This Is [pathetic] Logic?

"When President Barack Obama took office, he faced an Iran that had mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, had constructed a covert uranium enrichment facility inside a mountain, was on its way to installing nearly 20,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment, was developing advanced centrifuges and was building a heavy-water reactor that could produce weapons-grade plutonium. If Iran wanted to develop a nuclear weapon, it was already well down that road and the international community had little insight into its program. Against this backdrop the president vowed never to let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon."
"The deal reached in Vienna this month is not only the best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon but also the only durable and viable option for achieving this goal. This comprehensive diplomatic resolution has the unified support of the world's leading powers. It extends the time Iran would need to develop a nuclear weapon, provides strong verification measures that give us ample time to respond if Iran chooses that path and takes none of our options off the table."
John Kerry, Secretary of State, Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy, United States of America

IAEA Vienna Headquarters. Photo: Wiki Commons.

Disingenuous at best, deliberately obtuse and sufficiently so to bypass reality, even while mouthing the very issues that have served Iran well in the past through its capacity for underhanded action led by its contempt for its international critics. Most certainly Iran engaged in subterfuge and misleading those tasked to ensure that its penchant for inciting violence and instability abroad -- funding terrorist groups for that purpose, threatening the existence of another state -- augmented by nuclear warheads its goal leaving no opportunity untested to achieve its end-game of achieving the power of control of the Middle East.

Nothing succeeds quite so well in the Middle East as exhibiting florid belligerent power to subdue challenges. Funding terror groups infused with the psychosis of battlefield martyrdom to destroy those whose humanity forbids them from inflicting violence on others while believing that killing at random and profusely will bring honour to Islam and ensure that the killers find their way to Paradise while others await the arrival of the Hidden Mahdi to honour the righteous, is the way of the Iranian Ayatollahs.

Messrs. Kerry and Moniz speak of their president's overtures to disarm Iranian disaffection with the West, extending a hand of friendship. Iran's mullahs slapped that hand away; they have no desire to warm relations between themselves and the Great Satan. They have, after all, made "Death to America" the most common and popular refrain among the populace of the country. Of whom not enough dissenters exist to protest their country's increasing execution rate of 'prisoners' who insult Islam.

In tribal societies where war is a proud tradition and hostility toward other tribes and most certainly other religious sects and minorities is part of the heritage of the Middle East, striving to achieve an accord between belligerents is viewed as cowardice. President Obama has earned his reputation for untrustworthiness in the Middle East, blowing hot in warning he will not countenance human rights abuses, then sucking cool when those abuses occur and he prefers not to acknowledge them.

The first paragraph of Messrs. Kerry and Moniz's righteous apologia to a world that misunderstands America's motivations correctly enumerates the Republic's past litany of averting global condemnation by simply proceeding with its nuclear agenda covertly and with malice aforethought. Lauding the deal signed in Vienna as the only manner in which Iran's aspirations could be prevented is absurd, and speaking of it as a durable and viable method whereby Iran can be controlled is insulting to the intelligence of their audience.

Assuring that audience as they have attempted to do with their explanatory editorial in The Washington Post, that should Iran fail to meet its obligations sanctions would 'snap back into place' is a risible canard. The sanctions that took years and international cooperation to achieve, and more years to exert its full potential cannot simply be 'snapped back', and clearly the authors are aware of that.  They assure the gullible that sans deal, Iran could expand its stockpile of enriched uranium.

With the deal it will do just that, surreptitiously, with great care to ensure it is not detected, for their long-honed skills at circumventing detection are second to none. They have gone to great lengths to evade detection in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Until, surprise, surprise! their intention has been achieved. They consider it their just due, resenting interference and inferences that their plan is devious and destructive to peace, when all evidence points to just that as a reality.

To state that with the deal Iran will be incapable of producing weapons' grade plutonium and thus achieving atomic bombs is wishful thinking of the unicorn variety that John Kerry is fond of quipping about. "In February 2003, the IAEA requested access to a suspicious facility in Tehran, and negotiations dragged on as Iran tried to remove evidence. But even after six months, tests revealed nuclear activity despite Iran's attempt to cover it up", the duo wrote.

How this argument is felt by Kerry and Moniz to be in their favour when it is blatantly a description of Iran's duplicity of a nature so perverted and self-servingly dangerous to the world, is mind-boggling in its naivete. Finally, they conclude with reiterating "The president has said clearly that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. Neither sanctions nor military action can guarantee that outcome. The solution is the comprehensive diplomatic deal reached in Vienna".

Absolute and utter trash-talk.

"A close examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more", according to a recent Wall Street Journal report. This begins with a process that unravels when the IAEA inspectors have concerns over "undeclared nuclear material or activities".

IAEA inspectors are to present Iran with their concerns, whereupon clarification is required for Iran to provide. Nuclear monitors can request access should Iran not satisfy their concerns.There is no set limit of time involved in the process. A 24-day period follows for the two to resolve concerns; failing this, one of the countries on the Joint Commission (The UK, US, Russia, France, Germany, EU) can bring the dispute before the Joint Commission, given 15 days to resolve the issue.

Another 15 days is set aside for foreign ministers to act or request a nonbinding opinion from an advisory board.

Tediously long as urgent processes go, well beyond the measured 24-day notice which in itself poses great concerns, with up to 30 to 45 days representing the real length of time that can drag by with a recalcitrant Iran dragging the process through its permissible limit, allowing it to do what it will with potential incriminating details and/or evidence of non-compliance.

Hoodwinked? My, yes!

ADVERTISEMENT