October 19, 2021

Capitulation in the Deal with Iran

While President Barack Obama declared a triumph over the tentative deal made with Islamic Republic of Iran on April 2, 2015, in Lausanne, Switzerland, others denounced it as a complete capitulation which will endanger the peace of the world. President Obama, who had as a major objective the improvement of the relationship of the United States with Iran, walked into the Rose Garden to celebrate what he called “a historic understanding with Iran.” Obama administration officials stated to reporters that this interim framework was a personal triumph for the president.

The tentative framework was a result of two years of negotiations even though the agreement at the start of the negotiations was to be completed in a period of six months. Obama kept extending the deadline while Iran continued to enrich uranium in its centrifuges. The Iran nuke deal has a June 30, 2015 deadline to iron out four unresolved and difficult major issues.

These issues are the following:

  • Nuclear research and development. The United States wants strict controls to prevent research and development that would lead to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Iran wants few, if any, limits on the research and development of nuclear weapons.
  • Uranium stockpile. The United States wants Iran to ship most of its enriched uranium to Russia. Even though Iran had agreed to do this, it has now rejected this previous agreement indicating bad faith.
  • Economic sanctions. The United States wants to lift economic sanctions gradually over the duration of the final agreement as leverage against cheating. Iran is demanding that all economic sanctions be lifted immediately.
  • Length of the agreement. The United States wants the agreement to last at least 15 years. Iran wants it only for 10 years.

These unresolved issues may prevent a final agreement with the country that is a major enemy of the United States, cannot be trusted, and is responsible for terrorism throughout the world. For more than three decades Iran has denounced the United States as “The Great Satan.” Just two weeks ago the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the ruler of Iran, chanted “Death to America.” An important general stated that “the destruction of Israel is nonnegotiable.” Most of the Republicans and many Democrats in Congress are skeptical of this interim framework deal that was negotiated by the United States and five other nations.

President Barack Obama warned Congress not to undermine the nuke deal with Iran. The President warned Republicans in Congress that if they tried to impose new economic sanctions to undermine the negotiations, the United States will be blamed for a diplomatic failure. He stated the following: “When you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, asked them a simple question: do you really think that these verifiable deal, if fully implemented, back by the world’s major powers, is the worst option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?”

Michael R. Gordon and David E. Sanger wrote an article entitled “Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline, First Step Toward a Wider Deal” which was published in The New York Times on April 2, 2015. Gordon and Sanger explained that during the eight days and nights of negotiations in Switzerland it appeared that that the talks would breakdown several times. Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, a nuclear scientist, stated that the interim framework satisfied their primary goal of ensuring that Iran, if it decided to, could not race for a nuclear weapon in less than a year. However, after 10 years Iran would be able to develop as many nuclear weapons as it wanted.

From left, the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini;  Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian Foreign Minister;  British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond; and Secretary of State John Kerry at a news conference on April 2, 2015 in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Gordon and Sanger wrote that under the interim deal, Iran agreed “to cut the number of operating centrifuges it has by two-thirds, to 5,060, all of them first-generation, and to cut its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium from around 10,000 kilograms to 300 for 15 years.” The United States wants inspections “anywhere in the country” and to be able to “investigate suspicious sites or allegations of a covert enrichment facility.” However, U.S officials talked about setting up a mechanism to resolve disputes. This mechanism has not been explained in detail.

The Iranian regime television stations showed President Barack Obama’s comments live. Many Iranians in Tehran cheered and honked car horns in celebration as they began to contemplate a life without sanctions on oil and financial transactions. While many Iranians were parting in the streets over the tentative framework of a nuclear deal with their nation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the deal would “threaten the survival of Israel” and increase the chances of a “a horrific war.” Many in Israel feared that Iran got everything it wanted in this tentative deal and this was why Iranians were celebrating in the streets.

As a stated earlier, a major unresolved issue is the eliminations of the huge nuclear fuel stockpile of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This needs to be fully resolved in the next three months. President Obama has the major problem of selling the preliminary agreement not only to Congress but also to Israel and Iran’s Sunni nation neighbors. Gordon and Sanger pointed out that President Obama, in a phone call to King Salman of Saudi Arabia, invited Arab head of states to Camp David this spring to discuss Iran and the chaos in the Middle East.

There is great concern that Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states may develop their own nuclear programs, if they decide that Iran is being allowed to retain too much of its nuclear infrastructure. An enormous concern has been that Obama’s framework with Iran will bring a Middle Eastern arms race where many countries would want to acquire nuclear weapons.

