The known elements of the deal are bad enough, as I explain in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. But the secret codicils just keep making things worse.
“Obama Admin Covering Up Key Iran Deal Details in Final Days,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, November 22, 2016:
Senior Obama administration officials in their final days in office are seeking to cover up key details of the Iran nuclear deal from Congress, according to documents and sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon about continued efforts by the White House to block formal investigations into secret diplomacy with Tehran that resulted in a $1.7 billion cash payment by the United States.
As leading members of Congress petition the Obama administration for answers about what many describe as a $1.7 billion “ransom” payment to Iran, Obama administration officials are doubling down on their refusal to answer questions about the secret negotiations with Iran that led to this payment.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), a vocal opponent of last year’s nuclear deal with Iran, has been seeking answers from senior Obama administration officials since at least late September. However, officials continue to stonewall the senator’s inquiries, according to senior congressional sources and formal communications between Rubio and the State Department obtained by the Free Beacon.
Rubio and several other lawmakers have petitioned the Obama administration for documents and information about the secret negotiations that resulted in Tehran receiving $1.7 billion in cash and a promise from the United States to further roll back sanctions on an Iranian financial institution that helped finance the country’s illicit ballistic missile program.
A spokesman for Rubio told the Free Beacon that the administration’s continued obfuscation has motivated the senator to take steps to help President-elect Donald Trump kill the nuclear agreement once he enters office next year.
“Senator Rubio looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and his team to scrap this fundamentally flawed deal and hold Iran accountable for its cheating and regional aggression,” the spokesman said.
Rubio submitted a list of questions about the deal to Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sept. 29 during a hearing aimed at examining these payments to Iran.
Blinken finally provided answers to these questions last week, but declined to address all specific questions Rubio posed about the secret negotiations over the $1.7 billion payment….

rara says
Can anybody summarize the reasons why the deal is wrong from Robert’s book?
I’m interested in the rational arguments, not in “the political side I support says so” ones.
I expect that it can be summarized somehow?
rara says
Especially since I read
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timdaiss/2016/11/22/trumps-iran-deal-rhetoric-israelis-say-not-so-fast/
miriamrove says
Yes. I can. I was born and raised a Muslim: You don’t give a 2 year kid a gun for obvious reasons therefore you don’t give the Iranian government which by far is the largest state sponsor of terrorism nukes.They are terrorizing people as we speak, and if they the nukes thee minute they have a dispute they point at you.m
Angemon says
rara posted:
“I expect that it can be summarized somehow?”
In short: even if the Iranians don’t use the money they’re receiving to sponsor terrorism worldwide, keep their word and stick to the deal, all the deal does is delay their nuclear weapons program for a few years.
rara says
Apparently the deal does block the further development of the Iran’s nuclear program, according to what’s in Forbes (I’ve already given the link):
“Shemuel Meir, a former Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) analyst and associate researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University says that the Iran deal is “beneficial to Israeli security, and thus must be safeguarded,” adding that the deal “removed the existential threat hovering above Israel.”
He said it “blocked Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon, and prevented the emergence of an arms race in the Middle East.” He argues that “without an Iranian nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have no incentive to obtain nuclear weapons, thus preventing a domino scenario.”
“The deal also closed off the chapter of pre-emption strikes scenarios on Iran’s military targets and reduced the risks for a new and long regional war. A possibility that could become relevant should Iran deal be ripped up,” he says.”
I admit I haven’t read Robert’s book, so when he writes that he explained in the book, I really need some clear summary of his claims. And I’m not interested in the general qualities of Iran’s ideology, like Shia have the religious concept of lying etc, I know that, I’m interested in the specifics related to the very specific deal with all the details there included.
