Iran Nuclear Deal Bashing

ACLU v. Clapper
November 25, 2013
Undermining Geneva
November 27, 2013
Iran Nuclear Deal Bashing
by Stephen Lendman
“Now the really hard part begins,” said John Kerry. The hardest part is getting Washington to stick to agreed on terms. 
It’s believing America negotiates in good faith. It’s thinking longstanding US imperial aims changed. It’s imagining decades of anti-Iranian sentiment will fade.
Critics wasted little time. Netanyahu was most outspoken. He called the Geneva deal “a historic mistake. Israel is not obligated by this agreement,” he stressed.
He lied calling Iran the “most dangerous regime in the world.” 
America and Israel are by far. They prioritize war. They deplore peace. They threaten humanity’s survival.
Moshe Feiglin is Deputy Knesset speaker. He compared Geneva to Munich 1938. Other Israeli hardliners warned of a regional nuclear arms race.
Obama’s rhetoric was mixed. On the one hand, he said “diplomacy opened up a new path toward a (more secure) world…”
On the other, he’ll “do what is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
“The burden is on Iran to prove to the world that its nuclear program will be exclusively for peaceful purposes.”
US options going forward include war. Plans were readied years ago. They can be implemented straightaway if ordered.
AIPAC has been largely silent so far. Spokesman Marshall Wittmann said he’s “not authorized to speak on the record.”
At the same time, AIPAC president Michael Kassen praised Senate efforts on new sanctions. He called Democrat and Republican “resolve” important “to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.”
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) “expressed deep concern about flaws in” the Geneva deal.
National chair Barry Curtiss-Lusher and national director Abe Foxman lied claiming Iran’s “record of noncompliance.”
“(T)his interim agreement allows them to continue enrichment and maintain a nuclear breakout,” they said
“Iran has not earned these concessions and has, in the past, used respites from international pressure to surreptitiously make progress in its nuclear program.”
Curtiss-Lusher and Foxman want sanctions “rigorously enforce(d).” They want international community pressure sustained.
“Promises and partial measures by Iran (aren’t) enough,” they stressed. They urged joint US/Israeli efforts “toward a solution that will meet their shared goals.”
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is the oldest pro-Israel group in America. It roots date from 1897. It’s militantly anti-Iranian. It supports Israel’s worst crimes.
President Morton Klein “commend(ed) and supports (Netanyahu’s) lucid and decisive repudiation of (Obama’s deal) with Iran where by (it) enjoy(s) an easing of international sanctions while retaining the basic, vital components of its nuclear weapons program.”
“It is nothing short of astounding that President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are willing to conclude a deal that so obviously amounts to a collapse of will for the West and a victory for Iran, a country whose nuclear program, as President Obama himself has stated often, poses an unacceptable security risk to the US, Israel and indeed the world.”
“…Netanyahu was obviously right in repudiating this deal and indicating that Israel reserves the right to initiate military action to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear power.”
Israeli Lobby pressure exerts enormous influence on Capitol Hill. US administrations bow to its will. It’s a force to be reckoned with. It’s going all out to undermine Geneva.
Politico headlined “Early skepticism, caution on nuclear deal,” saying:
Obama “is running into deep skepticism – and harsh criticism – from officials in Israel and on Capitol Hill.”
“Democrat and Republican lawmakers ripped it on Sunday morning talk shows.”
House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R. MI) said:
“We have just rewarded very bad and dangerous behavior.”
Stalwart Obama allies remained silent or offered conditioned support. Top House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrat Eliot Engel (D. NY) said:
“It’s disappointing to me that Iran is still going to be allowed to enrich. We could have played good cop, bad cop, and Congress really believes that sanctions should happen.”
“(S)anctions should always be hanging there. I don’t think you make them bargain in good faith by going squishy.”
House Speaker John Boehner (R. OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R. VA) expressed opposition to the deal. They’re strongly against letting Iran enrich uranium to any level.
Boehner said “we will look back on the interim deal as a remarkably clever Iranian move to dismantle the international sanctions regime” while maintaining its ability to pursue nuclear weapons.
Senator Charles Schumer (D. NY) said he’s “disappointed because (the deal) does not seem proportional…Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions.” 
“This disproportionality…makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December.”
Senate Foreign Relations chairman Robert Menendez (D. NJ) expects “a six month window to reach a final agreement before imposing new sanctions on Iran.” 
At the same time, new ones are “immediately available should (Iran) fail to implement or breach the interim agreement,” he added.
Senator Marco Rubio (R. FL) blasted the agreement. It “makes a nuclear Iran more likely,” he said.
“There is now an even more urgent need for Congress to increase sanctions until Iran completely abandons its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.”
The Wall Street Journal headlined “Iran Pact Faces Stiff Opposition,” saying:
“A groundbreaking deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program faces towering obstacles at home and abroad to becoming a permanent agreement, starting with the US Congress and two of America’s closest allies.”
Democrat and Republican leaders threaten “to break with (Obama) and enact new punitive sanctions on Iran.”
Doing so would kill the fragile deal. Another way would be by falsely claiming Iran violated key provisions.
Tehran knows the risk. It’s mindful of longstanding US duplicity. It’s got everything potentially to gain and much to lose by not sticking strictly to what was agreed on.