President Obama told Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, on April 2, 2015 that while the deal was not final, it “represents significant progress towards a lasting, comprehensive solution that cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb and verifiably ensures the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program going forward.” Prime Minister Netanyahu was not persuaded and remains a strong critic of the nuclear interim deal. He stated that “a deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel.”

Now Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, has the difficult task of selling the tentative agreement to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the ruler of the theocracy of Iran, as well as to the hard-liners in the Iranian military and other clerical leaders who have a profound hatred towards the United States, a nation that they call “the Great Satan”. Zarif stated the following: “Iran-U.S. relations have nothing to do with this. This was an attempt to resolve the nuclear issue. We have serious differences with the United States.”

Gordon and Sanger wrote the following: “Mr. Zarif and other Iranian officials may have an even harder political argument to win. They will have to overcome objections in the military and scientific establishments, especially because the accord will force them to cut the number of centrifuges enriching uranium by half, put thousands of others in storage and convert two other facilities into research sites that would have virtually no fissile material — the makings of an atom bomb. Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is for civilian uses only. Mr. Zarif focused on the fact that Iran would not have to dismantle any facilities — something Washington had initially demanded, especially after helping expose one such secret facility, called Fordo, in Mr. Obama’s first year in office.”

A great danger to the national security of United States, Israel, and other Sunni Arab nations is the fact that, after the conclusion of the agreement, Iran would be free to produce as much uranium as it wishes — even building the 190,000 centrifuges that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei talked about during the summer of 2014. Surely, this fact would be a major concern for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the Israelis, and the Arab states since after 10 or 15 years, Iran will have nuclear weapons and Intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as satellites to deliver them. Obama is hoping against hope that after the end of the agreement the Iranian regime will be a peaceful nation. However, there is not a single piece of evidence that indicates that this would occur other than willful thinking.

Gordon and Sanger pointed out that Iran would be able to keep 5,060 centrifuges which is a far higher figure than the Obama administration originally envisioned. The United States wanted Iran to have only a few hundred centrifuges.

Thus, this was a major concession on the part of the United States and the other five nations, or perhaps a capitulation, to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Another concern was the enormous underground enrichment site at Fordo, which Israeli and some U.S. officials are concerned since it is impervious to bombing. According to the framework, the site at Fordo would be partly converted to advanced nuclear research and the production of medical isotopes. Approximately two thirds of its centrifuges would be removed. It was hoped that, eventually, foreign scientists would be present. Without inspecting the site at Fordo, Iran could continue enriching uranium and eventually build atomic weapons.

During the Clinton administration, the United States gave billions in foreign assistance to North Korea with the promise that this country would not develop nuclear weapons. The North Korean dictator took our money and eventually kicked out all inspectors and built atomic weapons as well as Intercontinental ballistic missiles. There are many people who fear that Iran would do the same thing.

As stated earlier, an unresolved issue was whether Iran would be allowed to conduct research and further develop advanced centrifuges, which are far more efficient than current models. In another concession, the United States and the other nations had allowed the Iranians the right to research, but not to use more modern machines for production during the next 10 years. In Arak, which many nations fear could produce a plutonium bomb; Iran agreed to redesign a heavy-water reactor in a way that would keep it from producing weapons-usable fuel.

The Iranian negotiators declared victory

Adam Kredo wrote an article entitled “Iran Brags About Nuke Concessions” which was published in the Washington Free Beacon website on April 2, 2015. Kredo explained that Western nations agreed to allow Iran to continue operating the core aspects of its nuclear program and that all sanctions of the Islamic Republic would be terminated. Secretary of State John Kerry and  Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that the both sides had agreed in principle to let Iran continue running major portions of its nuclear program. Despite threats from Obama administration officials that the United States would terminate the discussions if Iran continued to demand greater concessions, Secretary of State Kerry extended his trip and conducted a series of meetings aimed at having an interim framework.

Zarif stated the following regarding the interim framework: “None of those measures will move to scale back Iran’s program nor will include closing any of our facilities. We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development. Our heavy water reactor will be modernized and we will continue the Fordo facility. We will have centrifuges installed in Fordo, but not enriching.”

