Filed under: Foreign Policy, Iraq, Islam, Middle East, National Security, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: "Fixing The Middle East", "Partners in Peace", No Deal
The State Department has recently released their annual report on terrorism. It reveals that in 2014, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training and the facilitation of primarily Iraq Shia and Afghan fighters to support the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown. Terrorist attacks have ratcheted up by more than a third. The number of people killed in these terrorist attacks has increased by 80 percent in 2014. Yet President Obama is still hunting for a legacy in an Iran Deal.
So far, we are lifting sanctions, Iran is getting their gold back and their money back, and Boeing has been there with spare parts for the Iranian air force, and we have looked the other way while they got some used airplanes. Obama is looking ahead to getting approval of his deal from Congress. Iran has given up nothing. Nothing at all.
The White House is targeting progressive Jewish groups to put pressure on Congress to get their approval. The liberal fringe group J-Street has received millions from the Ploughshares Fund to increase support within the Jewish group. They are told that the Iran deal has been the president’s chief priority in the Oval Office since day one.
Some have believed that a “good deal,” which would dismantle the clerical regime’s capacity to build nuclear weapons, is possible if Mr. Obama would add to diplomacy a serious threat of more sanctions and the use of force. But the Iranian regime is unlikely to respond to threats, or so we’re told.
The Islamic Republic is a revolutionary Islamic movement. They will never bow to America’s economic coercion. They will never allow Westerners access to their 30 years of planning and development and facilities and secrets.
Obama views his Iranian ‘partners in peace’ as the key to “fixing” the Middle East, by propping up the Shiite theocracy as a regional hegemon that will ruthlessly suppress Sunni extremists like ISIS. It is a fundamental belief of the Obama foreign policy brain trust that Iran says a lot of crazy, incendiary things to please domestic audiences and impress Muslim nations it wants to fold into the new Persian Empire, but deep down, the mullahs are trustworthy statesmen and businessmen.
Toby Harnden at the UK Sunday Times says he’s hearing more of this kind of talk openly from U.S. officials, and the deadline keeps moving and moving.
Both present and former American officials describe Obama as being obsessed with carving his mark on history by restoring diplomatic relations with Iran after decades of animosity and possibly even visiting Tehran next year.
“Obama wants this as the centrepiece of his legacy, and he believes a peaceful Iran could be a bulwark against ISIS in the Middle East and the key to peace there,” said an American diplomat involved in the negotiations, which face a deadline for agreement on Tuesday.
“The ‘plan’ is not really about nukes. Obama and his foreign policy advisers do not think Iran will nuke anyone, ever, no matter when they get The Bomb. The plan is about building up Greater Iran and making a historic diplomatic opening that will have future historians burbling that peace with the new Middle East began the day Obama gave away the store to smirking Iranian negotiators and signed that nuclear deal.”
The Rockefeller Fund has spent millions to make the Iran Deal happen. It’s a loose coalition of peace groups, think tanks and former U.S. diplomats called the Iran Project. CREDO Action is another dark money group that is working with other groups to threaten any Congressional Democrat who objects to a final nuclear deal with Iran, even before the terms of any agreement have been determined. The organization is a member of the Democracy Alliance, the organization of Leftist millionaires and billionaires who run Democrat policy.
Westerners have long made the mistake of assuming that our enemies are, underneath it all, people just like us, who have families and want the best for them and for their country and have similar goals as we do. They are not. They are religious fanatics, tribal, theocratic tyrants who, as they often tell us, value death while we value life. And when they shout “Death to the little Satan,” “Death to the Great Satan,” which is us, they really mean it. One of the big problems for the regime is that the people of Iran hate them.
Well, the emperor has no clothes, but there is nobody to tell him so, or at least nobody that he will listen to. There are no sanctions to be slapped back on, and at the UN, Russia and China wouldn’t go along anyway.
Iran will not sign a deal, according to Michael Ledeen, who seems to have someone fairly high up in the regime on his speed dial. The Ayatollah Khomeinei has forbidden it. So they will have a ‘framework’ or something of the kind, and continue to talk. Nobody, at least on our side, will walk away. Will they keep talking? Will anyone think Obama has a triumph for his legacy?
The Iranians are reportedly close to having a nuclear weapon, if they don’t have one already. Their military manuals have records of our vulnerability to an EMP attack. Obama proposes to cut the active duty military by 40,000 as the threats to America increase. What could possibly go wrong?
Filed under: Iran, Islam, Middle East, Politics | Tags: Barack Obama, Lies and Falsehoods, The Iran Deal
Continuing his tour of friendly sources to boost the alleged “deal” with Iran, in the face of a very skeptical public, President Obama granted an interview to National Public Radio. In doing so, he managed to provide some major reasons why Congress should reject the Iran deal out of hand. Steve Inskeep said asked “Do you believe that Iran’s government is capable of changing its ways?”
