Biden Administration's Nuclear Deal: "This Isn't Obama's Iran Deal. It's Much, Much Worse." by Majid Rafizadeh

 

Biden Administration's Nuclear Deal: "This Isn't Obama's Iran Deal. It's Much, Much Worse."

by Majid Rafizadeh
March 26, 2022 at 5:00 am

Share518

• "By every indication, the Biden Administration appears to have given away the store.... What is more, the deal appears likely to deepen Iran's financial and security relationship with Moscow and Beijing, including through arms sales." — Statement from 49 US Republican Senators, March 14, 2022.

• With the increased flow of funds to the ruling mullahs, do expect an increase across Iran in human rights violations and domestic crackdowns on those who oppose the regime's policies, as hardliners tend to be the ones gaining more power as a result of any lifting of sanctions. Iran's hardliners already control three branches of the government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

• Regionally speaking, a nuclear deal will undoubtedly escalate Iran's interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, despite what the advocates of the nuclear deal argue -- just as when then US President Barack Obama predicted that with a nuclear deal, "attitudes will change." They did. For the worse.

• Sanctions relief, as a consequence of a nuclear accord, will most likely finance Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Quds Force (the IRGC branch for extraterritorial operations) and buttress Iran's terrorist proxies, including Lebanon's Hezbollah, Yemen's Houthis, Iraq's Shiite militias, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

• The worst parts of the new deal are, of course, that it will enable the Iranian regime, repeatedly listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, to have full nuclear weapons capability, an unlimited number of nuclear warheads, and the intercontinental ballistic missile systems with which to deliver them. In addition, as a separate deal, the US will reportedly release the IRGC from the US List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, "in return for a public commitment from Iran to de-escalation in the region" and a promise "not to attack Americans."

• Iran's leaders, for a start, never honored their earlier "commitment," so why would anyone think they would honor this one? In a burst of honesty, though -- and a pretty explicit tip-off -- they stated that they "didn't agree to the U.S. demand and suggested giving the U.S. a private side letter instead."

• Then there is that revealingly narcissistic condition, "not to attack Americans"? Oh, then attacking Saudis, Emiratis, Israelis, Europeans, South Americans and everyone else is just fine? Thanks, Biden.

• Worse, the Iranians were complicit with al-Qaeda in attacking the US on 9/11/2001. So we are rewarding them?

• To top it off, the US State Department just confirmed that Russia and its war-criminal President Vladimir Putin could keep Iran's "excess uranium." (Excess of what?) Seriously? So Putin can use Iran's uranium to threaten bombing his next "Ukraine"?

• One can only assume that just as the region has become relatively more peaceful and stable, the Biden administration would like to destabilize it. After surrendering to the Taliban in Afghanistan and failing to deter Putin from invading Ukraine, has the Biden administration not created enough destabilization? Why would a US president want a legacy of three major destabilizations unless someone was interested in bringing down the West?

• The US proposals -- negotiated for the Americans by Russia of all unimpeachable, trustworthy, above-board advocates -- have been described as: "This Isn't Obama's Iran Deal. It's Much, Much Worse." That sounds about right.

The Biden administration continues to disregard major concerns regarding the Iran nuclear deal, and has reportedly "refused to commit to submit a new Iran deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, as per its constitutional obligation." The US proposals -- negotiated with Iran for the Americans by Russia of all countries -- have been described as: "This Isn't Obama's Iran Deal. It's Much, Much Worse." That sounds about right. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Biden administration continues to disregard major concerns regarding the Iran nuclear deal, and has reportedly "refused to commit to submit a new Iran deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, as per its constitutional obligation."

Forty-nine Republican Senators recently told the Biden Administration that they will not back the administration's nuclear deal with Iran. The Senators stated:

"By every indication, the Biden Administration appears to have given away the store. The administration appears to have agreed to lift sanctions that were not even placed on Iran for its nuclear activities in the first place, but instead because of its ongoing support for terrorism and its gross abuses of human rights. The nuclear limitations in this new deal appear to be significantly less restrictive than the 2015 nuclear deal, which was itself too weak, and will sharply undermine U.S. leverage to secure an actually 'longer and stronger' deal. What is more, the deal appears likely to deepen Iran's financial and security relationship with Moscow and Beijing, including through arms sales."

