(Hitler did tell the truth occasionally, in Mein Kampf for example. It was generally ignored until too late. “Death to America and Israel” are spouted by the Iranian Supreme Leader at every opportunity. Obama, et al, ignore it. Will Israel be Obama’s Czechoslovakia? And then what?– DM)
Our dishonor in Lausanne, as with Munich, may avoid a confrontation in the present, but our shame will guarantee a war in the near future.
*********************
Once again our leaders are needlessly appeasing a hostile state that shows them nothing but contempt.
The Western capitulation to Adolf Hitler in the 1938 Munich Agreement is cited as classic appeasement that destroyed Czechoslovakia, backfired on France and Britain, and led to World War II. All of that is true.
But there was much more that caused the Munich debacle than simple Western naiveté. The full tragedy of that ill-fated agreement should warn us on the eve of the Obama’s administration’s gullible agreement with Iran on nuclear proliferation. Fable one is the idea that most people saw right through the Munich folly. True, Europeans knew that Hitler had never once told the truth and was already murdering German citizens who were Jews, Communists, or homosexuals. But Europeans did not care all that much.
Instead, the Western world was ecstatic over the agreement. After the carnage of World War I, Europeans would do anything to avoid even a small confrontation — even if such appeasement all but ensured a far greater bloodbath than the one that began in 1914.
Another myth was that Hitler’s Wehrmacht was strong and the democracies were weak. In fact, the combined French and British militaries were far larger than Hitler’s. French Char tanks and British Spitfire fighters were as good as, or superior to, their German counterparts.
Czechoslovakia had formidable defenses and an impressive arms industry. Poland and perhaps even the Soviet Union were ready to join a coalition to stop Hitler from dissolving the Czech state.
It is also untrue that the Third Reich was united. Many of Hitler’s top generals did not want war. Yet each time Hitler successfully called the Allies’ bluff — in the Rhineland or with the annexation of Austria — the credibility of his doubters sank while his own reckless risk-taking became even more popular.
Munich was hardly a compassionate agreement. In callous fashion it immediately doomed millions of Czechs and put Poland on the target list of the Third Reich.
Munich was directly tied to the vanity of Neville Chamberlain. In the first few weeks after Munich, Chamberlain basked in adulation, posing as the humane savior of Western civilization. In contrast, loud skeptic Winston Churchill was dismissed by the media and public as an old warmonger.
Hitler failed to appreciate the magnanimity and concessions of the French and British. He later called his Munich diplomatic partners “worms.” Hitler said of the obsequious Chamberlain, “I’ll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers.”
The current negotiations with the Iranians in Lausanne, Switzerland, have all the hallmarks of the Munich negotiations.
Most Westerners accept that the Iranian government funds terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. It has all but taken over Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Yet the idea of stronger sanctions, blockades, or even force to stop Iranian efforts to get a bomb are considered scarier than Iran getting a bomb that it just possibly might not threaten to use.
The U.S. and its NATO partners are far stronger than Iran in every imaginable measure of military and economic strength. The Iranian economy is struggling, its government is corrupt, and its conventional military is obsolete. Iran’s only chance of gaining strength is to show both its own population and the world at large that stronger Western powers backed down in fear of its threats and recklessness.
Iran is not united. It is a mishmash nation in which over a third of the population is not Persian. Millions of protestors hit the streets in 2009. An Iranian journalist covering the talks defected in Switzerland — and said that U.S. officials at the talks are there mainly to speak on behalf of Iran.
By reaching an agreement with Iran, John Kerry and Barack Obama hope to salvage some sort of legacy — in the vain fashion of Chamberlain — out of a heretofore failed foreign policy.
There are more Munich parallels. The Iranian agreement will force rich Sunni nations to get their own bombs to ensure a nuclear Middle East standoff. A deal with Iran shows callous disagreed for our close ally Israel, which is serially threatened by Iran’s mullahs. The United States is distant from Iran. But our allies in the Middle East and Europe are within its missile range.
Supporters of the Obama administration deride skeptics such as Democratic senator Robert Menendez and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu as if they were doubting old Churchills.
Finally, the Iranians, like Hitler, have only contempt for the administration that has treated them so fawningly. During the negotiations in Switzerland, the Iranians blew up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. Their supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, did his usual “death to America” shtick before adoring crowds. Our dishonor in Lausanne, as with Munich, may avoid a confrontation in the present, but our shame will guarantee a war in the near future.
Tehran is not averse to negotiating ad infinitum – so long as the talks go their way.
