Follow by Email

Monday, August 10, 2015

Zakaria's Interview of Obama: The President Lies From the Outset



Yesterday, while Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif reconfirmed Iran's intentions to continue to arm terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East ("We have announced that our defense capability will continue unharnessed and our arms aids to our allies will continue too"), CNN aired Fareed Zakaria's "softball" interview of Obama concerning the president's nuclear deal with Iran. The interview began with the following exchange:

ZAKARIA: Since you announced the agreement with Iran, it appears, if you look at several recent polls, that a majority of the American public oppose it and a majority of the United States Congress oppose it. Why do you think that is?

OBAMA: Because people haven't been getting all the information. It's a complicated piece of business and we are negotiating with a regime that chants "Death to America!" and doesn't have a high approval rating here in the United States.
But the people who know most about the central challenge that we're trying to deal with, which is making sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, they are overwhelmingly in favor of it - experts in nuclear proliferation, nuclear scientists, former ambassadors, Democrat and Republican. And as a consequence, one of my main tasks over the last several weeks - and this will continue into September - is to make sure that people know and understand that this is a diplomatic breakthrough that ensures we are cutting off all the pathways by which Iran might get a nuclear weapon.

"People haven't been getting all the information"? That's true. And perhaps Obama would care to rectify this situation by providing Americans with the terms of the secret side agreements between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran, which lie at the heart of future inspections of suspect Iranian nuclear weapons development sites.

Did Zakaria ask for information concerning these side agreements? Not a chance.

Obama went on to double down on his comparison between Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Republicans in Congress:

"What I said is absolutely true factually. The truth of the matter is, inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, hardliners who are implacably opposed to any cooperation with the international community. . . . And so the reason that Mitch McConnell and the rest of the folks in his caucus who oppose this jumped out and opposed it before they even read it, before it was even posted, is reflective of a ideological commitment not to get a deal done. . . . And in that sense, they do have a lot in common with hardliners who are much more satisfied with the status quo."

Is Obama delusional?

Obama also claimed that Iran has been honoring the interim nuclear deal over the past two years:

"But if, in fact, Iran does abide by the deal, as it has the interim deal over the last two years, then we have purchased, at a very small price, one of the single most important national security objectives that both the United States and Israel has."

This is also far from the truth, as suggested by a Foreign Policy article in December by William Tobey and more recently corroborated by Germany, following attempts by Iran to procure nuclear and missile technology in that country.

And then there is this "beauty" from Obama:

"I think that the notion that the United States Congress rejecting a deal that has been negotiated by the U.S. secretary of State, our top nuclear experts, with unanimous support around the world, other than the state of Israel and perhaps behind the scenes some of our allies who are also suspicious of Iran, that somehow in the face of that, countries like Russia or China would continue to voluntarily abide by sanctions in a way that would continue to put pressure on Iran is a fantasy."

But it Russia or China currently will not continue to voluntarily abide by the sanctions, what chance is there that they will agree to the "snapback" of sanctions?

In a nutshell, we are witnessing a disaster in the making.

1 comment:

  1. More Americans read Jeffrey Goldberg's interview with Senator Rubio, posted August 6, 2015, than watched #44 sales pitch to Zakaria on August 9:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/marco-rubio-iran-deal-election/400313/

    "...
    Goldberg: Do you disagree with the Obama administration’s assessment that they’ve blocked Iran’s core pathways to a bomb?

    Rubio: I disagree, because I think what they have is a piece of paper that is blocking the pathways, and it is a piece of paper that Iran doesn’t feel necessarily binds them in the long-term. Once Iran has rebuilt or added to its conventional capabilities—meaning the ability to inflict conventional damage on U.S. forces in the region—and once companies based in Europe and around the world become heavily invested in the Iranian economy, the ability to go after Iran’s program is significantly diminished, because the price for doing so becomes exponentially high. You know, the price of positioning assets in the region exposes a U.S. aircraft carrier to being blown up. The price of attacking Iran would mean that tens of thousands of precision rockets would be launched against Israel by Hezbollah, not to mention terrorists around the world conducting asymmetrical attacks. Once Iran is able to raise the price of a military strike against them to an unacceptable level, they’re immune. At this point, they can move forward and concoct any excuse they want for needing a weapon. ..."

    [ #44's dream of OneWorld Supra-national governance from the UN is his real delusion]

    k

    ReplyDelete