08/20/15 – Tyler Cullis – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, Al Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State.
In The War State, Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War II.
If this nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty and prosperity for everyone, we are going to have to abolish the empire.
Know your enemy.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson.
It's available at your local bookstore or at Amazon.com in Kindle or in paperback.
Click the book in the right margin at scotthorton.org or thewarstate.com.
Okay, guys, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show.
I'm here on the Liberty Radio Network from 11 to 1 Texas time, noon to 2 on the East Coast, here every weekday, libertyradionetwork.com.
Also, follow me on Twitter, at Scott Horton Show.
Okay, our next guest on the show today is Tyler Collis.
He is policy associate at NIAC, which is the National Iranian American Council.
Their website is niacouncil.org, and you can bet that, yeah, they've been pushing hard for the nuclear deal with Iran.
Welcome back to the show, Tyler.
How are you?
I'm good.
How are you doing?
I'm doing very good.
I really appreciate you joining us on the show here.
Boy, you know, I think I'd be used to it by now, but the propaganda about Iran and their nuclear program, in this case about the particulars of the Iran deal, they just keep coming.
The war party, they've got a whole, I guess, some kind of hand crank where they just churn out this stuff.
It's kind of incredible.
And so anyway, the big one now is supposed confirmation in a new piece by George John from the Associated Press, which hit yesterday, that, oh yeah, Obama and Kerry completely gave away the store to the Iranians.
They get to inspect all their own stuff.
So what a bunch of idiots we are for, you know, thinking that the Democrats could do better than that.
But I was looking at a couple of tweets of yours, and you seem to think that that wasn't the case.
So how do you explain that?
I mean, so, you know, there was a, it was really a roller coaster ride with this story.
The story was published yesterday.
It provided exclusive details on how Iran would conduct inspections at Parchin itself.
Rather than the IAEA, that the IAEA would not even be on site, that those details in the story were then withdrawn from the story in a later write up.
That's yesterday.
And it made people wonder why the AP would cut out exclusive details on the arrangement that Iran had with the IAEA.
And it's brought a lot of criticism on the AP and George Hahn in particular for his reporting on the story.
I should add that the AP has, as of this morning, put all those details back into the story.
That's interesting, right?
I saw where they told Vox that, oh, you know what?
We only took those details out so that we can make room for more Republican reaction.
But now that you're criticizing us over it, we were not retracting any of those details.
And so here they are again.
Very interesting.
Yeah, I mean, I think what gets lost is that there's a nuclear deal with Iran.
And not as part of that nuclear deal, but as side agreements to that deal.
You have two agreements between Iran and the IAEA.
These two agreements are the only documents that were signed.
So the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal between Iran, the U.S., and other major world powers is not a signed document.
It's not a legal document.
It's a political agreement between the parties that there would be good faith implementation.
But the side agreements with the IAEA and Iran, those are signed.
Those have legal obligation on Iran.
And that's the additional protocol, or those are under the additional protocol to the safeguards?
So those are two agreements.
One deals with the resolution of the PMD issue, the possible military dimensions of Iran's program, as set out in the annex to the IAEA's November 2011 report.
And the second side agreement is the one dealing with activities at Parchin, which is a large military industrial facility in Iran, one part of which is suspected of having engaged in research on nuclear weaponization at work.
I see.
So the additional protocol is still, that waits until implementation day or whatever.
Yes.
So the additional protocol will be provisionally implemented upon implementation, probably before implementation day.
But that's still separate than this, though.
Yeah.
So these are two separate arrangements.
So now, what do we really know about this arrangement?
I mean, are they really bending over backwards to accommodate the Iranians?
They get to inspect their own secret test site that, never mind that we already know that Robert Kelly has debunked these Parchin accusations repeatedly anyway.
I mean, we know two things.
One, the IAEA is satisfied with the arrangement with Iran.
They've been clear about that.
In fact, the director general of the IAEA, who has been, as you know, very tough on Iran, came out with a statement today disputing AP's report and the suggestion that somehow the IAEA was handing the keys over to Iran on inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities.
And we know, too, that the U.S. and other major world powers that were part of these negotiations and that might not have copies of the document, but certainly viewed the document and were satisfied with its details, are happy with this as well.
So all of the parties outside of Iran are happy with this.
Now, you have some people here in the states, the Republican Party, some hawkish Democrats, who are not happy.
