"We Need to Reward our Friends and Punish our Enemies"

On a tip from Ed Kilbane

American Jewry's Fateful Hour

8/16/2015 8:30:00 AM - Caroline Glick 

American Jewry is being tested today as never before. The future of the community is tied up in the results of the test.

If the Jews of America are able to mount a successful, forceful and sustained opposition to President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, which allows the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism to become a nuclear-armed state and provides it with $150 billion up front, then the community will survive politically to fight another day.

If the communal leadership and its members fail to fight, American Jews will find themselves communally disenfranchised.

On the face of it, there is no reason this fight should have been anything more than a hopeless – but relatively insignificant – ordeal. Given that all Obama needs to do to secure the implementation of his nuclear pact with the mullahs is secure the support of a one-third minority in one house of Congress, he might have been expected to go easy on his opponents since they have so little chance of defeating him.

Instead, Obama has decided to demolish them. He has presented them with two options – capitulate or be destroyed. 

Barry's been doing this to the Jews since day one of his administration.

 In May 2011 he called for Israel to go back to pre-1967 borders, which makes about as much sense as giving Texas back to Mexico.

Consider Hillary Clinton's behavior.

On Tuesday the Democratic presidential front-runner and former secretary of state ratcheted up her statements of support for Obama's nuclear pact with the ayatollahs. Speaking to supporters in New Hampshire, Clinton said, "I'm hoping that the agreement is finally approved and I'm telling you if it's not, all bets are off."

On its face, Clinton's mounting support for the deal makes little sense. True, her principal rival for the Democratic nomination, socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, announced his support. But this deal will probably not be an issue by the time Democrats begin voting in their primaries.

On the other hand, the deal is not popular among either the general public or key Democratic donors. According to a poll taken this week by Monmouth University, only 27 percent of the general population and only 43 percent of Democrats want Congress to support the deal.

Then there is the funding issue.

Clinton hopes to raise $2.5 billion to fund her campaign. Her chance of securing that support – particularly from Jewish Democrats – is harmed, not helped by openly supporting the deal. So why is she speaking out in favor of it? The same day Clinton escalated her support for the deal, the FBI seized Clinton's private email server and her thumb drive amid reports that the inspector-general of the US intelligence community concluded that there were top secret communications on her email server.

Simply storing top secret communications, let alone disseminating them, is a felony offense.

Clinton submitted more than 32,000 emails from her server to the State Department. A random sample of 40 emails showed up four classified documents, two of which were top secret.

If the same ratios hold for the rest of the emails she submitted, then she may have illegally held some 3,200 classified documents, 1,600 of which were top secret. While Clinton is presenting the investigation as a simple security issue, she may very well find herself quickly under criminal investigation. At that point, her dwindling White House prospects will be the least of her worries.

But there is one person who can protect her.

If Obama wishes to close or expand a criminal probe of Clinton's suspected criminal activities, he can. As Roger Simon from Pjmedia.com wrote this week, "Hillary Clinton is in such deep legal trouble over her emails that she needs the backing of Obama to survive. He controls the attorney-general's office and therefore he controls Hillary (and her freedom) as long as he is president."

The prejudicial indictment of Sen. Robert Menendez – the most outspoken critic of Obama's deal with the ayatollahs in the Democratic Party – on dubious corruption charges in April shows that Obama isn't above using his control over the Justice Department to persecute political opponents.

Then there is Obama's treatment of Sen. Charles Schumer. Last Thursday night, the senior senator from New York and the next in line to lead the Democratic minority in the Senate informed Obama that he will oppose his nuclear deal. Schumer asked Obama to keep Schumer's position to himself in order to enable Schumer to announce it on Friday morning.

Rather than respect Schumer's wishes, the White House set its leftist attack dogs on Schumer.

By the time Schumer announced his plan to oppose the deal he had been called a traitor, a warmonger and an Israeli agent by leftist activist groups who pledged to withhold campaign contributions.

Schumer was compared to former Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman was forced to face a primary challenge in his 2006 reelection bid. His opponent, Ned Lamont, was generously supported by leftist activists led by George Soros.

Lamont's campaign was laced with anti-Semitic overtones, and Lieberman lost. He was forced to run in the general election as an Independent and won by virtue of the support he received from Republican voters and donors.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest threatened that Schumer could expect to be challenged in his bid to replace outgoing Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid when Reid retires next year.

Responding to the onslaught against him, while maintaining his opposition to the deal, Schumer reportedly told his Democratic Senate colleagues that while he was opposing the deal, he would not lobby then to join him in opposition.

The White House led- and instigated-assault on Schumer is interesting because of what it tells us about how Obama is using anti-Semitism.

In all likelihood, Schumer would have demurred from lobbying his Senate colleagues from joining him in opposing the deal even if Obama hadn't fomented an openly bigoted campaign to discredit him as a Jew. The mere threat of denying him his long-sought goal of heading the Democratic Senate faction, not to mention the possibility of mounting a primary challenge against him, probably would have sufficed to convince him not to take any further steps to oppose the deal.

So what purpose is served by calling a senior Democratic senator with a perfect leftist record on domestic issues a traitor, a warmonger and an agent of Israel? In all likelihood, the decision to attack Schumer as a disloyal Jew does not owe to some uncontrollable anti-Semitic passion on Obama's part.

Even if Obama is in fact an anti-Jewish bigot, he is more than capable of concealing his prejudice.

After all, as we learned over the weekend from Iranian media reports translated by MEMRI, Obama told the Iranians four years ago that they could have the bomb.

According to MEMRI's findings, Iranian negotiators said that Obama sent then-Senate Foreign Affairs Committee chairman John Kerry to Oman in 2011, while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still Iran's president, to begin nuclear negotiations. During the course of those early contacts, Obama agreed that Iran could continue enriching uranium in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a host of binding UN Security Council resolutions. He also agreed that Iran would not be required in the framework of a nuclear deal to reveal all of the possible military dimensions of its past nuclear work. In other words, he told the Iranians that he would not stand in their way to the bomb.

Obama managed to hide his concessions from the American people. He orchestrated a spectacle of "serious" negotiations with the P5+1 and Iran, where he pretended that the concessions he had made four years earlier were made at the very last moment of the nuclear talks in Vienna.

Given his obvious skill, it is clear that he would only play the anti-Semitism card if he believed he had something to gain from it.

So what is he planning to do that anti-Semitism can help him to accomplish? Over the past month, Obama has demonized and criminalized opponents of his nuclear deal.

Last week at American University Obama said that his Republican opponents are the moral equivalent of "Death to America"-chanting jihadists. Obama presented deal opponents in general as warmongers who would force the US into an unnecessary war that his deal would otherwise prevent.

And, since he said that among all the nations of the world, only Israel opposes the deal, it easily follows that the Jews who oppose the deal are traitors who care more about Israel than America.

And then this week his troops let it be known that Schumer is a warmonger and a traitor. And a Jew.

In his meeting with American Jewish leaders last Tuesday, Obama said that if the community dares to criticize him personally, it will weaken the American Jewish community and as a result, the strength of the US-Israel relationship.

If Jews – like Republicans – are warmongering traitors, obviously they should be made to pay a price.

By singling out and demonizing Jewish American opponents of the deal as corrupt, treacherous warmongers, Obama is setting the conditions for treating them as disloyal citizens can expected to be treated.

In other words, at best, Jewish opponents can expect to find themselves treated like other Obama opponents – such as Tea Party groups that were hounded and harassed by the IRS and other governmental organs.

AIPAC can expect to be subjected to humiliating, public and prejudicial probes. Jewish institutions and groups can expect to be picketed, vandalized and sued. Jewish activist can expect to be audited by the IRS.

In that meeting with American Jewish leaders, Obama seemed to present them with a choice. He reportedly told AIPAC's representatives, "If you guys would back down [from their opposition to the deal], I would back down from some of the things I'm doing."

Actually, he gave them no real options. Obama effectively told the leaders of the American Jewish community that as far as he is concerned, Jews have no right to advance their collective concerns as Jews. If they do, he will attack them. If they give up that right under duress, then he will leave them alone. So remain free and be hounded, or give up your rights and be left alone.

Some commentators have characterized the fight over the deal as a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. This may be the case. But first and foremost, it is a fight over whether or not Jews in America have the same rights as all other Americans.

To be sure, Israel will be harmed greatly if Congress fails to vote down this deal. But Israel has other means of defending itself. If this deal goes through, the greatest loser will be American Jewry.

"We Need to Reward our Friends and Punish our Enemies"

So the Clintons weren't so bad, eh?

If you're under 50 you really need to read this, if you are over 50, share it with those under fifty. 

Amazing to me how much I have forgotten! 

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a Democratic controlled Congress.

 This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children. 

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovered of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration. 

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well:Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. 

Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours. 

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents. 

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle was: She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones. 

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. 

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath. 

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen. What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type low-life mess? 

Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next. But to her loyal fans - “what difference does it make.”

So the Clintons weren't so bad, eh?

