David Ignatius, "At an impasse with Iran": Perpetuating the Myth of Rouhani's Moderation

David Ignatius has been duped into believing Iran's good cop/bad cop routine. In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "At an impasse with Iran," Ignatius declares:

"A glimpse of this internal Iranian debate came in the statements following the announcement of the extension. President Hassan Rouhani gave a televised speech Monday night that seemed designed, at once, to reassure an Iranian public that wants a deal and to lobby the hard-line faction that doesn’t.

'I am certain that we will reach the final accord, if not today, then tomorrow,' said an optimistic-sounding Rouhani. He claimed that 'Iran’s logic is one of negotiations and dialogue' and that negotiators 'have had some agreements behind the scenes, but putting those on paper, we are still not there yet.'"

Ah yes, the "good" Rouhani, who needs to lobby Iranian hard-liners.

However, as reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Iran: ‘Americans Have Very Clearly Surrendered’":

"Meanwhile, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday in a television interview that the country’s 'centrifuges will not stop,' according to a translation of his remarks.

'Today we have a victory much greater than what happened in the negotiation,' Rouhani said. 'This victory is that our circumstances are not like previous years. Today we are at a point that nobody in the world [in which no one says] sanctions must be increased in order that Iran accept P5+1 demands.'

'No one says to reach agreement we must increase pressure on Iran,' Rouhani said. 'But they say to reach an agreement more time and more discussion is needed. This is a great victory for what the Iranian nation started since last June 15.'

. . . .

'Centrifuges have been running and I promise the Iranian nation that centrifuges will never stop,' he said."

So, over the course of this additional seven-month extension of the "negotiations" between Iran and the P5+1, Iran's centrifuges will continue to spin, and Iran will grow that much closer to obtaining sufficient enriched uranium for an atomic bomb. In addition, Iran will continue to recover $700 million a month in frozen assets during the extension. Yup, a pretty darned good deal for Iran.

Needless to say, there is no mention by Ignatius how "good cop" Rouhani has overseen a spike of executions in Iran. As reported in an October 14, 2014 Washington Times article entitled "Iran executions surge amid U.S. nuclear talks" by Guy Taylor:

"Iran’s abuse of human rights, including the hangings of hundreds of dubiously convicted citizens — in several cases minors — has soared over the past year, even as the Obama administration has yielded to Tehran’s demand for an extension in precarious international talks over the Islamic republic’s disputed nuclear program.

. . . .

During the 14 months since Iranian President Hassan Rouhani took office, Iranian authorities have carried out at least 936 executions, according to data compiled by the Connecticut-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center.

. . . .

An advance copy provided to The Washington Times notes the executions of at least 22 women since Mr. Rouhani took office and highlights more than a dozen cases of people younger than 18 accused of crimes and hanged. One case involved Iraj Nassiri, whom the report says was 'less than 15' when Iranian authorities accused him of 'premeditated murder.'"

Ignatius would also have us believe that there exists another Iranian "good cop," Mohammad Javad Zarif:

"When I was in Tehran a year ago, it was obvious that the nuclear issue had become a fundamental political and economic crossroads for Iran. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister and chief negotiator, told me that a final agreement 'can change the course of our relations with the West.'

. . . .

A year later, despite progress on many of the technical details that would frame an agreement, this split in Tehran still exists — hampering Zarif’s ability to offer concessions the West wants in return for lifting sanctions."

Ignatius fails to mention how, during the negotiations, the "moderate" Zarif screamed at US Secretary of State John Kerry. Again, as reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Reports: Top Iranian Negotiator ‘Frequently Shouts’ at Kerry, Western Officials":

"Iran’s foreign minister and lead negotiator in nuclear talks is known to frequently scream and shout at Western diplomats, including Secretary of State John Kerry, a practice that has caused alarm among bodyguards stationed outside the negotiating room, according to a member of the Iranian diplomatic team who spoke to the Farsi-language press.

. . . .

On one occasion, Zarif’s shouts were so loud that a member of the Iranian delegation entered the negotiation room to check on the players, according to the report, which was independently translated for the Free Beacon.

Upon entering, the Iranian official was informed by European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton, a chief western negotiator, that Zarif was just shouting and she had gotten used to it, according to an independent translation of the report."

Needless to say, Kerry and Ashton didn't have the good sense to walk out of the room.

The negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons development program are obviously going nowhere, notwithstanding the fact that Obama had hoped to make an agreement with Khamenei the crowing achievement of his second term. With this hope all but shattered, will Obama now attempt to kick this can down the road until the end of his second term? He obviously hopes to do this, and the Iranians know it.

Jerusalem Post, "Jerusalem miffed at EU silence over kidnapping": Time for Israel to Declare Catherine Ashton Persona Non Grata

As reported by The Jerusalem Post in an article entitled "Jerusalem miffed at EU silence over kidnapping " (http://www.jpost.com/Pillar-of-Defense/Jerusalem-miffed-at-EU-silence-over-kidnapping-359503) by Herb Keinon, the Israeli government is furious with Her Hideousness Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for the European Union, for failing to promptly condemn the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers by Hamas. The article states:

"EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton’s failure to quickly condemn the kidnappings of Naphtali Fraenkel, Gil-Ad Shaer and Eyal Yifrach has 'not gone unnoticed,' diplomatic sources in Jerusalem said on Monday.

The officials said that while the US, Canada, Great Britain, Spain, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the International Committee of the Red Cross all condemned the kidnappings by Sunday, as of Monday afternoon there was no statement from Ashton or her office."

You will recall that earlier this year, Ashton marked Holocaust Remembrance Day without a mention of the Jews (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/her-hideousness-catherine-ashton-marks.html).

It is high time for Israel to declare Ashton persona non grata.

David Brooks, "The Leaderless Doctrine": The Death of Hope and Change?