A Biden nuclear deal with the Iranian regime will have major benefits for the ruling mullahs. It will enrich the Iranian regime with billions of dollars in revenues as it lifts sanctions on Tehran's energy, banking and shipping sectors; reintegrate the Islamic Republic into the global financial system, enhance Tehran's legitimacy in the world, increase Iran's exports of oil, and ratchet up foreign investments in Iran -- particularly in the energy industry.

Do not expect the extra revenues to trickle down to the ordinary people of Iran or raise their standard of living. As Ashkan, a construction worker and father of three who lives in the capital Tehran with his family, told me, "people had a lot of hope in 2015 when the nuclear deal was reached," under the so-called moderate administration of then President Hassan Rouhani.

"The officials made us believe that the nuclear deal will be good for the people as well. But after the nuclear deal, inflation kept going up, wages stayed the same, the value of the currency kept going down, price of goods continued to go up, unemployment remained high, and people were still financially struggling during the period of the nuclear deal until the US government of Trump left the deal."

With the increased flow of funds to the ruling mullahs, do expect an increase across Iran in human rights violations and domestic crackdowns on those who oppose the regime's policies, as hardliners tend to be the ones gaining more power as a result of any lifting of sanctions. Iran's hardliners already control three branches of the government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

The Iranian regime will most likely first utilize the extra revenue by increasing its military budget. This scenario is what occurred in 2015 after the Obama's nuclear deal was struck. Iran immediately raised its military budget by $1.5 billion from $15.6 billion to $17.1 billion. On April 10, 2015, The Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) quoted Mohammad Reza Pour Ebrahimi, a member of the parliament's Economic Affairs Committee, stating:

"In addition to the approved figures, $1.5 billion has been allocated to prop up defense of the country and this amount has been approved by this committee."

Regionally speaking, a nuclear deal will undoubtedly escalate Iran's interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, despite what the advocates of the nuclear deal argue -- just as when then US President Barack Obama predicted that with a nuclear deal, "attitudes will change." They did. For the worse.

For the first time, Lebanon's Hezbollah became emboldened and admitted receiving financial and military assistance from Iran. In addition, Iran's military adventurism in Iraq rapidly escalated. Iran became more forceful in supporting and assisting the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad militarily and economically.

Sanctions relief, as a consequence of a nuclear accord, will most likely finance Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Quds Force (the IRGC branch for extraterritorial operations) and buttress Iran's terrorist proxies, including Lebanon's Hezbollah, Yemen's Houthis, Iraq's Shiite militias, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The worst parts of the new deal are, of course, that it will enable the Iranian regime, repeatedly listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, to have full nuclear weapons capability, an unlimited number of nuclear warheads, and the intercontinental ballistic missile systems with which to deliver them. In addition, as a separate deal, the US will reportedly release the IRGC from the US List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, "in return for a public commitment from Iran to de-escalation in the region" and a promise "not to attack Americans."

"Administration officials who have briefed the media say the IRGC would only be delisted if it promises not to attack Americans and commits to curtailing its destabilizing activities outside Iran. If it doesn't keep its word, it can be redesignated an FTO. This might have been reassuring but for the fact that Biden is currently ignoring requests, from members of Congress as well as from U.S. allies, to put the Houthis back on the list."

Iran's leaders, for a start, never honored their earlier "commitment," so why would anyone think they would honor this one? In a burst of honesty, though -- and a pretty explicit tip-off -- they stated that they "didn't agree to the U.S. demand and suggested giving the U.S. a private side letter instead."

Then there is that revealingly narcissistic condition, "not to attack Americans"? Oh, then attacking Saudis, Emiratis, Israelis, Europeans, South Americans and everyone else is just fine? Thanks, Biden.

Worse, the Iranians were complicit with al-Qaeda in attacking the US on 9/11/2001. So we are rewarding them?

To top it off, the US State Department just confirmed that Russia and its war-criminal President Vladimir Putin could keep Iran's "excess uranium." (Excess of what?) Seriously? So Putin can use Iran's uranium to threaten bombing his next "Ukraine"?

One can only assume that just as the region has become relatively more peaceful and stable, the Biden administration would like to destabilize it. After surrendering to the Taliban in Afghanistan and failing to deter Putin from invading Ukraine, has the Biden administration not created enough destabilization? Why would a US president want a legacy of three major destabilizations unless someone was interested in bringing down the West?

