“Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts.”
— Londo Mollari, “Ceremonies of Light and Dark”, Babylon 5

Who’s in charge?

Yesterday:

Statement from the National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton
National Security & Defense
Issued on: May 5, 2019

In response to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings, the United States is deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the U.S. Central Command region to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force. The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.

Like anyone is surprised?

In 2010:

[….]Question: …Why does the United Nations allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad to address the U.N. Assembly and then recognize his government when he frequently denies the Holocaust and says it was an elaborate falsehood circulated by Jews and Jewish friendly nations such as the U.S.?

Ambassador Bolton: Well, this, that, that’s because that’s the U.N. is. I mean, this is a, uh, this, this is, it’s not, it’s not, I think most Americans look at Ahmadinejad and the fact he is a Holocaust denier, uh, and say we shouldn’t even let him into the country. But, uh, we have agreed, uh, as a member of the United Nations through what’s called the Headquarters Agreement, obviously it’s headquartered in New York, that, uh, heads of state, foreign ministers, diplomats from any U.N. member who come to the United States to come to New York to do U.N. business will be admitted to the country. We can restrict their other activities, uh, but that’s what it, that’s what it means to, uh, have the U.N. functioning. Uh, and it’s also part of one of the basic premises of the U.N. that I think, uh, it’s, it’s very hard for us to understand, and that’s the so called principle of sovereign equality. Is that every member of the U.N. in the General Assembly is equal to every other member of the U.N. So the United States has one vote in the General Assembly and so does Palau. Uh, and, and you can go on down the list of the hundred and ninety-two member states of the U.N. The way the U.N. functions, uh, is a, is the product of decades of cultural development. Uh, and it is the way that it is and it is extraordinarily difficult to change. What that means to me is that, uh, the U.N. has very limited, uh, functionality. It can do some limited number of things well. Some of the specialized agencies of the U.N. do important humanitarian work, uh, they do important scientific work, they do, uh, work in areas that nobody even thinks about the, like the Universal Postal Union that helps handle the transfer of mail between countries, uh, and which functions with, us, essentially no attention at all. Where the U.N. doesn’t work is in the political decision making area, the field of human rights, the field of international security which should have been, uh, one of its, uh, principal responsibilities, in large part because of this culture that has developed, uh, and that, uh, basically requires treating every country just like it’s every other country. So, Fidel Castro, when he was able, would come and speak at the U.N. During the cold war you’d have dictators from all over the world. Uh, today you have, uh, uh, countries like Iran and North Korea, uh, that use the U.N. and, and, and it’s, uh, and the opportunities that presents just like any other country. Uh, we, we may find this very difficult to accept. We do find it very difficult to accept, but that’s the way the U.N. is. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing it just means that’s the way the U.N. is and to me it indicates how limited, uh, are the benefits we’re gonna get from a system that is developed that holds those kinds of cultures. [applause]

[….]Question: …Tonight during your discussion you were talking about Iran’s developing nuclear program. I was wondering what the U.N. or the U.S. would do, um, to intervene when the, um, the, Iran’s, um, threatening Israel, um, Israel’s sovereignty? And do you think it would make a difference if Mousavi got elected in the past Iranian, um, election because most of the power lies within the theocracy and, aya, Ayatollah Khamani?