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

- King James Bible, Revelation 6:8

Do I believe in the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? No, but I suppose you could say that with Her Hideousness Catherine Ashton busy chatting up Rouhani and his monster friends in Tehran (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/her-hideousness-catherine-ashton-plays.html), my outlook is something less than sanguine.

Kudos to David Brooks on his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Leaderless Doctrine" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/opinion/brooks-the-leaderless-doctrine.html?_r=0). Pointing to Pew Research Center data indicating that "[f]or the first time in half a century, a majority of Americans say that the U.S. should be less engaged in world affairs" and that "[f]or the first time in recorded history, a majority of Americans believe that their country has a declining influence on what’s happening around the globe," Brooks declares:

"Americans have lost faith in the high politics of global affairs. They have lost faith in the idea that American political and military institutions can do much to shape the world. American opinion is marked by an amazing sense of limitation — that there are severe restrictions on what political and military efforts can do."

Brooks's conclusion:

"We live in a country in which many people act as if history is leaderless. Events emerge spontaneously from the ground up. Such a society is very hard to lead and summon. It can be governed only by someone who arouses intense moral loyalty, and even that may be fleeting."

Is Brooks correct?

Empowered with real-time knowledge by the Internet, are we able to reach more objective, better informed determinations than our leadership? Does this omniscience spawn helplessness, despondency, disaffection and a sense of abandonment? Do we turn inwards to avoid being overwhelmed by the meanness and rapacity of all that surrounds us?

If the US can only be governed by someone who arouses intense moral loyalty, how is such a person to arise from a system that demands moral compromise? Maybe there is no room for ethics in politics.

Obama promised hope and change, but even young voters, who brought him into the Oval Office and kept him there, have lost faith in a president who "found out on the news like the rest of us," i.e. failed to lead. Remarkably, Harvard University's Institute of Politics recently determined that 52 percent of America's youngest millennials, ages 18 to 24, now favor throwing Obama out of office (see: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/millennials-abandon-obama-and-obamacare-20131204). The bloom is off the rose; however, there is nothing better waiting in the wings.

But more to the point, can Americans afford to retreat inwards? Will Americans arise from their solipsistic slumber only after an Iranian ICBM, currently under development  (see: http://freebeacon.com/iran-north-korea-secretly-developing-new-long-range-rocket-booster-for-icbms/), falls in their laps?

Well on its way, this rude awakening will most likely arrive with a bang, sure to interrupt our favorite music, messaging and Facebook postings.

Her Hideousness Catherine Ashton Plays at Diplomacy in Tehran

Is hideousness in the eye of the beholder?

In a short New York Times article entitled "‘No Guarantee’ of Final Nuclear Deal With Iran, E.U. Official Says" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program.html?hp&_r=0) by Thomas Erdbrink, we are told (my emphasis in red):

"The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, said Sunday that there was 'no guarantee' that Iran and world powers would be able to reach a final, comprehensive agreement over Iran’s nuclear program.

Ms. Ashton, who talked with Iranian leaders in Tehran, represents the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States), plus Germany, known as the P5-plus-1 group, which reached an interim agreement with Iran in November to limit its nuclear program. It was a breakthrough after more than a decade of talks.

The six-month, renewable agreement obliged Iran to stop enriching uranium to high levels and to reduce its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium. In return, some economic sanctions were lifted, including access to $4.2 billion in Iranian cash frozen in foreign banks."

The interim framework agreement was a "breakthrough"? Perhaps Mr. Erdbrink would care to explain his conclusion to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who stated that pursuant to the six-month deal, Iran "did not agree to dismantle anything" (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/), or to Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Abbas Araghchi, who said of the deal, "We can return again to 20 percent enrichment in less than one day and we can convert the [nuclear] material again" (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/16/iran-top-nuke-negotiator-deal-reversible-in-one-day.html).

Erdbrink's article concludes:

"In Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said Sunday at the start of a cabinet meeting that Ms. Ashton should ask the Iranians about a merchant ship Israel seized in the Red Sea last week, carrying what Israel described as an Iranian shipment of weapons intended for Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. Iran has rejected Israel’s allegations.

'Nobody has the right to ignore the true and murderous actions of the regime in Tehran,' Mr. Netanyahu said, according to a statement from his press office. 'I think that it would be proper for the international community to give its opinion regarding Iran’s true policy, not its propaganda.'"

I would add to Netanyahu's request that Her Hideousness Catherine Ashton also ask about the recent hangings by Iran of two more homosexuals and the execution of the Sunni poet Hashem Shaabani in February.

Any chance of a moronic Ashton in her play hijab (head scarf), shown above grinning buck-toothed in front of a microphone in Tehran, doing this? By visiting with Rouhani at a time when Iran is executing persons at an ever heightening pace, Ashton is effectively condoning such behavior. As reported in February in a Reuters article entitled "Iran's rising executions dim U.N. hopes for reforms" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-iran-executions-idUSBREA1K1CN20140221) by Stephanie Nebehay:

"At least 80 people and perhaps as many as 95 have been executed in Iran already this year, a surge in the use of the death penalty that has dampened hopes for human rights reforms under President Hassan Rouhani, the United Nations said on Friday.

. . . .

'There were some encouraging signs last year where political prisoners were released ... But it appears at least in the past seven weeks that in fact executions have been scaled up,' U.N. human rights spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani told a news briefing.

'We regret that the new government has not changed its approach to the death penalty and continues to impose capital punishment for a wide range of offences. We urge the government to immediately halt executions and to institute a moratorium.'

Last year Iran executed between 500 and 625 people, including at least 28 women and two juveniles, Shamdasani said."

Ashton should never have traveled to Tehran, but while there, maybe she should have considered a side trip to Evin Prison, regarded by many as hell on earth. But heck, that might have interfered with her "historic" meeting with Rouhani and his monster friends. What do you think?

