Fiasco in Geneva

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva and author of the book Choosing Life in Israel. 


gen“Israel is the sinister, unclean, rabid dog of the region…. The Zionist regime is a regime whose pillars are extremely shaky and is doomed to collapse.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said that on Wednesday to a huge assembly of his Basij militiamen. The Times of Israel noted that “Footage of the event showed the crowd shouting ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’”

Slightly later the BBC gave this translation (find it here) of parts of Khamenei’s speech:

We are against the arrogance. We fight against the arrogance…. The government of the United States of America is on the top of the arrogance in the world. [The audience repeatedly chants: "Death to America."]

The Zionist regime is doomed to oblivion. The Zionist regime is an imposed regime which is formed by force. None of the formations or creatures which are formed by force is durable, and neither is this one…. Unfortunately, some European countries cringe before this creature which is not worthy of the name of a human being, before these leaders of the Zionist regime, who look like beasts and who cannot be called human.

One might wonder: on the eve of the new round of nuclear talks with the P5+1 countries in Geneva, why did Khamenei use such language? Since Khamenei is indeed the “supreme leader” of Iran, and Iran appeared to want an agreement, wouldn’t Khamenei have thought such a tirade would make the P5+1—or at least its leader, the United States—have grave doubts about whom it was dealing with?

The answer is that Khamenei knew better; he knew his words would have no such effect. President Obama announced that a six-month interim deal had been struck, claiming it had “cut off Iran’s most likely paths to a bomb.”

The problem is that it does no such thing.

Although the text of the deal was still under wraps, the U.S. State Department released a fact sheet on its main points. They concern Iran’s uranium enrichment, its Arak plutonium reactor, monitoring of its nuclear program by the IAEA, and—in return for Iran’s ostensible concessions—sanctions relief.

On enrichment, Iran is supposed to stop enriching uranium to 20%, not install additional centrifuges, leave some of its existing centrifuges inoperable, and not increase its stockpile of 3.5%-enriched uranium.

And yet, as Israeli military analyst Ron Ben-Yishai notes:

These restrictions are in fact almost meaningless, as the Iranians have already managed to install nearly 18,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium. With such an amount of centrifuges, they can enrich uranium to any level they want within a short period of time. At the moment they already have more than 8 tons of uranium enriched to a 3.5-5% level, which is enough for four to five atom bombs of the size dropped on Hiroshima.

By allowing Iran to go on enriching uranium despite six UN Security Council resolutions in recent years that prohibited it from doing so, the P5+1 has—as Iranian president Hassan Rouhani lost no time proclaiming triumphantly to his countrymen—conceded on the crucial issue of Iran’s supposed “right to enrich.”

Which raises this question: now that the “international community” has validated Iran’s violation of six Security Council resolutions, why should it be any more resolute in enforcing the current deal?

On the plutonium reactor, the State Department’s fact sheet lists some things Iran is not supposed to do there for the next six months, such as fueling it, adding components, transferring fuel and heavy water to it, and others.

What Iran does not have to stop, however, is construction at Arak. Ben-Yishai calls this “the major flaw,” noting that:

after the construction is completed, the installment of plutonium production equipment…can be implemented for about six months—and then Iran will have, together with the enrichment abilities it already possesses, a perfect fuel circle which can produce a plutonium-based nuclear weapon.

In addition, when that equipment is brought in and the reactor becomes “hot,” it cannot be targeted in a military operation for fear of a Chernobyl-like disaster.

On monitoring, the fact sheet says Iran has agreed to “provide daily access by IAEA inspectors” to two of its enrichment sites, Natanz and Fordow.

That, however, in no way addresses the issue of secret nuclear sites. Just last week an Iranian exiled opposition group—which has exposed such sites in the past—said it had information about a secret site now under construction.

And Mark Hibbs, an expert at the Carnegie Endowment, said monitoring would be “full of landmines” and that it would

require a level of cooperation and information sharing between the IAEA, the powers and Iran which is probably unprecedented concerning one country’s nuclear program…. 

Which again raises the question: are the Iranian regime and its operatives the sort of people one should trust?

Finally, on sanctions, the State Department fact sheet says the deal will provide “limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible relief” to Iran worth about $7 billion.

But Mark D. Wallace, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, warns that:

the carefully constructed sanctions architecture developed over decades has been significantly rolled back…those touting this agreement do not appear to understand the fragility of sanctions, or the dangers of rolling them back and easing the economic pressure on Iran.