Ambassador Bolton: Well, I, I don’t, I don’t think the election fundamentally would have changed very much. But I think that the fraud that was, uh, so visible in last year’s election, uh, actually helped demonstrate to a lot of Iranians just how, uh, illegitimate, uh, the Islamic Revolution nineteen seventy-nine has become. I think it’s a very unpopular government in many respects. And I wish the United States, both during the Bush administration and the Obama administration, had done more to supply the opposition with support so that when that fraudulent election had occurred, if we had really given them the resources we might have had an opportunity to see the regime overthrown. Uh, that didn’t happen, we didn’t give them adequate support, either in two thousand nine or in the years preceding that. Uh, and so that opportunity has slipped away and I think it will be quite some time before it comes back. The fact is that, uh, because we have engaged in, uh, now nearly eight years of diplomacy with Iran they have used that time to overcome essentially all of the complex scientific and technological obstacles that stand in the way of a nuclear weapons program. They’re very close to having a weapons capability, it’s really a matter for them when they decide they’re gonna do it. Uh, the diplomacy has failed, the sanctions have failed, uh, so I think today, uh, there are really only, uh, two options facing us with respect to Iran’s nuclear weapons. One is, and this is the most likely option, that indeed they do get nuclear weapons and we’ve got to deal with the consequences of a nuclear Iran. The only thing that will stop that is the second option, which is that some outside power uses preemptive force to strike against the nuclear weapons program, uh, and destroy as much of it as, uh, might be possible, thus setting Iran back, two, three, four, maybe more years. That that is in itself not a complete solution to the problem, but two to four years in, in this business is nearly infinity. I think there’s no chance that the Obama administration will use force. I once thought there was a chance that President Bush would use force. That obviously didn’t happen. I’m not even holding my breath on this administration. Which means that the choice, it’s a very [applause], it’s a very, it’s a very unpleasant choice for Israel, is between seeing Iran get nuclear weapons and taking preemptive action. Uh, military force here is a very unattractive, uh, outcome. It’s very risky, uh, there could be enormous, uh, potential consequences, uh, but in Israel’s case, uh, nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, uh, could bring, uh, a second Holocaust, this time a, a nuclear holocaust. And, uh, I don’t think that’s something that they want to wait and find out about. When Israel has faced, uh, a potential nuclear threat in the past it has not hesitated to act, uh, preemptively. It destroyed, uh, Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor outside of Baghdad in nineteen eighty-one, as I mentioned a few moments ago it destroyed the North Korean reactor in Syria, uh, in September two thousand seven. Uh, so given, given the alternative of a nuclear Iran I think the military option is very much on the table for the Israelis. I don’t know what they’re gonna do but I don’t think they have much time. Both because, uh, that Iran is increasingly close to actually having a nuclear weapons capability and because, uh, at, at some point the Russians may yet deliver the, uh, what we call the S three hundred air defense system, a very sophisticated air defense system that Israel couldn’t penetrate, uh, which would effectively eliminate the Israeli military option.

So, I think we’re very close to a decision by Israel and, uh, and the consequences that will, that will, that will flow from that. [applause]

“No blood for oil.”

Previously:

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 1 (June 18, 2010)

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 2 (June 20, 2010)

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 3 (June 20, 2010)

Blood for oil (November 22, 2018)

Amid a world of problems, Trump’s policy prescriptions remain opaque

….Among the rumored candidates for secretary of state, former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and former U.N. ambassador John Bolton — both outspoken Trump supporters — are viewed as anathema by many current diplomats and as loose cannons even by many of their fellow Republicans….

In 2010:

[John Bolton (r)]: ….But Iran is also in the grip, uh, of a, uh, of its own form of totalitarianism, in this case, religious fanaticism that has over the past several years moved into a kind of military theocracy. The real power in Iran today is held by the Revolutionary Guards which are controlled by, uh, by military officials loyal to, uh, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now, we are almost exactly today, uh, on the fifteenth of June, one year after the election in Iran last year held on June twelfth that was quite obviously stolen by Ahmadinejad. And you’ll remember the pictures of the demonstrators in Tehran and other Iranian cities going out into the streets to protest the fraud that was, uh, was so evident. And, you know, when the, when the, when the people who went out, students, middle class people, uh, all over the country, uh, they didn’t begin their protest by, uh, calling for the overthrow of the regime itself, although the regime is very unpopular. They just thought, uh, that they ought to have a free and fair election. The regime’s response was to bring the Revolutionary Guards and their militia allies, the Basiji, into the streets, uh, resulting in, uh, hundreds and hundreds of deaths of, uh, innocent civilians, students, uh, uh, shop owners, uh, regular people who had probably never demonstrated in their lives. This was the real face of the regime in Iran. It is a dictatorship. It is essentially today a military dictatorship. Uh, and so effective was it in crushing the opposition, uh, that this past weekend on the first anniversary of that fraudulent election, uh, there were almost demonstrations at all. And that reflects the unfortunate reality that the Revolutionary Guard’s power in Iran is even more entrenched then it was before, and reflects also their growing confidence that their pursuit of nuclear weapons is getting closer and closer to success.

