Iran’s Supreme Leader Says He Won't Honor Deal Unless U.S. Makes Changes

[Barb135]

September 7, 2015 3:52pm ET

"In the United States, President Obama is trying to convince America to take the leap of faith that Iran will comply with the terms of the P5+1 deal, despite the fact that none of the rogue regime's military sites will be inspected under the terms of the deal.  Across the world in Iran, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is still calling for the death of the great Satan (the U.S.) and the little Satan (Israel), and has added that the U.S. must change part of the deal or Iran will not honor its provisions.

When one reads through the deal as laid out in U.N. Resolution 2231, each time it mentions sanctions, it says those sanctions are to be terminated, for example:

    "The UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA will terminate all provisions of previous UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue "

The only exception is when it talks about sanctions imposed by the United States; those sanctions will not be terminated, only cease to be applied:

    The United States will cease the application, and will continue to do so, in accordance with this JCPOA of the sanctions specified in Annex II to take effect simultaneously with the IAEA verified implementation of the agreed nuclear related measures by Iran as specified in Annex V.

Apparently, this provision has upset the Supreme Leader. In a televised September 3rd speech to Iran's Assembly of Experts, the tyrant said, with regard to the nuclear deal, that the U.S. must lift the sanctions and not merely suspend them or Iran will stop implementing the deal (see video below).

    Another thing is that the [Americans] say that those sanctions that are supposed to be lifted will [merely] be suspended. That's not the case. It's clear that the economic sanctions must be lifted. We wanted this to happen immediately. "Immediately" was interpreted in a certain way. I didn't say anything. It was fine. Our people interpreted "immediately," and said that it should be done in a certain way, and I did not object. Ultimately, however, the sanctions must be lifted. A freeze or suspension of the sanctions is unacceptable to us. If they [merely] suspend the sanctions, we will also [merely] suspend [our obligations]. If this is the case, why should we take the initiative and implement them? True, they said that lifting some of the sanctions was not up to the U.S. administration, with which we were holding talks. To this, we said that we would take legal measures to resolve the matter. But the sanctions that are up to the U.S. administration, and the European governments, must be lifted completely.

Not only is Khamenei backtracking from the agreement, but he is also adding a demand that would require reconvening of the P5+1 negotiations, gaining approval and resubmitting the amended deal to the U.N. Even worse, by agreeing to these demands, the U.S. would be eliminating one of the few remaining "snap back" provisions of the deal, by restarting the application of sanctions.  As far as the rest of the "snap back," the president has assured potential Iran business partners outside the U.S. that, if they begin to operate in Iran and it violates the deal, they will be allowed to keep operating without penalty.

The Supreme Leader is not an idiot - he has to know that he is making a near-impossible demand. Perhaps, now that it looks as if Congress will not be able to overturn the deal, he is trying to sabotage it. Or, seeing how many times Obama has surrendered during the course of the negotiations, Khamenei may want to force the negotiations to be reopened so he can extract a few more concessions."

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/iran-s-supreme-leader-says-he-wont-honor-deal-unless-us-makes-changes#.u9mx0x:2HJk

[Proactive]

You are absolutely correct, this Iran deal is simply shadey Obama legacy crap to put in his Chicago library. I'm surprised his puppet Kerry can keep a straight face when he's being interviewed.
This is foolish politics negotiated by weak politicians.
(I think there will be a tide change in the next election cycle, even in my far left socialist democratic state. I'm sick of the democratic party pandering crap and believe I'm not the only one.)
"
THEY HAVEN’T SEEN TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS THAT NUCLEAR INSPECTORS NEGOTIATED WITH TEHRAN

Republicans in the House claim that the Obama administration has not provided Congress with the text of two so-called “side agreements” that the International Atomic Energy Agency negotiated with Tehran. The law that gave Congress a chance to review the agreement for 60 days required the president to give lawmakers all relevant documents.
The conservative Republicans claim the 60-day clock never started and that they can’t cast votes on the deal because they are still waiting for all the documents.
The administration says it doesn’t have the separate agreements, and the nuclear inspection agency says confidentiality agreements prevent it from releasing them."

Confidentiality agreements? You have to be kidding me!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/key-reasons-why-opponents-hate-the-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/09/11/9350930e-5854-11e5-9f54-1ea23f6e02f3_story.html

[desrt]

Yes, Iran is a threat and it's an extremely complex issue.
But we can't let it boil down to :  bad deal or no deal.
(Clinton and Trump are now giving us a third option - a bad deal strictly enforced.)

Wiser heads than mine have given a lot of thought to this without coming up with an answer. I was hoping someone here might have an idea.

[desrt]

Why do you want to leave **** out of the conversation, when he's been out in public beating the war drum:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/cheney-our-president-must-understand-we-are-war-n200111

Your grandchildren will still be paying back the Chinese for the last fake get-rich-quick war he foisted off on you. He's totally relevant to the conversation if he's out speechifying in public and idiots are still listening to him.