The same people who had rallied behind the IAEA all these years when the IAEA was making allegations as to Iran's possible military dimensions are now the same people attacking the IAEA.
So, you know, it's quite the reversal.
Well, here's the thing, though.
I mean, yeah, of course, they're not consistent, but they don't really need to be.
My thing is, I'm not concerned about, you know, Parchin or an Iranian nuclear weapons program in the first place.
So it really doesn't make any difference to me.
I already know that Danilenko was not a nuclear scientist.
I already know that that explosives chamber probably never existed outside of the cartoon drawing that they did, Colin Powell style.
So I'm not concerned about it.
On the other hand, it does sound sort of like what you're saying is it's at least plausible, you know, that the way that I mean, never mind exactly the way they characterize it as this kind of outlaw thing.
But it does sound like maybe the IAEA did concede.
Yeah, just bring us the samples rather than insisting, if only for public relations reasons, on being there and doing the swipes themselves.
Is that right?
That they I mean, it sounds like in other words, it sounds like they blew this politically.
Never mind, you know, the actual science of it, which is at this point mostly irrelevant anyway.
Yeah, I mean, the big issue for them is that this is a safeguard confidential document.
So they can't reveal the text of the agreement because they have confidentiality with Iran as to its content.
And for the IAEA to reveal this content publicly would put it in a bad situation with Iran at a time in which they're trying to reestablish some kind of relationship between them.
Yeah, but I mean, couldn't they just say, yeah, but that part is not true.
Sorry, we're not we're not releasing the test.
But the thing that says that we're not even going to be there, that is not accurate.
Couldn't they say that if they could say that?
Yeah, I mean, I think, well, in the AP story, the latest version I saw, they mentioned the fact that the IAEA would be monitoring Iran's technicians taking swipes and environmental samples at Parchin.
So that's that's not a contested issue.
And that's probably why the IAEA didn't mention it in a statement, because even the AP report admitted that IAEA and international inspectors would be on site overseeing Iranian technicians taking samples.
And you have I mean, there was a there was a great article put out by Tarek Rauf, who is the former head of verification at the IAEA, in which he said, basically, there's there's it would be by no means technically compromising to have Iranian technicians collect swipe samples at sites and locations at Parchin in the physical presence and direct line of sight of IAEA inspectors and then use and then turn those swipe kits and collection bags provided by the IAEA over back to the IAEA.
As long as you're sure of the chain of supply, there shouldn't be a problem.
Yes.
And it should also and it should be also mentioned that, you know, from the Iranian perspective, so you're probably going to have several bags taking swipes of Parchin.
And some of those bags will go to various locations that the IAEA conducts laboratory analysis.
And one will probably stay in Iran.
And the reason it will stay in Iran is because Iran fears tampering just as well as the IAEA and the United States does.
So in other words, if there's if there's some kind of accusation comes out of the sampling, they can say, oh, yeah, we'll match that up with our Exhibit B and let's double check.
Exactly.
Exactly.
All right.
Now, I'm sorry.
The music's playing.
So we've got to go to this break.
I'll let you finish that point on the other side of it.
It's Tyler Cullis from the National Iranian American Council.
That's NIA Council dot org.
And yeah, he's right.
Tariq Ralph here at Atomic Reporters dot com has this one environmental sampling in Iran.
And Jeffrey Lewis at the Arms Control Wonk has written about this as well.
They're all agreed.
The real experts.
One sec.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here for Wall Street Window dot com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government generated bubbles pop, which is, by the way, what he's doing right now, selling all the stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at Wall Street Window dot com and get real time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help follow along on paper and see for yourself.
Wall Street Window dot com.
All right, guys.
Welcome back.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show.
The Scott Horton Show.
Talking with Tyler Cullis from the National Iranian American Council.
That's NIA Council dot org.
He is the.
Oops, I got to rewind up the page.
He is the policy associate there and expert on sanctions.
We're going to talk about sanctions thing here in a minute, but I'm sorry.
Do you remember where it was that we left off on the inspections?
I had to interrupt you for the break there, Tyler.
Yes.
I mean, it was it was the point that the same fear that the IAEA and the United States have regarding Iran's tampering of environmental sample and swipes is Iran's fear as well.
So Iran will be keeping will likely be keeping one set of swipes in country to protect against its fear that the IAEA would engage in its own kind of tampering to find evidence that there were nuclear materials on site.
So we could always claim, look, we have exhibit B at home and let's test that.
Right.
And now I have to say this.
