Category Archives: Energy Agenda

What Now For Cuba

Posted on by

Cuba’s economic freedom score is 29.6, making its economy one of the world’s least free. Its overall score is 0.9 point higher than last year, with a slight deterioration in monetary freedom outweighed by improvements in three of the 10 economic freedoms, including trade freedom, fiscal freedom, and freedom from corruption. Cuba is ranked least free of 29 countries in the South and Central America/Caribbean region, and its overall score is significantly lower than the regional average.

In recent years, the government has made measured concessions to encourage more entrepreneurship and private-sector growth. Communist Party–endorsed reforms to cut government payrolls and expand approved professions have not been broad enough to ensure any meaningful advancement in overall economic freedom. The state continues to interfere in most economic activity. Price controls are pervasive, and the two-tiered exchange rate regime continues to distort prices.

Despite membership in the World Trade Organization, the economy remains relatively cut off from the international marketplace. Only state enterprises are allowed to engage in international trade and investment. The state uses an oppressive regulatory environment to suppress entrepreneurial activity and controls most means of production. Shallow credit markets impede access to credit for business activities.

Cuba is demanding the return of Guantanamo Base, stating it is illegally occupied. The military base goes far beyond being a detention center since 1907. It should be noted that many Cubans not only work at Base Guantanamo but live there as well, under the American flag.

U.S. Cuba Policy: Where Things Stand Now

WSJ:

President Barack Obama announced in December that the U.S. was moving to normalize relations with Cuba after over 50 years of Cold War enmity. That moment was both symbolic and practical, as he took steps to begin removing restrictions on travel and trade. On Wednesday, Mr. Obama announced that the U.S. will formally restore diplomatic ties and reopen its embassy in Havana.

What exactly has changed since December and where are we now? The Wall Street Journal explains:

Can I travel to Cuba now?

That depends. Traveling to Cuba from the U.S. as a tourist is still illegal. But 12 categories of people, including close relatives of Cubans, academics, journalists, people participating in educational programs, and people on humanitarian or religious missions can go to the island provided they say their trip falls within one of those categories. Airlines can fly to Cuba without obtaining special licenses, but flights to Cuba are charters—not yet commercial flights. Several U.S. ferry companies have received licenses to operate routes between ports in Florida and Cuba, but the proposed ferry services must receive Havana’s approval.

Can U.S. companies do business there?

Mr. Obama also took steps to loosen financial restrictions, but most trade remains illegal and will require congressional action before changing. Mr. Obama eased some rules to permit increased exports of U.S. telecommunications and other technological goods to the island, as well as building materials. Mr. Obama also made it easier for exports of agricultural and medical supplies and goods to Cuba’s nascent private sector.

U.S. banks are allowed to establish correspondent accounts in Cuba, and U.S. citizens now can use credit and debit cards there. But activity under Mr. Obama’s measures are slow-going, in part due to a lack of clarity about the regulations. U.S. officials have said they’re likely to be updated as more people try to use them.

What have been the big milestones so far?

The first big moments, of course, were the announcements by Mr. Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro in December that the former Cold War foes would renew relations, the culmination of 18 months of secret talks.

Then, in January, loosened travel and trade regulations went into effect, and the U.S. and Cuba began negotiating reopening embassies and restoring diplomatic ties.

In April, Messrs. Obama and Castro met at the Summit of the Americas, the first substantive discussion between U.S. and Cuban presidents since 1956.

In May, the Obama administration lifted Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. That was a critical step toward restoring diplomatic relations, but didn’t have much practical effect, as Congressional sanctions still ban Cuba from arms exports and sales, from receiving U.S. economic assistance and from conducting most trade.

Wednesday’s announcement that the two countries are formally restoring diplomatic ties was another big step.

The next milestones will be reopening ceremonies for embassies in both countries. Cuba announced it would host its event in Washington on July 20 and its delegation will be led by Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez. The U.S. hasn’t set a date for its flag raising, but said Secretary of State John Kerry will be there to do the honors.

Now what?

The U.S. and Cuba will begin lots of bilateral talks and efforts to cooperate in areas including law enforcement, development, human rights, counterterrorism and antinarcotics. Talks will also begin on property claims and the Cuban government’s claims against the U.S. The U.S. has also said Cuba has agreed to talks about extraditing fugitives, though it’s unclear what will happen with some of the higher-profile ones, including JoAnne Chesimard, now known as Assata Shakur, who is on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list for killing a New Jersey state trooper in 1973. Cuba granted her asylum after she escaped from prison in 1979.