My goal, when I came into office, was to make sure that Iran did not get a nuclear weapon and thereby trigger a nuclear arms race in the most volatile part of the world. And prior to me coming into office, we had seen Iran’s program go very quickly and have a whole bunch of centrifuges reduce the timeline in which they could break out and obtain a nuclear weapon if they so chose.
And because of the hard diplomatic work that we did internationally, as well as help from Congress, we were able to impose some really significant sanctions, brought them to the table.
What we are worried about is not a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, but Iran’s religious commitment to the destruction of America and Israel. The Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad regularly lied to his enemies. Taqiyya has become second nature to the Shia—the sect that rules Iran.
Obama says Iran could have a nuclear weapon after 12 years. He volunteered that in years 13, 14 and 15, Iran could have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that time the breakout times would have shrunk down almost down to zero. He argues that would be better than the current breakout time of 2-3 months, and the world would know more about the program. I have read 45 days in several places, but our intelligence has been wrong about breakout times in the case of India, Pakistan and North Korea, We are always “surprised.” American Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, one of the Iran negotiators, presided over the deal with North Korea that was to prevent them from becoming a nuclear state. Beside John Kerry, we are represented by Energy Secretary Earnest Moniz, who is a physicist, presumably because he may understand nuclear energy.
Obama admitted that Iran is not going to change, they will not recognize Israel’s right to exist. They will not stop supporting terrorism. There is no way to resolve the differences over sanctions. He believes that if we sign this nuclear deal, we strengthen the hand of the more moderate forces in Iran. Yet Iran has no intention or desire to join the community of nations. They do want to reestablish the Persian empire, and are working on it.
Obama assumes that inspections will be effective and that the threat of slapping the sanctions back on will make sure they are effective, The UN inspectors currently admit that they really don’t know much about what Iran has. They aren’t allowed to really inspect. Sanctions, once removed, will not be slapped back on. That would require a highly unlikely vote from China and Russia.
The Persian people are already banking on economic growth from the lifting of sanctions. France’s Total Oil Company is counting on increased amounts of oil from Iran. German industry sells them all sorts of equipment, as does Moscow. Their economy has been severely weakened, but in the midst of sanctions they have been financing their war operations, and there has been no lessening of their support for Hezbollah or Assad over the last four or five years. Obama has already relaxed the sanctions and returned most of their money.
What it seems to amount to, is that Obama will do anything to avoid military action. He wants the legacy of preventing Iran from immediate acquisition of a bomb, and he’s only in office for another 20 months so he’s willing to kick the problem down the road for the next president.
In his previous interview with Thomas Friedman, Obama said that his “absolute commitment” that if Israel were “attacked by any state, that we would stand by them” and that “should be sufficient” for Israel to take advantage of this “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” and accept his Iran nuclear deal as a good step forward. Again, Obama seems to assume that after a nuclear attack there would be something left of Israel for him to “stand by,” or something of America to do the standing. There is a disconnect here that Obama simply doesn’t seem to understand. His casual assumptions do not acknowledge the Shiia view of Armageddon bringing the return of the Mahdi and the eternal bliss that follows. He does not acknowledge Iran’s determination that their efforts to get a nuclear weapon trump any efforts of UN inspectors to attempt to inspect. He assumes that Iranian promises mean something.
This is not a matter of nuclear deterrence, or “mutually assured destruction” or a “nuclear arms race.” It’s a different time, different goals, and deeply different religions, one of which wants an end to America and an end to Israel.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Humor, Iran, Islam, Middle East | Tags: NYT Interview, Selling the Deal, Undermining Bush?
“No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.”
President Obama invited New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman to the Oval Office on Saturday afternoon to lay out how he was trying to balance the risks and opportunities in the framework accord reached with Iran last week in Switzerland. The “Obama Doctrine” that emerged when he asked Obama if there was a common denominator in recent decisions regarding Burma, Cuba and now Iran. Obama said his view was that “engagement,” combined with meeting core strategic needs, could serve American interests far better than endless sanctions and isolation. He added that America needs to have the self-confidence to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities. Permitting Iran to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, forestalls its ability to build a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, if not longer.
“I do worry that some traditional boundaries in how we think about foreign policy have been crossed,” the president said. “I felt the letter that was sent to the supreme leader was inappropriate. I think that you will recall there were some deep disagreements with President Bush about the Iraq war, but the notion that you would have had a whole bunch of Democrats sending letters to leaders in the region or to European leaders … trying to undermine the president’s policies I think is troubling.
“The notion that you would have had a whole bunch of Democrats …trying to undermine the president’s policies I think is troubling.”