Meanwhile AP reported on Sunday that the Obama administration and Iran have been holding secret talks on a nuclear deal over the past year.  For ten days following the UN General Assembly meeting in September,

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stayed in the U.S….along with 75 colleagues from President Rouhani’s entourage—businessmen, industrialists and representatives of the Iranian gas and oil sector, who met with representatives of American oil companies Chevron and Exxon.

It makes you wonder how much of the remaining sanctions will be left after six months—and just who is going to revamp them after, of course, Iran cheats on all of its commitments.

If it sounds like the West reaching yet another hollow deal with a heinous, manipulative, entirely dishonest regime, it is. If it sounds like the Obama administration was never really serious about the Iranian threat in the first place, it’s that too.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • ShalomFreedman

    The West is buying time, but it now seems that there will also be for the long- time agreement a deal which will leave Iran with a nuclear capability.
    One question I would ask both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama who both have been promising for a long time now to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons is how they have allowed it to reach the point where they already have enough material for four or five bombs.
    Shouldn’t they have been stopped months if not years ago?
    PS Will Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all be sitting and waiting in the next six months, or will they be moving toward nuclear capability?

    • wildjew

      The only thing that could have and can stop Iran is military might. Sanctions are near worthless. Neither Bush nor Obama had / have any intention of acting preemptively against Iran’s nuclear sites. That leaves Netanyahu / Israel.

    • TheOrdinaryMan

      Bush chose to go after Saddam Hussein, who was a piker compared to the Mullahs in Iran. Ol’ G.W. then patted himself on the back, as having done a good job, ate a thick steak at his ranch, and promptly forgot about Iran. Such was the situation when Baracus Obamus became President. Bush is equally at fault for the yawning chasm of nuclear war that draws menacingly closer.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Bush was hugely influenced by leftists. He wasn’t a leftist himself but he was and is deluded by a lot of their BS. He’s also a huge dupe of the Saudis.

        Having said that, he’s strong in his patriotism so he’s not as easy to dupe as those who already hate our country.

        Iran was no doubt on the agenda but Iraq was seen as an easier sell in a reverse domino theory approach. If leftists hadn’t risen up and aided all of our enemies, Iraq would have been a lot easier to deal with and Iran would not have been able to feed the anti-war sentiments to get breathing room for themselves.

        There is a lot of blame to go around, but the traitors among us are the ones that make me angry.

        In the end, I don’t think it mattered which regime was targeted first as long as the key players were on the list. The problem was caving so immediately to leftist 5th columnists. The entire strategy was influenced by the desire to make it an easier sell to leftists, who they obviously didn’t understand at all. Maybe they still don’t.

        I personally had no idea just how many hateful people we still had running around the country until that crap started up again.

  • gletscher prise

    Here we see Israels short sighted policy of nuclear ambiguity coming apart at the seams.

    By refusing to participate in any form of international nuklear supervision or proliferation, Israel is forced to take a back seat and leave it up to others to represent Israeli interests on the international level.

    At the same time, Israel expects of those representing its interests to impliment rules and regulation that Israel itself rejects, while Israel remains in the shadows threatening military action.

    A truly bizzare situation for all involved. Its high time Israel grows up, comes clean and enters the international nuclear scene as a key player, willing and able to enforce its own interests.

    • Hass

      Yeah, but you forget to mention that Israel does not threaten anyone with it’s military might, just because they’re of a different religion. On the other hand, you have the biggest terrorist supporting State making threats of death to Israel and the US and to a lesser extent, it’s fellow Muslimes. The Sunni’s.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      I’ll put it to you this way: I don’t advocate bombing Pakistan because they’ve established that they can behave. Not that I supported them getting it. But allowing Iran to have nukes is not acceptable proliferation. It doesn’t make sense to argue for non-proliferation policies and advocacy if you let the most belligerent regime in the world have them. You might as well just give up and say that everyone needs them.

      Israel’s status is not a justification for anyone in the real world. Only leftist fools accept this kind of “social justice” argument. I mean what next, we send half of our military hardware to Iran in the name of social justice? Shouldn’t everyone have UN regulated military capability to make sure the fight is always fair?

      We don’t want that kind of fairness. We want justice as we define it. That’s how sovereigns deal with each other, until 5th columnists successfully take power. After that you just never know what treason can occur.

      • gletscher prise

        You’re missing my point objectivefactsmatter. It’s not about nuclear fairness nor justice, its not even about whether Israel posesses nukes or not. It’s about sitting back and relying on others to enforce ones own nuclear interests and then crying foul when things don’t turn out exactly as one wishes.

