Follow by Email

Monday, November 18, 2013

The Times of Israel, "Geneva Talks a Facade, US-Iran Worked Secretly on Deal for Past Year": True or False?

As reported by The Times of Israel in an article entitled ‘Geneva talks a facade, US-Iran worked secretly on deal for past year’ (http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-and-us-held-secret-talks-for-over-a-year/) by Stuart Winer, senior Israeli officials are saying that Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett has been leading secret negotiations with the Khamenei regime concerning Iran's nuclear weapons development program. The article states:

"According to [Israeli television] Channel 10, the secret channel marginalized [American Secretary of State] Kerry, and was overseen by the president. The idea had been for Kerry merely to fly to Geneva, as he did last Friday, to sign a deal in which he had been a bit player."

The article further tells us that "White House spokesman Bernadette Meehan was quoted by [the Israeli newspaper] Haaretz as saying that the report was 'absolutely, 100 percent false.'"

Okay, true or false, Jarrett, aka the "Night Stalker," has been leading such talks notwithstanding the White House denial?

Bear in mind that in October 2012, The New York Times reported learning from Obama administration officials of the intention to engage in one-on-one negotiations over Iran's nuclear program (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/world/iran-said-ready-to-talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), although Jarrett's name was not mentioned at the time.

A mere suggestion: Yesterday, in a blog entry entitled "Iranian MP: Obama's Threat of Military Action Is Only Intended to Placate Israel" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/iranian-mp-obamas-threat-of-military.html), I observed that Iranian Member of Parliament Ali Motahari, brother-in-law of Ali Larijani, Iran's Chairman of Parliament, recently declared, regarding a US military option (http://www.yjc.ir/en/news/2559/obama-different-from-former-us-presidents-senior-lawmaker):

"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? Kind words from an Iranian MP, linked by marriage to Larijani.

Again, just a mere suggestion. Think about it.

1 comment:

  1. Jeff, this what I don't understand.
    I don't understand why there isn't a serious movement toward ... impeachment.
    I am most certainly no expert on Iran, but I do basically know our recent history and status (we are officially enemies)
    Now, if I understand it correctly, some shady character from Chicago represents me and my government, behind my back, to make arrangement with my charming enemies such as Ahmedinejad/Khameini to declare them my friends. Just because ... or because it's convenient to Ahmedinejad/Khameini and because it's convenient to .. whom else, Obama (why?)
    If I understand it correctly, this shady character was doing this shady business with AHMADENIJAD/KHAMEINI long before the elections and intended to present Iran after the elections as "new and wonderful Iran" with this new and wonderful charmer as my .... friend, sign this "friendly" agreement and cancel the enemy status just because or because this shady character from Chicago (yes, I have Jarrett in mind) serves another shady character from Chicago?
    So, without France, Khameini would be officially now my best friend? What am I missing? Why do I see treason?
    Anyway, I am restoring my personal francophilia.
    Je t'aime, France.

    ReplyDelete