You know, I'm not sure if this is part of you guys reporting or narrative or argument in your lobbying or whatever it is.
This is what it is.
And that is Robert Kelly, the former chief IAEA inspector, has thrown cold water all over this hype about parchment anyway and says, look, even accusations make no sense on their face that this entire explosive chamber was designed and built and used all within one year.
And and you wouldn't use it like that anyway.
And I can see why the artist made up the fins, because he mistook the lumber that the old explosive chamber from the picture was sitting on.
And that explosive chamber was about making nanodiamonds, because that was Danilenko's experience, not nuclear weapons.
And even Vox today, Max Fisher, is debunking George John and the AP story.
And yet he still says, oh, yeah, former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist.
No.
And this has been debunked for years now.
And then, by the way, Kelly, I'm sorry, I was going to keep that short.
Kelly has a brand new one cutting through the fog on the possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program, purported large explosives chamber at Parchin.
And that has just come out.
And it's at Cipri dot org.
And it's his companion piece at low blog is called the Parchin puzzle.
And this whole thing is a bunch of hype anyway.
The only question is, can it be hyped up enough to scotch the deal?
And there were people yesterday going, oh, that's it.
Look at this.
Oh, no.
The deal's got to be off now.
And react in that way over just some George John piece, which I've seen this before.
I don't know.
I guess a lot of people, a lot more people are paying attention now than before.
But I'm not impressed when George John accuses somebody of something.
Yeah, I mean, you know, the most curious thing to me is the confidence by which some people claim that Iran engaged in weaponization work at Parchin.
And I'm mostly it's mostly curious to me because we've already been over this before.
I mean, in 2004, the the United the IAEA alleged that Iran was had was engaged in high explosive testing that might have been consistent for nuclear weapons research.
Iran granted access to those facilities.
We had satellite imagery at the time by our good friends at ISIS nuclear.
So this is an allegation.
Iran provided access to those facilities.
The IAEA discovered that, look, the satellites, when they were on the ground, it didn't match what they believed from satellite imagery.
And there were no weaponization activities taking place whatsoever.
So you would think there would be a deal of skepticism, especially when the evidence relates to a laptop.
Whose sources are unknown and to satellite imagery in which we can't really tell what's happening on the ground at all.
We know we have a history of being wrong.
Yeah, well, and of course, and I'm sure, you know, you've noticed in your experience to just with the Iran issue, nuclear issue all along for, you know, say, at least since Natanz in 2002.
It's an endless stream of accusations, most of which have no basis in reality at all.
Some of which have some basis in reality, but always with the worst case scenario spin.
Any dual use item is definitely secretly for weapons work and this kind of thing.
And, you know, in total, probably, you know, 5% of any of these accusations ever hold up at all.
And then those are eventually explained away to the satisfaction of the IAEA anyway.
But meanwhile, if you're just a regular person living in this society, you've heard 150,000 accusations against Iran about their nuclear program.
It's enough to make you think there must be something to it, you know?
Yeah, I mean, you know, the problem is there's no accountability here for being wrong.
You can be wrong once, you can be wrong twice, you can be wrong 150 times.
But tomorrow morning you can come out with another accusation on Iran.
There's just no accountability for being wrong on Iran.
Absolutely.
All right.
So now let's talk about the sanctions here a little bit.
I'm interested in I know that's really your expertise here.
So assuming that all goes well, that Obama, either Congress fails to, you know, the Senate maybe can fail to override the filibuster at 60 votes.
But anyway, assuming that they fail to override the president's veto here and we do get the deal and it does get implemented.
The Iranians do their part and the Americans and the U.N. and the E.U. and everybody lift their sanctions.
What is that going to look like in terms of the difference it makes for the Iranian economy?
And of course, you know, with an eye toward the critics' accusations here, what is that going to do for the Revolutionary Guard Corps and all of their nefarious activities in the world?
Well, you know, nothing for the nothing for the IRGC and nothing for the IRGC because the IRGC remains sanctioned under this deal.
The IRGC will remain sanctioned under five separate sanctions programs to the point where even secondary sanctions, so foreign banks cannot conduct a transaction with an Iranian bank on behalf of the IRGC, because if they do so, they risk being cut out of the U.S. financial system.
So there's going to be, you know, in some ways the IRGC, you know, didn't do well under this deal whatsoever, because the IRGC was first designated in 2006-2007 for engaging in nuclear, for facilitating Iran's nuclear program.