Her Hideousness, Catherine Ashton, Marks Holocaust Remembrance Day Without a Mention of the Jews

As reported by a Jerusalem Post editorial entitled "Ashton’s lapse" (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Ashtons-lapse-339781), Catherine Ashton, the EU's imbecilic (I'm being kind) foreign affairs chief, who has been leading the P5+1's so-called negotiations with Khamenei over Iran's nuclear weapons development program, has marked Holocaust Remembrance Day without a mention of the Jews:

"Baroness Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and vice president of the European Commission, issued a statement this week marking international Holocaust Remembrance Day.

It was commendable that the EU at all chose to note the day, but what Ashton said on its behalf on Monday was surreal. She managed to use 121 words without ever mentioning Jews. Her glaring omission is quite remarkable."

But then what would you expect from Catherine? A former chairwoman of the Health Authority in Hertfordshire, she has never held elected office and is almost entirely lacking in foreign affairs experience. Ashton, who has a BSc degree in sociology, has a life-sized Dalek (a fictional race of extraterrestrial mutants from the British science fiction television series "Doctor Who") in her sitting room.

Quite apart from what decorates her sitting room, what might be hiding in her closet? Questions have arisen over her role as national treasurer in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (no mention of this position in her EU profile), which is suspected of having received funding from the Soviet Union. It has also been reported (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233545/Baroness-Ashton-communist-lover-riddle-Moscow-gold.html):

"Britain's new EU foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton enjoyed a relationship with a hard-line communist who boasted close links to some of Britain’s most militant union leaders."

Needless to say, her selection to head EU security policy was most peculiar, and the world continues to pay the price.

Charles Krauthammer, "‘Sucker’s Deal’": Selling Israel Down the River

In a brilliant Washington Post opinion piece entitled "‘Sucker’s deal’" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-suckers-deal/2013/11/21/9d03e966-52dc-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html?hpid=z3), Charles Krauthammer picks apart the agreement which President Obama had hoped to sign with Supreme Leader Khamenei, purportedly intended to restrain Iran's nuclear weapons development drive. Krauthammer writes:

"It leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact. Iran keeps every one of its 19,000 centrifuges — yes, 19,000 — including 3,000 second-generation machines that produce enriched uranium at five times the rate of the older ones.

Not a single centrifuge is dismantled. Not a single facility that manufactures centrifuges is touched. In Syria, the first thing the weapons inspectors did was to destroy the machines that make the chemical weapons. Then they went after the stockpiles. It has to be that way. Otherwise, the whole operation is an exercise in futility. Take away just the chemical agents, and the weapons-making facilities can replace them at will.

Yet that’s exactly what we’re doing with Iran. It would deactivate its 20 percent enriched uranium, which besides being chemically reversible, is quickly replaceable because Iran retains its 3.5 percent enriched uranium, which can be enriched to 20 percent in less than a month.

Result: Sanctions relief that leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure untouched, including — and this is where the French gagged — the plutonium facility at Arak, a defiant alternate path to a nuclear weapon."

I suppose this is what you should expect when community organizer Obama and the EU's imbecilic Catherine Ashton, who has a bachelor’s degree in sociology, negotiate with the wily mullahs.

The only problem for Obama is that Khamenei is now backing away from the deal. Obama had originally agreed, during secret one-on-one negotiations with Tehran, to allow Iran to continue to build the Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, designed to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year. It is no wonder that even France could not brook this obscenity, which it labelled a "sucker's deal."

Khamenei, previously promised this piece of candy, is now being told that he can't have it anymore, and this is proving a deal-breaker.

Which is worse: the rollout of Obamacare or the American president's backhanded negotiation of this despicable arrangement with Iran?

You call it.

[On Wednesday, Supreme Leader Khamenei labelled Israel “the rabid dog of the region.” When asked about Khamenei’s comment during his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, John Kerry called it "inflammatory," but also declared, "I don’t want to exacerbate it now sitting here, but our good friends in Israel know full well that we defend their concerns." John Kerry no longer has "good friends" in Israel, and as evident from Ari Shavit's recent guest op-ed in The New York Times (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/ari-shavit-how-bush-let-iran-go-nuclear.html), a full political spectrum in Israel, from left to right, no longer believes that Obama "has Israel's back." ]

John Kerry "Swift-Boats" Israel: Another Holocaust? What Me Worry?

Desperate for a diplomatic achievement as America's Secretary of State, John Kerry travelled to Geneva last week to sign a deal with Iran, which would have eased sanctions and demanded minimal concessions involving Iran's nuclear weapons development program. However, Kerry was in for a surprise: Recognizing that the agreement did little or nothing to stop Tehran from pursuing its nuclear weapons goals, e.g., prevent operation of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor that is designed to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year (see: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/09/bad-iran-deal-worse-than-no-deal/?hpt=hp_t2), France refused to go along.

Kerry is now having to face criticism from the US Congress for his rush to reach an empty pact with Iran, and he was in full damage control mode on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” As reported by The Washington Post in an article entitled "Kerry defends proposed Iran nuclear deal; Israel objects" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kerry-defends-proposed-iran-nuclear-deal-israel-objects/2013/11/10/53025956-4a49-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html?hpid=z3) by Karen De Young:

"If negotiators in the next several weeks can reach an agreement on the draft proposal — a result that eluded top world diplomats in intensive sessions with the Iranians that ended here Sunday — talks can move toward making 'absolutely certain . . . that Iran never has a nuclear weapon,' Kerry said in an interview on NBC’s 'Meet the Press.'

Far from being naive about Iran’s capabilities and intentions, as some opponents have suggested, Obama administration negotiators are 'some of the most serious and capable, expert people in our government, who have spent a lifetime dealing with both Iran' and nuclear proliferation issues, Kerry said.

'We are not blind, and I don’t think we’re stupid,' he added. 'I think we have a pretty strong sense of how to measure whether or not we are acting in the interests of our country and of the globe.'"

"We are not blind, and I don’t think we’re stupid"? This is coming from a man who labeled Assad, a mass murderer, "my dear friend."