[Vance2335]

No reason to bring Halliburton into the conversation or Cheany you hacks.

Everyone stop with the song and dance, Barrack Hussain Obama and John F Kerry both said it was a good deal. LISTEN TO THEM AND BELIEVE THEM. WORSHIP AT THE ALTER OF OBAMA THE SAVIOR.

[wordsworth1]

Dear Dsert,
While I completely agree with your statements about Cheney's friends and the greed of war, I would like to remind you that not all wars are equal. Iran and N.Korea are serious about causing mayhem to America when the timing is right. Iran is dead serious about destroying Israel and overtaking other Mid East countries. They, as well as ISIL want to be the Caliphate and their leaders are very dangerous to the world.
Is the answer war? I hope not. We can humor them and play naive but honestly they see it only as a weakness they can buy time with.
The Halliburton song is correct but cannot be the only response we give to the threat these guys present. The situation is complex and multifaceted and needs to be addressed as such.

[brice1967]

"Not going to honor the deal" eh?  Did nobody see that coming?  Look at Iran's horrible track record and tell me what made anyone think that this clown was just going to hop in line?

[Barb135]

Hillary's already threatening military action if Iran breaks the deal...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a hardline warning to Iran on Wednesday that as president she would "not hesitate" to take military action to stop the country from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Casting herself as a key player in talks that led to the landmark agreement to control Iran's nuclear program, Clinton praised the accord as part of a larger Middle East strategy even as she stressed that it is not a step toward normalizing relations.

"We should anticipate that Iran will test the next president," she told a Washington think-tank. "They'll want to see how far they can bend the rules."

The Democratic presidential contender and former secretary of state said: "That won't work if I'm in the White House. I'll hold the line against Iranian noncompliance."

She coupled her remarks about the Iran deal with a call to convene an emergency gathering at the United Nations to tackle the crisis of Syrian and other refugees flooding Europe. She said the crisis is a "global responsibility," the U.S. should lead the effort and countries at the conference could pledge to accept migrants or donate aid money.

Clinton spoke as Congress prepared to open debate Wednesday on the deal. Democrats have clinched the votes needed to block passage of a disapproval resolution against the accord, a win for the White House against united Republican opposition.

But much of the responsibility for enacting the agreement will fall on the next administration, making the issue likely to linger in the presidential campaign. The deal would require Iran to limit its nuclear program for at least a decade in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from international sanctions.

Republicans are seizing on opposition to the deal among much of Congress and many American Jews to criticize Clinton, frequently casting the agreement as a plank of an "Obama-Clinton foreign policy." A new Pew survey released on Tuesday found that just 21 percent of Americans approved of the deal — a 12-point drop since mid-July.

In her remarks, Clinton attempted to reassure skeptics by threatening serious penalties for violations, including possible military action. She offered strong support for Israel, whose leaders strongly oppose the agreement, promising that if elected she would invite the country's prime minister to the White House during her first month in office.

"The Iranians and the world need to understand that we will act decisively if we need to," she said. "As president, I will take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States and its allies."

But even as she offered a stern warning to Iran, she stressed that rejecting the deal would lead to international isolation for the U.S.

"Several Republicans boast they'll tear up this agreement in 2017," she said. "That's not leadership, that's recklessness."

Instead, she proposed measures to halt Iran's support for terrorist groups and other bad behavior in the region.

Clinton called for expanding the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf and increasing support to Israel and other allies in the region. She also proposed building a coalition to crack down on weapons shipments to Hamas and to counter terrorist organizations financed by Iran, such as Hezbollah.

Another goal: Press countries in the region to block ships and aircraft of Iran's elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, from entering their territory.

As secretary of state, Clinton helped facilitate the talks that eventually led to the nuclear deal. She sent a top adviser to participate in secret meetings with Iran through the sultan of Oman that started the international negotiations.

Since then, she's largely backed the negotiations, staying current with the talks with regular briefings from administration officials, according to aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss private meetings publicly.

Clinton's current support for the deal marks a striking role reversal for the second-time presidential candidate and her long-ago rival. In 2008, she called Barack Obama's offer to meet Iran's leader without preconditions "irresponsible and, frankly, naive." And when Clinton said she would "obliterate" Iran if the country used nuclear weapons against Israel, Obama likened her "bluster" to the "tough talk" of then-President George W. Bush.

More recently, she's wondered publicly whether a deal would ever take shape. Clinton told an American Jewish organization last year that she was "skeptical the Iranians will follow through and deliver." She said she had "seen many false hopes dashed through the years."

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-seeks-reassure-iran-deal-skeptics-tough-talk-100536517--election.html#

[desrt]

Well that's a relief. No deal means we can crank up the war machine, start putting taxpayers' dollars back into the coffers of Halliburton and the rest of Cheney's friends, and keep the economy on life support a little longer without having to raise the minimum wage (much).
Woohoo.