Yep. He actually said that.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, History, Iran, Islam, Israel, Media Bias, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, The United States | Tags: Obama's Fantasies, Obama's Framework Deal, The Persian Deal
The New York Times headline claimed “Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline. The Washington Post followed up with: “Iran agrees to nuclear restrictions in framework deal with world powers.” All hogwash. The “historic agreement” that President Obama is trying desperately to sell is pure fantasy. There has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that have led to international concern about Iran’s highly secret nuclear activities and have led to 13 years of diplomatic thrusts and talks and six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council.
What we have is a bunch of contradictory statements by the assorted participants in the latest round of talks in Switzerland and an ignored deadline. Everybody is trying to make positive statements that spin things in a desirable manner without exceeding the boundaries of reality. So there was a 291 word joint statement in English by Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif and the EU foreign policy leader Federica Mogherini who led the so-called P5+1 group of nations including the US in the negotiations.
Then there was the official Iranian text in 512 Persian words, and the text from US Secretary of State John Kerry who has put out a 1,318 word document which acts as if all is a done deal. The three different documents not only do not agree, they are frankly contradictory. The Mogherini and French texts are vague and not even good spin.
The Persian text carefully avoids any words that might in any way give the impression that anything has been agreed by the Iranian side or that the Islamic republic has offered any concessions whatsoever. The Iranian text is labelled as a press statement only. It opens insisting that it has no “legal aspect” and in intended only as a “guideline for drafting future accords.” Last April they were caught cheating on the amount of oil they were allowed to export under the relaxed sanctions.
The American text pretends to spell out “parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” and claims that key points have been “decided” — and what remains to be done is to work out the “implementation details.” The U.S.version claims that Iran has agreed to certain restraints for example reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,500.
The Iranian text, however, says that Iran “shall be able to …” or “qader khahad boud” in Farsi to do such a thing. The same is true about enrichment in Fordow. The Americans say Iran has agreed to stop enrichment there for 15 years. The Iranian text, however, refers to this as something that Iran “will be able to do,” if it so wished. Sometimes the two texts are diametrically opposed.
The American statement claims that Iran has agreed not to use advanced centrifuges, each of which could do the work of 10 old ones. The Iranian text, however, insists that “on the basis of solutions found, work on advanced centrifuges shall continue on the basis of a 10-year plan.”
The American text claims that Iran has agreed to dismantle the core of the heavy water plutonium plant in Arak. The Iranian text says the opposite. The plant shall remain and be updated and modernized.
The American text talks of “sanctions relief” while Iran claims that the sanctions would be “immediately terminated.” Which is it? This is not a small matter. Remember that Obama is a fierce competitor and determined to build a legacy, and get his way.
In his Rose Garden statement, Obama said:
Over a year ago, we took the first step towards today’s framework with a deal to stop the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and roll it back in key areas. And recall that at the time, skeptics argued that Iran would cheat, and that we could not verify their compliance and the interim agreement would fail. Instead, it has succeeded exactly as intended. Iran has met all of its obligations. It eliminated its stockpile of dangerous nuclear material. Inspections of Iran’s program increased. And we continued negotiations to see if we could achieve a more comprehensive deal.
Today, after many months of tough, principled diplomacy, we have achieved the framework for that deal. And it is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives. This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran will face strict limitations on its program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history. So this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification.
According to the Persians, they have agreed to no such thing. Iran has said clearly that Obama is lying. Iran has cheated on every single restriction ever placed on them. There have been 20 years of nuclear deal-breaking. In 2003, after Iran came clean, inspectors kept finding new and undeclared sites within Iran. In December they were caught shopping for components for its heavy-water reactor which can produce weapons-grade plutonium.
Iran says plainly that they will not shut down a single facility, will not dismantle a single centrifuge, and will not ship it’s stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country. The UN inspections people say they really don’t know just what the Iranians have, and won’t know without being able to do surprise inspections.
But Obama wants you to know that the deal he has not made is a good one. He claimed that the only alternative to his deal was another ground war in the Middle East. Yet anyone who has been paying the slightest attention could come up with several alternatives. Obama is regarded as completely weak. The Arab nations have joined together with Israel to protest the deal he seems so determined on. He says “this is our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.” But he also says that ” Iran wants to join the community of nations” just at the moment that they are sponsoring genocide in Syria. He seems to think the Iranian people want to be part of that community, without any understanding that Iran is a dictatorial theocracy, and if the people dared to speak out, which they don’t, they would swiftly be executed.
Willful ignorance, and a frightening fantasy. When they shriek “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” — they actually mean it.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Iran, Islam, Israel, National Security, The United States | Tags: A Media Frenzy, Ordered Up?, Truth or Propaganda?
