Follow by Email

Saturday, April 12, 2014

New York Times Editorial, "Inching Forward With Iran": Rouhani Bitch Slaps President Obama

"To open handedley slap someone. Denote disrespect for the person being bitch slapped as they are not worthy of a man sized punch. Suggests the slap was met with little resistance and much whining."

- Definition of "bitch slap," Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bitch+Slap)


In recent days, Obama's homespun foreign policy has met with disaster:

Now, if all that wasn't enough, Hassan Rouhani, the so-called "moderate" president of Iran, who has been busy executing homosexuals and poets at an ever quickening pace (see: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/10/iran-steps-up-pace-executions-as-it-courts-west/), has sought to appoint Hamid Aboutalebi as Iran's ambassador to the UN. Aboutalebi was a member of a student group which held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days during the 1979 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran. But whereas the Obama administration appeared ready to quietly swallow this insulting appointment, on Monday the US Senate unanimously passed a bill, backed by Ted Cruz and Chuck Schumer, barring Aboutalebi from entering the US. And although it is unclear whether Obama will sign the bill into law, on Friday the Obama administration announced that it would not provide Aboutalebi with a visa.

Today, in an editorial entitled "Inching Forward With Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/opinion/inching-forward-with-iran.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), The New York Times seeks to downplay the denial of Aboutalebi's visa and encourage Iran and the US to continue to seek an agreement limiting Iran's nuclear weapons development program. The Times writes:

"There is no doubt that the negotiations between the major powers and Iran over its nuclear program have been productive. All the nations involved — the United States, Britain, France, China, Germany, Iran, even Russia — appear committed to reaching a deal that will go beyond November’s interim agreement and produce a permanent one. The chief negotiators completed a third round of talks in Vienna on Wednesday and plan to meet again on May 13, after which they expect to begin drafting actual text. They hope to wrap it all up by July 20."

No doubt that the negotiations have been productive? Oh really? As reported in a January 23 CNN article entitled "Iranian official on nuke deal: 'We did not agree to dismantle anything'" (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/) by Tom Cohen:

"Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif insisted Wednesday that the Obama administration mischaracterizes concessions by his side in the six-month nuclear deal with Iran, telling CNN in an exclusive interview that 'we did not agree to dismantle anything.'

Zarif told CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto that terminology used by the White House to describe the agreement differed from the text agreed to by Iran and the other countries in the talks -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

'The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments' under the agreement that took effect Monday, Zarif said in Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum."

Does that sound productive to you? No way. Wrap up an agreement by July 20? John Kerry and Catherine Ashton are dreaming. Remarkably, even the Times editorial acknowledges the implacable fervent opposition of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei to any such arrangement:

"In a final deal, the powers want Iran to permanently pare back its nuclear activities so that it will not be able to quickly produce a nuclear bomb. That would mean reducing its centrifuges and curbing operations at facilities that are designed to produce nuclear fuel. In return, there would be substantially more sanctions relief for Iran’s battered economy. Despite the obvious benefits, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sounded pretty implacable on Wednesday when he said, 'We will not cede any of our gains in nuclear research and development.'"

And today we are being told by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-exceeds-interim-deals-oil-export-limits/):

"Iran is exporting much more crude oil than the one million barrels per day to which it agreed as part of an interim deal with Western nations over its nuclear program, the International Energy Agency says, with the Islamic Republic’s actual exports far exceeding that limit."

The negotiations between the major powers and Iran over its nuclear program have been productive? They certainly have been productive for Iran.

The Times editorial continues:

"Meanwhile, hard-line forces on both sides have been working to undermine any deal. Israel and some members of Congress are insisting that Iran must abandon all nuclear enrichment activities, even for nonweapons purposes. That would be ideal, but it is unrealistic, and insisting on it would scuttle any chance of an agreement. The hard-liners know that, which puts them in the curious position of making a huge political fuss about Iran’s nuclear program while blocking any realistic diplomatic solution. This could cause problems for President Obama as he tries to push talks forward."

Of course, according to the Times, an intransigent Israel is responsible for seeking an end to Iran's nuclear enrichment activities, which could possibly also be used for nonweapons purposes. No mention, of course, of Saudi opposition to Iran's nuclear aspiration. Such enrichment might be used by Iran for nonweapons purposes? How reassuring!

The Times editorial concludes, in conciliatory fashion, regarding the denial of Aboutalebi's visa:

"As the host for the United Nations, the United States is supposed to admit whomever a country designates as its ambassador, barring a direct national security threat. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Iranian president, were all allowed to visit. Still, the appointment was a real misstep by President Hassan Rouhani. It’s hard to believe he does not know how acutely the embassy takeover affected Americans and did not realize that he was handing hard-liners a new issue. But none of this should divert the two sides from pushing hard to secure a final nuclear deal.

If the major powers and Iran can do that, they will create an opportunity for dealing with other important challenges, including Afghanistan, drug trafficking, Syria and Iran’s support for extremist groups. The consequences of failure are equally enormous."

Yes, Rouhani was trying to bitch slap President Obama, but the US Senate wouldn't let him get away with it. Continue to allow a delusional Kerry and a moronic Ashton to play at negotiating a deal to end Iran's nuclear weapons program and terminate Iranian support of terror organizations? Play as they might, Supreme Leader Khamenei has no intention whatsoever of acceding to their fanciful wishes.

1 comment:

  1. "Who is minding the store?"
    For the last month or so, I occasionally listen to a local radio show in the morning while preparing the breakfast - after my radical departure from the idiocy of NPR/BBC/Al Jazeera (I departed from the idiocy of Der Neue Stuermer earlier). The host who calls himself an independent and is indeed some hybrid keeps repeating this question.
    So, who is minding the store? I am not a Republican, but like them I would like to see a leader or at least a manager (I hate the word) of this store.
    Nice clothes are nice, nice smiles are nice, pretty words are nice, BUT I sense a need for something else. Particularly, when nice words, nice smiles and pretty words cover bigoted and hypocritical content.
    We are in trouble, people of the world. Obviously.

    ReplyDelete