The spotlight moves to Congress now, where lawmakers must act to lift bans on travel and trade. Church groups, agricultural groups, business groups and others are supportive of lifting the ban. The White House is counting on these independent stakeholders to pressure Congress to act. It’s likely to be a long battle, with supporters of normalization taking a piecemeal approach to chipping away at the embargo.

The White House backs that strategy, and a move to lift the travel ban is likely to be the first step in the process.

 

Iran Gets GOLD

Posted on by

An Iran nuclear czar? Zarif and Kerry today, Friday said a deal was never closer.

Iran has had 13 tons of their gold stored in South Africa for at least 2 years and due to lifted sanctions, the gold has been released and delivery in a handful of shipments under high security is complete. The gold was delivered to the central bank.

Since 2013 under the Obama White House agreement, Iran has received $4.2 billion in unfrozen assets and was awarded another $2.8 billion by Obama just to stay at the table and committing to continued talks.

Iran Violations:

Iran has been found in non-compliance with its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, and accordingly is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).1 Iran is continuing its uranium enrichment program and heavy water-related activities in defiance of Security Council resolutions calling for their suspension. The IAEA is trying to resolve a number of matters indicating a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program, but Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA’s investigations. There are well-founded concerns that the Iranian enrichment and heavy water programs have a military objective – to give Iran the capability to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so. What is not clear is how far Iran intends to proceed down this path – will it cross the nuclear weapon threshold, or if not, how far short will it stop?

Amongst other issues, this paper addresses the commonly held belief that Iran is entitled to undertake uranium enrichment, and the closely related question whether nuclear hedging – establishing a nuclear weapon break-out capability in the guise of a civilian program – is a legitimate activity under the NPT. If a negotiated solution with Iran is achieved that allows for continued enrichment, this must also adequately address international concerns that Iran’s nuclear program has a military purpose. A “solution” that allows continued development of a military dimension would be pointless. Many more details in this report.

Going back a decade, it has been well known that Iran has been using the black market to skirt sanctions.  The audio discussion on the black market and violations is here. Additionally, you would be stunned at who does business with Iran and the value of that commerce.

What about the secret low enriched uranium? Glad you asked.

The controversy over the status of Iran’s newly produced low enriched uranium (LEU) hexafluoride under the Joint Plan of Action (JPA) initially surprised us at ISIS. We have been monitoring the various provisions of the JPA since its inception, including Iran’s pledge to convert its newly produced LEU hexafluoride stocks into uranium dioxide form during the JPA term and its extensions. We would have expected the public controversy to center on other issues, including the near 20 percent LEU stocks in Iran. These stocks are far too large, and if left in place, will undermine the administration’s central case that Iran would need 12 months to break out, if it reneged on a long term deal. Yet, upon reflection, this issue of the newly produced LEU is a microcosm of the legal, technical, and political challenges in the on-going negotiations with Iran. It is also another indication that U.S. secrecy is excessive and contributing to problems on its own. Finally, it is necessary to state that this case is a lesson in how difficult it is to understand all the issues in these negotiations, even for those of us who spend enormous amount of time following and assessing provisions in these negotiations.

Concessions

From CNN:

Concessions checklist

So what has the U.S. ceded so far? And what has it gotten in return? Supporters and opponents of the Iran talks are both keeping their checklists ready. They’re tallying the wins and losses and keeping a close eye on the remaining sticking points.

Breakout time

Breakout time is the amount of time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear bomb. In the event of a final deal, if Iran were to dash toward weaponization, it would take 12 months to build a nuclear bomb, according to U.S. calculations.

That figure is a considerable improvement over the two- to three-month breakout time that Iran currently has.

Some worry, however, that one year is not enough to guarantee the U.S. and other countries could actually prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should Iran decide to race toward one, given the number of diplomatic and verification steps that would precede the use of military force.

Centrifuges

Iran will be allowed to keep 6,104 centrifuges, and just over 5,000 of those will continue enriching uranium, based on the preliminary agreement.

That’s a far ways from where American officials initially said they wanted to end up, first demanding Iran cut its centrifuges to between 500 and 1,500 and then floating 4,000.

The agreement still cuts down most of the nearly 19,000 currently installed — about 10,000 of which are now used for enrichment — but even the additional centrifuges won’t be scrapped entirely. They’ll remain in Iran under the control of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and will be freed up at the end of the period of constraints on its program.