So the real gridlock centered on finding a procedure that fitted the US delegation’s instructions to get some sort of a deal signed, and the Iranian group’s directive to sign nothing that could be seen as an accord. So who will give ground first?
***************
It is hard to make out exactly what the seven exhausted foreign ministers of the world powers and Iran were actually talking about in Lausanne this week – especially in the last two days, when the negotiations overran their March 31 deadline for a framework nuclear accord.
The highly-colored reports from the Swiss hotel up until Thursday, April 2, bespoke a mighty battle between the American negotiators led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and the Iranian group, headed by Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, over four key points still at issue between them: the pace of sanctions relief, research and development projects, international inspections – including snap visits to any nuclear facilities they demanded, and, finally, the quantity of low-enriched uranium Iran may retain after the bulk of its stockpile is shipped overseas.
The drama was heightened by the sight of the American delegation marching into a tent set up in the hotel yard “to defeat eavesdropping” for a video conference with President Barack Obama in the White House. Kerry wanted to know whether to carry on the never-ending negotiations, which were looking more and more farcical as the hours ticked by without closure, or quit. This would be tantamount to the failure of the entire structure of nuclear diplomacy.
Obama directed the delegation to carry on talking with the Iranians and disregard the missed deadline as though nothing had changed.
The Secretary of State earlier appeared in an upper hotel window gazing out in the distance. Was he seeing a solution of the impasse visible to no one else?
The French Foreign Minister, Lauren Fabius, fed up with the game playing out between the Americans and the Iranians, left more than once for home. He returned Thursday saying: “We are a few meters from the finishing line, but it’s always the last meters that are the most difficult. We will try and cross them. It’s not done yet.”
Zarif told reporters: “Our friends need to decide whether they want to be with Iran based on respect or whether they want to continue based on pressure. They have tested the other one; it is high time to test this one.”
Those words carried two messages: One that the Iranians were serious when they reiterated in the past weeks that a framework accord for ending the current phase of negotiations was unacceptable, and insisted on the talks carrying straight through to a comprehensive deal by June 30.
The Iranian foreign minister’s second message was a negation of “pressure” – i.e., sanctions, in obedience to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s directive to the delegation to reject the incremental easing of international sanctions and press Tehran’s demand for immediate relief.
That directive was laid down by the ayatollah on February 18, when he determined that “an agreement would be arrived at not in two stages but in one stage to be completed by the end of June 2015 and the agreement would include the removal of all sanctions on Iran.”
The writing was on the wall for all the parties to see. The current deadline crisis could have been avoided by understanding that there was no way the Iranian delegation would ever disobey the supreme leader’s dictates.
Tehran is not averse to negotiating ad infinitum – so long as the talks go their way.
So the real gridlock centered on finding a procedure that fitted the US delegation’s instructions to get some sort of a deal signed, and the Iranian group’s directive to sign nothing that could be seen as an accord. So who will give ground first?
(The views expressed in this article are not necessarily mine or those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Today, April fool’s day first, Obama was abducted by aliens from Venus who were concerned about His warlike stance toward the peaceful Islamic Republic of Iran.
Mars is the god of war, Venus is the goddess of peace. Aliens from Mars had been slightly disturbed that Obama’s efforts to give Iran nuclear weapons might fail, but had seen that her status as a nuclear power was inevitable and hence did nothing. Aliens from Venus were equally pleased with the prospects of Iranian nuclear weapons but were very concerned that Obama, by failing adequately to praise Iranian attempts to extend its hegemony over the entire Middle East and beyond, had retarded those praiseworthy efforts on behalf of true Islamic peace. Hence, they secretly abducted Him this morning as He deplaned from Air Force One following an off-the-books trip to His spiritual birth place in Manchuria.
Since Obama’s abduction and remedial training required only a few minutes He was not missed, even by His dear soul mate, Valerie Jarrett. Ms. Jarrett was, therefore, pleasantly surprised when Obama called a press conference in the Rose Garden to make an announcement, following a splendid rendition of Hail to the Chief:
Fellow world citizens, I have finally awakened from my slumbers to realize that Iran is the only country in the world capable of bringing true peace through submission in accord with the word of Allah, may His Holy name be forever praised by all. Israel claims to desire peace, but only through war. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other misbegotten specs of excrement on the face of our dear planet — now in peril of imminent death due to climate change to which their vile oil has contributed massively — have dared even to challenge Iran’s peaceful pursuits of peace throughout the Middle East in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere.
