President Obama has been campaigning for the Iran nuclear deal like he’s running for a third term. But, unfortunately, because of his naivety and lack of experience on foreign policy, he is completely wrong.
Let me highlight six Obama statements about the Iran nuclear agreement that are complete exaggerations.
1) President Obama said, “I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as president, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It’s not even close.”
“Not even close”?
He just said Friday, “the vast majority of experts on nuclear proliferation have endorsed this deal. The world is more or less united …”
But 200 retired generals and admirals completely disagreed as they sent a letter to Congress last week urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they said “would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States.”
Are we to assume that most of them are not in any respect “experts on nuclear proliferation”? And are we gullible enough to believe that the commander in chief knows more about military strategy and American security than 200 retired generals and admirals?
And what about other notable experts who disagree? As one editorial piece noted: “Michael Hayden, former CIA director; Dennis Ross, longtime Mideast negotiator; Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; David Albright, former nuclear weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security; and Olli Heinonen, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s former deputy director general for safeguards, have all expressed reservations about the deal.”
2) President Obama said, “Because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly – with the exception of the Israeli government – has expressed support.”
But the Wall Street Journal reported that “Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates – are just as distraught” as Israel about the Iran nuclear deal.
Mishaal al-Gergawi, managing director of the Delma Institute in Abu Dhabi and a prominent Emirati political commentator, explained: “A lot of the Gulf countries feel they are being thrown under the bus. The Gulf thought it was in a monogamous relationship with the West, and now it realizes it’s being cheated on because the U.S. was in an open relationship with it.”
Obama’s “with the exception of the Israeli government” comment is not only a ginormous snub to our greatest ally in the Middle East but an affront to the fact that Israel has been threatened repeatedly with genocide by Iranian leaders.
Jerusalem is 970 miles from Tehran, which is roughly the distance between Washington, D.C., and the islands of the Bahamas – just 50 miles off the Florida coast. If the Bahamas were a hostile state to Washington with a long history of threatening to eradicate the U.S. capital from the planet, do you think anyone in Washington would concede to give the Bahamas nuclear power?
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is absolutely right when he calls the Iran deal a grave travesty and threat for not only Israel but also a “historic mistake for the world.”
He said, “The desire to sign an agreement was stronger than everything else. … Wide-ranging concessions were made in all of the areas which should have prevented Iran from getting the ability to arm itself with a nuclear weapon.”
3) The president initially said International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, inspectors would be allowed to “access any suspicious location” in Iran. He then backpedaled and limited it, saying, “Inspectors will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites. If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious, undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access, even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours’ notice.”
But the truth is, Obama’s “anytime, anywhere” inspections is a bunch of smoke-and-mirror sales pitches to get the American public and legislators to buy the agreement.
First, even the president confessed: “And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we’ve identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in.”
However, the Wall Street Journal did an investigation into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration and it “reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more.”
Now, imagine what a drug dealer could do with a warning 90 days before a law-enforcement raid.
The White House noted: “Right now, Iran has nearly 20,000 centrifuges between their Natanz and Fordow facilities. But under this deal, Iran must reduce its centrifuges to 6,104 for the next ten years.”
Ten years?! That’s two-and-a-half presidential terms or cycles. And we expect the No. 1 terrorist-recruiting Islamic nation in the world to comply and not play a shell game with centrifuges over that 10-year period?
The White House again was wrong when it stated, “International inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will not only be continuously monitoring every element of Iran’s declared nuclear program, but they will also be verifying that no fissile material is covertly carted off to a secret location to build a bomb. … Basically, from the minute materials that could be used for a weapon comes out of the ground to the minute it is shipped out of the country, the IAEA will have eyes on it and anywhere Iran could try and take it.”
So, we are supposed to believe that, despite not being on the ground full-time, the IAEA, will be omniscient and omnipresent so as to detect any movement of any materials at any time outside the country, even though it will fight to get into the country to inspect anything in less than three months? Can you say, pipe dream?!
And if you think the preceding sounds bogus, consider that the Associated Press just discovered a “secret agreement” between the IAEA and the United Nations and reported this about the discovery: “Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work.”
And, to add injury to insult, guess who will pay for those Iran inspectors to investigate their own nuclear facilities? You guessed: the American taxpayers have to pay more than $10 million a year.
Reuters reported, after the IAEA said it has a severe funding shortfall and would need extra monies, the U.S. mission in Vienna said in a statement: “The United States is committed to working with all (IAEA) member states to ensure the agency has the resources it needs to verify Iran’s nuclear-related commitments under the (July 14 agreement).”
The State Department echoed similar sentiment back in April: “The United States is committed to working with other IAEA member states to provide the agency the resources it needs to continue carrying out this [Joint Plan of Action]-related work.”
Imagine: Washington agreeing to force American taxpayers to pay for a rogue and terrorist-funding Islamic republic to inspect its own nuclear facilities while ignorantly hoping it doesn’t develop a nuclear bomb behind our backs.
We really have forgotten Sept. 11.
Write your representatives today and demand they reject the Iran nuclear agreement.
(Next week in Part 2, I will give three more examples of Obama’s misguidance and more evidence that the Iran nuclear agreement is bad news for the U.S. and world, how Iran will continue to build a nuclear bomb despite a signed agreement, and, grievous among all the fallout, even if Congress does not sign an agreement, Iran will still be rewarded with at least $50 billion and up to $150 billion additional revenue to continue to fund terrorism against Israel, the West and the U.S. And Obama agrees it is best. Yes, you read that right!)