Kredo explained that the Iranian tentative deal would allow Iran to keep centrifuges at Fordo and this is a major concern since Tehran could ramp up its nuclear work with ease. Zarif said that once a final agreement is made, “all U.S. nuclear related secondary sanctions will be terminated. This, I think, would be a major step forward.” However, the United States would like to remove economic sanctions gradually and not at once. Zarif also stated that Iran will be allowed to sell enriched uranium in the international market place and will be “hopefully making some money” from it. The United Nations will also move to endorse the ongoing Joint Plan of Action interim deal and terminate all of its previous Security Council resolutions on Iran.

The tentative framework contemplates that the Fordo nuclear facility will eventually be “converted from an enrichment site to a nuclear physics and tech center.” However, this could allow Iran to continue running thousands of nuclear centrifuges that could be used to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels.

Kredo wrote that many concessions that Iran pushed for in recent days has now been agreed to by the United States, according to multiple reports and sources. Prior to the news conference, Zarif informed the Iranian state-controlled press that “no agreement will be signed” in the near future. He stated the following: “We have said right from the beginning that no agreement would be signed today. We have always stated that there could be only one agreement which could go into effect at the end of the talks on July 1, 2015 if everything goes well.”

Kredo wrote that that Tehran has given little ground on American efforts to reduce the size of its nuclear program and uranium stockpiles. Iran went back on earlier promises that it would export its stockpiles of enriched uranium, the key component of a nuclear weapon. This requirement remains one of the contentious points. Secretary of State John Kerry said that Iran does not fully comply with a portion of the agreement, economic sanctions would be reimposed. However, differences still remain, he said. “We have acknowledged there are some gaps,” Secretary Kerry told reporters. “There are issues we have to resolve. The differences will be worked over the coming months,” he said.

Americans remain skeptical over this tentative framework. A Fox news poll revealed that 55 % of those surveyed said the United States cannot “trust anything” Iran promises on the nuclear front. And of course, they are absolutely right!

Obama asks Congress to support a nuclear deal in a conference at the White House.

Congressional criticism of the tentative agreement

It is very interesting to note that one of the biggest critics of Obama in these negotiations was Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey. He even accused Obama of using the same talking points as the Iranians. Now the Obama Justice Department has indicted Senator Menendez for corruption, even though former IRS high administrator Lois Lerner and many other corrupt officials of the Obama administration have not been indicted. Senator Menendez, in spite of his recent indictment, said the following: “If diplomats can negotiate for two years on this issue, then certainly Congress is entitled to a review period of an agreement that will fundamentally alter our relationship with Iran and the sanctions imposed by Congress.”

Senator Tom Cotton, Republican from Arkansas, who wrote a letter along with 46 other Republican senators to Iran reminding them that Congress needs to approve any deal negotiated by President Barack Obama, stated the following: “I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to protect America from this very dangerous proposal and to stop a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region.”

Republican Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, and a likely 2016 presidential candidate, called the framework “very troubling” and added “this attempt to spin diplomatic failure as a success is just the latest example of these administrations farcical approach to Iran.”

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry, another possible presidential candidate, said “Americans and our allies are right to be worried of the nuclear deal with Iran that is riddled with concessions by the Obama administration.”

Iran is an existential threat to the United States, Israel, and the West

Retired Admiral James Lyon has accused President Obama of being anti-American, Anti-Western, pro-Iran, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. He discussed the many missed opportunities that the United States had to bring down this radical Islamic theocratic regime, which is a major threat to our national security and that of our allies, beginning with President Jimmy Carter until now.

Iran already controls four other countries in the Middle East—Iraq, except for the Kurdish territory, Yemen, parts of Syria and Lebanon—through its militia Hezbollah. This president simply cannot be trusted to negotiate in favor of our nation. Obama is the worst negotiator in the White House in our history, with the exception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who gave Russian dictator Joseph Stalin all of Eastern Europe.

William R. Graham, Henry F. Cooper, Fritz Ermarth, and Peter Vincent Pry wrote an article entitled “Experts: Iran Now a Nuclear-Ready State, Missiles Capable of Hitting U.S.” which was published by Newsmax on February 1, 2015. These individuals are experts on national security and nuclear issues. Their backgrounds are as follows:

  • William R. Graham served as President Reagan’s science adviser, administrator of NASA, and chairman of the Congressional EMP Commission.
  • Ambassador Henry F. Cooper was director of the Strategic Defense Initiative and chief U.S. negotiator to the defense and space talks with the USSR.
  • Fritz Ermarth was chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
  • Peter Vincent Pry is executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a congressional advisory board, and served in the Congressional EMP Commission, the Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA.