Henceforth, it will be My supreme duty as your Commander in Chief to promote and otherwise to assist Iran in her glorious efforts for peace. I know in my heart that that’s the principal reason that you, My people, elected Me as your very own Supreme Leader. Accordingly, I pledge that My efforts will be unstintingly directed to the end that you desire.
May Allah bless Iran, Damn America, Israel and all other enemies of true peace, and give a blessed day to you all, inshallah.
Iran’s leaders, due to their extensive relations with the aliens who had abducted Obama, were not at all surprised but pretended that they were. Supreme Leader Khamenei personally accepted Supreme Leader Obama’s gracious words by saying that Obama had finally managed to tame the Great Satan and promised to do everything within his power to help, inshallah. He also commented favorably on Secretary Kerry’s use of “inshallah” in rebutting suggestions by defeatists that the P5+1 negotiations would collapse without giving Iran nuclear weapons.
Even those who had previously viewed Obama as weak and indecisive will now be forced to see Him as He truly is, a towering beacon of strength and light to a world beset with tribulation, turmoil and darkness. His legacy as the Greatest Peace Maker, Ever, is assured, inshallah.
(It’s like awaiting with trepidation the birth of a horribly mutated and probably stillborn baby, as the attending physicians proclaim their skill, patience and good intentions. — DM)
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
North Korea has ample nukes and wants money. Iran wants (and may already have) nukes, has money and will have more as sanctions are ended. The two rogue nations have long had a symbiotic relationship and it has not diminished. Yet “our” P5+1 negotiators, under the leadership of Obama’s minions, ignore that inconvenient problem as well as Iran’s missile development, “possible” nuclear weaponization and increasing regional hegemony.
The main thing that puzzles me is why we continue to focus on Iran’s uranium enrichment. Is Iran (again) playing us for suckers? North Korea is fully capable of enriching uranium for Iran (or for anyone else) and would doubtless be happy to enrich as much as may be desired in exchange for the hard currency freely available to Iran if it were only to cease its own enrichment. North Korea needs the money and is not likely very particular about its sources. Just as our sanctions have not impacted Iran’s enrichment capabilities significantly, neither have they impacted those of North Korea. Perhaps we may awaken before it’s too late and notice Iran playing its Korean hole card in our high-stakes poker game.
We have not awakened and the problem has worsened since 2013.
Soure: American in North Korea
In 2014, I summarized several earlier articles in one titled The Iran scam continues. There, I pointed out that the English language version of the interim P5+1 deal and the White House summary generally ignore “undisclosed” — but known — Iranian sites for missile and warhead development and the work done there– despite warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency. I also noted the Iran – North Korea nexus. Again, the situation has become worse since then. As the magic date of March 31, 2015 arrives, Iran is still demanding – and likely will get — more and more concessions.
“The Iranians are again outplaying the Americans,” said one source in Europe familiar with the negotiations. “They know they’ll have to give up certain things eventually. So they’re digging in their heels on issues that mean everything and preparing to give ground on relatively minor issues—but not yet, and not until they see how much more the Americans are willing to give.” [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
“Iran has successfully dragged the administration toward their positions to attain massive concessions, and, sensing that kind of weakness, they are seeking to press their advantage to gain further ground on critical points,” according to the source, who added that on the sanctions relief front, Iran is seeking a rollback “without dismantling anything.” [Emphasis added.]
What might Iran be willing to give up in order to get additional important concessions? How about stuff that North Korea will be pleased to do in exchange for a share of the extra funds Iran will have as sanctions are eliminated?
The unfinished North Korean-designed reactor that was destroyed by Israeli planes on Sept. 6, 2007, at Deir al-Zour in Syria was in all likelihood an Iranian project, perhaps one meant to serve as a backup site for Iran’s own nuclear plants. We draw this conclusion because of the timing and the close connection between the two regimes: Deir al-Zour was started around the time Iran’s nuclear facilities were disclosed by an Iranian opposition group in 2002, and the relationship between Shiite-ruled Syria and Shiite Iran has been exceptionally tight since Bashar al-Assad came to power in 2000. We also know — because Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president and majordomo of the political clergy, proudly tells us in his multivolume autobiography — that sensitive Iranian-North Korean military cooperation began in 1989. Rafsanjani’s commentary leaves little doubt that the Iranian-North Korean nexus revolved around two items: ballistic missiles and nuclear-weapons technology. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
The Iranian-North Korean contacts intensify in 1992, the year that Rafsanjani, with Rouhani at his side, launches a policy of commercial engagement with the Europeans. On Jan. 30, Rafsanjani receives intelligence minister Ali Fallahian and Mostafa Pourmohammadi, the ministry’s director of foreign espionage, to discuss “procurement channels for sensitive commodities.” On Feb. 8, Rafsanjani writes, “The North Koreans want oil, but have nothing to give in return but the special commodity. We, too, are inclined to solve their problem.” Rafsanjani orders defense minister Akbar Torkan to organize a task force to analyze the risks and benefits of receiving the “special commodity.” This task force recommends that the president accept the “risk of procuring the commodities in question.” Rafsanjani adds that “I discussed [this] with the Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] in more general terms and it was decided to take action based on the [task force’s] review.” [Emphasis added.]
