As Obama's flack Ben Rhodes has smugly admitted, congress and the American people were knowingly and deliberately lied to and deceived about the entire Iran deal. And I'm sure anyone who's been paying attention has noticed how Iran is ignoring various elements of what we were told the deal consisted of and how aggressive their action and language have become. They now realize the weakness and incompetence of whom they're dealing with.
The Iran deal merely gives them a clearer path to nuclear weapons, plus $150 billion to continue on it as well as foment terrorism worldwide and build up their conventional military. And since the Majlis, the Iranian parliament never agreed to the so-called Deal, and the Iranian regime has been quite open that the 'deal' is very different from what the Obama Administration and that buffoon Kerry told us it was, we really have nothing and got nothing while giving away the store...the toothless IAEA is even allowing Iran to perform its own inspections with zero oversight.
The fascinating thing now is the new narrative from the Obama Administration, when Ben Rhodes smugly termed his 'echo chamber in the media and the usual suspects on the Left as they try to convince all of us that this is a good thing.
We're told that whatever its flaws, the Iran deal stopped Iran's progress towards obtaining nuclear weapons, that Iran's moderates are now in control (oh, you bet they are) and anyway, it was either the Iran deal or war...and who would be crazy enough to want to invade and occupy Iran?
Well first off, since we have no real knowledge of what's going on at places like Parchin, Fordow, or Iran's secret base at Neybusher except what the Iranians choose to tell us, there's no evidence at all that Iran has given up its quest for nukes. As a matter of fact, Iran's aggressive stance of increased ballistic missile testing, ultimatums to the US Navy to stay out of the Strait of Hormuz tell us that the Iran deal certainly didn't accomplish any cessation of Iran's nuclear weapons program. Or moderation to their position of seeing the Great Satan as their main enemy.
And why would they, anyway? Because of a few words on paper Iran never actually accepted?
Of course Iran has always has and will continue to progress towards creating a nuclear arsenal. That's why they kept their illegal nuclear program clandestine and secret until it was outed by Iranian dissidents in 2003. And why they have continued to play for time with a gullible West.
One thing none of these people ever want to address is this question. Which is crazier? To stop a fascist regime from obtaining nuclear weapons while you still can, or to wait until they have them and then live with the consequences?
Another fascinating part of the new narrative is to use a stark choice of war and invading Iran versus applauding this fraudulent non-deal the Iranians obviously have no intention of abiding by. This is misleading because no serious military thinker has ever proposed that, largely because it isn't necessary to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
Merely increasing and tightening the sanctions would have brought about the crash of Iran's economy and would have had them begging for terms. That's exactly why they came to the table in the first place. Instead, Obama watered down the sanctions with numerous exceptions and eventually saw to it that the sanctions regime was completely removed.
The Israelis were willing to do the job of taking our Iran's nuclear facilities for us when it would have been far easier job than it is today without the use of a single US soldier or airman. But both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration threatened and/or gave false assurances to stand down. And coupled with the sanctions, a comprehensive attack on sites like Fordow, Parchin and Arak would have set Iran back decades, contrary to the nonsense peddled about how it would only set them back a few years.
At this point, thanks to two dysfunctional presidents, the job is more difficult but by no means impossible, although the cost in human life would be higher on both sides.
Another step could have been to replicate Reagan's strategy in 1986 when the Ayatollahs started attacking oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. After warning them, we sank most of their navy, and had the Marines occupy Kharg Island, the main dispensary in the Persian Gulf that all of Iran's pipelines feed into. We controlled their oil for a month until President Reagan decide they'd learned a lesson and evacuated Kharg. Problem solved.
Iran's navy and air force is still highly substandard, and there's no reason this tactic couldn't be repeated, especially if it was combined with the other steps I've mentioned.
Iran is, by their own admission our worst enemy. What the Iran 'non-deal' was is out and out appeasement of that enemy. Democracies who have attempted these kind of good faith arrangements with regimes like Iran's have achieved a notable record of abject failure, at the cost of far more in blood and treasure than if they had taken a firm line when the cost was still fairly light.
One of the main talking points proponents of the Iranian nuclear deal have repeated endlessly was the strict inspections and verification involved. Today, we have an excellent example of how that's going to work, courtesy of the AP.
The chief of the UN nuclear agency insisted Monday that a probe of a suspected nuclear weapons research site in Iran does meet strict agency standards, while acknowledging that Iranian experts provided samples from the site for analysis.
Such sampling is usually done by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s own experts. But IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told reporters that Iranians carried out that part of the probe at Parchin, where the agency suspects that explosive triggers for nuclear weapons might have been tested.
But wait a minute! According to Amano, the samples were gathered "under established procedures" with the Iranians monitored by video and still cameras as they gathered the samples.
Who does he think was running the cameras and taking the pictures? It certainly wasn't the IAEA. With this sort of 'procedure' in place, Iranians don't even have to go to the trouble of doctoring photos and editing videos...or even actually taking photos and video at Parchin itself. They could be from anywhere, even from a mocked up 'Parchin' site. How would anyone know except the Iranians?
It gets better. Amano was taken to Parchin on what the Iranians termed 'a ceremonial tour' for one day. Even he acknowledged that there's been a cleanup:
Amano spoke a day after he was taken on what Iranian media described as a ceremonial tour of the military site. He told reporters in Vienna that he was able to enter a building that the agency had been observing via satellite and saw signs of “recent renovation work.”
He appeared to be referring to the building where the agency suspects that weapons experiments were conducted. The agency has frequently said that subsequent renovation work at and near the building could hamper the IAEA probe, a position Amano repeated on Monday.
Parchin, by the way, is where the IAEA suspected that Iran was working on nuclear triggers.
This is the sort of inspection and verification we've heard so much about from President Obama and his minions that America is basing its national security on.
The Iran deal is guaranteed to do one thing...to give Iran all the time, money and space they need to obtain nuclear weapons, beef up their military and foment terrorism in the region.
So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it; number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues, is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative.
First off it’s worth noting that Energy Secretary and MIT nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz said back in April that to be effective the deal would have to include “anytime, anywhere,” inspections, so Obama’s explanation about why 24 days notice is now good enough fails to convince me.
I want Moniz to explain why he changed his position on this AND why 24 days is now acceptable. I would like Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes to explain why he walked back his comments on requiring “anytime, anywhere” inspections.
And I want a more convincing explanation than negotiator Wendy Sherman’s excuse that the term was just a “rhetorical flourish.” (If that was a rhetorical flourish, I’m curious how many other administration comments about the nuclear deal were rhetorical flourishes.)
But in that paragraph, Obama limits the grounds of questioning the deal to whether the language of the deal is insufficient to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear breakout over the course of the deal.
Here’s where I have problem. Even if the agreement was airtight, and I doubt that it is, there’s a matter of the administration’s behavior during the Joint Plan of Action, which was agreed to in November 2013. The problem is that the Obama administration has acted as “Iran’s attorney” covering for Iran’s violations of the previous agreement.
In a notable episode last month, administration officials attacked The New York Times for reporting that Iran would likely fail to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by the June 30 deadline. In the end Iran did reduce its stockpile but not by the method prescribed and not to the form that it was required to.