Enrichment activity

Under the framework for negotiations, Iran has already significantly reduced the level to which it enriches uranium, capping those levels far below what is needed for a nuclear weapon.

Iran has agreed to restrict all of its enrichment activity to one reactor site — Natanz. This is reassuring to the U.S. and Israel because it would be easier for them to take effective military action to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Furthermore, Iran will only use its first-generation centrifuges, which are slow to enrich uranium and are unreliable.

Duration of the deal

The restrictions that will keep Iran to a one-year breakout time will expire after 10 years.

President Barack Obama has conceded that “in year 13, 14, 15 … the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

After the 10th year, Iran would be able to start upping its uranium enrichment. And after 15 years, the program would be completely unbridled.

There was always going to be a sunset — it’s inconceivable that Iran would accept restrictions and inspections on its nuclear program indefinitely — but the Obama administration’s starting ask was for restrictions lasting 20 to 25 years.

Even if political change doesn’t come to Iran in that period — which he hopes it will — Obama insisted this spring that the U.S. will have “much more insight into their capabilities” as a result of the rigorous inspections, and 10 to 15 years improves considerably upon the status quo.

But the sunset provision has experts like Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies worried that Iran will simply “go back to what they were doing before” — and without the limitations of sanctions.

“We think 10 to 15 years is a long time,” he said. “They think it’s a blip in history.”

Revealing past Iranian military activities

For years the United States and the rest of the international community has demanded that Iran come clean about suspected past efforts to militarize its nuclear program.

Tehran even pledged to the IAEA in 2007 that it would do so, and the fact that it hasn’t raises questions about the reliability of its commitments.

When Kerry was asked by PBS in April about Iran’s obligation to answer such questions, he said bluntly, “They have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a deal, it will be done.”

Kerry, though, recently indicated such a “confession” was no longer essential to a deal.

“We’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another. We know what they did,” Kerry said last month.

Underground nuclear sites

Under an eventual deal, Iran would stop enriching uranium at Fordow, its fortified, underground nuclear site, for 15 years and only use the facility for research with some inactive centrifuges remaining onsite. It also won’t be able to store any fissile material at the site.

Though the West had originally called for Fordow to be shut down entirely, cutting off enrichment at the site is a relief not just for the U.S. but also for Israel, which was concerned its military arsenal would not be able to reach the site — buried deep in the side of a mountain.

The U.S. has a more powerful bunker-busting bomb than Israel, one that may be able to penetrate the site, though not with total certainty.

Heavy water reactor

Iran will significantly modify its heavy water reactor so it can no longer produce weapons-grade plutonium, a possible component for a nuclear bomb.

Iran has already begun redesigning the reactor to limit its capacity — a key change for a country that has repeatedly defended the reactor’s medical and scientific applications.

Israel had previously called for the reactor’s total dismantlement, but serious modifications have quelled many concerns about Iran’s ability to use the reactor for non-peaceful purposes.

Outstanding issues

Officials still have to determine whether Iran will dilute or export its eight-ton stockpile of highly enriched uranium and determine the parameters for Iran to use more highly enriched uranium for scientific research purposes.

But it’s the two other remaining issues that are the most contentious, and will ultimately determine for most experts whether they have confidence that the deal will keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

Inspections

The West is insisting that Iran give inspectors unfettered access to any site they suspect of nuclear activity — military sites included. Without that, officials fear that Iran could try to sneak its way to a bomb by using a secret facility, especially given its history of cheating and concealing its nuclear work.

“The most likely form of cheating would be at undeclared or secret facilities, and so you’ve got to have strong inspections,” said Gary Samore, who previously served as Obama’s top arms control adviser.

Iranian officials, though, have insisted that they won’t relent on that point, certainly not when it comes to military facilities.

Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken insisted Thursday on CNN that the U.S. will “walk away” if Iran doesn’t agree to the rigorous inspections and verification regime the U.S. is seeking.

Negotiators have floated the idea of a commission of countries that would hear Iran’s objections to inspections requests. But if Iran still refuses to allow inspections at the site, international sanctions would be reimposed.

Ilan Berman, a skeptic of the deal, said that type of “managed access” could give the Iranians the chance to scrub evidence from a site while they stall for time.

“You want to do snap inspections, not ones where they can move things around,” said Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council.

Sanctions relief

Western officials have insisted that sanctions won’t be removed until Iran holds up its end of the bargain by reining in its nuclear activity as agreed.

Iran, on the other hand, at first demanded sanctions be lifted as soon as a final agreement is signed and sealed. Iranian officials now appear to be relenting somewhat and agreeing that sanctions could fall at a later date, after they make the necessary changes to their nuclear program.

