When former president Obama's cheerleaders, greedy Europeans, and the leftist echo-chamber media argue in favor of keeping the nuclear deal with Iran, their main argument is that the world is a safer place with it because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have confirmed that Iran has not violated the deal since its signing in 2015.

They further state that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent revelation of a treasure trove of Iranian nuclear intelligence obtained by the Israeli spy agency Mossad, which proved that Iran has been lying about its nuclear weapons program, was well known and that no "smoking gun" proving any Iranian violations of the nuclear deal was provided. 

The European Union, in response to the Netanyahu presentation, stated that the "nuclear agreement, is not based on assumptions of good faith or trust, it is based on concrete commitments, verifications mechanism and very strict monitoring of facts done by IAEA and as a result the IAEA has published 10 reports, certifying that Iran has fully complied with its commitments." 

In reality, the IAEA inspections could not truly confirm or certify such compliance because the deal itself was bad and the supposed inspections specified in the deal were a total farce.

The agreement gave a lot of discretion to the Iranian terrorist regime to cheat by allowing regime members to decide the nature, extent, time, and place of the inspections.  It seems that the deal gave the fox the keys to the henhouse while the world and media pretend the so-called findings from the fake inspections are true and credible.

The liberal media will cheer anything in order to protect Obama's legacy, and the Europeans will cheer any deal providing them with hard cash, regardless of the dangerous consequences from a nuclear-armed Iran.

In 2015, President Obama promised when he tried to sell the deal to a skeptical American public that the Iranians agreed to the "most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime, ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history," based on "unprecedented verification."  Moreover, Obama adviser Ben Rhodes reassured the public repeatedly that the deal included "anywhere, anytime" inspections and 24-7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities.

But in reality, the administration repeatedly lied to the American public by misrepresenting the deal and the nature of the inspections Iran agreed to.  The robust inspections referred only to Iran's declared nuclear sites.  Other sites that the IAEA has suspicions about, including all military sites and undeclared nuclear sites, fell under a separate cheating-friendly procedure.   

One of the most controversial issues in the 2015 negotiations was whether the U.N.'s IAEA would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them.  In the end, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei on June 23, 2015 stated that granting access to Iran's military sites was a red line, and the U.S. and its partners gave in and agreed on language with Iran avoiding a direct mention of the military sites issue.

Instead, the deal stated that in order to allay IAEA concerns, Iran would give access within a 24-day time frame, after the IAEA made a request to visit a suspected site.  Furthermore, the deal stated that if Iran refused the access, the Islamist state and the IAEA would have additional 14 days to resolve the agreement among themselves.  If they failed to agree, a joint commission comprising the six member-nations who are parties to the agreement would consider the matter for an additional week.  

In conclusion, according to the agreement, Iran can continue its uranium enrichment program and continue developing its weapon program at its many military sites, and every time the IAEA suspects anything, the Iranians can have 24 days at a minimum and 45 days maximum to delay the access, sanitize the sites, or transfer the unauthorized nuclear work to another unauthorized military site.

The word "military" was mentioned only once in the deal by saying that "access requests would not be aimed at interfering with Iranians military or other national security activities."  Legally, such catch-all language was included purposely to protect most sites from the IAEA inspections, because in this totalitarian regime, protected by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, everything is considered "national security activities."

Furthermore, as part of the deal, Russia, with a growing strategic partnership with Iran, was the one to be responsible for transferring and keeping almost all of Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which in theory would leave Iran with too little fuel to manufacture a nuclear weapon.  On December 29, 2015, it was reported that a Russia ship left Iran carrying almost all of Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium.  At the time, John Kerry called this shipment " one of the most significant steps Iran has taken toward fulfilling its commitment."

Moreover, as part of the 2015 deal, Tehran got two shipments from Russia in the amount of 116 metric tons of "natural uranium," one in December 2015 and another in January 2017, as a swap for  the enriched uranium Iran supposedly sent to Russia.  Uranium can be enriched to levels ranging from reactor fuel to the core of an atomic bomb.

At the time the agreement was signed, Iran insisted on its "nuclear innocence," that it had never had interest in building nuclear weapons and that it intends to use the natural uranium shipments only for peaceful purposes.

Now, after Netanyahu's revelations of Iranian archives of thousands of original official documents with the stamp of the Iranian regime, there is no room for any doubt that Iran lied and that they were working on a military nuclear program.

How can we trust the IAEA verification of Iranian compliance when we now know conclusively that Iran falsified all its reports to the IAEA?  How can we trust the results if the IAEA cannot inspect any military site any time with no notice?

How can anyone trust Russia's honest involvement in getting rid of the Iranian enriched uranium in light of the recent Russian lies and denials about obvious Syrian use of chemical weapons against that country's own people in Duma last April, as well as its efforts to internationally protect Assad's monstrous behavior?

Ironically, in 2013, rather than take military action, Obama agreed to a Russian deal to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons program.  Under the agreement, Syria, an Iranian proxy and Russian ally, was supposed to turn over its entire chemical weapons arsenal to be destroyed.  In April 2018, the world realized that the Assad regime had lied.

On May 12, Trump must decide whether to abolish the dangerous Iran nuclear deal and resume sanctions or continue the deal.

Hear no evil and see no evil was the Obama negotiation strategy in his desperation and obsession to sign the Iran nuclear deal.  If Iran was able to hide a detailed nuclear weapons program from the West and its many intelligence agencies prior to 2015, how can anyone believe that the same lying regime can't or won't do it again?

With Netanyahu's revelations, modifying the deal is too little, too late.  After the Mossad raid, history will hold Trump, not Obama, responsible for the nuclear deal's foreseeable dangerous consequences, because he knew with 100% certainty that the Iranians were liars.

Shoula Romano Horing is an Israeli-born and raised attorney.  Her blog: www.shoularomanohoring.com .