The nonproliferation think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, earlier this month, explained why the administration’s behavior in this case was troubling:
The reason is not that somehow one form or other of LEU oxide is harder to turn back into hexafluoride form for use in a breakout. This is almost irrelevant to the debate. Unfortunately, these main forms of LEU oxide are straightforward to convert back and use during a breakout. That is a principal reason that in a final deal the United States wants all but 300 kilograms (kg) of Iran’s near 10,000 kg of LEU shipped out of the country or blended down to natural uranium. The United States is now making a very narrow interpretation of this provision in the JPA, and an interpretation that is at odds with its previous positions and common sense. It is also an interpretation that appears to favor Iran and not the United States. Reaching this interpretation seems overly driven by the administration’s fear of Congress. The administration appears to have lost sight of the true adversary in its on-going battle with Congress.
This weakening of interpretations is a bad precedent for the future. This case signals a U.S. willingness to legally reinterpret the deal when Iran cannot do what it said it would do, in order to justify that non-performance. The United States should have said, like we do, that Iran has not met its commitment in the JPA on this issue and fully explained the status of the stocks and what the future remedy will be. It should have used that position as leverage to gain additional concessions from Iran. Experts and Congress may have noted the discrepancy with concern but few would have advocated walking away from the JPA as a result of a frank discussion of this issue last winter or even now.
So President Obama made a point of appealing to science or scientific expertise as proof that his deal is solid, but when science said that a previous deal wasn’t being observed, the administration attacked the science!
President Obama insists that the fear of “snapback sanctions” (probably unworkable) will keep Iran from cheating. But if the administration’s past performance is any indication, Iran has nothing to fear. There will be no “snapback’s” if no violation is declared. If the administration papered over Iranian violations to keep negotiations going, what are the chances it will declare Iran in violation now that a new agreement has been reached?
So Obama’s challenge doesn’t work on two levels. The science might not be right and the problems with the deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), extend to more than just what’s written in the deal.
18. The UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA will terminate all provisions of previous UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue – 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) – simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran and will establish specific restrictions, as specified in Annex V. 26. The EU will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions that it has terminated implementing under this JCPOA, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA. There will be no new nuclear related UN Security Council sanctions and no new EU nuclear-related sanctions or restrictive measures. The United States will make best efforts in good faith to sustain this JCPOA and to prevent interference with the realisation of the full benefit by Iran of the sanctions lifting specified in Annex II. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions specified in Annex II that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part 36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level – either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant nonperformance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance. 37. … Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.
Item (18) quoted above means that all of the resolutions involving
Iran’s failure to comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)
will be erased. These resolutions were passed because Iran pursued an
enrichment program outside of its NPT obligations and failed to account
for all of its past nuclear research.
Iran has maintained its enrichment program, and will be allowed to
continued it under the terms of the JCPOA. It still has not come clean
about its past nuclear work, and for the sanctions relief to take hold,
Iran apparently only has to commit to admitting its past nuclear work to
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The JCPOA, in effect,
legalizes Iran’s years of violations and rewards them for limiting their
level of violations in the future.
The best analogy I could think of would be a corporation having been
found in violation of emission standards for years agreeing to a deal
that would absolve them of all fines accumulated over the years, have
the violations expunged from government records and allowing the
corporation to continue polluting at 50% over the standards instead of
100%.
Item (36) is curious too. I know that Iran’s Foreign Minister started off these negotiations with a presentation calling the crisis over its nuclear program an “unnecessary crisis.”
All along Iran called the sanctions “illegal.” So part of its goal
was not just to get the sanctions removed, but to rewrite history so
that Iran becomes the aggrieved party. By agreeing to cancel all the
relevant Security Council resolutions about Iran’s nuclear program, the
P5+1 nations are effectively rewriting history to Iran’s benefit. Worse,
the Joint Commission empowers Iran to bring complaints against the
other nations involved.
If the IAEA detected a violation and, say, France initiated an action
against Iran in the Joint Commission, (another reason “snapback” is a
fantasy), what would stop Iran from bringing some arbitrary action
against France, and offer to drop it if France drops its action? I’m not
a lawyer, maybe this is addressed elsewhere, but based on Iran’s
behavior they will take advantage of any opening it is afforded in the
deal.
And this brings us to (37) and the end of (26). If the process of
finding Iran in violation is completed and an effort is made to reimpose
sanctions, what is to stop Iran from saying, “okay we’re leaving the
JCPOA.” Obama has said that this negotiation process has kept a rein on
Iran’s nuclear development, but doesn’t this mean that an attempt to
re-impose sanctions if Iran is found in breach of its obligations could
mean that Iran could then legally “cease performing” its JCPOA
obligations?
I see that (26) has language about the dispute resolution process,
but if Iran loses that process and still maintains that it committed no
breach, what’s to stop Iran from saying it was framed? Remember that the
JCPOA rewrites history saying that Iran committed no violations in the
past, what’s to stop Iran from doing that again,especially when there’s
language that seems to preemptively gives them the means to do so?
So yes, Mr. President I have read the deal. Given the combination of
your administration’s behavior and what’s written in this document, it
is awful.
Over the weekend, I received intel from some of my sources outlining the framework of the proposed deal by John Kerry and the P5+1 with Iran regarding its illegal nuclear weapons program, where I reported on here. It was so bad that I don't mind telling you that it took me a couple of days to get to a place where I could write about what was involved, and I hoped that for once my sources were exaggerating a bit or that the West might finally come to its senses and walk away.
Today, the deal, known as the 'Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action' was announced, ad as usual, my notorious Little Birdies did not exaggerate at all, and the 'Plan of Action' is pretty much what they said it was with a few last minute minor changes, none of which mean much in practical terms.
Iran will be able to veto any IAEA inspections, and will be able to pick and choose where those inspections take place. It will likewise be able to delay any inspections through the mechanism of an 'arbitration system' giving Iran plenty of time to clean up and move anything they want to conceal while still technically being in compliance.
As I reported, the sanctions officially won't be lifted until 2016. In the real world, the sanctions have disappeared already and countries are already cutting deals with the regime. That includes the UN arms sanctions on Iran as a supporter and enabler of terrorism, which are supposed to remain in place for five years but will supposedly be lifted after certification of Iran's compliance. In the real world, Russia and China among other countries will cheerfully violate the sanctions, which they never approved of in the first place. Money talks, and Russia especially is not going to take weapons sanctions seriously anymore.
The Iranians have apparently agreed to reduce their centrifuges to 6,000 and to destroy most of their stockpile of enriched uranium. Since we only know approximately how much of each they have and inspections are at Iran's discretion, this is a fairly meaningless concession on their part. Expect that many of the centrifuges Iran disposes of will be the old, first generation IR-1s, which the Iranians want to replace anyway, and as part of the agreement, the Western powers have also agreed to work with Iran to help it install and operate more advanced centrifuges. As far as the nuclear stockpile goes, again, we have no clue how much they really have, and there are technical ways to 'destroy' enriched uranium that allow it to be reprocessed at a later date.
There was also no mention in this 'plan' of Iran's heavy water reactor at Arak, which has no peaceful application and produces plutonium, a second route to nuclear weapons. Presumably, Arak will continue to operate.
I'm not surprised at all Iran signed on to this. It provides this fascist regime with billions of dollars to keep it in power, develop nuclear weapons and expand its power in the region. And it demands nothing significant from them.