Obama administration negotiators are "some of the most serious and capable, expert people in our government"? These are the same people who reached a deal with Syria's Assad and Russia's Putin for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, only to later learn that Assad was hiding much of his illicit stockpile (see: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/05/first-on-cnn-us-intelligence-suggests-syria-may-hide-some-chemical-weapons/).

And let us not forget that the P5+1 negotiating team is being led by the EU's imbecilic (I'm being kind) Catherine Ashton.

More about Ashton? She is a former chairwoman of the Health Authority in Hertfordshire and has never held elected office. Ashton has a BSc degree in sociology and has a life-sized Dalek (a fictional race of extraterrestrial mutants from the British science fiction television series "Doctor Who") in her sitting room.

Quite apart from what decorates her sitting room, what might be hiding in Ashton's closet? Questions have arisen over her role as national treasurer in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (no mention of this position in her EU profile), which was suspected of having received funding from the Soviet Union.

In short, Israel has every reason to be concerned by Kerry's attempt to declare "Peace in our time." Take the time to read Jackson Diehl's Washington Post opinion piece entitled "John Kerry’s Middle East dream world" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-john-kerrys-middle-east-dream-world/2013/11/10/5b17d2d2-47cf-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html?hpid=z3). Diehl correctly observes:

"Imagine a world in which the Middle East is not descending into carnage and chaos but is on the brink of a monumental series of breakthroughs. By next spring,Iran’s nuclear program will be secured and Egypt will be a liberal democracy. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has stepped aside. And, not least, Israelis and Palestinians have settled on the terms for a Palestinian state.

This is the world that John Kerry inhabited as he shuttled across the world last week: a fantastical realm created by his billowing vision of what he can accomplish as secretary of state. Meanwhile, on this planet, aid agencies reported starvation and an outbreak of polio in Syria; Egypt’s last elected president was put on trial; Israeli and Palestinian leaders described their U.S.-brokered peace talks as broken; and France’s foreign minister suggested the would-be accord with Iran was 'a fool’s game.'

Call it Kerry’s Magical Mystery Tour."

I call it frightening, and more than that, it is Obama, who, with no one to answer to in his second term, is delighted to throw Israel under the bus ("Surprise, surprise, surprise!) and is fully responsible for Kerry's malfeasance.

Reuters, "Iranian missile may be able to hit U.S. by 2015": Only Israel's Problem?

As reported by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/20/us-iran-usa-missile-idUSTRE63J04H20100420):

"Iran may be able to build a missile capable of striking the United States by 2015, according to an unclassified Defense Department report on Iran's military sent to Congress and released on Monday.

'With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015,' said the April report, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

. . . .

The timing of advances in Iran's long-range missile technology is being closely watched in Washington, which accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons and is pushing for a new round of sanctions. Iran denies the charges and says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

'Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy,' the report said.

The U.S. military tried and failed to shoot down a simulated Iranian missile strike on the United States in January, in a botched $150 million exercise over the Pacific Ocean."

Meanwhile, an imbecilic (I'm being kind) Catherine Ashton continues to manage the P5+1's "make believe" negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear weapons development program. Ashton is qualifed to undertake this job? Surely you jest! Have a look at the video of Ashton, filmed on her way to a meeting with Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic on his first official visit to Brussels.

Care to wake up, President Obama? Or when you declared to Iran that you "don't bluff" (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/), were you only bluffing?

Charming.

David Ignatius, "Edward Snowden’s Misplaced Idealism": America's "Best Tool in Combating Terrorism"?

It's now 1:20 a.m. in New York, and the only reference to President Obama on the homepage of The New York Times is to be found under "News from A.P. & Reuters":

• "Obama, Japan's Abe Talk NKorea, China, Trade"

Similarly, if we look at the homepage of The Washington Post, the only references to Obama are:

• "Obama rallies support for Markey in Boston as Senate race tightens"
• "Obama taps Native American fundraiser for human rights post"

Or in other words, as the debate over Edward Snowden's leaks concerning massive NSA surveillance of US citizens swirls around us, Obama is nowhere in sight with leadership and guidance concerning America's ongoing battle with global terrorism. Yes, Obama is in deep hiding until the storm blows over.

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Edward Snowden’s misplaced idealism" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-snowden-exposed-policies-approved-by-congress-courts/2013/06/12/815c8aa4-d2d7-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?hpid=z2), David Ignatius tells us that electronic surveillance programs are America's "best tool" to combat terror. Ignatius writes:

"James Clapper, the director of national intelligence who oversees the NSA, argued last weekend that Snowden made 'reckless' disclosures about its monitoring of foreign Internet communications, and that 'potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm' could come from the revelation of a court order authorizing collection of telephone call data from Verizon. Congress and the courts will examine such claims, but how should we as citizens evaluate them?

My guess is that Clapper is correct when he implicitly argues that these electronic surveillance programs are the United States’ best tool in combating terrorism. It’s probably also true that each revelation of U.S. capabilities weakens this advantage by putting adversaries such as al-Qaeda on notice about our snooping capabilities. The revelations likely make it harder, as well, for U.S. corporations and foreign allies to cooperate."

"My guess is that Clapper is correct when he implicitly argues that these electronic surveillance programs are the United States’ best tool in combating terrorism"? If Ignatius honestly believes this, he knows nothing about terrorism.

Moreover, if Clapper believes this, he should resign as director of national intelligence - and not because he lied to Congress.

An act of organized terror is premised upon:

• A target, e.g., Boston Marathon or World Trade Center.
• Accessibility of the target.
• Terrorist motivation and in some instances, readiness to pay the ultimate price.
• Infrastructure and training.
• Funding.
• State support.