Angemon says
The deal limits the types of uranium Iran is allowed to enrich for a period of ten years to non-weapons grade. Under the terms of the deal, Iran’s nuclear program is protected, not scrapped. What happens after the 10 years period? Iran can continue to pursue nuclear weapons free of repercussions. That’s one of the reasons why Netanyahu called the deal an ‘historic mistake for world’:
http://www.france24.com/en/20150714-netanyahu-israel-iran-nuclear-deal-historic-mistake
The article you quoted from also says:
le mouron rouge says
rara says
November 22, 2016 at 4:57 pm
“Can anybody summarize the reasons why the deal is wrong from Robert’s book?” and “Especially since I read – http://www.forbes.com/sites/timdaiss/2016/11/22/trumps-iran-deal-rhetoric-israelis-say-not-so-fast/
*************
I haven’t read Robert’s book, can’t comment on it. However, I did read the article you mentioned.
Quoting from the article:
“However, most Israeli politicians are looking forward to Trump’s harder line against Iran. Aides for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that the two leaders plan to meet in the first half of next year, probably by March, while the Israeli leader is already meeting with national security advisers to formulate a strategy.”
“A senior Israeli official said last week that Netanyahu is expected to tell Trump that Washington needs to take a harder line against Iran’s military program and lead a more concerted global effort to keep the country’s regional aspirations in check.”
“In August, the Israeli Defense Ministry pulled no punches, comparing the Iran deal to the Munich Agreement signed by European powers with Nazi Germany in 1938. Many historians claim that western powers caved into Germany after the agreement, which led to World War II.”
Unquote.
Seems pretty straight forward to me, especially that last paragraph. It appears that those in Israel’s “current” administration are not happy with the Iranian situation.
Former this or that, other sources, etc., can guesstimate all they want, they’re not responsible for the outcome. Back seat drivers are very annoying.
What really matters, is what the current Israeli Administration thinks is best for their country, based on their knowledge of the situation.
Can Obama be trusted? Or Iran?
Doubtful at best.
gravenimage says
rara, the Iranians have *already* been violating the tenets of the deal–which only “safeguard” for a limited time, even if they were adhered to.
Isolating Iran–as the US did for decades–made much more sense than playing footsie with them.
Leor Suissa says
Also, Iran inspects its own facilities, not an outside group. That in and of itself is so backwards. inspections should be done by outside 3rd parties, not Iran itself. They continue to advance their missile “defense” systems, which one can claim is a violation of the deal. They’ve even test launched rockets with the words “Death to Israel” etched into them. Not really defensive if you create rockets than can reach a specific nation and then go ahead and write death to that nation on the rocket. Iranian generals have spoken about how they supply arms to Hezbollah, (few days ago I read they send weaponry on commercial airlines) Iran supports the Houthi rebels in Yemen (a barbaric and savage terrorist group) Since the deal they’ve increased support for these groups, are trying extremely hard to sow chaos in the region, and have instigated numerous times with the US and warships. They’ve taken Navy sailors hostage, fired missiles close to warships, sped close to US warships (supposedly a military exercise) and are using these instances to show how America is weak and Iran is strong. Nothing has changed, they continue to violate the terms of the agreement (Just yesterday they sold heavy water to Oman, and it was a little bit over the allowed amount – meaning they even violated this term), and they are the biggest supporter of terrorist groups in the region. If you need any proof, just look how Saudi Arabia is becoming friendly with Israel. That would never happen unless the old adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Says a lot that Arab countries are normalizing ties with Israel
Carolyne says
I have not yet read Mr. Spencer’s book but I know that Muslims, especially Iranians, are prone to not negotiate anything honestly and their first reaction to anything they don’t like is to kill. Their first reaction is violence. So, when they get their nuclear program completed and have nuclear weapons, they will use them without a thought of the consequences as a first reaction.
The Iranians are not the only Muslims who do not consider consequences. They are all like that. It is part of their mindset and mental deficiencies. It is who they are.
A Turk once told me that in Turkey, a lie is called a “Persian story” because the Iranians are known liars.
rara says
According to the responses up to now I can conclude:
1) nobody has read the Robert’s book
2) almost all the responses don’t refer to the specifics of the deal. One mentions that Iran will have its own inspections, but also seems very distant from the specifics.
That is all the arguments up to now are arguments “from solidarity” or a “general feeling” and not based on the specifics, exactly the opposite of what I asked. Maybe it changes in the future, but I won’t hold my breath as the article isn’t among the newest soon.
somehistory says
Why not just get the book and read it for yourself?
rara says
I plan to do so. But I really wanted to see what the readers who take part in the discussion here can give. Either by having read the book or knowing the details I asked for.
Sadly, it was neither nor.
gravenimage says
Here are some of the disturbing details of the Iran Nuke Deal, rara–a story you no doubt could have found on your own:
“Robert Spencer in the Washington Times: Six shocking details from the Iran nuke deal”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/robert-spencer-in-the-washington-times-six-shocking-details-from-the-iran-nuke-deal
This article also has some comments from Benjamin Netanyahu on the repercussions of the deal. It also covers how Iran will wind up inspecting its own sites.
So sorry that Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch posters have disappointed you so gravely, in not spoon feeding you the exact information you were looking for.
Perhaps this article will change things…
Cecilia Ellis says
Rara, I actually have read Robert Spencer’s book, “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran.” In fact, I have it in hand at this moment. For several reasons, I did not reply to your post initially, the following being the most prominent:
1. As Robert Spencer is the Director of Jihad Watch and also the author of the book about which you are inquiring, he, better than anyone, can address your concerns . . . as he has done already and so superbly in his book. I, for one, would not be so foolish as to attempt to summarize his position, as documented by 1068 footnotes, or to try to narrow his brilliant presentation to a few sentences devoid of historical, political or diplomatic context. It would be a major disservice to both Robert and to you.
2. As it takes a book to answer your question, click on the Amazon.com tab, located in the right-hand margin at the top of this page beneath the icon picture of Robert’s book. That link will provide you the opportunity to read the reviews of others who have purchased his book, as well as offer you five different formats in which the book may be purchased.
Angemon says
rara posted:
“1) nobody has read the Robert’s book”
Why? Because no one prefaced their post with “I’ve read Robert’s book”?
“2) almost all the responses don’t refer to the specifics of the deal. ”
Again – and because I know of no other way to put it – the deal has a time limit. After said time limit, Iran is free to continue to pursue its nuclear ambitions. You asked for a “summarized” version. I told you a reason that, by itself, shows how pointless the whole deal is.
“That is all the arguments up to now are arguments “from solidarity” or a “general feeling” and not based on the specifics, exactly the opposite of what I asked.”
Ignoring what others say is NOT the same as others not saying something. You asked for a summarized version and now you’re complaining that people didn’t talk about specifics?
SMH
duh swami says
Don’t worry, Obama still has time to ive Iran more money and emotional support…
Don McKellar says
I just don’t understand what the basic underlying incentives were for Obama to even go down this road in the first place. It doesn’t make any sense at all. Nothing real is gained and everything is lost and nobody is held to account.
He really is the worst president of the modern era. I guess what needs to happen is to have a very successful presidency to follow him and then, finally, his massive failings in virtually all areas will come to be examined and understood more widely.
gravenimage says
It’s just more enabling of Islam. There was nothing in it for America of the rest of the West.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
True Graven. There’s more though.
Zero was raised muslim and lived in a muslim country. He LOVES them. We all saw him bowing and scraping to that fat pedophile aka a Saudi prince.
Plus his Alinsky side militates that he always and everywhere, further the interests of all things America hating.
Thus, the Iran deal.
somehistory says
From all that I have read and observed, he does whatever he believes will make the most people… in this country and in other countries where a portion are rational, moral humans wish things to be “right” and “just”…angry and upset.
He knew how most people would feel about it. That and being moslim and moslim friendly, are the three reasons.
billybob says
“I just don’t understand what the basic underlying incentives were for Obama to even go down this road in the first place. It doesn’t make any sense at all. Nothing real is gained and everything is lost and nobody is held to account.”
Then you have a very limited imagination. It was a brilliant idea, only it was a naive implementation. Let’s forget who the parties involved were for a moment, and step back a bit and speak in general terms.
