Follow by Email

Saturday, November 16, 2013

David Ignatius, "The Stakes of an Iranian Deal": Ignorant, Ignoble . . . Ignore

There are two op-ed writers upon whom Obama relies in formulating his foreign policy: would-be Middle East experts Thomas Friedman and David Ignatius, whose columns provide stalwart support for the president's imbecilic machinations, while at the same time providing insights into his muddled thinking. Facing Congressional opposition to his attempt to sign a rotten deal, labelled by France "a fool's game," purportedly intended to constrain Iran's nuclear weapons development program, Obama's pet columnists are seeking to counter the furor surrounding John Kerry's folly.

On Wednesday, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "What About US?" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/thomas-friedman-what-about-us-is-thomas.html) which smacked of anti-Semitism, Thomas Friedman wrote:

"It goes without saying that the only near-term deal with Iran worth partially lifting sanctions for would be a deal that freezes all the key components of Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, and the only deal worth lifting all sanctions for is one that verifiably restricts Iran’s ability to breakout and build a nuclear bomb.

. . . .

America’s interests today lie in an airtight interim nuclear deal with Iran that also opens the way for addressing a whole set of other issues between Washington and Tehran."

"A deal that freezes all the key components of Iran’s nuclear weapons development program"? But Kerry was willing to sign off on a deal that did not address continued construction of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, designed to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year. Even France could not brook this obscenity.

"An airtight interim nuclear deal with Iran"? Obama and Kerry just signed off on a Russian sponsored deal with mass murderer Bashar al-Assad (Kerry's "dear friend") for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles, but were recently informed by American intelligence services that Assad is hiding no small part of this stockpile (see: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/05/first-on-cnn-us-intelligence-suggests-syria-may-hide-some-chemical-weapons/).

Today, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The stakes of an Iranian deal" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-the-stakes-of-an-iranian-deal/2013/11/15/4fad18fa-4d54-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html?hpid=z3), David Ignatius also seeks to aid his friend in the White House. Of course, Obama hates Netanyahu, whom he labelled a "pain in the ass" (see: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/New-book-quotes-Obama-using-unflattering-metaphor-to-describe-Netanyahu-330794), and Ignatius is quick to take aim at the president's nemesis:

"Given the seeming benefits of the deal, it’s curious that Netanyahu has set himself so adamantly against it. Netanyahu’s rejectionist stance directly challenges the authority of President Obama, who has invested the credibility of his administration in gaining this diplomatic resolution. It’s as if West Germany had denounced John F. Kennedy while he was negotiating a deal to resolve the Cuban missile crisis in 1962."

But let's consider this purported parallel. "The seeming benefits of the deal"? Ignatius himself acknowledges that the deal failed to deal with continued construction of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor (French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius "rightly insisted" on "stopping progress on [Iran's] heavy-water reactor at Arak").

"It’s as if West Germany had denounced John F. Kennedy while he was negotiating a deal to resolve the Cuban missile crisis in 1962"? As Ignatius surely must be aware, the Russian missiles brought into Cuba were intended to threaten America's eastern seaboard, not West Germany. Regarding Tehran's nuclear weapons development program, there is no mistaking who will be the first "recipient" of an Iranian atomic bomb, i.e. Israel.

"[I]t’s curious that Netanyahu has set himself so adamantly against it"? In fact, it's not curious at all. Given whom the Iranians are threatening with annihilation, almost two-thirds of Israelis "oppose the nuclear agreement being discussed with Iran" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/majority-israelis-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal-093208801.html).

Ignatius concludes:

"Strategically, this de-facto Israeli alliance with the Saudis is an extraordinary opportunity for Israel. And for Fabius, there’s a chance to position the French as the West’s prime weapons supplier to the Saudis, gaining France hundreds of billions of dollars in the post-American era in the Gulf. For opportunistic reasons, no wonder Israel and France want to detonate the U.S.-Iranian rapprochement. But will this really aid their security?

The Obama administration would counter (correctly, I think) that embracing the Saudi strategy of an ever-deepening Sunni-Shiite divide is unwise. The schism will fuel permanent sectarian war in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The Saudis now are blocking formation of any government in Lebanon, for example, to obstruct Iran’s ally, Hezbollah. In Syria, the Saudis seem ready to fight the Sunni-Shiite battle down to the last Syrian.

Better to seek a turn in relations with Iran through diplomacy that can limit its nuclear program, Obama reasons. He’s right."

Sorry, David, but this is pure hokum. Without preventing future construction of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, this truly was a "fool's game," as the French aptly described it. It has absolutely nothing to do with future French arms sales to the region. (Save this for a future spy novel.)

Netanyahu's concern? Are you really so callous as to ignore Israel's existential concerns? Should Israel shrug off repeated warnings from Iran that they intend to wipe the "Zionist state" off the map?

Obama is not "right." In fact, it is becoming all too clear that this community organizer is a bungling naif, who was never qualified to occupy the Oval Office.

1 comment:

  1. This what I am not sure. I am not sure that Obama is just naive. There is possibly a more sinister explanation.
    The line up of "his" people in foreign affairs and military is suspicious - it looks like the only criterion was ... antisemitism. Only antisemites needed to apply.
    Secondly, a lot of his personal history is unknown (locked up) or distorted.
    Yes, it matters. We can't understand correctly without knowing this history.
    I do think that we have a charlatan in the White House.

    ReplyDelete