Eliminate one or more of these elements, and the ability of a terrorist organization to perpetrate an act of terror is significantly weakened. So what does a massive electronic surveillance program aimed at Americans as a whole contribute to preventing terrorist acts? Maybe it might aid in "rolling up" a terrorist cell following perpetration of an act of terror, provided the cell's members have been careless, but prevent a terrorist strike? No way, Jose. Sure, there is no black and white, and the dangers to civil liberties of monitoring all Americans must be weighed against the benefits of an electronic surveillance system, but now ask yourself how PRISM helped prevent the Boston Marathon bombing, notwithstanding a warning from Moscow.

So where are we to find the biggest terrorist threat? Simple. As recently reported by CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57586946/state-dept.-iran-support-for-global-terror-surged-in-2012/):
 

"Iran last year boosted its support for global terrorism to levels not seen for two decades, the Obama administration said Thursday as it released its annual report on international trends in extremist violence. The report said the core elements of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan are headed for defeat but stressed that the network's various affiliates remain severe threats to the U.S.

The State Department's 'Country Reports on Terrorism' for 2012 left unchanged the U.S. list of 'state sponsors of terrorism.' Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria remain on that blacklist, although Iran was singled out as the worst offender and Syria was taken to task for the ongoing brutal crackdown on opponents of President Bashar Assad's regime.

The report said 2012 was "notable in demonstrating a marked resurgence of Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism." That sponsorship has been largely carried out through the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and the militant Shiite Hezbollah movement, Iran's ally and proxy in Lebanon, it said.

'Iran and Hezbollah's terrorist activity has reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s, with attacks plotted in Southeast Asia, Europe, and Africa,' it said. Those included an attack on a bus carrying Israeli tourists in Bulgaria that killed six, as well as thwarted strikes in India, Thailand, Georgia and Kenya.

The report's 'strategic assessment' said core al Qaeda continues to weaken as its leaders increasingly fight for survival. But it said that leadership losses with the core have driven al Qaeda affiliates to become more independent by setting their own agendas and targets and raising money on their own, primarily through kidnapping and other crimes."

So how is the US counteracting Iranian sponsored terrorism? Answer: It's not. During his first term as president, Obama presided over a "charm campaign" aimed at Tehran, which failed. Meanwhile, toothless negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons development program, managed by Catherine Ashton, the EU's nincompoop High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy, continue.

Moreover, given that Obama has demonstrated that his "red line" involving the use by Syria's Bashar al-Assad of chemical weapons is toothless, Russian President Vladimir Putin is now claiming that "I have no doubt that Iran is adhering to the rules in this area [nuclear weapons proliferation], because there is no proof of the opposite" (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/russias-putin-says-iran-nuclear-push-peaceful-170035158.html), i.e. kicking sand on 98-pound weakling Barack Obama.

Hezbollah? The US is finally asking the EU to sanction this Iranian terror proxy (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/in-europe-a-growing-case-for-banning-hezbollah/275035/), yet the Obama administration has not done nearly enough to prevent Hezbollah from raising funds or procuring weapons.

The next terrorist attack? I don't expect another 9/11-type attack. Rather, I expect an Iranian cyber assault on America's weak underbelly, i.e., computer systems responsible for the functioning of banks, financial markets, interstate transportation and telecommunications. This would also prove a disaster.

Bottom line: Instead of going after Iran and Hezbollah, the Obama administration is focusing its efforts on American civil liberties. But heck, what do I know?

Washington Post Editorial, "Syrian President al-Assad Shows No Sign of Backing Down": Obama Administration Appears Foolish and Weak

A Washington Post editorial entitled "Syrian President al-Assad shows no sign of backing down" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrian-president-al-assad-shows-no-sign-of-backing-down/2013/05/30/673b91a2-c949-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_story.html?hpid=z3), decries Obama administration foreign policy involving Syria. The opinion piece states:

"Clearly, the strategy that Secretary of State John F. Kerry announced in February has failed. The idea was that the United States would, by providing additional support to the opposition, persuade the Assad clique that its cause was lost, opening the way to a negotiated process in which Mr. Assad would yield power. But Mr. Assad doesn’t believe he is losing — and he is not wrong in claiming that his fortunes have risen in the past several months.

. . . .

What’s harder to understand is why Mr. Kerry continues to vigorously pursue the conference, having failed to accomplish the necessary predicate of changing the balance of power on the ground. Unfortunately, the most plausible answer is that the administration has allowed itself to be played by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, who is seeking to restore Moscow’s influence in the Middle East by thwarting the U.S. goal of regime change in Syria. Not for the first time, President Obama and his aides appear to have bet that Mr. Putin would turn on Mr. Assad and help force him from power. In doing so, they have fundamentally misread the Russian ruler and his intentions.

As we have written previously, the only hope for an acceptable political settlement in Syria lies in an intervention that would decisively shift the balance of Syria’s war — through arms supplies to the rebels and airstrikes to eliminate the regime’s air power. If Mr. Obama is unwilling to take such steps, he ought also to eschew diplomacy that makes his administration appear foolish as well as weak."

Or stated undiplomatically, John (Assad is "my dear friend") Kerry is a jackass.

Obama should "eschew diplomacy that makes his administration appear foolish as well as weak"? Oh really? And how would the Washington Post characterize American negotiations by way of the P5+1, headed by nincompoop Catherine Ashton, over Iran's nuclear weapons development program?

Embroiled in multiple scandals at home, is the Obama administration still capable of keeping its eye on the ball overseas?

Iran, Obama and the Coming Storm

As reported by the Tehran Times (http://tehrantimes.com/politics/105142--world-powers-hoping-to-reach-agreement-with-iran-ashton-spokesman-):

"World powers negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program are still hopeful that a new round of talks can begin soon and an agreement can be reached, a spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton who represents the powers in talks said on Wednesday.

'The (world powers) are still hoping to reach agreement with Iran on the modalities of the talks, including venue, with a view to resuming talks shortly,' Reuters quoted Michael Mann as saying.

However, he claimed that Iran is stalling on fixing a date and location for a new round of talks on its nuclear program, the latest round of which was held in Moscow on June 18 and 19, 2012."