Negotiators are now looking to iron out the details of the sequence for the removal of those sanctions.

But once those sanctions come off, it’s unclear how effectively the international community could snap them back into place — if it’s even willing to. While Iran’s economy has suffered because of the restrictions, so have many companies based in the countries that have imposed them.

 

 

The Most Corrupt U.S. Govt Bank Goes Dark

Posted on by

This is a small win for conservatives, but more it stops epic abuse and pay to play operations. The Exim Bank is for small business to be able to get global access. Would you consider Boeing or General Electric to be small?

 

(CNSNews.com) – Three corporations together received 44 percent of the Export-Import Bank’s $32.7 billion in assistance in 2011 – a total of $13.5 billion in federal financial aid. The three were Boeing, General Electric and international engineering firm Black and Veatch International.

Boeing alone received 38 percent of the bank’s financial assistance, or $12.4 billion ($11.7 billion for the mother company and another $700 million for its Boeing Satellite Systems subsidiary.)

General Electric received $1.2 billion while Black and Veatch received $805 million, according to the bank’s 2011 annual report.

The Export-Import Bank, whose authorization runs out in seven weeks’ time, is opposed by some conservatives who argue that it provides corporate welfare and below-market financing.

***  “The global economy is more integrated than ever … If we’re going to grow, it’s going to be because of exports. We’re on track to double our exports – a goal that I set when I came into office. Part of the reason for that is the terrific work that’s being done by our Export-Import Bank.”
President Barack Obama
November 12, 2011

It should be noted that the White House and the State Department had their hands all over this loan give-away agency. Note this is a State Department website link proving collusion and pay to play.

From the Washington Examiner:

Export-Import Bank enters ‘liquidation’ tomorrow night at midnight

Tuesday night at midnight, the 2014 reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank expires. The agency, under law, doesn’t evaporate immediately. Instead, per the law, Ex-Im enters “liquidation,” which is basically Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Specifically, Ex-Im’s authorization allows it to continue to exist for one purpose: “exercising any of its functions subsequent to such date for purposes of orderly liquidation….”

Liquidation is Chapter 7 bankruptcy — which is exit, extinction. It is not Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which is what companies enter temporarily in order to reorganize and then come back. Ex-Im workers, when they return Wednesday morning, are supposed to be in the business of dismantling Ex-Im.

As I read it, that means Ex-Im is supposed to sell off the loans and guarantees on which it is currently sitting — not in a fire sale, but in an orderly fashion.

This isn’t a “lapse.” This is liquidation. I know many Ex-Im employees simply see this as a temporary lapse in lending authority, but that view is contrary to the law.

It will be interesting to see how Ex-Im officials follow the law.

Here is the full text of the relevant section of the law:

Export-Import Bank of the United States shall continue to exercise its functions in connection with and in furtherance of its objects and purposes until the close of business on September 30, 2014, but the provisions of this section shall not be construed as preventing the bank from acquiring obligations prior to such date which mature subsequent to such date or from assuming prior to such date liability as guarantor, endorser, or acceptor of obligations which mature subsequent to such date or from issuing, either prior or subsequent to such date, for purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury or any other purchasers, its notes, debentures, bonds, or other obligations which mature subsequent to such date or from continuing as a corporate agency of the United States and exercising any of its functions subsequent to such date for purposes of orderly liquidation, including the administration of its assets and the collection of any obligations held by the bank.

 

 

Presidential Senator Candidates Take Big Lobby $$

Posted on by

Hillary was a Senator and just recently a lobby issue could be a problem given the Transpacific Partnership Pact that is so contentious in the country right now.

Per Lee Fang: While Hillary Clinton has demurred over her position on the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, her campaign has partnered with a pro-TPP law and lobby firm to raise money.

At The Intercept, Lee Fang reports that Clinton’s campaign held a fundraiser in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday with the political action committee of a law firm called McGuireWoods. Lobby registration documents reveal that a subsidiary of the group lobbies on behalf of Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest producer of pork, to pass both the TPP and “fast track”—a special presidential mandate that nearly eliminates Congress’ role in crafting trade legislation.

The fundraiser occurred as Congress rescheduled a vote on fast track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

Fang continues:

Despite mounting pressure to take a position, Clinton has only provided [noncommittal] answers regarding her stance on both TPP and TPA. On Sunday, at a rally in Iowa, Clinton said there should be better protections for American workers and called for the president to work with Democrats in Congress — hardly a clarifying statement. Earlier that day, her chief pollster dismissed a call from ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos to provide a clear stance on TPA, casting the issue as simply “Washington inside baseball.”

