Opinion: Iran’s Suspect Deal in the Making
Written By: Amir Taheri in “Asharq Al-Awsat” Full Article Link HERE.
Of interest is his commentary on “The Mullah’s Contrasting World Vision” discussing a new leader for something called “The New Assembly of Experts” in the same newsletter–link found HERE.
I am only drawing attention to specific points here in order to help clarify the points I think most important.
“By all indications both the Islamic Republic’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei and US President Barack Obama appear determined to reach some sort of agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue. The deadline they seem to have fixed is March 31, which coincides with the end of Iranian New Year holidays.
Earlier this week, in an interview with Reuters, Obama hinted at the broad outlines of the putative accord.
Under it, Iran’s nuclear program will be frozen at more or less the present level which, speaking quickly so that he would say it without being caught out, Obama said it would keep Iran a year away from building its first bomb if it ever decided to do so.
In exchange, Iran would agree to remain in that position, known as “threshold,” for 10 years, a “sunset” clause that could be reviewed after five years.
In other words, after a minimum of five and a maximum of 10 years Iran would be free to cross the “threshold” from the current one year to months or even weeks, going high-gear producing a nuclear arsenal. In other words, Obama has decided to resign himself to the possibility of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic.
As a reward for accepting the five to 10 years’ probation, Iran would benefit from a gradual reduction and eventual lifting of some sanctions imposed since the 1990s. (A range of sanctions imposed prior to that date and linked to other “mischiefs” allegedly committed by Iran would not be affected by any accord on the nuclear issue.)
Provided it actually happens, such an accord would amount to an admission by Iran that it has committed “crimes” in the form of violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and thus must endure international probation for up to a decade.”
It goes on to discuss more…
“To sum up: the P5+1 has no legal existence, no mandate, no mission statement, and thus no authority to conclude any accord with Iran which is a properly constituted nation-state, a member of the UN and thus enjoys full sovereignty and legitimacy….
“In that case, whatever is initialed at the end of the current talks would have to be submitted to proper legislative procedure in Iran, in all P5+1 countries, and in all 28 member states of the European Union.
I doubt that the Islamic Majlis, Iran’s ersatz parliament, would approve a text that puts the nation under foreign tutelage for up to 10 years, despite its being made up of regime loyalists…”
Notice his address to those in the meeting and interesting understanding of sunset problems.
“So who or what is going to be the arbitration authority and the guarantor of compliance of whatever text is concocted by US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Khomeinist counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif?
If we go by the five to 10 year clause it is clear that neither Kerry nor Zarif are likely to be in a position of power when those fatidic sunsets descend.
Even then, we would not be at the end of the story…”
His take on what is needed…
“Iran would do better to hold direct and transparent talks on an equal legal footing with the US, nation to nation, and with the UN as a member state, and with any other country with which there is a contention, on all issues of dispute.
The mullahs are known for devious tactics of taqiyah (obfuscation), kitman (dissimulation), and istitar (pulling a curtain) when they want to surrender without losing face. However, such tactics are not worthy of a proper nation-state, especially a proud one such as Iran.”
We have lots of media coverage from mainstream media and others. However, I also find it important to view at least one media report representative of Iranian view. It is obvious to me that at least this one reporter with excellent credentials also is skeptical and clear-sighted of the Iranian stance on giving ground and their contempt for this group in particular Kerry and Obama.
Can this so-called agreement actually hold water in the world arena? I and apparently Amir Taheri say no. Notice he also acknowledges that for an Accord/Agreement to be acceptable, all legally set up governmental groups of authority have to consider then approve. He also held strong view against the P5+1 right to even make this agreement.
Just one more quick scan netted this jewel…
Headline quote from “Aljazeera” makes this note on the accord as well! “Chief negotiator Zarif says Tehran is able to resume its current nuclear programme if West fails to honour agreement.”
Looks like the ONLY accord is between Kerry and Obama. This has Obutskicare written all over it–total lying disaster.