My goodness, who would ever imagine that Iran would want to stall talks with the EU's chief foreign policy nincompoop, Catherine Ashton? What reason could Tehran possibly have for the delay?

In fact, the answer is fairly simple. As reported today by The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=300983):

"If Iran makes a nuclear bomb 'it would definitely use it against Israel or against any other enemy state,' a former representative of the Iranian Foreign Ministry said in an exclusive interview aired on Friday on Channel 2 television.

'The [Iranian] regime thinks that if it has several atom bombs, it will grant it an insurance policy,' Mohammed Razza Hidari said. 'They believe that if [they have a nuclear weapon], the world would treat them the way it treats North Korea.'

He also warned that if Iran is allowed to stall for more time, 'it will have the knowledge to make a nuclear bomb in less than a year.'"

And to scare Iran into halting its nuclear weapons program, Obama has nominated Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense. In an opinion piece in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-the-wrong-man-to-be-defense-secretary/2013/01/25/3cad74e8-671d-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html?hpid=z2), Senator Jim Inhofe explains his opposition to Hagel's appointment:

"In 2001, [Hagel] was one of just two senators who voted against a bill extending harsh sanctions against Iran.

A year later, he urged the Bush administration to support Iran’s membership in the World Trade Organization. On multiple occasions, including in his 2008 book, he has advocated direct negotiations with Iran, a country using multiple means to foment regional instability and threaten the security of Israel."

By now it should be obvious why Ed Koch is now admitting that Obama is no friend of Israel (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/07/ed-koch-on-chuck-hagel-nomination-obamas-reneging-on-his-conveyed-support-for-israel-has-come-earlier-than-i-thought/).

It's going to get ugly very soon.

Catherine Ashton to Spearhead Renewed Talks with Iran

Still naively hoping to reach an accord with Iran over its nuclear weapons development program, the P5+1 (Britain, France, Germany, United States, Russia and China) will soon be holding a new round of talks with Tehran, again spearheaded by Catherine Ashton, the EU's nincompoop foreign policy head.

Ashton? A former chairwoman of the Health Authority in Hertfordshire, she has never held elected office. Ashton has a BSc degree in sociology and has a life-sized Dalek (a fictional race of extraterrestrial mutants from the British science fiction television series "Doctor Who") in her sitting room.

Quite apart from what decorates her sitting room, what might be hiding in her closet? Questions have arisen over her role as national treasurer in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (no mention of this position in her EU profile), which was suspected of having received funding from the Soviet Union.

Ashton is not qualifed to undertake this very sensitive job? Surely you jest! Just have a look at the video of Ashton, filmed on her way to a meeting with Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic on his first official visit to Brussels.

Yes, it would all be very funny were it not for the fact that Obama has entrusted the fate of the world in the hands of this bovine naif.

Valerie Jarrett Managing Secret US Negotiations With Iran? This Is the End

I was horrified when the Obama administration allowed Catherine Ashton, an imbecile with a BSc degree in sociology and a life-sized Dalek (a fictional race of extraterrestrial mutants from the British science fiction television series "Doctor Who") in her sitting room (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/12/catherine-ashton-hideous-baroness-of.html), to manage the P5+1 negotiations with Iran.

I was horrified when the Obama administration appointed Thomas Pickering, once listed as an "expert" by the Campaign for New American Policy on Iran, to "investigate" the Benghazi cover-up (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/10/thomas-pickering-is-heading-benghazi.html).

And now I am horrifed to learn that Valerie Jarrett was given the nod by Obama to conduct secret negotiations with Iran concerning its nuclear weapons development program (see: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4301368,00.html). Jarrett's qualifications? None, other than her intimate friendship with Barack and Michelle.

In the words of The Doors:

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again

Will Israel Attack Iran's Nuclear Weapons Development Facilities? Obama Is Leaving Israel No Choice

This week's "negotiations" in Moscow between the P5+1 and Iran over Iran's nuclear development program ended with little media coverage and for good reason: Absolutely no progress was made. Aware that Obama is not seeking a confrontation prior to the US presidential election in November, Iran refused to make any concessions. And rather than acknowledge unmitigated, humiliating failure, the P5+1, led by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the EU, Catherine Ashton [see picture of the Hideous Baroness of Upholland (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/12/catherine-ashton-hideous-baroness-of.html) above], agreed to further "expert" discussions (as opposed to the "nincompoop" discussions held by the bovine Ashton with the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili), which will be held in Istanbul in early July and permit Iran to continue stalling.

Remember how Obama warned Iran in March that "as president of the United States, I don't bluff" (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/)? Well, Iran has just called Obama's bluff, and the American president has folded.

So what is to be expected of Israel? Israeli foreign policy has long been guided by the principle that if someone says they are going to exterminate you, believe them. Iran has repeatedly indicated that it intends to annihilate Israel, leaving Israel with no choice other than to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons development facilities, apparently on its own.

Israel may not act immediately. Oil prices yesterday fell below $80 a barrel for the first time since October, and this will further disrupt Iran's economy. Moreover, Netanyahu cannot act without first demonstrating good faith by allowing the farcical P5+1 negotiations to reach an ultimate stalemate.

In addition, Israel is not anxious to weaken the resolve of opponents of the Assad regime in Syria by initiating what might expand into a regional conflagration also involving Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. But once again, Israel is being left with no choice.

Should we be surprised by Obama's silence? No, given that re-election is the highest item on his current agenda. Then, too, as Obama observed in an interview with New York Times columnist David Brooks in 2007 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E1DC153EF935A15757C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all):

"I think Iran is like North Korea. They see nuclear arms in defensive terms, as a way to prevent regime change."

Or in other words, Obama doesn't really have a problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Going ahead, this isn't going to be pretty.