The US proposals -- negotiated with Iran for the Americans by Russia of all unimpeachable, trustworthy, above-board advocates -- have been described as: "This Isn't Obama's Iran Deal. It's Much, Much Worse." That sounds about right.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

Business vs. Government? by Alan M. Dershowitz April 2, 2022 at 5:00 am

 

Business vs. Government?

by Alan M. Dershowitz
April 2, 2022 at 5:00 am

Share91

• If a corporation builds a better mousetrap than the government, we buy it. And generally, that is a good idea. But it may come with costs, not easily measurable in dollars or speed.

• The Constitution itself was not designed for efficiency.... Ours was designed to check and balance power, rather than to expedite results. We pay a price for our desire to prevent too much centralization of authority in any one person or institution. And sometimes we grow impatient at the slow pace of progress.

• We want our mail delivered faster and more frequently; we want to know the outcome of elections tonight not next week... we want our disputes resolved without months of pretrial discovery. And so, we turn to the classic American solution: private enterprise, free market competition, capitalism.

• The time has come to consider the consider the costs and benefits of this important development.

• It is not the object of this article to resolve these issues or to propose specific jurisprudential shifts. It is simply to bring together a number of related changes that have in common the privatization of traditional governmental activities, and to begin a discussion of the legal changes that, especially in the area of social media censorship, seem urgently required.

• We must begin a discussion of the legal changes that seem urgently required, especially in the area of media censorship, invasion of privacy and lack of transparency by private companies that appear to be performing functions, possibly at the behest of the government, as a way of bypassing the restrictions placed on the government by the First Amendment.

We must begin a discussion of the legal changes that seem urgently required, especially in the area of media censorship, invasion of privacy and lack of transparency by private companies that appear to be performing functions, possibly at the behest of the government, as a way of bypassing the restrictions placed on the government by the First Amendment. (Adobe Stock File #2478721)

When I was growing up, the mail was delivered by the post office, money was printed by the treasury, votes were counted by election officials, wars were fought by the army, prisons were run by departments of correction, law enforcement was conducted by the police force, space exploration was done by NASA, legal disputes were resolved by judges and juries.

Today, these and other traditional governmental functions are being shared among public, private and mixed groups. This growing privatization of what used to be deemed the provenance of the state raises fundamental and rarely discussed questions of constitutional law, political accountability and the nature of our society.

The motivation behind these changes has generally been efficiency and economic benefit. The private sector often does it better and more cheaply than government bureaucracy. In our free-market economy, even the government must compete and prevail. If a corporation builds a better mousetrap than the government, we buy it. And generally, that is a good idea. But it may come with costs, not easily measurable in dollars or speed.

The Constitution itself was not designed for efficiency. A nonfederal, unicameral, parliamentary system of governance — such as those in many other democracies— is far more likely to get things done than our complex federal, bicameral, separation of powers system. Ours was designed to check and balance power, rather than to expedite results. We pay a price for our desire to prevent too much centralization of authority in any one person or institution. And sometimes we grow impatient at the slow pace of progress.

We want our mail delivered faster and more frequently; we want to know the outcome of elections tonight not next week; we want alternatives to paper currency; we want military results more effectively achieved by private operatives than by the hierarchical armed forces; we want to imprison criminals more cheaply; we want our homes and businesses protected by privately paid former FBI agents; we trust entrepreneurs to take space travelers beyond the moon; we want our disputes resolved without months of pretrial discovery. And so, we turn to the classic American solution: private enterprise, free-market competition, capitalism.

This means less intrusion by government but also less protection by our Constitution, which generally constrains state action, not private conduct that is regulated more by private contract than by public law.

The time has come to consider the costs and benefits of this important development. There is no "one size fits all" solution. In some areas, privatization has worked better than in others. Federal express has proved the virtue of competing with governmentally run post offices. Alternative dispute resolution – arbitration and other non-governmental mechanisms for deciding controversies -- is far superior to courts in most cases. But privately run prisons are questionable, as are Blackwater-type quasi-military operations. Private space travel has yet to prove its worth. And privately tabulated voting is currently in litigation. (Full disclosure: I am currently involved in a free speech aspect on such a case.) As far as crypto currency is concerned, the market seems to love it, while most American's don't understand it. It is yet to be seen if it will have a beneficial, harmful or no effect on status of the U.S. dollar internationally, or the ability of criminal organizations to launder ill-begotten gains more secretly. It is not the object of this article to resolve these issues or to propose specific jurisprudential shifts. It is simply to bring together a number of related changes that have in common the privatization of traditional governmental activities, and to begin a discussion of the legal changes that, especially in the area of social media censorship, seem urgently required. One point would seem self-evident. The government, by delegating its traditional functions to private companies, should not be permitted to deny to citizens such basic rights as transparency, accountability and recourse.