What will this mean when Iran gets nuclear weapons? Well, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president, has himself, uh, announced that it’s his desire to wipe the State of Israel off the face of earth. Uh, he has held conferences in Iran with names like “The World Without the United States and Israel.” So, he’s made his intentions pretty clear. Uh, but even if Iran doesn’t use nuclear weapons against Israel, simple having nuclear weapons will exert a profound change on the balance of power, uh, in the Middle East. Uh, and if you don’t like the price of gasoline at what it is today, imagine Iran with hegemonic control, not only over its own oil and natural gas supplies, but exerting effective control over the supplies just across the Persian Gulf, in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. That kind of power, uh, in the hands of this theocratic dictatorship in Iran could have a profoundly disturbing consequence for the American economy and the economy of Western Europe and, and the world as a whole. Moreover, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, and I think it’s very close to that point, uh, I don’t think we can count on being able to contain and deter Iran as we did the Soviet Union during the cold war. I think the calculus of the Mullahs, the Ayatollahs in Iran, is very different. Say what you want about the Communists, they were atheists, and they thought they only went around once in life. They weren’t about to throw that away too quickly. But if you believe, uh, as the Ayatollahs do, that life in the hereafter is a lot better than life on Earth, it’s pretty hard to deter somebody, uh, with that kind of approach. I like to think the American view, uh, is summed up in the, uh, Kenny Chesney song, uh, “Everybody want to go to Heaven, nobody want to go now.” That’s how deterrence works for us. It doesn’t work that way with the Iranians. But, even if I’m wrong on that, and Iran could be contained and deterred, it doesn’t stop with, uh, their achieving nuclear weapons status.

Other countries in the region will respond. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and perhaps others will get nuclear weapons. So, in a very short period of time, five to ten years, you could have a multi-polar nuclear Middle East which almost guarantees, uh, because of the instability that’s the consequence of that, uh, display of nuclear weapons, uh, almost guarantees that somebody will decide to strike one of their neighbors before their neighbors decide to strike them. And that level of uncertainty and risk, uh, will no doubt have profound consequences, uh, for the global price of oil and other natural resources.

Moreover, the lesson that others will draw when they see that the United States is not able to stop North Korea’s nuclear program, when they see that Iran, despite U.S. sanctions, despite four, uh, sanction resolutions in the U.N. Security Council, despite sanctions by the European Union and Japan, still Iran is able to achieve nuclear weapons status.  That will prove to every other would be proliferator, uh, that if they’re simply determined enough they too can obtain nuclear weapons.  Uh, and that will inspire the terrorists groups, too, Al Qaeda and Taliban and others. So that the risk that we see here is a world that, despite the end of the cold war, doesn’t become more stable and more peaceful, uh, it becomes at greater risk because the threat of a terrorist with a nuclear weapon or a biological or a chemical weapon is far worse, even than the threat from terrorists, uh, who brought the attacks of nine eleven….

And:

Question: …Tonight during your discussion you were talking about Iran’s developing nuclear program. I was wondering what the U.N. or the U.S. would do, um, to intervene when the, um, the, Iran’s, um, threatening Israel, um, Israel’s sovereignty? And do you think it would make a difference if Mousavi got elected in the past Iranian, um, election because most of the power lies within the theocracy and, aya, Ayatollah Khamani?