        As a result of its “ambiguous” nuclear policy, Israel has no political representation whatsoever in any international nuclear institution, regime or treaty. On all levels of international nuclear corporation, Israel remains fully dependent on foreign powers to address and push an Israeli agenda.

        It is only fair that when israel leaves its vital negotiations and decision making up to Obama, Merkel or Hollande, then Israel must in turn accept the outcome.

        • Gee

          So because we are not members of the NPT and are not violating any laws, that is grounds for countries to break international laws?

          Pretty stupid argument.

          • gletscher priese

            The problem is not whether international nuclear law becomes invalid if Israel, or any other nation, does or does not recognize it. The problem is that Israel, as a non member, has no national political representation and leverage whatsoever in all institutions and regimes that oversee international nuclear law and is thus always dependent on others in matters of its own vital national interest.

          • Biff Henderson

            The likes of the OIC riding herd at the UN bares that out. I’m convinced.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            On balance it would hurt a lot more than it would help. Much like UN membership and for the exact same reasons.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “You’re missing my point objectivefactsmatter.”

          I didn’t miss it. I simply disagree.

          “It’s about sitting back and relying on others to enforce ones own nuclear interests and then crying foul when things don’t turn out exactly as one wishes.”

          Israel is a small member of the “international community” hated by most. It will never be treated as an equal or judged by the same standards. Your argument depends on some objective standard of “fairness” that simply does not exist in the “international community.”

          “It is only fair that when israel leaves its vital negotiations and decision making up to Obama, Merkel or Hollande, then Israel must in turn accept the outcome.”

          It has no other choice. But part of that outcome does not include being silenced by people like you.

  • Hass

    In other words, so long as they sign on the dotted line that they’ll behave, that Muslime POTUS is happy, no matter what the future consequences hold for a Nuclear Iran.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      The check is in the mail.

      • 11bravo

        I promise I won’t blank in your mouth.

        • defcon 4

          We’re from the government, we’re here to help you.

    • cancze

      You’re a lunatic.

      • Drakken

        He is much more saner than you are!

      • defcon 4

        Of course, anyone who leaves islam is by definition insane aren’t they Hajji?

  • Dyer’s Eve

    “Unfortunately, some European countries cringe before this creature which is not worthy of the name of a human being”. Spoken like a true Moslem. Only those bent by the Qu’run refer to other human beings as ‘creatures’. Islamic supremacy again. I’m presently reading Robert Spencer’s book : ‘Not Peace But a Sword’. It’s a good read, and awww… a damn interesting one. It’s worth every cent. Get it and read it!Especially how Islam treats non-Muslims, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or of any other belief in the world.
    At Islam’s centre is the awful treatment of women. Any so-called ‘religion’ that treats women as chattels and property to be traded at whim needs to be destroyed.
    Mabus (Obama) is threading together WW3. Iran isn’t disarming. It’s doing the exact opposite. It’s gearing up for war. Only an idiot would think that a Muslim, or a Muslim state for that matter, would lay down arms. They can’t! War is Islam, Islam is war!
    “From Persia, very near a million…” – Michael de Nostradame

  • Andrew

    I haven’t read one possible explanation for this horror show of a deal: Obama is 100% political, and he wants a deal to take the fiasco that is Obamacare off the headlines. For that, he’ll let the mad mullahs have a nuke.

  • Softly Bob

    “The Zionist regime is doomed to oblivion. The Zionist regime is an
    imposed regime which is formed by force. None of the formations or
    creatures which are formed by force is durable, and neither is this one…”

    So nothing formed by force is durable is it? I take it that means the Iranian regime will collapse soon then!

  • Gee

    Iran’s military nuclear site at Parchin is not even mention mentioned in the worthless agreement.

    • Drakken

      Let it rain!

  • Biff Henderson

    Time to saddle up and join Obomba as we ride off into the sunset of a glorious nuclear winter.

    • ca1

      o God!!!

      • Biff Henderson

        Do you think anyone in Obomba’s no drama White House will have the nerve to inform Him that this decision effects him as he’s the wrong kind of cockroach? Best he finds out flipping though the cable channels after spending a hard day at work saving the world.

    • MLCBLOG

      Great pix!!! kudos.

      • Biff Henderson

        Thanks.

  • 11bravo

    Morons!! We are being represented by MORONS!!!

    • BS77

      Why don’t I trust the Iranians for “Peace in our Time”???????????

