Iran: How About We Supply Our Own Soil Samples From That Alleged Nuclear Site?
Given the long list of mind-boggling Obama administration capitulations to Iran, why not see the farce all the way through? Seems legit:
Iran wants its own officials to take soil samples at a site where it is alleged to have experimented with ways to detonate a nuclear weapon, and the U.N. agency probing the suspicions may agree provided it is allowed to monitor the process, two officials told The Associated Press Tuesday. The investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency is part of the overarching nuclear deal reached earlier this month between Iran and six world powers. Iran denies any such work but has agreed to give the IAEA access to the Parchin military complex. Several U.S. senators cited Obama administration officials last week as saying Iran could conduct its own soil sampling at Parchin. The officials who spoke to the AP said a final agreement has not yet been reached between Iran and the IAEA. The officials said stringent oversight of the soil-sampling could include video monitoring. They did not say what reasons Iran gave for wanting to take its own samples. The samples would be analyzed by the agency for traces left by any nuclear experiments. David Albright, whose Institute for Science and International Security is often consulted by the U.S. government on proliferation issues, said the IAEA "could instruct Iran in where and how to take the sample, as they would an inspector. They could try to keep a close watch on how Iran follows the instructions." At the same time, "the IAEA could not exclude Iran tampering with the sample in some way," he said. Iran has refused to give IAEA experts access to people, documents and sites allegedly linked to the suspected weapons work for nearly a decade.
It's come to this, already: Iran is inspecting itself. These so-called inspections may entail "video monitoring" and cannot rule out Tehran tampering with its self-supplied samples. Team Smart Power pronounces themselves baffled as to why Iran might prefer to gather and submit their own samples. Perhaps the regime's motives here are similar to its reasoning behind insisting on 24-day adjudication processes prior to "snap" inspections, refusing to allow inspections of military sites, and habitually cheating on international obligations pertaining to their rogue nuclear and other weapons programs. They cannot be trusted. Nevertheless, President Obama claims that '99 percent of the world' supports the deal, which is ludicrous. For starters, two recent polls show that most Americans oppose the agreement, as do the vast majority of Israelis. Then there are the Arab states, who loathe the accord, worry about Iran's American-aided ascendance, and are now considering pursuing nuclear weapons of their own. The latest salvo on this front:
Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir on Monday accused Iran of making threats against Riyadh's ally, Bahrain, which he said showed that the Islamic republic was harboring hostile designs against its Middle Eastern neighbors. Speaking at a joint news conference with visiting European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, Jubeir said Saudi Arabia had raised the issue with her. He said the comments showed that Tehran was intervening in its neighbors' internal affairs. "It does not represent the desire of a state for good neighborly relations but that of a state which has aspirations in the region and which carried out hostile act like this," he added. Jubeir did not clarify who made the comments or when, but he said they could be linked to the terms of the agreement with world powers on its nuclear program or to setbacks suffered by Iran's Houthi allies in Yemen and President Bashar al-Assad's forces in Syria. "I don't know, but we reject their comments and reject the hostility they show towards the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the countries of the region," he said. Bahrain on Saturday said it had foiled an arms smuggling plot by two Bahrainis with ties to Iran and recalled its ambassador to Tehran for consultations after what it said were repeated hostile Iranian statements.
Iran is a deeply destabilizing force in the region, and will soon be flush with sanctions relief cash to fund the regime's meddling and terrorism. Remember, this agreement is silent on Iran's international treachery, unsurpassed material support for terrorism, and human rights abuses. They are not required to clean up their act one iota on any of these matters. In fact, they've been guaranteed many billions in new resources to escalate their bad behavior, as well as granted fresh leeway to pursue banned arms and develop new weapons systems. Moreover, key regime figures have stated unequivocally that Iran use its newfound windfall however it sees fit, including in furtherance of its malignant global agenda. Iran has declared victory because Iran has won. Congress is expected to vote against the deal in the coming weeks, with broad-based and bipartisan opposition. But it appears as though the administration has enough ideological allies and disciplined partisans within the Democratic caucus as to stave off a veto override vote, thus paving the way for the agreement to be implemented over the will of Congress. But what if an override vote succeeded? Would the Obama administration abide by that super-majority's decision? John Kerry
“Will you follow the law even though you think it violates this agreement clearly and even if you think it’s absolutely terrible policy?” Sherman asked.
“I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the president and determining what the circumstances are,” Kerry responded.
“So you’re not committed to following the law?” the Democrat said.
“No, I said I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical, that’s all,” Kerry shot back.
Also, what are the terms of the secret side deal Iran has reportedly struck with the IAEA? Kerry has no idea. Smart power. Just trust them.