President Obama announced what a wonderful deal this was, saying that because of this deal, "We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East."
For a sitting president of the United States to say this is the very height of either ignorance, arrogance or sheer deception..perhaps all three. Because of this president's 'diplomacy,' the Saudis have already announced that they will now obtain nuclear weapons and Egypt is working on a deal with Russia for a new reactor to enhance its own already existing nuclear program. And let's not even mention the almost certain Iranian bomb to come.
A second blatant lie in this morning's output by President Obama is that "the international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon. "
As I pointed out above, the exact opposite is the case. Before this was announced, I gave you what has turned out to be a pretty accurate preview yesterday of the sort of horse manure this president would use to sell this to the American people:
And here's another thought to consider. This dubious achievement is Obama's legacy. Even if Iran cheats, does anyone really think this president is going to be the one to admit he was wrong and take action? Anyone who has been paying attention to Barack Hussein Obama's conduct in office knows better. He will ignore it, claim plausible denial and leave it to be someone else's problem. Just like Bill Clinton did on North Korea and other fiascoes.
The president made a point of castigating the Republican controlled congress as 'playing politics' and letting them know that he will veto any attempts by congress to reject this ridiculous travesty.
Surprisingly, to me the best comment on this came from none other than Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who derided the agreement as a "dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted deal," saying that it still allows a path for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb.
"A comprehensive agreement should require Iran to verifiably abandon – not simply delay – its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability," Bush said in a statement. He added: "This isn't diplomacy – it is appeasement."
Winston Churchill had this to say after Neville Chamberlain came back from Munich in 1938 with his own version of peace in our time: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”
It's very possible that having made the same choice, we will have the same result, and at a time of Iran's choosing, not ours. They remain committed to the destruction of the country they call the Great Satan, and that has not changed.
Some of my sources have given me an outline of some of what's in the coming Iranian nuclear agreement, and it's even worse than I thought it would be. The blather we heard about 'no deal being better than a bad deal' and 'hard choices' from Secretary of State John Kerry turned out to mean a deal at any price, and the hard choices being made not by Iran but by John Kerry and the Obama Administration.
For starters, remember how we were told that Iran would be required to allow inspections to verify they were keeping their agreement? Well, in this new agreement, there are no real inspections involved, and the IAEA has been totally castrated. Any inspections that do take place will be prearranged with the Iranian regime at a time and place of their choosing. Since the Iranians have already said repeatedly that no inspections will be allowed in any of their military facilities under any circumstances, that essentially means no inspections at all and no ability to verify if Iran is keeping its word.
Considering the sort of regime we're dealing with, backing down on inspections is unbelievable.
Another red line the Iranians have been able to get President Obama to back down on was the insistence that Iran detail all activities it conducted regrading weaponization in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it signed prior to the this new agreement. This was important because the whole idea of this farce was supposedly to keep Iran within one year of 'breakout' - the time when the Iranians can develop a nuclear weapon.
Since the Obama Administration backed off on this condition, we now will have no idea how close they are to breakout, there will be absolutely no way to tell if they're a year away, six months away of one month away..especially as there will also be no meaningful inspections.
Originally, the position of the P5+1(the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany)was that Iran would be allowed only 500 to 1,500 centrifuges and they were all supposed to be IR-1s, Iran’s first generation centrifuge. That number is now 6,500, and the Iranians have actually been offered more up-to-date centrifuges by the P5+1 as an incentive. To give you an idea of the realities involved, contrary to President Obama's own assurances about 'freezing Iran's enrichment', Iran has actually increased its nuclear stockpile in violation of the framework agreement. This is 20% enriched uranium, 90% of the way toward weaponization, which can be reconverted into material suitable for further enriching to weapons-grade levels in only a few weeks at most. Just as we have no idea of exactly what or where all of Iran's nuclear facilities are, we have no clue as to exactly how much enriched uranium they have...nor will we, based on the current agreement being finalized.
Another important concession Iran won is their 'right' to continue what Iran's President Rouhani called 'all forms of nuclear research and development.' That includes Iran's plutonium producing heavy water reactor at Arak, which has no peacetime application. You might remember that when John Kerry originally presented the framework agreement back in November 2013, he claimed that the Iranians had agreed to shut Arak down. The Iranians said in no uncertain terms that Kerry and President Obama were lying, and the end result was that the Obama team signed off on Arak, where Iran will continue to produce plutonium.
I could be charitable and say it was an error in translation, but in view of all the other differences between what our president and his secretary of State told the world and what the Iranians claim they agreed to, I'll call it willful deception.
Keep in mind that none of this has anything to do with a peaceful nuclear power or medical uses because nuclear enrichment isn't needed for that. Canada, Sweden, Argentina and other countries all have peaceful nuclear programs without enrichment capacity. It's only needed if you're building nuclear weapons. President Barack Obama himself admitted this, back in December 2013.
But wait, there's more.
President Obama made a point of using the term 'snap back sanctions' last April to describe what the consequences for Iran would be if they cheated on the agreement. As our president knew full well, this term meant nothing when he used it and is even more meaningless now.
The sanctions regime took years to assemble in a form where at least most of the international community would go along with it. The sanctions have now been almost totally undone since the president's Iranian-born consigliere Valerie Jarret's secret, back channel negotiations with Iran for most of 2013 were concluded. President Obama actually watered down many of the sanctions with waivers prior to and after the initial framework agreement, and when he spoke to the American people last April, he knew that the sanctions regime was history.
Moreover, he also knew that Russia and China, whom were never that keen on the sanctions to begin with had already announced that they won't participate in future sanctions, something Russian Foreign Minister Serge Lavrov recently repeated. And of course, with verification now entirely gutted, any attempt at revising the sanctions for cause is going to be difficult if not impossible to get through the UN. I'm informed that there may be a face saving plank moving sanctions relief to 2016, but that's fairly meaningless because it's not going to be observed anyway.
You see, not only did President Obama invalidate the sanctions, the one thing that brought Iran to the table. He rewarded the fascist Iranian regime with billions in badly needed cash for the privilege of talking to them. In fact, the Iranian regime's central bank just received 13 tons of gold with a value of $11.9 billion as part of a package of sanctions relief before signing or agreeing to anything. Any idiot knows that money changes hands when a deal is concluded, not before. The Iranians will keep that money regardless, and it's surprising to me that John Kerry left the conference room in Vienna still retaining his pants and shoes.
And there's even more. The Iranian regime came up with yet another demand at the last minute. As a major supporter and enabler of Islamist terrorism worldwide, Iran is under a UN arms embargo. And Iran is insisting that it be lifted as part of this deal. No word yet, but according to the Iranian Official News source Fars, the Obama Administration is going to go along with that too. And why not? They've given the Ayatollahs everything else they wanted.
And don't be surprised if the US provides some of those weapons, In fact, right now in Iraq, US advisers are sharing bases with Hezbollah fighters and Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops, and some are surprised to see Hezbollah troops flaunting US weaponry. They shouldn't be.