There are also new developments that do not fit neatly into the shift from government to private. Social media was never a function of the state, though the internet probably could not have been constructed without governmental involvement. Now it has become the primary medium of communication – and inevitably of the control and censorship of information. The role of the Constitution is as yet uncertain. Paradoxically it is the First Amendment that empowers private mega-companies like Facebook and Twitter to censor and limit access to advocacy and other forms of speech that are protected from governmental control by that Amendment.

Our history of governmental and private institutions may be somewhat mixed – e.g., fire departments were originally private – but our jurisprudence has been based largely on the assumption that government has a monopoly over certain activities. This monopoly is now being challenged by private companies that perform functions that were traditionally performed by the government, such as delivering the mail and creating currency. But our jurisprudence has not kept pace. Constitutional law still operates largely to protect against governmental overreach, on the assumption that the potential for such overreach lies generally with state action. The emerging role of privatization of traditional governmental functions requires a rethinking of some constitutional assumptions.

The New Deal in the 1930s represented a dramatic shift in many areas from private enterprise to governmental participation. That shift, which some say helped save capitalism, was obvious for all to see. It resulted in a visible change in our constitutional jurisprudence: governmental intrusion that had previously been held unconstitutional became legally acceptable. The current shift, from governmental to private, is more subtle and less visible. It, too, must be accompanied by some adaptation of legal principles.

We must begin a discussion of the legal changes that seem urgently required, especially in the area of media censorship, invasion of privacy and lack of transparency by private companies that appear to be performing functions, possibly at the behest of the government, as a way of bypassing the restrictions placed on the government by the First Amendment.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of The Case for Color-Blind Equality in an Age of Identity Politics and The Case for Vaccine Mandates, Hot Books (2021). He is the host of "The Dershow," on Rumble. Follow Alan M. Dershowitz New podcast: The Dershow, on Spotify, YouTube and iTunes, Dersh.Substack.com

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

• Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter and Facebook

Homeland Security 20th Agency to Track Religious Vaccine Objectors...By Fred Lucas “The Biden administration is creating a blacklist of federal employees,” says Sarah Parshall Perry, a legal analyst at The Heritage Foundation. More

 

April 2 2022   Good morning from Washington, where yet another federal agency is exploring the development of a database of employees seeking religious accommodations. Fred Lucas reports. Has COVID-19 changed how education will look in the years ahead? Richard Reinsch explores on the podcast. Plus: Mike Pence outlines a new agenda for conservatives; Terry Jeffrey looks at President Biden’s budget numbers; and Pete Parisi has a bunch of questions for Judge Jackson.      NEWS Homeland Security 20th Agency to Track Religious Vaccine Objectors By Fred Lucas “The Biden administration is creating a blacklist of federal employees,” says Sarah Parshall Perry, a legal analyst at The Heritage Foundation. More COMMENTARY History Should Be Our Guide in Ukraine By Victor Davis Hanson That Ukraine is morally in the right and certainly deserves Western help does not mean that an often-corrupt Ukrainian government that just suspended its opposition parties should be deified. More NEWS Pence’s New ‘Freedom Agenda’ Promotes Patriotic Education, Challenges Big Tech By Fred Lucas “We looked at what have been the ideas of the conservative movement from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump, and we put them all in one place,” says Pence. More COMMENTARY Biden's Budget Lies By Terence Jeffrey President Biden elaborated on a lie, saying, “The previous administration, as you all know, ran up record budget deficits,” but “my administration is turning that around.” More ANALYSIS What Educating Our Kids Looks Like After COVID-19 By Richard M. Reinsch II During the pandemic, “we saw the rise of pods, hubs, and hybrid homeschooling and also microschooling,” says Manhattan Institute’s Andy Smarick. More COMMENTARY 20 More Questions Ketanji ‘I’m Not a Biologist’ Brown Jackson Probably Can’t Answer By Peter Parisi Because Jackson, a leftist activist judge, is the nominee of a liberal Democratic president, and her answer was indefensible, the late-night hosts conspicuously haven’t ridiculed it as they should have. More           Donate to The Daily Signal  Find us on Facebook  Follow us on Twitter How are we doing? We welcome your comments, suggestions, and story tips. Please reply to this email or send us a note at letters@dailysignal.com. The Daily Signal 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 (800) 546-2843

Zeal for the Law and casting the first stone By Carl E. Olson on Apr 01, 2022 08:00 pm... Imagine being caught in a most serious and embarrassing sin, then taken into a crowded public area and placed [...]