This Reeks of a Cover-up

State Department destroyed Clinton aides’ BlackBerrys

Commentary on the article below by:

Ed Kilbane

I can understand destroying the device after you download all the information from it. But how can the State Dept. justify destroying all the records on their Blackberrys along with the physical device? Who ordered them to do that? When you trade your old PC in for a new one, you back up all your data so you don't lose it when attempting to transfer it from the old device to the new one. In the Hildabeast's own words, it requires the willful suspension of disbelief to believe that the State Dept. routinely destroys old devices and doesn't make any effort to preserve the information they contain. I wonder if they'll revisit Ray Maxwell's claims about the secret Sunday email review operation conducted by Cheryl Mills and friends in the basement of the State Dept. as they sorted out incriminating Benghazi emails? Has anyone asked The Hildabeast why she refused to appoint an Inspector General for the State Dept. while she was secretary? Isn't that unusual? Doesn't it add more fuel to the fire that she considers herself above the law, beyond reproach, and answerable to nobody? "I don't need no stinking Inspector General!!!"

---------------------------------------------

The State Department likely destroyed the BlackBerry devices issued to two top aides of Hillary Rodham Clinton and never issued Mrs. Clinton a device at all, officials told a federal court Wednesday in a filing that raises still more security questions about the former secretary’s email practices.

Administration officials will be in court Thursday to give more details about their search for the emails, which have become a political scandal for Mrs. Clinton and a major headache for President Obama’s administration.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign aides continue to publicly wave off worries over the emails, casting it as a media feeding frenzy that doesn’t affect voters’ decisions as the former first lady and senator seeks Democrats’ 2016 presidential nomination.

“The press have a lot of questions about emails, but voters don’t,” Jennifer Palmieri, a longtime aide, said on MSNBC, saying Mrs. Clinton hasn’t “gotten one question about it” during town halls in New Hampshire and Iowa. “People are asking her [about] questions that affect their lives.”

Judges, however, are asking questions about the emails and the State Department’s efforts to try to recover as many of them as possible, and department officials have had to scramble to try to track down the emails and the devices that Mrs. Clinton and top aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin used to send them.

On Wednesday, Ambassador Joseph E. Macmanus, executive secretary of the State Department, said his office never gave Mrs. Clinton any devices at all.

“[The department] does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device,” he told the court.

Judicial Watch, the conservative public interest law firm whose lawsuit has forced the State Department to try to find the devices, said that answer wasn’t very comforting, since it means Mrs. Clinton must have been using her own BlackBerry — raising major national security questions.

“If the State Department was not providing secure email devices to Mrs. Clinton, who was? Best Buy? Target? Mrs. Clinton clearly did whatever she wanted, without regard to national security or federal records keeping laws,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

As for Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills, Mr. Macmanus said they were issued BlackBerrys, but those can no longer be found. He said they were old by the time they were turned back in, and under department policy they were either “destroyed or excessed.”

Mrs. Clinton rejected a State.gov email account during her time in office, instead creating an email address tied to a server she kept in her home in New York. Prodded by the probe into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack, she returned 30,490 emails to the State Department in December — nearly two years after she left office.

Those emails are slowly being released under a judge’s order, but some of the messages have had classified information redacted from them, raising questions about whether Mrs. Clinton was mishandling secret information by using a non-State.gov account.

She has insisted she didn’t send any classified information, nor did she receive any messages marked classified at the time, though some of them have been upgraded to classified since.

David E. Kendall, Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, said in a letter to Congress that the server has been wiped clean — though he didn’t say who did that. Mrs. Clintonon Tuesday wouldn’t directly answer whether she’d deleted the messages herself, instead mocking a reporter’s suggestions that she “wiped” it. “What, like with a cloth or something?” she retorted.

Mr. Kendall, in his letter to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, detailed his own involvement in holding Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

While he turned over paper records, which he said was department policy, he kept a flash drive with all of the messages in electronic form at his law office.

In July, when it became clear the emails contained classified information, the State Department gave him a safe to store the drive, and he said only he and his law partner, Katherine M. Turner, had access to the safe. He also said he and Ms. Turner hold top secret security clearances issued by the State Department.

He has since turned the flash drive and two copies over to federal investigators, and Platte River Networks, a Colorado company that took possession of the server when Mrs. Clinton was through with it, also turned it over.

But questions continue to be raised.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a letter Wednesday demanding to know more about the process used to decide which emails are now classified, following reports in The Washington Times earlier this week that some of the review team has ties to Mr. Kendall and may be biased.

Mr. Grassley asked the department to turn over any internal complaints it’s gotten from those concerned employees and to detail any ties between Mr. Kendall and members of the screening team.

Mr. Grassley said, in one case, information was supposed to have been kept private and marked classified, but instead was marked “privileged” — a different exemption that could be used to hide the total amount of secret information Mrs. Clinton was communicating about through her email system.