Having created ISIS, President Obama wants Iran to do the dirty work on the ground to clean up the mess he created. To get that, he's willing to allow Basher Assad to survive, return Iraq to Iran as a Shi'ite colony, and allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The arms race this will set off in the region is of no concern to him. Neither is the security threat to the US of a nuclear armed Iran, or the Second Holocaust the Iranians continue to promise to unleash on Israel as soon as they're able to do so.
So to sum up, this deal does not provide for any real verification of Iran's breakout capacity, nuclear facilities or IBCMs, does not stop Iran from proceeding towards developing nuclear weapons, does away with what's left of the sanctions, and will reward the Iranian regime with billions in cash beyond what they've already received. In exchange for that, there's a worthless piece of paper President Obama can figuratively wave in the Rose Garden.
Would you like to know how President Obama is going to try to sell this to the American people? Here's a sneak preview:
Why yes, it's Mr. Bill, whom some Americans still see a a great president. The North Korean deal he and Marilyn Albright cooked up with the Kims led directly to Pakistan's nuclear weapons and Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program. President Obama will attempt to use the same sort of turgid prose to tell us all lies about what a wonderful deal this is. After all, he'll almost certainly be out of office when the damage he did to this nation becomes evident, just like Bill Clinton. And rest assured, that damage will likely be profound.
Because of the way President Barack Hussein Obama has set this up, congress is entirely out of the loop on a major security issue because this is agreement is being done via the UN Security Council. The Senate can vote for a motion of disapproval, which would keep some US sanctions in force. But when the president vetoes it, the chances of getting 12 Democrats senators to vote to override that veto are very slim, given the pressure being put on them.
The real joke is that even if the Iranians don't sign on to this deal, they still got everything they wanted - 17 months to continue their nuclear weapons development and to further protect their nuclear facilities from attacks, billions in cash and the destruction of the sanctions regime. And if they do sign on, nothing changes.After all, what's one more UN resolution to cheat on? They don't even have to make a pretense of changing their hostility to the west or their ultimate objective towards the nation they call The Great Satan as they move towards the day they announce their successful test of a nuclear device.
The Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's President Rouhani and Iran's Foreign Minister and chief negotiator Mohammad Javad Zarif sized up early the weak, craven and self-obsessed men they were dealing with quite some time ago,and played them thoroughly.
This is the post-American presidency indeed, when the practitioners of what my friend calls wifebeater patriotism have taken over our Republic and are doing their very best to loot it, damage it, and weaken it for their own purposes as they attempt to remake it to conform to the distorted mirror of their own image.
UPDATE: The Iranian nuclear deal was announced today, and once again my notorious Little Birdies came through - the deal as presented was pretty much what they said it would be, with a few last minute minor changes, none of which mean much in practical terms. The name of this new agreement is a dead giveaway - the 'Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.' Note the word 'plan.'
Adam Kredo of the Free Beacon obtained an e-mail threatening Democratic legislators who have doubts about the nuclear deal with Iran that the administration is negotiating.
“Democrats in Congress are the only remaining obstacle to
finalizing today’s historic deal,” Zack Malitz, campaign manager for
CREDO, said in a statement emailed to reporters on July 2, along with a
note that details of the email were not to be published until a deal was
actually announced. “Every Democrat should go on the record right now
in support of the deal, and pledge to defend it from attacks in
Congress.”
“Republicans will try to sabotage the deal and take us to war, but
they can’t do it without Democratic votes,” Malitz wrote. “Progressives
will hold accountable those Democrats who vote to help Republicans
sabotage the deal and start a war.”
The Free Beacon cited a source who observed that this kind of political threat was consistent with the administration’s mindset.
“This is exactly what you’d expect from the
deal-at-any-cost lobby,” the source said. “The White House lied to
Congress about what it would deliver and doesn’t have anything left than
its raw political power.”
The Free Beacon report comes just after Bloomberg reported that an effort to promote a nuclear deal with Iran has been funded with millions since 2003.
Advocating for an Iran truce is a loose coalition of
peace groups, think tanks, and former high-ranking U.S. diplomats bound
together by millions of dollars given by the Rockefeller family through
its $870 million Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The philanthropy, which is
run by a board split between family members and outsiders, has spent
$4.3 million since 2003 promoting a nuclear pact with Iran, chiefly
through the New York-based Iran Project, a nonprofit led by former U.S.
diplomats. For more than a decade they’ve conducted a dialogue with
well-placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif, now Tehran’s chief
nuclear negotiator. The Americans routinely briefed officials in the
George W. Bush and Obama administrations, including William Burns,
Obama’s former deputy secretary of state. Burns hammered out much of an
interim nuclear agreement in secret 2013 talks with his Iranian
counterparts that paved the way for the current summit in Vienna, where
Secretary of State John Kerry leads the U.S. delegation.
The Rockefellers’ Iran foray began in late 2001, after the Sept. 11
attacks. Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund,
convened a board retreat at the Rockefellers’ Pocantico Center in
Westchester, just north of New York City, to consider new approaches to
the Islamic world at a time when the U.S. was focused on the threat from
al-Qaeda. One invited speaker was Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an
Iranian-American professor of comparative religion then at Georgetown
University. “He got me thinking more and more about Iran, its
geostrategic importance and its relationship to the Sunni world,” says
Heintz.
What’s astonishing about these efforts is that when it was reported
that AIPAC would be fighting the administration’s efforts to appease
Iran, a high-ranking official of the National Iranian-American Council
(NIAC) responded,
“Our community needs to be better equipped to win the high stakes
battle underway that will decide between war and peace between the US
and Iran, and to do so against well-funded political interests who are
investing millions in killing an Iran deal. As the saying goes, you
don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.” (NIAC was found to have violated lobbying rules and was later ordered to pay $183,000 to cover the legal costs of a man it had defamed.)
Nor has the president been immune from suggesting that somehow he’s
fighting the influence of big money. In January when he (unsuccessfully)
attempted to dissuade Democratic senators from supporting any sort of
oversight legislation, he said
that “he understood the pressures that senators face from donors and
others, but he urged the lawmakers to take the long view rather than
make a move for short-term political gain, according to the senator.” It
was a crude attempt to smear anyone who disagreed with him (and likely
aimed at Sen. Robert Menendez (D – N.J.)), who rightly took offense.
The disingenuous attempt of a leading advocate for the anti-American
regime in Tehran to portray himself as an underdog is laughable,
especially when the president of the United States is on his side.
What’s remarkable is that there are no compunctions among the MSM to
suggest that Israel has too much influence in the formation of American
policy, but there next to no scrutiny of those who promote rapprochement
with a terror supporting, Mideast destabilizing, repressive, theocracy.
Whether or not there’s a deal this week we will continue to see the administration and its allies playing hardball and trying to marginalize anyone who dares question its wisdom.
President Obama’s speech a week and a half ago at Washington D.C. synagogue Adas Israel was alternatively promoted as both an opportunity to address the scourge of anti-semitism, and a chance to reach out to American Jews.
The speech did nothing to advance either goal and was tone-deaf to any
Jews, or Americans for that matter, who don’t buy into the president’s
foreign policy.
As far as his reaching out, the president simply rehashed all of his
administration’s arguments about closing off Iran’s paths to a nuclear
weapon. He offered nothing new. Of course, he said that the deal he’s
trying to make with Iran will make Israel safer. He made a point of
saying that he shares the goal with Israel of preventing Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons; but he said it with no real conviction. He
was just repeating a talking point. Repeating all of his talking points
isn’t going to convince someone who doesn’t already agree with him.