 

View this email in your browser Martyr of Communisms: Blessed Nicholas Charnetsky By Dawn Beutner on Apr 02, 2022 03:05 am On April 2, the Catholic Church commemorates Blessed Nicholas Charnetsky, a Ukrainian Catholic bishop who suffered martyrdom at the hands of Soviet Communists. What can his life teach us about how to live out our [...] Read in browser »   Zeal for the Law and casting the first stone By Carl E. Olson on Apr 01, 2022 08:00 pm Readings: • Is 43:16-21 • Ps 126:1-2, 2-3, 4-5, 6 • Phil 3:8-14 • Jn 8:1-11 Imagine being caught in a most serious and embarrassing sin, then taken into a crowded public area and placed [...] Read in browser »     Get today's Catholic news headlines at Catholic World Report Donate

APRIL 2, 2022 Biden Makes ‘Frightening’ Immigration Decision By T. Roebuck In Featured, Latest News with 3 comments

 APRIL 2, 2022

Biden Makes ‘Frightening’ Immigration Decision

By T. Roebuck In Featured, Latest News with 3 comments

ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY…
1917: US President Woodrow Wilson asks Congress to declare war against Germany.

President Joe Biden has decided to repeal the COVID-era order known as Title 42, a move which Sen. Joe Manchin (D- W.VA.) described as “a frightening decision” that would likely lead to an uptick of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention implemented Title 42 at the beginning of the pandemic, under former President Donald Trump. The public health policy allows for the quick expulsion of unauthorized migrants at the border.

“Today’s announcement by the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and the Biden Administration is a frightening decision,” Manchin said.

“Title 42 has been an essential tool in combatting the spread of COVID-19 and controlling the influx of migrants at our southern border. We are already facing an unprecedented increase in migrants this year, and that will only get worse if the Administration ends the Title 42 policy.”

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced a record 1.7 million migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2021 — four times higher than 2020. Officials believe that record-breaking figure will be topped this year, as Border Patrol had 838,000 migrant encounters between January and March.

“We are nowhere near prepared to deal with that influx. Until we have comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform that commits to securing our borders and providing a pathway to citizenship for qualified immigrants, Title 42 must stay in place,” Manchin said.

Arizona Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D) and Mark Kelly (D) also spoke out against the decision.

“Prematurely ending Title 42 without a comprehensive, workable plan would put at risk the health and safety of Arizona communities and migrants. Today’s decision to announce an end to Title 42 despite not yet having a comprehensive plan ready shows a lack of understanding about the crisis at our border,” Synema said in a statement.

Kelly said repealing Title 42 was “the wrong decision. It’s unacceptable to end Title 42 without a plan and coordination in place to ensure a secure, orderly, and humane process at the border.”

“From my numerous visits to the southern border and conversations with Arizona’s law enforcement, community leaders, mayors, and non-profits, it’s clear that this administration’s lack of a plan to deal with this crisis will further strain our border communities.”

---

Source:

Manchin: Biden’s repeal of Title 42 order ‘a frightening decision’

3 comments on Biden Makes ‘Frightening’ Immigration Decision

1. Ger

   April 2, 2022 at 6:47 am

   I don’t believe Biden can do what he wants to ruin the country and the rest of world. Dictator.

   Reply
2. Christina Howell

   April 2, 2022 at 7:03 am

   Biden & the Democrats NEED NEW VOTERS since the ones they had have gotten SMART to all the LIES the Democrats have been pushing. Like the 1619 Project & other ANTI-AMERICA Issues & ILLEGALS are that NEW Group of GOVERNMENT DEPENDENT VOTERS they are banking on keeping them in power. Plus DESTROYING America & turning this Country into a Communist Marxist Socialist SHITHOLE Country

   Reply
3. Cris W

   April 2, 2022 at 7:20 am

   This guy only knows how to use a pen and destroy America and the American values. Disaster from day one, and if left to keep going, by 2024 we will no longer know the America that we once enjoyed and loved, it will be a 3rd World Country unrecognized. Sad very SAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Share This: