harf iran

Many years ago an guy named Robert Ringer wrote a book called “Winning Through Intimidation.” He counsels to always be willing to walk away from a deal and to make his case he offers an anecdote of a man who signs a commercial real estate contract and, by the terms of the deal, is in default the moment he signed the contract. This is the situation the Obama administration faces as it is on the verge of signing the bogus nuclear weapons agreement with Iran. What makes the situation so bad is not only does the White House know that Iranian if flagrantly violating every agreement they’ve made but the White House is actually lying to cover for Iranian duplicity.

Britain has informed a United Nations sanctions panel of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms, according to a confidential report by the panel seen by Reuters.

The existence of such a network could add to Western concerns over whether Tehran can be trusted to adhere to a nuclear deal due by June 30 in which it would agree to restrict sensitive nuclear work in exchange for sanctions relief.

But it said that could simply indicate that some states are refraining from reporting violations to avoid undermining the delicate nuclear talks. It said that some members’ assessment was that Iran’s procurement and “circumvention techniques” remain mostly unchanged.

It cited an example of an unnamed member state saying that an Iranian entity had recently attempted to acquire compressors, a key component in the uranium enrichment process, using false end-user certificates in an attempt to evade controls.

The panel noted multiple media reports of Iranian weapons shipments to Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen as well as Hezbollah and Hamas militants in violation of a U.N. embargo — some of them quoting Iranian officials talking openly about arms shipments abroad.

And yet, it said, not a single country reported those arms shipments to the Security Council’s Iran sanctions committee in line with standard procedure for suspected breaches.

Then there is this via Bloomberg headlined, hilariously were the subject not so deadly, Iran Centrifuge Test Was Error, Not Cheating, U.S. Officials Say

When nuclear monitors said Iran had started testing a single advanced centrifuge last year, some U.S. politicians and analysts jumped on the report as proof the Islamic Republic can’t be trusted.

To U.S. officials negotiating with Iran, it was probably just a mistake — one that shows the pitfalls in the highly technical accord being discussed. Describing the incident in detail for the first time, U.S. officials, who asked not to be identified following diplomatic rules, said the testing was probably done by a low-level employee on Iran’s nuclear program who didn’t understand the limits placed on his experimentation.

Ayup. Stuff like this happens all the time. People working on a highly classified, national priority research programs just forget and do stuff and there are no supervisors around.

And from yesterday’s State Department briefing there is this motherlode of stupid. Here AP’s Matthew Lee is questioning Marie “Man Hands” Harf:

QUESTION: — by another news organization talking about a country on the UN sanctions – the Panel of Experts sanctions that found – that says that this one country thinks that Iran is actively involved still in procurement activities.

MS HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: What do you make of that? We’re not – you did not – this building or the Administration didn’t seem to be too impressed with the report in December in terms of what this might mean for the ongoing negotiations.

MS HARF: Right.

QUESTION: I’m wondering what you make of this report now.

MS HARF: Well, as we said back in December, people were sort of reporting it as breaking news that we think Iran is still undertaking problematic procurement activities. We have publicly designated entities for procurement for Iran even since the Joint Plan of Action was put into place. So this is in no way sort of something new, and it’s in no way breaking news, I don’t think. I understand sometimes people aren’t as familiar with what we’ve done. We have ongoing discussions with the UN. We’ve raised concerns. We’ve repeatedly spoken about these same concerns publicly. And we all know Iran has been in noncompliance with its Security Council obligations for a very long time.

And it gets better.

QUESTION: Okay. But – so it – but one – couldn’t one look at this as if you were playing – let’s use a gambling analogy – you’re playing two hands of blackjack, and on one hand you’re counting the cards and cheating, and on the other one, you’re playing by the rules. Doesn’t that —

MS HARF: Play that analogy out a little bit, Matt.

QUESTION: You get tossed from the casino —

MS HARF: But it’s not – it’s not —

QUESTION: — if you’re cheating on one hand and even if you’re playing by the rules on the other hand.

MS HARF: But they’re two separate things. The JPOA laid out very clear commitments Iran had to undertake and keep undertaking. They have done so. Their program is frozen.

QUESTION: Yeah, but on the other hand, they’re cheating —

MS HARF: They’re all —

QUESTION: — continuing to cheat on the (inaudible).

MS HARF: There are other – but look, the point of a comprehensive agreement is to address all of these issues.

In fact it gets so bad that even the tame media that infest these briefings had had enough:

QUESTION: But you see – but you do see that there is a bit of a dilemma here if you’re playing two hands and cheating on one hand but not on the other. I mean, you’re going to get tossed anyway, even if you’re playing – they’re not just going to take that one set of cards away and say, “Sorry, you can’t play that.”

MS HARF: Well, international diplomacy is not a casino, Matt.

QUESTION: But it’s more like one than – (laughter) —

QUESTION: But if I – Foreign Minister —

MS HARF: But you see all the points I’m making, yes.

QUESTION: I understand what you’re saying. I’m just not sure that it’s reassuring. Anyway. (Laughter.)

The administration has negotiated a horrible deal. They’ve negotiated it with a dishonest counterparty who is hellbent on cheating them blind. They know they are being cheated. They don’t care. They want a deal because Obama’s Legacy demands it.