Notably, he repeated his 2012 line about having Israel’s back. But
with Israel’s political establishment – Isaac Herzog is no less
skeptical of the emerging deal than Benjamin Netanyahu is – doubting the
efficacy of the ongoing diplomacy, that claim hardly seems credible. He
says that he welcomes debate, but the night before Benjamin Netanyahu
spoke to Congress, Obama gave an interview to Reuters attempting to
undercut Netanyahu’s arguments.
Instead of addressing reservations with the deal, Obama simply
repeated his own arguments. Again that’s not how you convince doubters.
The same dynamic was at work when he discussed the peace process.
And it is precisely because I care so deeply about the
state of Israel — it’s precisely because, yes, I have high expectations
for Israel the same way I have high expectations for the United States
of America — that I feel a responsibility to speak out honestly about
what I think will lead to long-term security and to the preservation of a
true democracy in the Jewish homeland. (Applause.) And I believe that’s
two states for two peoples, Israel and Palestine, living side by side
in peace and security. (Applause.) Just as Israelis built a state in
their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people on their
land, as well. (Applause.)
Now, I want to emphasize — that’s not easy. The Palestinians are not
the easiest of partners. (Laughter.) The neighborhood is dangerous. And
we cannot expect Israel to take existential risks with their security so
that any deal that takes place has to take into account the genuine
dangers of terrorism and hostility.
But what’s been noticeable about President Obama’s approach to the
peace process since he’s been president is that because he has such
“high expectations” of Israel, he only expects efforts from Israel. He’s
asked nothing of the Palestinians. (This conceit prompted Eli Lake to ask why Obama couldn’t care a little bit less about Israel.)
Last year Israel’s former peace negotiator Tzipi Livni told an interviewer
that last year’s American-sponsored peace talks between Israel and the
Palestinians were torpedoed by Mahmoud Abbas, who refused to accept an
American-sponsored framework that Netanyahu reluctantly accepted. When
that happened there were no administration leaks about how Abbas was
missing a historic opportunity or questions about his commitment to
peace. And there was certainly no public haranguing of the Palestinian
leader. Is there any reason to expect that when President Obama decides
its time to start a new peace process he won’t demand some upfront
concessions by Netanyahu to convince the Palestinians to negotiate?
In other words, whether addressing Iran or the Israeli-Palestinian
issue, Obama offered no reason for a skeptic to change his mind. So his
purpose was clearly not outreach.
And what about anti-semitism? Obama’s mentions of anti-semitism were
general. He spoke of it as a “scourge,” but didn’t address a single
specific instance of official anti-semitism. Why not? In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg
earlier in the week Goldberg asked him about the official anti-semitism
of Iran, so it isn’t like Obama could claim ignorance of the issue.
Robert Wistrich, perhaps the world’s top authority on anti-semitism,
passed away a few days before Obama spoke, but Obama didn’t mention his
name.
Neither of the purported reasons for Obama’s talk were addressed (seriously) by the president. As Michael Doran noted, in A Letter to My Liberal Jewish Friends,
published last week in Mosaic Magazine, Obama was speaking specifically
to the “liberal Jewish community.” You could say he was preaching to
the choir, making sure that one of his most loyal constituencies doesn’t
stray. The pre-speech PR was misdirection, to make the president appear
conciliatory and magnanimous. The speech itself was motivated by
cynical self-interest.
Doran goes through the various reasons the president chose to speak
as he did at the synagogue, but in the end he comes down to what was
Obama’s likely calculation.
The president’s sophistry demonstrates a simple but
profound truth: his commitment to the progressive values of tikkun olam
is governed by its own “red lines,” and is entirely utilitarian. Which
again raises the question: what was his purpose in stressing this shared
progressive commitment in his address to you, and what was his purpose
in subtly reminding you of the costs of failing to abide by its terms?
The answer, I hope, is obvious. On June 30, Obama will likely
conclude a nuclear deal with Iran. This will spark a faceoff with
Congress, which has already declared its opposition to the deal.
Congress will inevitably pass a vote of disapproval, which Obama will
inevitably veto. In order to defend that veto from a congressional
override, however, he must line up 34 Senators—all Democrats. This calls
in turn for a preemptive ideological campaign to foster liberal
solidarity—for which your support is key. If the president can convince
the liberal Jewish community, on the basis of “shared values,” to shun
any suspicion of alignment with congressional Republicans or Benjamin
Netanyahu, he will have an easier time batting down Congress’s
opposition to the deal with Iran.
I think Doran is correct. Obama knows that a deal with Iran is not popular. He also knows that despite the limits that Corker-Menendez puts on him, it still means that a future nuclear deal with Iran will stand if the Senate cannot override his veto, even if Congress is not convinced that he made a good deal and initially votes the deal down.
As more news stories like Tuesday’s that Iran has increased its
enriched uranium by 20% since the Joint Plan of Action was agreed even
as Obama and his administration insist that Iran has abided by its
terms, skepticism of the deal will only increase.
So as Doran pointed out, President Obama was asking his hardest core
supporters to stand by him and ensure that minority who will support his
bad deal with Iran will be a big enough minority to ensure that the
deal stands.
I visited the State Department's website earlier this week and I was greeted by an item hailing the 45th anniversary of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
After hailing the treaty the article goes on to say more explicitly, "[i]f we didn’t already have the NPT, we would desperately need it today."
A couple of paragraphs later the article boasts about the latest efforts to strengthen the NPT:
The United States is committed to strengthening the nonproliferation regime and the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency to implement nuclear safeguards -- a set of measures to verify that nuclear materials are used for peaceful purposes. The Treaty provides the foundation and context to resolve outstanding challenges to the nuclear nonproliferation regime. The ongoing negotiations with Iran provide the best diplomatic path forward for Iran to return to full compliance with the NPT.
The IAEA instills confidence among all NPT parties that a state’s civil nuclear energy is not being diverted into a nefarious weapons program. In New York, the United States will promote the IAEA Additional Protocol, now recognized as the foremost international standard for safeguards that provides the IAEA with the authority to ensure that all nuclear material is used for peaceful purposes, in accordance with the NPT.
The idea that the protocols (remember there's no deal yet) agreed to last week somehow would strengthen the NPT is utterly false.
The point of the ongoing nuclear negotiations from Iran's standpoint is to remove its violations from the books and end the sanctions it incurred for those violations. Iran's goal in the negotiations is to enshrine its "right to enrich" uranium. (No such right exists. Nuclear research for peaceful purposes is a right, an important qualification that cannot be attached to Iran's nuclear research, according to the NPT.)
In July 2006, having failed to satisfy the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) demands to explain its past nuclear research, Iran was ordered by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 to suspend uranium enrichment and other nuclear R&D activities within 30 days unless it complied with the IAEA. Iran continued defying the Security Council and in December Resolution 1737 was passed, the first resolution (of 5) imposing economic sanctions on Iran for its NPT violations (and failure to explain its work satisfactorily to the IAEA.)
According to the American version of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), when Iran satisfies all of its requirements, a new Security Council resolution will be drawn up to replace the previous six:
All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency).
