I believe Marie Harf recently received a promotion to a senior advisory position in the wake of John Kerry’s devastatingly stereotypical Parisian bike accident, but that clearly hasn’t stopped her from ruining otherwise informative press conference with her utter and complete confusion over foreign policy.
For background, the New York Times recently discovered that Iran, under strict orders from the Obama Administration circa two years ago to halt all acquisitions of nuclear material during the 18-month sanctions negotiation process, has grown its nuclear stockpile by about 20%, based on a report from the IAEA issued Friday. While Iran has stopped producing certain forms of highly enriched uranium and has stopped work at most of the facilities being tasked with producing an “atomic energy source” the 20% acquisition growth is in open defiance of their initial agreement. The Times goes on to note that Iran acquired the material recently, possibly for leverage in the talks, and that US officials were unsure as to how or when the actual acquisitions were made.
There’s some good news, though. According to Marie Harf, there’s no reason to be concerned.
Our team read that story this morning and was quite frankly perplexed because the main contentions of it are just totally inaccurate.
First, the notion in the story that western officials or U.S. officials involved were unaware of this issue or not understanding of what this entails is just absurd. Under the JPOA, Iran can fluctuate its numbers in terms of their stockpile. They can go up and down as long as at the end of fixed date they are back down below a number. So in the first two instances, the JPOA and the extension, that’s exactly what they’ve done. They’ve gone up, they’ve gone back down, and at the end of it, they’ve been where they need to be, and we fully expect that will happen again.
I would also say that the notion that Iran is doing something they’re not supposed to be doing, again is jut not accurate. They are permitted to go up and down under the JPOA as long as at the end of it, again they’re where they need to be. And then finally I would say, and you may have more questions, the notion that this is some obstacle is just patently absurd. They are permitted, again, to do what they are doing here, and they’ve always gotten where they need to be and we expect they will again.
If you can translate that, you are a better woman than I.
.It seems to me that Marie Harf contends, first, that such an increase isn’t cause for worry, but then insists that the increase didn’t happen. So, while it might have happened, we shouldn’t be worried about it, but it didn’t happen so we definitely don’t need to be worried about it. But if it did happen, then it’s not a big deal. Only the story is true. Except that the story isn’t true, which is why she’s confused as to why the Times would report on it. But if it was true, it’s no big deal.
Correct me if I’m wrong. Though it’s no big deal if I’m wrong because nothing matters anyway, let alone a 1/5 increase in nuclear material among lunatics.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.