About 5 percent of the 30,000 messages contain red flags that mean they might have classified information, and they need to be screened by intelligence community officers.

Mrs. Clinton did get some help from an unexpected quarter Wednesday when former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, one of her rivals for the Democratic nomination, said the emails are a distraction and shouldn’t define the presidential race.

Still, Mr. O’Malley wouldn’t say whether he thinks Mrs. Clinton is being honest, The Associated Press reported.

This Reeks of a Cover-up

Muslims 'Procreate Like Mushrooms After the Rain'

Florida professor sounds a lot like Trump.

Video 145

Muslims 'Procreate Like Mushrooms After the Rain'

UN to let Iran inspect themselves

This is beyond crazy!

Why doesn't Barry just hand over some of our nukes and save Iran the trouble? 

Barry had the leverage $150 billion of their money... and this is the best deal he and Kerry could come up with? We didn't even get the hostages back. Someone tell me just WTF we got out of this deal! 

Truly this woman is an asshole. Her delusional fascination with Barry is like a dense fog settled between her ears. 

Video 134

-----------------------------------------------------

VIENNA (AP) — Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran's future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.

A skeptical House Speaker John Boehner said, "President Obama boasts his deal includes 'unprecedented verification.' He claims it's not built on trust. But the administration's briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient - and it still isn't clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents."

Said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce: "International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period."

But House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi shrugged off the revelation, saying, "I truly believe in this agreement."

The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal.

Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday's disclosure.

John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator, said, "Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement."

The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

On Wednesday, White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said the Obama administration was "confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program. ... The IAEA has separately developed the most robust inspection regime ever peacefully negotiated."

All IAEA member countries must give the agency some insight into their nuclear programs. Some are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country.

The White House has repeatedly denied claims of a secret side deal favorable to Tehran. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he was obligated to keep the document confidential.

Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in — or work on — nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms.

The IAEA has cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.

The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue in public.

The document is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.

Iran is to provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."

That wording suggests that — beyond being barred from physically visiting the site — the agency won't get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.

While the document says the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how.

The draft is unsigned but the proposed signatory for Iran is listed as Ali Hoseini Tash, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs. That reflects the significance Tehran attaches to the agreement.

Iranian diplomats in Vienna were unavailable for comment, Wednesday while IAEA spokesman Serge Gas said the agency had no immediate comment.

The main focus of the July 14 deal between Iran and six world powers is curbing Iran's present nuclear program that could be used to make weapons. But a subsidiary element obligates Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of the past allegations.

The investigation has been essentially deadlocked for years, with Tehran asserting the allegations are based on false intelligence from the U.S., Israel and other adversaries. But Iran and the U.N. agency agreed last month to wrap up the investigation by December, when the IAEA plans to issue a final assessment.

That assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal. Still, it is expected to be approved by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and the other nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their broader deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue.AP UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site

VIENNA (AP) — Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran's future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.

A skeptical House Speaker John Boehner said, "President Obama boasts his deal includes 'unprecedented verification.' He claims it's not built on trust. But the administration's briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient - and it still isn't clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents."

Said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce: "International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period."

But House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi shrugged off the revelation, saying, "I truly believe in this agreement."

The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal.

Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday's disclosure.

John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator, said, "Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement."

The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

On Wednesday, White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said the Obama administration was "confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program. ... The IAEA has separately developed the most robust inspection regime ever peacefully negotiated."

All IAEA member countries must give the agency some insight into their nuclear programs. Some are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country.

The White House has repeatedly denied claims of a secret side deal favorable to Tehran. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he was obligated to keep the document confidential.

Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in — or work on — nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms.

The IAEA has cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.

The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue in public.

The document is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.

Iran is to provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."

That wording suggests that — beyond being barred from physically visiting the site — the agency won't get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.

While the document says the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how.

The draft is unsigned but the proposed signatory for Iran is listed as Ali Hoseini Tash, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs. That reflects the significance Tehran attaches to the agreement.

Iranian diplomats in Vienna were unavailable for comment, Wednesday while IAEA spokesman Serge Gas said the agency had no immediate comment.

The main focus of the July 14 deal between Iran and six world powers is curbing Iran's present nuclear program that could be used to make weapons. But a subsidiary element obligates Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of the past allegations.

The investigation has been essentially deadlocked for years, with Tehran asserting the allegations are based on false intelligence from the U.S., Israel and other adversaries. But Iran and the U.N. agency agreed last month to wrap up the investigation by December, when the IAEA plans to issue a final assessment.

That assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal. Still, it is expected to be approved by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and the other nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their broader deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue.

UN to let Iran inspect themselves