Follow by Email

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Iranian MP: Obama's Threat of Military Action Is Only Intended to Placate Israel

How does Tehran regard Obama's threat of military action if Iran continues to pursue its nuclear weapons development program? An interesting insight is provided by Iranian Member of Parliament Ali Motahari, brother-in-law of Ali Larijani, Iran's Chairman of Parliament, who recently declared (http://www.yjc.ir/en/news/2559/obama-different-from-former-us-presidents-senior-lawmaker):

"Since we have gone down the nuclear energy path well enough and as we are influential in the Middle East where the US needs us, and since Obama is a bit different from previous US presidents, it is a good opportunity for the nuclear negotiations to be carried out, so that some of the unfair sanctions that are imposed on us are lifted. All in all it is a good job. Whether it hits or not it will be to our advantage."

Specifically, regarding the US military option, Motahari added:

"After all he has to say something to please Israel, which is not important. The US is stuck between Israel and Iran. He talks to please both sides. It must not be taken seriously."

A different type of president who is seeking only to placate Israel? And notwithstanding this impression of Obama, i.e. someone not to be taken seriously, the US still expects to sign a meaningful deal with Tehran?

Good luck.

2 comments:

  1. It's truly amazing really, when you stop to think about it, the extent to which people quite simply cannot stop themselves from saying honestly what they think, what they intend. One way or another, perhaps in direct inverse proportion to the pressures imposed by "proper societal expectations," men with evil in their hearts *will* still find a way to express said evil.

    This is exactly what Netanyahu is referring to when he repeats the line about believing someone once they make threats to kill you.

    Nevertheless, I know that Western Irano-apologists (who, really, must simply be anti-Semites exploring a new vein, right?), if called upon by the -- how is it that our president repeatedly refers to him again(?) "the Supreme Leader" -- will dissemble the offending quotes in a way that would make Juan Cole proud. SIgh.

    I suppose though, that the rest of us should be thankful -- that the evil-doers/thinkers/plotters make it relatively easy for those of us with our eyes open to see what, exactly, they're planning.

    To that end, we all owe you a great debt JG for your seemingly tireless crusade "calling out" all the ruthless bastards of the world -- as well as their henchmen -- you know, all those NY Times columnists I would otherwise have never read. Had they any decency, they all would have converted to become Episcopalian a long time ago. But no, they're "Jews of Conscience" (TM) showing the rest of us the way (excepting the occasional Dowd-y Catholic repaying their parents for Catholic school). Double sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obama's commitment is only ever word-deep.
    The man is a preacher. He did not care for the stability of Egypt and tossed Mubarak to the mob. Now, ironically both the centrists and the Muslim brotherhood long for the steady medium of Mubarak. And they've Obama to thank. And Obama cares even less for Israel. All he wants, desperately wants is some international peace deal, however short lived and ineffective such a deal might be, to justify his hollow Nobel Peace Prize - awarded to him for Being There.
    The man is a disaster for the USA and he's proven himself unreliable to all his allies. A talking mask. A great pity that the first Afro-American president should have proven to be worst US president in a century.

    ReplyDelete