(Banner will apear here)

Beautiful Kabbalah Jewelry Judaicawebstore.com
Font Size:

KISSINGER AND SHULTZ CASTIGATE GENEVA NUCLEAR DEAL

George Shultz and Henry Kissinger: “Geneva Nuclear Accord would leave Iran with a capacity to acquire nuclear weapons within months of its choosing to do so.”

“Iran’s nuclear project is far out of proportion to any plausible civilian energy-production rational.”

“Permanent accord must prevent Iran from becoming a de-facto nuclear power leading an Islamist camp.”

Former Secretaries of State, George Shultz & Henry Kissinger

 It is no less than a diplomatic bombshell in the midst of the Iranian nuclear crisis. Two of America’s most distinguished secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, have severely criticized the nuclear agreement signed by the P5+1 and Iran on November 24th. Their joint article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “What a Final Iran Deal Must Do” took issue with various aspects of the Geneva Accord. Their conclusion was the U.S. must lead a campaign to plug all the holes; otherwise Iran will wind up as a de-facto nuclear power leading the radical Islamist movement in the Middle East. The two former diplomats left no stone unturned.

Why did Tehran need 19,000 centrifuges, more than 7 tons of 3.5%-5% of enriched uranium, 190 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium, and a heavy-water reactor capable of producing plutonium...?

 First of all, Iran’s nuclear project was “far out of proportion to any plausible civilian energy production estimate.” Why did Tehran need 19,000 centrifuges, more than 7 tons of 3.5%-5% of enriched uranium, 190 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium, and a heavy-water reactor capable of producing plutonium (for plutonium bombs DE)? And Kissinger and Shultz noted these aspects are in direct violation of the International Atomic Energy Agency and UN Security Council resolutions. Moreover, Iran’s negotiation tactics in Geneva reflected its determination to continue enriching even more uranium.


“Under the interim agreement, Iranian conduct that was previously condemned as illegal and illegitimate has effectively been recognized as baseline, including acceptance of Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium (to 5%) during the agreement period.”

 Kissinger and Shultz issued this joint warning: “A final agreement leaving Iran’s threshold capacity unimpaired would institutionalize the Iranian nuclear threat with profound consequences for global non-proliferation and the stability of the Middle East.” Reading between their lines, both Shultz and Kissinger appeared to be astonished by the Geneva Accord that has been so roundly praised by U.S. president Barack Obama and the current Secretary of State, John Kerry. They write: “Under the interim agreement, Iranian conduct that was previously condemned as illegal and illegitimate has effectively been recognized as baseline, including acceptance of Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium (to 5%) during the agreement period.” In addition, the stress that this baseline program is of significant importance: First, Iran’s stockpile of low enriched uranium is coupled with an infrastructure sufficient to enrich it within a few months to weapons grade, as well as a plausible route to producing weapons-grade plutonium in the installation now being built at Arak.


 After dissecting Geneva chapter and verse, Shultz and Kissinger issued a dire warning that if the shortcomings of Geneva were not rectified, the result would be “A de-facto nuclear power leading an Islamist camp.”


Kissinger and Shultz concluded that the consequences of Geneva are so fraught with peril that they had no choice, and were duty-bound to draw attention to the evolving situation.

 IsraCast conclusions: Why have these two luminaries issued this scathing critique of the Geneva interim agreement engineered by president Obama, which has been commended by many pundits in the U.S., including Thomas Friedman, Roger Cohen, David Ignatius, and Fareed Zakaria. In America’s public life it is uncommon for such former senior officials to roundly criticize, albeit indirectly, the policies of an incumbent president. It would appear that both Kissinger and Shultz concluded that the consequences of Geneva are so fraught with peril that they had no choice, and were duty-bound to draw attention to the evolving situation. Secondly, the two former U.S. officials have, in effect, vindicated prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position that Geneva is a “very bad deal and an historic mistake.” Regardless of what position one my take on Netanyahu’s settlement policy in the west bank, Shultz and Kissinger have also spoken out loud and clear, feruling back Iran’s nuclear weapons project starting now.

 

 David Essing 

Back To The Top