For the event in D.C., billed as a “Conversation with John Podesta, Campaign Chair,” the Clinton campaign website said that I could learn the exact location only after RSVPing through a donation. I gave one dollar to find out. Apparently, that wasn’t enough. Instead of providing the address of the fundraiser as the campaign website had said it would, the campaign directed me to a site where I could volunteer.

Lobby money owns Washington DC, of this there is no dispute. The 10 largest lobby operations include the following industries:

The Technology lobby, the Mining lobby, the Defense lobby, the Agriculture lobby, Big Oil lobby, the Financial lobby, the Big Pharma lobby, the AARP lobby, the Pro-Israel lobby and the National Rifle Association lobby. The primer of these lobby groups is found here.

So what Senators that are running for president are on some lobby dollar hooks?

From Open Secrets:

Three of five senators running for WH have big backing from lobbyists

Three of the five U.S. senators running for president have made super-fans out of a few K Street lobbyists, an analysis of campaign finance data by OpenSecrets Blog shows.

Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have each raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from current or one-time federal lobbyists throughout their careers, the analysis shows. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has raised $82,050 from the same pool and Sen. Bernie Sanders‘ (D-Vt.) total fundraising haul from lobbyists stands at an even more paltry $50,075.

Neither Sanders nor Paul have hidden their disdain for lobbyists, so there’s some logic to their low fundraising totals from those in the profession. Both candidates, in their announcement speeches, railed against those who want to influence politics with money — Sanders referred to “billionaires…and their lobbyists,” Paul called them “special interests” — and struck similar tones.

“Both [Paul and Sanders] have publicly decried the influence of corporations in American public life,” Joshua Rosenstein, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer and expert on lobbying, said. “If you are a corporation, is it possible that you view each of them as relative lost cause? Sure.”

For some candidates, it’s not bad politics to keep K Street at arm’s length. In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists and refunded money to those who did contribute. After taking office, he barred federally registered lobbyists from joining advisory boards in his administration, before partially rolling back that ban last year.

But no 2016 hopeful has followed that lead, as the Wall Street Journal reports. And setting Paul and Sanders aside, the other senators running for president have already wooed a handful of lobbyists with deep pockets and a willingness to give to anyone who might help their clients.

In all, Graham has taken in $753,841 during his congressional career from current or one-time federally registered lobbyists who contributed more than $200 to him. Rubio and Cruz have received $571,952 and $265,043 from the same group, respectively. Those sums include donations to the senators’ campaign committees and leadership PACs.

Rubio, Cruz and Graham each have at least one lobbyist donor who, along with their spouses in some cases, has given in excess of $20,000 to the candidate’s campaign and PAC. Rubio has Ignacio Sanchez, a presidential bundler for Mitt Romney in 2012 from the firm DLA Piper; he represents Al Jazeera Satellite Network and Diageo PLC. Cruz has lobbying revolver Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk and his wife, Debra.

Graham, a senator since 2003, has enjoyed financial support from current or former lobbyists longer than his GOP Senate colleagues running for president. William H. Skipper, Jr. of the American Business Development Group, Reed Scott of Chesapeake Enterprises and his wife, and presidential bundler Van D. Hipp of American Defense International and his wife, have each given Graham more than $20,000 over the years.

The most Paul has received from any one lobbyist barely tops $6,000; that came from Charles Grizzle of Grizzle Co., who currently represents several Kentucky-based clients like the University of Louisville and the Louisville Regional Airport Authority. Sanders topped out at $3,000 from Nancy Zirkin of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and her husband.

The data analysis only covered sitting U.S. senators. Other presidential candidates or potential candidates who have served in federal office, like former Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and one-time House member, now governor, John Kasich (R-Ohio), haven’t run a Senate or House campaign in some time. And for former governors like Rick Perry and Jeb Bush, state data on which of their donors were lobbyists isn’t available. Fundraising reports for candidates’ presidential campaigns won’t be available till mid-July, and the super PACs backing them don’t have to report until the end of that month.

Still, it’s clear that the non-Senate candidates also have their eyes on K Street money. Clinton has already reached out to prominent lobbyists on her side of the aisle, while Jeb Bush started seeking commitments from Washington allies even earlier this year. Lobbyists are reportedly starting to line up behind him.