It’s most unlikely that the “special commodity” and the technical know-how surrounding it have anything to do with ballistic missiles; Rafsanjani expresses anxiety that the “special commodity” could be intercepted by the United States, but doesn’t share this worry about missile procurement. In a March 9, 1992, journal entry, the cleric gloats about the U.S. Navy having tracked a North Korean ship bound for Syria but not two ships destined for Iran. Two days later, when the “special commodity” is unloaded, he writes: “The Americans were really embarrassed.” [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Odds are good that North Korea helped to jump-start Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. If so, how long did this nefarious partnership continue?
Rouhani was Rafsanjani’s alter ego. He’s undoubtedly the right man to answer all of the PMD questions that the IAEA keeps asking and the Obama administration keeps avoiding. [Emphasis added.]
As noted at the Daily Beast article,
In October 2012, Iran began stationing personnel at a military base in North Korea, in a mountainous area close to the Chinese border. The Iranians, from the Ministry of Defense and associated firms, reportedly are working on both missiles and nuclear weapons. Ahmed Vahidi, Tehran’s minister of defense at the time, denied sending people to the North, but the unconfirmed dispatches make sense in light of the two states announcing a technical cooperation pact the preceding month.
. . . .
[N]o inspections of Iranian sites will solve a fundamental issue: As can be seen from the North Korean base housing Tehran’s weapons specialists, Iran is only one part of a nuclear weapons effort spanning the Asian continent. North Korea, now the world’s proliferation superstar, is a participant. China, once the mastermind, may still be a co-conspirator. Inspections inside the borders of Iran, therefore, will not give the international community the assurance it needs.
The cross-border nuclear trade is substantial enough to be called a “program.” Larry Niksch of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., estimates that the North’s proceeds from this trade with Iran are “between $1.5 billion and $2.0 billion annually.” A portion of this amount is related to missiles and miscellaneous items, the rest derived from building Tehran’s nuclear capabilities. [Emphasis added.]
Iran has bought a lot with its money. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, thought to be Tehran’s chief nuclear scientist, was almost certainly in North Korea at Punggye-ri in February 2013 to witness Pyongyang’s third atomic test. Reports put Iranian technicians on hand at the site for the first two detonations as well.
The North Koreans have also sold Iran material for bomb cores, perhaps even weapons-grade uranium. The Telegraph reported that in 2002 a barrel of North Korean uranium cracked open and contaminated the tarmac of the new Tehran airport.
. . . .
Even if Iran today were to agree to adhere to the Additional Protocol, it could still continue developing its bomb in North Korea, conducting research there or buying North Korean technology and plans. And as North Korean centrifuges spin in both known and hidden locations, the Kim regime will have a bigger stock of uranium to sell to the Iranians for their warheads. With the removal of sanctions, as the P5+1 is contemplating, Iran will have the cash to accelerate the building of its nuclear arsenal.
So while the international community inspects Iranian facilities pursuant to a framework deal, the Iranians could be busy assembling the components for a bomb elsewhere. In other words, they will be one day away from a bomb—the flight time from Pyongyang to Tehran—not one year as American and other policymakers hope. [Emphasis added.]
Why does the Obama administration persistently avoid raising the Iran – North Korea nexus? Perhaps doing so would scuttle the “negotiations” and thereby Obama’s dreams about His legacy. Perhaps Obama is keen for Iran to have, and be in a position to use, nukes to enhance its hegemony over the Middle East and to displace Israel as well as regional Arab allies in the Gulf states. Since Israel is unwilling to commit suicide in present circumstances by agreeing to a two state solution with Palestinians — intent upon and capable of causing her destruction — that may well be His only way to bring to fruition His desire for Middle east “peace” through submission and “social justice.”
to transform the Middle East with social justice
Conclusions
The Iran – North Korea nexus, regardless of its importance, was not considered (or was considered but deemed too intractable to approach) when the framework for the P5+1 negotiations was decided and it will not be considered now. That’s bad and dangerous. If a deal with Iran evolves from the current mess, Obama will gloat about His legacy and the Mad Mullahs will gloat about having put one over on the weak and declining free world. That’s frustrating but otherwise of little consequence.
