Volume. 12227

Pulling the nuclear knife out of Iran’s back
PDF Print E-mail
Font Size Larger Font Smaller Font
“If you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out three inches, that is not progress. Even if you pull it all the way out, that is not progress. Progress is healing the wound, and America hasn't even begun to pull out the knife.” – El Hajj Malik El Shabazz (Malcolm X)
Iran and the P5+1 nations have reached agreement on a joint plan of action to move forward on resolving the outstanding issues of concern over the Islamic Republic’s peaceful nuclear energy program.  The goal of the negotiations is to arrive at a “comprehensive solution” that “would produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions, as well as multilateral and national sanctions.”  In short, the object here is to gradually pull the American nuclear knife out of Iran’s economic back.  Or is it just a subterfuge?  Let us briefly examine some of the joint plan’s provisions.
In a stunning specimen of diplomatic doublespeak, the Geneva document states, “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,”  which of course begs the question of just what has been agreed to?  In addition to once again reaffirming that its nuclear energy program is for peaceful purposes and it has not, is not, nor will it ever seek nuclear weapons, Iran has voluntarily agreed to:
* Suspend enriching uranium over 5 percent for six months,
* Dilute half of its stock of 20 percent enriched uranium to 5 percent,
* Delay project advances at Natanz, Fordo and Arak,
* Suspend reprocessing or building any new facility for this,
* Submit to enhanced monitoring including detailed information on plans for new facilities,
* Allow IAEA inspector access to centrifuge workshops and uranium mines and mills, and
* Allow daily access to offline surveillance records at Fordow and Natanz.
In exchange for the above, the west, specifically the E3/EU+3 (UK, France and Germany + Russia, China and the US), would voluntarily:
* Suspend U.S. and EU nuclear-related sanctions on Iran's petrochemical exports, gold and precious metals, 
* Suspend U.S. nuclear-related sanctions on Iran's auto industry and related services,
* Allow safety-related repairs and inspections inside Iran for Iranian airlines,
* Refrain from imposing any new U.S., EU or UN nuclear-related sanctions, and
* Inaugurate a financial channel for humanitarian transactions from Iran’s oil revenues seized by the west.
Acknowledging the lack of significant sanctions relief for Iran, U.S. President Obama admitted, “The United States and our friends and allies have agreed to provide Iran with modest relief, while continuing to apply our toughest sanctions.”  Then immediately threatening Iran, Obama added, “And if Iran does not fully meet its commitments during this six-month phase, we will turn off the relief and ratchet up the pressure.” Obama even claimed that this pittance of relief for Iran is justified “because of its record of violating its obligations.”  Exactly which violations he was talking about remain unspecified.
As outlined by the resident Nobel laureate and executioner-in-chief at the White House, the following criminal constraints imposed upon Iran by the west will remain in effect:
* Sanctions affecting petroleum product exports to Iran,
* Sanctions on those who provide a broad range of other financial services to Iran,
* Sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran and approximately two dozen other major Iranian banks and financial actors,
* Secondary sanctions on banks that do business with U.S.-designated individuals and entities,
* Sanctions on several sectors of Iran’s economy, including shipping and shipbuilding, 
* Sanctions on long-term investment in and provision of technical services to Iran’s energy sector,
* Sanctions on Iran’s military programs, and
* Sanctions on over 600 individuals and entities targeted for allegedly supporting Iran’s nuclear or ballistic missile program.
In addition, all UN Security Council sanctions, and broad U.S. restrictions on trade with Iran remain in effect, while the vast majority of Iran’s approximately $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings remain inaccessible or restricted.  In truth, it appears that the west has merely volunteered not to plunge the nuclear knife into Iran’s economic back more deeply.
No sooner had the ink dried on the Geneva plan when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry began to express diverging views on whether or not the agreement recognized Iran’s inalienable right to enrich uranium.  “This deal means that we agree with the need to recognize Iran's right for peaceful nuclear energy, including the right for enrichment,” Lavrov affirmed.  Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araqchi, concurred that the agreement indeed recognizes Iran's right to enrich uranium,  and in fact states explicitly, “This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment program with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the program.”