Despite that fact that making contributions may be good for business, Rosenstein noted, many lobbyists also donate for ideological reasons.

“While they certainly have to be pragmatists about what they’re doing…and that certainly drives some of the giving,” he said, “there might very well be an equal or greater ideological segment of the lobbying community that aren’t driven by pragmatic reasons,” Rosenstein said.

 

Obama has Synchronized Iran’s Nuclear Program

Posted on by

Consider the stated position of the Supreme leader of Iran:

Reuters and AFP – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stated his country’s red lines for a nuclear deal with six world powers.

“Freezing Iran’s research and development for a long time like 10 or 12 years is not acceptable,” Khamenei said in a speech broadcast live on June 23.

Khamenei, who has the final say for Iran on any deal, added that all financial and economic sanctions “should be lifted immediately” if an agreement is signed.

Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, and the United States want Tehran to commit to a verifiable halt of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear development work as part of a deal they aim to reach by a June 30 deadline. In exchange, they are offering relief from economic sanctions.

Khamenei reiterated that Iran would not give international inspectors access to its military sites and accused the United States of wanting to destroy Iran’s nuclear industry.

The six powers want limits on Tehran’s programs that could have a military use.

Tehran denies it is pursuing nuclear weapons.

***

When the NYT finally prints an explosive fantasy piece on what the White House and John Kerry at the State Department are doing with Iran, one needs to take notice. The New York Times calls this Iran agreement a ‘fatal flaw’.

The Iran Deal’s Fatal Flaw

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S main pitch for the pending nuclear deal with Iran is that it would extend the “breakout time” necessary for Iran to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. In a recent interview with NPR, he said that the current breakout time is “about two to three months by our intelligence estimates.” By contrast, he claimed, the pending deal would shrink Iran’s nuclear program, so that if Iran later “decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to respond.”

Unfortunately, that claim is false, as can be demonstrated with basic science and math.  Most important, in the event of an overt attempt by Iran to build a bomb, Mr. Obama’s argument assumes that Iran would employ only the 5,060 centrifuges that the deal would allow for uranium enrichment, not the roughly 14,000 additional centrifuges that Iran would be permitted to keep mainly for spare parts. Such an assumption is laughable. In a real-world breakout, Iran would race, not crawl, to the bomb.  Iran stands to gain enormously. The deal would lift nuclear-related sanctions, thereby infusing Iran’s economy with billions of dollars annually. In addition, the deal could release frozen Iranian assets, reportedly giving Tehran a $30 billion to $50 billion “signing bonus.”

Showering Iran with rewards for making illusory concessions poses grave risks. It would entrench the ruling mullahs, who could claim credit for Iran’s economic resurgence. The extra resources would also enable Iran to amplify the havoc it is fostering in neighboring countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

Worst of all, lifting sanctions would facilitate a huge expansion of Iran’s nuclear program. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, says that he wants 190,000 centrifuges eventually, or 10 times the current amount, as would appear to be permissible under the deal after just 10 years. Such enormous enrichment capacity would shrink the breakout time to mere days, so that Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb before we even knew it was trying — thus eliminating any hope of our taking preventive action.

Nothing in the pending deal is worth such risks. Read the full article in context here.

*** But is getting worse as new documents demonstrate.

Reported by Fox News via Associated Press:

The United States and its allies are willing to offer Iran state-of-the-art nuclear equipment if Tehran agrees to pare down its atomic weapons program as part of a final nuclear agreement, a draft document has revealed.

The confidential paper, obtained by the Associated Press, has dozens of bracketed text where disagreements remain. Technical cooperation is the least controversial issue at the talks, and the number of brackets suggest the sides have a ways to go, not only on that topic but also more contentious disputes, with less than a week until the June 30 deadline for a deal.

However, the scope of the help now being offered in the draft may displease U.S. congressional critics who already argue that Washington has offered too many concessions at the negotiations.

The draft, titled “Civil Nuclear Cooperation,” promises to supply Iran with light-water nuclear reactors instead of its nearly completed heavy-water facility at Arak, which would produce enough plutonium for several bombs a year if completed as planned. The full details are here.

Civil Nuclear Cooperation platform is not new.

Chilling are the following facts:

Russia and Saudi Arabia have signed a nuclear cooperation agreement. The U.S. has done the same with Korea. Then comes Pakistan learning from U.S. and India where pacts could lead to even more proliferation globally.

For a more detailed summary of the Nuclear Cooperation agreements, take a look at a surface review on equipment, supply and banks in the matter of Korea.