The Iran-Nuke Capitulation-Pact – Quo Vadis?

By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Now that the intricacies of decertification have been explored by a gaggle of pundits, politicians and professors, it is necessary to probe the implications of what had led to President Trump having issued this determination.

When doing so, it is vital to ignore those who reveal their biases when conveying ignorance of basic data, such as the false claim that there is a signed document or the unfounded assertion that there is no “Plan B” afoot; furthermore, those who are dismissive of the revelations by Prime Minister Netanyahu claiming he conveyed “nothing new” will find it impossible to cite when this damning information had previously been recognized.

The potential illegality of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was first explored in the American Thinker three years ago, sustained in The Hill following its release, and morphed into efforts to prompt the House to sue against its implementation that persisted into 2016 per the Jerusalem Post.

Suddenly, everyone recognizes the JCPOA was portrayed as a “political commitment”—rather than a treaty or as an “executive-legislative agreement”—an observation that emerged following review of all nineteen communications between Ms. Julia Frifield, assistant secretary for legislative affairs in Obama’s State Department, and then-Representative Mike Pompeo (acquired after a yearlong delay via the Freedom of Information Act).

This essay is intended to review what has not been sufficiently explored regarding the underpinnings of what has transpired, so as to convey a cogent appreciation of what probably is contemplated.

Disinformational Prodrome, c/o Advisor Ben Rhodes, et al.

The written Pompeo-Frifield colloquy conveyed six provisional observations.

First, some inquiries were co-signed by Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY1) and one included 94 Republican members of Congress, but the Administration maintained “plausible deniability” because no responses were authored by members of the prior administration: President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and/or any negotiators functioning under their aegis.

Second, allegations of JCPOA violations were sidestepped without being contradicted because the JCPOA was unsigned, so there was no “commitment of the signatory and country on whose behalf he or she is signing.”

Third, notwithstanding the profundity of subsequent disclosures (such as payment of ransom-cash for the naval prisoner swap), it was claimed that the Obama Administration had achieved all its major strategic objectives due to the “unprecedented” inspections regime.

Fourth, it was claimed that Congress had been briefed on all side-agreements, despite the facts that  [1]—Pompeo — along with Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK), in 2015  — had proven that Obama had violated a key-facet of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act [INARA], after he had unearthed at least two secret documents detailing “separate arrangements” between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] that remain undisclosed and [2]—the Associated Press reported having reviewed documents that had not been revealed to Congress (on 8/19/2015).

(Senator Cotton stated these documents remained secret for reasons he could not convey, as per personal communication during the 2017 Zionist Organization of America Gala.)

Fifth, it was confirmed that America would not try to rectify the JCPOA’s profound deficiencies — as opponents had feared — such as verification by self-inspection only of “key declared nuclear facilities” (e.g., Parchin) and inability to perform snap-examination of any/all sites.

Sixth, it was rationalized that the JCPOA’s narrow focus did not encompass expanding regional aggression of Iran’s ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard Corps (per a 9/1/2015 reply), after allegations had been submitted claiming abrogation of 10 explicit negotiation postures (per an 8/13/2015 letter to Kerry).

For these reasons, “[P]ursuant to H. Res. 411, the House of Representatives consider[ed] the documents transmitted on July 19, 2015 incomplete,” but why the House didn’t attempt to enjoin implementation in September 2015 — after these INARA violations had become apparent — remains unclear.

THEREFORE, the stealthy nature of how this evil “deal” was adopted was justifiably recapitulated by its reversal.

Informational Prodrome, c/o Ambassador Nikki Haley, et al.

If UN Ambassador Nikki Haley was President Trump’s Iranian whisperer, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo quietly emerged as the Corroborator-in-Chief, predictable because he had publicly and consistently opposed the JCPOA.

Under-reported among those who monitor internal White House politics was the potential for then-CIA-Director Mike Pompeo — a trusted advisor who met with Trump nearly every day — to have positioned himself to have afforded gravitas to Haley’s posture.

They overcame reticence of Defense Secretary James Mattis — and arguably triggered the departure of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson because of his failure to have generated a coherent policy — by noting that, unlike what is now occurring regarding North Korea, there is no evidence that Trump and Iran have communicated.

