U.S. to defend Iran against Israel?

President Obama promised an overhaul of how things get done, which among other things included his pledge of “transparency.”

When it comes to transparency, no other issue has been more important, or has more wide-ranging impact, than the recently announced nuclear deal with Iran.  The security of the entire world, especially Israel, is at stake.  In April, in his weekly address to the American people, Obama said the deal would provide “unprecedented transparency measures that would last for 20 years or more.”

Yet as details of the pending agreement emerge, it’s clear Obama’s pledge of transparency has become quite opaque.

For starters, we now know there are two secret deals included in the nuclear agreement with Iran.  The two “side deals” are between the IAEA and Iran.  When Obama transmitted the text of the Iran deal to Congress, these were noticeably absent.

Understandably many members of Congress have expressed concern, to the point of shock about being kept out of the loop on these private agreements.  However, what’s worse is that during questioning, when asked about them, Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed that the details will not be revealed.  Even more disturbing is his suggestion that no member of the U.S. government is privy to the details.

Thus, the U.S., Israel, and the rest of the world have no choice but to trust the agreement without knowing everything in it.  Visions of Nancy Pelosi’s infamous Obamacare comment “…we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it…” are ringing in my ears.  At least once Obamacare became law, the public did find out the details, which turned out to be a disaster in the eyes of many.

What’s scary about the Iran deal is that even if it ends up being approved by Congress, these side deals are going to remain confidential between Iran and the IAEA.  This means we are to trust a country whose leadership routinely promotes the death of America and the death of Israel.  Something is terribly wrong, even hypocritical, with this picture.

However, as if this isn’t bad enough, there is something even more disturbing in the agreement.  Unlike the side deals, this is available for all to see.  In Section D, titled “Nuclear Safeguards and Security,” item #10 reads as follows:

E3/EU+3…are prepared to cooperate with Iran…through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.

I may not be the brightest apple in the barrel, but as I understand it, this commits the U.S. and the other signatories (Russia, China, France, Britain, and Germany) to help defend Iran if any group, organization, or country engage in a cyber attack, or military action against it.  Huh?

Iran is set to get a cash infusion of at least $100 billion.  The Iranians are under no obligation to stem the development of their conventional weapons, nor reduce financial support for terror, which includes their proxies such as Hezb'allah and Hamas, which, along with Iran, are committed to Israel’s destruction.

What if Israel (who is not bound by the agreement) decides for its own safety and security to engage in a cyber attack designed to damage or destroy elements of Iran’s nuclear program?  Suppose the Israelis conclude it’s in their best interest to conduct a targeted strike on one or more of Iran’s nuclear sites?

By virtue of the aforementioned Section D, the signatories are bound to help Iran “protect and respond to” said actions by Israel.  It’s not a total surprise that Russia and China might agree to such terms.  However, it means that France, Britain, Germany, and the United States could very well be bound to help Iran against Israel.  Such a thought seems inconceivable, yet this is how the agreement reads.

Ever since President Obama has been in office, he has repeatedly stated that his commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable.

Well, Mr. President, in light of your commitment to Iran’s security, I would say your actions speak louder than words.

Dan Calic is a writer, history student, and speaker.  See additional articles on his Facebook page.

President Obama promised an overhaul of how things get done, which among other things included his pledge of “transparency.”

When it comes to transparency, no other issue has been more important, or has more wide-ranging impact, than the recently announced nuclear deal with Iran.  The security of the entire world, especially Israel, is at stake.  In April, in his weekly address to the American people, Obama said the deal would provide “unprecedented transparency measures that would last for 20 years or more.”

Yet as details of the pending agreement emerge, it’s clear Obama’s pledge of transparency has become quite opaque.

For starters, we now know there are two secret deals included in the nuclear agreement with Iran.  The two “side deals” are between the IAEA and Iran.  When Obama transmitted the text of the Iran deal to Congress, these were noticeably absent.

Understandably many members of Congress have expressed concern, to the point of shock about being kept out of the loop on these private agreements.  However, what’s worse is that during questioning, when asked about them, Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed that the details will not be revealed.  Even more disturbing is his suggestion that no member of the U.S. government is privy to the details.

Thus, the U.S., Israel, and the rest of the world have no choice but to trust the agreement without knowing everything in it.  Visions of Nancy Pelosi’s infamous Obamacare comment “…we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it…” are ringing in my ears.  At least once Obamacare became law, the public did find out the details, which turned out to be a disaster in the eyes of many.

What’s scary about the Iran deal is that even if it ends up being approved by Congress, these side deals are going to remain confidential between Iran and the IAEA.  This means we are to trust a country whose leadership routinely promotes the death of America and the death of Israel.  Something is terribly wrong, even hypocritical, with this picture.

However, as if this isn’t bad enough, there is something even more disturbing in the agreement.  Unlike the side deals, this is available for all to see.  In Section D, titled “Nuclear Safeguards and Security,” item #10 reads as follows:

E3/EU+3…are prepared to cooperate with Iran…through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.

I may not be the brightest apple in the barrel, but as I understand it, this commits the U.S. and the other signatories (Russia, China, France, Britain, and Germany) to help defend Iran if any group, organization, or country engage in a cyber attack, or military action against it.  Huh?

Iran is set to get a cash infusion of at least $100 billion.  The Iranians are under no obligation to stem the development of their conventional weapons, nor reduce financial support for terror, which includes their proxies such as Hezb'allah and Hamas, which, along with Iran, are committed to Israel’s destruction.

What if Israel (who is not bound by the agreement) decides for its own safety and security to engage in a cyber attack designed to damage or destroy elements of Iran’s nuclear program?  Suppose the Israelis conclude it’s in their best interest to conduct a targeted strike on one or more of Iran’s nuclear sites?

By virtue of the aforementioned Section D, the signatories are bound to help Iran “protect and respond to” said actions by Israel.  It’s not a total surprise that Russia and China might agree to such terms.  However, it means that France, Britain, Germany, and the United States could very well be bound to help Iran against Israel.  Such a thought seems inconceivable, yet this is how the agreement reads.

Ever since President Obama has been in office, he has repeatedly stated that his commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable.

Well, Mr. President, in light of your commitment to Iran’s security, I would say your actions speak louder than words.

Dan Calic is a writer, history student, and speaker.  See additional articles on his Facebook page.