Washington and Israel benefit by fabricating Iranian violations. Perhaps it’s planned going forward. Israel and Saudi Arabia falsely claim agreed on terms threaten their security.
Journal editors were unequivocal. They headlined “Iran’s Nuclear Triumph,” saying:
The deal “takes Iran a giant step closer to becoming a de facto nuclear power.”
“Under this deal Iran gets sanctions relief, but it does not have to give up its centrifuges that enrich uranium, does not have to stop enriching, does not have to transfer control of its enrichment stockpiles, and does not have to shut down its plutonium reactor at Arak.”
Obama “glossed over these canyon-sized holes. Why does Tehran need so may centrifuges if not to make a bomb (any) time it pleases?”
Sanctions relief opens the door to ending them altogether, they added. They expect additional temporary deals as well as more sanctions relief in return for fewer Iranian concessions.
Iran will “continue to cheat and explode a bomb whenever it is strategically convenient to serve its goal of dominating the Middle East,” they claimed.
Stiffer sanctions are “the only way now to stop (Obama) from accommodating a nuclear Iran.”
Fact check
Journal editors are militantly right wing. They support Washington’s worst crimes. They endorse its imperial agenda. They oppose sovereign independent countries like Iran.
They want pro-Western puppet regimes replacing them. They favor war to achieve policy aims. They lied about Iran’s nuclear program.
It’s peaceful. It has no military component. Annual US intelligence assessments say so. So do intrusive IAEA inspections. No credible evidence suggests otherwise.
Iranian sanctions are illegal. They target Iran’s economy and population. They’re based on fraudulent pretexts. 
They have no legitimacy whatever. Tehran has every right to want them all removed. They never should have been imposed in the first place.
Christopher Griffin is Foreign Policy Initiative’s executive director. Robert Zarate is its policy director. FPI is the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) successor organization.
It sells war. It deplores peace. It promotes US global dominance. It targets independent governments. It urges replacing them with pro-Western subservient ones.
On November 25, FPI headlined “While US dismantles sanctions, Iran Keeps Its Nuclear Program.”
Doing so “represents a diplomatic triumph. Tehran’s nuclear program is poised to emerge in six months from the Geneva pact stronger than ever.”
It’s entirely peaceful. It’s legal. It deserves rights no different from dozens of other countries operating nuclear reactors. Iran alone is unjustifiably targeted for doing so
The deal “provides a fig leaf of international legitimacy to Iran’s illicit uranium enrichment efforts,” said FPI.
It “harms decades of US-led efforts to halt further international spread of enrichment, reprocessing, and other nuclear fuel-making activities that can bring a country within months or days of building a nuclear bomb.”
Iran has no intention of doing so. No evidence suggests otherwise. FPI lied claiming Washington is “obligate(d) to begin dismantling (Iranian sanctions) without any corresponding obligation by Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons-making capability.”
Iran sacrificed plenty. It got too little in return. It’s temporary and reversible. It’s subject to Washington’s whims. 
It’s dealing with a duplicitous negotiating partner. Its agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. America has a long history of violating treaties and other agreed on obligations. 
Is this time different? Don’t bet on it. Don’t expect letup in hostile congressional, Israeli and media bashing.
Chicago Tribune editors headlined “Hope trumps experience in Iran deal. (It) gravely worries some of America’s strongest allies.”
Washington and other P5+1 countries “appear to have put only a speed bump in front of Iran, a speed bump in a very dangerous place.”
Washington Post editors highlighted a “deal worth trying – risks and all.” They stopped short of expressing enthusiasm. 
The deal buys time, they said. When all provisions are implemented, “the time Iran would theoretically need to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb, which is now about a month away, would extend by no more than a month or two – or as little as 24 days.”
Obama made “troubling concessions. The risks of the deal are consequently substantial.” At the same time, they urged giving diplomacy a chance.
Right wing WaPo (wacko) columnist Charles Krauthammer called Geneva a “sucker’s deal. The mullahs” love it, he claimed.
“Regime survival is the only thing (they) value above nuclear weapons.” Respectable editors wouldn’t publish this trash. WaPo ones feature it.
New York Times editors tried having things both ways. On the one hand, they called Geneva “an important step.”
On the other, they repeated the canard about the importance of “resolving the increasingly dangerous dispute over Iran’s progress on production of a nuclear weapon.”
“As with any deal between adversaries, caution is warranted,” they added. For sure on the part of Iran. 
It knows what it’s up against in dealing with Washington. It’s had 34 years of disturbing experience. It knows full well this time may be no different. 
It’s going all out to fulfill its obligations. President Hassan Rohani said “(t)he enemy promote(s) Iranophobia. Confidence is a two-way road.”
Iran is doing its part to build it. “(W)e have a long way to go,” he stressed. Sanctions don’t work, he added.
Iran’s rights are inviolable. They’re fundamental. They deserve respect. Nothing short of full recognition is acceptable. 
Washington seeks unchallenged dominance. It’s all take and no give. It’s longstanding Iranian policy remains hardline. It bears repeating. Will this time be different? Don’t bet on it!
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Visit his blog site at
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Stephen Lendman
Stephen Lendman
Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or archived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.