Follow by Email

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

David Ignatius, "A compelling argument on Iran": Suicide for Israel Will Be Painless

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "A compelling argument on Iran," David Ignatius attempts to sell us Obama's latest concessions to Iran involving Tehran's nuclear development program. Concluding that the Iran deal is "imperfect" (as if Obama's proposed pact is ready for signature), Ignatius would have us know that "U.S. officials make a compelling case that this agreement is a start toward a safer Middle East." Safer? Yeah, right.

Needless to say, Ignatius makes no mention of the fact that Iran stones to death women accused of adultery, hangs homosexuals, and persecutes Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis and Christians. He also fails to observe that Iran and several of its current leaders were responsible for the bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 84 people. Also no reference to Iran's control over Hezbollah, its support of Hamas or its backing of Houthi rebels who have overrun Sana'a, the capital of Yemen.

But wait, there's more. Ignatius writes, "Netanyahu rejects any concessions that allow Iran to enrich uranium; he thinks the U.S. goal of a one-year 'breakout' period before Iran could build a bomb isn’t enough." A one-year breakout period? There are many experts who believe that the breakout period is being reduced by Obama to mere months.

Ignatius goes on to say:

"The administration’s response is that the agreement is better than any realistic alternative. Officials argue it would put the Iranian program in a box, with constraints on all the pathways to making a bomb. Perhaps more important, it would provide strict monitoring and allow intrusive inspection of Iranian facilities — not just its centrifuges but its uranium mines, mills and manufacturing facilities. If Iran seeks a covert path to building a bomb, the deal offers the best hope of detecting it."

In a word, bullshit! As reported by Reuters in an article entitled "Iran still stalling U.N. nuclear inquiry as deal deadline looms: IAEA" by Shadia Nasralla:

"'Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the agency to clarify the outstanding practical measures,' the IAEA said, referring to allegations of explosives tests and other activity that could be used to develop nuclear bombs."

Or in other words, Obama is intent upon signing a deal at a time when Iran refuses to cooperate with IAEA investigators. What does this tell us about Iran's intentions regarding any future commitments to the US?

Obama's forthcoming deal with Khamenei is "imperfect"? Indeed. So was Chamberlain's 1938 deal with Hitler.

1 comment:

  1. Yesterday, our "Bostonian" announced that they're "taking controversial risks." Being a curious animal, I am wondering what PERSONAL risks is our beloved Bostonian taking.
    Not only, Washington Post. All Obama's organs, such as Politico, are pushing their master's Iranian masters' agenda.
    Oh, good old days when organs were honest. Pravda, for example displayed proudly "Organ of the Communist Party of the USSR" on the front page. Unlike, the present day American organs which strike journalistic poses and give themselves awards for .... journalism. It would funny, if ....