      • Biff Henderson

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRgcwT9X2J8&feature=player_embedded#at=60

        Being as I believe as does the new sheriff in town Kike-Hate Twerp in peace in our time by posting the song lyrics I am anyway advocating an act of self-defense by an individual or that the representatives of the people would act in the best interests of the nation. Everyone is hair trigger quick to symbolically murder his every move and what could be more apt than a morality play fashioned in song? Far be it for a lowly pleb to second guess the workings of a visionary that looks Forward into the blinding light just on the horizon. I hear that we’ll as be receiving Obomba Shades via post in the not too distant future to help us deal with his latest triumph…

      • cancze

        Why wouldn’t you? They haven’t invaded anybody in more than 200 years.

        • Ellman48

          That dry spell will end sooner than we think. The Persians had their Immortals and the Mullahs will have their Nuclear Weapons. Only there won’t be any Spartans to oppose them when they press the button.

        • defcon 4

          The ongoing persecution and ethnic cleansing of anyone non-muslime in Iranistan and lying about it might have something to do w/it Farshad Al Porcine.

        • BS77

          Recently the Iranians. shot students and demonstrators in the streets. They killed, persecuted and banished the Zoroastrians, the Bahai, the Jews and the Christians. They killed over 200 000 Iraqis during the Irag Iran war. During Khomeni’s horrible reign, thousands were imprisoned , many died in prison…yeah but they haven’t invaded anyone, is that all you have?

        • Notalibfool

          LIE! After driving Iraqi forces out of Iran in the early 1980s, Iran could have ended the Iran-Iraq War. Instead the ruling mullahs chose to continue the fight by invading Iraqi territory.

          Also, Iran used thousands of children as soldiers during that horrible war. They bombed Iraqi civilians and attacked shipping in the Persian Gulf while terrorizing their own citizens.

          By the way, wasn’t it Iranian general Ali Shirazi who wanted to continue the fight all the way to Jerusalem?

  • ca1

    it’s looking like obama is putting into place the reason he(soros’s chosen one) was put into office…. these are scary times

  • defcon 4

    Chevron and Exxon — I’ll have to avoid buying their gasoline in the future.

  • Lanna

    John Kerry coming home from Geneva to celebrate a deal with the genocidal Ayatollahs who rule Iran can only be compared to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain coming back to Britain from Munich in the fall of 1938 waving a piece of paper with Adolf Hitler’s signature on it declaring, “Peace in Our Time.” Iran still retains its full capacity to enrich uranium..which it is doing in violation of the UN security council resolutions and the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a party. World Powers, including Russia and China who were supplying North Koreans with weaponry and technology…inked a deal with that country, only to have North Korea go ahead and build nuclear weapons anyway. Make no mistake, even more than the isolated regime in Pyongyang, a nuclear armed Iran, with its oil wealth and terrorist network, poses a huge threat to world peace and US national security!

  • cancze

    Cool heads prevailed. Good peaceful solution.

    • Drakken

      Let me guess, your on drugs!

      • defcon 4

        It’s only opiate is the religion of peace.

  • Drakken

    PEACE in our time! Why am I having a flashback to Chamberlain ? This ends onlty one way, WAR!

  • Ellman48

    This is what happens when you send a lunatic to negotiate with a fanatic. Chances are that the fanatic will get what he wants while the lunatic will imagine that he also got something in return. The Obama regime is sick and getting sicker every day. Don’t count on the Congress to stop it’s lunacy. We’re in for a wild ride on the Obama roller coaster which will eventually disengage from the tracks it rides on. It’s hard to imagine anyone more powerful and at the same time more stupid than Obama. But he is only the spokesman, the voice of the Wizard behind the curtain.

  • Ellman48

    He plays the shell game all the time and the media plays along with him. Some of us see the game for what it is and some think they are seeing historic negotiations and progress towards peace and harmony. The Left has a Grand Illusion called ‘One Worldism’, similar to ‘Climate Change’, which by definition forces it to DENY that ANYONE on this planet can be branded an enemy or a threat to anyone else (the exceptions being Israel and the USA). It is such delusions coupled with fanaticism that make the LEFT so frantic, so belligerent, so intolerant of opposition, self-righteous, elitist, arrogant – and SO DANGEROUS, as we will find out soon enough, although we should not need to yet again repeat the horrors of the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. The Left’s contempt for history and facts will always have it on “the WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY”, not on the ‘right side’ as Obama has claimed innumerable times to his addicted patrons and subjects.

  • MLCBLOG

    It seems plain to me that this is right in line with O’s objectives. The thrill of dissing the Israelis, leaving them out of the accord, and making deals without including them…the excitement of sixth and seventh grade schoolyards!!