However, Kerry insisted, “The first step, let me be clear, does not say that Iran has a right to enrich uranium.”  Siding with Lavrov and Araqchi, Article IV of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty clearly states, “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination ...,” which would include the enrichment of uranium.
Predictably, the Zionist entity’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, went into a convulsive fit over the Iran-U.S. deal, and, warning of disastrous consequences, fomented in furious tones that the agreement was “a historic mistake,” and has “not made the world a safer place.”  However, even Netanyahu was forced to admit that the agreement actually did recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium, as he himself bemoaned, “Now, for the first time, the international community has formally consented that Iran continue its enrichment of uranium.”  
U.S. Secretary Kerry rushed to calm the apoplectic Zionist leader, pointing out that as far as the sanctions on Iran are concerned, “There is very little relief,” and over the coming months, they would “really be able to put to the test what Iran's intentions are.” Despite Kerry’s consoling remarks, Zionist entity minister of trade and industry Naftali Bennett remained absurdly alarmed over the agreement with Iran.  “If in five years, a nuclear suitcase explodes in New York or Madrid,” he irrationally exclaimed, “It will be because of the agreement that was signed this morning.”  Incidentally, both Kerry and the Zionists should know about suitcase nuclear bombs, since the U.S. developed them in the 1960s under a project codenamed SADM – Special Atomic Demolition Munition – specifically for terrorist sabotage operations.
Likewise, France was none too anxious to deescalate punitive economic sanctions, as made clear by Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who had previously done his best to implement the Zionist regime’s bidding to prevent any agreement with Iran.  Fabius said that EU ministers would discuss a partial lifting of sanctions in a meeting that is “expected in several weeks, for a partial lifting that is limited, targeted and reversible.”  Fabius also admitted that France would be protecting the Zionist entity’s security interests in the Middle East.  Like Obama, Fabius appears to sending a strong message to the Zionist entity that “we got your back.”
Even Saudi Arabia, one of the Zionist entity’s alleged enemies, was distraught over the news of the west’s agreement with Iran.  Accusing the U.S. of deliberate deception, Nawaf Obaid, senior fellow at the King Faisal Centre and former advisor to Prince Turki al-Faisal, exclaimed, “We were lied to, things were hidden from us,” warning that from now on, Riyadh would pursue a foreign policy direction independent of Washington.  Part of this reassessment of Saudi policy would involve a new defensive strategy of “Iran containment.”  Interestingly enough, the real reason behind Saudi recalcitrance over the U.S.-Iran accord appears to be fear of increased Shi’a influence in the Middle East region which could lead to a revolt against the Saudi monarchy.
Other U.S. allies expressed a more positive assessment of the deal.  British Foreign Secretary William Hague remarked that the agreement was “good for the world” and an “essential first step.”  Chidanand Rajghatta of the Times of India stated that the deal came as a big relief and as a result, “Eventually, India may also be able to resume normal trade relations with Iran, which the US-led sanctions had put a crimp on.” Admiring the actions of the U.S. president, Mary Riddell of the New York Times wrote, “Mr. Obama has walked where his predecessors would not have dared, serving notice that the US will not genuflect towards Benjamin Netanyahu.”  
It remains to be seen if Obama will heed the words of the great American Black Muslim leader Malcom X and pull the nuclear knife all the way out of Iran’s economic back to let that wound, which has festered under so many years of American intransigence, to heal.  If this comes to pass, despite mounting Zionist and Saudi pressure, then we will have made genuine progress. But so far with the Geneva joint plan, the knife scarcely has been pulled out three inches.
Page 1 of 6

rssfeed socializeit
Socialize this
Subscribe to our RSS feed to stay in touch and receive all of TT updates right in your feed reader
Twitter Facebook Myspace Stumbleupon Digg Technorati aol blogger google reddit