Because of the Iran – North Korea nexus, Iran would need little time to repair any damage Israel and/or her Arab allies might do to Iran’s existing or future nuclear infrastructure. What can and should be done? I wish I knew. Perhaps Iran’s borders could be sealed adequately to keep North Korean stuff out, but that would require an expensive long term commitment. Perhaps others will think of something better. I hope so.
President Obama has made it one of his chief missions to reach out to the Islamic Republic of Iran. His attempt to cut a nuclear deal with Iran – a deal that would leave Iran with a huge number of centrifuges intact and a crippling sanctions regime against it largely removed – is merely the latest signal that the President has faith that the Iranian dictatorship can be an ally to the United States. In 2009, Obama said this:
My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect. You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations.
In 2009, Iran began shooting dissenters in the streets.
Obama said this particular shooting was “heartbreaking” and blathered about the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice. Then he went back to catering to the mullahs.
In 2011, Obama did virtually nothing when Iran began filling the vacuum left by the United States in Iraq. This week, Obama signaled that he was ready to cut a deal with Iranian-backed Syrian dictator Bashar Assad – a man he said “had to go” after Assad used weapons of mass destruction on his own people in 2011. Earlier this year, the Obama State Department labeled the radical Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen – a group that burns American flags and screams “Death to the Jews” – a “legitimate political constituency.” This week, Obama celebrated the Iranian holiday of Nowruz at the White House, with Michelle Obama gushing, “I think it’s so fitting we’re holding this celebration here today.”
How wrong is Obama about Iran?
Let’s look back at history. In 1979, after Jimmy Carter let the Shah of Iran fall, the Ayatollah Khomeini took over. The new regime promptly popularized the slogan “Death to America,” and took Americans at the embassy hostage. Every Friday for the last 37 years, massive prayer sessions led by the mullahs chant that slogan. Here’s one from last year, as our friends at MEMRI reveal:
Murals like this one are not uncommon across Tehran.
It’s not just sloganeering. The bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut in 1983 was carried about by Hezbollah, a Shiite Iranian proxy group. The United States believes that Hezbollah was behind the bombing of US Marine barracks in Beirut that same year as well, and Reagan reportedly thought about bombing Iranian Revolutionary Guard stations in retaliation. The continuous kidnapping of Americans ended up leading to the Iran-Contra scandal when the Reagan administration began smuggling weapons to the Iranians in an attempt to free American hostages. During this period, the Iranian regime used child soldiers; the president encouraged those above the age of 12 to volunteer. A reported 95,000 children under the age of 18 were wounded or killed in the war.
Iran provided significant material support for the 9/11 hijackers. According to the 9/11 Commission Report:
Senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based mainly in southern Lebanon and Beirut. Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah. Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin’s return to Afghanistan…we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle” operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001….In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.
The Commission concluded, “We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.” No further investigation ever took place.
During the Iraq War, the Iranian government heavily facilitated the rise of Shiite militias dedicated to the murder of American troops. In Afghanistan, they provided material support to the Taliban to assist in the murder of American troops. All of this continued during the Obama administration. Obama’s own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said in 2011 that Iranian-backed militas were “killing our troops” in Iraq. He said that Iranian officials “know about it.” “Iran is playing an outsized role,” Mullen said. “That has to be dealt with. It’s killing our people.”
Obama’s solution: pull out of Iraq and hand the country over to Iran, which had already helped turn the country into shambles with its allied leader, Nouri Al-Maliki, cleaning security forces of Sunnis. His replacement is an even more pro-Iranian leader, Haider al-Abadi.
Even as the Iranian economy suffers from global sanctions and Saudi attempts to undercut Iranian oil prices, Iran’s expansionism grows. Iraq. Syria. Lebanon. Yemen. The Saudis live in fear. So do the Jordanians and the Egyptians.
Iranian power over the past three decades has meant thousands of dead Americans. But Obama keeps pushing for Iranian power nonetheless. Which means thousands more dead Americans in our future.