However, core provisions in the UN Security Council resolutions – those that deal with transfers of sensitive technologies and activities – will be re-established by a new UN Security Council resolution that will endorse the JCPOA and urge its full implementation. It will also create the procurement channel mentioned above, which will serve as a key transparency measure. Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution.
Now let's assume the most optimistic outcome: that Iran addresses all key concerns. (Iran was supposed to explain possible military dimensions - PMD - of its nuclear work according to the Joint Plant of Action (JPOA) of November 2013, and still has not done so.) Iran would still have over 5000 centrifuges enriching uranium at Natanz. Iran would have centrifuges operating (though not enriching uranium) in an underground reinforced facility at Fordow and would have a heavy water reactor operating at Arak. (In December 2013, Obama himself acknowledged that Iran did not need the latter two facilities "to have a peaceful nuclear program.")
So by defying the IAEA and the Security Council Iran will be awarded 5000 centrifuges enriching uranium that it didn't have before. The sanctions triggered by those violations will be wiped away. (By the way, 5000 centrifuges is enough for a bomb, but not for civilian nuclear program.)
(And if Iran doesn't address all key concerns, what then? Will the Obama administration have the guts to walk away? Or is President Obama so invested in the success of his Iranian outreach that he'll move forward to remove the sanctions anyway? The record on this isn't promising. Though Obama insists that Iran observed the terms of the JPOA, that isn't true. As noted above, Iran never addressed the PMD issue. Also in a clear violation of the JPOA, Iran tested an advanced centrifuge. When challenged Iran stopped; but later the administration downgraded the violation to "probably a mistake.")
The administration characterizes the NPT as essential, but by removing the enforcement mechanisms for Iran's violations, they are gutting the NPT.
Ironically, the president overseeing the destruction of the NPT was once a proponent of nuclear disarmament. The administration continues to forge ahead with its nuclear diplomacy despite regular rebuffs from Iran's supreme leader. The administration also has trouble comprehending criticisms that contain too many big words and seems more focused on sticking it to Netanyahu than in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Despite President Barack assurances last week that the world will "know" if Iran cheats on the nuclear deal being negotiated with the P5+1, in an interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times Saturday, the president's response supported one of the key objections to the known terms of the deal.
When asked by Friedman if the terms of the deal would mean that inspectors could check anywhere in Iran if there were suspicions that Iran was cheating the president responded,
“That we suspect,” the president answered. “Obviously, a request will have to be made. Iran could object, but what we have done is to try to design a mechanism whereby once those objections are heard, that it is not a final veto that Iran has, but in fact some sort of international mechanism will be in place that makes a fair assessment as to whether there should be an inspection, and if they determine it should be, that’s the tiebreaker, not Iran saying, ‘No, you can’t come here.’ So over all, what we’re seeing is not just the additional protocols that I.A.E.A. has imposed on countries that are suspected of in the past having had problematic nuclear programs, we’re going even beyond that, and Iran will be subject to the kinds of inspections and verification mechanisms that have never been put in place before.”
Though the president didn't address the specifics of the "international
mechanism" for detecting and responding to Iranian cheating on the
nuclear deal, others have. Olli Heinonen, the former Deputy Director
General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Gen. Michael
Hayden, former Director of Central Intelligence, and Ray Takeyh, a
senior fellow at the Council on Foreign relations,warned last month in an op-ed published inThe Washington Post:
Given that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be the
on-site inspection organization responsible for the verification of an
agreement, the United States’ scoop would have to be forwarded to that
body. Of course, both the speed and the extent of U.S. sharing would be
affected by the need to protect sensitive human or technical sources of
information. Only then would IAEA representatives begin talking with
their Iranian counterparts about gaining access to disputed sites or
activities. History suggests the Iranians would engage in protracted
negotiations and much arcane questioning of the evidence. Iran could
eventually offer some access while holding back key data and personnel.
It would be only after tortured discussions that the IAEA could proclaim
itself dissatisfied with Iran’s reaction. This process also could take
months.
Knowing that Iran is cheating is not the same as responding to the
cheating. The "international mechanism" for verifying and responding to
Iranian violations could take well more than the year the administration
says that it would take Iran to breakout - produce enough fuel for a
nuclear weapon - according to the terms of the emerging deal. Heinonen
estimates that the parameters of the dealwould allowfor a breakout time of only seven to eight months.
President Barack Hussein Obama announced yesterday that a deal - ooops, a 'framework for a deal' had been achieved with Iran on its illegal nuclear program.
Here's what the president said the components of this unwritten, unsigned framework were.
First of all, he claimed that the reactor at Iran's heavy water facility at Arak will be dismantled so the Iranians cannot produce plutonium, a second route to nuclear weapons.He also claimed that nuclear material from Arak would be shipped out of Iran, that Iran would not build a new heavy water reactor and that Iran will not reprocess fuel from its existing reactors ever.
Second, he claimed that the Iranians agreed that its centrifuges would be reduced by two thirds, and that Iran will not enrich uranium with its advanced centrifuges for at least the next 10 years. He also said that Iran would no longer enrich uranium at its top secret military facility at Fordow. and that there would be severe limits on Iran's stockpiling of the materials needed to build a nuclear weapon.
He said there would be limits on Iran's nuclear program, research and development for a decade and that Iran would never be allowed to build a nuclear weapon.
He also claimed that current sanctions would be gradually phased out in accordance with Iranian compliance, that Iran would face intense inspections and scrutiny, and that if if was found cheating, the UN would slap massive sanctions back on Iran.
There's not a single statement in the above four paragraphs that's true, and that comes from no less than Iran's own Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who supposedly agreed to all this in the last minute negotiations at Lausanne:
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.
Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.
Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations. [...] Zarif, echoing previous comments, said the United States has promised an immediate termination of sanctions. “Iran/5+1 Statement: ‘US will cease the application of ALL nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.’ Is this gradual?” he wrote on Twitter.
He then suggested a correction: “Iran/P5+1 Statement: ‘The EU will TERMINATE the implementation of ALL nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions’. How about this?”
On Thursday evening, Zarif told reporters the latest agreement allows Iran to keep operating its nuclear program.
“None of those measures” that will move to scale back Iran’s program “include closing any of our facilities,” Zarif said. “We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.” “Our heavy water reactor will be modernized and we will continue the Fordow facility,” Zarif said. “We will have centrifuges installed in Fordow, but not enriching.”
The move to allow Iran to keep centrifuges at Fordow, a controversial onetime military site, has elicited concern that Tehran could ramp up its nuclear work with ease.
As for the president's threat of renewed sanctions, just like his promises on ObamaCare he is knowingly lying to the American people. It took two years to put together the sanctions regimen in the UN. Now that Obama has essentially dismantled it, it isn't going to happen again, certainly not in time to be of any use. Russia will see to that.
And here perhaps is the most chilling statement Zarif made:
Zarif also revealed that Iran will be allowed to sell “enriched uranium” in the international market place and will be “hopefully making some money” from it.
Can you imagine whom a regime that is the major supporter of Islamist terrorism like Iran is likely to sell nuclear materials and know how to? Iran itself obtained quite a bit from Pakistan's notorious AQ Khan when he was running what amounted to a cash and carry supermarket for this sort of merchandise. What Iran is obviously planning will make what Khan did look minor.