Six months ago, Pompeo was able to supply Trump proof that imposing sanctions would be justified due to Iranian [1]—violations of the JCPOA (e.g., heavy water and uranium purchases), [2]—promotion of anti-American terrorists globally, and/or [3]—pursuit of threatening activities such as ICBM-testing, which violates both the JCPOA (“missile restrictions will remain in place for eight years”) and U.N. Security Council Resolutions (1929 and 2231).

For example, Kerry upheld the Visa Waiver Program by inappropriately assuring Iran that America would “not interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran,” ignoring numerous examples of when Iran had targeted U.S. nationals while fomenting terrorism.

To the contrary, Pompeo recognized, “waiving these visa requirements is not in our country’s national security interests [because] to do so would be indirect opposition to both the law and the government’s core responsibility to keep Americans safe.”

Recall also that a House Oversight Panel concluded the Obama Administration undermined an ambitious U.S. counterproliferation effort to thwart Iranian weapons trafficking networks as it tried to win support for the nuclear deal.

This allowed Trump to undermine Iran and apologists for America’s continuing to adhere to the pact by explaining this is not the “best” America can achieve — citing Iran’s bellicosity and the absence of “24/7” inspections, despite repeated pledges by Obama, Kerry, Sherman, et al. — and by denying specious counter-claims that America is violating the pact.

He struck a balance between impatient critics and observers who advise sensitivity when timing an announcement of any adverse judgment, ignoring concerns with Iran’s international business-deals.

THEREFORE, Trump charged Congress and the European Union with the choice of “fixing or nixing” the accord.

Hysterical Aftermath, c/o International and National Globalists

Proximate to when Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, the implications thereof were explored, both operationally and economically.

After Trump’s announcement, Europeans were allegedly thrown into such uncertainty and anxiety that some claimed joining the Resistance was justified; to mollify their leaders, Trump had probably decided to claim the JCPOA was “rotten to its core” rather than to try to invoke snap-back economic sanctions that would automatically entrap the European Union.

As the EU agonizes, Hassan Rouhani, the president of Iran, said that the country would remain in the deal while he triggered a diplomatic tour to save it; after he threatened to restart uranium enrichment, Trump warned Iran faced “severe consequences.”

Meanwhile, domestically, critics range from “hateful” Michael Hayden (who claims the North Korean denuclearization talks are now jeopardized) to Obama and his former colleagues (who feel the EU could “announce the withdrawal of member-states’ ambassadors from the United States”).

They must grudgingly recognize that, as a non-appeaser, Trump had the “will” to confront the Iranian Islamofascists; the impending military build-up — courtesy of the Omnibus — will provide him the “way” to help address this and other international threats that loom following the global failures and conscious procrastinations of the Obama Administration.

For example, painstakingly and adroitly, he is unraveling engrained collusion between Iran and North Korea.

THEREFORE, they may wish to note how Trump is applying the Principled Realism inherent in the Trump Doctrine — as per his United Nations speech — diplomatically, economically and (potentially) militarily.

Prudent Aftermath, c/o MAGA Strategists

Trump recognizes that the urgency to address the complexities of evolving Middle East intrigue doesn’t patiently await issuance of prognostications by notably stumped talking-heads, particularly after they reflexly pivot either to the uncertainties of gauging palace-intrigue or to the familiar ground of speculating how the latest current events link to their preconceived notions.

That’s why as Trump thinks big, he plans to re-impose sanctions on Iran immediately while allowing grace periods for businesses to wind down activity … and for the EU to recognize the risk of self-alienation.

And as presaged by National Security Advisor John Bolton, Trump ponders how to achieve regime-change by enlisting support from regional allies such as the Saudis.

He recognizes that, by confronting Iran directly, urgently, he will have to address potential permutations such as an Iraqi Civil War (between the Kurdish Peshmerga and  Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Baghdad’s military) as mega-powers scramble to fill the vacuum created by impending regional defeat of the Islamic State.

This may, as dominos fall, prompt him to help the Kurds gain long-sought independence, because nation-building wouldn’t be necessary and America would retain a resolute ally in this hotbed of Islamoterrorism.

Ultimately, as the disrupter-in-chief, he “simply” incrementally seeks to apply a muscular foreign policy in an effort to achieve peace for the world.

The writer, a political activist, has exhaustively documented inter alia the half-dozen legal defects in the JCPOA.