News this week revealing the Obama administration’s handing over to Iran roughly $400 million to secure the full release of American hostages underscores certain truths and, in Bill Clinton’s own words, the president’s “awful legacy”. The manner in which he wired the funds, however, place into context why the Iran Deal was horrible, why the Western allies capitulated on every point to the Iranians, the U.S./NATO descent into fealty before the Russian government under Vladimir Putin, and finally why it is there was no signed treaty — only a deal outlined and agreed upon with little more than a handshake with Iran’s chief diplomat, Javad Zarif, during last spring’s summit in Vienna.
I was assigned the task by my congressman, John J. Duncan, Jr., to read over the Iran nuclear deal’s “soft” outline which all parties — Iran, the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China — were to agree under an “honor system” and the pledge for foreign weapons inspections sanctioned by the major world powers.
Meanwhile, Russia will enjoy full exemptions from the deal’s standards due to an agreement with Tehran reached in September 2014 to supply Iran technology and nuclear expertise in exchange for oil as it pivots eastward in its strategic alliance with China.
The pointless negotiations that concluded last June were constructed on a foundation of circular details and logic requiring Iran to provide no verifiable evidence as to its good faith. Thus, nothing has changed aside the emergence of a slippery slope due to the $400 million paid in ransom to be distributed to jihadists tied to ISIS in the Syrian/Iraqi civil war, Hezbollah and Tehran-backed Houthi Shi’ite militia in Yemen.
The soft terms also dictate that “Iran will take the leadership role as the owner and the project manager, and have the responsibility for overall implementation of the Arak modernisation project,” whereas the “Working Group” comprised of ES/EU+3 were assigned the “responsibilities regarding the modernisation of the Arak reactor…,” who alongside Iran, “will conclude an official document expressing their strong commitments to the Arak modernisation project in advance of Implementation Day which would provide an assured path forward to modernise the reactor….” In reading the conclusion of the top paragraph defining the roles of Iran and the Working Group, details reeking of crony capitalism via blood money emerge whereby“contracts would be concluded.”
Is it any wonder why the Obama administration and Senate power brokers chose to grant authority to President Obama to implement the deal without any signed treaty or agreement officially defining its terms? Why did Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, negotiate with the president to sign off on the Iran Deal without Senate’s approval, and what did he stand to gain? And why conclude the project’s life span with an “official document expressing their strong commitments” when no contractual mandates, regulatory oversight or standards may prohibit Iran from outsourcing its materials to be constructed in Russia?
In the meantime, the American people are forced to reckon with the consequences behind these disingenuous apologists for the administration. Consider that Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote “This report makes plain what the administration can no longer deny: this was a ransom payment to Iran for U.S. hostages,” in a letter to both the State and Justice Departments, while House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) casually remarked that “Iran sent American hostages back on the same day it received the cash. Sounds a lot like a ransom payment to me.”
The Iran Deal’s circular absurdities are available in the 159-page document from Scribd and in select screen images below.
Iran paid forth a $400 million deposit for military equipment before the Islamic revolution in 1979 that was never delivered, while the White House insists the transaction was not directly related to the release of five U.S. hostages, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, which the administration characterized as “a goodwill gesture” by Tehran. Even NPR quoted Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies admitting, “We have no ability to constrain Iran if they want to spend all $100 billion on funding Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations.”
The nuclear deal permits Iran access to that $100 billion after the International Atomic Energy Agency verifies it has implemented nuclear-related measures under the agreement — except under the agreement, they will block access from other actors to cash in on its exclusive economic cooperation with Moscow to construct as many as six reactors. Meanwhile, U.S./Iranian diplomatic relations have remained severed since 1979.