What was going on yesterday? A media frenzy so focused on the possibility that someone might be offended that it wiped all other news off the page? A full-throated attack by the Big Gay Hate Machine to discourage anyone from objecting to their choices? Oddly enough, the RFRA laws that were passed did not even mention sex, Gays, intolerance, or anything else related to discrimination, but merely said that religious beliefs needed to receive consideration.
Or was this media frenzy called out by the White House to take media attention off the nuclear discussions in Switzerland? Was it a mere coincidence that Senator Menendez (D-CT) (who was a sponsor of two different bills, one putting the sanctions back on Iran if they didn’t fully allow inspections, and the other forcing any agreement to come to the Senate for confirmation) was suddenly indicted for supposed corruption just when his bills might come to the attention of the public?
See how suspicious I’m becoming? Obama is a fierce competitor. The Republicans may have won control of Congress, but Obama has no intention of changing his strategy from doing exactly what he chooses by executive orders— to consulting and cooperating with Republicans to try to accomplish something. Obama believes the ends justify the means. Obama wants to be in control of his situation. Obama is dogmatic in his essential positions and does not change his mind.
We are told that Mr. Obama only sees his closest associates. That he requires from his czars and advisers a short list of 3 choices from which he will choose. That sounds like that he does not have the skill set he needs to deal with the complex problems he wants to address.
There is no Iran deal yet, but Obama was speaking of a pact in the past tense, as if it was a done deal. “He claims ‘It has succeeded exactly as intended’—pretty much what he says about ObamaCare.”
You will notice that today, the media frenzy of yesterday has virtually disappeared. Obama has made his big statement for domestic purposes, and, as Investors says, “Nothing, apparently, will stop Obama from accepting the inevitability of a nuclear Iran and absurdly claiming that it makes the world safer.”
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, History, Iran, Islam, National Security, Terrorism, The Constitution, The United States, United Nations | Tags: Always Right On Point, Investors Business Daily, Michael Ramierez
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Iran, Islam, Media Bias, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, The Constitution, The United States
Reported: Obama ordered Secretary Kerry to continue talking in Lausanne even though deadline had passed.
LAUSANNE, Switzerland — (Washington Post) “Negotiators from Iran and major world powers reached agreement Thursday on a framework for a final agreement to curb Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from international sanctions an accord that President Obama hailed as a “good deal” that would make the world a safer place.”
Obama appeared in the Rose Garden to say that the U.S. and its partners “reached a historic understanding with Iran which if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Poor Obama, He is so desperate for “a deal” that he has turned over everything the Iranians could possibly want, in return for some vague promises that will be meaningless. Close observers have said that he expects this ‘accomplishment’ to equal Nixon’s opening up China. Instead he may have signed America’s death warrant, and Israel’s.
America is an open society, we hang most of our secrets out on a clothesline for all the world to see — and hackers get a good percentage of the rest. Hardening off our electric grid? EMP attacks? Just yesterday some Russian expert suggested that the best way to end America would be to drop a nuclear bomb on Yellowstone. Not defeat — destroy. When is the last time that The United States of America ever suggested destroying another country?
Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden was so full of straw men that it was embarrassing. He even claimed the authority of a push poll yesterday that asked such a mushy-soft question that both Hitler and Mother Teresa would have signed on. UN Officials have said that Iran is already blocking their efforts to track what is going on in their nuclear program. We not only don’t know how advanced their program is, we don’t know for sure how many facilities they have.
Thomas Sowell wrote today:
The Soviet Union was never suicidal, so the fact that we could annihilate their cities if they attacked ours was a sufficient deterrent to a nuclear attack from them. But will that deter fanatics with an apocalyptic vision? Should we bet the lives of millions of Americans on our ability to deter nuclear war with Iran?
It is now nearly 70 years since nuclear bombs were used in war. Long periods of safety in that respect have apparently led many to feel as if the danger is not real. But the dangers are even greater now and the nuclear bombs more devastating.
Clearing the way for Iran to get nuclear bombs may — probably will — be the most catastrophic decision in human history. And it can certainly change human history, irrevocably, for the worse.
The Iraqi Prime Minister said “We will continue enriching. We won’t close facilities and all sanctions will be terminated.” Obama seems to believe that they are just developing nuclear energy for peaceful domestic purposes. If so, why the intercontinental ballistic missiles? And why, when they are a major oil-producing country, do they need nuclear energy? We don’t even know how close or far their development of a bomb is — Obama is claiming 10 years, too far away to be blamed on him, but other sources say as little as 45 days.
We had a powerful restraint in place. Iran supposedly requires a $130 per barrel price for oil to break even, and the price has dropped below $50. Obama compared himself to Richard Nixon and to John Kennedy negotiating nuclear deals with the Soviet Union, but both of them submitted their agreements to Congress for approval.