[….] [John] Bolton [(r)]: Well, I, I don’t, I don’t  think the election fundamentally would have changed very much. But I think that the fraud that was, uh, so visible in last year’s election, uh, actually helped demonstrate to a lot of Iranians just how, uh, illegitimate, uh, the Islamic Revolution nineteen seventy-nine has become. I think it’s a very unpopular government in many respects. And I wish the United States, both during the Bush administration and the Obama administration, had done more to supply the opposition with support so that when that fraudulent election had occurred, if we had really given them the resources we might have had an opportunity to see the regime overthrown. Uh, that didn’t happen, we didn’t give them adequate support, either in two thousand nine or in the years preceding that. Uh, and so that opportunity has slipped away and I think it will be quite some time before it comes back. The fact is that, uh, because we have engaged in, uh, now nearly eight years of diplomacy with Iran they have used that time to overcome essentially all of the complex scientific and technological obstacles that stand in the way of a nuclear weapons program. They’re very close to having a weapons capability, it’s really a matter for them when they decide they’re gonna do it. Uh, the diplomacy has failed, the sanctions have failed, uh, so I think today, uh, there are really only, uh, two options facing us with respect to Iran’s nuclear weapons. One is, and this is the most likely option, that indeed they do get nuclear weapons and we’ve got to deal with the consequences of a nuclear Iran. The only thing that will stop that is the second option, which is that some outside power uses preemptive force to strike against the nuclear weapons program, uh, and destroy as much of it as, uh, might be possible, thus setting Iran back, two, three, four, maybe more years. That that is in itself not a complete solution to the problem, but two to four years in, in this business is nearly infinity. I think there’s no chance that the Obama administration will use force. I once thought there was a chance that President Bush would use force. That obviously didn’t happen. I’m not even holding my breath on this administration. Which means that the choice, it’s a very [applause], it’s a very, it’s a very unpleasant choice for Israel, is between seeing Iran get nuclear weapons and taking preemptive action. Uh, military force here is a very unattractive, uh, outcome. It’s very risky, uh, there could be enormous, uh, potential consequences, uh, but in Israel’s case, uh, nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, uh, could bring, uh, a second Holocaust, this time a, a nuclear holocaust. And, uh, I don’t think that’s something that they want to wait and find out about. When Israel has faced, uh, a potential nuclear threat in the past it has not hesitated to act, uh, preemptively. It destroyed, uh, Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor outside of Baghdad in nineteen eighty-one, as I mentioned a few moments ago it destroyed the North Korean reactor in Syria, uh, in September two thousand seven. Uh, so given, given the alternative of a nuclear Iran I think the military option is very much on the table for the Israelis. I don’t know what they’re gonna do but I don’t think they have much time. Both because, uh, that Iran is increasingly close to actually having a nuclear weapons capability and because, uh, at, at some point the Russians may yet deliver the, uh, what we call the S three hundred air defense system, a very sophisticated air defense system that Israel couldn’t penetrate, uh, which would effectively eliminate the Israeli  military option. So, I think we’re very close to a decision by Israel and, uh, and the consequences that will, that will, that will flow from that….

There were those who truly believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction hidden in the desert sand.

….Third possibility is that he buried it in the desert somewhere. Now, hard as that is to believe, you ought to go on, uh, the Internet and find the pictures that American troops took of big fighter planes wrapped in burlap buried in the desert sands being uncovered by American bulldozers. It’s like scenes out of Planet of the Apes with wings and tail fins of Migs peering out of the desert sand. Anybody who’s crazy enough to bury Mig fighters in the desert is probably crazy enough to bury chemical weapons….

If you liked the people hanging around dubya you’re just gonna love the Donald’s posse.

Previously:

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: remarks (June 16, 2010)

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 2 (June 20, 2010)

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 3 (June 20, 2010)

Yesterday:

….In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, the Senate Democratic leader [Harry Reid] said no one with “any degree of intelligence” should agree with the former vice president [Dick Cheney], who strongly opposes the agreement.

“I’m sorry, I cannot hold back a smile,” Reid said just hours after Cheney delivered a stinging rebuke of the deal. “There are a lot of good reasons for this deal. But the best is that Cheney’s against it. I mean, think about this: The architect of the worst foreign policy decision in the history of America – to invade Iraq. Look what it has done. Why would anyone with any degree of intelligence agree with him?”

[….]

Indeed, why?