Imagine you have an intractable problem. The Klingon Empire is building a doomsday weapon. Once they complete it you know there is going to be a heap of trouble in Delta Quadrant, and it is especially bad news for your allies the Kardashians who live within range of the Klingon.
Of course you have the full weight of the Federation behind you, and you could just go bomb the shiite out of them, but that is a rather messy solution with the potential for much collateral damage. Remember, you objective is preventing the construction of the doomsday weapon, not triggering total war.
So looking at their weaknesses, you realize massive corruption of the Klingon regime is a pretty serious weakness. So how ’bout bribing the corrupt Klingons? And anyhow, they are a bunch of barbarians. They should fall for your scheme easy. Just wave a big pile of cash in their faces and it’s all over. You get them to agree to easily verifiable terms that will kick their doomsday weapon at least a dozen years down the road, and hope like hell in the meantime there will be a revolution against the corrupt Klingon leaders making the whole idea of having to go to war against them moot.
So now we step back into the real world. Obama failed miserably in implementation, because he underestimated the cunning of the enemy. This is understandable, because he has been underestimating the insidiousness of their religion all along. Obama never secured the “easily verifiable terms” because he was so overwhelmed by the sense of his own place in history and brilliance he didn’t realize he was being played for a sucker all along. Iran ended up being able to keep way more centrifuges than the original plan envisioned, and with the right to inspect themselves, and the whole thing is just a farce.
The result is that Iran is just going to go on pushing the edges outward until they are totally meaningless, and they will remain probably only a year or two away from building the bomb at any given point.
Eric Jones says
Obama is simply an Islamist He has played the fool in public to cover his real intention to aid the Iran regime. Iran does self inspection? All money released to Iran without them performing their part of the agreement? All totally intentional on Obama’s part. Even more deceiving is that Obama is a Sunni while Iran is Shia. Obama simply wants to under mine the USA. Hop and Change. Who would have thunk it?
Eric
Carolyne says
Obama is a Muslim. He was born a Muslim, raised as a Muslim, attended school in Indonesia as a Muslim and is a Muslim still. One doesn’t leave Islam and survive.
le mouron rouge says
Don McKellar says
November 22, 2016 at 5:56 pm
“I just don’t understand what the basic underlying incentives were for Obama to even go down this road in the first place. It doesn’t make any sense at all.”
****************
November 22, 2016 at 5:56 pm
“I just don’t understand what the basic underlying incentives were for Obama to even go down this road in the first place.”
***********************
Does anything about Obama make sense? Only when one considers that he is doing “exactly” what he was put in Office to do, that is, to undermine the U.S.A. and the Nation of Israel.
We are dealing with a Liar, Thief and a Bandit.
And now that his term is coming to an end, this hypocrite, the one who constantly vilified the rich, this Community Organizer who wants to redistribute everyone’s wealth but his own, will move into a $6 million nine-bedroom rented home in an upscale Washington neighborhood — two blocks from the White House — when he leaves in January. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/barack-obama-renting-home-washington/2016/05/25/id/730796/
It’s rumored that the monthly rent will be $22,000.
And this – “Lucrative Book Deals Might Finance the Obamas’ Post-White House Life”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/us/politics/lucrative-book-deals-might-finance-the-obamas-post-white-house-life.html?_r=0
Hmmm, seems that being very rich is now a “good” thing!
common sense says
“Assuming” Iran is truthful and transparent its a bad deal in the long run following the tenth year and the real experts say a”disaster” including Netanyahu. Iran will be about as transparent and truthful as the Clintons, the DNC and Obama and everyone knows it.
A psychotic can walk around and look just like you and me, be more well spoken than you and me, actually very articulate and deviously intelligent. BHO is that type of ‘Ted Bundy’ psychotic he is unable to help himself for whatever reason. Seeing what he has done to this country is like finding out someone you know has always been a pedophile. It has been chilling! BHO scares me far more than anyone claiming to be scared of Trump. That’s just totalitarian attitudes playing the false victim.
gravenimage says
Obama administration in its death throes still covering up key details of Iran deal
………………………..
This does not surprise. Kudos to Marco Rubio and others for ferreting out the truth.