On January 22, 2015, the experts wrote that in spite of intelligence uncertainties and unknowns about Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile programs, “We know enough now to make a prudent judgment that Iran should be regarded by national security decision makers as a nuclear missile state capable of posing an existential threat to the United States and its allies.” The Jerusalem Post reported that Iran deployed a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) “whose range far exceeds the distance between Iran and Israel, and between Iran and Europe.”

Iran has sent into orbit satellites weighing over a ton. The experts have pointed out that this means it could also deliver a nuclear warhead against the United States or any other nation on this planet. Moreover, Iran has orbited several satellites on “south polar trajectories passing over the Western Hemisphere from south to north, as if practicing to elude U.S. Ballistic Missile Early Warning Radars and National Missile Defenses, which are oriented to detect and intercept threats coming from the north.”

If the Islamic regime of Iran is able to produce nuclear weapons, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could order its military to use one of its satellites to explode an atomic bomb on the center of the United States at a high altitude. Such an explosion of a nuclear weapon detonated over the center of our beloved country will generate an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) field across all 48 contiguous states of the United States. The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) will probably destroyed the entire national electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures. Within a few months, more than 80% of the Americans will die of starvation. Of course, the United States could launch a similar strike against Iran. But, we have to remember that in the Middle East, we are dealing with Jihadists who believe than dying for Islam will take them to Heaven.

Is this a real danger? Absolutely! The experts have indicated that Iranian military writings describe eliminating the United States with an EMP attack. United States Representative Trent Franks in a congressional testimony given in December 2014 said that an official Iranian military document endorses making a nuclear EMP attack against the United States. The document describes the decisive effects of an EMP attack no fewer than 20 times. Iran has missiles capable of delivering a nuclear weapon. But, does Iran have a nuclear warhead?

The expert pointed out that in 2008, Mohammed ElBaradei, then director general of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), warned that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon within six months. The IAEA nuclear watchdog has repeated this warning every year since then. Negotiations with Iran were supposed to be completed two years ago after a period of six months of negotiations.

President Barack Obama has been extending the deadline for a final agreement, which is now on June 30, 2015. Will our weak president extend the deadline again if no final accord is reached by that date? Many experts and this writer believe that Iran is negotiating endlessly so that one day its rulers could just simply announce that they have a nuclear weapon. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was severely criticized several years ago for making similar statements to IAEA officials, which of course were true.

The experts wrote that on January 20, 2014 former IAEA Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen warned that Iran could build a nuclear weapon in two to three weeks. He also admitted that this estimate was based only on Iran’s known capabilities — not on what Iran may be capable of doing or may already have done in secret facilities. Iran has underground facilities suspected of being used for the development of nuclear weapons to which IAEA has repeatedly been denied access. IAEA has found out that Iran has experimented with implosion technology, necessary for making more sophisticated nuclear weapons. IAEA also discovered plans for a nuclear warhead that could fit on Iran’s missiles.

The experts wrote the following: “We know from our own experience that developing a re-entry vehicle (RV) for a nuclear missile warhead is not all that difficult. The U.S., working from scratch and using the technology of over 50 years ago, in 1955, developed its first RV for the Thor, Jupiter, and Atlas missiles in just a few years. Nor is it necessary for Iran to test a nuclear weapon in order to develop a missile warhead.”

On September 6, 2007, Israel conducted a successful airstrike on a nuclear reactor in the Deir ez-Zor region of Syria killing many nuclear technicians. North Korea had built the nuclear facility at the request of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Iran financed the Syrian nuclear reactor. Israel estimated that Iran paid North Korea between $1 billion and $2 billion for the nuclear reactor. Iran and North Korea have been strategic allies for many years. Iranian scientists have reportedly participated in North Korea’s nuclear tests. Therefore, Iranian scientists have a great deal of knowledge in making nuclear weapons.

The experts believe that Iran’s ICBM capability and their proximity to nuclear weapons necessitate that “Iran be regarded as a nuclear missile state — and as a menace to the entire world — right now.” The experts strongly recommend the following: “Congress and the Obama administration should give high priority to passage of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act and the SHIELD Act, which will protect the national electric grid and other critical infrastructures from EMP attack. Holes in the National Missile Defense need to be patched, and the U.S. nuclear deterrent modernized.” In fact, it is very alarming that these steps have not been taken much earlier since there are many nations that are capable of conducting an EMP attack, such as Russia, China, and North Korea as well as some day Iran or other radical Islamic regimes.