President Obama says that Bibi’s words matter when it comes to a Palestinian state. “We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership,” he told The Huffington Post. The President used Netanyahu’s statement as cause for a “reassessment” of American ties with Israel.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest echoed the sentiment in last Thursday’s White House briefing that the Prime Minister’s words could bring punishment. “Words matter,” he said. There could be “consequences” for Netanyahu’s statements. “Everybody who’s in a position to speak on behalf of their government understands that that’s the case, and particularly when we’re talking about a matter as serious as this one.”
So let’s get this straight. When foreign leaders speak, it matters. What they say is consequential. Bibi’s going to have to pay for his remarks.
But I have one question. Why doesn’t any of this apply to Iran? Why, on Saturday Ayatollah Ali Khameini uttered the words “Death to America” even as John Kerry was expressing optimism the very same day that the United States would come to a nuclear accord with Iran!
Suddenly, Iran’s words don’t matter?
Taking this further, the most hair-raising aspect about the growing American rapprochement with Iran is that it has all happened while Iran has continued to repeatedly threaten the annihilation of the Jewish people. Ayatollah Khameini has called Jews dogs and tweeted as recently as this past November that “there is no cure for Israel other than annihilation.”
Now, if words matter, how can the United States continue to speak to his government while they are openly threatening a second holocaust? Why did President Obama and John Kerry not establish a repudiation of these genocidal words and threats as a precondition for any talks?
The hypocrisy is startling. And it leads to a more important point.
By now it’s clear to all that President Obama positively loathes Prime Minister Netanyahu more any other world leader. His hostility to the Prime Minister has become so pronounced that the President can no longer disguise or control it.
Am I the only one that finds it just a touch unseemly for the leader of the free world to hate the leader of the only free country in the Middle East?
The President has a good relationship with Erdogan, the tyrant of Turkey, who has destroyed his nation’s democracy and allows fighters to pass through his nation to join ISIS. President Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia to pay his personal condolences upon the passing of arch-misogynist King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a man who wouldn’t even allow women to drive a car. And he utters not an unkind word about Ayatollah Khameini, the world’s foremost terrorist.
But he hates Netanyahu. Go figure.
For years we Americans have heard that our President is cerebral and unflappable. That he famously remains cool under the most challenging circumstances. It turns out that this is true for every world leader except one, Benjamin Netanyahu, who makes the President’s blood boil.
Don’t we deserve to know why?
If the two leaders merely had bad personal chemistry, I could understand. They’re not the best of friends. Fine. But for Obama the hatred of Netanyahu has become positively visceral, personal, and irrepressible.
My own belief is this. President Obama is desperate for some foreign policy victories. There’s a year-and-a-half left to his Presidency and the world is on fire. From Iran to Boko Haram to ISIS to Putin to Hezbollah to Al Qaida and Hamas, bad guys are running amok under this president. American Foreign policy is a shambles.
The only ally President Obama can truly expert pressure on for a deal that would give him the lasting foreign policy legacy he needs and craves is Israel. And in the past Israeli Prime Ministers have proven so utterly malleable. American Presidents have squeezed them like lemons.
But Bibi refuses to be squeezed. He won’t play ball. He won’t withdraw from Judea and Samaria and allow “Hamastan” on his eastern border the way it is in Gaza. He won’t shut up about America’s capitulation to the Iranian mullahs that would leave them with a military-grade nuclear program. He won’t go quietly into the nuclear night while America appeases one of the most violent and vile regimes on earth.
This darned Bibi guy just won’t bend.
And our President finds the intransigence so utterly frustrating.
He prayed and hoped that someone else might win the Israeli election. And some of the President’s top political operatives went and worked for Herzog. But, huff and puff as he might, the President could not blow Bibi’s house down.
So now he’s stuck with him. A stick-necked Prime Minister, getting in the way of the President’s peace deals with Iran and the Palestinians.
And with no way of getting rid of the Israeli nuisance, all the President can do is continue to give interviews that express his dislike and frustration, not realizing that we’re reaching a point where the President is beginning to look positively un-Presidential and where is enmity is becoming unbecoming.
It’s called democracy, Mr. President. Bibi won. And it’s time for the world’s foremost democracy, the United States of America, to live with it and work with the man who has the mandate of the Israeli people, just as you have the mandate of the American people.
Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, presided over chants of “Death to America” in his Nowruz address to the people of Iran.
Nowruz is the Persian New Year and the Supreme Leader traditionally gives on address to mark the festival.
As part of his Nowruz address, Khamenei responded to President Obama’s Nowruz video message, in which he spoke directly to the Iranian people and called on them to support a nuclear deal.
