The Biden administration is on the verge of securing another nuclear contract with Iran, but critics are warning that it’s a bad deal. The problem, however, is that critics are unable to get hold of President Joe Biden to explain to him why.
One such critic, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, “has yet to be able to speak to Biden on the phone,” The Jerusalem Post reported Saturday.
As a result, he’s now hoping to perhaps persuade the White House into letting Biden meet with him face-to-face next month.
“Lapid hopes to meet with Biden on September 20, the day that the US president is set to address the General Assembly,” the Post notes.
What exactly does he plan to tell the president if he’s able to get in touch with him? Likely the same thing he’s been saying publicly, which is that the deal is bad.
Prime Minister Yair Lapid, today, at a briefing for foreign correspondents:
“Israel is not against any agreement. We are against this agreement, because it is a bad one. Because it cannot be accepted as it is written right now.”https://t.co/318Cw9X6IR pic.twitter.com/KsRz1HAFJw
— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) August 24, 2022
“Prime Minister Yair Lapid on Wednesday urged the United States and the European Union to back away from an emerging nuclear deal with Iran, claiming it did not meet President Joe Biden’s own red lines as it won’t prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state,” according to The Times of Israel.
“Lapid briefed foreign correspondents on Israel’s position as officials on both sides reported progress in negotiations to revive the nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.”
He doubled down Thursday, saying bluntly, “The current deal is a bad deal.”
On Sunday, he reiterated his concerns.
“As Tehran and Washington review the European Union’s latest nuclear deal proposal, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid denounced the draft on Sunday as a “bad agreement,” claiming it does not reflect what he had talked about with U.S. President Joe Biden during his visit to Jerusalem last month,” as reported by Haaretz.
“Our political directive, from day one, is to fight against the agreement with all our might, but without harming our strategic relations with the U.S., and without harming their attention to our arguments. We told the Americans: ‘This is not what President Biden wanted. This is not what he talked about during his visit to the country,'” he said in his own words.
Lapid’s opposition to the current deal is based on the fact that it wouldn’t stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
“In our eyes, it does not meet the standards set by President Biden himself: preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear state,” he said Wednesday.
Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz explained why this is problematic in a tweet posted that same day.
“A deal that does not knock Iran’s abilities back by years and does not restrain it for years ahead, is a deal that will harm global and regional security,” he reportedly wrote.
Gantz traveled to the U.S. last week and met with U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to talk about the potential deal.
Israeli Defense Minister Benny #Gantz concluded his meeting with the U.S. National Security Advisor Jake #Sullivan, telling him that Israel opposes the #Nuclear agreement as was present to relevant parties
Photo credit: Yossi May pic.twitter.com/jSnteetmy3
— i24NEWS English (@i24NEWS_EN) August 26, 2022
“During the talks on Friday, Gantz walked away with a feeling that Israel has succeeded in influencing the American position on the deal that is being negotiated, but that the proposal is still far away from serving Israel’s national security interests,” according to the Post.
“Israel is particularly concerned with two issues: The sunset clauses and the date from which the Iranians will be allowed to reactivate their centrifuges, as well as the hundreds of billions of dollars that will flow to the Islamic Republic – due to the lifting of sanctions – and help fuel terrorist in the Middle East.”
The last time a U.S. administration — the Obama administration, to be exact — brokered a deal with Iran, it ultimately wound up doing nothing but pouring money into the hands of the terror-supporting Iranians.
And it did so despite claiming publicly that it was not giving Iran money.
This is what bribery looks like. Here is the Obama administration secretly shipping $400 million, in cash, to Iran in exchange for hostages https://t.co/BWxI3sPZFt pic.twitter.com/sMdgpa3JA8
— MARK SIMONE (@MarkSimoneNY) November 18, 2019
“Obama and his officials at the Treasury Department and State Department were clear: They would work assiduously to freeze out Iran from getting dollars to fund its mischief and mayhem around the world,” Investor’s Business Daily notes.
But it turns out they didn’t.
“Iran had been promised access to its long-frozen overseas reserves, including $5.7 billion stuck in an Omani bank. To spend it, Iran wanted to convert the money into U.S. dollars and then euros, but top U.S. officials had repeatedly promised Congress that Iran would never gain access to America’s financial system,” the Associated Press reported in 2018.
“Those assurances notwithstanding, the Obama administration secretly issued a license to let Iran sidestep U.S. sanctions for the brief moment required to convert the funds through an American bank, an investigation by Senate Republicans released Wednesday showed. The plan failed when two U.S. banks refused to participate.”
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.