But the U.S. didn't treat it as a nuclear-related sanction, and the Iranians apparently didn't press the issue hard enough to force the Americans to stand.
So the IRGC remains designated.
So all these, you know, allegations that this deal will allow the IRGC to run rampant over the Middle East is belied by the fact that they're sanctioned, and they'll be sanctioned.
They're sanctioned today, they were sanctioned yesterday, and they're going to be sanctioned for tomorrow as well.
All right, well, now all funds are fungible eventually anyway, so we are going to be making the Iranian regime rich now, right?
I mean, they're going to have more money.
I mean, that's for sure.
They're going to be able to conduct a cross-border transaction using their banks.
For the past two, three years, they haven't been able to do so.
But, you know, Iran is in a significant hole.
This isn't money going to the IRGC.
This isn't money going to the Quds Force.
For what it's worth, they were able to provide funds for both those organizations, even when sanctions were imposed on them, even in greater numbers, considering the need they had in Syria and elsewhere.
But, you know, Iran has a pretty big hole in its economy, and it needs to fill that up.
It's interested in getting oil services firms from overseas to develop its oil fields.
It wants big manufacturers from Germany and Japan coming in.
It wants high-tech goods.
It wants to build its tech sector up.
It has a lot of needs, and those needs are going to be met.
And I can almost guarantee you that those needs are met before any money is shoveled over into foreign enterprises.
Well, and, you know, if you think like a war hawk but an honest one or something, or an anti-Iran hawk but an honest one, and you really don't want to have a war if you can avoid one and that kind of thing, well, it seems like just on the face of it, putting the IRGC out of the black market oil business and taking away that revenue stream for them, which Mohammed Sahimi has written quite a bit about how they run that, obviously the special forces are the worst gangsters in the country, right?
And then also, wouldn't we want to encourage the rise of new centers of wealth in the country, especially those reliant on international trade and their national government getting along with the so-called international community and staying out from under sanctions like this and this kind of thing?
If you really want Iran to behave, it seems like this is, you know, from an imperial point of view, behave.
It seems like this is a good way to get it to happen.
Yeah, I mean, from that perspective, this is a great deal.
And this is a great deal because, for instance, there's an organization called Khatam Alambia.
Khatam Alambia is one of Iran's major construction firms.
It controls large parts of Iran's oil sector.
It's also an agent or affiliate of the IRGC under U.S. law.
And being so, foreign banks can't conduct transactions on their behalf.
No foreign persons can engage in the provision of goods or services to Khatam Alambia.
So they're being just totally cut out.
I mean, if Iran wants foreign firms to come in to help develop its oil field, it's going to have to find new centers, new groups to take up that work other than Khatam Alambia.
I mean, they're just totally cabined off.
Oh, man, I'm not quick enough on the draw here.
At the end of the show, I was going to find my clip of Dick Cheney in Australia saying we've got to lift those sanctions, man, so we can do business with these guys.
Remember back in the 1990s when he had a job?
Anyway, hey, thanks very much for coming back on the show, Tyler.
I sure appreciate it.
That's Tyler Cullis, y'all, at NIAC, niacouncil.org.
Hey, y'all, check out the audio book of Lew Rockwell's Fascism vs.
Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton, at audible.com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty.
From medieval history to the Ron Paul revolution, Rockwell blasts our status enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes, and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan.
Fascism vs.
Capitalism by Lew Rockwell for audio book.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin of my website at scotthorton.org.
Hey, y'all, guess what?
You can now order transcripts of any interview I've done for the incredibly reasonable price of two and a half bucks each.
Listen, finding a good transcriptionist is near impossible, but I've got one now.
Just go to scotthorton.org slash transcripts, enter the name and date of the interview you want written up, click the PayPal button, and I'll have it in your email in 72 hours, max.
You don't need a PayPal account to do this.
Man, I'm really gonna have to learn how to talk more good.
That's scotthorton.org slash transcripts.
Hey, y'all, Scott Horton here for Liberty.me, the social network and community-based publishing platform for the liberty-minded.
Liberty.me combines the best of social media technology all in one place and features classes, discussions, guides, events, publishing, podcasts, and so much more.
And Jeffrey Tucker and I are starting a new monthly show at Liberty.me, Eye on the Empire.
It's just four bucks a month if you use promo code Scott when you sign up.
And hey, once you do, add me as a friend on there at scotthorton.liberty.me.
Be free.
Liberty.me.