Ayatollah Khamenei said that Obama’s Nowruz message was asking Iranians to submit to American demands in exchange for economic relief, couching the negotiations in terms of struggle rather than mutual benefit.
The crowd then broke out in chants of “Death to America” which was repeated multiple times over the course of the hour long speech.
By contrast, Obama’s Nowruz message to the Iranian people said that a nuclear deal would bring a brighter future for the people of Iran and urged them to support the negotiations.
Why does Washington respect France’s right to balk at its nuclear policy but disallows prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s objections in the name of Israel’s security?
The answer is simple. It is easier to put the squeeze on the Israeli prime minister than the president of France or Gulf rulers. Obama has hit on the presentation of Netanyahu’s hawkish attitude as the main hurdle in the way of a nuclear deal as a useful tactic for dealing with the spreading opposition to the deal in Europe and the Persian Gulf.
******************
President Barack Obama failed to shift French President France Hollande from his objections to the nuclear accord taking shape between the US and Iran in the call he put through to the Elysée Friday night, March 30 [sic]. US Secretary of State John Kerry fared no better Saturday, when he met British, French and German Foreign ministers in London for a briefing on the talks’ progress intended to line the Europeans up with the American position. He then found, according to DEBKAfile’s sources, that France was not alone; Germany too balked at parts of the deal in the making.
The French are demanding changes in five main points agreed between Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif before the Iranians quit the talks Friday:
They insist that –
Iran can’t be allowed to retain all the 6,500 centrifuges (for enriching uranium) conceded by the Americans. This figure must be reduced.
Similarly, the stocks of enriched uranium accepted by the US to remain in Iranian hands are too large.
France insists on a longer period of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear work before sanctions are eased. It is pushing for a longer moratorium – 25 years rather than the 15 years offered by the Obama administration – and guarantees at every stage.
The main sticking point however is France’s insistence that UN sanctions stay in place until Iran fully explains the evidence that has raised suspicions of past development work on a nuclear warhead design. The Iranians counter that they could never satisfy the French condition, because they would never be able to prove a negative and disprove evidence of a weapons program that is forged.There is no chance of Tehran ever admitting to working on a nuclear warhead – or allow US inspectors access to suspected testing sites – because that would belie supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s solemn contention that Iran’s nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes and always has been.
DEBKAfile’s Gulf sources disclose that the tough French bargaining position in the nuclear stems partly from its intense ties with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations, including the United Arab Emirates.
France maintains military bases in the Gulf, including air and unit units in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The emirates moreover have become the most profitable market for the French munitions industry.
Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have been pushing Paris hard not to sign off on the text shaping up between the Obama administration in Tehran because they believe it would place their national security at grave risk.
This raises an interesting question: Why does Washington respect France’s right to balk at its nuclear policy but disallows prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s objections in the name of Israel’s security?
The answer is simple. It is easier to put the squeeze on the Israeli prime minister than the president of France or Gulf rulers. Obama has hit on the presentation of Netanyahu’s hawkish attitude as the main hurdle in the way of a nuclear deal as a useful tactic for dealing with the spreading opposition to the deal in Europe and the Persian Gulf.
Secretary of State John Kerry has long been an admirer of Bashar Assad. He absurdly characterized Assad as “a man who wants change” and advocated the return of Israel’s strategic Golan Heights to the Syrian dictator. Of course, had Israel heeded Kerry’s advice, ISIS, Hezbollah or Iran or perhaps all three would today be swimming in Israel’s Sea of Galilee. In February 2009, in a sickening display of corrupt morals or lack of scruples, or perhaps both, Kerry was photographed having an intimate dinner with Assad and his wife. In 2011, the year that Assad commenced genocide against his people, he described the autocrat as a “very generous” man.
Kerry hasn’t lost a step since that time. His assessment of regional threats continues to be marred by poor judgment and delusion. On Face the Nation Kerry stated that “we have to negotiate with [Assad].” His State Department quickly backpedaled and tried to clean up the mess by issuing a nonsensical clarification but the very fact that such a statement would be uttered speaks volumes of Kerry’s abject lack of understanding. Imagine if a leader of the Allied command had issued a proclamation of willingness to negotiate with Hitler during World War II. Such a scenario of course would have been unthinkable but in the Obama White House, appeasement and vacillation rule the day.
