A link that I found informative: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_11/gorechern.asp
Sen. Brownback's allegations appear to be that the transfer of conventional, not nuclear, arms were in violation of Gore-McCain. The Gore-Chernomyrdin (AKA Gore-Kiriyenko) agreement was to declare and complete all existing non-advanced conventional arms sales to Iran before 1998. The position of the Clinton administration was that none of the weapons sold were in violation of Gore-McCain.
(Edit: Further reading suggests that Gore-Chernomyrdin was an effort by Gore and the Clinton administration to stop the Russians from aiding Iran, rather than to enable it. One must ask the question: if the Russians wanted to sell weapons to Iran, who exactly is going to stop them?)
In addition, there was an implication (from the Washington Times) that there was some nuclear element that the administration failed to disclose to congress. Did this part go anywhere?
I would be interested in links from nti.org giving more detailed information about the specifically nuclear aspect of this issue. The site is rather opaque, and the search function appears to be broken.
-Jester
From Google:
The Washington Times allegations, courtesy of the Freepers: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a1cb2706270.htm
Another piece of info. from armscontrol.org, on the Russian pullout from the deal: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_12/rusirandec00.asp
For a much more Gore-friendly description of events: http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd51/51iran.htm
Sen. Brownback's allegations appear to be that the transfer of conventional, not nuclear, arms were in violation of Gore-McCain. The Gore-Chernomyrdin (AKA Gore-Kiriyenko) agreement was to declare and complete all existing non-advanced conventional arms sales to Iran before 1998. The position of the Clinton administration was that none of the weapons sold were in violation of Gore-McCain.
(Edit: Further reading suggests that Gore-Chernomyrdin was an effort by Gore and the Clinton administration to stop the Russians from aiding Iran, rather than to enable it. One must ask the question: if the Russians wanted to sell weapons to Iran, who exactly is going to stop them?)
In addition, there was an implication (from the Washington Times) that there was some nuclear element that the administration failed to disclose to congress. Did this part go anywhere?
I would be interested in links from nti.org giving more detailed information about the specifically nuclear aspect of this issue. The site is rather opaque, and the search function appears to be broken.
-Jester
From Google:
The Washington Times allegations, courtesy of the Freepers: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a1cb2706270.htm
Another piece of info. from armscontrol.org, on the Russian pullout from the deal: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_12/rusirandec00.asp
For a much more Gore-friendly description of events: http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd51/51iran.htm