The last recommendation made by these individuals is that the United States should do what it can to overthrow Iran’s oppressive mullahs through a popular revolution that should be encouraged. This writer agrees with this recommendation and it is his opinion that the United States, together with its ally, Israel, should consider, if a final agreement is not reached in the next three months, to conduct a surprise air attack to destroy all nuclear reactors and the plutonium facility being built in Iran. These nations should also consider attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran at any time if this radical regime is about to produce nuclear weapons. Additionally, the United States and Israel should target the location of the Intercontinental ballistic missiles and destroy them as well.

Is the Iran Deal Another Munich?

It is important to remember that on November 24, 2013, The United States along with Great Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia reached an initial agreement that would freeze for six months Iran’s nuclear program. The nations would continue negotiating with Iran during this time for a final agreement for the next six months. The negotiations went on and on while Iran continued to produce uranium.

According to the initial deal, Iran’s stockpile of uranium of over 20%, which is close to a weapon-grade fuel, would be diluted so it could not be used for military purposes. Iran also agreed that it will not build more centrifuge or new enrichment facilities. The initial agreement did not require that Iran would stop enriching uranium to a low-level or dismantle any of the existing centrifuges. The United States agreed to give Iran $6 to $7 billion in sanctions relief. Part of this amount would come from the $4.2 billion of oil revenue that has been frozen in foreign banks.

An issue that was not addressed in 2013 was the building of the heavy water reactor near Arak, which could produce plutonium to build a bomb. Iran would not dismantle the plant. It agreed not to produce fuel or install additional reactor components.

The Associated Press reported that government officials on the condition of anonymity revealed that at least five secret meetings had occurred between the United States and Iranian officials since March 2013. President Obama at first kept America’s allies in the dark. United States diplomats met in secret in Muscat, Oman with Iranian officials. They began laying the groundwork for the diplomatic agreement of the so-called P5 +1 group of nations (United States, Great Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia) and Iran.

Criticism over the initial Iran agreement of November 2013

The 2013 accord with Iran brought a storm of criticism from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and many of the Gulf nations as well as from members of Congress from both parties. Several Israeli leaders voiced their condemnation of the deal. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated the following: “What was achieved last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, but a historic mistake. Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward acquiring the world´s most dangerous weapon.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu blasted the accord and stated the following: “This is the first time that the leading world powers have agreed to uranium enrichment in Iran. Sanctions are being removed in return for cosmetic Iranian concessions that can be nullified in weeks.” The prime minister of Israel raised again the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear program. He said that “Israel is not obligated by this agreement, the regime in Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel, and Israel has the right and duty to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman pointed out that the deal with Iran did not require the dismantling of the centrifuges, nor did it require removal of fissile material from the country. Israel has strongly requested that the United States reach an agreement that would totally halt the uranium enrichment, which was a condition that Iran had refused.

Opposition to the 2013 Iranian deal in the United States

Critics in the United States complained that the deal would only delay the Iranian program and it would reward that rogue nation for institutionalizing the status quo. Many Americans believe that it was unlikely that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would ever agree to close the door on the option to develop nuclear weapons.

An analyst, Gary Samore, who worked at the National Security Council during President Obama´s first term, predicted correctly when the said that “at the end of six months, we may see another half step and six more months of negotiations-ad infinitum.” It has taken almost two years to reach a tentative framework and negotiations will continue until June 30, 2015 to try to reach a final agreement. As stated earlier, there are many unresolved difficult issues to resolve before an agreement with Iran is reached.

In November 2013, President Barack Obama contacted many leaders of his party in Congress to ask their support for the agreement between Iran, the United States, and other nations. He also stated that he does not need the approval of Congress to go ahead with the deal announced in Geneva, Switzerland. One more time, this president is ignoring the constitutional role of Congress in approving foreign treaties and accords. There is strong bipartisan support that any deal with Iran needs to have congressional approval.

The recently indicted Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, who was once the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated on November 24, 2013 the following: “Until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should vigorously enforce existing sanctions. I do not believe we should further reduce our sanctions, not abstain from preparations to impose new sanctions on Iran should the talks fail.” The Cuban American senator from New Jersey also said that the accord does not proportionately reduce Iran’s nuclear program for the relief that it is receiving.