Meanwhile, Missouri 4th Congressional District Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) can’t help herself:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Congress votes this week on the President’s #IranDeal. Read why I am against this bad deal. #NoNuclearIran [….[ 12:01 PM – 8 Sep 2015

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): it all depends on which questions you choose to ask (May 13, 2015)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): on the Iran nuclear deal – Harrisonville, MO – August 14, 2015 (August 15, 2015)

Not really, but some republican gubernatorial candidates might do a bit more research on the job description.

From Eric Greitens (r), via Twitter:

Eric Greitens ‏@EricGreitens

Join me to stop the dangerous deal with Iran. [….] 7:00 PM – 27 Aug 2015

At his campaign web site:

You think maybe the Faux News Channel watching primary voter demographic keeps bringing this up?

Previously:

Campaign Finance: There is another? (February 25, 2015)

Campaign Finance: a little bit more (February 26, 2015)

Campaign Finance: A new bandwagon? (March 6, 2015)

Campaign Finance: but wait, there’s more (March 10, 2015)

Campaign Finance: that’ll help finance a whole lot of exploring (March 12, 2015)

Campaign Finance: it’s going to be a good quarter (March 16, 2015)

Campaign Finance: still exploring (March 17, 2015)

Campaign Finance: gone quiet (March 21, 2015)

Campaign Finance: not quiet at all (March 25, 2015)

Campaign Finance: eat mor chikin (March 26, 2015)

The stenographer: Ah, for the good old days… (March 28, 2015)

Campaign Finance: in under the wire (April 1, 2015)

Campaign Finance: all in today (April 9, 2015)

Campaign Finance: far afield (April 13, 2015)

Eric Greitens (r) – quarterly campaign finance report – April 15, 2015 (April 18, 2015)

Campaign Finance: not to be outdone (April 21, 2015)

Campaign Finance: not exactly spare change (April 23, 2015)

Campaign Finance: also in increments of $5,001.00 (April 23, 2015)

Campaign Finance: That’s Entertainment! (April 27, 2015)

Campaign Finance: still more (May 2, 2015)

Campaign Finance: just another harbinger of a populist awakening in Missouri (May 5, 2015)

Campaign Finance: You were expecting anything less? (May 19, 2015)

Campaign Finance: still exploring (June 6, 2015)

Campaign Finance: running for Governor, may run for Governor, exploring a run for Governor (June 13, 2015)

Campaign Finance: alrighty then (June 16, 2015)

Campaign Finance: we’d venture to say that’s a lot of capital (June 23, 2015)

Campaign Finance: pretty soon you’re talkin’ serious money (June 24, 2015)

Campaign Finance: you don’t need to play chess when you have friends like this (June 25, 2015)

Campaign Finance: fast approaching that first million (June 26, 2015)

Campaign Finance: getting closer… (June 26, 2015)

Campaign Finance: ever so close… (June 29, 2015)

Campaign Finance: blow right by it (June 30, 2015)

Campaign Finance: there is no end to it (July 1, 2015)

Campaign Finance: also inexorable (July 11, 2015)

Campaign Finance: a talent for raising money (July 13, 2015)

Eric Greitens (r) – July 2015 Quarterly Campaign Finance Report (July 15, 2015)

Campaign Finance: it’s getting boring… (July 20, 2015)

Campaign Finance: Who’s buying the beer? (July 24, 2015)

Campaign Finance: branching out (July 29, 2015)

Campaign Finance: Is this a trend? (July 31, 2015)

Campaign Finance: Ah, Springfield (August 17, 2015)

Campaign Finance: What else is new? (August 25, 2015)

Campaign Finance: Is that all? (August 26, 2015)

From the White House:

[….]

This deal ensures IAEA access when needed, where needed to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. “Anytime, anywhere” inspections are simply unnecessary thanks to the deal.

Under this deal, Iran will allow robust monitoring of all its nuclear facilities. IAEA inspectors have the right to a physical or technical presence in all of Iran’s nuclear sites and will conduct regular monitoring of Iran’s entire nuclear fuel cycle and supply chain, from uranium mines and mills to centrifuge production, assembly, and storage facilities. This means Iran would need to set up an entirely parallel set of facilities and a separate supply chain if it sought to have a covert nuclear weapons program. This kind of program would be extremely difficult to hide under this deal. Standard practice under the Additional Protocol, which Iran will implement under this deal, is that the IAEA can request access to any suspicious location with 24 hours’ notice. This deal does not change that baseline.