President Obama claims that this 'framework' agreement is a good deal. In reality, all it does is give Iran another three which gives Iran another three months to work on its nuclear weapons technology in exchange for...absolutely nothing specific. Instead of leading to reduced nuclear proliferation, it will increase it, since countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are under no illusions as to what this means.
This goes beyond mere appeasement. President Obama and John Kerry are enabling a nuclear armed Iran.
All other things aside, this president and his team are allowing a murderous regime that has sworn to destroy Israel on numerous occasions the tools to attempt a second Holocaust. And there's no question in my mind that this is deliberate.
The moron prog think tank response to this is that the Iranians are rational actors whom would never do this, because of the risk of retaliation by Israel. Let's see what the founder of the regime, the Ayatollah Khomeini had to say about that:
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
The Iranians have continued to promise to destroy Israel since 1978 when Khomeini took over. That goal has never changed.
Neither has their goal of destroying America. In fact, during the Lausanne negotiations, Iran's Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Khamenei once again led crowds in the old chant,"death to America."
He means it, and so does Iran. For those of you whom think this is just Israel's problem and you couldn't care less, guess again. Once the Iranians attack what they refer to as the Little Satan, the Great Satan is next on the list.
These things only start with the Jews. They don't end there.
Barack Obama and John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they were willing to take a position of strength and turn it into a position of weakness. In fact, they became the Iranians' community organizers lobbying the other P5+1 countries to accept more and more concessions. Kerry at one point said, “Simply demanding that Iran capitulate makes a nice sound bite,but [a sound bite] is not a policy, it is not a realistic plan.”
Actually, giving Iran a choice between having its nuclear weapons program and having an economy was an extremely realistic plan. So was telling the Iranians that if negotiations failed, they wouldn't even have a nuclear program any longer, because we would seek other means to solve the problem.
Instead, Barack Obama and John Kerry capitulated on virtually every major point the Iranians wanted, while rewarding them with billions in badly needed funds simply for continuing the process. It was like two hookers paying a john for deigning to partake of their services rather than the other way around.
President Obama wants some kind of deal with Iran at whatever cost. And he'll get it any way he can.
What he has in mind is not that hard to figure out.From the beginning, his goal was to promote and empower Islamists at home and abroad while distancing America from Israel. After this backfired in Egypt and even more horrendously in Libya, his next attempt was in Syria. Islamic State was originally armed and trained by the Obama Administration, with the help of Qatar and Turkey. after which it promptly attacked and defeated the corrupt Shi'ite regime in Iraq.
Having pounded his chest repeatedly about how he ended 'Bush's war' successfully, President Obama can't ignore Iraq. Islamic State has been far too blatant for that. But politically, he can't do anything meaningful about it beyond a few air strikes, and certainly not in the in the way of putting boots on the ground, The radical Leftist anti-war base he and the other leaders of the Democrat party created as a political weapon after 9/11 now controls that party for the most part, and the last thing Barack Obama wants is to awaken the beast on his watch.
So his solution is to have Iran and its proxies do the dirty work on the ground in Iraq, while the U.S. helps out with a few desultory air strikes. In exchange, the Iranian will be allowed to return Iraq to its status as an Iranian colony, and President Obama will see to it that there's an end to sanctions and wink at Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons.
The president sees this as 'a good deal' for a number of reasons. He wants to exchange Israel and the Gulf States for Iran as our chief ally in the region, and he feels that this will all lead to a lessening of tension in the region and to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. And above all, he and his Secretary of State really seem to believe that the Iranians are not interested in nuclear weapons. In fact, he even quoted, again, a religious fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons by the Ayatollah Khamenei.
This is sheer madness.
Iran has been in a state of war with us since 1979. They were complicit in 9/11, and they have no interest in an alliance with 'The Great Satan,' This 'good deal' President Obama is pimping will feverishly ramp up the tension in the Middle East as Egypt, the Saudis and the GCC countries all scramble for their own nukes in the face of the Shi'ite threat, and an attack on Iran's facilities using tactical nukes by Israel becomes a distinct possibility. And finally, the Fatwa against nuclear weapons the president keeps babbling about is a myth. It doesn't exist.
Of course, when things spiral out of hand President Obama will likely be safely out of office, and it can be conveniently blamed on someone else, the same way 9/11 was blamed on a hapless President George W. Bush by the usual suspects. The huge cost of this folly will be paid by America, by Israel and by anyone else the Iranians target in ways we can't even begin to imagine, just as the French and British couldn't imagine the aftermath of Munich in 1938.
This is Munich II, and it will be far worse than the original in terms of destruction and lives lost unless this foul, craven sell out is stopped cold. If this stands it will be an unmitigated defeat for the West, and knowing whom was responsible and cursing their names in the annals of history will be cold comfort in the aftermath.
Iran's genocidal intentions towards Israel were first voiced by Ayatollah Khomeini early in the regime's beginnings in the late 1970's. They have never changed.
This week, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, sat down with NBC News for an exclusive interview. NBC’s headline and story are: “Iran Foreign Minister: We Believe We Are ‘Very Close’ to Nuke Deal.” But buried in the transcript, thanks to veteran reporter Ann Curry, Zarif reveals that the destruction of Israel and the wholesale murder of its people are exactly what Iran has in mind. The video is up at Breitbart, and here's the exchange:
ANN CURRY: So how does Iran want to annihilate the regime of Israel, since you’re making the difference?
JAVAD ZARIF: We don’t want to annihilate. We don’t want to–
ANN CURRY: Well, the Supreme Leader–
JAVAD ZARIF: –annihilate anybody.
ANN CURRY: –tweeted that–
JAVAD ZARIF: We have– the– well, what he says–
ANN CURRY: –it should be annihilated.
JAVAD ZARIF: It– it should be annihilated. That this regime is a threat, is a threat…
What Zarif was attempted was Takiyah, lying to infidels to conceal his true beliefs and intentions. But An Curry called him on it, putting him in the untenable position of either disagreeing with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei (not healthy) or trying to lie about something Khamenei and other Iranian leaders have said openly. In the end, he just admitted it and chose the less suicidal course, hoping it would just slip by unnoticed. Certainly it worked with NBC!
The Iranian goal of genocide has never changed...and there's absolutely nothing in the present proposed agreement that would prevent it in any way.
Just as an aside, the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians that Iran claims to be so concerned about would likewise die in droves after an Iranian nuclear attack. so would a lot of Iranians, since Israel reportedly has second strike capability in that event. But the regime's real thinking, based on Iran's Shi'ite Twelver sect and the doctrine of the Hidden Imam is revealed here in this quote by the Ayatollah Khomeini: “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”
Yes, America. These things only start with the Jews. They never end there.
By now, the burning alive of captured Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh by Islamic State has become common knowledge.
His captors imprisoned him in a cage, doused it with gasoline, and made a trail of gas leading to it, so that he could see the flames approaching. They then lit it on fire, filmed his agony as it spread to the cage and engulfed it and then put out a slick,professionally produced video of the whole thing, released by Islamic State's Al-Furqan media center. The video was titled 'Healing the Believers' Chests,' which has a meaning worth exploring it detail.