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican from Florida, said that the 2013 accord “shows other rogue states that wish to go nuclear that you can obfuscate, cheat, and lie for a decade, and eventually the United States will tire and drop key demands.” Speaker of the House John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, requested the White House to provide a briefing to the members of the House of Representatives. He stated that “the interim deal has been and will continue to be met with healthy skepticism and hard questions, not just of the Iranians, but of ourselves and our allies involved in the negotiations.” The House of Representatives had already voted for additional sanctions against Iran in July 2013, a measure that the Senate had not considered up to now.

Conclusion

This writer believes that the Iranian accord is similar to the Munich agreement of 1938. He agrees with the criticisms of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Republicans in Congress. He believes that the tentative framework of the Iran nuke deal is a capitulation on the part of the United States with that terrorist regime that is destabilizing the Middle East. There are indeed many similarities between the tentative Iranian agreement of April 2015 and the one reached by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler in Munich in 1938.

The Munich agreement allowed the Nazi leader to keep the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia by promising no further aggression in Europe. It is well known by historians that this appeasement was a great mistake as it only increased the desire by Nazi Germany to commit further acts of aggression and annexation of countries in Europe. Winston Churchill denounced in the British Parliament the Munich agreement by stating the following: “We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude… We have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road…”

A critic of the initial 2013 agreement was Ben Shapiro, author of the bestseller Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America. He wrote an article entitled “Worse than Munich” in Breitbart on November 24, 2013.

Shapiro explained the following: “The West´s appeasement of Iran is significantly worse than the appeasement of Hitler in 1938 for a variety of reasons… Iran has made clear its desire to wipe Israel off the map. Its current leader, supposedly moderate, Hasan Rouhani, has refused to acknowledge the Holocaust as historically accurate, and participated in a rally calling for Israel’s destruction, and according to Iranian reports stated, ‘The Zionist regime is a wound that has sat on the body of the Muslim world for years and needs to be removed’.”

Shapiro explained that in 1938 Great Britain was dealing from a position of military weakness with Nazi Germany. Today, however, it is just the opposite. The United States currently deals from a position of strength and chooses weakness. He believes that Israel is on its own. Obama’s deal with Iran makes clear that if Israel attacks Iran, it does so at the risk of losing American support, even if Iran may retaliate against Israel.

Shapiro explained that Obama´s agenda is anti-Israel and anti-American influence in the Middle East. He believes that such a position makes war a “near-inevitability.” This reporter, as well as others foreign-policy experts, knows that appeasement causes war.

Mohammad Zarif, the Iranian Foreign Minister, said in November 2013 on state radio that some construction will continue at the planned Arak heavy water reactor, even though that was prohibited by the Geneva nuclear accord. Zarif explained that building projects such as the installation of new equipment or work aimed at making the reactor operational would continue.

Time will tell if President Barack Obama’s tentative deal with the rogue regime of Iran of April 2, 2015 is an accord that is worse than the one of 1938 in Munich. It certainly has not solved the enrichment of uranium by Iran. It has not even stopped completely the development of a plutonium bomb by this terrorist nation. Iran will be able to keep 5,060 centrifuges, all of them first-generation. As stated earlier, there are four main unresolved issues to be negotiated before reaching a final agreement with Iran.

The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran are aware that President Barack Obama has demonstrated to be a terrible negotiator and a weak leader. Thus, they will probably not compromise on these vital issues. More than likely, the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran will demand more concessions thinking that a desperate Obama will grant them. Obama needs to remember that a bad deal is worse that no deal. The United States needs to stand firm and be ready to walk away from the table and impose even harsher economic sanctions and threaten war, if the Iranians play hardball.

This writer believes that the tentative framework of the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration is a disaster, especially for our ally Israel. Instead of stopping completely Iran’s uranium enrichment, the United States and the five other nations have now agreed that Iran can continue to do it, even if it is at a lower rate. The accord may have made war inevitable with Iran in the near future.

China and Russia, which have very friendly and close relations with Iran, must be, indeed, very pleased. These two nations are now convinced that under Obama the United States is a superpower in retreat.

One thing is certain, none of our enemies are afraid of our weak President Barack Obama. Unfortunately, our allies do not trust and are deeply concerned of how unreliable is the president of the United States. This is especially true for Israeli leaders who are fully aware that the Iranian regime has said again and again that it wants to wipe out Israel.

Obama has continued to severely endanger our national security with this ill-fated tentative nuclear deal with Iran. This deal has no assurances that it would lead to a permanent agreement by the new deadline of June 30, 2015.

Share
Source: