Horrible: Obama and Kerry bow to Iran's nuclear ambitions in deal 'framework'

To get an idea for just how bad the proposed deal "framework" is with Iran, consider that it was only a year ago that the Obama Administration insisted Iran had to dismantle just about all of its nuclear infrastructure. This insistence came even as Western nations continued to impose economic sanctions against the Iranians?

Today? The sanctions are about to come off, and that whole dismantling thing? Yeah, well, hey, never mind that. Writing for Quartz, Mark Dubowitz and Annie Fixler get right down to what makes this such a horrendous deal:

Only a year ago, senior officials were on record committing to "dismantle" "a lot" or "significant" portions of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Now the administration has mostly abandoned these commitments and is nearing a final deal that will permit Tehran to retain much of its known nuclear infrastructure, but keep it one year away from being able to produce a bomb's worth of weapons-grade uranium -- known as a "breakout" period. To accomplish this, the Obama administration fact sheet (which is being seriously disputed by the Iranians) says that Iran will reduce its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium to less than a bomb's worth. That's a good thing. A key detail, however, on how that reduction will occur is still missing. Will Iran export the fuel to Russia, as was previously reported, making Vladimir Putin responsible for weapons-proofing Iranian uranium? Or will Iran convert it to some other uranium form, allowing Iran to increase its uranium stockpiles for further enrichment at some future point to weapon-grade? Iran seems unlikely to fully address outstanding weaponization issues after sanctions begin unwinding.

---

The deal also will still leave Tehran with an enrichment infrastructure of six thousand centrifuges, a 12-fold increase from what the Obama administration initially promised when it abandoned long-standing US and UN Security Council prohibitions against Iranian enrichment. This is too small for peaceful civilian energy but the right size for producing weapon-grade uranium. (Iran's long-range, nuclear-warhead-capable, ballistic missile program, prohibited under Security Council resolutions, also quickly fell off the table when Iran declared them non-negotiable.) At Fordow, a fuel-enrichment plant buried under a mountain, located on a Revolutionary Guard military base, the Obama administration is permitting Iran to operate almost 1,000 centrifuges that, even with prohibitions on using uranium today, could spin uranium tomorrow. The administration previously committed to dismantling Fordow, then to shutter it, then to convert it to a research facility. Now, it is satisfied with limiting it to producing isotopes for scientific purposes. Don't be fooled by the language in the fact sheet. Iran agreed that Fordow wouldn't be used for "uranium enrichment." Enrichment of other elements is permitted, and Iran may be able to reconvert the centrifuges back for uranium enrichment purposes. Did we mention that Fordow is said to be impregnable to Israeli military attacks, and perhaps even American? The deal also will be of limited duration, with key constraints "sunsetting" in about a decade and the rest in 15 years, after which there will be no more limits on the production of nuclear fuel. This means that Iran could then operate hundreds of thousands of centrifuges and rapidly decrease the one-year breakout period. By then, the hardline leaders of Tehran's clerical-military establishment, if they are still in power, will be treated no differently than any other country under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That will put it in the same nuclear club as other threats to world peace, such as Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands. When that happens, even though Iran will be under some enhanced inspection requirements, Iran will be able to build a massive, industrially sized nuclear program—with easier-to-hide, advanced centrifuges -- presenting weapons inspectors with enormous challenges even under a heightened monitoring regime. So here's a question: If Iran was supposed to be banned from having long-range missiles under existing Security Council resolutions, and they refuse to be subjected to the ban, why wouldn't our side just get up and walk out of the talks right there? You won't get rid of the missiles? Fine, enjoy living under the sanctions forever. Why didn't our side do that? Because our side is Barack Obama and John Kerry. They're after a legacy, not global security. And what few restrictions the tentative deal does include depend entirely on a very limited inspection regime, as the Wall Street Journal explains:

Consider the Additional Protocol, a 1997 addendum to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that was meant to expand the IAEA's ability to detect and monitor clandestine nuclear activities. Iran signed the Additional Protocol in December 2003, about the time Saddam Hussein was pulled from his spider hole. The signature meant nothing: By September 2005 the IAEA reported that Iran wasn't meeting its commitments, and Iran abandoned the pretense of compliance by February 2006. Now Iran has promised to sign the Protocol again. But as former IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen observed in a recent paper for the Iran Task Force, "contrary to what is commonly observed, the AP does not provide the IAEA with unfettered access." Mr. Heinonen adds that the agency "needs "go anywhere, anytime' access to sites, material, equipment, persons, and documents." The framework lacks this crucial "anywhere, anytime" provision, even as Mr. Obama calls its inspections the most intrusive ever. Instead it says the "IAEA will have regular access to all of Iran's nuclear facilities." Does that mean inspectors have to schedule an appointment? With how much notice? The obvious way to evade inspections is to start a new and secret facility that isn't part of the accord. This is exactly what Iran did with the operations at Fordo.

And as for this business about a "snapback" provision that reimposes the sanctions if the Iranians try to cheat? Obama makes that sound pretty swift and clearcut. It's not. All that would happen is that a "process" would be initiated, giving the Iranians plenty of opportunity to lobby friendly nations like Russia to protect it from the sanctions returning. Needless to say, the Israelis are not pleased:

"Just two days ago, Iran said that "the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable' and in these fateful days Iran is accelerating the arming of its terror proxies to attack Israel," Mr Netanyahu said in a statement released early on Friday. His intervention followed marathon talks between the P5+1 powers — the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany -- over eight days in the Swiss city of Lausanne, which culminated in an outline agreement that will substantially restrict Tehran's atomic programme in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. The Israeli leader, who has made preventing a nuclear-armed Iran a central plank of his three terms in office and lobbied repeatedly against a "bad deal" with Tehran, spoke on the eve of the week-long Passover Jewish holiday. Mr Netanyahu referred to remarks by Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of Iran's Basij paramilitary force, who on Tuesday said that Israel's destruction was "non-negotiable", even as negotiators in Lausanne were shoring up details of the framework deal.

Here's our only hope: As 47 "traitors" recently made clear, President Walker, Cruz, Fiorina or Rubio will be under no obligation to abide by this come 2017. Obama is not going to submit this to the Senate for ratification, meaning it's nothing more than a personal deal between him and his Iranian counterpart. Well, there is also the fact that Bibi Netanyahu maintains control of Israel's military arsenal, whether Obama likes it or not. Is Fordow really impossible to destroy? We might find out. Then again, if the Iranians develop some other facility in secret - and there's nothing in this deal to stop them - what can anyone do about that? We had them suffering under sanctions. Congress was prepared to impose even tougher sanctions. Instead, Obama went and negotiated a deal that lifts all sanctions while removing just about every obstacle to Iran's development of nuclear weapons. And when Benjamin Netanyahu and 47 Republican senators publicly object to this, you think they're being unreasonable? This will be over in two years, right?