But there are situations in which the IAEA and a State might negotiate the terms of access before the IAEA actually goes on site, and for that reason, the JCPOA sets an outer limit for those discussions. Even in the circumstance that it took up to 24 days for IAEA access to a suspicious location in the event of a dispute, radioactive evidence would almost certainly still be present in many of the core facilities Iran would need for a covert nuclear weapons program. In other words, Iran would not be able to cover its tracks before granting access, and the United States would be watching, so we would know if Iran tried to do so.

[….]

Via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Great turnout tonight in Harrisonville to discuss the Iran Nuclear Deal. [….] 5:18 PM – 14 Aug 2015

Yesterday evening Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) held an open town hall at the community center in Harrisonville, Missouri on the Iran nuclear deal. There were approximately seventy individuals in attendance.

Representative Hartzler (r) is opposed to the deal.

Representative Hartzler (r) greeting individuals in attendance before the start of the event.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): [….]

….of course I’m a very big supporter of Israel. I believe we’ve been blessed as a nation because we have been a blessing, uh, to Israel. And if we ever stop being a blessing or support of Israel I think it’s gonna hurt our country. just the right thing to do….

….As you probably heard after the deal was announced there was rallies in the streets in Iran and you had people burning American flags as well as Israel flags and chanting, death to America, death to Israel. And President [Hassan] Rouhani even went to the rally and participated in that. At the same time that, uh, the other world leaders are going back, saying, yeah, this is a good deal. So, gives me pause, I know that….

….So, here’s concerns with the agreement and here’s why I do, uh, not support this agreement. And it is because of these things here.

First of all, it falls short of the anytime anywhere inspections. Uh, Secretary [of State John] Kerry and others said at the beginning that we will have these inspections. Any time you want we’ll be able to go in there and check it out. That is not the case. We now know it’ll take up to twenty-four days to be able to get permission, uh, to be able to get into a site that isn’t listed currently on their list of declared sites. So that’s concerning. And, even if they do agree to all of this within the first ten years, uh, they may not have a nuclear bomb capability if, you know, this all is followed exactly to the letter, uh, and there are no secret, uh, plans going on. But at the end of ten years or even eight years they will have all the, uh, capability they need. They’ll have the centrifuges again, they can take out those thirteen thousand centrifuges that are in storage, they can once again, uh, start ’em up. They will have done research that we will have helped them finance and helped them with the technical ability on the more advanced centrifuges so that they can very quickly, uh, bring up to speed and enrich uranium….

[….]

From the White House:

[….]

The Uranium pathways at Natanz and Fordow

Iran would need two key elements to construct a uranium bomb: tens of thousands of centrifuges and enough highly enriched uranium to produce enough material to construct a uranium bomb.

There are currently two uranium enrichment facilities in the country: the Natanz facility and the Fordow facility.

Let’s take a look at Iran’s uranium stockpile first. Currently, Iran has a uranium stockpile to create 8 to ten nuclear bombs.

But thanks to this nuclear deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile of uranium by 98%, and will keep its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67% – significantly below the enrichment level needed to create a bomb.

Iran also needs tens of thousands of centrifuges to create highly enriched uranium for a bomb. Right now, Iran has nearly 20,000 centrifuges between their Natanz and Fordow facilities. But under this deal, Iran must reduce its centrifuges to 6,104 for the next ten years. No enrichment will be allowed at the Fordow facility at all, and the only centrifuges Iran will be allowed to use are their oldest and least efficient models.

[….]

Representative Hartzler (r) [left] and Jim White (D) [right], the Democratic Party candidate in the 4th Congressional District, in conversation after the event.

At the end of her presentation Representative Hartzler (r) answered written questions on the deal from those in attendance which had been submitted when they entered the meeting room.