Syria and Iran: The Demise of Morality Under the Obama Administration

Do you remember when Obama entered office in 2009, determined to discredit Bush's depiction of Iran, Syria and North Korea as the "axis of evil"? Contending that Iran and Syria were merely misunderstood, Obama initiated an outreach program to both these tyrannies. Obama extended New Year's (نوروز) video greetings to Tehran (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYkH9J2VBdM), while sending Senator John Kerry to court Syrian President Assad.

Did Obama's initiatives bear fruit? In the case of Iran, its nuclear weapons development program continues unabated. As stated yesterday by the IAEA, no progress has been made in its talks with Iran. Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior US State Department official and now a director at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, aptly characterized Iran's dealings with the IAEA as a situation "reminiscent of the Peanuts cartoon of Charlie Brown repeatedly believing Lucy this time will hold the football for him to kick, with her always snatching it away at the last minute, leaving him to fall flat" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/iaea-says-no-progress-atom-probe-talks-iran-163504821.html).

Later this month, the P5+1 will again seek concessions from Iranian negotiators in Moscow; however, Tehran is well aware that Obama is not seeking a confrontation prior to November elections. Then, too, allowing the EU's nincompoop foreign policy head, Catherine Ashton, to serve as the P5+1's chief negotiator is nothing short of criminal (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/12/catherine-ashton-hideous-baroness-of.html).

Regarding Syria, 17 people, including 10 women, were slaughtered yesterday when Assad's forces shelled the town of Deraa (see: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=273224), consituting the fifth massacre of Syrian civilians over the past two weeks. Obama, however, remains silent with respect on this ongoing carnage so as to avoid complications involving his re-election (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-foreign-policy-obama-focuses-on-economic-issues-not-on-syrian-turmoil/2012/06/02/gJQAVrSX9U_story.html).

A New York Times editorial, entitled "Assad, the Butcher" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/opinion/bashar-al-assad-the-butcher.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), sought to relieve Obama of responsibility:

"The Obama administration is making more of an effort to try to bring the Russians on board. A senior American official was in Moscow this week."

Great, a senior American official last week asked Moscow to withdraw its support for Assad, but we already know that Russia is ignoring Obama's toothless entreaty. As stated by Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=273248):

"Our logic is that it is not necessary now to apply additional pressure, to introduce sanctions or use the threat of force."

Putin has come to recognize Obama as a weak sister, particularly given the concessions promised by the American president during his recent discussion with Russian President Medvedev, which was overheard owing to an open microphone (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/03/obamas-open-mike-chat-with-medvedev-yes.html).

It's ugly and getting uglier with every passing day. Change? Only for the worse.

Iran's Saeed Jalili: Tehran Doesn't Intend to Stop Producing Uranium Enriched to 20 Percent

After 10 hours of talks in Istanbul on Saturday, characterized by Catherine Ashton, first High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union, as "constructive and useful," we learned that the P5 + 1 is willing to agree to continued Iranian nuclear enrichment activities and is not demanding that Iran's Fordo underground nuclear facility be dismantled. Moreover, a "Turkish government source" stated that there is a "sense" that Iran is prepared to temporarily halt uranium enrichment at the level of 20 percent in exchange for immediate lifting of some sanctions and the termination of others (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iran-demands-u-s-europe-hold-off-attack-as-long-as-nuclear-talks-continue-sources-say-1.424257).

Given this rosy outlook on the part of Ashton and friends, it was agreed that P5 + 1 representatives would again meet with their Iranian counterparts in another month and a half in Baghdad without any demands upon Tehran in the interim.

Well, I'm sorry to be a party pooper, but according to Iran's Mehr News (http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1577876), the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, declared following the meetings in Istanbul:

"Tehran does not intend to stop producing uranium enriched to a purity level of 20 percent."

Catherine Ashton is an imbecile (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/iran-april-2012-when-fate-of-west.html), and it is beyond belief that the Obama administration agreed to entrust her with managing the negotiations on behalf of the “P5+1.”

On the other hand, perhaps her witless engagement with Jalili, intended to forestall an unpleasant confrontation with Tehran prior to the US presidential elections in November, is exactly what the Obama administration was seeking . . .

Iran, April 2012: When the Fate of the West Rested in the Hands of an Imbecile

As noted in a prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Catherine%20Ashton), Catherine Ashton, first High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union, has a remarkably "rich" (meaning laughable) CV, qualifying her to manage the EU's extraterritorial affairs. Among her many accomplishments:

• Ashton has a BSc degree in sociology;
• Ashton has a life-sized Dalek (a fictional race of extraterrestrial mutants from the British science fiction television series "Doctor Who") in her sitting room;
• Ashton once served a the chairwoman of the Health Authority in Hertfordshire;
• Ashton once served as national treasurer in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which is suspected of having received funding from the former Soviet Union;
• Ashton had a relationship with a hard-line communist;
• Ashton has a history of implacable hostility to Israel.

Accordingly, it should come as no wonder that Ashton was chosen to manage the negotiations on behalf of the “P5+1” - the United States, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany - with Iran concerning Tehran's ongoing nuclear weapons development program.

Sporting a new pants suit in Istanbul yesterday, Ashton beamed as she shook hands with Iran's Chief Nuclear Negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

After 10 hours of talks, characterized by Ashton as "constructive and useful," we learned that the P5 + 1 is willing to agree to continued Iranian nuclear enrichment activities and is not demanding that Iran's Fordo underground nuclear facility be dismantled. Moreover, there is a "sense" that Iran is prepared to temporarily halt uranium enrichment at the level of 20 percent in exchange for immediate lifting of some sanctions and the termination of others (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iran-demands-u-s-europe-hold-off-attack-as-long-as-nuclear-talks-continue-sources-say-1.424257).

The biggest achievement of these talks in Istanbul? Given the extreme urgency of getting down to brass tacks and quelling the concern that the mullahs could wield nuclear weapons in less than a year, the sides have agreed to meet again in Baghdad . . . . . . . in another month and a half.

Funny how there were those who thought that Iran might try to stall for time, but this could never happen with Catherine Ashton overseeing these talks.