The video itself started with footage of Jordan's King Abdullah essentially declaring war on Islamic State and announcing his support for the anti-IS coalition. It then interspersed shots of al-Kasasbeh sitting in a darkened room and giving details on the air strikes he participated in against Islamic state with TV-style news reports showing the results of the airstrikes. And of course, an emphasis on scenes dead and dying child victims. It then cuts to the immolation of al-Kasasbeh.
The reaction from the West was illuminating. Both UK PM David Cameron and British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond referred to this as 'murder'. President Barack Hussein Obama's statement didn't even go that far:
“You know, I just got word of the video that had been released. I don’t know the details on the confirmation. Should in fact this video be authentic, it’s just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. And I think we will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. It also indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, it’s bankrupt. We’re here to talk about how to make people healthier and make their lives better. And this organization appears only interested in death and destruction. Thank you very much, everybody.”
Both PM Cameron and President Obama's remarks reveal a great deal about their mindset. To Cameron and Hammond, this is a 'murder' carried out by criminals. President Obama didn't even go that far, just seeing IS as some malcontents who need 'increased vigilance' and 'determination' to be thwarted. That's how they see it..not as war, or as terrorism or, mercy no, anything to do with Islam, but just a band of criminals.
Want to know how Islamic State sees it?
As a wartime execution, as tactics, as fully justified by Islam and not as murder at all. And as barbaric as they are, they have a point. Murder, after all, has a personal element, for sex, for money or to shut someone up. This wasn't murder.
Perhaps it's worth remembering that Islamic State was originally armed and trained by the Obama Administration, and that their enemies were Hezbollah, the Syrian forces of Basher Assad and the corrupt Shi'ite Iraqi government and its troops. They did not attack U.S. forces or those of any European country. The way they see it, we declared war on them, and without formally announcing it as the Qu'ran mandates. And it was the U.S. that intervened with air strikes, that has put together a loose coalition of Sunni autocrats to attack them and has been allowing Shi'ite Iran to intervene directly and wage war on them.
Of course, after the brutality Islamic State has made its trademark, especially on any non-Muslims like Christians and Yazidis, a case could be made for going to war against them. But it wasn't and we haven't. All we've done is supply some arms and advisers to the Kurds and the Iraqi Shi'ite army and perform some air strikes and drone attacks.
Because to actually go to war against Islamic State might also involve certain problems, since literally everything Islamic State is doing is fully justified by the Qu'ran. That's why the Obama Administration and UK PM David Cameron are ever so careful not even to whisper the word 'Islam' where IS is concerned.
Now, Jordan, being an Arab Muslim State did declare war on IS, and publicly. That's exactly why Islamic State showed that footage of the King doing so in their video, why they were careful to include the Jordanian pilot's confession of participating in the bombing attacks and why they were careful to show a number of brutalized children that IS claimed were victims of those attacks.
You see, they learned this tactic from Hamas and Hezbollah. And while they probably may have figured out by now that it only works in creating an uproar in places like Europe and in the UN if it's Israel defending itself, it will likely have that desired effect on many Muslims.
In fact some Arab members of the coalition were already easing themselves out, although the White House is claiming that they're all still committed to defeating Islamic State and were just taking a breather.We'll see, but it's a fact right now that only Jordan is now more committed than it was after Moaz al-Kasasbeh's death. That's why the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a big part of the coalition, just sent a squadron of F-16s to Jordan that the Obama Administration just gifted the UAE as a 'reward' for joining up .
King Hussein's renewed commitment can be understood because Jordan is a U.S. client state heavily dependent on foreign aid, and because al-Kasasbe's death has been a unifying issue in an increasingly disunified kingdom. How long that lasts is anyone's guess.
The Sunni autocrats are wary for a couple of reasons. First, as they see the Obama Administration becoming increasingly closer to Iran, they also understand now that the Sunni forces of Islamic State represent one of the few checks to Iran in the region.
Obama allowing Iranian backed Shi'te rebels to overthrow a Sunni ally of America in Yemen and essentially okaying an Iranian colony and a brand new strategic threat to the Saudis and the UAE to emerge was a major wake up call. The Saudis are now bracketed by Iranian client states from the north in Iraq and from the south by Yemen, and they fear being surrounded and overwhelmed.
The second reason is that the Saudis and the other Sunni autocracies are gradually becoming leery of fighting Islamic state has to do with their need to placate conservative religious constituencies in their own kingdoms. However barbaric Islamic State seems to us, their ideology isn't 'whatever it is' to quote President Obama but a mainstream fundamental reading of the Qu'ran and Sharia.
Which of course, is the core of the matter.
The fighters for Islamic State have a cause, one they're deeply devoted to, the creation of a Islamic Caliphate.Their devotion to that cause is absolute, so absolute that they unhesitatingly attacked and destroyed a professional Iraqi army that vastly outnumbered them and had far better equipment, including tanks. They not only have attracted the loyalty of numerous young men and women from Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere in both the West and the Muslim world, but pledges of loyalty and allegiance from numerous Muslim groups like al-Nusra and Boko Haram.
They are united, their fighters are disciplined and effective, and have a clear objective, that of victory, because they know they're in a war and so do their leaders. They have both media savvy and a good knowledge of what inspires their fellow Muslims..or makes them quake with fear. For instance, the burning of the body of a Muslim is strictly forbidden, because according to sharia it prevents them from ascending to the Muslim Paradise. Burning al-Kasasbe to death was Islamic State's way of declaring al-Kasasbe a Kuf'r, a non-Muslim for his role in killing his fellow Muslims. Rest assured that message got across to the men Islamic State's warriors will be fighting against.They now have the symbol of the Burning Man embedded in their consciousness,almost like a flag Islamic State's warriors can carry before them into battle.
On the other hand, facing them, we have nothing but division among our forces. With the exception of the Kurds, what we have is an increasingly wary Sunni coalition that doesn't trust Iran or our commander -in chief, and with good reason. And the Kurds are getting just enough military supplies and equipment from the U.S. to hold their own with Islamic State, as a bow to the wishes of Turkey, Iran and Iraq, none of whom want the Kurds to be strong enough to assert their independence.
We also have the demoralized Iraqi army, the Iran backed Shi'ite militias including Hezbollah, and Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops, all of whom are playing their game, not ours, which is to create a nuclear armed Shi'ite bloc of their own for the Ayatollah. And stuck in the middle, we have our handful of U.S. advisers and our sea and air forces who at present are handcuffed with rigid rules of engagement and tactics that essentially ensure that victory - whatever that is - isn't a serious option.
Our leaders go to some pains to announce that we're not in a war , and refuse to even name whom we're fighting against. There's no clear goal or objective,beyond our disconnected president's vague throw away notions of 'defeating and degrading them' something he appears not to be overly concerned about anyway.There's no real strategy at all, our troops are demoralized over a lack of mission and even our generals are openly complaining about how non-entities without military knowledge or experience like NSA Susan Rice are micromanaging things.
What this president does seem to be concerned with primarily is empowering Iran in the region, a strategic nightmare and a deadly course for America.
Let no one assume that we will somehow escape the specter of the Burning Man,either the one Islamic State carries or one launched by Iran at the Great Satan at a time of their choosing.
Under Barack Hussein Obama's failed leadership, we have become vulnerable to a degree unimaginable before he took office. And if that does not change, we are on the road to becoming the Walking Dead.