If that wasn’t bad enough, Kerry astounded analysts when he announced that he had “great respect – great respect – for the religious importance of a fatwa.” The alleged fatwa that he was referencing was purportedly issued by Iran’s “Supreme Leader,” Ayatollah Khamenei, opposing acquisition of nuclear weapons. Kerry has now officially incorporated Islamic fatwas into US foreign policy and is relying on the edicts of a medieval mullah as a cornerstone of his ongoing talks with the Islamic Republic.
Moreover, in an effort to appease the mullahs, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, recently issued a report to the Senate which removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats. Iran is the world’s premier state sponsor of terrorism and employs proxy militias such as Hezbollah to foment regional instability and expand its hegemony. It has either directly or indirectly through its proxies, committed acts of terrorism on five continents. Yet the report is inexplicably devoid of such references. The only logical conclusion that one can draw is that the administration fears alienating Iran during the nuclear negotiations or alternatively, sees Iran as a positive regional force and a potential ally. Either conclusion is frighteningly surreal and demonstrates with utmost clarity how far removed from reality this administration has become.
But while coddling the mullahs, the administration has been busy at work trying to undermine the region’s only democratic leader. A number of high-level Obama campaign operatives worked relentlessly with a left-wing organization called One Voice and its left-wing Israeli affiliate V-15, to unseat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One Voice was also the recipient of a State Department grant of $350,000. Though One Voice and the State Department denied that any money was channeled into the campaign, a US Senate panel has commenced an investigation into possible links between the State Department and efforts to meddle in an overseas election campaign of a long-time ally.
Clearly, One Voice is nervous. Shortly after lawmakers began questioning One Voice’s use of State Department funds, the nonprofit organization filed for a new IRS status that would enable it to engage in political activism. Its current status precludes such activity. It would indeed be interesting to see how quickly the IRS moves to grant One Voice’s application given the way the government agency dragged its heels on 501c3 exemptions for groups perceived to be right-wing or pro-Israel. My guess is that the IRS will move rather quickly on this one.
Despite Obama’s best efforts to publicly disparage Netanyahu – who among us can forget “chickensh*tgate” – and the State Department’s covert meddling campaign, Netanyahu secured a clear and decisive victory over his left-wing rivals. Israeli voters, who overwhelmingly distrust Obama, did not take kindly to Obama’s interference and the voting outcome reflected that.
Irrespective of Obama’s personal animus toward Israel’s democratically elected leader, the Israeli-US alliance transcends personality differences and endures because of shared moral values and strategic interests. That used to be the conventional wisdom before Obama’s ascendancy but the president has done all that is within his power to translate his loathing for Netanyahu to wrecking relations with the Jewish State. During Operation Protective Edge, while Hamas was hurling rockets at Israeli civilian population centers, Obama held up shipments of Hellfire missiles to Israel. His Secretary of State in the meantime, was busy adopting the talking points of Israel’s sworn enemies trying to force the Israelis to accept a ceasefire arrangement – unanimously rejected by the Israeli cabinet – that made no mention of Israel’s security concerns.
But the Mideast is not the only place where Obama has fouled things up. In 1994 the United States (along with Great Britain and the Russian Federation) signed a security agreement with Ukraine whereby the signatories would guarantee Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and Ukraine would in exchange, relinquish its arsenal of nuclear weapons, relics of the Cold War.
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, as the memorandum of understanding came to be known, proved to be as worthless as the paper it was written on. Russia’s land grab in Crimea as well as its territorial infringements in eastern Ukraine and Obama’s feckless response to this naked aggression has caused great harm to American credibility. The United States still refuses to supply the poorly equipped Ukrainian army with weapons sorely needed to combat a Russian-backed insurgency.
The lack of seriousness in which the administration regards the dire situation in eastern Ukraine was amply demonstrated by National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Appearing on the Charlie Rose show, Rice was asked about military setbacks experienced by Ukrainian forces in the recent fighting. Her response? Uncontrollable laughter as though she was some vapid, giggling high school teen. It was an embarrassing display, even for an Obama official.
We are currently witnessing the unraveling of a pusillanimous American foreign policy marked by vacillation, indecision and naiveté where dictators are coddled and allies are undermined; where sound decisions based on geo-political dictates are substituted by fatwas and other bizarre religious edicts and where discussion on serious foreign policy issues is addressed with laughter and giggles. The Obama administration has substantially undermined the credibility of the United States among friends and enemies alike. The next administration, Democrat or Republican, will be forced to pick up the shattered pieces of a broken, dysfunctional and directionless foreign policy, the sad but natural result of eight years of Obama.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments