to let time pass by, while they
work toward their end game, which brings me to another point. Can someone
explain why their ICBM program remains intact? Isn’t anyone concerned about the
“I” in ICBM, which stands for Intercontinental?
Iran doesn’t need an ICBM to hit
Israel or Saudi Arabia, or to further its regional terrorism program, so what
is the purpose? Please spare the talking point about how Iran’s is much further away from an ICBM then they are
from a nuke. That isn’t really all that encouraging. Plus, they have two
allies, who coincidentally are their main weapons suppliers, waiting in the
wings. It is entirely possible that they might potentially expedite the ICBM
process. The lifting of weapons
sanctions is another really bad idea.
Despite all the flowery prose
coming forth from the administration and the world about this deal, the fact of
the matter is Iran is Iran. They have not changed. Ink on a piece of paper does
not change the heart of a person or a country. When you are chanting ‘death to
America’ and ‘death to Israel’ your words resonate very clearly. When you
sponsor terror throughout the region, and make no apologies for it, you show us
who you truly are.
Iran is a theocracy. It is ruled
by the nation’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, who
succeeded Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian Revolution,
after Khomeini's death.
Many will point to the allegation
that Khamenei has reportedly issued a fatwa saying that the
production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was ‘forbidden
under Islam’. However, I am also aware that the Qur’an says that there are two forms of lying to non-believers, Taqiyya and Kitman, which are permitted under certain circumstances. Taqiyya,
which is saying something that isn't true, is permissible when it advances the
cause of Islam. If he didn’t agree with his country’s nuclear program, then why
were they still pursuing it in violation of his alleged fatwa?
On the other side of that coin, when
the Supreme Leader is quoted as saying ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to
Israel’, and has actually taken steps to direct terrorist activities against
both countries, I tend to take him, and his words, very seriously.
None of this is a condemnation of
the President. This is not a partisan issue; if you think that way, you are
part of the problem. We are facing a grave threat, and the administrations
answer is to kick the can down the
road. What good does this do? Understand that when the provisions of the deal sunset, the breakout time for Iran to
have a nuclear weapon begins to diminish from the ‘one year’ theory. That is
if, and it is a really big IF, they don’t already have a clandestine program
place. So, theoretically, we have only bought ourselves a 10 year reprieve.
Realistically, it might be much less.
Again, I don’t trust them.
As I have said, this isn’t just an
Obama problem. The responsibility has been shared by every administration going
back to President Carter. The current regime came into power through a bloody coup,
and the world did nothing. If you haven’t, I suggest you take the time to read
up on the current Islamic Republic of Iran. You cannot begin to understand the
problem, if you don’t understand the history.
In the thirty-five years since
the revolt, they have grown to the world’s number one sponsor of state
terrorism. Their list of involvement in acts of terror is stunning in its depth
and breadth. The U.S. hostage crisis, which lasted for more than a year, the
1983 Beirut Barracks bombing, the Israeli Embassy bombing in Buenos Aires, the
Khobar Towers bombing, the training of Al Qaeda, and the list goes on. They
have also been named as being involved and complicit in the U.S. Embassy
bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the September 11th
attacks, and the Riyadh Compound bombing.
The world has allowed the current
Iranian government to grow from a simple street bully, to a global one. Iran
has never stepped back from its commitment to attack the ‘great Satan’, and yet
everyone has treated it like nothing more than baseless rhetoric, even when
those words were dripping with innocent blood.
Someone recently asked me: What would you do? As if somehow they
can justify this bad deal. My answer was: It
should never have gotten to this point.
After WWII, the United Nations
was created. It was an organization that was supposed to prevent things like
this from ever happening. Part of its mandate is maintaining international peace and security. Like its predecessor,
the League of Nations, throughout its seventy year existence, the U.N. has
proven time and again that it is incapable of doing what it was established to
do.
Consider for a moment the fact
that the four policemen, a branch of
the U.N., which was originally conceived by FDR, was to be the enforcement arm, responsible for keeping
order within their spheres of influence. Britain would oversee its empire as
well as Western Europe; the Soviet Union had responsibility for Eastern Europe along
with the central Eurasian landmass; China controlled East Asia and the Western
Pacific; and the United States was charged with overseeing the Western
Hemisphere. As a preventive measure against new wars, countries other than the
Four Policemen were to be disarmed. Ironically, this concept was originally
drafted by FDR in November 1943 at the Tehran
Conference. Guess that didn’t work out well.
Like an insolent child, Iran
should never have been allowed to arrive at where it is today. Their behavior
should have been stopped long ago. Now they are at the threshold of becoming a
nuclear power, and the best we can formulate is a plan to delay it by ten to fifteen years.
What will we do in that time
frame? Well, if history is any indicator, nothing. What will Iran do? I would
venture to guess that they will do what they have always done. They will
continue to pursue a covert nuclear program, they will continue to promote
unrest and terrorism throughout the region, and push the boundaries to see what
they can get away with.
There might be the occasional
verbal admonishment, or the threat of ‘tougher’ sanctions, but, in the end, the
west has already shown their hand. They have been judged by the Iranian’s as
being weak and unwilling to fight, eager to ‘give up’ concessions in order to
avoid a conflict.
Imagine what the world would be
like today if, instead of pursuing ‘peace in our time’, Hitler was told that if
you cross into Austria, you will be dealt with swiftly and severely? Neville
Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement
quickly led to the so called ‘flower wars’, the annexation of Austria, the Sudetenland
and Memel. Had the west stepped in and said no, to Hitler’s advances toward
Austria, would it have prevented WWII? I don’t know, but I do know that despite
their attempts to avoid it, the war eventually occurred. Bullies don’t stop
until someone stands in their way and says ‘enough’.
WWII ended with a mushroom cloud
over Japan, my fear is that WWIII will begin with one.
Only time will tell if I am
right. I hope that I am not. I hope that the ‘experts’ got it right this time.
That somehow the leopard has truly changed
its spots. However, if I am correct,
then we have just turned the corner on a journey, which ends with that mushroom
cloud appearing over the nation of Israel.
Israel won’t let that happen of
course, which means, despite the grand designs of the negotiators, the prospect
of World War III just became significantly greater, not less.
But what do I know? I’m just an
author who writes fiction novels……… Then again, as we all know, ‘Fiction is the lie through which we tell the
truth’.