P5 + 1 Talks with Iran Begin in a "Constructive Atmosphere": Obama Again Leads from Behind

As reported by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/14/us-nuclear-iran-talks-constructive-idUSBRE83D05V20120414), the discussions of the “P5+1” - the United States, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany - with Iran in Istanbul concerning Iran's ongoing nuclear weapons development program have begun in a "constructive atmosphere":

"'They met in a constructive atmosphere,' said Michael Mann, spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who represents the powers in dealings with Iran. 'We had a positive feeling that they did want to engage.'"

Charming. Catherine Ashton, who is a moron, a person with an extreme leftist background, a would-be diplomat lacking any meaningful negotiating experience, and an Israel-hater (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/12/catherine-ashton-hideous-baroness-of.html), is in charge of these critical talks.

Yet another instance of Obama leading from behind.

Clinton and Ashton Welcome Letter from Iran: Who Is More Naive?

Who is more naive, Hillary Clinton or Catherine Ashton?

Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili has sent a letter to Catherine Ashton, the EU's fatuous head of foreign policy, in which Jalili stated that Iran is willing to resume talks with unspecified "new initiatives." As reported by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/us-iran-idUSTRE81E0RF20120216), Jalili "made one reference to "Iran's nuclear issue," without spelling out whether Tehran was prepared to negotiate on it."

In a joint meeting, Hillary Clinton and Catherine Ashton responded with joy. Again, as reported by Reuters (http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE81G1DH20120217), Clinton declared:

"We think this is an important step and we welcome the letter."

Ashton's response:

"a potential possibility that Iran may be ready to start talks."

Ah, yes, a "potential possibility." Although I don't know whether Clinton or Ashton is more naive, I certainly know who is more obtuse.

Both Clinton and Ashton would be well advised to read Ray Takeyh's opinion piece in today's Washington Post entitled "Why Iran thinks it needs the bomb" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-iran-thinks-it-needs-the-bomb/2012/02/16/gIQAauVHKR_story_1.html?sub=AR). Takeyh writes:

"From Tehran’s perspective, protracted diplomacy has the advantage of potentially dividing the international community, shielding Iran’s facilities from military retribution and easing economic sanctions. Iran may have to be patient in its quest to get the bomb; it may have to offer confidence-building measures and placate its allies in Beijing and Moscow. Any concessions it makes will probably be reversible and symbolic so as not to derail the overall trajectory of the nuclear program."

Although Ashton may not catch Takeyh's gist, I am confident that Hillary is capable of undertanding. Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to grasp at any straw to avoid confrontation with Iran.

Inevitable War Between the US and Iran

Tensions between the US and Iran continue to mount. After threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, thereby choking off oil to the West, Iran has begun a 10-day naval exercise, during which various long-range and short-range missiles will be fired. Explaining the rationale for the exercise, Iran is saying that the "drills are defensive in nature and intended to convey a message of peace and friendship to the countries in the region" (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/218615.html). A "message of peace of friendship"? This display of fire power in the Persian Gulf, oozing harmony and amity, is not likely to act as a salve for Saudi concerns involving Iran's irenic intentions.

For its part, the US has announced a $30 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, including 84 new F-15 fighters (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/iran-and-obama-administration.html), which according to Andrew Shapiro, US assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, is intended to "send a strong message to countries in the region that the United States is committed to stability in the Gulf and broader Middle East," but "not solely directed toward Iran" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/us-saudi-arabia-strike-30-billion-arms-deal/2011/12/29/gIQAjZmhOP_blog.html?hpid=z4). "Not solely directed toward Iran"? Yeah, right.

The US arms deal with the Saudis has now been supplemented by the announcement of a $3.48 billion deal with the United Arab Emirates, also concerned by Iranian nuclear ambitions, and will include a Lockheed Martin Terminal High Altitude Area Defense ("THAAD") weapon system (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-seals-deal-on-348-billion-sale-of-missiles-technology-to-uae-a-close-ally-in-mideast/2011/12/30/gIQAukcYRP_story.html).

Meanwhile, in yet another bid to buy time for the game-changing development of its nuclear arsenal, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi told Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhai Jun in Tehran on Thursday that Iran is ready to resume negotiations concerning its nuclear program with the 5+1 group (the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) (see: http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/94057-iran-ready-to-resume-g51-talks-salehi-).

In addition, Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency reported on Saturday that Jalili will soon write to the EU's neophyte foreign affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, "to express Tehran's readiness for fresh nuclear talks with major powers" (see: http://ph.news.yahoo.com/iran-send-letter-eus-ashton-over-resumption-nuclear-064018416.html). Let's see if the the Hideous Baroness of Upholland (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/12/catherine-ashton-hideous-baroness-of.html) is once more willing to bite at the bait.

Indeed, Iran is very close to assembling its first atomic weapon, which is the reason for its desire to engage in maundering negotiations predestined to fail. As observed by Yossi Melman, the intelligence and military affairs correspondent for Haaretz, in a blog entry entitled "2012: The year that could bring a U.S. strike of Iran" (http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/the-arms-race/2012-the-year-that-could-bring-a-u-s-strike-of-iran-1.404390):

"Iran is, in all honesty, fairly close to its own 'year of reckoning.' It has already passed the 'technological threshold.' It knows how to enrich uranium, and has carried out experiments where uranium was enriched to 90%, as well as experiments with explosives to generate chain explosions. It carried out computer simulations of nuclear explosions. There is a general consensus that by the year 2012, and 2013 at the latest, Iran will be able to put together a nuclear weapon."

Bottom line: Notwithstanding short-term satisfaction over their purchase of top-of-the-line F-15 fighters, the Saudis will ultimately again insist that the US destroy Iran's nuclear development facilities. My understanding, however, is that President Obama, America's Procrastinator-in-Chief, is weighing whether such a strike undertaken prior to November 2012 best serves his chances of re-election.

Yes, 2012 stands to be interesting.