Deceit Surrounding Iran Nuclear Deal

Revelations earlier this month indicate that the Obama administration began the Iran nuclear arms negotiations, not as first indicated—in 2013 after the elections of more “moderate” Iranians—but in 2011 under the presidency of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This admission was made after a section of missing video from the 2013 press conference was found announcing the full content of the agreement with Iran. It appears that once again the American people were hoodwinked with yet another cover-up.

Asked if the deletion was an attempt to maintain secrecy regarding the meetings, former State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, replied, “I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that.” Do the American people have a right to know what issues are on the table during such discussions?

Once an agreement had been solidified in 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry, with the approval of President Barack Obama, signed a deal with the Iranians that opened wide the door for Iran to regain its superpower status in the Middle East. President Obama was jubilant and in remarks that were broadcast in Iran, he boasted, “This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it.”

Disclosures made this month seem to be the order of the day as official declassified government papers were unveiled in Washington. The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had, it seems, exchanged correspondence with President John F. Kennedy. The letters, made public on the 27th anniversary of the imam’s death, reached the Oval Office just two weeks before Kennedy’s assassination. The bulk of the letters were archived in Washington, DC, but a portion of the documents were revealed in a CIA document released in 2008.

An earlier revelation had been made regarding the presidency of Jimmy Carter. His administration was in touch with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini before the cleric left Paris for Tehran in 1979. Two days prior to the Shah’s departure from Tehran, Mr. Carter had approved a meeting in Paris between Warren Zimmerman, U.S. Embassy political advisor in Paris, Ebrahim Yazdi, Khomeini’s U. S. mouthpiece, and the Ayatollah. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a change in the constitution in Iran that would allow the abolition of the monarchy in order to reestablish the republic.

In a March 2008 interview with Her Majesty Farah Pahlavi, I was shown her guest book with the inscription: “Thank you for all your wonderful hospitality.” It was signed, “President Jimmy Carter” and “Rosalynn Carter.” Her Majesty also revealed that Asadollah Alam, appointed prime minister by the Shah in July 1962, was Pahlavi’s personal confidant. Alam had remained in office through major industrial and social reforms implemented by the Shah, sometimes referred to as the “White Revolution.” He wrote of the Shah’s concerns over Carter’s election in his diary: “Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?”

The debacle that followed in Iran after the Shah’s departure wreaked havoc along the oil-rich Persian Gulf. It opened the door not only to the meteoric rise of Islamic fundamentalism but also for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and ultimately the long and deadly war between Iran and Iraq, both feared by the shah. Reportedly, the shah wrote a letter to Carter warning him that Russia had definitely set its sights on Afghanistan and was moving on the region even then. Pahlavi asked for additional arms and supplies to meet the threat. By failing to sufficiently back the Shah in Iran and abdicating its position of strength in the region, the U.S. was unable to take overt steps to halt the forward progress of radical Islam.

The latest nuclear arms agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; plus Germany) dishonored thousands of victims of 911. The families of those men and women killed in 2001 were assured that the United States would NOT fund terrorism. Tens of thousands of America’s finest fought in Iraq and died or were injured by Iranian-produced IEDs or at the hands of the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army. How can the Commander-in-Chief now look them in the face?

Now that the White House has concluded the arms agreement, the largest terror network worldwide has been awarded what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called “a jackpot, a cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars, which will enable it to continue to pursue its aggression and terror in the region and in the world.” It will also end a European oil embargo that would flood an already oil-glutted economy with even more oil, and will end some financial restrictions on banks in Iran.

Of course, new sanctions can be levied against Iran, or those currently in place can be retained, but many are skeptical that would ever happen now that the genie has been set free from the bottle. Israel and Sunni Arab nations are highly skeptical of any plan that leaves Iran with the ability to manufacture the materials necessary for the production of atomic weapons. According to Mr. Netanyahu, this would be a “bad mistake of historic proportions.” In a decade, the deal would expire, leaving Iran with the substructure necessary to produce an atomic bomb.

Iran very reluctantly agreed to a five-year extension of the current U.N. arms embargo, but that, too, could be suspended if the Iranians can pass IAEA inspections. A U.N. curb on the transference of technology relating to ballistic missiles to Iran could stay in place for an additional eight years.

The Iranians also rejected a noteworthy part of the treaty that would permit inspections of military sites. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is adamantly opposed to such intrusion. Therefore, access is not assured. It appears that the deal is skewed in Iran’s favor before the ink has even dried.

In 2007, I wrote The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps. In that book is the following statement:

“Appeasement has been the offshoot of self-loathing. We hate war rather than believe that those who wage war against us are evil. The liberal left believes we are evil by retaliating, or even worse by striking preemptively to prevent danger.  Self-loathing replaces righteous indignation and begets appeasement. The desire to negotiate no matter the cost gives rise to those of the West who unwittingly become cohorts to the jihadists. These individuals rationalize the presence of evil and attacks by terrorists based on their perception of our own past sins.”

The president’s plan is a quid pro quo—a get-out-of-jail card for an appeasement plan that allows Iran’s leaders to creep out from under the harsh sanctions that brought them to the table in the first place.


Dr. Michael Evans is a #1 New York Times bestselling author. His book, Friends of Zion, John Henry Patterson and Orde Charles Wingate, is available at


Leave a Reply