Helping Obama Admin. Officials Understand the "Big Words" in Concerns for Iran Nuke Deal

Obviously what Kissinger and Shultz said was WAY over their head!

While the Obamabots are busy proclaiming peace with Iran, the adults know better. Statesmen Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, both former Secretaries of State who negotiated some of the most complex and difficult agreements of the 20th Century wrote and op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing their concern. I excerpted a portion of that op-ed here. This quote sums up their concerns:

“Negotiations . . . to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability. . . ”

Naturally, the criticism didn't sit well with the wizards of smart in the Obama Administration. The same bunch who have presided over the collapse of U.S. influence and the unleashing of a wave of war and terror across the globe. When asked about the Kissinger/Shultz missive State Dept. Spokeswoman Marie Harf remarked ""I Heard A Lot Of Big Words." Someone give the girl a dictionary. She's clearly in WAY over her head.

Perhaps to help her out and to sum up the concerns that Kissinger/Shultz and others have expressed over a possible Iran deal Charles Krauthammer wrote the following. it's worth reading in it's entirety but I offer the following excerpt:

It was but a year and a half ago that Barack Obama endorsed the objective of abolition when he said that Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility, its plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor and its advanced centrifuges were all unnecessary for a civilian nuclear program. The logic was clear: Since Iran was claiming to be pursuing an exclusively civilian program, these would have to go.

Yet under the deal Obama is now trying to sell, not one of these is to be dismantled. Indeed, Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure is kept intact, just frozen or repurposed for the length of the deal (about a decade). Thus Fordow’s centrifuges will keep spinning. They will now be fed xenon, zinc and germanium instead of uranium. But that means they remain ready at any time to revert from the world’s most heavily (indeed comically) fortified medical isotope facility to a bomb-making factory.
...
And then there’s cheating. Not to worry, says Obama. We have guarantees of compliance: “unprecedented inspections” and “snapback” sanctions.

The inspection promises are a farce. We haven’t even held the Iranians to their current obligation to come clean with the International Atomic Energy Agency on their previous nuclear activities. The IAEA charges Iran with stonewalling on 11 of 12 issues.

As veteran nuclear expert David Albright points out, that makes future verification impossible — how can you determine what’s been illegally changed or added if you have no baseline? Worse, there’s been no mention of the only verification regime with real teeth — at-will, unannounced visits to any facility, declared or undeclared. The joint European-Iranian statement spoke only of “enhanced access through agreed procedures,” which doesn’t remotely suggest anywhere/anytime inspections. And on Thursday, Iran’s supreme leader ruled out any “extraordinary supervision measures.”

Yet even if violations are found, what then? First, they have to be certified by the IAEA. Which then reports to the United Nations, where Iran has the right to challenge the charge. Which then has to be considered, argued and adjudicated. Which then presumably goes to the Security Council where China, Russia and sundry anti-Western countries will act as Iran’s lawyers. Which all would take months — after which there is no guarantee that China and Russia will ratify the finding anyway.

As for the “snapback” sanctions — our last remaining bit of pressure — they are equally fantastic. There’s no way sanctions will be re-imposed once they have been lifted. It took a decade to weave China, Russia and the Europeans into the current sanctions infrastructure. Once gone, it doesn’t snap back. None will pull their companies out of a thriving, post-sanctions Iran. As Kissinger and Shultz point out, we will be fought every step of the way, leaving the United States, not Iran, isolated.

Obama imagines that this deal will bring Iran in from the cold, tempering its territorial ambitions and ideological radicalism. But this defies logic: With sanctions lifted, its economy booming and tens of billions injected into its treasury, why would Iran curb rather than expand its relentless drive for regional dominance?

...
What is the alternative, asks the president? He’s repeatedly answered the question himself: No deal is better than a bad deal.

Meanwhile, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has accused Obama of "lying" about the deal and steadfastly insists that there is NO DEAL unless ALL sanctions are immediately lifted upon signing. Is Obama so desperate for a deal he will agree to that? Stay tuned!